Pentax 67 sharper than Hasselblad?

[cfclark]

I've chosen Hasselblad because of it's ease to use and the style of photographs it forces me to produce (sqaure image, angle from the WLF, etc.), the services available to it, it's durability and consistantly amazing prints and negatives (for some reason the Bronica was a hit or miss with me). The Pentax with it's 6x7 format and eye-level style is great for quicker, more documentary style photos and helps me capture moments the Hassy would be too slow in accomplishing. So, together they are an amazing pair.

I'm new here and fairly new to medium format, having just acquired a 6x7, so I've been following this thread with interest. I think this paragraph will be a big help in rationalizing a Hassy at some point.

[Sirius Glass]

it 's not relevant
hasselblad designed their lenses 50 years ago, for portrait purposes
do not expect tack sharp images
when you compare with an RZ for instance, now that's sharp
but the design of the mamiya lenses has another approach
mamiya is way to sharp for portraits !!!

There is no basis for what you said. The lenses were designed for more than just portraits. The lenses were sharp where they were designed and they are still sharp. If Zeiss thought that the lenses needed an improve prescription, they would have changed the design.

Please send me the stuff you are smoking!

Steve

[RidingWaves]

Yeah, the term Softar come to mind.

[dynachrome]

I don't use either system. All of my medium format SLRs are Bronicas. The advantage of medium format equipment is that you don't need to enlarge as much. In general, the larger the format the larger the camera bodies and lenses are. If I need the extra speed and shoot with Tri-X in a GS-1 and then take the same shots on the same film with an ETRS I will see the finer grain in an 8X10 or 11X14 from the GS-1. Both systems have good lenses but the larger negative will not have to be enlarged as much. If I'm shooting with a very fine grain film like Portra 160VC then I won't see as much of a difference between the 6X4.5 and 6X7 formats at least up to 11X14. The 6X6 format will look the same as the 6X7 format if you are making minimally cropped square prints. Someone in a different forum once claimed that you needed to go to at least 6X9 to get significant improvement over 35mm. I don't think he understood that for standard print sizes with little cropping, the 6X9 format does not offer any improvement over the 6X7 format. If Hasselblad and Pentax 6X7 equipment are both used properly then sharpness in the final rectangular print should be similar but the prints from the 6X7 negatives/slides should have finer grain. If you need to routinely make 4' X 6' prints then you shouldn't be using either system.

[dng88]

I'm new here and fairly new to medium format, having just acquired a 6x7, so I've been following this thread with interest. I think this paragraph will be a big help in rationalizing a Hassy at some point.

I also new but I have a WLF for Pentax and hence, not sure that you need Hassey just for its WLF. In fact, for Pentax, it is 100% view and good for low angle if you use horizontal.

Other than sharpness, I found that the color comes from the lens (Zeiss 50mmF3.5 and Pentax smc 67 55mmF4) is very different even if both use Velvia 50. I found Zeiss is much saturated whilst Pentax lens is less. (I also found Yashica 124G more saturated than Rolleiflex T as well). Some photography friends said that I am wrong and only film give you color. But my eye told me that the lens render differently. One more thing to think about.

Of course, Pentax is larger 35mm like and easier to use.

[cfclark]

I also new but I have a WLF for Pentax and hence, not sure that you need Hassey just for its WLF. In fact, for Pentax, it is 100% view and good for low angle if you use horizontal.

Oh, I know. I'm just trying to come up with a reason to acquire another camera. (Although actually I should probably go looking for a WLF for the 6x7.)

I just got a 55mm f4 for mine and I'm looking forward to getting out and using it.