Studio NSFW wrote:
Personally, between the two I’d keep the RB67 based on the fact that it is a broader system with interchangeable backs and I am mostly a studio guy who uses studio pedestal stands . If I was on location more or  handholding a lot the Pentax would be attractive…but I would end up on some Swedish 6x6 camera platform that went on location to the moon…

Okay, thank you. Hasselblads are beautiful cameras. The price point keeps me out of entering that system though. At least for now.

Dan Howell wrote:
Professionally used Hasselblad CM for more than a decade. Sometimes I didn't mind the waist-level finder, but also had a prism. had A12 and A16 backs. Also used and still own a Pentax 6x7. For some applications I really liked it, but it definitely has drawbacks at least for the work I did. I never really liked Mamiya personally.

Thanks, were the drawbacks you experienced with the Pentax 6x7 mainly the mirror slap and its weight? Or are the other things to consider?

Yeah, the RB67 is not my favorite camera to use. I just like the big negatives (when everything goes according to plan) and how affordable the system can be if you're patient.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
First as for cameras, I've loved shooting with Mamiya 645 format the most, then I've also used the RB67 which you have and the C330 square format. 

Hope that information helps. Don't be afraid to experiment with other films though.

Thank you, I've never tried 645. Maybe I should.

No fear here! I'm experimenting later today.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
and a Camerz long roll with a 70mm back.

Other than the slow sync speed, I liked the Pentax 67 best and used it hand held.

Thanks, what was generally the slowest speed you could get away with when you used the Pentax 67 handheld with lenses in the 90mm - 150mm range?

I had to look up a Camerz. Interesting.

Rick Oldano Photography wrote:
For my own fine art work, I used a Mamiya RB 67. Lumping that beast around and the 5-series Gitzo tripod was a task for my younger days. I wouldn't, couldn't, return to those times.
Rick

Yes, the pain of the RB67, a 180mm lens, and a tripod all on one back. I know it well!

Certain Exposures wrote:
[
Thanks, what was generally the slowest speed you could get away with when you used the Pentax 67 handheld with lenses in the 90mm - 150mm range?

I had to look up a Camerz. Interesting.


Yes, the pain of the RB67, a 180mm lens, and a tripod all on one back. I know it well!

Focal length doesn’t impact sync speed.  It’s a function of the shutter. The Pentax 6x7 shutter is a focal plane horizontal travel curtain style, and has to travel an extra cm compared to a 6x6 focal plane.  The sync speed for a focal plane shutter is the fastest speed that will allow the shutter curtains to be open completely.  Faster speeds mean the shutter is actually a traveling slit and a flash will end up with part of the frame being unexposed.

The math gets a bit tricky when selecting a film speed for daylight-flash fill work. In the olden days even a 35mm horizontal travel shutter (like on my Olympus OMs) usually only synced at 1/60 or 1/90.  When the copal style vertical shutters debuted, they got Nikon up to 1/250 sync. The manual would tell you what the sync is for the Pentax but I’d be surprised if it was over 1/60.   Now, consider you’re shooting in direct sun so sunny 16 can be assumed for exposure.  100iso speed film would be f16@125, but you have to shoot at 1 stop over that to achieve flash sync, or stop down to f22.  The sort of flash that can make a measurable difference, say come in 1 stop under for fill, would be f16, or f22 for 1:1 ratio with ambient light, is gonna be a great big honkin thing, very close to the subject. That can work and even look cool sometimes, but it’s limiting. Any film more sensitive than iso 100 would be unusable for this sort of exposure if you want to honor the sync speed (excepting pull processing or just deliberately overexposing).

Cameras with leaf shutters (or behind-the-lens shutters for Sinar) can sync at all speeds so you can select the equivalent f8@1/500 and your flash can be much less powerful, depth of field more selective, for the same exposure thanks to the 2 stop wider aperture.

If you aren’t mixing flash and available light, and only using flash for your lighting, flash sync speed is much less important so long as you don’t set the shutter faster than sync, since generally the sync speed will be fast enough to drop the ambient light out of dynamic range and the actual exposure time is the flash duration.

But all of that exposure math for mixed light is the reasons many wedding pros went with systems with leaf shutters.

(Edited to admit I misread your question. You were asking about handheld speed, not the sync speed mentioned above, i think. )

Studio NSFW wrote:
Focal length doesn’t impact sync speed.  It’s a function of the shutter.

Thank you, I understand that. I should have worded my question better. I was wondering how slow a shutter speed you can get away with handheld while using lenses in that focal range on the Pentax 67 because of this comment:

Motordrive Photography wrote:
Other than the slow sync speed, I liked the Pentax 67 best and used it hand held.

Film speed would be a factor. I assume that you were generally using ISO 400 or 160 film.

Edit: @Studio NSFW, I think it’s funny that I missed your edit before writing my comment. It’s still a nice refresher anyway and someone might learn for the first time. The Pentax 67 has at least one leaf shutter lens that I know of. It’s a 90mm. I’d probably get that if I did switch systems.

Certain Exposures wrote:
Thanks, what was generally the slowest speed you could get away with when you used the Pentax 67 handheld with lenses in the 90mm - 150mm range?

I had to look up a Camerz. Interesting.

I used it with the 105 f2.4 only and that was a very good lens. Shot almost all VPS III 160 rated at 80.
I think the sweet spot of that combination 1/125 @ 5.6, of course it's a big mirror, but I didn't think
it was too much of a delay.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
I used it with the 105 f2.4 only and that was a very good lens. Shot almost all VPS III 160 rated at 80.
I think the sweet spot of that combination 1/125 @ 5.6, of course it's a big mirror, but I didn't think
it was too much of a delay.

Thanks!

Certain Exposures wrote:

Thanks, were the drawbacks you experienced with the Pentax 6x7 mainly the mirror slap and its weight? Or are the other things to consider?

Re. 6x7 draw back was 1/30 sec flash sync. You had to shoot in dark studio. hard to mix with ambient. For bright ambient lighting conditions, it is great, but it has to be bright enough to shoot at 1/125 or 1/250 to make sure you are overcoming vibration. I only had the 165mm lens which was a great portrait and fashion lens. It is great within those parameters, Hasselblad has/had few limitations. I shot far more Hasselblad, some of my fav. shots were with 6x7.

Dan Howell wrote:
Re. 6x7 draw back was 1/30 sec flash sync. You had to shoot in dark studio. hard to mix with ambient. For bright ambient lighting conditions, it is great, but it has to be bright enough to shoot at 1/125 or 1/250 to make sure you are overcoming vibration. I only had the 165mm lens which was a great portrait and fashion lens. It is great within those parameters, Hasselblad has/had few limitations. I shot far more Hasselblad, some of my fav. shots were with 6x7.

Thanks! You're the first person to mention the 165mm to me. I'll look into it more.

Oh, Hasselblad...maybe someday.

Certain Exposures wrote:
I got my hands a Pentax 6x7 at a store. I enjoyed the eye level view so much that I purchased a prism for my RB67. I reviewed my negatives and decided my work would look a bit better with that option.

The Pentax's focusing screen would be too tough for me to use. It is tiny!

Hasselblad...someday.

Before you consider a Hasselblad, think Rolli SL66. The only single thing that a Hass has over the Rolli SL66 is that the Hass takes a polaroid Pack Film back (little to no film made for the Polaroid back today, so not of any importance). Compared to a Hass, the SL66 is a tank. The SL88 was made by Carl Zeiss and they made all the glass for both cameras (guess who got the better gear? The SL 66 featured both leaf and focal plane shutter, you gust selected it when using. The magazines were both 120 and 220, flip of a switch. Some photographers threw away the first frame because the tracking was so good on the 120 selection you got 13 frames (unlucky). The lens are so perfect on the SL66 that they will take the application of 7 degrees of shift up or down (PC correction/depth of field). There is a tracking marker to tell you when you are into exposure correction so you can compensate (it has a build is bellows) but more importantly, it tells you when you need to remove the lens and reverse the lens for macro use, the standard Planar lens is capable of 1:1 or more with the bellows, and when you reverse the lens it stays in auto function for the shutter.

To get a Hass to do any and all of this with the accessories that are built into the SL66 you would need to spend three times as much on a Hass and you still would not have items like a focal plane shutter. And the Rolli SL 66 is no longer made and are pretty cheap at KEH.com

Certain Exposures wrote:
What 120 film camera did you use professionally?

Yashica D; Bronica EC-TL (great camera); Bronica ETRS; Mamiya 645 (the original).

I wish that there was a digital version of the Yashica D -- a real, digital TLR, actually utilizing the top lens with an optical viewfinder.

Never used a 6x7 camera for 2 1/4.  If I wanted a format larger than 6x6 or 6x4.5, I bump up to my 4x5 view camera.

Tim Summa wrote:
Before you consider a Hasselblad, think Rolli SL66.

To get a Hass to do any and all of this with the accessories that are built into the SL66 you would need to spend three times as much on a Hass and you still would not have items like a focal plane shutter.

Thanks, I looked into a bit. Cool features - especially the front tilt. I think the size is unfortunate. I could not justify having both the RB67 and it because of that. Well, I cannot justify both the RB67 and the Hasselblad either, haha. I would love to try both the SL66 and 'blad someday though.

Ben Levis Photography wrote:
Pentax 67 Has earthshattering mirror slap, so does the Mamiya RB for that matter. Found the slr configuration of the pentax easier to use, and i could remove the prism if i wanted the waste lever finder experience.

Yes the slap on the Pentax was crisp.

tcphoto wrote:
My first medium format was a Mamiya 645Pro with the three LS lenses, it was quite the jump from 35mm and I got my mileage out of it. A couple years later, I bought a couple Pentax 67II bodies with lenses and loved the 6x7 images but not the system. The last film kit was an RZ67ProII and I loved it, the weight was manageable with an L Grip if you were handholding but it's designed to be used on a tripod. The rotating back is great and is a pleasure when paired with the AE Prism. It was after the RZProII kit that I committed to digital with the Canon D1 and I decided to sell off the film gear.

I was close to trying out the RZ67. It's the battery operation that scared me away. Allegedly, the focusing screen on the RZ is better than the RB. I've never tried out a L grip. Food for thought.

Chris Macan wrote:
What you "need" depends greatly on how you work and what your specific needs are.

Once I switched over to more studio based work, I picked up a Hasselblad 500CM.
(as changing lenses, switching film stocks mid roll, and shooting polaroid tests became necessary)

Yes, true. I have been reflecting on my bare minimum needs. The trouble is that I want to have my cake and eat it too...Nice photo!

The Other Place wrote:
I wish that there was a digital version of the Yashica D -- a real, digital TLR, actually utilizing the top lens with an optical viewfinder.

Never used a 6x7 camera for 2 1/4.  If I wanted a format larger than 6x6 or 6x4.5, I bump up to my 4x5 view camera.

There's a brand making an inexpensive digital TLR with low resolution files if you're interested.

I'm guessing you preferred something portable over a 6x7 monster like the RB67. It might as well be a 4x5 camera. It weighs a ton and it's slow to operate.

Certain Exposures wrote:
There's a brand making an inexpensive digital TLR with low resolution files if you're interested.

I remember the two manufactured models.  I think both were made by Minox.

They used an electronic viewfinder (the top lens was a dummy).

Certain Exposures wrote:
I'm guessing you preferred something portable over a 6x7 monster like the RB67. It might as well be a 4x5 camera. It weighs a ton and it's slow to operate.

6x7 is only one centimeter larger than 6x6.  On the other hand, I would definitely like to start shooting a square format again.

I did own a couple of 4x5 field cameras (Speed Graphics).

By the way, there are a few formats in between 6x7 and 4x5:
6x8; 6x9; and 2x3 (sheet film).

Here is a video on the relatively recent (1992) Fuji GW690-iii 6x9 rangefinder.

The Other Place wrote:
6x7 is only one centimeter larger than 6x6.  On the other hand, I would definitely like to start shooting a square format again.

Here is a video on the relatively recent (1992) Fuji GW690-iii 6x9 rangefinder.

Yes, unfortunately (or fortunately?), the extra weight helps keep 6x7 more affordable! That's part of why I built a RB67 kit instead of getting a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.

I'll check out your Fuji clip, thanks.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
Professionally, I've used Pentax 6x7, Mariya RB (usually with a 645 back), Mamiya 645
and a Camerz long roll with a 70mm back.

The Mamiya RB was with a prism finder and on a tripod.
Other than the slow sync speed, I liked the Pentax 67 best and used it hand held.

I have the 90mm leaf shutter lens to use with my Pentax 67.

Tim Summa wrote:
Before you consider a Hasselblad, think Rolli SL66. The only single thing that a Hass has over the Rolli SL66 is that the Hass takes a polaroid Pack Film back (little to no film made for the Polaroid back today, so not of any importance). Compared to a Hass, the SL66 is a tank.

I purchased a Rollei SL66E. Unfortunately, I had to return it because of a malfunction with its film back. I tried finding a repair person and they almost all advised me to stay away from the SL66 system because it's so challenging to service. Beware the deals online.

I found the Rollei lens (80mm) soft compared to my Yashica TLR and the focusing screen was harder to use. However, who knows if that could have been yet another issue with that particular camera. I did appreciate the built in light meter and build quality. The tilt was an interesting feature. I was not able to experiment with it as much as I wanted to before returning it. I also wasn't able to find a TFP model to do test shoots with it. The purchase drained my paid photoshoot budget at the time.

I tried a prism on my RB67. It made the camera nicer to use and unbearable to carry. I may sell the kit. So far a TLR feels more practical for on location, mostly natural light work without an assistant.

Certain Exposures wrote:
Yes, unfortunately (or fortunately?), the extra weight helps keep 6x7 more affordable! That's part of why I built a RB67 kit instead of getting a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.

I'll check out your Fuji clip, thanks.

I know this thread is a bit old.....
But it occurred to me to ask if you had ever tried the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7?  (the newer 6, not the old bellows version)

They aren't terribly cheap,
But the glass is nice, and they excel at hand holdability as they are quite light and being rangefinders there is no mirror to cause vibration.

They might work well for your style of shooting.

DonNelson wrote:
All sold now in favor of old Hasselblad gear for my personal work.

Did you create most of your portfolio here with a 500cm? What lens do you use? 

Chris Macan wrote:
I know this thread is a bit old.....
But it occurred to me to ask if you had ever tried the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7?  (the newer 6, not the old bellows version)

They aren't terribly cheap,
But the glass is nice, and they excel at hand holdability as they are quite light and being rangefinders there is no mirror to cause vibration.

They might work well for your style of shooting.

No, I have not because they are so expensive! I may rent one someday. Have you done much portraiture with one?

TestShoot wrote:
I handheld my RZ67s for almost 15 years, even with ringflash.. Loved it and miss it a lot. Right now I use Phase One which is just as heavy, so I might get another RZ with an adaptor plate to use the Phase digital backs with it. The Phase is optical viewfinder and I enjoy it immensely.

You've probably got crazy strong biceps. What lens were you using then? The 110? I've thought about trying out a digital back on my RB.

Chris Macan wrote:
I know this thread is a bit old.....
But it occurred to me to ask if you had ever tried the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7?[/quote

Certain Exposures wrote:
No, I have not because they are so expensive! I may rent one someday. Have you done much portraiture with one?

I did some location based portrait work with them, and some street photography with the Mamiya 6 and found it to be great for that.
Lightweight, quiet, excellent image quality.

But that was in college when I could check them out from the equipment cage.
I could never justify the cost to purchase one after I left school.
Which was one of the factors in buying the Fuji GS645s.
It had most of the benefits of the Mamiya for a fraction of the cost.