Without any MF experience, only looking, reading, and thinking... go with your gut.
The 6x7 is bigger than a 6x6 frame, allows you to crop to a 6x6 if you want, and you have TONS of anecdotal evidence on lens quality. Well, no doubt similar claims are made on the Hass. The Pentax 67 in all it's variations, seems a perfect MF camera, as perfect as one can get. My ideal camera... no $ considerations? The as yet unmanufactured "Pentax 67-1p". All the features of the PZ-1p on an auto-focus 67 body. I know it'll never happen. But it would be cool. Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:56 PM Subject: Med Format Quandry > Within the next six months to a year I'd like to begin using a medium > format camera for a long-term project that's been in the back of my mind > for a while. I've somewhat narrowed the choices down to the following > cameras: > > Hasselblad 501 > Mamiya 7 or 7II > Rolleiflex TLR > Pentax 67 and variants > and maybe a Fuji 6x9 > > Here's my thinking, your thoughts and suggestions are welcome and > encouraged. > > I like the 2� format for both its shape and because I don't have to > rotate the camera for horizontal or vertical framing. I like looking > down into the viewfinder as much as using the camera like a 35mm camera. > > The 'blad interests me because it's a very complete system with a lot of > forward and backward compatibility, the lenses are excellent, the camera > seems to be durable and well-built, and it's not too big and > cumbersome. The downside is that it's expensive and can sometimes be a > bit finicky, but the all manual bodies are pretty simple things. > > The Mamiya is of interest because it offers a nice sized negative in a > relatively small and lightweight package. I like the viewfinder, but am > limited, it seems, by one viewing position - eye level. > > The Rolleiflex fascinates me because it's a classic 2� box, unassuming > and simple, well-built, and reasonably easy to carry around. The down > side is that it doesn't offer interchangeable lenses, and the lens > options are limited. The viewfinder is less than stellar, but that can > be modified. > > The Pentax 67 seems interesting, although it seems huge in comparison to > the 'blad, and noisy as well. Admittedly, my experience with it is > limited only to handling a couple in a camera shop. The price/value > relationship seems to be good, and there are certainly enough lens > choices. Does the beast have a viewfinder option that I can look down > into, or does the camera have to be placed to the eye for all shots? > Needing a battery to operate the mirror seems strange, and I don't think > I like the idea on the face of it, but perhaps I can be convinced to > embrace the concept. Since this is the pentax list, and there are a few > 67 users here, what are the weak points of the system, problems I should > look out for? And what are the differences between the early and late > models? > > There's an early (late seventies) Fuji 6x9 that offers a few > interchangeable lenses which intrigues me mostly for its negative size, > and while I like the square format I also like that nice, perfect > rectangle offered by a 6x9. Downside is that it's only an eye-level > camera, lenses are few, and it's old, making parts and repairs somewhat > difficult. > > I think that my choice will probably come down to the 'blad, one of > which I almost bought earlier this year, or the Pentax 67. So, what've > y'all got to say? > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
