Pentax 67II

[steve_maslin1]

I am just doing some reasearch before I get a nice camera. I have

heard that the Pentax 67 is hard to focus? is this a problem with

the old pentax cameras as im going to get the new one?

 

If i buy this it will be the Pentax 67II with the AE Prisim I dont

know what lens I sould get yet. 90, 105 or 135. mostly for

landacapes, environment & heritage work.

 

 

Thanks

Steve.

[ellis_vener_photography]

i had he last version of the Pentax 67 camera before the 67II

came out. Focusing was never a problem. I'd start with the

105mm lens as a normal -- it is very, very sharp, next would be a

55mm and a 200mm and you'll be pretty well set. The caveat I'd

point out is that , per Pentax's instructions, if you aren't using

flash (like for a portrait, you really need to lock up the mirror for

exposures in the 1/60th to 1 second range.to eliminate the

possibility of mirror bounce. The Pentax 67 is a superb system.

if you get an older one look for mirror lockup and for the camera

to be called the Pentax 67. The older bodies are marked "Pentax

6x7."

[gene_crumpler8]

I have exactly the same setup as Ellis. However, I would strongly suggest that you check each lens very carefully, even new, to be sure you get a good one. My 55 is wonderfully sharp as is the 200. However, my 105 is a dog. It is sharp from 2.8 to F11, but at f16 and f22 the image turns to mush. I almost never use the 105. The 55 is the lens that stays on the body 95% of the time. If I was forced to give up all my 35m and MF gear except one, the p67 and the 55 would be the one I would keep. It's that good.

 

Focusing is not a problem for me with a diopter correction. You can get a split image scren installed to aid in focusing.

[desmond_kidman]

Hello,

 

A few comments about the Pentax:

 

1. Regarding a previous response to your question, being sharp at f 2.8-11 but turning to "mush" at f16 and 22 does not indicate a lens problem. It is more basic physics, the penomenon of diffraction, which at smaller apertures degrades image quality.

 

2. I do not know about the earlier versions of the 67, but the latest has been unjustly maligned for mirror slap, at least as far as the severity of the slap affecting images goes. I did a simple experiment using long shutter speeds and mirror lock up to demonstrate to some camera shop salesmen that the most severe shock from the 67 II is when the mirror returns, AFTER THE IMAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN! During a normal fire-off of the camera, it all happens too fast to see/feel that this is the case. We put a Hasselblad 503cw and 67 side by side, doing the above experiment, and it was clear to everyone that the 67 was at least as low in shock, during the pre-exposure action, as the Hasselblad! By the way, I am not prejudiced, I own a very complete Hasselblad system, so I'm not just a 67 owner defending my baby. I don't even own one!

 

I think the problem with 1/60 or less exposures is a problem shared by all SLR's, and worse in any medium format SLR. A day comparing results at 1/60 with an SLR and rangefinder confirm this. I've done this with Hass vs: Bronica rangefinder, and Contax 35 SLR vs: Leica, and the results are the same: even at 1/60, with a steady hand, the mirror vibrations are compromising the image fo the SLR.

 

It comes right back to the same thing: there is no perfect technology or camera type. But for 1/60 and below, blur caused by vibrations reduces the quality of all SLR images that are hand held. And the Pentax you are contemplating is no worse than some other highly rated medium format SLR's in this regard. Someone doing mostly hand held, low light, available work should consider a rangefinder for this reason. You'd be amazed how sharp a images at 1/15 sec are with rangefinders.

 

 

Armando

[scott walton]

The older Pentax 67 has a synch speed of 1/30 and can get you into a situation with high speed film. I have always been a Pentax LX user but steered myself away from the 6x7 due to this fact. If you go ahead with the P67, a 90mm is nice for the landscapes as well as a wider lens!

[cowan stark]

I have a P67 and can't really say I've had any trouble focusing it with the standard screen. However, since I use it almost exclusively at small apertures for landscapes, I usually compose the shot and set the hyperfocal distance instead of focusing the lens. Obviously if I were a portraitist I'd do it differently. I haven't handled a P67 II so I can't make the comparison as far as ease of focusing goes, but I'd be surprised if it's worse. I have the 45,55,135 and 200mm lenses. The 55 and the 135 are amazingly sharp, even at small apertures. I guess you'll have to decide for yourself how you see the world in 35mm to decide on your 'normal' lens. Personally, I'd go for the 90.

[patrick_drennon]

I have both bodies. I've never had any problem focussing the P67

but you need to know the P67II is probably 1 1/2 to 2 stops

BRIGHTER making it obviously superior in lower light situations.

[lloyd_rabanus]

The focus is a breeze. Better than a manual 35mm. Anyway, I

sold all My hassy, RZ, and M645 stuff for this system. The finest

I've ever used. I use 220 most of the time and can handhold

down to 1/30 easy. I even had some nice exposures at 1/15. I

do use a monopod at times. You will like this camera IF you

don't interchangeable backs.

 

Lloyd

[jeff_drew4]

Steve, As I answer this, your later post indicate you may be steering towards 6x6cm format. If you have not committed to the Hassy, yet, I would recommend the P67II with the 135mm as a starter. The 135mm is a sharp, close focusing lens that gives you a FOV similar to a 65mm-70mm lens in 35mm format. This will meet most of your initial ideas. Check your preferred lenses FOV and match them to your purposes. If you rarely use a 50mm on a 35mm SLR, you probably won't see the reasons to use a 90mm or 105mm on a 6x7cm camera. Your later post indicates you know this already at 6x6cm, but I thought I'd mention it.

[gene_crumpler8]

Armando;

 

I indeed mean mush. The 105 lp/mm resolves in the mid 70's lp/mm and then drops to the low 20's at 16 and 22. An 8x10 is unacceptably fuzzy!

 

On the other hand, the 55mm seems to defy diffraction and resolves 72+ lp/mm from f4 to f22. The center performance is absolutely constant from f4 to f22. I retested because I did not believe the first test.

 

 

After getting the 105 brand new, I now perform resolution tests on all lenses new or used before accepting.

 

I have cured the shakes with a large bogen tripod, 3046 and 3047 head, and pressing down on the finder before releasing the shutter.

[gene_crumpler8]

BTW;

 

My resolution test procedure is the same procedure as Zeiss uses for their lens/film tests, except I don't mount the camera on a large granite block :)

[onbelaydave]

I hope this thread is still active. I've never gotten to shoot a P67II but have been using a P 6X7 for a few months.I'm using the TTL finder and find it to be quite dim but as I'm primarily a landscape photographer, I normally just use hyperfocal and call it good. As regards the problem of "shutter shake", I always use mirror lockup no matter how short the exposure and always on a tripod; I've never even thought of trying to hand-hold this beast. But that brings up the next topic. Mounted on a tripod, using mirror lockup, I can't see any difference in sharpness,all razor tack with maybe an edge towards the 55 in any of my lenses under a 10X loupe,(55,75,105 150,200).I'm always striving for the max DOF 90% of the time so that means f22 at 1-1/30 sec.. It seems that at least with my tripod and procedure, that Pentax has one hell of a great system !