Which 67 to get ?

[john_dowle1]

<p>Any advice on which model Pentax 67 to buy ? I'm hoping to get one shortly, I will use it for landscapes and perhaps some wedding portraits if I can get the lenses as well. Any help or tips on what to look for much appreciated as usual.<br>

John.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Having handled them both (not really shot with them though, because the one I bought broke down on me) I would go with the later version. Supposedly more plastics involved and some say slightly less reliable, but having the real grip on the camera is enough for me. I also think aperture priority can be useful. But when it comes down to it, probably not a massive different between that and a regular mirror up model as these are pretty basic beasts... with incredible output.</p>

[craigd]

<p>At this point I would be inclined to avoid the Pentax 6x7 and instead get either a Pentax 67 or 67 II. This choice eliminates the first 20 years of production (the oldest cameras) and also gets rid of the question of whether it has MLU or not.</p>

<p>The choice between the 67 and 67 II basically comes down to whether you really need aperture priority mode, which to me is nice to have if you can get it but not essential. Also, last time I looked, the 67 II still cost more in the used market.</p>

[richard_]

<p>Personally i divide Pentax 67's into 3 categories: those with MLU and those without; and then 3rd, the Pentax 67 II (described above). MLU to me isn't essential but nice to have. More important is to have a TTL metering and the wooden grip. Good luck.</p>

[WJT]

<p>Hi John. I have both the 6x7 and the 67 II. Both perform similarly, with the exception of the matrix metering aperture priority available viewfinder already mentioned, which, for me, is a very nice improvement over the older design. If you should forget to bring along your hand-held light meter, the one in the 67 II performs adequately for most situations. To be fair, so does the older one, but it is full-field averaging metering and can get fooled more easily.</p>

<p>The 67 II also features TTL metering for flash with the appropriate flash equipment. This might be important to someone who shoots weddings.</p>

<p>One thing to look out for is the integrity of the foam seals in the older models, especially the 6x7. Several years ago I had sent my 6x7 to Pentax USA for a complete overhaul, including replacing the seals. It came back like a new camera! I do not know if this service is still available from them, so it might be worth checking before a purchase. Regards.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>If you are considering the older Honeywell Pentax or Asahi Pentax without MLU, be sure they are in mint shape because these are getting pretty old now and will have more issues if in average condition. A mint MLU Asahi 6x7 or mint Pentax 67 are a safer bet. As far as TTLs are concerned for these, get one that says Pentax, not the older Asahi version. Many of the Asahi TTLs are having accuracy problems.<br>

I own the Honeywell version and the MLU Asahi of this camera and prefer the Asahi. It can get the job done without the higher price of the 67II.</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>I'm on my third Pentax 67 now. I've owned 1 6x7 and 2 67s. This time I did things right and sent it in for a CLA/repair and so far so good. </p>

<p>My only point, really, is that from my experience of buying used P67s and 6x7s is that you are running a risk of needing repair work shortly after purchase. This is to be expected with many cameras of this age and you should consider this when making your choice. Many P67s have had a rough life of professional use and may need some TLC.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I bought a 6x7 in bargain condition from keh last Christmas. It came looking pretty used and I guess I got about 20 rolls through it before it broke. I decided to try another one, and ordered the same thing. This one looks much better. So far so good. I will try to get the first one fixed. The 6x7s are so cheap it's hard to resist. I have the 150 2.8 and I love it. </p>

[simon_fallon]

<p>John,<br>

I have used and owned both models, an Asahi 6X7 MU for two decades, and - much more briefly - a 67ll. As far as build quality goes, IMHO, the old 6X7 is superior in this respect from the moment you pick it up. I strongly suggest you get some hands-on with both models before you decide. <br>

That said, the handling of the 67ll IS more user friendly, largely due to the ergonomic built in hand grip. How much of an issue this is comes down to personal preference. Both models are heavy and rather cumbersome, but you soon get used to it. My Nikons feel like toys after a day with the Pentax. I found the optional wooden hand grip very useful on the 6X7 (as much for picking the camera up with as anything else), but more or less redundant on the MK ll.<br>

With regard to reliability, the 6X7, or 67 - which is simply a later version of the MKl - has by far the better reputation. Furthermore, if something does actually go wrong with a MK l it is usually much easier and cheaper to fix than a MK ll due to the latters much more complex circuitry; either model is likely to need servicing and/or repair sooner or later. Repair techs I've used over the years generally swear by the MK l, and swear AT the MK ll.<br>

The MK ll's are MUCH more expensive, unjustifiably so in my opinion. The MK ll metered head does indeed give matrix, C/W and spot metering - useful enough - but for the price difference you could buy a decent MK l and a lightmeter or a metered prism and a couple of lenses for a less than a MK ll body.<br>

If you go for a MK l, I wouldn't even consider a non-MU. These were the very first models and, apart from their age (not necessarily a problem in itself) the enormous vibration caused by the mirror clunking up is all too often enough to take the edge off the MF sharpness at slower shutter speeds, even with a sturdy tripod. Shutter vibration is enough of a potential issue, and I have to say that the MKll appeared to do a bit better in this respect due to more efficient shutter damping.<br>

As you probably know, all 67 lenses are compatible with all 67 body versions but, sadly, heads and prisms aren't. The MK ll offers multiple exposure facility, the MK l has to be specialist modified to provide this. MK ll focussing screens can be easily changed by the user, MK l screens have to be done by a technician. Both models only flash sync at 1/30th sec which can be extremely limiting. If you plan to do wedding stuff you'll almost certainly need a leaf shutter lens or two; these are available in 90mm (used only, equvalent to about 45mm in 35mm format) and 165mm (roughly 85mm in 35mm terms). AFAIK the 165mm can still be bought new. Both these lenses will sync at up to 1/500th sec, invaluable for fill-flash.<br>

A last word about lenses. I have four; a 45mm, 90mm leaf shutter, 135mm macro, and a 165mm. All are ancient, all VERY well used, and all are razor sharp. I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that, all other things being equal, there is anything to be gained from buying newer, cosmetically nicer lenses.</p>

[mark_lewis2]

<p>I've owned at least three each of all three vintages (6x7, 67, 67ii). I wouldn't even consider a body without MLU, and even those with MLU have a handful of shutter speeds that are basically unusable (from about 1/2-1/30) if you care about truly sharp images. I got so fed up with vibration that I sold my entire Pentax stash and switched to Mamiya so as to have the leaf-shutter lenses. I never did make my peace with the vibration those Pentax camera's entail, in spite of making countless mortgage payments with them over the years.</p>