Opinions Anyone?

[nate_mertz]

I am going to try and make this short and sweet. Do I really need the

67II? What are its benefits over the normal 67? I am 15 years old and

if i got either of these cameras i would need to buy used. PLEASE HELP!

[bobby mahaffey]

15 years old???!!! You must be some kind of genius! When I

was 15 I was thinking about buying a $20.00 Kodak pocket 110,

model 20 or something.

 

If price is of high importance, the P67 or P6X7 will be cheaper

than the P67II, although these are coming down in price now that

there are more of them on the used market. The 67II gives

conveniences the others don't, like 3 metering modes including

a spot meter which can be very handy at times to precisley meter

important areas of a scene.

 

It also gives you an Aperture Priority automatic mode, whereby

you set the aperture and the camera gives you the correct shutter

speed, in theory, automatically. It works very well but there are

always difficult lighting situations that can fool the meter whether

in an automatic mode or manual mode. That spot meter comes

in handy in these situations.

 

And the 67II allows you to make multiple exposures. The earlier

models would not do this unless they were modified by Pentax, a

fairly expensive upgrade.

 

It also gives you Thru The Lens (TTL) flash control when used

with dedicated flash units. This is an automatic flash exposure

control that can be very helpful if you use flash a lot, especially in

Macro photography. You can learn to use a flash manually, even

for fill flash in daylight, but the TTL option greatly simplifies the

process. As to Macro photograhy, I never used flash for it with

the P67 because I didn't want to bother to make exposure tests,

but with the P67II it's easy.

 

If you can do without these convenience features, which most of

us do in the beginning, then you will probably do very well with

the P67 or 6X7. But if you get one of these I would strongly

recommend you get one with a Mirror Lock-Up. Most of them

have it, but some of the earliest models didn't. Because of the

size of the mirror in the P67 it causes some vibration that can

have a blurring effect on the picture. But locking the mirror up

before making the exposure eliminates much of the vibration. To

use this feature it is best to have the camera on a solid tripod,

which will be another important purchase regardless of which

camera you get. Bob

[bobby mahaffey]

Nate, there's something I should have mentioned. Which ever

camera you get, the meter is in the Prism viewfinder. But be

careful, because both cameras can take non-metered prisms. If

you want a built in meter, so you don't have to use a hand held

meter, the P67 and 6X7 need the metered Prism which gives you

one metering mode, the Central Area type. For the P67II you'll

also, need the metered prism (different from the P67 metered

prism), and it will give you 3 metering modes, Spot, Matrix, and

Central Area. The P67II gives you TTL flash control, but you

don't need a specific viewfinder to use this feature, since it is

built into the body of the 67II. Bob

[nate_mertz]

Thank you so much for your reply. Im not a genius... but i do LOVE outdoor/landscape photography and I am pretty good at it. I also love the sharpness and tonality in 6X7. I would love a 67 II but its so expensive. I found prices are really low on ebay because of the low demand compared to 35mm. Still a new 67II can be had for less than a mint used nikon f5. Crazy huh?

[j_king]

Be careful bidding on Pentax 67 equipment on Ebay. It seems lately there are people who will pay anything for it.

[bobby mahaffey]

Nate, since you love landscape photography the regular P67 will

likely be great for you. Landscape photography tends to be

rather slow and methodical, taking patience, as you wait for the

light to be right. The extra features of the P67II won't be used

very much. But you will need that Mirror Lock-Up and a very good

tripod, like a Series 3 Gitzo or something equivalent. Bob

[douglas_green1]

A Well maintained P67 or P6x7 MLU body with TTL prism can be gotten for as little as $500, or as much as $800 (Frankly, I buy low and sell high). With standard (non-metering) prism, the range is more like $375 - 600

 

If I were you, I'd get a P67 in good shape with a TTL prism, and pay no more than $650 for it from a knowledgeable, reputable seller. Then figure $200 - 400 for each lens.

 

The 105mm lens typically sells for $175-250 and is a Great starting point.

 

The 55mm and 45mm wideangles typically sell for $450 to 500 although the older and faster version of the 55mm can be gotten for $325-$400

 

The 90mm Leaf Shutter lens tends to sell for $275 - 350

The 90mm NON-Leaf shutter tends to sell for $250 - $300

 

The 165mm Leaf Shutter lens tends to sell for $400 - 500

 

The 165mm non-leaf shutter tends to sell for $300 - $400

 

The 200mm tends to sell for $275 - $350

 

The 135mm Macro tends to sell for $325 - $400

 

The 75mm wide tends to sell for $250 - 325

 

A good 2X converter by Vivitar or Komura tends to sell for $100 - $140

(This is nearly as good as the Pentax 2X that costs more than double)

 

For your application, I'd buy the older 55mm and the 105mm and maybe a Vivitar 2X converter.

[nate_mertz]

I keep hearing this little voice in the back of my head that says "Stick with 35mm" I just dont know. I would like to have medium format but I just cant seem to help but love the lens selection of 35mm. I also love the ease of shooting and the ease of carrying a back pack full of equipment. Am I insane??????!?!?!?!?!? Plz help me.

[douglas_green1]

In my opinion, the 6x7's best asset, in addition to the 4X film area vs. 35mm, is it's LACK of ultimate convenience. In essence, the equipment FORCES a more deliberate contemplative style of shooting. My medium format shots are NOT JUST sharper and with better tonal range, they are also, on average, better composed, and better exposed than my digital and 35mm shots. Plain and simply, because I put more thought into each shot. But there ARE certain things that 35mm simply does better. Landscapes and nature scenics are NOT among them, however.

[nate_mertz]

thanks fo talking me down. :)

[nate_mertz]

should i just skip medium format altogether and step up to a 4x5 camera?

[douglas_green1]

As well as just how much time you have to devote to this. Large Format certainly worked for Ansel Adams. But to my mind, Large format cameras are for studio work. And used with the expectation that HOURS of setup will be spent PER IMAGE. To my mind, there is always a tradeoff between practical convenience and ultimately attainable quality. APS, 35mm, 645/66, 6x7/6x9, 4x5, 8x10 all fall at various spots on that curve. For sports photography, 35mm is probably the best tradeoff. For Landscape and Nature, one of the Rollfilm Medium Formats is likely the best tradeoff.

[nate_mertz]

Thank. I think I will stick to Medium format and 35mm

[markwilkins]

Hi Nate:

 

To answer your original question:

 

If you really want a Pentax 67, I recommend getting a RECENT 67 with MLU and skipping the 67II, then plowing the extra money into an extra lens or something. It never pays to plow all the money you have into the body, in my experience.

 

I shoot a lot of 35mm and 6x7 with my Pentax. Here are some observations:

 

* A 35mm camera can be useful for a lot of casual situations where you would NEVER take an MF camera.

 

* 35mm film is easier to find.

 

* 35mm film can be easier to get processed.

 

* 35mm film is easer and faster to load.

 

* A digital scanner that scans 35mm film can cost under $500, while an equivalent quality film scanner that supports 120 film costs a lot more. (I just bought one yesterday, and I'm still shaking.)

 

* If you ever need a longer lens, it's huge and heavy, and you won't be able to afford it anyway.

 

* Lenses tend to be slower than 35mm primes.

 

However, the 67 has numerous things in its favor:

 

* With recent lenses, image quality is *outstanding*.

 

* *Per roll* (but not per image, by a long shot) cost of film and processing is cheaper than 35. I find that I tend to be more careful with each frame with the 67, so total cost of use tends to be less.

 

* The larger format makes a big difference in overall tonal quality of your images. Because the film grain is substantially smaller with respect to the overall frame, you can get great results using much faster film than you'd probably be comfortable with on the 35mm side.

 

I'd recommend, bottom line, getting a good 35mm camera and going as far as you can with that. If you're tempted to ignore my advice and go for the 67 anyway, then you're probably a good candidate for starting out with the 67. :-)

[tony_cunningham]

Mark - there are a couple of points in your last posting that I don't necessarily agree with. Firstly you say that MF telephoto lenses are more expensive than 35 mm. Have you actually checked the comparative costs of Nikon and Pentax say 600 mm (or 300 mm) lenses with a P67 600 mm lens. Certainly if you check this out for second hand you will find an enormous difference in favor of Pentax 67 and I suspect also new. I could comfortably afford a second hand P67 600 mm and could not even dream of such a lens for my Canon. Also I can use the P67 600 on a Pentax 35 mm body and the Pentax 67 lens is smaller and lighter that the Nikon and Canon equivalents.

 

Also the cost comparison (for me at least) per photo of 35 mm film and 120 film comes out well in favour of medium format. I average one saleable picture per two 35 mm films and around two per 120 film. This is a very complex issue though and it depends very much what you photograph and how and will vary tremendously per photographer.

 

Advantages of MF are that if you get the composition wrong you have much more space to crop. Many of my not quite good enough 6x7s end up as reasonable 645s or even 35 mm. With 35 mm I am ruthless and if it is not perfect I throw it away.

[co dave]

I answered this thread awhile ago but it isn't being listed now. IMHO skip the 67II. The newer (and more $$$) body still uses the same lenses as any Pentax 6X7, all you get for the extra $$ is a lot of fancy displays and metering options. If you really want "point and shoot" DON'T buy MF. On the other hand , if you know what a decent body +lens is worth, and you are the type of person to take whatever time it takes to capture an image, pick up any P6X7 that has the old metered prism and a MLU. Spend the money the you saved on film !! BTW, I shoot 6X7 probably 50% of the time, digital about 30% and 35mm the other 20%