jean_marie_solichon

I do not really see a big difference between them: they basically are a pop up skirt designed to darken the ground glass. The main difference lies in format and the square one (Hasselblad)means that a waist level finder is much more useful than for the rectangular (6x7) one as vertical framing is tough to perform in the later case.

Mark, last year I switched from 135macro to 100macro and have been very satisfied with this decision so far. With the 135 I could not avoid shutter blurr from 1/15 to 1/2s, no problem with the 100 at these speeds. Another point is that I wished to keep a 3 lens set with the same filter size (55 + 100macro + 200). Optically the 100 macro is as good as the 135, probably better at infinity. And when used without optical complements the difference in focusing distance between 100 and 135mm is not very signifiant. The 100 focuses down to 1/2 size without accessory, not the case for the 135. OK, now do you want to go below 1/2 size? It's a different story and, yes, not very practical with the converter. Tubes are more convenient. On the other hand they induce a cost: 1/2 to 2 stops! Well...I like better my Nikon for 1/2 size and below.

In my experience if your longest lens is a 90, you do not need more than a Gitzo series 2 or Manfrotto 055 with 168 ball head. Manfrotto 352 ball head is a miniature one just good enough for 135 or digital point and shoot.

Hello John,

I just checked for you and here are my comments (hope my english is understandable) :

1) when you drop the bed you have to tilt backwards and rise the front in order to re-align everything (actually in a not much acurate way as there is nothing to tell you if you are spot on). And here comes the main limitation: then the front standard is almost at its highest point in the rail and there is at best very few mm left to rise it any more. NB: it may be unnecesary to drop the bed fully and consequently to rise the front fully, but I did not checked.

2) front fall and swing is limited by bellows compression but in my opinion at such a point that it does not interfere with the movements you need to perform.

3) front shift is not limited

Feel free to e-mail me if you need more information. Jean-Marie

Sal, I can't see any difference in magnification (checked with a 55mm).

Bernard,

I just tried that for you: both the non metering prism and folding waist level finders for the P67 fit the P67II.

Jean-Marie

Michael,

Regarding the second part of your question, I am not sure what you mean by "meter in ambient mode" and "meter cone". I guess you mean "meter in incident mode" and "meter dome". If I am correct then you should position the meter at the subject place and direct the meter dome towards the camera (draw an imaginary line from the dome to the camera/lens). But if your are shooting at sunrise/sunset that may well be a backlit scene and incident metering does not work well in this condition.

I visited many many photographers web pages and I bookmarked only one: Paul's website. I come back there very often.

Allan, you're right and I stand corrected. But I must say that I never got uncorrect exposures with my linear polarisers.

Michael,

I have been using a Gitzo 1325 for all my photography including a P67 and P 67II for several years with total satisfaction. Without a central column there is no efficent and practical way to hang weight on the tripod. If I'd feel the need to add weight (which I don't) from time to time, I'd rather buy an optional short column with hook that I'd bring with me rather than a different tripod.

I can't see any reason not to use a linear polariser with the P67II! At least there is no warning about this matter in my manual. As far as I know circular polarisers must be used with SLR bodies having partially transparent mirror for metering or autofocus purposes. The P67 is not fitted with such a mirror is it?

With all repect due to Glenn, in my experience vertical shots with a 75mm on the Toyo 45 AII, a slight front fall and bed not being dropped will bring a part of the bed onto the picture.

Another vote for the 90mm as logical step from 135. The Toyo 45 AII will handle it on a flat lensboard and will not need to drop the bed. Not the same story with 75mm and perhaps 80mm. The Nikkor 90SW F:8 will be the smallest, lightest, less expensive 90mm lens with 235mm image circle.

Jeff, I too am relying on incident metering most of the time. For backlit scenes I do the exact opposite as for frontlit scenes: white dome looking at the scene from the camera standpoint. Then I open 2/3 of a f stop from the reading. It works quite consistently (for colour positive film at least).

Fly fishing rods?!... Well they stopped making them from fiberglass 15 years ago and from metal 40 years ago at least. 100 % carbon fiber nowadays! My most tripod wise demending camera is the Pentax 67 and the 1325 CF Gitzo dampens its vibration much better than my previous 320 all metal, 25% heavier tripod.

Paul, I have tried many brands of polarizers and, as far as color rendition and built quality are concerned the linear single coated Heliopan are, by far, my favorites even compared to the B&W equivalent. Yes, they are a tiny bit "cold" but nothing compared to others. I'll definitely give a try at the warm ones very soon. Sorry I can't speak about the CF+Pola combo as I tend to avoid CF as much as possible. By the way : do you really need the CF with the 80 and 110 SSXL?

After using 8 lenses (45, 55, 75, 105, 100macro, 135 macro, 200 and 300)during the 7 last years I settled on a 3 lens kit (landscape + flora shooting) made of 55, 100macro and 200. All three lenses are very good, compact and have the same filter size. In my experience if you wish maximum DOF, the 45 does not really make much more than the 55 (and at the expense of an exagerated perspective. You'd better go the view camera route.

"but *probably* will need one for the 75mm."

Who knows? I even do not use one on my 75 Super Angulon!

Jean-Marie

David, I have been using a Super Angulon 75/5,6 for a few years and I find it to be quite sharp, indded. I do not feel the need for a center filter (I shoot colour transparency). I bought this lens new and it is from the last generation, multicoated. Before this one I had an older one bought used from the non multicoated series. Although it was of very good quality I did not keep it for a long time because the colours it rendered were definitely different (cooler) from the ones delivered by all my other lenses.

In my experience there is no need for a CF with the 55 on roll film and a 75 (mine is a 5,6 Schneider) on 4x5 and roll film, at least with my Toyo 45 AII modest movements.

I, too, have just switched from 67 to 67II. I am not concerned about mirror vibration (I always lock the mirror before firing the shutter) but about shutter vibration. In this respect the 67II seems slightly better (my test is that I can shoot the 200mm at 1/60s and with care at 1/30s with my tripod/head combo). And, as reported by the previous poster, there are several other signifiant improvements.

I will second Björn opinion about the 200 M Nikkor because this is what I have been using on my Toyo 45AII for years. The 200M coverage does not limit the movement capacities of the Toyo. On the other hand Ed Balko suggestion about leaving a lens on the Toyo when folding it does'nt work : The Toyo cannot be folded with a lens attached even backwards, at least it did'nt with the smallest ones I tried : 105, 135 & 200 Nikkors.

Joe, a 210 Super Symmar XL will certainly be usable on your Toyo field, but (unless you already own one) I cannot see the interest of such a lens. A regular plasmat type 210 is largely enough for 4x5 and so more for the Toyo field and its limited movements.

John, I have been using a standard 82mm Heliopan polariser on my 45mm without any problem. Jean-Marie

OK, I stand corrected. Then the datas I provided are correct for the 135 macro which I used at that time. Now, with the 100 macro and its close-up aditional cell it seems that extension tubes are'nt that much useful. I'll test the tubes with the 200mm to see if the results are very different than with the 135.