Photo courtesy of Chuck Rubin [email protected]
Related Links:
Pentax 67 related posts on Medium Format Digest
Pentax 67 Lens Info
Pentax 67 Lens Tests (D. Colucci) [12/2002]
The following postings provide some useful tips and pointers about the Pentax 67 and 6x7 and 67II cameras and optics. You can also find more information at the above links. For a great overview of medium format cameras, see Danny Gonzalez's great camera review pages, particularly on 6x7 cm cameras and the Pentax 67 pros and cons and overview in particular.
Pentax 6x7 Lens Tests*
|
75mm f/4.5 |
105mm f/2.4 |
150mm f/2.8 |
200mm f/4 |
||||||||
| f/stop | center | edge | f/stop | center | edge | f/stop | center | edge | f/stop | center | edge |
| 2.4 | good | excel | 2.8 | good | accept. | ||||||
| 4.5 | excel | excel | 4 | very gd | excel | 4 | good | accept. | 4 | accept. | accept. |
| 5.6 | excel | excel | 5.6 | excel | good | 5.6 | good | accept. | 5.6 | good | good |
| 8 | excel | excel | 8 | excel | excel | 8 | very gd. | accept. | 8 | good | accept. |
| 11 | excel | excel | 11 | excel | excel | 11 | excel | excel | 11 | good | good |
| 16 | excel | excel | 16 | excel | excel | 16 | excel | excel | 16 | excel | accept. |
| 22 | good | excel | 22 | good | excel | 22 | good | excel | 22 | good | accept. |
| Pentax 67 Lenses - Short and Long Lenses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pentax 67 | 35mm | f/4.5 | 800mm | f/4 |
| f/stops | center | edge | center | edge |
| max | good | acceptable | acceptable | good |
| 5.6 | good | acceptable | good | good |
| 8 | good | acceptable | good | good |
| 11 | very good | acceptable | very good | very good |
| 16 | very good | good | very good | very good |
| 22 | very good | good | excellent | excellent |
| 32 | excellent | excellent | ||
| 45 | very good | very good | ||
The above lens data shows the "long and the short" of the pentax 67 lenses, from the 35mm f/4.5 fisheye ($620 in 1972 new) to the 800mm f/4 Takumar ($2,600 in 1972 new). See the related articles in Modern Photography for more data and information on testing standards and techniques.
See related posting on ultra-fast
telephoto lenses by Niall Syms!
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (john r pierce)
[1] Re: Pentax 67 camera shake
Date: Mon Feb 16 14:33:16 CST 1998
[email protected] (Duncan dwp) wrote:
As focal distances on 67 are about half that of 35 (my 45 p67 lense is about
thesame as a 22 35mm) should I use the same rule of thumb or can I
devide it
by half (eg can I shoot at 100th on a 200 lense or do I need 200th?
The increased film size more than compensates for the longer FL lenses.
And
never mind that giant ker-CHUNK of the P6x7... In general, I try to keep
my
handheld shutter speeds to TWICE the FL of the lens (i.e. 1/250 w/ the
105mm,
1/125 w/ the 55mm, etc).
-jrp
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (B Wills)
[1] Pentax 67 forum
Date: Fri Feb 27 19:26:46 CST 1998
The Pentax 67 forum is now online, serving all P67 users and fans
alike. The URL is:
http://users.vnet.net/btw/pentax67.htm
Enjoy
From: Tapas Maiti [email protected]
Subject: Response to Pentax 67 --Can I hand hold in a pinch?
Date: 1998-02-27
Hi Henry
In my experience you can handhold the pentax and more than in a pinch,
I've handheld with a 165mm 2.8 lens down to 1/30 with sharp results at
10x8. It does take practice though and friends unused to the camera
cannot manage it at much higher speeds. I do accept that a long period of
handheld shooting is likely to be very difficult as the weight takes its
toll on your shoulders.
I've managed with light gitzo 200 series tripod and no bean bags etc, you
do need a strong tripod head though to grip the camera firmly especially
for portrait compositions. I've used the gitzo low profile and the
Manfrotto super heavy duty ball and socket heads - its just a question of
matching the head to the tripod for balance. Portrait compositions also
being the main reason why you need the prism - especially for handheld
shooting.
I traded my Pentax67 for a Hasselblad outfit on the spur of the moment and
have regretted it (in retrospect I should l have lived with less pentax
gear to reduce the weight I had to carry about than change down from the
67)
Tapas Maiti
From: Mark Alan Wilson [email protected]
Subject: Response to Pentax67 - Reliability
Date: 1998-04-11
Re: Mirror sticking in up position. As mentioned earlier, this can happen when the batteries are low/dead. After installing new batteries, the mirror can remain stuck. To release, find the very small, flush button below the "67" and off to the side of the mirror lock slide. Push the button (I use the corkscrew on my swiss army knife) and the mirror will slap down.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Bill Kenner)
[1] Re: Pentax 67 vs. 6x7
Date: Wed May 06 20:59:34 CDT 1998
Leon,
I too have been asking questions that a prospective buyer might ask, such
as the difference between 67 & 6x7 Pentax bodies. The biggest difference
came from my camera repair person who pointed out that parts are no longer
available for the older 6x7. Mirror lockup and reliablity were also issues.
Beyond that you'll need to get info from a user.
Bill Kenner
Nashville, TN
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Pentax 67 vs. 6x7
Date: Wed May 06 23:47:45 CDT 1998
I've had both (at separate times) and can recall no differences at all in the
two cameras so long as the one designated "6x7" has mirror lock up. There was
a very early "6x7" lacking that feature. As you said, those designated as
"67"
are the latest versions.
Mike
rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (Michael P. Weinstein, M.D.)
[1] Re: Difference between Pentax 6X7 and 67
Date: Thu Jun 04 10:36:06 CDT 1998
the 6x7 is the original. The early ones did not have mirror lockup, but my
first 6x7 was bought in 1979 and had mlu. The 6x7 said Asahi Pentax 6x7 on
the prism while the 67 does not say Asahi. Also the 67 has some
polycarbonate parts that are metal in the original 6x7. This may be an
improvement since the 6x7 is a very heavy camera, but others don't like
the switch. Basically, though, its the same camera as long as you get
mirror lock up on the 6x7.
--
Michael P. Weinstein, M.D.
From: Gene Crumpler [email protected]
Subject: Response to Old vs. New Pentax 67 Lenses
Date: 1998-05-14
Sheldon:
I've only used the latest 55F4.0. I asked the Pentax rep. in Colo. what
was difference between "old" style and "New" style 67 lenses. Pentax rep
via e-mail told me that the 55mm and 200mm were redesigned to improve
performance. All of the rest of the lenses were the same except for
cosmetic and coating. I decided to forgo used 55 and 200 and spring for
new lenses. My new 55 is unbelieveably sharp. I'm glad I spent the extra
to get newest!
From: Gene Crumpler [email protected]
Subject: Response to Pentax 67 45mm and 55mm test data
Date: 1998-06-08
I don't have the 45mm but my 55mm is about the sharpest lens I have ever used,(purchase new 6 months old) including a variety of nikon lenses. The 45mm also has a great reputation, so the real issue is the angle of view. The 55 is not so wide as to induce much distortion, where as the 45 (equilivent to about a 21mm in 35) will start giving you problems with distortion if not used with care. I find that the 55 stays on the camera most of the time for grab shooting. The 55 stays very sharp down to F22, which is not true of most lenses, notably the 105mm(F22 is mush).My $0.02 worth.
The 55 tested as follows using my crude( but personalized) proceedure.
All Centers l/mm 5.6---72+mm 8-----72+mm 11----72mm 16----72mm 22----72mm (My 105 tests at 30 l/mm at f22)
I don't know how pentax does this as a 55mm lens at f22, should start having some significant diffraction effects.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Tom Johnston [email protected]
[1] Repairs for P67?
Date: Fri Jul 10 11:29:55 CDT 1998
I have a Pentax 6x7 which has been giving me problems with film
advance. Sometimes, after the exposure has been made the film transport
system locks up (or does not unlock) to permit film advance.
The other day, I was loading it and after matching the arrows, I closed
the back and began to advance the film to the first frame. But it
didn't come to a detente--it just kept going.
I unloaded the film and took the camera to a photo repair place. They
don't work on anything but 35's so they shipped it to Pentax for a
repair quote. When I got the quote back, they said the film transport
sub-assemblies had worn gears that needed to be replaced and the job
would cost $553, not including freight and insurance.
I said "no", because this struck me as a little excessive, since I could
put about $400 with that amount and get a brand new body. Is Pentax
off-base, or am I not seeing something I should be seeing?
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Mike" [email protected]
[1] Re: Repairs for P67?
Date: Fri Jul 10 19:55:27 CDT 1998
The shop may have added a markup. I know the last 6x7 i sent to Pentax for
the very same problem ran right around $350. I service medium format
equipment and once repaired a P67....same transport repair as you need. I
wont do another one. Its not a quick job.
Mike
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (ClarkPhoto)
[1] Re: Repairs for P67?
Date: Fri Jul 10 21:30:49 CDT 1998
On the older P67, the weakest spot was in the winding mechanism. My
advice would be to send it to Pentax in Englewood, CO. for an estimate.
It is sure to be less than $400.00. (maybe not much less).
Pentax Corporation
35 Inverness Drive East
Englewood CO
303 799-8000
From: Steve Rasmussen [email protected]
Subject: Response to Pentax 67 bent shutter release
Date: 1998-07-04
Mike, I had a similar accident but not nearly as severe as yours. The top
plate on the P67 is quite thin and will bend easily. In my situation, a
long cable release stem bumped my car while removing the the camera/tripod
from the car. The leverage on the shutter button caused the top plate to
bend. So, I took a chance and bent it back to the original position. It
works fine and looks like new. The angle of bend was about 30 degrees. SR
Date: Fri, 24 Jul
From: Andrew Koenig [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How do you travel with bulky equipment?
Robert> when I travel, I leave the high $$ stuff at home and use the pentax ME Robert> setup (camera + 5 lenses $150 invested) or a nikkormat pair or whatever; Robert> seems to produce better photos as I take more chances, shoot in rain etc ;p-)
Check out http://www.research.att.com/~ark/pictures/norway/overview.html
I took those pictures with a Pentax 67. I'd like to continue
traveling with it -- I've made 24x30 prints from some of those
negatives.
--
--Andrew Koenig
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998
[email protected] (MJohn27603) said,
>I am interested in getting into medium format and Pentax 67 seems to offer >largest negative size for lowest cost. I will be shooting more outside >landscapes and candid shots rather than studio so the SLR format seems OK for >me. >I would appreciate hearing the experience of anyone who has used this camera.
Great questions, Mike. I have used a 67 for several years, and think it's
a wonderful camera. For personal reasons, I'm selling my whole outfit,
but I won't go into it here since this is not the group for selling.
E-mail me for details and we'll talk privately if you are interested.
Anyway, when looking at Pentax67 lenses, look for SMC stamped on them.
That means super multi-coated. They are the best. Each lens size is
almost exactly double what you would have on a 35 mm, so selection is
fairly easy... for example, a 200mm lens for a 67 is just about the same
as a 100mm on a 35mm camera.
>If you could only get 2 lenses what would they be? I would like to shoot some >landscapes out West soon but also do some normal shots as well. Again I won't >be doing a lot of portrait or studio photography.
The 90 is considered to be a "normal" lens. A tad more wide angle than the
50mm. A 55mm lens would be best for landscapes, close to a 28mm on a 35mm
camera. I think that's as wide as you can go before getting into absurd
bucks.
Whatever you do, you'll be amazed by the detail you get with 67, for a few
reasons. First, the negative is HUGE, so grain is almost non-existant for
anything at all up to 16 x 20 and larger prints using good film. Even with
400asa film, grain is really difficult to see. Second, the 6 x 7 negative
fits on to 8x10, 16x 20, etc, perfectly with no cropping. Whereby 35mm
film, when blown up, looses a lot of the photo off the short edge, so some
of the film is actually wasted. Look at a typical 4x5" 35mm pic and see.
Some of the downside... 67's are very heavy heavy when compared to 35's.
You need a bigger tripod for really good shots or slow shutter speeds. A
saving grace is the beautiful and comfortable wooden handle that quickly
and easily attached to the body. At any rate, you generally don't fire
off as many shots as you might with a 35mm, so you tend to slow down and
think a little longer, and thus learn to compose and expose more
carefully, resulting in better all-around photos regardless of the film
size. Like all fully manual 35mm cameras (the old Pentax K1000 was a
favorite of mine), you are more responsible for the final result than the
camera.
Some people complain about "mirror slap", meaning, the mirror on a 67 is
larger and hits the "up position" during the actual exposure hard enough
to bother some people as it can (supposedly) cause slight vibration. This
has never been a problem for me, but it is for some. I learned, when I
was using only 35mm, so hold my camera properly and breath properly,
(kinda like shooting a pistol) and can shoot much slower exposures than
most pro's recommend... i.e. I can successfully shoot at 1/15th using a
50mm lens on my Nikon, where it's generally accepted that hand-held shots
with a 50mm lens should be no slower than 1/60th. So in my mind, mirror
slap is often blamed when shakey hands are the culprit. There are
essentially 2 models. The earlier "6x7" and the later "67". The 67's have
a mirror lock-up and most (if not all, not sure) of the "6x7"s do not. I
think a few of the later 6x7's did. Mirror lock up is useful, of course
only with a tripod.
There are more parts with a Pentax, as well. The "regular" (view) finder
does not have a light meter. The "prism" finder, an option, does. Some
people like to use a hand held light meter, but the prism finder works
great for me. (I have a Minolta IVF meter I've tested it against. The
flash synch is slower with the standard lenses (at 1/30th) than 35mm
cameras, but with leaf shutter lenses, (more money, of course) you can
synch as fast as 1/500th (as I recall... I never use mine with flash
anyway. And it does have a flash cord plug for using studio lights).
Good hunting and feel free to ask lots more questions.
Dave
From: Mark Bergman [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
MJohn27603 wrote:
> I am interested in getting into medium format and Pentax 67 > > I have also been advised by a camera store employee that I should beware low > prices on used lenses because many are older style lenses without coatings that > are on more modern lenses. True? > > Thanks, > Mike Johnson
I think the older lenses were coated and I used to own a number of them.
They were all great lenses and if you see an older lens at a lower price
I'd grab it. The two lenses I found best for landscapes were the 55mm and
135 Macro with a 2x extender. The old style 55mm IMHO was better than the
new style corner to corner but unfortunately used some oddball filter size
that was huge and expensive when you did find them.
From: [email protected] (john r pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
Chih-Chiang Hsu [email protected] wrote:
>Hi >I have a question. The filter size is 100mm. so this lens is a little huge. isn't it. >I bought a Pentax 6x7 body, and I need a 55/3.5 or 55/4 lens >I was wondering how big they are
The newer 55/4 is relatively 'normal' in size. The 55/3.5 was like huge.
Folks claim the /4 is sharper. I like the /3.5 because it has more
linearity or better corrected geometry or something. I actually HAD a /4
and traded it to a guy for a /3.5 for this very reason.
I've got a 6x7 lens spec table from the /3.5 era on my webpage, along with
a picture showing this lens on a camera...
http://hogranch.com/files/Bitmaps/Pentax6x7 ... this was scanned from a
mid-80s 6x7 system booklet... 'cover.jpg' shows the 55/3.5 business end.
'system.jpg' shows the entire lens system available back then (up to and
including the monster 800/4).
SMC 55/3.5 are kind of rare, I think they switched to the 55/4 shortly after
they went from Super Takumar to Super-Multi-Coated Takumar.
I probably should scan some more of this booklet... it has a 1/2 page on
each lens available circa mid-80s
-jrp
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
Given the size of the 67 body and lenses, the 55 3.5 doesn't seem so
huge by comparison. (But it is huge compared to my Nikon 35mm lenses)
The real problem is the filter size and their limited availability.
I'm debating on a Heliopan 100-105 adapter ring with a 105 polarizer.
About $225 mail-order!! Could almost buy another used lens for that!
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
I just got into a 67 system a while ago with the 55 3.5, 90 2.8 LS,
and 150 2.8 used lenses. None of the lenses are the newest style, but I
believe all are at least "Super"-coated. I got great deals (~1/2 advertised
used prices) on the 55 and the 150, while the 90 still commands a
regular price due to the leaf-shutter. The results have been mixed
since I'm coming from the all automatic world, but when I've done the
right things (focus, proper exposure,...etc) the results are excellent,
even with the super-deal used lenses.
Two lenses: a 55 and 135 macro, if you can find them. I wanted a wide angle
and more of a "candid"/normal lens that I could fill-flash with, so that's
why I got the 90LS. The 150 was not in the plan, but I couldn't pass up the
bargain.
One word of advice: Because of the much discussed mirror-shake, get a "67"
(newer) body rather than a "6X7" (older) body. I rented a 6X7 (older,
with a 105 2.4 lens), and there is a VERY noticable difference in the
mirror/ shutter shake between the two bodies I have used. The newer body
that I purchased is much quieter (i.e. less vibration) than the rental
6X7, especially when not using the Mirror Lock-Up. It may have been age
and lots of use, but that rental really "THWAPPED" when the shutter
released! But, even with that, it still performed excellent enough for
me, even hand-held, to go out and buy one!
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
[email protected] (CWood 7000) wrote:
> The 55 f.4 for the P67 is designed for 77mm filters. This has proven > convenient for me as the 35mm for my P645 is also 77mm as are the 20-35, 28-70 > Tokinas and the Canon 300 f/4 I use with my Canon A2. This interchangability > has proven immensely helpful in the field -- carrying fewer filters!
I buy filters in the 77mm size. Step up rings from 52,62,67,72 to 77. Very
few filters to carry. The 55 3.5 blows that out of the water though!
> I have not seen the original 55 f3.5 for the P67 but when I first purchased my > used P67 I was told by someone I trust the earlier lens was not as sharp. > Perhaps the wise thing to consider would be to sell the older lens and take the > proceeds along with what a news Heliopan /adaptor ring would cost, and buy a > clean used 55 f/4.
I hear about as many favoring the 3.5 as for the 4. I got a great deal on
the 55 3.5. I'm also thinking about building the polarizer from a 6x6
sheet ($10-15) and the 100mm UV that I purchased or with an extra slip-on
lens cap I saw advertised. Still in the planning stages though...
From: [email protected] (joel Sampson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998
My P67 lenses choices are 45 and 165 mm. I also got a 35mm fisheye. I
recently did fill in the gap with a 90mm, which is also a great lens.
What 35-mm lenses do you use the most? Double them and that is about the
focal length for 6x7 format. In my case, a 24 and 85mm, which almost
exactly match the 45 & 165 mm for the P67. That is one of the reasons I
bought the system.
Extension tubes are handy, as some of the lenses do not focus very close.
And as mentioned, the wood grip is a must.
joel Sampson / Dallas
joel Sampson / joel Sampson Design / Dallas
http://joelsampson.com [email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Zane)
[1] Re: Pentax 67 II
Date: Sun Sep 20 12:34:14 CDT 1998
[email protected] (Joseph Albert) wrote:
>Try shooting verticals with a telephoto lens with the P67 on a tripod, >and then tell me how nicely you think it handles. > >j. albert
Joseph
Have you tried the Bogen 3288 "Elbow Camera Bracket" ? I find it makes
shooting verticals a lot easier.
Cheers
Zane
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (john r pierce)
[1] Re: Pentax 67 II
Date: Sun Sep 20 12:25:15 CDT 1998
>>I dunno. I've done several minute exposures with mine and know folks who >>regularly do 20-40 minute exposures with a P6x7. That silver oxide cell >>draws >>very little power when the shutter is open in bulb. > Probably true in normal temp conditions, I know that I went through batteries >like crazy at Bryce Canyon..combination of long exposures and lower temps. >There must be significant drainage or Pentax wouldn't offer the mod.
Ah. The silver cell does NOT like being cold. I remember Pentax had a
cord kit
where you put the silver cell in an inside pocket to keep it warm. Since
I live
in coastal central california, I've never bothered to investigate this
(average
'cold' temperature is in the 50's farenheit).
-jrp
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Kenneth L. Schwarz)
[1] Re: Pentax 67 II
Date: Sun Sep 20 17:26:37 CDT 1998
CWood 7000 [email protected] wrote:
: >I dunno. I've done several minute exposures with mine and know folks who : >regularly do 20-40 minute exposures with a P6x7. That silver oxide cell : >draws : >very little power when the shutter is open in bulb. : Probably true in normal temp conditions, I know that I went through batteries : like crazy at Bryce Canyon..combination of long exposures and lower temps. : There must be significant drainage or Pentax wouldn't offer the mod.
The mod is important for astrophotography, where long exposures and cold
temperatures are typical.
- Ken
From: [email protected] (john r pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Anyone using a Pentax 67 for astrophotography?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998
Phil Stripling [email protected] wrote:
>I'd like to use my Pentax 67 for photographing the upcoming solar eclipse, >but I am not finding T-mounts and other hardware necessary to connect it to >a telescope and get full frame images. > >Anyone have any experience, suggestions?
Astro Physics makes adapters for Pentax 67's for their line of extremely high
quality refractors.
In fact, the P67 is one of the best MF cameras OUT there for astro work,
after
you get the factory time exposure mod done (this allows lenghty exposures
to be
made without any battery drain, it replaces the MLU switch with a 2nd shutter
release cable socket that works the mirror).
Check out http://home.earthlink.net/~dvj/ for some GORGEOUS astro shots taken
with a Pentax 67. Many of these are wide field pictures taken with various
standard Pentax 6x7 lenses. Others thru a 6" AP refractor. Most all of them
are shot on PPF400 with exposures in the 20-40 minute range.
-jrp
From: "George Stewart" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Anyone using a Pentax 67 for astrophotography?
Date: 28 Oct 1998
I use a 67 for astrophotography with a specially built field flatner
designed for the Pentax and a 4-inch ED refractor. This however is a very
expensive option, even if one owns the telescope. I fabricated an adapter
for eyepiece projection by using Pentax's lens reversing adapter, to which
one attaches a step up/down ring. This ring is welded to a conventional
t-adapter and then attached to the scope. Its not the greatest setup but
does work.
George
I have one which I acquired for $2000 just recently. First, it has the Asahi Pentax name, it weighs 15 lbs out of water, and it's one impressive piece of equipment. They were made about 20 years ago. I've made two inquiries of Pentax and no one can tell me how many were made. They are quite hard to find. I understand the wholesale price was over $6000 new. There are three different lens ports depending on the housing. The 55/3.5 lens needs a special 100mm diopter to use in the housing and only the 55/3.5 lens uses it. I don't think you can use the 55/4 lens. The standard port takes 55 through 105, there is a macro port for the 135/4, and a fisheye port for the 35. You can't use the TTL prism finder, I'm told, but I don't have my 6x7 yet to verify this. There is a special mirror prism finder for the Marine housing so you can see it through your mask and the housing. You also have to have the gears to fit the lenses.
After considerable digging I found that CameraTech of San Francisco
(415-242-1700) bought out the entire parts stock and they are the
only source I know of yet to get additional lens ports and service
for the housing. They will replace o-rings and service the housing.
You might try them to see if they have any housings or know of any
for sale. If you find out any further information or find housings,
please let us all know.
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Clint O'Connor [email protected]
Subject: Response to Pentax 6x7 Marine Housing
Date: 1999-01-17
For all those interested, I've found some info on the housing.
Two sources for Pentax Marine support:
CameraTech - San Francisco, CA
Backscatter - Monterey, CA
The people at Backscatter will service them and occasionally have a housing for sale. The people at CameraTech bought out the remaining parts and ports from Pentax (so I'm told) and can also service them.
There are three ports for the camera - Standard (takes 55, 75, 105), Fisheye (only 35), and Macro (takes 135, 175, 200). This info is from the Pentax Marine housing manual. There is no mention of the other lenses (45, 90, etc) so I don't know if they can be used. Two gear rings are needed for each (focus and aperture). For the 55/3.5 only, there is a special correction filter for underwater use. I don't believe the later 55/4 can be used.
The TTL prism finder can't be used. The standard prism finder can be used or there is a special mirror finder for the Marine housing. I'm told by a pro that uses this mirror finder that he found the left- right reversal bothersome when chasing fish and switched back to the standard finder.
The flash connector takes Nikonos III sync cords. In fact, the whole camera can be regarded as an oversize III in operation. You need to light-meter the scene, set focus and aperture, and then fire.
As for the total number made, one user said only 30 were made and a rep from Backscatter said 200 were made. In either case, they are very, very scarce. The original retail price was $11,500, wholesale was over $6000, and used ones vary from $2000 to $4000, depending on the seller.
>don't see it. What is it? If there are two mounts, are the lenses >designed for one or the other mount? Hence, two mounts? Never heard >of this. But I've only had the P67 for about a year the 67-II for 3 >months. Love the system.
if you look closely at the bayonet on the 6x7 body, you'll notice it has
two sets of 'teeth', inner and outer. The vast majority of the lenses fit
the inner bayonet, but a few very large telephoto lenses have a lock ring
that secures on the outer bayonet. I believe the nearly-mythical 800mm
f/4 uses the outer one, as does the 600/4. I'm not sure about the 1000/8
reflex, but it probably did too.
-jrp
From: [email protected] (John R Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 55f/3.5 vs f/4
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999
Bill Mosca [email protected] wrote:
>I'm gearing up to purchase a Pentax 67 55mm lens and am seeking any and >all advice re: the older f3.5 vs the newer f4. I plan to try each before >purchasing but I've heard the older 3.5 is superior to the newer model. >True?
I've heard both. I've also used both. If you can find a SMC 55/3.5
(hard to find), I'd give it a long hard look.
In general, the 3.5 seems to me to have more 'rectilinear correction'.
Scenes with radical perspectives tend to stay 'straight' and not get
pincushioned nearly as much as conventional lenses of this size.
The 4 is supposed to be a bit sharper. I've never had any sharpness
complaints with the 3.5 however.
The SMC lenses will, of course, have better flare resistance and
better contrast under difficult conditions. ALL of the 55/4's are
SMC, but only the last few years of the 55/3.5 are SMC (aka
SuperMultiCoated).
The 3.5 is huge and it takes a 100mm filter, very hard to find. The
hood for it is rather enormous too, ditto hard to find unless it comes
with the lens. I have the hood and one filter (UV) for mine.
The 3.5 is also quite heavy (nearly 1kG or 2.2lbs).
-jrp
I wondered the same question. There is no adapter to fit the Kiev 60
lenses to the Pentax 67 (although there is one to adapt Kiev lenses to
a Pentax 645, and also one for the Mamiya 645) , as the distance
between the rear of the lens on the Kiev lenses to the film is
further than the distance on the Pentax lenses. You would actually
have to remove some of the rear of the lens barrell to make it work.
There was a fellow advertizing on eBay to convert Kiev lenses to fit
the Pentax 67. He would not covert any focal length less than 120mm(
couldn't remove enough of the barrell before he hit the rear glass)
He charged $500 to convert the Kiev 120mm to fit the 67, and $250 to
convert longer focal lengths to fit the Pentax 67.
Perhaps a less expensive alternative to use the Kiev 60 lenses on a
6X7 camera might be to acquire a Baby Speed Graphic, and get a roll
film adapter for the back. Most of the Kiev lenses will cover 6X7,
and you might experiement with 6X9.
Some folks mount the 30mm fisheye to a 4X5 view camera, to get a VERY
cheap full-circle fisheye for their view camera. I picked up my 30mm
fisheye for $189 plus shipping. I've seen them on eBay for as low as
$169, NEW.
Now you've got me thinking! I don't have a Baby Speed, but I do have a
4X5 Speed. Think I'll go drag it out of the closet for some
retro-fitting!
Steve
P.S. A friend of mine (a hobby machinist) helped me make an adapter to
fit a 400mm lens made for a 4X5 camera to fit my Kiev 60. I paid $65
for the lens (in barrell), and had to give Chris a broken Kiev 645 and
T-Shirt that showed how to eat Crawfish. Cheapest Medium format 400mm
I ever bought. (Did I mention that it is a f/5.5?)
[Ed. note: handy tip for those expensive oversize filters!]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
From: John Stafford [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Another Cheap Medium Format Option (filters)
Robert, most of this relates to Pentax 67. Is it appropriate to your
area of interest? I will just give a brief here and provide more details
if you find it useful.
General: Great source for LARGE high quality glass filters for large
diameter lenses: Military Surplus filters intended for military aerial
lenses. Limited to Yellow, Orange and Red. (Have not found Green yet.)
Size of round filters: 111mm. Other sizes and shapes available, but this
is the most common I've found.
Cost? $5 each. New. Never used. In original packing. Wow! (can provide
source, and I will as soon as I buy a few more sets.)
A specific application: This will knock the socks off of users of the
Pentax 6x7 55mm F3.5 lens which ordinarily requires 100mm bayonet mount
filters (apparently made of Unobtanium and priced on the dark side of
the moon.) The 111mm (4.25") filters mentioned above will DROP INTO THE
FRONT OF THE STANDARD (pentax brand) LENS SHADE and SNAP INTO the
recessed area at the bottom (close to the lens.) God only knows what
that special area was ever designed to do. I suspect it is cosmetic, but
by pure serendipity it works perfectly! If you are as fussy as I am, you
can drill two tiny holes into the side of the shade for retention
screws. There you are, an instant $5 solution!
Hope this helps.
John J. Stafford
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Joe Oliva/AvPhoto)
[1] Re: Pentax 67
Date: Wed Aug 11 09:18:07 CDT 1999
"gary conrad" [email protected] wrote:
> I noticed the Pentax 67 (not the 67II) was no longer on their website. Is it > being discontinued? Also, I need to do some very long exposures at nite (1 > hour). Will I have to send it to the factory for modification to do so?
If you want a simple trick for long exposure with the P67, set the shutter
speed dial BETWEEN settings, then trip the shutter. The shutter will
remain open until you move the shutter speed dial to a (any) speed detent.
Of course this will drain your battery while the shutter is open. My
pentax manual says a new battery should be able to keep the shutter open
for around 5 hours. Your mileage may vary.
Joe
--
Joe Oliva/AvPhoto [email protected]
Aviation Photography for the Military, Government, and Industry
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 macro question
"scott whitford" [email protected] wrote:
>I'd like to hear some experiences/suggestions of the best way to get 1:1 (or >higher mag) macro capability with the Pentax 67II. My current lens selection >is 55mm/f4.0, 90mm/f2.8, and 135mm/f4.0 macro. > >What are the benefits/downsides of the helicoid extension tube vs. the >"normal" extension tubes?
the normal tubes will get you down to 1:1 with the 135. I've not done
the math on the 90mm/2.8, but chances are good it will go even closer.
I would NOT use a 55 on tubes, thats a retrofocus lens, and likely
things will get ugly if you try and use it for macro.
I calculated this table some time ago...
http://hogranch.com/files/Bitmaps/Pentax6x7/6x7Tubes.html
the lenses are all the older versions. the final column represents
all three tubes PLUS the lens fully extended on its own focus, the
others are calculated with the lens at infinity. The 135/4 I have
extends 42mm on its own, while my old 105/2.4 extends 15mm. the top
half of the table is 1/mag which for some reason I prefer (0.25
represents 1:4), while the lower set of values is the more traditional
4 == 4:1).
If you have Microsoft Excel, the formulas I used are embedded in
http://hogranch.com/files/Bitmaps/Pentax6x7/6X7TUBES.XLS
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what 6x6 to buy for astrophotography?
That's right. And in cold weather, a fresh battery only lasts a few
hours of open shutter time.
Pentax 6x7 can be factory modified for non-battery time-exposures for a
few hundred bucks. Service location is Englewood, CO. (303) 799-8000
New model, 67II, has this built in. Much more convenient procedure
with the new model than with the modified old model.
....
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (John J. Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentex 6X7 lens
"BBK" [email protected] wrote:
> What is the difference between old 55mm F3.5 and the new 55mm F4 > > Any difference in contast, resolution, filter size > please comment
I can only comment upon the old 55mm F3.5 because that is what I use.
The lens is very sharp. In fact, it is awesome. For example, when
shooting architectural work I can pick out more detail in the negative
than I can possibly see when I make the picture. (details in mortar
between bricks of a shot at near-infinity, for example) In fact,
I can capture more detail than I can print on 8x10. Good contrast, too.
Downside? Filters. Without a doubt, this is the biggest drawback.
The Pentax filters made for that lens were a one-of-a-kind,
100mm bayonet mount, so they have become rare and expensive. Typically,
they go for $100 or more each, used in good condition.
Skip the rest of this message, if you require color-correction
filtering. For that you may have to go to a professional matte
box or simply get the later 55mm lens.
For B&W, I have managed to find _great_ alternative filters
which work just as well, if not better. And rather than $100 each,
these filters are only $5 each and _better_. (imho)
Let me elaborate. First you need the standard lens shade Pentax
made for the 55mm F3.5
Then go to www.surplusshed.com
Look under filters, or cameras and instruments, for their glass
filters. You want the 4.25" filters. They typically go for $5 each, and at
one time you could buy a three-part set for
$15 with wooden box. These are super high quality photographic
filters intended for military aerial applications. Never used.
You paid hundreds of $ for these via taxes. Get those buck back.
Buy surplus. :)
You take the lens hood made for the 55 f3.5 lens (no other works
properly), and simply push the filters down inside the hood, from
the front of the shade into the detent just in front of the lens.
They literally 'snap' into place, as if the hood was made just for
these filters. (To be perfectly paranoid about retention, you can
drill a tiny hole in the side of the shade and put a pin in there
to hold them in.)
That said, I don't know if surplus shed still has these kits because
I bought mine some time ago and have mentioned this tip on usenet
before. They might have had a run on them. Regardless of whether you find
them in their online catalog, ASK: write to them via
their web email address. The chap who takes care of the orders
is just terrific. He knows the stock and has found things for me
they don't advertise (like hard to find military shutters.)
Best of luck, and let us know what you find.
(and my usual nagging - FOCUS those wide angle lenses even at
what may appear to be infinity! It's a 55mm lens regardless of
film format and an object at 200' may have to be focused to be
perfectly sharp.)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2000
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "David Monroe" [email protected]
[1] Re: pentax 67/6x7
The ttl prism finder for previous versions is not compatible with the 67
ll
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999
From: Randy Holst [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
George Day wrote:
[snip]
> Any thoughts on the merits / de-merits of Pentax optics (leaving aside the > well-known pros/cons of the body type)?
I've been using an earlier Pentax 6x7 (MLU) I bought new in 1984, along
with the (now defunct) 90/f2.8 leaf shutter lens. In the past few years
I've added the latest version SMC Pentax 55/f4 and 165/f2.8 (non leaf
shutter) lenses. Killer lenses, both of them. (Sorry for the non
technical term.) These lenses are so good, I can't imagine CZ putting a
better image on transparency film. (Now donning Nomex leisure suit.)
The contrast, sharpness and color is great. Sure glad I bought them
when I did, as prices have gone up a bit. I still can't figure out why
they quit making the 90/f2.8 LS lens.
Randy Holst
Boise, Idaho
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Pentax 67 II?
> Has anyone out there had experience with Pentax's 67II? I saw some chromes > shot with the 165/4 lens today and, WOW! Super image quality, really super. > Personally, I couldn't tell the difference from Mamiya RZ or, for that > matter, our favorite system here...except for the bigger slide, of course. > I'm amazed their prices remain so reasonable.
I don't know how Pentax manages to make such great lenses and price them
as they do. Either they know some secret or are just less greedy. Their
lenses are as good as any for 6 X 7. Bob Mayer just spent several months
using the 67 II and his report will appear in the January issue of
Shutterbug (which is the annual medium format issue). Bob told me he was
very pleased with all aspects of the new camera. Looks like they took
a good design and just made it better.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999
From: Greg Lawhon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Pentax 67 II?
I have to agree with the praise for Pentax optics here. And I hate to
admit it here, but after a number of years using an extensive SL66 system
that I liked a lot, I traded it all in 1991 for a Pentax 645 system that I
tested and liked even better (with the birth of my first son my thoughts
turned from contemplative macro and landscapes to an onboard meter and
motor and 35mm-like maneuverability) . The lenses are superb, with
special praise reserved for the amazing 120mm macro. I later bought a
Pentax 67 as well. I've owned 9 lenses for the P645 and 4 for the P67 -
and never had a dog among them. I haven't owned any of the zooms, but
their reputations are excellent as Peter K. reported. Take this one with
a big grain of salt: earlier this year someone posted a message at Medium
Format Digest that Foto Magazine in Germany tested the FA45-85 zoom for
the P645N and rated it one of the best performing medium format lenses
ever tested.
Greg Lawhon
....
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x7 camera choice?
I've been using Pentax67 for about ten years. Sometimes miss not
having a revolving back, but never regreted the Pentax.
Another word about MLU. I find it indispensible in the camera
room. "Blinks" are caused mostly by the sound of the mirror flopping
up. I activate MLU a split second before releasing the shutter, which
causes the blink before the exposure (not during). I use my little
finger to activate MLU in a completely natural motion. No problem. I
would not do without the MLU for my primary body.
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Asahi/Honeywell/??? Pentax 6x7
"C. Cardinal" [email protected] wrote:
>Hello all. I have been eyeing the Pentax 6x7 cameras on Ebay for a while and >wondered about the progression of "corporate owners". I have seen the Asahi >Pentax label, which I assume was first, followed by Honeywell Pentax, and >then just plain Pentax. Is there a "better" version of the 6x7 from these >labels? I am considering picking one up for a backup to my Bronica, and >wondered if it would be money well spent.
actually, anything labeled honeywell would be VERY old. Back in the late
60s, Honeywell was the sole US distributor for Asahi Pentax equipment.
By the early 70s, all Pentax gear was labed Asahi Pentax. In the case of
the 6x7, the only place I've seen the honeywell label was on the
pentaprism...
There are probably 4 versions of the body.
6x7 without mirror lockup
6x7 with mirror lockup
67
67-II
The 67 version has some polycarbonate parts where the 6x7 were all brass.
I'd avoid the very old non-MLU version.
-jrp
From: Bruce McLaughlin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 II
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
I have the previous Pentax 67 body and so the following may not
completely to the new model which I have not yet seen.
Open the back (preferably on a flat surface and lay it out so it is
horizontal (completely open). There should be two film spool retainers
at the bottom of the camera. Rotate and pull them down, away from the
body until they stay withdrawn. If the film spool is not in the
take-up (right side of the body) put it there. Insert the new spool of
film in the left side chamber while holding it so it will not get loose
or unwind. Then release the left side spool retainer (twist it and push
in toward thew body) until it engages with the lower slot on the spool.
You may have to slightly reposition the roll until the retainer is fully
engaged. While holding back the film roll with a finger or thumb
against the middle of the roll (to prevent it from becoming loose) bring
the end of the leader across the back to the take-up spool on the right
hand side. (Do not touch the shutter with a finger or thumb) Insert
the tongue of the leader into the spool securely. Now gently advance
the film with the winding lever while continuing to maintain slight
tension on the supply spool. Continue advancing until the arrows on the
paper film backing are in line with the "120" mark along the film rail.
(In the older body there are two marks on the rail, one for 120 and the
other for 220. That may have changed with the new body). Now close and
lock the camera back and using the advance lever, slowly advance the
lever until it stops. The frame counter should indicate "1" and the
shutter should be cocked and ready to go.
Good luck.
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 II
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
"Rikard Bondesson"
[email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your answer. My problem is that I would like to use the > camera during the weekend, and Pentax is closed for the weekend.
This is the procedure for the 6x7. It should be exactly the same for the
67-II.
1.Open camera back. (Latch is on side opposite film advance lever). Film
runs left to right: so, make sure the empty take up spool is on the right.
If not, there are little spool-plunger controls on the bottom of the
camera on each side; pop them open and shift the empty take up spool to
the right side if necessary.
2. Make sure the pressure plate is adjusted for 120 or 220 film as
appropriate: by sliding it left or right somehow, it changes from 120 to
220 and vice versa. There are arrows and notations marked for that on it.
3. Take the new roll of 120 film out of the foil and remove the tape that
keeps it closed. Stick the roll in the left side spool holder, so that it
is unrolling to the right, and the coloured paper backing faces outward,
so that you can read it. Draw the paper over and insert the end into the
slot on the spool. Wind the take up spool, either with the film advance
lever or manually, so that the leader is caught and it starts tightly
winding around the take up spool. Advance the film until you see a pair of
arrows printed on the film backing, and advance the film until these are
aligned with the appropriate red mark near the film guide rails. Make sure
the film plungers, controlled via the doohickeys on the bottom, are reset
to the closed position.
4. Close the back, and advance the film with the film advance lever until
you get to the "1" on the frame counter. Shoot the roll.
5. After you take the last picture, keep on advancing the film until it is
completely rolled up onto the take up spool. Open the back, pop open the
film plungers and remove the now full take up spool, and seal the roll
with the gummed tape attached.
6. Transfer the now empty spool on the left to the right, and begin again.
Question you ought to ask: why didn't you get a manual with it? Perhaps
the merchandise is not new?
From Medium Format Digest:
From: "Sheheryar Hasnain" [email protected]
Date: 10 May 93 11:06:57 U
Subject: Opinions on Pentax 67
[This is a compendium of responses to Sheheryar's original
request on rec.photo for information / experiences with the
Pentax 6x7 responses; it should be useful of you considering
buying one - or who know someone who might - HR (Pentax 6x7
fan)]
Hi
For people interested in the Pentax 67, I thought you may like the
opinions I
received of the Pentax 67 before I bought it. Here they are:
[Lightly edited for format - HR]
1. I have a Bronica 6x6 system. I gave the Pentax 67 some mild
consideration because I'm heavily into wedding and portrait
photography and considered the Bronica a better choice. A big
factor was the use of leaf-shutter lenses as opposed to focal
plane, like in the Pentax 67. The advantage of the leak
shutter lens is that it syncs with flash at any speed - up to
it's top of 1/500 sec, as opposed to 1/30 sec for the Pentax.
This is very important when doing sunlight flash fill work
outdoors, or working indoors under high ambient light. All my
outdoor portaits are flash-filled, many taken at f4 or f5.6 @
1/500 or 1/250. There are many cases where I want a large
aperture to minimize background distractions.
If this is a problem to you, don't despair. There are
leaf-shutter lenses available for the Pentax 67. It is a
wonderful camera and I have seen many fine images taken with
it.
2. Stop worrying. The system is excellent. Just make sure you
have a good tripod for your studio work.
I've used my Pentax 67 on many field excursions. It has many
advantages over other medium format cameras, including it's
ruggedness, large selection of good quality lenses, simple
reliability, mirror lock-up, and multiple viewfinders (wl, ttl,
etc). Primarily, its disadvantages beyond the 1/30th flash
sync are no multiple backs (you load it like a 35mm camera,
which is a little cumbersome in the field) and the purported
inferiority of the Pentax lenses to the Schneider/Zeiss lenses
used by Hassleblad, Rollei, etc. I say purported because 1.
The differences aren't that great 2. Certainly not great
enough to warrant the 3x to 5x cost over Pentax. As far as
Mamiya lenses go, I'd say that Pentax is comparable to better.
A number of the new Pentax lenses are made by Nikon...
The other thing I like about the Pentax 67 is that there is a
fairly good supply of used equipment.
Finally, if the flash sync is a real problem for you, you can
buy the 165mm/f4 lens with the leaf shutter. Pentax also used
to make a 90mm lens with the leaf shutter, which you can find
once in a while on the used market.
Ultimately, a camera is a real personal thing. How good your
pictures are really depends on you and the subject. The camera
is a very important took in that relationship, so if you are
comfortable and used to your camera it will do a great job for
you. I love my Pentax 67, but it definitely is not the medium
format camera for everyone.
3. One of the most important considerations in the discussion
is modularity. The Pentax 67 is an excellent camera and has
terrific optics, but is essentially a big 35mm in that you
don't have the flexibility of the modular systems...film backs
are wonderful things if you have to shoot more that one type of
film at a time, not to mention Polaroid capability for which
you have to dedicate an other entire 67 camera body.
If modularity and Polaroid proofing are NOT important, then the
Pentax 67 is a great choice.
When I looked into Medium Format I wanted full manual control
of the camera, and the only cameras that offered this to me
while delivering on other needs were Hasselblad and Mamiya RB.
I decided on the Hasselblad for a number of reasons, and have
no regrets..
In my case modularity was a very important consideration as was
non-battery dependency (as you will discover the Pentax 67
absolutely needs its battery, and if you forget to shut it off
it will continue to drain the battery, and they are relatively
pricy things). Also, the Hasselblad system is huge, and
compatibility is great so you can and I do have bits and pieces
of hasselblad stuff spanning 30 years of production, and it all
works together like new equipment.
4. Stop worrying!! I've owned and/or use Pentax 6x7 since
1977. They are wonderful for landscape work. The 105 lens is
one of the best. I have not been about to compare it with the
other systems you mention, but I *can* report that I get
results with it which I find fully as satisfying in every
aesthetic way as the results I get with 4x5 and
state-of-the-art Apo-Symmars. The main reason I don't give up
4x5 altogether is that I like to use camera move- ments.
If you use a *good* tripod, you should get results that no one
can reasonably complain of. f11-f16 seem to be the best
apertures with the 105. f8 is very close, but perhaps
*slightly* softer in the extreme corners (but on *very*, *very*
slightly so). You might want to get a flip-up, waist level
finder sometimes. I find it very useful for landscapes. As for
future lenses... I have used the 200 (old style) and 165, and
had no complaints about them. (I own the 165.) Wide angles are
another matter. I have never been happy with Pentax's compro-
mises with the wide angle lenses. The extreme corners are not
as sharp as I would like. I have observed this is the new 45,
the original 75, the original 55 and the second (not most
recent) version of the 55. I currently own the original verions
of the 75 and 55. For most work they are fine. *I* notice the
softness in the corners in some situations, but most other
people don't. Some really fine photographers use these lenses,
so I may be hyper-critical. I *would* urge you to stay away for
the second version of the 55 f4.
In case you're wondering, the 90mm normal is not better than
the 105. I have owned both at the same time and tested them
side by side. I could see no difference in performance. I sold
the 90 only because I don't see the world that way. P.S. If
you keep your eyes open, you can get good deals on used Pentax
6x7 equipment. I started with a new body and then bought
everything thing else used... I now have three bodies, 55, 75,
105 and 165 lenses, 2 prisms, 2 waist level finders, and
extension tubes. Now, if only I could tilt the back or raise
the front like a view camera!!
5. [Q Why are Pentax 67s not good for studio work? Is it the
lack of removable backs? esp the polaroid back? I would like
to do some basic studio stuff with it. Would studio stuff with
the Pentax 67 be superior to say 35mm studio work?]
There are three major limitations to using the Pentax 67 for
studio work: a. The first you have already identified -- the
difficulty of using a polaroid back. There *are* polaroid backs
available from Calumet, but they are very expensive. Depending
on the kind of work you do, this may or may not be a problem.
Experience and a good flash meter can probably get around this
limitation, though. Pro's use polaroid because they're
*business* people and it's cheap insurance. It's certainly not
very important if you use lighting with which you are familiar
(e.g. portraits). If time is not money, and you can always
reshoot, polaroid is nice but not necessary.
b. The second limitation is the synch speed. The possibility of
ghosting is much more likely at 1/30 than at 1/250. *But* this
is probably not a real problem in most studio settings if you
have reasonably powerful flash. There is a pro in Toronto who
uses Pentax 6x7 for weddings, and he gets perfectly acceptable
flash results without using the leaf shutter lenses. And, of
course, ghosting is no problem at all if your studio subject is
not moving or the ambient light is minimal.
c. The third limitation is the lack of camera movements. This,
of course, is the limitation of all `rigid' cameras. If you're
doing a lot of still life or product work, you can't beat a
view camera.
Assuming that you are not doing studio work where a high synch
speed is essential (high ambient light level and a moving
subject), the Pentax should easily outperform 35mm in the
studio. The larger negative size will give you colour richness
and tonal gradation that will take your breath away. No
contest.
2. [Q: What would you consider to be a good cheap tripod for
the P67. I'm pretty clueless as far as tripods go. Do you
think I could get away with spending about $100 on a tripod?}
You might have to spend a bit more, but not a lot. My personal
preference for use with the Pentax 6x7 (and this took me years
to discover) is a *ball head*. You can spends hundreds on one,
but the Manfrotto head #168 which is described as "Heavy Duty
Ball Head" works well and costs about $40. In the States it's
sold by Bogen as model 3055. A ball head is much faster for
"hand" cameras than the usual 3 or 4-way tilt heads (which are
much better for view and field cameras). The Manfrotto/Bogen is
a "quick-release" head -- a metal plate attaches to the camera.
Get a "#3049 1/4 - 20 thread, flush screw mounting plate". It
is flat on the bottom and you can just leave it on your camera.
Costs about $13-$14. As for the tripod itself, you just have
to find one that feels solid enough for the camera, but light
enough to carry where you expect to be going. Look for rigidity
where the legs attach. The smallest you could get away with (if
you are very careful, lock up the mirror, and steady the tripod
with a heavy hand) is the Bogen 3001 at about $60. I recently
bought one to use with my Leicas, and discovered that it was
also adequate (with care) for the Pentax (using the heavy duty
ball head). I have also used, and found satisfactory, the
Tiltall and the Star-D (imitation Tiltall). You might like one
of those. They are heavier than the little Bogen, so you don't
have to be as careful, but I don't like the 4-way heads as well
(although they are very stable, vertical shots are difficult).
Most of the time I use a wooden Zone VI tripod with
Bogen/Manfrotto head of some kind. Amazingly stable and
durable, but heavy and relatively expensive. Great for the
snow around here, though. The best thing to do is take you
camera and go shopping for a tripod. It will be pretty obvious
which tripods are too flexible or weak. Manfrotto/Bogen
probably give you the most for your money. Look at the 3001 and
the larger 3011. You should expect an adequate tripod to weigh
no less than 5 pounds with a good head on it.
OKEY, Now for a personal note, the Pentax 67 is great. And Ive shot
a couple of rolls in the studio and its fantastic! The color
slides are spectacular. Plus its a lot easier to lug around
and hand-hold. Take care!
Sheheryar
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which medium format?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000
"max_perl"
[email protected] wrote:
>I have looked at the Pentax 67. It has a reasonale price >level compared to e.g. Hasselblad. But how good are >the Pentax lenses? If I buy 2nd hand are there some older >lenses I should not buy?
Pentax 6x7/67 lenses came in several versions over the years.
The oldest ones were Super Takumar 6x7
Later were Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7
Even more recently are SMC Pentax 67
Some lenses have been redesigned, others just got newer coatings.
Some aren't even made anymore. Most all of them are quite good to
excellent. I have a couple of Super Takumar lenses in my kit, the
105/2.4 SuperTakumar is a fine piece of glass, in the late 70s when
this lens was new, the coatings were state-of-the-art. The newer
SMC/SuperMultiCoated lenses are probably even more flare resistant,
and will give somewhat higher contrast in high backlight situations,
but otherwise should perform similarly.
>What about the bodies?.....are there some good old stuff? >or should I go for a brand new Pentax 67II body?
The body came in several versions also...
Really old: Pentax 6x7 with no Mirror Lockup (MLU)
not quite as old: Pentax 6x7 with MLU
newer still: Pentax 67
newest: Pentax 67-II
the -II is signifcantly redesigned, and supports automatic exposure.
The Pentax 67 has some polycarbonate body parts where the original
6x7's were all enamelled brass. I'd avoid the non-MLU body unless its
as a second or third body, is in great shape, and is *really* cheap.
All of the pre-II cameras can take several viewfinders. There is a
TTL Pentaprism, this has a CdS match-needle meter in it. Then there
is the straight pentaprism (no meter), a folding magnifying
waist-level viewfinder, and a rigid magnifying hood (probably only
really useful on a copy stand or for macro use).
I have a Pentax 6x7 w/ MLU, and the non-metering pentaprism (I use a
analog Pentax Spotmeter VI which is nearly as old as the camera)
-jrp
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing the extremely small
"Francis A. Miniter" [email protected] wrote:
>I have been told that [almost ?] all optical adapters for cameras to >telescopes or microscopes are designed for 35 mm cameras. It may be that >size and weight are practical factors excluding medium format cameras.
actually, the telescope maker Astro/Physics makes adapters for their
superb large refractors for (drum roll please) Pentax 6x7 bodies.
See
http://www.astro-physics.com/products/accessories/photo_acc/photo_acc.htm#5
here's a typical one of their telescopes....
http://www.astro-physics.com/products/telescopes/155edf/155edf.htm
-jrp
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 & afocal astrophotography
[email protected] (DColucci) wrote:
>ok, I own a 67 and would like to start by shotting afocal images....hints, >thoughts, suggestions as to telescope/eyepiece combo ? > >thanks - experienced 67 user, beginner astro man
have you already tried piggyback astro photography using the 6x7's own
lenses? I'd get good at piggyback before venturing into prime focus
photography (telescope + camera with no lens or eyepiece). Eyepiece
projection photography is the hardest to get good results on (due to
the much higher effective f/stop combined with extreme magnifications
created).
To do prime focus work will need a telescope with a large useful final
aperture (ideally a oversized focuser to utilize 6x7 film,
astro-physics uses up to 4" focus tube assemblies. See...
http://www.astro-physics.com/products/telescopes/155edf/155edf.htm
A-P has camera adapters specifically for the pentax 6x7 along with
field flatteners (required for shorter focal length scopes).
I'm not familiar with any other telescope makers (outside of Pentax
telescopes which are only available in Japan*) who have 6x7 adapters
of any kind. You could always take an old extender tube and start
hacking in the machine shop :-D
I'm not aware of ANY adapters for eyepiece projection with the 6x7.
such would be HUGE, worse, the massive 6x7 camera body would be
greatly offset from the telescope, causing rather major balance
problems.
-jrp
* if you can read japanese, try
http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/sougan/index6.html
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 00
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 6X7 - ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY info
From r.p.e.m-f....sounds like my question about MF-astrophotography is
partly answered....;-))
Joe [email protected] wrote:
>Found this info at: > >http://www.company7.com/library/ptxshtr.html > > >Company Seven's Modified Pentax 6x7 Cameras >This Pentax 6x7 camera body has been selected and modified to better >meet the performance criteria for successful astrophotography. Be >assured the factory warranty continues in full force. Also, none of >these modifications precludes the use of any optional Pentax 6x7 >accessories, nor does it preclude the use of this Pentax 6x7 camera >for conventional photography. However, there are certain operational >differences between a standard Pentax 6x7 camera and those which are >modified to meet Company Seven's criteria. Not all of these features >are mentioned in the standard Pentax 6x7 owners manual or listed here, >but the most obvious differences to the user will be: > > >Clear Screen: The standard focusing screen has been replaced with >another in order to facilitate focusing at relatively high f ratios >(such as encountered in macro photography, or with long lenses and >telescopes), or when photographing objects in low light environments. >The focusing screen has been precisely fitted to assure the screen is >parallel to the film plane. The bayonet mount alignment to the film >plane may have also been adjusted as necessary to assure pinpoint >imaging across the film plane. > > >Shutter Power Bypass: The standard factory issue Pentax 6x7 camera is >an electronic body. The focal plane shutter mechanism draws power from >an internal 6 volt battery or from an optional external source to >activate. The shutter requires power to maintain an open condition >whether the shutter speed is set to 1/500th of a second or for a long >exposure of many hours. The power requirements drain the battery such >that the battery becomes exhausted after a matter of several hour long >exposures. Also the ambient temperature will affect battery output; >this takes on a more important dimension in a cold environment. > >In order to allow long time exposures at the "B" mode without draining >the battery, this body has been modified to allow the bypass of the >battery. The procedure to activate the shutter is as follows: > >Perform a battery condition test: press the white plastic button at >the rear of the camera near the shutter speed dial. If the L.E.D. (at >the inboard side of the shutter speed adjustment dial) lights then you >may continue, otherwise replace the battery. > >Insure the camera is loaded with film, then advance the film crank to >the first frame. > >Optional: If the film is to be commercially processed, we suggest the >first frame of film be exposed to light so that commercial laboratory >film cutters may have an indexing point of reference. > >Attach a lens to the camera, or the camera to a telescope. Frame and >focus the object or the area to be photographed. Insure that any focus >lock (such as a drawtube lock screw on a telescope focuser) is set. > >Thread a primary camera cable release into the small socket at the >front panel on the camera body, (below the manual shutter release >button). When installed onto the camera, the primary cable release >should be unlocked (or relaxed) before it is thread into place. Set >the primary cable release selector to "lock"; this will hold the >shutter open when the primary cable release button is depressed. >Set the camera shutter speed adjustment dial to indicate "B". > > >Suggested option: Activate the mirror lock up by sliding the momentary >switch (located to the right of the bayonet mount) up. You will hear a >"click", then the focus screen will go black. > >Depress the primary camera cable release button. It should lock in the >depressed position. > >Trigger the camera shutter by gently pressing the shutter release >button. A secondary cable release may be employed to further reduce >any possibility of vibrating the system; if so the secondary cable >release selector should be set at the momentary (as opposed to lock) >position. > >To preserve battery life, now remove the battery or disconnect the >optional cold weather battery pack. As long as the primary cable >release is set, the shutter will remain open and the mirror will >remain up. > >To end an exposure, gently grasp and then unlock the primary shutter >cable release. > >Thank you, and we wish you a lifetime of enjoyment with your camera. >For information about other accessories for your telescope please call >us. > > > >Contents Copyright 1994-98 Company Seven All Rights Reserved
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
From: Scott Jorgenson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Is MF worth the effort?
rich long wrote:
> Ultimately, the answer must come from myself but I'm interested in other > opinions and suggestions... > > After shooting 35mm for 5 or 6 years, I recently bought a used Pentax > 6x7 and a couple of lenses (75mm f/4.5 and 150mm f/2.8). As usual, I'm > having a lot of fun with the photography process; mostly nature stuff > for my own entertainment. Although I have to think about the mechanics > more with the all-manual P67 gear than with Canon EOS equipment, I enjoy > that process also. > > However, my "keeper ratio" with the P67 is lower than with the 35mm. > Although I like the larger negative, that advantage seems to be offset > by a significant reduction in DOF, and a continual struggle to eliminate > the "shutter shake" inherent in the P67. My keeper ratio will improve > as I learn to use the averaging TTL meter more effectively, but I'm not > sure what to do about the shutter shake and DOF issues. I'm using > mirror lockup with a fairly substantial tripod and ballhead (Bogen 3021 > with Kirk BH-1), but my chromes still aren't as crisp as I'm used to > seeing. I'm beginning to wonder if I should sell the MF gear and put > the money back into Canon L lenses. > > Any thoughts? > > Rich Long
No comment on the DOF. But on the shutter shake issue...
My bet is that Rich isn't imagining things, nor using unreasonable
technique. The Pentax 67 and 67II really are more susceptible to
shutter-induced vibration than you would be led to expect by experience
with other SLRs.
Specifically, my personal experience has been that when the P67II and
200mm lens are used horizontally with the Bogen 3021 tripod and 3030 head,
unacceptable shutter vibration (ie, blurring which is readily noticeable
when the transparency is viewed under an 8X loupe) occurs on exposures
between 1/2 second or so, and 1/30 second or so, with the peak being in
the 1/8 to 1/15 range. The effect is less noticeable with the 135mm lens;
slight vibration seems to occur in about the 1/8 to 1/15 range only.
With the 55-100mm zoom, no blurring was noticeable. As these were my only
lenses, I have no data on other lenses. Interestingly, the effect occurred
only in the horizontal orientation; when mounted vertically, no
shutter-induced vibration was apparent. Of course, all these tests were
made with a cable release, mirror-lockup, and sufficient pauses between
exposures to allow vibrations from shutter return and film winding to die.
Similarly, the tripod post was not extended; the tripod legs were extended
to varying degrees and this did not seem to significantly affect the
results, nor did the surface on which the tripod was set (earth, stone,
cement, grass, etc).
My conclusion is that the torque of the shutter curtain, induced as the
shutter accelerates and decelerates horizontally (ie, perpendicular to the
force of gravity) is sufficient to perturb the camera given this Bogen
3021/3030 tripod/head combination. Such perturbations are slow enough
that they are not apparent at high shutter speeds (1/60 and faster) but of
short enough duration that they are likewise not apparent at slow shutter
speeds (1 second and slower). The greater the magnification (ie, the
greater the focal length), the more the blurring is magnified and hence
the more apparent and extreme the peaks, and the greater the extent across
the exposure range. When the camera is oriented vertically, though, the
torque is minimal to non-existent (since then the shutter
acceleration/deceleration is parallel with the force of gravity) so the
vibrations are less.
Anyway, I solved the problem by switching tripod and head to a sturdier
(ie, better-damping) platform: the Gitzo G1548 with G1572 head. This
tripod is a carbon-fiber construction, and overall weight is just couple
of pounds more than the Bogen combination. But it seems to be more than
adequate, and now I have no problems with shutter vibration using any of
the above lenses, in any camera orientation, at any shutter speed.
Hope this helps,
Scott
All opinions are my own.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: "Wayne D" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P67II Problems vs RZ vs P645
I owned an RB67 for fifteen years, and have owned a Pentax 67 for the past
two. The Pentax's shutter and mirror vibration is atrocious compared to
the RB/RZ. The first time I set the 67 off on a tripod it literally jumped
to the side. The RB was more easily handheld than the 67 - and I used the
5lb 45 degree prism on the RB. The contortions that you must perform with
your wrists in order to hold the Pentax to your eye for vertical shots are
slightly uncomfortable with a 35mm, they absolutely s*** with the Pentax.
The Mamiya is cradled in your hands at a level just below your chin, no
wrist contortions required. The Mamiya has full sync with flash and much
closer focusing with all lenses. If you're still interested in Pentax I
have mint gear that I'll be selling in the next two months on Ebay. After
I sell it I'll be buying Mamiya RZ equipment from Robert White in England
- the savings are incredible.
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/index.htm
"Dan" [email protected] wrote
> P67II Problems vs RZ vs Pentax 645 > I was thinking of getting the Pentax 67II camera but reading postings about > various problems has made me wary - the AE Prism is often off by 2/3 stop, > mirror and various body problems. Maybe it reflects start-up QC problems > with a new camera and they've been taken care of? Or does it reflect design > problems or lowering of quality at Pentax? Or maybe the frequency of > problems is actually lower than it seems? Maybe I should try to find the > previous model used in xlnt condition? > > Or, how about the Mamiya RZ - pay a lot more but not as many problems? Yes > it bigger / more clumsy, but wouldn't have to worry about shutter vibration. > I don't know how reliable it would be in the field though, and don't know > how the new RZ lenses compare to the P67 lenses. > > And, maybe downsize to the Pentax 645 or 645N. Uniformly high praise for > smooth operation and lack of shutter and mirror vibration. However I would > think that the smaller negative won't match 6x7 results when enlarged to > 16x20 or larger? Or, does a superior sharpness from the Pentax 645 make up > for that? > > Thanks in advance. > Dan
From: "Wayne D" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P67II Problems vs RZ vs P645
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
Also forgot to mention that the Pentax's prism only shows 85% of the image
- most annoying.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: John R Pierce [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Macro Question
DBR [email protected] wrote:
>Is there much difference in optical quality etc. between the >SMC version vs. the original Takumar version of the >Pentax 135mm f4 Macro lenses. I was thinking of buy one >used for my Pentax 67II system and would like to know the differences >before purchasing.
optically, the lenses are (as far as I know) identical. The
difference will be strictly in flare reduction on very high contrast
subjects (strong backlighting, etc). Pentax's old Super Takumar
coatings were excellent for their time, so the difference isn't that
big of a deal. Per labling there are actually three versions...
Super Takumar 6x7
Super Multi Coated Takumar 6x7
SMC Pentax 67
far as I know, in the case of the 135/4 Macro, the last two are
optically equivalent, the 'SMC Pentax' may have a plastic barrel
sleeve for weight.
-jrp
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: Paul Stimac [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Results: Pentax 67II $2700 gamble
I feel that I need to share this information since information I've read
from this group and others like it have been the source of some worry.
I just spent $2800 on a Pentax 67II outfit - that's a lot of money to
me. Before buying, I went back and forth between choosing the Pentax
67II or a Mamiya 7. I don't live in a big town so trying before buying
was not an option. I did my research on the net. At first I liked the
Pentax because of it's price, because it's an SLR (I have never used a
range finder) and because of the lens selection. But after reading
about it on this group and photo.net discussions, I had my fearfull
reservations. About the Mamiya 7, I didn't like the limited lens
selection ,the price of the lenses, the lack of close focusing , and the
lack of not being able to directly see the effects of a filter, though I
did like the idea of it having the sharpest lenses in the business.
Several news groupies said that you can't get sharp photo's with the
Pentax hand held, some said that you can't get sharp photo's from it
even on a tripod, some people had no problems with sharpness with or
without a tripod. .Although the Pentax lenses don't pencil out AS
sharp as the Mamiya 7's, they are in fact dang sharp too. In terms of
lines per mm and they are basically as sharp as all other MF lens out
there other than the Mamiya 6 & 7's. I really wanted to match the
relative focal lengths of my 8x10/4x5 lenses: 210mm - 1200mm. I could
do this with the Pentax not the Mamiya. I prefer using a tripod so the
lack of hand holding was no big deal. I was worried though about the
Pentax not being sharp on a tripod as some have said. I looked at some
pictures taken by William Garnett, hand held, out of a plane with a old
Pentax 6x7, and I'm guessing without the MLU. Very sharp. So I fearfully
decieded to get the 67II over the Mamiya 7 - it was a gamble - heck, I'm
from Nevada, gambling is in my blood, plus I really needed the lens
selection.
Well, I just got my first roll back. I hand held everything without
using the MLU, just to get a worst case scenerio. I used Fuji rdpIII
100 on a very overcast day. I used a 105mm lens and shutter speeds
ranged from 1/60 to 1/350. I'm very relieved to say that ALL THE SHOTS
came out tack sharp, even the shots at 1/60. They look as if I used a
tripod with the mirror up. I compared them to some pics I took with a
friends mamiya 645 pro. It's hard to say that one is sharper than the
other. I used an 8x loup to look at the pics. I took a picture of a
tower building. I can count all the radiatior lines in an air
conditioner on the 5th floor. With a naked eye, looking at the
transperency, you can't even tell that the air conditioner has radiator
lines. I can also read the name of its manufacturer or brand name
"Quasar" on the top of the machine. The entire air conditionar takes up
a little less than a millimeter on the transparency. The name is easily
1/10 of that. A very un-scientific test but it convinced me. I'm a
sharpness freak and I'm very happy with this camera.
About the other posts saying that this camera doesn't take sharp pics,
all I can suggest is that maybe they were accidentally focusing poorly.
I have the split screen and that doesn't come stock - with it, I know
that the focusing is accurate, I don't trust any of the other screens.
Maybe that's the difference. Also, some people said that they get
unsharp photos at 1/30, 1/15, and slower with the 105mm or 90mm lenses ,
well, I often get unsharp photos at those speeds with my Canon with a
50mm lens hand held. Hand holding, the rule of thumb that I learned was
not to hand hold any shutter speed slower than the reciprocal of the
focal length of your lens. Also left hand firmly cupped under the lens,
right hand firmly on right side, with entire camera pressed firmly
against your cheek bone, arms firmly against your side, aim and slowly
squeeze and continue to aim after the shutter has gone off. That worked
for me with this camera. It would be nice to have the curtainless,
mirrorless, Mamiya 7 and to hand hold 1/30 or 1/15 with an 80mm lens
which I believe is possible but I wouldn't trade that ability for the
limited selection of lenses it has, given that my test shots on the
Pentax 67II came out so sharp.
If you follow the rules with the Pentax 67II, you'll have no problem.
I'm more than happy with my purchase. My gamble paid off.
I hope this info helps a potential buyer,
Paul
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Lenses
Most often presented "complaints" here have been focal-plane shutter
with extremely limited choice of leaf-shutter lenses, slow flash-synch
speeds, and lack of interchangeable backs. The Pentax lenses are very
good optically, some exceptional. Believe there is a web-site that
purports to rate their lenses but I don't know name of it. Others?
The basic design has been around a LOOOOOONG time which means good
resale and good availability of used stuff and after-market add-ons.
There has also been much discussion about mirror slap and shutter shake
but, at least on my late-model units, these are non-issues -- neither
better nor worse than any other 6x7 model.
Overall built very strong and well. I've got two of them, but one of
my hot-buttons was astro-photo for which the Pentax has long been a
consensus favorite. For portraiture or other uses, I may have been
more attracted to other brands.
The latest model 67II is superior to the previous version in every way
but is more expensive -- not so much when you consider the built-in
features that used to cost quite a bit as factory modifications to the
previous versions. Old lenses still compatible.
"Ron" [email protected] wrote:
> The Pentax67 is an extremely economical choice for an MF camera. Useful > range of lenses, etc. My question is: is there a consensus about the lenses > at wide aperatures? Are they too soft? Are there other downsides to the > Pentax 67? > > RON
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Francois LEGROS [email protected]
[1] Re: Pentax 67 Lenses
Ron a �crit :
> The Pentax67 is an extremely economical choice for an MF camera. Useful > range of lenses, etc. My question is: is there a consensus about the lenses > at wide aperatures? Are they too soft? Are there other downsides to the > Pentax 67? > > RON
http://photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic=Medium%20Format%20Digest
&category=Pentax%2067
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Pentax%2067%20SLR
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/pentax67.html
http://www.foto.pentax.de/aktuell/_meldung/a0001700.lhtml
http://www.dnai.com/~hamish/pandemonia/reviews/pentax-67.html
Hope this helps.
Fran�ois.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/francois.legros
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001
From: Alan [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: RZ67 vs Mamiya 6 or 7 vs Pentax
Ron wrote:
> I've slighty narrowed my choices down to Mamiya 6 or 7 (at least for now). > But what about the Pentax 67? Is there a downside? It is very inexpensive. > What's the catch? > > RON
Ron,
I have a Pentax 67, which I like a lot, except:
-I often use a waist-level finder. Combine this with vertical shots, and it's kind of annoying. -Slow sync speed: I end up using reflectors for fill - I guess that's not really so annoying. -This isn't a wedding camera: too long to reload film, no fill flash.
My favorite things about the camera:
-TTL viewing: I get close with WA lenses a lot, which would be a framing problem with a RF. -Try to find WA lenses like the 45mm or 35mm for another 6x7 camera. Then look at the prices. -Simple and reliable. -Not _that_ heavy... compare to a motorized 35mm setup. -Did I mention the wide-angle lenses? -Lenses are inexpensive, because they don't have shutters.
I had an old Mamiya rangefinder for a while, and I always forgot to focus.
I like to frame things very accurately (using the film borders as part of
the composition), which is very difficult without TTL viewing.
Good luck,
Alan
http://home.bendcable.com/lunadesign
From: "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Results: Pentax 67II $2700 gamble
I have found no problems with shooting handheld with the Pentax 67 at
speeds of 1/125 or greater. I have also gotten fine images at 1/60. That
said this camera is happier on a tripod with the mirror locked. My
experiences with the 45, 55(n) the 105 and 200(n) are excellent. I have
used the 200 with the 1/4 converter and it is sharp wide open. Negatives
are very sharp under a 10x and 15x loupe, with fine detail very well
rendered. The 35 is o.k but not optically as good as the others; nor so
far is the 135. (I believe there is some considerable variation from lens
to lens, so test carefully.) Now there is shutter shake with longer lenses
e.g. the 400 F4, even with the camera on a tripod and the mirror locked.
It appears to arise with shutter speeds under 1/250. I shoot B&W and 35mm
did not give me the quality I needed to make large grainless prints. The
67 fits my need very well and I am very glad I purchased the system.
...
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 29 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: P67 fisheye on P645?
> I'm pretty sure the 645 manual states the P67 fisheye can not be used on > the 645.
Not so. This is the official response from Pentax:
The Pentax Adapter 645 for 67 Lenses will work with the 67 35mm fisheye
lens. The only 67 lenses the adapter cannot be used with are the 75mm
shift, 90 & 165mm leaf shutter lenses, and all 400mm or larger lenses. It
also cannot be used with the 645 & 67 Rear Converters. The adapter allows
Aperture Priority and Manual exposure modes to be used on the 645, and
will retain open-aperture metering.
-G
From: "strawberry9" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Differences between Pentax 67 I and II
...
> Since there are relatively often offers at eBay concerning Pentax 67 bodies > and lenses, often in a complete set, I would like to know the differences > between the older series and the newer 67 II.
A big difference IF you want to use the 67 like your EOS. I have the 67
II and an EOS set up and without the new AE prism for the 67II it would be
really difficult to do action, photojournalism, etc. especially in highly
variable lighting. Plus the 67II handles fairly well with the redesigned
ergonomics.
BUT, if you are going to do landscapes then that doesn't matter, as you'll
probably want to use the pop up (waist level) finder to see 100% of the
frame (which the prisms don't give you.) A MLU Pentax 67 with waist
level, and a 90mm lens, is a cost effective way into the wonderful world
of those large 6x7 negatives!
[snip]
> How is the quality of medium format lenses compared to the quality of good > 35mm lenses?
Many comments on the web about this. It is easier to make a good small
lens vice a good large lens, just because of the nature of making glass.
The range-finder lenses (e.g. for Mamiya 6) are thought to be among the
best lenses anywhere, while there are plenty of bad lenses on Chinese
TLRs. So it's the same as for 35mm, you can get anything from fantastic
to horrible.
Here are some links for you:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Pentax%2067%20SLR
http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/pentax67/lens-info.html
-dan
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 15 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Medium format cameras
Don Allen [email protected] wrote:
> For example, Pentax now makes a couple of > zooms that cover a good range of focal lengths.
The only 6x7 zoom they make is a 55-100 (I think). They do have a couple
of excellent zooms for the 645, which I own. Here's a quick overview for
those interested:
Lenses: 45-85/4.5 and 80-160/4.5, manual focus versions
These lenses give you coverage from 45mm (approx. 28mm in 35mm terms) to
160mm (approx. 105mm in 35mm terms), which is very useful for most
landscape and portrait work.
Pros:
- Two lenses cover large range
- Both lenses focus very close (1.65' for the 45-85, 3.3' for the 80-160)
- closer than some primes in that range (like the 150/3.5)
- Sharpness is virtually indistinguishable from primes in most of the
range
- Fixed aperture accross entire zoom range (in both lenses)
- Very smooth and easy handling
- Minimum aperture of f/32 on both lenses (not recommended, but nice to
have)
- Both lenses have same filter size and can share filters.
- Pentax's SMC delivers excellent color and handles flare very well - I
use my
lenses with no hoods most of the time and have not had a problem.
- Compared to other medium format brands and considering the range they
cover, these lenses are very affordable and are probably the best deal
around
for such a flexible 6x4.5 outfit
Cons:
- Large and heavy lenses
- Relatively slow maximum aperture (f/4.5)
- 80-160 focus creeps when pointed down (on my sample)
- 45-85 very sensitive to dust (twice now I had grains of dust interfere with
the zoom ring)
- Front of lens turns when focusing (makes using polarizer a bit
uncomfortable)
- Lack of DOF scales (it's beyond me why such a useful and easy to
implement
feature is lacking in many modern lenses)
- 77mm filters are not the cheapest
I have not done any "scientific" testing, these are just my notes from
using these lenses in the field. I did use them under a wide variety of
conditions (from tropical rainforests to desert sand dunes) and quite
intensively and so far they have not let me down.
Hope this helps,
-G
http://spyra.com
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From: Scott Jorgenson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is MF worth the effort?
Brian Ellis wrote (in response to my posting):
> If you're getting unsharp pictures using the P67 with mirror lock up and a > decent tripod, there's something wrong somewhere.
..snip...
Agreed - though the P67 puts greater demands on what constitutes a "decent
tripod" than many people, such as myself, would have anticipated, given
prior
experience with other MF SLRs.
As I documented in my posting, the Bogen 3021 and 3030 are not a decent
tripod/head combination for the P67 when used with the camera orientation,
lenses and shutter speeds I noted, despite good technique. In contrast,
the Gitzo G1548 and G1572 are. I stand by this conclusion from the
exhaustive tests I did with over 20 rolls of 120 and dozens of
combinations of shutter speed, camera orientation, tripod extension,
lenses I own, mirror-lockup, etc.
If you've never had problems, this is probably because you have, from the
get-go, been using a decent tripod/head combination given your P67 lenses
and shutter speeds. I can't think of any other explanation for the
discrepancy in our experiences.
...snip...
> In any event, I think most users > of this system would tell you that it produces extremely sharp pictures most > of the time when used on a tripod and particuarly with mirror lock up at > slower speeds so the problem isn't inherent in the camera and lenses.
Yes - with the stipulation that we're talking about a tripod decent-enough
for the P67 (and that's a taller order for a tripod/head combo than many
people are used to). In my view, the P67 is just a demanding camera, but
the demands can be met. Despite my problems with it, I'm still satisfied
- now that I've got a more appropriate tripod/head platform which can
deliver the extremely sharp pictures which, I agree, the P67 is fully
capable of.
Scott
Date: 12 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 6711
Robin Coutts [email protected] wrote:
> I am slightly put off by talk of unsharp pictures, dodgy shutter > curtains etc.
I heard all that before buying my P67. I also heard many words of
encouragement from pros who actually used it and decided to go ahead and
get it. I'm glad I did! I do mostly landscape and it's rare for me to use
a shutter speed faster than 1/15. I always shoot from a sturdy tripod
(with Kirk head), always use MLU and my images are tack-sharp. Even 1:1
macros. The camera is heavy and the mirror and shutter are large but a
good tripod and consistent use of MLU will eliminate any effect these
might have on your image. I suspect the unsharp results reported by some
are due to lack of proper support.
The P67II is said to have a much-improved shutter so your chances of
seeing unsharp results are even lower.
The Pentax SMC lenses are fantastic and available in great selection and
good prices on the used market.
The biggest drawback in my opinion is the lack of interchangeable backs so
shooting multiple film types at the same time is a hassle. On the other
hand the large back keeps the film flatter than any other 6x7.
The camera will accept both 120 and 220 formats (just shift the pressure
plate and turn a knob to make the counter go higher).
Hope this helps,
-G
http://spyra.com
From: [email protected] (Ppestis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: Pentax 6711
>The biggest drawback in my opinion is the lack of interchangeable backs so >shooting multiple film types at the same time is a hassle. On the other hand >the large back keeps the film flatter than any other 6x7.
Thats what nobody ever really mentions !! The Pentax pressure plate keeps
the film flatter than any other medium format camera. So what you may
think you are getting in a more expensive lens with other MF systems, you
can lose with a film back that can't hold the film flat. A good used
Pentax body is so cheap you can buy another body instead of a film back.
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Bill Baker [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pentax 6711
Robin Coutts [email protected] wrote:
>I am thinking of buying the new 67II as a hand usable camera. At present I >use a Linhof supertech 6 x 9, but cannot use this for a forthcoming trip to >Greece. I am slightly put off by talk of unsharp pictures, dodgy shutter >curtains etc.
Well, you're going to hear the usual round of P67 trashing re. shutter
shake. Most of that criticism is specific to the pre-67II models,
though, and most really applies to tripod "ring". Due to mirror slap
being much reduced, unsharpness due to camera/support vibration in the
1/8-1/2 sec shutter range are a lot better with the 67II. Still a cut
below other MF systems at those speeds, though.
OTOH, shutter shake isn't really an issue when working handheld.
Perversely, the P67 is most popular as a landscape camera and most
system users use it handheld very little. I did buy my 67II kit for
handheld shooting and I'm quite happy with it. The biggest drawbacks
for working off the tripod are the slow flash sync and that the size
and sound of the shutter firing make it a poor camera for inobtrusive
street shooting.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Hasselblad X-Pan
Greg L. wrote:
> The Pentax 67 is > almost useless in most handheld situations (mirror slap and weight).
This would come as a big surprise to a number of the photographers I know
who have put together extensive bodies of work using Pentax 67's handheld
for many years. Ctein and Jim Sherwood come immediately to mind, and
there's a _National Geographic_ photographer, Brown Cannon, who does
photojournalistic-style work using a P67. See for instance:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0101/panama_photo2.html
For Ctein's work see:
http://www.plaidworks.com/ctein/
I have a 20x24 Sherwood print in my collection that was taken handheld
with a P67 and it's sharp-as-shit.
Also, you can take the prism off a P67, balance a nickel on its edge on
top of the focusing screen, and fire the shutter. The nickel won't move.
Try it. So much for mirror slap.
--Mike
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: [email protected] (George Pappas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Vibration worries
Glyn,
This was and is an issue with the Pentax 6x7. The problem is not with
tripod-mounted work with the mirror locked up. The problem is that
many cannot hand-hold the camera at speeds less than 1/125 and get
sharp images. The combination of mirror-return slap and big focal
plane shutter movement make the Pentax 6x7 harder to hand hold than a
6x7 leaf shutter camera without an instant-return mirror (Mamiya RZ,
Bronica GS).
I purchased this camera and did a controlled comparison between tripod
and hand-held shooting (same target, close distance, 200mm lens to
accentuate any shake). The results showed me that I could not
hand-hold the camera below 1/125 and be happy with the results. I
returned the camera and got a Bronica GS system that I love.
The Pentax is a great system, but if you want to hand-hold it at slow
speeds, you should buy it from an outfit that gives you a return
priviledge and test it for yourself.
Regards,
George
"Glyn Shakeshaft" [email protected] wrote:
>I am on the verge of purchasing a 67II but am still very nervous about >shutter/mirror vibration problems that used to dog the previous model, has >anyone any direct knowledge as to whether this is any better with the MkII ? >If I had to look at other 6x7 makes what might people suggest as an >alternative, I want to use it for landscape and outdoor stuff generally. >Am I making a costly mistake ??
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs. 645
"Ladagency" [email protected] wrote
> You want a flat film plane and you will > be shooting at infinity, . . . so why the SLR?
William Garnett, who has taking aerial photos for over 50 years, says the
Pentax 6x7 has the flattest film plane of any camera (120 or above) he
knows of. That's why he uses a Pentax 6x7. Most 120 cameras with
are notorious for not having absolutely flat film planes because they wind
the film backwards from the natural curl of the film. Remember that he
often shoots at wide open apertures with minimal depth of field.
Another interesting point that I have heard some people make is that a
Pentax 6x7 body costs about the same (or less) than a Hassy film back. I
don't know if he looks though the viewfinder or just aims the camera, but
I don't think the "SLR" part is the issue.
From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@/"NoSpam>"/snip.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 late lenses vs older lenses Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 The MF digest has a huge thread about favorite lenses for the Pentax 67. Search the Medium Format Digest Archives using the exact phrase "Pentax 6x7 lens recommendations" -- Tom Bloomer Hartly, DE "Jim Gizzi" [email protected]> wrote: >Interested in knowing the differences between the newer (late) Pentax 67 >lenses and the older ones. I am guessing better multicoatings, don't know >if that's right or not. > >Anyone care to share some info in this regard? > >Thanks, > >Jim > There was quite a bit of info on this a while back in the Medium Format Digest. You should be able to find some good info in their archives. My recollection of this discussion was that there wasn't too much difference until you got to the total re-designs and freshest, modern release models. I also recall a concensus that the 165 LS wasn't quite up to the new 165 non-LS. There are references to sites with MTF charts on their optics, too. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com
From: George Stocking [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Final answer: Bronica Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 I have a GS-1 through which I use full time, running many thousands of rolls over a 13 year period. The backs will develop spacing problems after a thousand roll or so, easily repaired. This spacing failure is endemic to any camera with interchangable backs. OTOH, I have never had a light leak in any of the 3 backs that I own. As for non-interchangable-back cameras having less problems, I would think that would depend on the camera. The P67 for instance, has a well documented problem on the take-up winder mechanism. They claimed it was stregnthened when the P67II came out, but I have seen a few (2) angry users in the the field that would indicate the contrary.... http://georgestocking.com Wilt W wrote: > Another problem is the reliability of filmbacks for Bronica, although they > are prone to lightleaks, and other failures, with the price of a Hassy back > I can buy two bron backs, now the probability of me having no usable film > back is p-squared. (so small that perhaps even smaller than p of hassy > backs).>> > > Any pro will tell you that one of the Hassy's weaknesses are its backs, > too. Few interchangeable back cameras have the reliability of a > non-interchangeable back camera! It's the nature of the beast, not good vs. > bad design. > > --Wilt
From: Tony Clark [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: difference between Pentax 67II and 67 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 Chan, The old 67 is susceptible to film advance problems. At over $200. and a week for repairs you will not find much value in the 67. The 67II is the updated version with an integrated grip and a new film advance system. In over two years, my 67II never had a problem. Go with the 67II and have confidence in the durability.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: difference between Pentax 67II and 67 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 I've had a Pentax 67 for about six years (bought it new). I don't use it very much since most of my work for the last several years has been done with 4x5 and 8x10. In the six years I've had it the film advance system has malfunctioned three times. The first time was about a week after the warranty expired. Fortunately I was at home at the time and so the down time for repair wasn't a problem. The second time was a couple years later. I had just arrived in Arches National Park from Florida, made one photograph, and the film advance system went out a second time. I was lucky to find a Moab professional who used the Pentax 67 and I was able to rent his for the week so the trip wasn't ruined. That time I had it repaired by the factory when I returned home. The third time was last May, when I was at the end of the first week of a three week photography vacation to Virginia and California. With no way to have the camera repaired in the middle of the trip, I ended up buying a second Pentax 67 by mail order to my motel so that the remaining two weeks of the trip wouldn't be a washout. So now I have two Pentax 67s, which I think is a good idea anyhow. since I can use the older one as a backup but it certainly wasn't what I was planning when I first bought the camera. I love the camera, love the lenses, everything about it is great as far as I'm concerned and I know many people don't have problems with the film advance mechanism but if they have really improved it with the 67 II, I'd opt for it despite the higher price. "Chan Chiu" [email protected]> wrote > I found the price between new Pentax 67II and old Pentax 67 is quite > different. The old one is around 40% cheaper than the new one. I really want > to know what's the difference between two bodies? If I go for the old one, > what kind of functions I will miss? > > Thanks in advance, > > Chan
From: [email protected] (Bob Gurfinkel) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 31 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: pentax 67 question >I want to know how people thing of the pentax 6x7 camera. >What are benefits compaired to 6x6 cameras like bronica S series >F.e. is it possible to look om top through a finder or just like 35mm only >from behind. Is is easy to handle, can 120 and 220 films be inserted. Positives: Large, 6x7, negative Very sharp lenses Relatively inexpensive If you carry one they'll think you're good Negatives: Very heavy Very noisy No flash sync past 1/15 sec No interchangeable backs Prism gives only 87% of image area Bob G.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: Andrew Koenig [email protected]> Subject: Re: pentax 67 question Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Bob> No flash sync past 1/15 sec 1/30, actually. -- Andrew Koenig, [email protected], http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
From: "MAF" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: pentax 67 question Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 > Hi, > > I want to know how people thing of the pentax 6x7 camera. > What are benefits compaired to 6x6 cameras like bronica S series > F.e. is it possible to look om top through a finder or just like 35mm only > from behind. Is is easy to handle, can 120 and 220 films be inserted. > > Thanks. The Pentax 6x7 has several interchangeable viewfinders. You can use a pentaprism finder (with or without metering built-in) just like a 35mm SLR camera. Or you can use the folding focusing hood finder whereby you look down from the top of the camera (the image is right-side-up but is reversed left-to-right). The camera takes 120 or 220 film (by adjusting the film pressure plate when the camera back is opened), but does not have interchangeable backs (only one roll at a time just like a 35mm SLR). If you make rectangular prints (8x10, 11x14, etc.) as opposed to square prints, the 6x7 (56mm x 70mm negative size) gives you a much larger effective negative size than a 6x6 (56mm x 56mm negative size) camera.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: pentax 67 question Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 Two corrections: (1) the synch speed is 1/30th, not 1/15th; and (2) the viewing area, according to the instruction book, is approximately 90%, not 87%, with three of the view finders and 100% with the waist level finder. "Bob Gurfinkel" [email protected]> wrote... > >I want to know how people thing of the pentax 6x7 camera. > >What are benefits compaired to 6x6 cameras like bronica S series > >F.e. is it possible to look om top through a finder or just like 35mm only > >from behind. Is is easy to handle, can 120 and 220 films be inserted. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------- > Positives: > Large, 6x7, negative > Very sharp lenses > Relatively inexpensive > If you carry one they'll think you're good > > Negatives: > Very heavy > Very noisy > No flash sync past 1/15 sec > No interchangeable backs > Prism gives only 87% of image area > > Bob G.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: pentax 67 question Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 I've used a Pentax 67 for about six years and like it a lot for what I do (landscape, architecture, close ups of objects) and nature). It's economical (compared to most other medium format systems), the lenses are great, it's simple to use, it has a variety of view finders (yes, there is one that can be used at waist level and yes, it takes both 120 and 220 film). However, I rarely use flash (so that the low synch speed isn't important to me), I only use one kind of film and can take my time with reloading (so that the lack of interchangeable backs isn't important to me), and I don't go on hikes longer than a day (so that the weight isn't critical). If that's more or less your situation then I think the Pentax 67 would be an excellent choice. But if you use flash a lot, need to be able to quickly change films, or like to go on overnight or longer hikes, a smaller, lighter camera that has faster flash synch would probably be a better choice. "Willie Jan Bons" [email protected]> wrote > Hi, > > I want to know how people thing of the pentax 6x7 camera. > What are benefits compaired to 6x6 cameras like bronica S series > F.e. is it possible to look om top through a finder or just like 35mm only > from behind. Is is easy to handle, can 120 and 220 films be inserted. > > Thanks. >
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 Subject: [HUG] focal plane shutter thoughts From: George Day [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Folks, Yesterday I mentioned this recent review of the P67II on luminous-landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pentax67ii.htm The discussion of tripod/ballhead use and its effects with a large focal plane shutter is dramatic. I'm wondering: has anyone done a comparison of this kind with the longer FE lenses? Or even the 110?
From: "Geoff Bryant" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Vibration worries Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 "Stephe" [email protected]> wrote... > George Pappas wrote: > > > Glyn, > > > > The combination of mirror-return slap and big focal > > plane shutter movement make the Pentax 6x7 harder to hand hold than a > > 6x7 leaf shutter camera without an instant-return mirror (Mamiya RZ, > > Bronica GS). > > I'd be interested in hearing an explaination of how the mirror returning > however violently can affect the image since the shutter has already closed. > > -- > > Stephe > Exactly, it's the noise that the mirror makes on return that seems to scare people, but by then it's all over anyway. Set a Pentax 67II to its longest manual shutter speed, 4 seconds, lock up the mirror and wait for a second for any vibrations to die. Now fire the shutter. Do you hear or feel anything other than a faint click? That the shutter makes a noise when it closes or that the mirror returns with a thump are of no consequence to the image. I couldn't be happier with my Pentax 67II, but then 99% of the time it's on a solid Manfrotto 268 head atop a Gitzo 1349 tripod. Hand-holding it is a different matter, but I reckon you could get away with shutter speeds roughly equal to 1 over the focal length of the lens. I've taken handheld shots at 1/125 with the 135mm macro that look fine to me. Geoff Bryant Geoff Bryant
From: "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: P67 Lens Question Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 At B&H the price difference is not great, although it had been larger in the past. The 45mm is an original design, the 55mm the third time around. Also note that deltainternational.com sells the same lens at far less than B&H, but they will not take it back if you don't like the image quality. (Lenses vary in quality from sample to sample, and Pentax lenses vary a lot.) I have both and tend to the 55mm. It is one of the sharpest lens I have used, and fine detail is excellently rendered. That is not to say the 45 is a bad lens. It is a fine lens also. "DR" [email protected]> wrote... > Just curious to find out why a new 45mmf4 lens for the Pentax 67 is cheaper > than the 55mmf4. In 35mm a 20 is more than a 24, the 24 more than the 28 > etc (when the max/ap is the same). I have a 55 and was thinking about > adding the 45 and was surprised to see it advertised slightly below the > 55... > > David
From: "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: P67 Lens Question Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 If I singled out Pentax, perhaps it was unfair, but lenses do vary in quality from sample to sample and the variations can be significant. My worst experience did occur with a Pentax 67 lens. I had a 200(N) which was bought new from B&H when I first got my system. I did not use the lens much when new. When I really starting using it, it became clear that it was not so hot. I sold it off. I then bought a used one with a return privilege. It was like night and day. the 200 I have now is among the sharpest lenses I have ever used. But since that experience, I test every lens I buy. "Brian Ellis" [email protected]> wrote... > I'm curious about the basis for your statement that Pentax lenses vary a lot > in quality. Which focal length Pentax lenses of the same model have you used > that have varied widely in quality? I've had quite a few 6x7 lenses and they > have been uniformly excellent. > "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected]> wrote > > At B&H the price difference is not great, although it had been larger in > the > > past. The 45mm is an original design, the 55mm the third time around. Also > > note that deltainternational.com sells the same lens at far less than B&H, > > but they will not take it back if you don't like the image quality. > (Lenses > > vary in quality from sample to sample, and Pentax lenses vary a lot.) I > have > > both and tend to the 55mm. It is one of the sharpest lens I have used, and > > fine detail is excellently rendered. That is not to say the 45 is a bad > > lens. It is a fine lens also. > > > > "DR" [email protected]> wrote... > > > Just curious to find out why a new 45mmf4 lens for the Pentax 67 is > > cheaper > > > than the 55mmf4. In 35mm a 20 is more than a 24, the 24 more than the > 28 > > > etc (when the max/ap is the same). I have a 55 and was thinking about > > > adding the 45 and was surprised to see it advertised slightly below the > > > 55... > > > > > > David
From: "maf" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: first lens for Pentax 67 Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 > >Hello, I have purchased a used Pentax 67 body and will now have to choose my > >first lens (cannot afford more for the moment): > > > >I cannot really decide between a 55mm or one of the normals, 90 or 105mm. I > >will need it for everything, landscape, "cityscapes" and maybe some > >portrait. > >1. Which one will best suit my needs. > >2. Of teh 2 normals, which one might be of better quality. > > > >Greetings Bernhard > > > Go with the 105mm, it's a tack sharp lens you can get fairly inexpensively on > e-bay. I also like the 45mm for landscape (kinda like a 28mm in 35.) The 105mm is not the sharpest Pentax 6x7 lens. See the following web site for an evaluation of Pentax lenses. http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html If I had only one lens for the 6x7, it would be the 75mm. But if you want a "normal lens" then the 90mm is much sharper than the 105mm in every evaluation I have ever seen.
From: John Halliwell [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Lenses; SMC Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 Michael E. Gordon [email protected]> writes >Thanks for answering my question. I don't want to sound dense, but just to >be sure, there are no Takumar's that are multi-coated; is that correct? I'm not familiar with P67 history (more about 35mm), but that's a big statement. I seem to recall that Asahi may have used SMC coatings before they started to market the lenses as 'SMC' (circa 1971). There certainly appears to be 'SMC Takumars' in the 35mm line, although I'm not sure how the actual lenses are marked. I have one reference I can't confirm, suggesting the SMC coating was used from 1968 (pretty much the start of the P6x7 from what I can find). If you've a good eye and know what you're looking for (reflections wise), you might be able to tell by looking at the reflections of a light source in the front element as you change the angle. I'm just guessing here, but someone might know what to look for? I hope this helps and doesn't confuse anyone! -- John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From: "eMeL" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Lenses; SMC Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 The Pentax 6x7 lenses were marked in the following way: Takumar/6x7 and Super-Takumar/6x7 (most likely single coating but some say that these lenses were multi-coated from the git go) from 1969 to ca. 1971 >From ca. 1971 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and SMC Takumar - multi coated for sure. (Later the name Takumar was dropped in favor of Pentax.) I have a Pentax 6x7 brochure from circa 1972 and it sports lenses marked "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar/6x7" which are referred to in the text as "SMC Takumar/6x7." Only two lenses in that brochure are marked as "Takumar/6x7" (Takumar/6x7 4/800 and Reflex-Takumar/6x7 8/1000.) In my experience with Takumar lenses, unless it says "SMC" or "Super-Multi-Coated"on the lense - the lense in question is single coated, but I may be wrong... Hope that helps. Michael Michael E. Gordon [email protected]> wrote... > I just purchased a very clean 75mm Pentax 67 lens from Adorama's Used Dept. > It was listed as SMC, and the invoice/packing slip shows SMC, yet there are > no markings on the lens indicating SMC; just "Super-Takumar/6x7" and the > other usual markings. > > Did Asahi Optical make a 75mm SMC that is NOT marked (on the lens itself) as > "SMC" (in the case of what I received). If not, then Adorama has incorrectly > identified/sold this lens to me. > > Thanks for your help. > > Michael
From: [email protected] (Roy L. Jacobs) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: LENS TESTING PROCEEDURE ? Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 Do you want to actually test the lens? If so you better have a whale of a tripod and a Wimberly head. Also you need a Bogen long lens attachment to go from the tripod leg to the camera. You can attach an Arca Swiss QR to the Bogen also. Then pick a film (my choice t-max 100) and shoot 2-3 shots at each f-stop with the mirror locked up. My favorite targets are signage with lots of small detail. The camera must be at right angles to the target. Develop the film, no contact sheet needed and view the film under 10x, 15x and 22x loupes. The image should be sharp at 10x in the shade and 15x in the sun. sometimes it goes to 22x in sharpness. I have tested the 400EDIF, but not with the Wimberly, which I want to buy, and that lens is very sharp. However, it appears the lollypop tripod heads (I have an NPC) do not get around the Pentax 67 shutter vibration problem. The Wimberly should significantly reduce that problem. It appears that no lollypop head can do what the Wimberly does, but of course this is the experence of others, as I have not tried it yet. [email protected] wrote: >Would someone please tell me the criteria for testing the performance of a >large telephoto lens ? Pentax ( the manufacturer ) says it has no test >data on this lens ( 800 MM f/6.7 ). Thanks. > >Robert G Smith
From: [email protected] (Michael Reichmann) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Pentax 67 400mm f/4 ED(IF) Test & Comparison Date: 3 Mar 2002 I have just published a test of the Pentax 67's 400mm f/4 ED(IF), including some examples from a wildlife shoot in Yellowstone National Park. The report includes a comparison with the 600mm f/4 and also with the new 300mm f/4 ED(IF) used with a 1.4X Extender. The lens review is found at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/p400ed.htm and the comparison test at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/3-4-6-comp.htm Michael
[Ed. note: how about a 300mm f/4.5 pentax 35mm SLR to 6x7cm Pentax conversion?...] From Medium Format Mailing List: Date: 20 Mar 2002 From: Pistol Pete [email protected] Subject: Re: [medium-format] Can anyone help me with a pentax 500mm mounted on a medium format camera? If you look at a picture of the end of the lens.. you can see there is a series of rings that can be removed. >From what I have read, and what I was told. You can remove the end section (it has a bayonet type mount under the closest knurl to the rear element) then a bayonet type 6x7 adapter can be used. this was a pentax part number. If you look on the net you can see various remarks as to the following pentax 6x7 with 500mm/4.5 lens there was never a 4.5 lens for 6x7 format only the 5.6 ...
From: "Jason Lewis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 II Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 Hello, I got Pentax 67 II about 3 months ago and I've been really happy with it. This is my first medium format camera, so take that into account with my comments. I'd welcome any comments or corrections from anyone. Here are comments about two presumed weaknesses about this camera: 1. Slow 1/60th Flash Sync: I think that as long as you are using strong flashes then it's OK to hand hold shots using a 200mm lens. I made some hand held modelling shots using studio flashes and they seemed just as sharp as the shots on the tripod. I suspect that hand held fill flash may cause ghosting, but strong flash appears to freeze the image just fine. In theory, the 165mm LS lense would allow you to take hand-held fill flash shots, though unfortunately, the auto flash metering doesn't work with LS lenses. Unless you have a third arm to hold a separate meter, then hand held fill flash is impractical with this camera. 2. Non-Removable/Non-Rotatable Film Back: - Can't change film midroll: A 120 roll only holds 10 6x7 shots, so you don't have to shoot too many photos before you have to change film anyway. - Can't quickly swap put a polaroid back in order to test the flash illumination: This is a bummer, but it's not critical. A club member uses a digital camera with a hot shoe to test flash illumination, so that may be an option that is cheaper than buying a more expensive MF camera that allows this. - Can't rotate the back. This is another bummer, but it's not critical. It's a non-issue with hand held shots, and a mild inconvenicence on a tripod. I love the camera and the 6x7 format. Jason See Astrophotos at http://www.nomoon.org
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 Subject: Re: Differences between Pentax 67 I and II From: Bill Baker [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Axel Farr [email protected] wrote: >Yes, I thought about that too. But to me, the 6x4.5cm format seems not so >much an advantage versus 35mm - I rather would go to 6x6 or 6x7cm. That was the significant issue for me when I upgraded from 35mm to MF a year and a half ago. The 645's have more features and weigh less One big difference between the P67 and the 67II is sound. The shutter/mirror machinations of a P67 sound like a gearshift in my old '64 Econoline: "Kachunk-CHUNK!" The sound of a 67II is not appreciably louder than a 35mm SLR in most conditions. Unfortunately, people still spot it as an unusual and/or pro camera all the time. I figured the 35mm styling of the 67II would be a big advantage for candid street photography, but no dice on that. Shooting at a drag race, even half-drunk redneck gearheads would take one look at me and ask, "Who ya' shootin' fer, Sports Illustrated?"
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 II Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 The principal problem with the slow 1/60 second flash synch on Pentax 67 cameras isn't so much the difficulty of hand holding the camera (since it's the speed of the flash that's important, not the speed of the shutter, and since the flash is infinitely fasther than the shutter speed) as it is the effect on depth of field. With such a slow flash synch, a very small aperture is often necessary in order to obtain the correct exposure. The small aperture results in great depth of field, making it difficult or impossible to throw the background out of focus.
From: Tony Clark [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 II Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 The top flash sync of the 67II is 1/30 of a second. Unless you are using the 165LS or the discontinued 90LS lenses. I bought two of the 67II bodies when I moved up from the Mamiya 645 Pro to the 67 format. The previous 6x7 and 67 bodies were notorious for film advance problems and the repairs were around $200. The problem seems to have been eliminated with the 67II. I am very pleased with the 67II and own both leaf shutter lenses in order to get around the 1/30 sync speed. Since the 67II has eliminated the film transport problems, I don't need the second body. If you are interested in it drop me a note. TC
From: "Denny Wong" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 third aprty lenses Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 I have seen Kiev 88 lenses and Carl Zeiss Jena for Pentacon 6 adapted to Pentax 67 mount. For the CZJ lenses that is limited to Tele range meaning above 120mm lens. These all require precision machine work. On the extreme end, I know a Hong Kong camera tech who specialized in changing Pentax 67 mount into HB C/CF mount permanently. He told me he has adapted a set of Rollei SL66 lenses into Pentax 67 mount before with a great deal of effort (focusing barrel has to be made). If money is no object anything can be done but why? Cheers, Denny ... > I wonder if there are any lenses other than Pentax that adapt to the > Pentax body. Do Mamiya, Rollei, HB, Bronica, etc. lenses fit? > > regards > Xosni
From medium format digest: Date: 20 Mar 2002 From: Pistol Pete [email protected] Subject: Re: Can anyone help me with a pentax 500mm mounted on a medium format camera? If you look at a picture of the end of the lens.. you can see there is a series of rings that can be removed. >From what I have read, and what I was told. You can remove the end section (it has a bayonet type mount under the closest knurl to the rear element) then a bayonet type 6x7 adapter can be used. this was a pentax part number. If you look on the net you can see various remarks as to the following pentax 6x7 with 500mm/4.5 lens there was never a 4.5 lens for 6x7 format only the 5.6
From: [email protected] (Michael Reichmann) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Pentax 67 2X Extender vs. 1.4X Test Report Date: 17 Apr 2002 I have just published a test of the Pentax 67's 2X Extender vs. the 1.4X Extender. The test was done with the Pentax 400mm f/4 ED(IF) lens. What made the test interesting as well as problematic was the expected Pentax 67 problems of shutter vibration, and the need for approriate support when shooting with such very long lens combinations (800mm). http://www.luminous-landscape.com/p-ext.htm Michael The Luminous Landscape
From: "Art Begun" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 - date of production vs serial number? Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 The big thing you want is mirror lock up. Even if you don't use it, Pentax no longer services models without it so there must have been a major mechanism change. "iczek" [email protected] wrote > Hi everybody ! > I'd like to ask you some questions about Pentax 6x7 - which I'm going to > buy. > > 1. Is the serial number linked somehow with date of production in Pentax > 6x7 > (old version). I don't know how to recognize 'fresh' one (not from 1970 :) ) > If yes - what are the rules? > > 2. Is it true, that Pentax 67 II break-down more often then old version. The > local service warned me about this. They sold five of them to local newspaper > and all of them came back five times to service.(??) > thanks for yur help. > > Pozdrawiam... > piotr biegaj, iczek > > http://republika.pl/iczek
From: [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 - date of production vs serial number? Date: 26 May 2001 iczek [email protected] wrote: > 1. Is the serial number linked somehow with date of production in Pentax > 6x7 > (old version). I don't know how to recognize 'fresh' one (not from 1970 :) ) > If yes - what are the rules? The 6x7 line is as follows: * Body marked "6x7", no MLU (don't get these, they are no longer serviced) * Body marked "6x7", with MLU * Body marked "67" (all have MLU) - same as previous but some parts converted to plastic for lighter weight. * 67II Your best bet for the older style camera is the one marked "67". -G http://spyra.com
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 From: Milburne Drysdale [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: which Pentax 67 lens to buy I like the newest 67 before the 67II. There were improvements with each body change. The 105mm is a swell lens which I use daily just as I used a 50mm lens on my Nikons. It sorta does everything and is very fast & sharp: even wide open it's pretty good (I shoot many handheld available-light fun environmental portraits with it wide-open at 1/30 on TriX) with low flare. The 45mm has absolutely no "fisheye" curvature: it is a highly corrected rectilinear lens. The newer ones at least are extraordinarily sharp. The 35mm is a full-frame fisheye. This means that it curves any line which doesn't run throught the exact center of the picture. Also a quite sharp lens, it has many devoted fans (although I'm not one of them). The flash limitation of 1/30 sync is a great problem to those who shoot flash outdoors in the sunlight. In those conditions it must always be major consideration. In all other conditions, I've never needed to remember that the limit exists. The Pentax is a superb outdoor available-light camera. The prisms are bright and sharp and for me quite easy to view & focus through. I may add other cameras to my 6x7 arsenal (I also shoot 35mm & 4x5) but I won't sell my Pentax setup. It is too special and makes quality photos distinctly different from my small or large formats. An unspoken secret which the Pentax 6x7 guys don't like to blab about, is the fabulous upperbody muscles you'll develop from hefting the damn thing to your eye. If I were ever to sell the camera, I'm sure I'd soon be blubber.
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: which Pentax 67 lens to buy Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 Willie wrote: > i want to buy a (used) pentax 67 after having worked with > a bronica 6x6 for some time. ... an excellent decision :^) > But I am investigating at this point which lens to buy > first, second third... I have two so far for mine - the 105mm f2.4 & the 150mm f2.8 I hope to round out my system w/ the 45mm in the near future. The 105 is a slightly long "standard lens", the 90mm being a more precise "normal" as per film diagonal. It is fast & sharp throughout. I find that the 150mm is also a fast option for a slightly more telephoto (~75mm in 35mm terms) and works well in situations where I would use my 85mm f1.9 in 35mm. There is the leaf 165mm which would be more appropriate if fill flash were to be a large consideration. But as for normal available light work, I find the 150mm quite satisfactory. The 45mm is ~22mm in 35mm terms and would make for an excellent lens to deal w/ wide angle needs. My 24mm is my prefered wide angle in 35mm when rectilinearity is to be maintained. Otherwise, I can go w/ a 20mm or 17mm FishEye and work w/ cropping in mind. The 55mm is more like a 28mm in 35mm terms, which I find lacking when a wide view is wanted. Beyond the 150mm (but they're spendy!) my next one would be the 600mm f4 for an ~300mm in 35mm terms. I, personally, would skip the 200mm & 400mm as I feel OK w/o 100mm & 200mm in 35mm terms if I would have 300mm (the 600mm f4) for the long shots. Extension tubes & bellows as well as dedicated macro lenses are available should that be a prime concern. ... just some thoughts from my point of view, Bill Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Ppestis) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 15 May 2002 Subject: Re: which Pentax 67 lens to buy >First there is the 45mm and the 55mm, but which one to choose. It seems the >55 is a bit sharper then the 45. I don't know if the fisheye perspective>>>>> The newer 45mms are very sharp lenses, and as far as I can see they don't give anything up to the 55mm. BTW because of the WxL format differences, the 45mm is not equal to a 22.5 mm in 35mm format. I believe it is closer to 28mm. I love the 45mm, it's a great near- far lens, and works very well for landscapes. It's not really a big, heavy lens relatively speaking, but it dose take an 82mm filter- ouch. The 105 is my favorite as it is very sharp and fast. To round out my system, I use a 200mm, another sharp lens that is moderately priced. The 200MM is a very good lens for portraits.
From: Craig Schroeder [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: which Pentax 67 lens to buy Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 "Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote: >Hi, > >i want to buy a (used) pentax 67 after having worked with a bronica 6x6 for >some time. >But I am investigating at this point which lens to buy first, second >third... >I like landscapes, portraits, macro photography and sharp pictures. I have the P67 (a couple of 1990 vintage bodies) and a new 45 and 200 and 75, 105, 135 macro that are from from the same period as the bodies. I have similar uses to what you describe. FWIW, I have easily taken 3/4 of my shots with the 75 and 135. It seems that I am making a decision about a lens or two to have with me on a hike or such where I am not taking the whole systam along and ineveitably pick these two.... The 135 is very versatile for portraits and general indoor use. The 75 has a natural sort of perspective that makes it easy to adapt to many situations. >First there is the 45mm and the 55mm, but which one to choose. It seems the >55 is a bit sharper then the 45. I don't know if the fisheye perspective >already can be seen on the 45mm? Sometimes I've thought that in my applications, I could have used the 55 instead of the 45 and seldom felt deprived of coverage. The fact that I had the 75 made me lean toward the wider gap when it came time to make the decision. The lens is very sharp but I'm always hearing such good things about the 55 that I catch myself wishing I had one. The new 75 is supposedly quite impressive and I imagine I'll eventually upgrade to the newer 75 as I use the focal length so often. Over the years I've had other lenses and duplicates. I found sample to sample differences and was glad I could pick the better of the duplicates to keep. In reference to the fisheye/other distortion concerns.....It really hasn't been an issue for me. A little thought in composition angles and it is quite easily controlled. >Then there is a 105 2.8 which seems to be a top lens. But he 135 is a macro >(with extension tubes) and is near this 105 region. Further the 165 is a >portrait but other say that the 135 is also suitable for it. I know from the >SLR 35mm region a 135 is a portrait lens, but the 6x7 135 is somewhat over >the 65mm on 35 measurements. > My 165 wasn't very sharp..... again, maybe a differenct sample would be fine but I've heard others comment on this being less of a performer, too. I don't have it any more and I don't miss it at all. The 200 seems easier to apply to those duties. The 135 is not the greatest for all-around use but absolutely superb at its intended purpose of near-subject photography. It's perfect for small groups and single or couple's portraits. >i shoot mostly in natural light, but also with flash (1/30) sync, is it as >problem or not to you guys (and girls). > >Who can help me to investigate which lens(es) to buy to get a complete set >but not to much. I don't want to have 15 lenses over 10 years... > The synching speed hasn't been an issue for me in the way I use the system. I have Fuji RF's that I like when I'm doing flash-aided shooting. I like the quick, certain focus for candids and really struggle with my P67's and prisms in moderately and dimly lit situations. I'm blaming everything on being over 50 recently and am quite convinced that my eyes don't handle these duties as well. Perhaps others can use the P67's for these uses but I don't feel very confident on certain focus unless I use them in well lit situations. You might watch patiently for a full system on eBay..... In relatively short order, someone will be selling a nice combination of things and you'll get an affordable entry into a good, versatile system. A lot of these were sold to aspiring amateurs who envisioned themselves doing striking calandar art and then just sat in their bags for years with very occasional use. With the ease of eBay selling, these are finding new homes. May as well make it your home! Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 11 May 2002 Subject: Re: Pentax 645 + LS lens help! >From: gEorge [email protected] >How I shud operate Pentax 645 with LS lens - no answer in manual >any sugestions ? Here are the basics, from the 645 booklet "Interchangeable Lenses" (I think a more specific set of instructions ships with the LS lenses) ...
"Two basic applications are as follows: (For detailed operating instructions, refer to the instructions accompanying the lens). 1) Used as a normal lens at any aperture with the fully automatic diaphragm (sic) action but without A [auto] function. 2) Used with the leaf shutter cocked (camera's shutter speed automatically set at 1/8 sec.) and the lens' lever set to the "o" mark it provides flash at speeds from 1/500 to 1/60 sec. (the minimum speed for flash is 1/60 sec.) Hook an electronic flash to the lens' X-synch terminal. When you trip the shutter your exposure will be made with the leaf shutter in the lens. * Not usable for TTL flash operation. * MF, EP and M flash bulbs are suitable for the flocal plane shutter, not for the leaf shutter".That's all that's in the generic lens booklet, sorry. Maybe this can get you started. Bill
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6X7 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 You can tell whether it's a TTL prism by looking at the right side (as you're facing the back) of the camera. On the far right is the film frame counter and film advance/shutter cocking lever, to the left of that is a small raised chrome button that you push to trip the shutter. Then if it's a TTL meter to the left of the shutter button and slightly above and behind it you should see a small chrome button that is labeled "on" and "off." If you have that button then you have a TTL prism. If you don't you don't. ...
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6X7 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 Belle wrote: > I don't see anything that says on or off so I guess it is not a TTL If the prism is TTL it will have a part that hangs over and connects to the shutter speed dial. If it doesn't, then it is just a viewing prism. An incident or (you said you had?) a spot meter is all that is required. Or you could just use the "Sunny 11/16" (print/slide) rule and common sense exposure adjustments. Bill Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [email protected]
From: Al Patrick [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6X7 / got film Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 Belle Long wrote: >Turn what shift what ???? :) just kidding , now if you could just tell me >how to turn it on :) > >Belle I know your manual shows you that. ;-) The Pentax 67 has been manufactured for about 30 years and has lots of links. You might appreciate the following three. A search of Google for "Pentax 67" will provide many more. http://www.photo.net/pentax/67 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pentax67ii.htm http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Pentax%2067%20SLR Al
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: which Pentax 67 lens to buy Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 The basic body style of all models before the 67II was the same. The only way of telling the difference between models is by the numerical lettering. "6x7" means an older camera than "67." The earliest cameras didn't have mirror lock up. Those cameras are all "6x7s." Later cameras, including some "6x7s," have mirror lock up. All 67s (AFAIK) have mirror lock up. Apart from the lack of mirror lock up on some of the "6x7s," I've never seen any "official" explanation of the difference between the two models. I've seen suggestions that there are some internal differences in the materials used, and also a suggestion that the film advance/shutter cocking crank was strengthened with the 67 since that's a fairly common point of failure with these cameras, but otherwise I haven't heard of any differences between these two designations. I have sales brochures for both the 6x7 and the 67 and there is nothing mentioned about features in the brochure for the 67 that isn't also mentioned in the brochure for the 6x7. Obviously, with the 6x7 you're getting an older camera and personally I'd stick with the 67 just because it's newer and presumably improved. With respect to lens choices, that's obviously a personal decision. FWIW, assuming you buy the most current version of any lens, I don't think you'll find any significant difference in quality of the image produced by the various focal lengths. Every one I've ever used has been outstanding. So my suggestion would be to ignore anything you've read about perceived differences in "sharpness" among the different focal lengths. If there is any difference in image quality between say the 45 mm lens and the 55 mm lens, I suspect it's so minimal as to be unimportant. Just my opinion of course, others may differ. I own the 55 mm and used to own the 45 mm. I sold the 45 and replaced it with the 55 because the 45 was simply too wide for my tastes and I found it difficult to eliminate the barrel distortion produced by lenses as wide as the 45. Strictly a personal choice, I see no difference in "sharpness" between these two lenses. I used to own the 105 and I own the 135. I sold the 105 because I found that I could use the 135 as a general purpose lens just as well in most situations and it was so close to the 105 in focal length that I didn't see a need to carry both lenses. However, the 105 was an excellent lens and if you have no need for the macro capability of the 135 I think you could use the 105 just as well and save a little money and weight. Apart from the 55 and the 135, I also own the 75 mm shift lens and the 200 mm lens. Instead of a 300 mm (which is a very big and heavy lens), I added the 1.4 telextender which brings the 200 up to 280 when more length is needed. I didn't think the extra 20 mm of focal length with the 300 was worth the extra weight and size. I like the 75 mm shift lens very much. I use it a lot simply as a moderate wide angle lens (i.e. without employing the shift) and of course it's almost indispensable if you do any significant amount of architectural type photography. Unfortunately it's also pretty expensive. I always buy the most current version of any lens. I'm perhaps missing out on some bargains that way, and perhaps I'm paying more than necessary, but I figure I might as well squeeze the absolute best quality out of a lens that I can and I assume that later means better (not always true, I'm sure, but I'm not in a position to buy older and newer versions of the same lens and then test them). For me, that means staying away from the older "Takumar" lenses and sticking with the "Pentax SMC" lenses. If you use the Pentax 67 system for the purposes for which it's intended I think you'll be very pleased with your choice. It isn't a wedding photographer's ideal camera because of the limited flash capability and the lack of interchangeable backs, it perhaps isn't a sports photographer's ideal camera because of the lack of interchangeable backs, but if you don't need automated flash at fast shutter speeds, and if you don't have any specific need for interchangeable backs, I think you'll really like the Pentax 67 system. ...
From: [email protected] (Rick Walker) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 04 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Dumb question about Pentax 67... >Does a Takumar lens for the Asahi 6x7 also work equally well with the 67-II? They're 100% compatible - no loss of function and no requirement to do stop down metering. Incidentally, there are two varieties of Takumars: Takumars and SMC Takumars. The latter are slightly newer and are multi-coated. In my opinion, Takumars are slightly better made (heavier construction), but several models of SMC Pentax lenses are better optically and a few focus closer that their Takumar equivalents. Rick
From pentax mailing list: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 From: Randy Stewart [email protected] Subject: Re: [PentaxMF] Takumar 55mm f3.5 Hi Pierre, Unless you are getting a gret price [1/2 of a later 55mm 4.0] and have no need to use filters, this lens is easily passed over. It is the 1st wide lens made for the Pentax 67 system, so it is in the range of 20+ to 30+ yeaars old. It has not virtues compared to the later 55mm versions. It takes a 100mm filter, which is practically unavailable. It is fairly sharp centrally, but degrades to "doggy" status into the edges and corners. By comparison, the later 55mm 4.0, in any of its 2 or 3 versions, is one of the best lenses Pentax has made for the system. At one point, I had and took an opportunity to acquire and test each of the 55mm lenses, so the foregoing is based on fairly careful personal evaluation, not just the passed-along guff which is commonly traded over these lenses on newsgroups. The 55mm 3.5 has developed somethingof a cult following, which wen pressed for its virtue, extolls its "rectilinearity".. I haven't made a serious test of such between the 55mm lenses, but I have seen no reason to question image linearity in the 55mm 4.0 version. I think more of that nonsense is from folks who got sucked into buying the 55mm 3.5 and who need to be reassured that they didn't screw up. Of the later 55mm 4.0 versions, the current version seems to be very even in its resolution from center to edge; the prior version tends to be a bit sharper in the centyer and slightly less sharp away from the center. The differences are not significant in use. Having bought and used all of the Pentax lenses from 45mm > 300mm, I share my list of the "lesser" lenses made for the system: 55mm 3.5 - enough said. 120mm - well, they says is designed to be not sharp, and they succeeded. 150 2.8 - a design pre-couser to the later 165 which replaced it, and is much better. The 105mm and 1st version 200mm are early designs and do not perform as well as later, modern designs, but are not bad and have linmited aperatures where they are as good as any other. The newer ED glassed 300mm and 400mm lenses run rings around their earlier, non-ED versions, but at a great price by comparison. Randy Stewart From: "mindspke" [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 Subject: [PentaxMF] Takumar 55mm f3.5 > I have an opportunity to buy one in excellent condition (Takumar 55mm > f3.5 Super Multi Coated). Anyone know anything about this lens? How > is it optically, contrast wise etc. especially compared to the 55mm > f4. > > Thanks > Pierre
From pentax MF mailing list: Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 From: Randy Stewart [email protected] Subject: Re: [PentaxMF] Re: Takumar 55mm f3.5 I have not used it. It's a simpler design than the current 90mm 2.8 w/o leaf shutter, which I use and have no complaint. As betten the two lenses, I suppose that the current model is better [sharper, more even illumination]. The 90mm leaf was replaced by the current 165 4.0 leaf shutter lens, the thinking being that a leaf shutter is used with electronic flash, flash is mainly used in studio setttings and for portraits, and the longer focal length is more suitable for those applicaitons. If I had to buy one normal lens, I wanted the leaf option, and I didn't plan to buy a 165mm, I'd hunt down a 90mm leaf shutter model. As a normal lens, I concluded that the 90mm was perferred to the 105 because I planned to rely on a 200, a 135 [for macro and normal uses], and therefore the 90mm was a better spaced step dowen from the 135 than would be the 105. As things worked out, I use my Pentx 67 system mainly for landscapes, and thus mainly with the wider lenses rather than the longer. Probably 90% of my photos are taken in the range of 135 > 55. RS ...
From: "Geoff Bryant" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: P67 75 f2.8 experience? Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 I've been using the 75/2.8 for about 2 months and I'm very happy with it. I bought it as a replacement or the older 75/4 and there's really no comparison. The new lens is smaller, lighter, focuses closer, uses smaller filters, gives a much brighter viewfinder image and is at least as sharp as the older design. Because I use it so often I now leave mine attached to camera, ready to go. I particularly like the close focusing, which actually gives a slightly greater magnification than the 135mm macro, albeit at a distance of 41cm rather than 70 cm from the subject. Also, the 67mm filter allows for the use of Cokin P series style filters with some room to move them, whereas using the likes of an 82mm wide grey grad with the old f4 design was very limiting. In short, if you need a 75mm lens get the 2.8 and don't worry about the price difference between it the f4 version. Geoff Bryant
From: "Geoff Bryant" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: P67 75 f2.8 experience? Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 Well, I'm going to disappoint you Craig - you probably won't see much difference in the finished result. Yes, I think the lens is slightly sharper, with better colour rendition, but it's not a huge difference. However, I find the other enhancements make the experience of using the new lens far better than that of using the old one. If it's largely image quality you're worried about then save your money, but personally I'm very pleased about having made the swap. Why not see if you can find a store with a 75/2.8 in stock so that you can try, or at least examine, before you buy? Geoff Bryant ...
From pentax MF mailing list: Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 From: "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] Old vs. New Lens Designs The 45mm, the 75mm and the 105mm are original designs. I have found the 75 and 105 to be excellent lenses. I have found the 45 to be slightly less sharp than the new 55mm. If I had to pick three 67 lenses it would be the new 55mm, the 105 mm and the new 200mm. The 75mm would be next on the list.
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 From: dougseibert2001 [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] Re: Best 67 Lenses......depends what U shoot My Favorite Lenses......for the Pentax 6x7............. As a pro with 22 years behind the 6x7 I definitely have my opinions on the state-of-the-lens................. For the wide-angle perspective (classic 24mm view) the 55mm (old style f/3.5) provides the BIG picture of foreground emphasis while still including the background 'flavor'..........Minimal distortion as long as you keep the subject near center-frame. The Normal 105mm............By far my most oft-used lens. I shoot Aerial Photos from light aircraft and from the usual altitude and subject distance .........the 'normal' perspective is important for many of the commercial images I produce. The 135mm.....close focus........light weight........I team it up with an inexpensive set of (prinz) +1+2+4 close up filters to get close to (legal evidence) scars in the studio w/flash.......... Paul......what a challange to shoot babies with that long lens and extension tubes.......I guess lot's of close-ups..... doug ....
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 From: "J. Paul Moore" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PentaxMF] Re: Best 67 Lenses......depends what U shoot I have love my 55-100 zoom! It is tack sharp and stops down to F-32. Note..It does require 95mm filters, which can be quite costly if you are using Heliopan or B&W Glass. Hope this helps. J. Paul
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 flash Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 According to the owner's manual, the Pentax 67 synchs with FP bulbs in the FP terminal at speeds of 1/250 and 1/125 (i.e. at faster speeds than 1/30). ; - ) "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote > Brian Ellis wrote: > > > There is such a thing as an FP flash unit but the Pentax 67 won't synch with > > it. The Pentax 67 does synch with FP bulbs but at faster shutter speeds than > > the normal P67 synch speed of 1/30 or slower. > > "But at faster speeds"? Don't you mean to say that a focal plane shutter > camera 'synchronizes' with FP-flash bulbs at all (!) shutterspeeds, even "at > faster speeds than ..."? > > Or it will not do that at all, depending on how slow the shutter curtains > move. ;-)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 flash Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > No. It isn't. > > With electronic flash, always use X. > > ... except in certain very rare cases. Just curious: when? > I think I've seen a FP-type electronic flash tube mentioned in a > photography book, Ah, i see. And you can of course add a circuit adding a delay between shutter synch. contacts closing and flash triggering. That way any flash-camera combination can be turned into one doing second-curtain synch. ;-) > and sure enough, you _can_ use the slow (M-type) bulbs > with X contacts too, as long as your exposure time is long enough that > the curtains don't start to close until the bulb has burned completely > ... in some cases this can be as short as 1/15 s IIRC. I have a couple of > bulbs that are supposed to work on X with a leaf shutter @ 1/60 and > get nearly full power there too... M(edium) flash bulbs take 15 to 25 ms to peak, and have a total burn duration of about 15 ms, i.e. about 1/60th of a second. So yes, using shutter speeds longer (!) than 1/30 an M-bulb can be used. Using speeds that long a focal plane shutter will completely uncover the film gate, so longer burn bulbs (S(low) of F(ocal)P(lane)) are not needed. FP and FP+ bulbs can be used with focal plane shutters at any speed, as long as the slit traverses the film gate in about 20 ms, or less (synch speed of 1/50th of a second, or faster). FP bulbs peak in 10 - 20 ms. Using the FP socket makes sure that the flash(bulb) is ignited the appropriate amount of time before the first shutter curtain is released. > It certainly shouldn't be any more difficult than using a _powder_ flash > with a Speed Graphic and a barrel lens (leaf shutter, right?). Right! ;-)
From: [email protected] (camera critter) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: P67 Lithiums revisited Date: 3 Sep 2002 f: news.smu.edu rec.photo.equipment.medium-format:14694 You should be using silver oxide battery in the Pentax 6x7 camera. Lithium battery is the same physical size, but lithium does not supply as high of surge current as silver oxide provides. _______ Craig Schroeder [email protected] wrote > I recently had two P67 bodies leave the mirror up. I checked the > relatively new lithiums and found about 5.6V on each. I found an old > standard (silver oxide?) battery for them and it measured 6.1V. Is > this likely the source of my issues? Am I more likely in need of some > CLA action?
From: "Bruce McLaughlin" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs RZ67 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 The P67 is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the RZ67. Yes, it is not as convenient for verticals but a good tripod head makes it quite useable. Obviously, to have the convenience of a revolving back (as on the RZ67) you also have to accept the increased size and weight. As far as quality is concerned, I believe it is every bit as good as my Hasselblad system. I know some will disagree, but except for certain lenses (such as the older 300mm) I really cannot tell the difference for prints up to 20X24 - which is as large as I usually go. I also think the 6X7 format gains a bit of quality for larger prints since you are probably not cropping as much as you would when using a square negative for a rectangular print format. "Dan Beaty" [email protected] wrote... > > Is there anyone with experience with both the Pentax 67 and Mamiya RZ67 out > there who would care to comment on the differences? I have been using the RZ > for about 12 years now. I chose it mainly for the its ability to do both > studio and landscape work. I love the convenience of the revolving back. > > The Pentax and Bronica 67 systems seem to me to be awkward on verticals. But > of course this allows them to be smaller. > > Now that I do almost no studio or syncroflash work, I am considering the > smaller Mamiya 7 Rangefinder, and the Bronica or Pentax systems. > > The RZ cannot be beat for versatility, but the size and weight have led to > more use of my older M645 camera. Is the GS-1 or Pentax smaller and/or > lighter than the RZ enough to justify the switch? How about the overall > picture quality? > > Dan Beaty > Columbus, Ohio USA > > http://www.livingtruth.com
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 Film loading with the II is, AFAIK, the same as with the original 67 and isn't significantly more difficult than any other medium format roll film camera (of those I've seen). If you're used to automatic 35 mm cameras it may seem like a hassle for a few rolls but you'll quickly get the hang of it. You'll be using a tripod most of the time for the kind of work you describe and I've found that it's easier to change the P67 with the camera on the tripod. You may also find that it takes a while to get the empty reel properly seated and locked down. This was a real irritant for me until someone said that you should just put the reel in the camera as best you can by hand and then advance the empty reel with the film advance lever until it properly seats. It only takes a couple quick advances before the reel will seat of its own accord, then the lock will work. If you don't yet have your camera this may not be clear but when you load the camera the first time I think it will be. 'll also find that the arrow on the film paper backing and the arrow in the camera that are supposed to be aligned when the film is loaded will seldom align exactly when the film is advanced with the film advance lever. The advance lever will usually either leave the arrow on the film short of the camera arrow or go past it. You can align them by advancing the film with the advance lever to a point where the next advance would take it past the arrow on the camera, then pull it the rest of the way(usually just a matter of an inch or less) to the arrow with your thumb. The Pentax system is outstanding for the kind of work you describe and I think the 6x7 format is the best medium format for that kind of work (just my opinion, many others differ which is one of the reasons why they sell Hasselblads, Mamiya 645s, etc.). I think you'll be very pleased with your choice, especially when you see your first print. ...
From: "maf" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 I have found the Pentax 6x7 easy to load, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Probably, some people who have never used a MF camera are just not experienced with loading 120 film, which is different than 35mm. The biggest drawback for landscapes and architecture is the lack of camera movements. There is one lens (a 75mm) that has shift capabilities, but is expensive and does not allow tilts. But otherwise the Pentax 6x7 is an excellent tripod camera. I find that for landscapes and architecture I rarely use the penta-prism finder (I use the much cheaper folding focusing hood), so consider that before you purchase. Of course, I assume you will use an external meter instead of needing the autoexposure meter found in the AE penta-prism finder. ... > The only consistant negative feedback that I've heard is with regards to > film loading, which I understand is something that can be "learned" and > overcome. Additionally, I understand the flash sync is a bit slow (1/30) on > this model, but that's not too much of a concern for me. > > Does anyone have any other feedback or experiences with this particular > model?
From: [email protected] (Xosni) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: 14 Oct 2002 Geoffrey, I have to admit I'm quite surprised by the comments: "Pentax delivers the quality"!! I've been usuing a Pentax 67 for 2 years and I can confidently say that the optical quality is poor, mirror shake is a problem, and the slow flash sunchro speed can be a serious limitation. Forget about using this camera hand-held. I use the camera for portraiture and fashion shots since it's faster to operate than the Mamiya, but the quality is not acceptable for landscape photography. My advice is that you should invest for a used Hassy or buy a Mamiya. Yes it's relatively cheap, that's why I'm using it until this moment but once I can afford the Hasselblad system I won't waste time before I get rid of it. regards, Xosni ...
From: "Geoff Bryant" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 Well, I can confidently say the opposite. I've been using a Pentax 67II professionally for around 18 months and I haven't experienced any problems other than the weight. I'm primarily a horticultural photographer and I take plenty of close-ups, often at slow shutter speeds in the 'danger zone' for camera shake. I've never had a problem with mirror shake because I always lock up the mirror, nor have I noticed ghost images due to the shutter rebound that is sometimes mentioned. I do use a solid tripod and head and always use a cable release, though, and I mean all the time. I don't use flash with the 67II so the slow sync hasn't affected me. Also, the nature of my work has always dictated slow shutter speeds and when I've used flash with other camera systems I've owned (Minolta, Leica, Canon, Nikon and Mamiya), having faster sync speeds has never been of much use to me. Optical quality is not a problem. I've used the 135mm macro, 75/2.8, 75/4, 45/4, 55/4, 200/4 and 300/4 . The 300 was a bit dubious, but not badly so. I'm currently surrounded by prints up to 20 x 24 inches from film shot with the 67II and all I can say is that if it's not suitable for landscapes then the moving up to large format is the only option for any of us. Incidentally, quite a few professional landscape photographers use the 67II. Geoff Bryant ...
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 If you're not getting absolutely tack sharp images with your camera and lenses then the problem is with you, not the equipment. I've used the Pentax 67 camera and lenses for seven years now. Every lens I've had, and I've had most of them up to 300 mm, has produced absolutely tack sharp images with great tonal range and contrast. I also use a 4x5 and 8x10 camera with Schneider and Nikon lenses. With enlargements up to 11x14, the images made with the Pentax are indistinguishable from the larger formats. While the camera is generally best used on a tripod, I've hand held it occasionally and as long as the shutter speed was above about 1/60 the results were fine. The "mirror shake" you mention is a non-issue The "shake" results from the mirror returning to position after the photograph has been made and so has no effect on the image. ...
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 15 Oct 2002 Subject: Re: Pentax 67II ... > the quality is not acceptable for landscape photography. I know several well-known professional landscape photographers who use this system and all agree it's fine. You must be doing something wrong, probably not using MLU properly. For sure the optics meet professional standards. > mirror shake is a problem True, that's what MLU is for. > the slow flash sunchro speed can be a serious limitation. Buy one of the leaf shutter lenses then (but this has nothing to do with landscape photography).
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 15 Oct 2002 Subject: Re: Pentax 67II >>>From: [email protected] (Xosni) >>> >>>I've been usuing a Pentax 67 for 2 years and I can >>>confidently say that the optical quality is poor I wrote ... >> I know several well-known professional landscape photographers who use >> this system and all agree it's fine. >From: [email protected] (Xosni) >The problem is with optics tho. We all like to believe that >our quipment is great, it makes us feel better, but that is not >necessarily true A list of top-name professionals who stake their reputations on the Pentax 67 would include Robert Glenn Ketchum (who says he gets better quality prints from this systemt than he did with his 4x5), Tom Mangelsen (who shoots it only occasionally, relying more on the Nikon for 35 mm and the Fuji 617 for panoramas), Michael Reichmann, several photographers whose work is published frequently in "Arizona Highways", including photo editor Peter Ensenberger, and doubtless many others. I sure see a lot of them in the field here in Arizona and Utah. If you've ever seen large Ilfochrome prints from Mangelsen or Ketchum you'd realize how good the optics are. If you personally are unable to get similar results it's probably a flaw in your technique, not the system. >Just compare it with Mamiya (I'm not >mentioning the German lenses now) and see the difference; have you >ever compared it to other brands? I don't have the Pentax 67 but I do have the Pentax 645 with 7 lenses from 35 mm to 300 mm and also have the Mamiya 7 II with 5 lenses from 43 mm to 210 mm. All things being equal I'd rather shoot 6x7 than 6x4.5 for the larger negative but I get professional results with either system. It ain't the lenses, it's the person using them, I feel. I would agree that the Mamiya RB/RZ system is generally better for studio work than the Pentax 67 but that's because of the interchangeable backs and leaf shutters, not because of any noticeable difference in optical quality. >Actually the optics are enough for fashion and >portraiture (tho I believe the optics can't stand 50x60 cm >enlargements), but with landscape optical quality makes a big >differece and Pentax is not enough. Ketchum routinely prints his Pentax 6x7 Velvia trannies up to 30 x 40" so what you "believe" doesn't correspond to the reality of what he's doing.
From: John Halliwell [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: model upgrade cycle-times? Re: Hasselblad dumping!! Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 Robert Monaghan [email protected] writes >the real question will be how long will it be between new models? The >pentax 67 was what, 30 years between model upgrades? It wasn't really 30 years though, small changes creeped in from time to time. Firstly mirror lock-up, then the change to the '67' (from '6x7') and additions to the accessory list (I think a more modern metering circuit in the finder?). The current 67ii offers a few options that can be programmed in by the factory. > Each model upgrade >will obsolete some quantity of gear on dealer shelves or in the channel to >consumers too. Few MF cameras have the kind of volume to justify frequent >redesigns, other than bug fixes, unlike 35mm. If we are years between >model upgrades, then some competitors will be in last place for years in >AF speed etc. ;-0) Can the mfgers afford to come out with frequent >upgrades and new models? bug fixes? new lenses? strobes? how often? Depends who they are. Pentax have a big advantage from their 35mm line, they can split the development software algorithms (metering and AF systems) between 35mm, 645 and 6x7 (metering) and strobe developments. The 'matrix' metering used in the 645N(II) is the same one developed for their 35mm line, after over a decade of development it's reported to be excellent. -- John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From: [email protected] (DColucci) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 03 Nov 2002 Subject: Pentax 6x7 Lens Tests from 1970's http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/len.htm So far, postings of the 150mm 2.8 which has little data on it. And the 105mm. Will be adding the 135mm,35mm,200mm,800mm - all Super Takumar circa early 1970's. Dan http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/index.htm Antique & Classic Camera Web Site
From: [email protected] (DColucci) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 08 Nov 2002 Subject: Pentax 6x7 Lens Test - Updated http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/len.htm http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/
From: W Bauske [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Leaf shutter with Pentax 645? Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 "Douglas A." wrote: > W Bauske [email protected] wrote: > > >Cock it manually. The view finder will show "LS" and the aperture > >selected on the lens. > > >Try it first without film in the camera. > > Thanks Wes. What does the shutter speed setting on the body need to be > on? The LS in the finder means the camera sets it for you automatically. The lens I have has 60/125/250/500 speeds you set directly on the lens body(135mm). I would guess the body shutter is set to 1/30sec though. Also remember the metering isn't doing anything useful with that type of lens so it's all manual, no AF or AE. You can take the insert out and watch the shutters from the back if you want to check it's working correctly. And the camera will fire and advance the film even if you forget to cock the leaf shutter so keep that in mind so you don't waste film. Wes
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 11 Nov 2002 Subject: Re: Leaf shutter with Pentax 645? >> [email protected] (Bill Hilton) wrote: >>I have the older Pentax 645 and I'm pretty sure the manual says you have >> to set the shutter to 'bulb' to use the LS lenses. Can check this for you >> if you wish >From: Daniel Brittion [email protected] > >That would be great if you can find it Bill. I've looked through my >manual and can't find anything. The display does flash "LS" when the >lens is mounted though. Hi Dan, I looked in the camera manual and can't find anything, but in the "Pentax 645 Interchangeable Lenses" booklet that ships with each new lens I did find the following info on how to use the LS lenses (75 mm and 135 mm at the time I bought my last Pentax lens). Looks like I was wrong about having to use Bulb :). (quote from pg 19) "... featuring its own shutter speed settings from 1/500th to 1/60 sec for flash sync ... Two basic applications are as follows: (For detailed operating instructions, refer to the instructions accompanying the lens): 1. Used as a normal lens at any aperture with fully automatic diaphragm action but without the A (auto) function. 2. Used with the leaf shutter cocked (camera's shutter speed automatically set at 1/8 sec.) and the lens' lever set to "o" mark it provides flash at speeds from 1/500 to 1/60 sec (the minimum speed for flash is 1/60 sec.). Hook an electronic flash to the lens' X-sync terminal. When you trip the shutter your exposure will be made using the leaf shutter in the lens. * Not usable for TTL flash operation. * MF, FP and M flash bulbs are suitable for the focal plane shutter, not for the leaf shutter. (end quote) And that's all they say about THAT in the generic lens manual. Probably more details in the manual shipping with the specific lens. Bill
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 From: Matt BenDaniel [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] astrophotography Hello Pentax MF Folks: I've just joined the Yahoo PentaxMF group. I'm a dedicated astrophotographer and use mainly Pentax 67's. Astrophotography involves some of the more extreme tests of cameras/lenses. Film flatness, lens aberration problems, etc all show up more prominently in astro images. I sometimes use the equipment for extended periods in temperatures under 10F. In additional to apochromatic refractor telescopes, I use the following Pentax 67 lenses: 35mm f/4.5, 55mm f/4, 105mm f/2.4, 165mm, and 300mm f/4 for wide field shots. Please see my web site for a gallery of over 100 astro images, most of them with a Pentax 67. Many of them have been published in Sky & Telescope and other leading magazines and books. If any of you maintain links to other sites, please feel free to link to mine. If you are unfamiliar with astrophotography, a brief description of what's involved is at: http://starmatt.com/articles/how.html matt @ starmatt.com -- Matt BenDaniel [email protected] http://starmatt.com
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 From: "Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] P3entax 67 Fisheye on Pentax 645 By using the 67 fish-eye on the 645 you get a lens which is more rectilinear, and has just some bending at the corners. However, the image quality is really so-so. The fish eye is o.k. optically on the 67 (not equal in quality to many other 67 lenses.) There is a noticeable drop in quality when used on the 645. If you want a super wide for the 67 the 35mm 645 is a very good lens.
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 From: Paul McLean [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PentaxMF] Pentax 67 Mount Lenses? Hello, I'm sure that you know this already, but they are all the same brand! There are various adapters around that allow you to use 4X5 lenses on a 6X7, and they even have tilt (and some allow small amounts of movement). If you like I can try and dig up a web site reference. Only a good idea if you already have some great 4X5 lenses lying around that you want to use on your 6X7. Regards, Paul. -----Original Message----- From: Matt BenDaniel [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 24 December 2002 To: [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] Pentax 67 Mount Lenses? Besides Pentax, Asahi and Takumar, are there any other brands of lenses that mount on the Pentax 67? Matt BenDaniel http://starmatt.com
From: "maf" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Moving up to serious medium format Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 If you are interested in landscape photography using a tripod, definitely get the 6x7. You should also reconsider the AE-TTL prism finder. AE-TTL metering is not the best choice for landscape photography (for reasons I don't want expound on here). Using a separate meter (or even your Nikon aimed at an 18% gray card) is better. I would get either the Folding Focusing Hood or the Rigid Magnifying Hood. If you need a Pentaprism finder, get the one without the meter (to save a bundle). I have the Folding Focusing Hood and the Pentaprism (non-AE) finder, but use the Folding Focusing Hood 90% of the time. Go to a camera store and try the different finders. Also, you definitely need a wide angle lens for landscape work. Either the 55mm or 75mm is good. If you only purchase one lens, get the 75mm. I have the 55, 75, 135, and 200 lenses. Hopefully you can get a custom figuration and not just the ones listed in your post. ...
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 From: Milburne Drysdale [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 first lens: zoom or fixed? Seems a shame to bother with the trouble and expense of medium format, just to discard the advantages by handholding the camera. I proved to myself many years ago that 35mm on a good tripod was much higher quality than handheld medium format. And medium format on a tpod could blow away all else. (Except of course, large format on a tpod!) Now let me add that I DO shoot my P67 handheld, but when I do it's for show and not for better pics. The camera is worth its exceptional weight if only for the attention it always commands on location. When I use it for infomal B&W available-light portraits, the subjects respond more obediently to my direction because the camera looks so much more professional than 35's. Tri-X in 6x7 will enlarge to stunningly grainy 11x14. Magical. I'd suggest getting a fast normal lense for starters. They're inexpensive and tack sharp (don't get a very old one). The 105 is sharp enough to shoot wide open for portraiture. The additional speed of the normals will allow you to play with handholding. JMTC
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 From: "Mike Turner [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [PentaxMF] Re: Stiff winding Pentax 67 I am now on my 5th Pentax 67 body, having used the camera for about 11 years. The film transport on the camera is an acknowledged weak spot in the design. Shooting mainly fashion and portraiture, I have to admit that I'm not as careful a I could be when it comes to winding on. One body has had the winding clutch replaced twice and another body has had one replacement. Landscpae shooters that I know who use this camera dont seem to have experienced this problem, but I shoot a lot of film very quickly......hence 5 bodies
From: "maf" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67II Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 "Geoffrey V. Brown" [email protected] wrote > Hey, > I posted awhile back asking for opinions on the Pentax 67II. > > I just spent about 10 hours in the darkroom, printing my first few rolls of > film that I shot with this camera. > > I have to say - I am extremely impressed with the sharpness and quality of > photos that this camera produced. It's amazing what a decent piece of glass > and a larger neg will do for you photos. > > Thanks to everyone that recommended it! > > Geoffrey V. Brown The film transport system is also part of the reason for the high quality negs. The film lays much flatter than on most other MF cameras, especially those with removable backs.
Frm pentax MF mailing list: From: Randy Stewart [[email protected]] Sent: Tue 4/8/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PentaxMF] talking about the 67II ... > Greetings, > > i'm further down the road of buying a MF kit... > i think i'm mostly set now, it should be a pentax 67. i would like to > know, tho, what are, from a user point of view, the main advantages > of the 67II over the 67. 1. Somewhat better physical balance for holding the 67II. 2. "Time" exposure without running down the batteries. 3. A more conveniently placed mirror release switch. 4. With AE metering prism, a much improved metering system with center-weighting, spot, or matrix metering. There are number of other minor changes which may or may not be useful, depending on how you would use the camera. While I appreciate the automation and convenience of the 67II/E prism combination, I'm not selling off by 67/TTL metered model. For my primary use in landscape photography, I suspect that the single most interesting "improvement" will be the "Time" shutter lock feature. Randall Stewart
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Extension Tubes: Inner Vs Outer for Pentax67 Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 Most Pentax 67 lenses are inner bayonet lenses but the longest lenses (600mm, 800mm, and 1000mm lenses I believe) are outer bayonet lenses. The outer extension tubes are designed only for use with these longest lenses, the inner tubes are used with all others. However, the 200mm, 400mm, and 800mm lenses aren't suitable for use with the extension tubes at all because the tubes cause vignetting. I believe this information is correct but lens designs and specs change from time to time so if you're ordering tubes don't rely on this, check with the seller to be sure the tubes will work with the lenses you have in mind. Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com "rgans" [email protected] wrote > What is the difference between inner vs outer extension tubes? Does one > confer an advantage over the other? Thanks. > > RON
From: "Geoff Bryant" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67: Bellows Vs Extension Tube Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 The reversing ring works better on a moderately wide angle lens like the 75mm than on the 135mm macro. Have a look at the http://www.geoffbryant.com/articles/revmount.html article at my website for some examples. Geoff Bryant www.geoffbryant.com "Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote > I don't know what the max extension is for the bellow. > You should get more then with the tubes, but be aware that you lose a lot of > light stops. > Why not using a reverse adapter ring to put the macro lens reverse on the > body which allows you to get a lot closer without losing light! Works fine! > "rgans" [email protected] wrote > > Thanks. I'll probably go with extension tubes....however with the standard 3 > > tube set can I get the same amount of magnification as I can with the Pentax bellows? > > > > RON
From: "P�l Jensen" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 - why? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 [email protected] skrev > Is this camera a development dead-end for Pentax? > Does anyone know why it has no motor drive capability, no detachable > film/digital backs? > Has Pentax consigned in to the ash-heap of photographic history, or do they > just think that the 645 format is the future? In press conference early this year Pentax boss stated that they are working on a more compact Pentax 6X7. No other data has leaked out. According to news recently printed in Japan Pentax is working on a medium format DSLR with the help from Kodak.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: pentax 67 II Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 One small difference Geoff didn't mention is that the aperture setting and shutter speed are visible in the viewfinder with the 67II, at least with the AE prism. This would be a nice benefit for me. I use my 67 on a tripod and I really get tired of constantly standing up on my tip toes to look over the front of the camera in order to see what aperture and shutter speed I'm at. I haven't replaced the 67 with the II because I don't use the 67 very often, I mostly use larger formats. The price of used 67s has dropped so much in recent years that I'd keep it rather than selling it for peanuts, so then I'd have two medium format cameras neither of which was used very often. But if the 67 was my principal camera I'd switch to the II in a heart beat. -- Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com "Geoff Bryant" [email protected] wrote > Like most decisions of this type it depends on your preferences and what it > will cost. > > Advantages of the 67II that you'll most notice are: > > Much brighter viewfinder > Aperture priority as well as manual (continuous range of shutter speeds in A mode); > Right side grip (useful holding aid even if you always use a tripod); > Better metering and a built-in spot meter (presuming it comes with an AEII finder); > Very easily changed viewfinder screens, which also makes it easy to clean > dust from inside the camera; > TTL flash metering, though still with the old 1/30 sync speed; > Minor niceties like getting 21 shots instead of 20 on a 220 roll, > 'grippable' neoprene covering, and a very clear LCD viewfinder display > (yellow on black). > > The 67II is certainly a bit more than just a cosmetic upgrade but you > probably need to try it to know if you need what it offers. > > Geoff Bryant > www.hortiphoto.com > > "Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote > > Hi, > > i use a pentax 67 and someone offered me a 67 II. > > Are the benefits so great that i should go over? > > thanks. > > Willie Jan.
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 26 Jun 2003 Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena lenses on a P67? Ralf, I have seen and handle the 120mm, 180mm, and 300mm CZJ modified for the Pentax 6X7 Not the same for the 50mm Flektogon. However, I did see the flketogon modified for Hasselblad
From: "P�l Jensen" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 6x7 - why? Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 "Willie wjb" [email protected] skrev > there are rumors about a new 67 with a digi back. I don't know if it is a 67. The following is from a photo industry press release recently: HEADLINE PENTAX TO DEVELOP DIGITAL MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS BY PROFESSIONALS TEXT Pentax has started the development of digital medium format camera. In addition to the proliferation of digital cameras, DTP system has been progressing rapidly and the needs from photo studios are increasing. In this environment, Pentax (Imaging System Business Division, Product Planning Dep't) have entered into the "production planning". While Pentax have been enjoying the top share in the MF market, its design is unique and could not respond to the digital back method (in place of film back). OTOH, Kodak, who have been supplying digital back to Mamiya OP, Contax and HB etc, recognize the possibility to collaborate with Pentax (Professional Division, DSC Team), and are positive in developing the digital system for Pentax equipment.
From: Craig Schroeder [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 - what to look for? Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote >I definitely need a version with MLU. How do I determine if this feature >is included in any particular camera? > >Is there anything else one should know about or watching out for? > >Ralf Try to make certain that the wind mechanism is functioning solidly. Almost all the stuff for sale is MLU and normally stated quite clearly (but confirm if unsure). Don't underestimate the need for a robust tripod and use the MLU whenever possible (also practice hand-damping techniques, in addition). Very capable machines. If viewfinder cropping is critical for you, plan on a waist level finder or get comfortable with the limited viewfinder view of the prisms. I get along fine with them but it took a little time to acclimate. Think about flash synch speed issues for fill work..... important for some uses but I haven't really had trouble because of it. I can't focus with the prisms in darkened rooms or dim light and use medium format rangefinders for that duty and don't even bother with my P67's. For the right chores and applications, they deliver superb images and represent a great value.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pentax 67 - what to look for? Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 I believe all of the Pentax cameras that have the numbers "67" rather than "6x7" in white paint above the upper strap lug on the front of the body have mirror lock up. It's my understanding that mirror lock up was an option only with the original version of the camera, made back when they still put "6x7" rather than "67" in white lettering on the front. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but if I'm right then as long as the camera is designated by the numbers "67" rather than a "6x7" on the front then it would necessarily have mirror lock up. Apart from that, the mirror lock up control is a black raised gizmo about an inch long and half an inch wide that slides up and down located just behind the point where the lens mounts on the body. If you see that then the camera has mirror lock up, if you don't see that then it doesn't. I have a review of the 67 on my web site that you might find useful. Go to www.ellisgalleries.com and look under "Equipment Reviews." "Ralf R. Radermacher" [email protected] wrote > Alea jacta and all that... > > I'm thoroughly fed up with my Exaktas and looking for a second-hand P67. > Although I've been photographing for well over 20 years, I know next to > nothing about the P67 wxcept that I've always been partial with Pentax > equipment and the "35 mm SLR on steroids" design suits me far better > than e.g. a H'blad with a 45 degrees prism. > > I definitely need a version with MLU. How do I determine if this feature > is included in any particular camera? > > Is there anything else one should know about or watching out for? > > Ralf > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
From: [email protected] (drsmith) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: New to medium format Date: 25 Jul 2003 I've used the 67II, but not any of the others on your list, so I'm not technically qualified to answer your question. That said, I've found the 67II to be a very nice piece of equipment - the ergonomics make you want to hand hold the camera, even when you perhaps shouldn't. Others have remarked about mirror vibrations, but I haven't noticed it to be an issue at all - most of the noise & commotion from firing the shutter comes after the shutter is closed. The shutter is rather loud, so you won't be doing any stealthy shooting. Finally, I can't figure out why Pentax decided to put the cable release in the middle of the shutter release button - you're always at risk of damaging that part of the camera because it makes the release stick out at an odd angle. At least on my other cameras, they made the release socket separate from the button and relocated it so you weren't likely to hit something with it. --drsmith ...
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: pentax 67II Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 "Mirror slap" is a non-issue with the 67II just as it is with the 67.The "slap" that you hear is the mirror returning to position after the photograph has been made. Since it occurs after the photograph has been made it has no effect on the quality of the photograph. If it's the sound that bothers you because of your theatre work, no the sound isn't a great deal less with the 67II than with the 67. It's not easy to make a mirror large enough for a 6x7 SLR camera that doesn't make a noticeable sound when it returns to position. With respect to your question about "measuring light by hand," I assume you are asking whether the camera has a built-in light meter. The 67 has a built in light meter if you use the TTL pentaprism. The 67II has a built in light meter if you use the AE pentaprism. However, the meter in the TTL pentaprism is a simple averaging meter only. The meter in the AE pentaprism can be used as a multi-segment (6 segments) meter, a center weighted meter, or a spot meter. Other nice features of the 67II (assuming you also get the AE prism finder) as compared with the 67 include the following: (1) Exposure compensation of +/- 3 EV; (2) multiple exposures possible with multiple exposure lever; (3) aperture priority automatic exposure mode in addition to fully manual mode; (4) exposure times can be set for as long as 4 seconds in manual mode and 30 seconds in automatic mode; (5) user adjustable diopter corrections; (6) shutter speed and aperture indication as well as other information (e.g. film counter and under or over exposure) visible in view finder; (7) self timer included. I've probably left something out but these are the principal differences that come to mind. There are a few things that Pentax didn't change with the 67II that it would have been nice to change. I don't do any flash photography but those who do would have preferred the flash synch speed to be greater than 1/30 second. Also, it would have been nice if more than 90% of the actual image was visible in the AE pentaprism. I don't know what mz-s or zlp mean so I can't help you with that question. Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com "Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote > Hi there, > > i am currently investigating if i would buy a used pentax 67II. > I currently own a 67 and am pleased with it. > But i do some theatre work work where measuring light by hand is almost not > possible that's one of the reasons to upgrade. I have some qs about it for > anyone who uses this camera. > Besides that it's the qs should i invest in this one now the digital is > comming up. If will take some time before the chip will reach the 700Mb of a > 67 neg but the problem is would the price drop in short time.... > > - Does the 67II have a minor mirror slap than the 67? > - Does the 67II measures accurate such as the mz-s or z1p does? > - Can you tell some positive/negative points compaired to the 67? > > your help is appriciated very,very much.
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: PENTAX EXTENSION TUBES OUTER SET Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 My understanding from Pentax instruction booklets is that originally the inner bayonet mount extension tubes were used with lenses from 55mm to 300mm and the outer tubes were used with lenses from 400mm to 1000mm (at that time Pentax didn't make a 6x7 lens shorter than 55mm). However, most of the Pentax 67 lenses have been redesigned since the tubes were first introduced and the only outer bayonet lmount enses still made are the 600, 800, and 1000mm lenses. So no, the outer bayonet mount extension tubes couldn't be used with any current lens shorter than 600mm because the lenses shorter than that are all inner bayonet mount lenses. In addition, while the current 200, 400, and 500mm lenses are inner bayonet mount lenses, the inner mount extension tubes also can't be used with those lenses because the tubes create vignetting with those three lenses. Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com "martin" [email protected] wrote > I've heard external ext.tube on Pentax 67 is especially for the old 400/4,0 > with the conical frontdesign. I�m not sure this tube can be > used with shorter lenses. I have never encounted an adapter. > > Any help on this is highly appreciated. > > Best Regards, > Martin
From: Lars [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Hand Holding the Pentax 67II Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 "John Schroeder" [email protected] wrote: >Greetings > > Does this camera always require a tripod or can it be hand held under >good lighting conditions? I'm concerned about the amount of mirror vibration >that only a tripod could handle. > > >John > I have no experience with the Pentax 67II but I own and have used two Pentax 67 for about 20 years. Mainly in the field. When a tripod is not practical I nearly always use a monopod and a lefthand grip attached to the camera. I use a 3-section monopod that I carry mounted to the camera. It extends fairly quickly to full length. This setup allows me to use longer exposure times/slower films and still get sharp slides. And with the meter-prism the camera is quickly ready for action. Mirror vibration has never been a problem, not even with the camera fully handheld (with the grip attached). I think the weight of the 67 with lens and prism finder helps a lot to eliminate this. I have a Fujica 645 folding range-finder with leaf-shutter (fairly light) and it is very hard to get sharp pictures with it handheld. Also tested my old Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 with 105 mm lens (very light) for camera shake and it was almost impossible to get sharp pictures with it. So camera weight is an important factor. The Pentax 67 handles very well in the field and as long as you can put up with the weight of the camera and a few lenses you cannot go wrong with it. I am sure the 67II is even better. My two cameras have served me very well for many years and so far have not needed any repair. Lars
End of Page