Demise of P67 system?

[tony_cunningham]

Can't say that I am very happy about posting this, but according to

Robert White (www.robertwhite.co.uk):

 

"Pentax have just announced the demise of their Medium Format camera

systems; both the 645N II and 67 II have been deleted. We have listed

the products currently available, and will remove items as they run

out. A digital SLR that will accept 645 FA lenses is due to be shown

at Photokina '06 in September, and should be released after that.

 

So if you were thinkng about purchasing a new P67 body or lens now is

the time.

[dougmiles]

"So if you were thinkng about purchasing a new P67 body or lens now is the time."

 

Yeah, agreed; I'd had a hankering for a brand-new latest-production 67II for some time... I saw the German announcement, checked Robert White and found it "discontinued" and not in stock, B&H had it listed as "backordered", Adorama didn't even list it at all except in their Used Dept. I bounced fruitlessly among several other vendors and got a little panicky. Finally found one at HK Supplies in Hong Kong and ordered it. I see they still have some listed BIN on eBay now.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I believe Pentax officially discontinued the wonderful in its own way Pentax 67 last year. The SMC Takumars lenses for the Pentax 67 are uniformly of terrific quality, every single one that I ever used.

[josh_randall3]

Kind of figured that was coming after they stopped selling them in Europe with a flimsy excuse for why. Just got a new 67II, i'll have to make sure I take real good care of it. Question for the group: Does this usually mean the used equipment will go up in price or down?

[steve_rasmussen]

I would guess that Pentax made a business decision regading the 645 and 67 line, concerning the amount of sales of each. I'm betting that the sales were not that great and that their digital line was moving fast. So, they just decided to dump both, based on lack of demand. The younger camera buyers want nothing to do with film and they are what is driving the market. I own many film cameras and my kids won't touch them.

 

I'm sure glad Pentax made the two zooms for the 67 before they ended this camera line. I'll bet the used price on the 90-180 and 55-100 will increase. Both are incredible landscape lenses. I don't think very many were produced either.

[rod_sainty2]

Has anyone actually seen an announcement from Pentax Japan yet? Are we jumping the gun on this? Isn't Robert White's announcement merely in line with last month's announcement regarding import of items containing lead into Europe? Isn't the UK part of Europe?

 

Robert White's announcement says that both the 645 and 67 systems have been deleted, yet we know from Pentax Japan that the 645 lenses will be required for the 645D release in September. In the same way, the Pentax Germany announcement included only five 67 lenses - the 35, 120 soft, 400, 500 and 800mm. Even if these are no longer imported into Europe, or manufactured at all for that matter, that doesn't exclude Pentax Japan continuing to manufacture the other, more popular 67 lenses in line with a reduced demand. Perhaps that's why we haven't had an announcement yet.

 

I don't think the European lead-free production regulations were regarded lightly, as Josh stated. Fuji said it stopped production of the Hasselblad Xpan system for the same reason, yet Hasselblad reportedly wanted it continued as it continues to sell well.

[steve_rasmussen]

You have a point Rod. I went into the Pentax website for Japan and saw nothing mentioned about the discontinuation of the 645 or 67. Looked in their "news" section and saw nothing. I also went into their medium format section and saw the 645nII and 67II both listed.

[rod_sainty2]

Yes, Steve, I had done the same. Clearly, the reported low stock levels of the 67II must indicate that sales are very slow and so another production run is unlikely. Some suppliers seem to be be able to get it easily, so there may be plenty of 67II stock in the Japan warehouse. If so, Pentax would be reticent to make an announcement saying the system is finished.

 

Yes, we can be grateful that Pentax released several new lenses in recent years � the two zooms, the 75mm f2.8, 100mm macro and the 300mm EDIF. I recall seeing a press release mention a production rate of 100 pieces a month each for the zoom and the 75mm, so Pentax is quite happy to make quite small runs, it seems. Who knows what might happen!

 

I certainly agree that now�s the time to buy.

 

If we don�t it might all end in landfill. Until just a few years ago I used a Canon 1014 XL-S Super 8 camera, and over the years several older photo store owners had told me that, in the early 1980s, Canon had made use of a Japanese corporate tax write-off regulation and had buried an enormous number of these beautiful cameras into a big hole somewhere, even when local dealers here were still trying to order them. Of course, Canon were also protecting their new investment in video, so maybe the parallel fails. What an ugly thought.

[tony_cunningham]

Rod I also think you might be correct. A few things puzzled me about the announcement, but I decided to post it without comment. Firstly why would they discontinue a line of lenses (645) if they were about to make a digital camera for them? I suppose they might be developing a new lens line for this camera, but many of the 645 lenses are quite recent. Secondly why discontinue the 645 film body - it would surely be very useful for many serious photographers to have both film and digital options or even just to keep a film body for emergency backup.

 

The other puzzle was if they were to discontinue the 67 (and 645) why not make an announcement well in advance so that Pentax users would have the time to make last purchases? This might stimulate demand for a bit and make financial/marketing sense.

 

So perhaps it is the lead issue. Is this lead in the glass?

[fernando_mcsoto]

Robert White has been in the vanguard of this type of information so far. They reported that the Bronica RF645 was discontinued just when Bronica stoped manufacturing the camera. Bronica did not confrimed it officially though. Bronica had huge stocks of the RF645 and when Bronica announced that they had discontinued their film cameras, they said that they would continued to sell the RF645 yet. It was only 9 months later, when the stocks of RF645 were depleted and it was impossible to find a brand-new RF645 that Bronica recognised that they had stoped manufacturing all film cameras at the same time. Then it was clear that Robert White's information was correct.

[tony_cunningham]

Yes Fernando that's correct. I was thinking about getting an RT 645, so I followed that closely.

[User_2000406]

As of today, both the 67 and the 645NII are still listed on the U.S. Pentax site at http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/film/medium_format/ and the Japanese Pentax site at http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/medium/. However, this may be to encourage sales of remaining equipment still offered by dealers.

 

Bill

[richard_reddy]

Reports on the death of the P67 are greatly exaggerated! My 67II system is being expanded, at unprecedented low prices. I guess it's all part of the digital craze.

 

If everybody has what they want, that's fine with me, but I do expect a counter-revolution down the road (and an MS degree in applied physics in 2008).

 

This is no cause for gloom. Let me tell you about my favorite camera. It's a Kodak 5x7 view camera, never a high-end item, discontinued long before I was born in 1954. Medium format was a little more practical,

and 35mm just took the world by storm!

 

With modern film and Fujinon lenses, my Kodak never had it so good!

It's about 100 years old, and delivers better prints than any medium format camera ever made, including my lovable Pentax 67II.

 

So, when Pentax says they'll discontinue the 6x7II and 645N we can just smile. Your grandchildren will buying these cameras on eBay!

 

I think reports on the death of film are greatly exaggerated (like all the other advertising claims connected to digital imaging)! If we use our eyes, it is clear that billions of grains of metallic silver, with

a wide size distribution profile--give greater resolution than millions of pixels that are all the same size. Not to mention, much greater dynamic range to capture high-contrast subjects in the first place. Dynamic range is not a small concern. Many of the best images to be found in the history of photography involve high contrast, that just fits in the range of film. With a digital camera, those images would be throwaways!

 

I'm not knocking digital. Use it for the web or printed media. 8 or 10MP is more than we need! But don't let anyone tell you that high-pass filters (digital CCDs) have 7 stops dynamic range. That's a

crock!

 

Personally, I would hate being "freed from film". I love film, which is a very high-tech material, the result of massive R&D and long refinement. Folks who are freed from film are tethered to computers!

Since the 80 thousand dollar printer is probably more than artists can afford, you still do business with a lab--after all that time spent tending to the images in Photoshop. In every populous city, it's easy to find seminars on how to "manage your work flow". We are definitely talking about a lot of work, but prices for photo services have not increased to compensate artists for this work. You can have that unnecessary "work flow", which film technology got rid of with fully automated labs (with occasional custom intervention).

 

I think photographers are beginning to see that digital imaging is much more work, and expense than shooting with film. This is especially true for artists who get many good shots on a role of film.

Think about it:

 

Say you shoot ten rolls of 220 at a wedding. Conventional wisdom holds

that the 67II is big, heavy, and hamstrung by 1/30th flash synch, ergo

not a good camera for weddings. Wrong! I get superb images, and can carry it all day, along with a Hasselblad C/M. The wide strap is a good investment.

 

Anyway, the film will cost you 80 bucks, and for 25 bucks a roll, you can get great processing, so we're up to $330. That's nothing beside the cost of a wedding.

 

Say you buy a 30 thousand-dollar Hasselblad digital rig. How much cost

is apportioned to each job? Instead of dropping the film off at a lab, you go home and work on the images to 3:00 AM! What is your time worth? Better have at least 4GB of RAM and ample storage. How much for a high-end computer? Then you send the images to a lab anyway, because you don't have a high-end printer. If you do, it cost more than the Hasselblad! Side by side, images made from conventional film, by means of an enlarger, on photographic paper, are better than digital prints!

 

Comparisons made by those who sell, sell, sell digital, involve comparison of scanned film images digitally printed. There's a big loss of resolution there--and you might never have gotten the images we have on film from a digital CCD, due to issues of dynamic range.

 

In the world of IT, this is the much talked about cost/performance ratio. Film is a very good value, and a mature technology. Digital is

a young, costly, labor-intensive technology that can definitely break the bank and frequently disappoints artists. (fraudulent marketing claims play a role in that).

 

I think manufacturers will find themselves in the same boat with digital technology as Pentax did with the 67II and 645N. We will have a lively consumer market for digital, which has all the appeal and instant gratification of a Big Mac. Billions served! But will professionals be wanting those cameras that cost more than cars, and have big limitations?

 

The good old days are still here! Do the shoot. Drop off the film.

Order-up some prints, or print yourself. My Omega Chromega E just walks all over the best digital printers on earth--especially with

5x7 negatives. An Omega E could be had for $6000. That's less than

10 percent of a high-end digital printer. I truly dislike digital papers, but photographic paper is lovely--a whole different look and feel.

 

For the price of high-end digital (or any digital that you put 300 hours or more per year into), one could by a 16x20 view camera, and Schneider Fine Art lenses to cover the image (then you can print with

a light bulb!).

 

Economics!!! Pardon may digital rant, folks. Having said film will back with great interest and vigor, I thought I should give some reasons for saying so. Quality, ease of use, and especially economics.

 

Enjoy those wonderful 67IIs!