Does the problem of mirror vibration still exist in 67II?

[jeffrey_alexander]

After reading the commentary on the Pentax 67, the supporters and

detractors both seem to be saying that this is not a camera that can

be used to "shoot". It sounds like it needs to be treated more like

a 4X5. Has the mirror vibration problem been alleviated in the

67II? Is this a camera that can be used hand held? My choices have

come down to the 645N and the 67II. The negative size on the 67II is

very tempting being almost 5x that of a 35mm whereas the 645 is 2-3x

the 35mm negative size. I am most certainly a shooter, but I still

do architecture and macro work. Can the 645N be used actively to

take shots of people, animals etc?

[john_macpherson]

Jeffrey - I have a P67 (MLU but not Mk2 model) and a P645N, I would

not use any lens longer than 75mm on the P67. I sold all my longer

lenses - 105/135/165/200 as the results were not consistently sharp

(even with big tripods, big ballhead, MLU, cable release etc etc and

all the tips on Photonut and other sites) with the problem worsening

the longer the lens got. The camera just rattles too much. However I

do use it a lot with the remaining 55mm lens and the results are just

fine. I do know however that others *seem* to have no such problems

and swear by their big Pentaxes.

<P>

The P645 is excellent - the mirror brake works just fine and no

problems exist that I can see using looong exposures. With an 80-160

with 2x converter there is no serious image degradation due to any

inherent vibration (although there is a slight and expected optical

degradation).

<P>

A stock agent remarked that he was pleased I wasn't using the P67 so

much any more. Said his editors could tell the P67 submissions a mile

off by the image softness. He thought the P645 was the way to go -

cheaper, lighter, more versatile, longer lenses that are smaller, and

a quantum leap in quality from 35mm (*if used correctly*).

<P>

I personally think that with modern film emulsions 645 is a good all

round format for fairly active shooting. 35mm has an edge with some

subject matter and with AF, but all things considered the P645 is a

good all rounder in a compact and cheap package (relative to cost of

the modular 645 contenders).

[shawngibson]

I recently switched from Contax to a P67 (I), with a 150mm lens. I've only shot a few rolls so far, but the results have been the same with the Pentax as they were with the Contax: if I shoot at 1/60-1/125 sec. on the Pentax, most of my shots are fine and some are "perfectly" sharp to my eye with extreme enlargement (half the frame filling a full 8x10); I got the same results with my Contax at 1/30-1/60 sec. with a 50mm lens. I think to ensure sharpness with any camera, a tripod is necessary as a "guarantee", though not ALWAYS necessary especially if you are allowed a few moments to compose yourself before snapping the shutter (or is that THWAPPING the shutter with a Pentax 67?). Of course this only indirectly helps since you have the newer model; but I would be very surprised if the end is so much different, though. shawn

[shawngibson]

oops: you don't have the P 67II yet; but I would recommend it for what you want (can't comment on the 645...). shawn

[davidgarth]

I have owned both cameras. The Pentax 67 with a wood handgrip is marginal as a handheld camera. (It worked well for aerial work at high shuuter speeds with a need for very little depth of field.) The Pentax 645 handles as well as almost any pro-level 35 and is excellent for handheld work. The 645n with autofocus and matrix metring is especially well suited. The camera induced shake is MUCH LESS with the P645n than the P67II.

[raymond_valois]

Hi, Jeffrey ...

 

Can't comment on the P67II ... never owned one or tried one.

 

I have the 645N since April 1999. Here is one of my recent posts and confirmed by other owners who subscribe to this forum. Take a look under the Pentax 645 thread. Here is my post:

 

I purchased the 645N in April 1999. With the numerous exposures I have made

that range from seconds to minutes, I see no evidence of any kind of vibration

caused by the mirror. The mirror dampening system in this camera works, and

works PERFECTLY. IMHO, it is equivalent to MLU, and nothing less.

 

Please note that I always use a tripod and the electronic shutter release so

that I don't plunge the shutter release so hard as to cause cause vibration.

As an example...

 

You're in the studio for a portrait session. You're all set up - lighting,

contrast, strobes, subject posed, etc ... - and what you're looking for

expression in the subject's eyes, twitch of the lips, etc ...

 

And when you KNOW it's the right moment and you want to snap 3 or 4 quick

frames, well, you simply can't start pushing on the sutter release. The

electronic release is great since you can "plunge" away "ferociously" without

touching the camera! And the mirror dampening system does it job.

 

Portraits & landscapes remain tack-sharp after 11x14 enlargements when viewed

under a 5.5x loupe.

 

Snap away - the mirror on the 645N is a NON-ISSUE. When the 645N was first

introduced, the fact that it did not have MLU was quoted as a disappointment by

reviewers. The 645N mirror dampening system, without any caveat, is the

equalizer, as evidenced by the many posts in this forum by 645N owners.

 

Happy shooting!

 

And a very Merry Christmas and happy, safe and prosperous Millenium New Year to

all!

 

What a GREAT forum!

 

Ray

[patrick_drennon]

I have been a P67 user for several years. I've shot it handheld and on tripod. I just haven't had the awful experiences with the P67 noted by a significantly broad cross section of posters in this forum. These postings have made me go back several times and take another look at my results but I still love the camera. I do have some 'soft' chromes, but in every case it was photographer error. On a good tripod or handheld at the right shutter speeds it does as good a job as any of the Rollei, Blad, or Mamiya prints I've seen.

 

I was allowed (for lack of a better word) to get a P67II for Christmas. It is an improvement but the big mirror is still there and you know it every time you squeeze one off. Where it seems to be better is in MLU. On longer exposures (over 1 second) with the mirror locked up it is very easy to feel the affect of the first curtain travel. The P67II is more effectively damped than the P67. But again the P67 has never bothered me.

 

Jeffrey, you should read and consider every post on any camera you buy (they aren't cheap). This MF enthusiast's opinion is the P67II is as good a 'system' camera as you can find. It has limitations and disadvantages, but every system you consider will have that. Look at all aspects, shoot a roll of film with it. You may move on to another system, but then again you may find it fits you perfectly. If it does just be aware of the limitations and have fun.

[frank_ward]

I have to agree with Patrick on this one. I have an old Pentax 67 without mirror lock up. I also have a Hasselblad, Mamiya 7, Fuji 645 and have had Fuji 6X9. There is nothing wrong with the Pentax mirror. I prefer to use Pentax 67 on all my group portraits because it is very sharp in distinguishing each face of say 70 football players. I feel it does this an iota better than my Hassy (Pentax takes a smaller enlargement to 8X10). I don't have to worry about flare which is a problem with my rangefinders. The Mamiya 7 and Fuji 645 are great general cameras, but not as solo pro performers. For instance, with the Pentax, I can switch to longer lenses to compress the perspective and make the players in the back row appear larger.

 

Yes, the Pentax is hard to hand hold and usually I prefer any other camera. The Pentax has a lousy flash synch, too. My major complaint is with Pentax refusing to service my old 67 bodies.

 

One non issue for me is mirror lock up. Frank

[scott_seigmund]

Jeffrey, I too have used both systems you mention and currently own the 67 II. The 645n will be the preferred system for hand held candid shots with its excellent grip, auto advance and AF. The 67 II is no dog for this job either, having an excellent hand grip also. I recently used the 67 for candid shots at a family wedding hand held with the 165 f/2.8. I worried about mirror slap and shutter shake with all the tales I've read here at MFD. My worries proved unfounded as I was rewarded with some stunningly sharp images (and yes, I am a stickler for sharpness). Shutter speeds ranged from 1/125 to 1/500 sec. I found that sometimes I could use MLU even hand held, but mostly just fired away and let big mirror fly! Perhaps being a competition rifle shooter gives me an edge for hand holding, but I really see no reason why anyone else could not do as well with some practice.

 

Mostly I shoot landscape and here too I have had little problem producing sharp images. On a recent trip to Alaska I got some amazing chromes of the Alaska Mountian Range at midnight. I did some panaramas enlarged to 24 inches wide. When the prints came back I was shocked to see a fire tower way at the edge and many miles distant from my vantage point. I had not noticed the tower in the finder, but there it was, small but tac sharp and brilliently illuminated by the setting sun. I was shooting the 165 with the camera mounted on a 1228 mountineer tripod. The lesson here is don't point the camera at any thing you don't want to see in the final image no matter how insignificant it may seem.

 

I will add that I am developing a stronger openion that carbon fiber tripods can help control vibration regardless of the source.

 

You can produce amazing images with both these systems. Your style of shooting will determine which is better for you, not mirror slap.

 

Happy shooting.

Scott

[stefan_geysen]

A potential P67 purchaser may be scared away from the camera by all the vibration horror stories on discussion forums,but consider this : if the problem really is that bad as some folks say it is, how has Pentax been able to find enough buyers to keep the system in nonstop production since 1969 ?

[joe_oliva]

Greetings,

 

I can't figure out what the story is on all this mirror vibration stuff. I own a couple of P67s an use them mainly to photograph Jet Fighters and Bombers (F-117, B-2, F-15, F-16 etc.) both air-to-air and on the ground (takeoffs and landings). On the ground based shots I typically use a 300mm lens, pre-focused, and hand held, panning as the jet whizzes by at 150-170 mph. Lens wide open or stopped down one, and shutter speed 1/500-1/1000. Of course not all the pix are sharp, but most are. Air to air, lenses range from 35 to 300mm, and I loose maybe 20% to focusing errors/camera shake. Now if I could use a tripod, My pix would be even sharper, but tripods and ejection seats aren't terribly compatible. Most of the results get printed 16x20 inches, so sharpness is very important.

 

My best advice is practice, practice, practice. The P67 is not an easy camera to use compared to 35mm, but the results have impressed enough people in the Air Force to let this civilian fly in military jets and create images at a level of quality (and imagination) that few can match.

 

I must also say that as far as the lenses go, you can't get any more bang for the buck.

 

All the Best.

 

Joe Oliva

 

AvPhoto

[scott_jorgenson1]

I own both the P67II and the (manual focus) P645. I shoot both on my tripod (the P67II with mirror lockup) and examine them critically under a 10X loupe.

 

First, note that there's no such thing as a "sharp" or "soft" camera with respect to mirror/shutter-induced vibration. It's just not that black-and-white. Rather, any camera's mirror and shutter cause a certain level of vibration, and whether it is sufficiently dampened so as not to be visible in the final image at high magnification is all a function of the shutter speed, lens magnification (focal length), and external support (ie, the mass, construction, and damping qualities of the tripod, head, and any other inertia you apply). Some cameras have less inherent vibration than others, so they can tolerate lighter and less-stable tripods and heads across a wider range of shutter speeds and lenses. Other cameras aren't so tolerant. That doesn't mean they can't take a great image; just that it takes more care in choice of tripod, or shutter speed, or lens, etc, to do so.

 

That said, here's my conclusion as an owner of both cameras:

 

The P67II is much less tolerant than the P645. Many combinations of tripod, head, lens magnification, and shutter speed which the P645 would accept with aplomb to produce a tack-sharp picture, produce a soft image on the P67II (even though the mirror be locked-up).

 

Specifically, I've found that somewhere between 135mm and 200mm, shutter speeds between 1/30 (or maybe 1/60) and 1/4 (or maybe 1/2) are unusable on the P67II, when shot from the Bogen (Manfrotto) 3021/3030 (an aluminum tripod/head combo weighing about 8 pounds). This is consistent with the mirror locked-up, the camera oriented horizontally, and the usual care taken with focus, cable release, etc.

 

In contrast, the P645 does not have a problem with the same parameters (indeed, with any parameters I've tested under).

 

Now, does this mean the P67II is a junk camera? No, I have no plans to get rid of it. It just means that I either have to avoid those telephoto lenses, or those shutter speeds, or that particular tripod/head. Since the first 2 are not really options for me, I've taken the approach of upgrading to a tripod/head combination that is both heavier and more stable: the Gitzo carbon-fiber G1548 tripod with the G1572 head, about an 11-pound combination. The extra mass, and the better-dampened carbon-fiber construction, have done the trick for me, and I now regularly get tack-sharp pictures at all shutter speeds with even my longest P67II lens (200mm).

 

But what about Joe's experience? He uses a 300mm lens and gets sharp photographs hand-held, probably with the mirror not locked-up even. But he is shooting at faster shutter speeds than the "troublesome middle" I just mentioned. I, too, didn't have any problem with such speeds, because the exposure is over before the vibration actually has time to jerk the camera.

 

What about Scott's experience? Taking landscape photos at midnight, he had no problems producing a tack-sharp image. But such long shutter speeds are also outside of the "troublesome middle". The proportion of the total exposure during which the camera is vibrating because of the shutter shock, is negligible. The possibility that he may also already be using a tripod sufficiently heavy and well-constructed to dampen the vibration also exists - he did say he's using a carbon-fiber build, and my experience shows me how much of a difference that makes.

 

So the P67II isn't a bad camera, just a more finicky one than many others. Considering its simplicity, large degree of accessories (especially a wide range of lenses), cost-effectiveness, and reliability, P67II users are generally able to avoid the risk of image softness (by using exceptionally-stable support, low-magnification lenses, or non-middling shutter speeds), and consider it a good trade-off. That's why the P67/P67II line is still in business.

 

Scott

[greg_lawhon]

Scott:

 

One of the most eloquent and best-documented posts on MFD, on this or any other topic. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and time.

[patrick_drennon]

Couldn't have said it better, thanks Scott.

[scott_jorgenson1]

Thanks for the compliments regarding my previous posting. By the way, when I wrote that I had noticed P67II image softness "somewhere between 135mm and 200mm", that makes it sound as if the effect only exists **within** that range. What I meant to say was it **starts** somewhere within that range (when used with the Bogen 3021/3030) and increases as the focal length does. This may seem obvious to some, but I just wanted to add this clarification to avoid any possible confusion.

 

Scott

[bryan_flamig]

Scott's response was right on the money. Many people in this forum and elsewhere seem to confuse shutter shake with mirror shake. Two different animals altogether! The mirror shake is easy to get rid of. Use MLU and wait a second or two. And if shooting handheld, contrary to what I've seen written here and elsewhere, mirror shake and shutter shake are simply not an issue, MLU or not, as long as you shoot at the speeds you should be shooting at anyway for handheld with this camera and focal length combinations -- 1/125 sec or higher. (1/250 is what I consider the slowest safe bet for 200mm on down, with 1/500 for the 300mm lens.) I have shot at 1/60 with the 45mm and obtained decent results, but not something I would blow up beyond 11x14. (I'm pretty demanding of sharpness.)

 

I recently did some "shutter shake" tests with my Pentax 67 with various lenses: 45mm, 55-100mm zoom, 105mm, 200mm, and 300mm. I have a 3021 Bogen tripod with Arca Swiss B1 ballhead. I used MLU, and used the 2x magnifier for critical focus, and used newspaper print (the tiny-font TV schedule) as a target. My conclusions?

 

There is definitely a problem with this camera/tripod combination at shutter speeds from 1/15 to 1/4 sec, with 1/8 sec being by far the worst. The longer the lens, the worse the problem. With the 45mm, there was maybe a little drop off in sharpness at those shutter speeds, but it was inconclusive. With the 55-100mm zoom, perhaps the a little more problem but also inconclusive. With the 105mm lens, also inconclusive. However, with the 200mm and 300mm lenses, it is not possible to shoot at 1/8 sec without getting very bad blur.

 

However, that's only when shooting horizontally. I discovered by accident, that if you shoot vertically, there is no shutter shake problem at all. This was especially noticeable with the 300mm, where horizontal shots at 1/8 sec were all blurry, but shot vertical at the same shutter speed, I got reasonably sharp results every time. After thinking about this it makes sense. It's a lot easier to wiggle the camera/tripod horizontally, (which is the direction the shutter would be moving when shooting horizontally) than it is up and down, (when shooting vertically) simply because of the effect of gravity.

 

-- And as a side note, using Bogen's cork covered quick release adapters with their 3047 head combination, something I tried early on, was a disaster with the 300mm lens when shooting vertically. There was simply no way to keep the camera from rotating downwards, no matter how tight I tried to clamp down. However, after moving to the Arca Swiss B1 ballead, and the quick release adapter from Really Right Stuff, I concluded the latter was really right stuff, as they have a pin on their adapter that fits into a hole on the bottom of the Pentax that prevents the vertical rotating from taking place entirely. I can safely now shoot with the 300mm -- as long as I avoid the dreaded 1/8 sec range.

 

Also, another side note: some people have suggested pressing down on the camera when taking shots. I found this to be a very bad idea, especially with the 300mm. Try looking through this lens when pressing down on the camera, and you'll quickly drop that practice. I keep my hands off completely, even off the tripod as well. I also tried using bean bags (a couple of pounds) on top of the camera, and also strapped to the tripod. My tests showed that this helped, but did not eliminate the shutter shake problem.

 

After doing these tests, I've concluded that I need a heavier and/or stiffer tripod than the 3021 Bogen for this camera. As soon as my back (if I elect heavier) or my wallet (if I elect carbon fiber) agrees, I'll be moving to a different tripod. I'm currently thinking of the Gitzo 1329 tripod, as it seems to be a good combination of lightness and portability, (well, really no heavier than the 3021 and not much longer folded up), but much much stiffer (and much more expensive).