Thanks, and yes there is a lot of truth to just learning your tools.This is nicely said (all of it, but this section struck me). On a slight tangent (and it wouldn't be this forum without one) it highlights the fact that it's often a matter of learning your tool. Even if a camera does have challenges with a mirror - and the MF SLR bodies have large ker-chunk mirrors - if you learn the nuances and what you need to do to work within the constraints a given body has, you can create some astonishing images using the benefits of a given system. A lot of times people don't spend the time to learn their system or body and go chasing after some piece of "magic" that "the next big camera" has. Or they'll maybe compare an older system to newer ones and say "oh, the mirror slap on that old thing makes it useless" when what they mean is "I didn't spend time learning how to use the tool to create great images so I don't like it". Quite clearly, people create great images with most every system (or body within the system) out there. For example, there were probably one, maybe two
I took to the 67 immediately when I got it, and in fact never touched my RB67 again after until I sold all of it(2 bodies and I think 7 lenses). A camera that size does need a bit of a learning curve, but one of my great frustrations with those reviews is complaining about the mirror because of what you hear without even running film through it.
I know plenty of people who passed on the Pentax 67 in favor of the RB or RZ because of the on-paper specs that mad the latter more suitable for them. The most often cited one is the incredibly low sync speed of the 67(maybe 1/30? never used flash with it so I don't know) which kills it for a lot of studio and also wedding photographers. The other is the lack of removable backs. Meanwhile, I like the Pentax for its higher max shutter speed and also that I find it much easier and more agile to hand-hold. I CAN toss the 67 around my neck and go out with it for a day. With my RB, even though I did shoot it handheld some, and it is very well damped, I still found it unwieldy especially with the bellows focusing at close distances.
I think too that the frame of reference for a lot of people is a modern 35mm-sized DSLR, and most of those(in particular the consumer oriented ones) have VERY quiet mirrors/shutters. Even a "loud" camera like the D800 isn't as loud as some old mechanical 35mm SLRs.
I've owned and used a lot of the common MF SLRs out there. Back before everything MF went nuts, I'd often walk into the local camera shop where I hung out(Chuck Rubin's, which I've spoken of often on here) and he'd have a case with a nice system in it and make me a killer deal on it. I bought my Pentax from separate items that he threw together then, and I could barely touch one of the lenses I have for it(105mm f/2.4) now for what I paid for the entire kit($1200).
My first MF SLR was a Bronica SQ-a, which was great but I never went beyond the 80mm lens with it. From there I branched out to the RB67. When a Bronica S2A system came in front of me, I bought it because it had a lot of great Nikkor lenses(and some terrible ones like the 135mm f/3.5, which IIRC was the same as the Nikon rangefinder lens and just happened to barely cover a 6x6 frame) and macro stuff. Following that came a Bronica ETRS and then a Pentax 645. The former felt cheap and fragile to me(especially the film backs) plus each of the four backs I had leaked light like a sieve and I couldn't find seal replacement kits for them. I liked the Pentax, but didn't really want AE in my MF SLRs nor did I like the 1980s VCR UI.
The Hasselblad made me do some soul search and also some money digging, and out went all my other 6x6 and 645 stuff. I held onto the Pentax 645 for a little while, but finally just resigned to never using it or building the system(I only had one lens) so it went. The Pentax 67 made me get rid of the RB.
I say all of that because anyone who I hear complain about a loud or vibration prone shutter I know hasn't actually used a truly loud, earth shaking shutter. The common MF SLRs range in volume, but the major ones(i.e. the ones that actually caught on and people still talk about) like the Hasselblad V system, the RB/RZ67, and the various Pentax cameras, do a great job of damping their mirror. There are some occasions in the Pentax 67(or 6x7, or 67ii) that you can get some strange recoil impulses from the big horizontal shutter.
The absolute worst I've used, and I think most who have used one agree, is the Bronica S2. They're a horrible Rube Goldberg contraption. They were notable for having an instant return mirror, but the way it was accomplished was...interesting. The mirror is hinged from the front bottom of the mirror box, and when you hit the shutter button, it "falls". Because there's now a big shiny mirror at the bottom to scatter light on your film, a silk blind rolls over it to cover it up. Light from the focusing screen, normally blocked out by the mirror popping up, is still there, so you have another flap(like you'd find in a lot of other MF SLRs) that swings up like the mirror to cover the focusing screen. Once all of that has happened, the shutter fires. Of course, once it does, the flap over mirror has to retract, the silk blind unroll, and then the mirror pop up. All of that results in a cacophony of different sounds, and all of those different things moving in all different directions, each in and of itself fairly large, gives you different forces at different times pulling in every which direction.
