Re: H'blad vs Leica

[pgs@thillana.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick Sobalvarro)]

I too, have taken pictures with a Pentax 67 and compared them (in less
controlled circumstances) to those taken with my R Leicas and felt
disappointed by the limitations of the smaller format.  The Pentax 67
produced big, sharp chromes, where the Leicas produce tiny, sharp
chromes.  I think you know the rest.  The bigger they are, the harder
they hit.

But a few things about the Pentax 67 impressed me negatively.  First,
it's much less pleasant to use than an R Leica.  It feels tinny and
hollow and the lenses just don't have that silky, solid Leica feel.
Second, it's the size of Tasmania.  I took it on a hike by some cliffs
on the coast north of here, doing a lot of climbing, and with three
lenses, I really noticed that it was heavier than an R6.2 and three
equivalent lenses.  Third, the mirror sure bangs around like crazy and
the lenses are slow, so when using slow slide film outdoors I found
myself doing goofy things like putting it on a monopod and pre-firing
the mirror and trying not to move and then firing the shutter.  Which
worked, but was inconvenient.  Fourth, no one has ever come up to me
while I was shooting and remarked on my Leicas; they're pretty
anonymous-looking; but when I used the Pentax, people came up to me
and asked me if I was a professional photographer.  They were
perfectly nice people, but it was a little inconvenient and the fact
is that the Pentax looks unusual and attracts attention.

On balance, the Leicas give me much more pleasure.  To avoid
continuing to feel bad about the smaller format, I gave the Pentax 67
back to the friend who'd loaned it to me, and got a 2x3 Century
Graphic with a Graflar (3-element) lens.  After that, when I shot 120
film, I could look at the results and be pleased that the Leicas were
sharper!  But last summer I traded the Graflar for an Ektar (a Tessar
made by Kodak), which is reputed to be a much sharper lens.  I've
avoided using the Century since then.

- -Patrick