trace_dibble6

I've got a little problem here. With a prism finder and ball-joint quick

release plate attached, my RZ67 is almost 9" tall, much too tall for my case.

What do you guys use to store these things?

At long last, I've acquired, one at a time, all the major components of a

functional RZ67, and I'm tip-toeing through the operation of it. Given my 35mm

& Pentax 67 SLR orientation, I'm finding everything to be a bit awkward--and a

little intimidating (did anyone else find this to be true the first time out?)

 

Anyway, I've stumbled over a possible problem while attempting mirror lock-up

operation. When I screwed the cable release into the socket on the lens

barrel, it popped up with alacrity and exposed a red ring. Normal, all well

and good. But after removing the cable release, it stayed up. And, of course,

I can't release the shutter without screwing the cable back in. Is something

wrong?

I, for one, would very much dislike seeing the demise of this forum, even if that demise was limited to reincarnation. I've poked my nose in here for almost a decade, a span in which I've seen the photographic landscape change around me due primarily to digital tremors, with many a casualty. Being somewhat slow to stampede, I've held my ground even as one tool after another has slipped from my grasp, victims of market exigencies. I would certainly loathe the loss of yet another.

 

I mean no offense to the denizens of Photo.net, but the atmosphere here would certainly be damaged irreparably were the subject matter to become one endless battle of wits regarding the relative merits of Nikon vs. Canon, not unlike the pointless Ford vs. Chevy or Republican vs. Democrat debates one is sometimes inflicted to hear in bowling alleys or coffee houses.

 

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with Nigel. I used a Pentax 67 for years, sometimes both seeking and giving advise on problems peculiar to them, yet always, even in the doing, feeling more of a kinship to medium format adherents as a group than to P67 users specifically.

 

Keep it as it is, Phillip. Let us die with dignity.

Well, I'm trying to replace the focusing screen om my newish RZ67 Pro II (I've

always preferred the grid type, even for landscape). The manual makes it sound

fool-proof, which could be referring to myself in particular: "...lift up and

remove the screen by grasping the lug on the right-hand side." Naturally, it's

not that simple. The "lug" is held tightly in place by a wire clip. How do I

release it? I know I'm being silly, but I don't want to break anything.

I'm getting my feet back in the water after a hiatus of a few years, and I can

see the encroachment of digital has continued unabated, with inevitably fewer

film choices, especially for landscape purposes. So far, my quest for the Holy

Grail--i.e., a walk-in freezerful of Ektar 25 in suspended animation--has gone

nowhere. I know this question has surely been asked zillions of times before,

but each time it is, there's fewer emulsions to answer with. what's the best

of what's left?

 

I'm off to cue up some vinyl on my Victrola while awaiting an answer. I got me

one of those goldurn newfangled watches with just numbers, no hands. Don't

know what time it is.

Yeah, I know, Eric. The time it took me to set up my Bogen, lock up all supports and ballhead adjustments always far exceeded that spent metering. I had a metered finder with my P67, but I never used it. I've just decided to give the AE finder a go, insofar as a Seconic L-508 or its ilk would cost me nearly what the finder has.

 

Actually, I'm surprised you picked a 67 of any stripe for events. The P67 was billed as a gentle-giant SLR, but it's definately a tripod-potato

There's a trade-off to everything, Eric. 7IIs, like Leicas, are wonderful cameras, but I prefer looking through the same "eye" the film will. I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to a hand-held meter, though, if only because I'm the slow-slow-slow contemplative type.

Thanks Michael, Eric, DM. I've finally found something about it in the manual, and you were right. The RZ PD ain't gonna work with the Pro II. In fact, they go to the trouble to warn that it "cannot be retrofitted." AE it is (sigh)

Thanks, Micheal. But I didn't make myself clear: the finder over which I'm finding RZ67/RB67 confusion is the PD finder. I've seen photos which had either designation, as if there are two dedicated PD finders, one for the RB, the other for the RZ. Either that or the photos submitted by Ebay sellers weren't accurate--which is altogether possible, of course.

I need your help again, guys, before I make an expensive mistake.

 

I'm assembling an RZ67 Pro II setup piece-by-piece, and I know from broken

love affairs with TLRs that I need a prism finder ("it isn't you dear," I

said, fumbling my words as I caressed her D of F preview lever, "it's me"). I

would visualize a photograph, look in the viewfinder, then try to reconstruct

the magic in my mind from the left-to-right reversal I would see. Some kind of

left brain/right brain disconnect, I suppose, but it never worked for me.

 

I've also decided on a metered finder. In my Pentax 67 days, I had a Pentax V

spotmeter, but more of the time than not all I did was aim it at an 18% gray

card held at arm's length. Shooting only landscapes, that used to work for me

(except for the occasional situation in which the luminance ratio was

impossibly wide). In any event, I could just as well do that with the meter in

the camera than pull something else out of the bag.

 

This is where things get dicey, because there appears to be multiple

varieties, I'm buying things online and the Mamiya site is in a shameful state

of disrepair. From what I've been able to glean, the AE has capabilities

beyond what I need/want. The PD seems to be the thing, but I've seen photos in

which "RB-67" is inscribed across the front of them, then others that proudly

proclaim themselves to be of the RZ67 persuation.

 

Can someone help me make sense of this? And by the way, would I be overpaying

for a used, supposedly "excellent" PD finder at $239?

Does anyone know if the digital back designed for the RZ67 Pro IID can be used

on an earlier model, such as the Pro II?

Need a little help, guys. I'm this close (holds thumb and forefinger in air,

very close but not touching) to plunging in up to my wallet in a RZ67 Pro II

with perhaps three lenses, all of the previously owned persuasion. In looking

at prospective lenses, I'm finding troubling alpha characters in the model

numbers. For instance, : 180mm f/4.5 W-N, 75MM F4.5 L, 140mm M/L-A F4.5. Some

have green Zs inscribed prominately on them, some do not. Same with Ws. I need

a very quick education on the ins-and-outs on this. What do the characters

mean? What should I avoid?

 

I much prefer asking stupid questions to making stupid mistakes. Thanks for

your help in advance.

Can anyone tell me how accurate (or not) the RZ67 eye-level prism finders are,

i.e., how accurate the borders seen when looking through the finder are to

what is actually recorded on the film? Thanks in advance...

You ought to be arrested on charges of theft, Geoff. Somebody clearly had no idea what they had. The 124G was truly a classic.

 

You might find, however--as I did--that even if the meter works, it's not to be trusted. I had much better luck consulting a hand-held meter, which I carried in my shirtpocket.

Vince, there's something close to a consensus that the 55mm F4.0 is the best 67 lens Pentax ever made. I do landscapes almost exclusively, mind you, but mine is my lens of choice probably 75% of the time.

 

I also have the 105mm, but it gets the least use. My 45mm is good for extreme elongations of perspective; my 135mm macro--with extension tubes--has delivered some stunning desert wildflower details, and has worked well as a head-and-shoulders portrait lens; My 200mm works when I need slightly compressed perspective.

 

The 105mm rarely shines at any task. It came along for the ride with the 67 body I bought and so far, it's been almost a free ride. It seldom contributes.

 

What I'm driving at is that you might consider opting for a lens with a dedicated, if narrow purpose in life as your second lens--as opposed to the 105mm, which does a mediocre job of lots of things but is outstanding at nothing. And the 55-100mm zoom? There's an immutable law of physics that dictates the following: if, in making a change in the physical world in order to gain something (convenience), you lose something somewhere else (resolution). You may not see it when looking at your proofs, but you'll know it's there. It'll play with your head. Don't go there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "simple to use," Habib. If you mean automated, that feature is much opposed to "affordable" and "cheapest." If you mean "basic," I have a suggestion: Yashicamat 124G. It's a TLR with an excellent taking lens and no frills: a light-tight film box, a pair of very clear, discerning eyes with a leaf shutter attached to one of them--and that's it. It's a classic that can be owned for a song.

 

The last of them rolled off the assembly line in the mid 1980s, just as the auto-everything mindset was taking hold in the camera industry. Silicon thoughtlessness became all the rage. Optical quality and image quality sat in the rear of the bus--and became far less expensive to attain, because acceptably focused and exposed images of Aunt Maude standing in front of Yosemite Falls could be more easily made with the point-and-shoot variety.

 

There's plenty of Yashicamat 124Gs left around, in Ebay and camera shows. They'll make great images. They'll outperform the bejesus out of any 35mm. Just don't expect them to autofocus, autoexpose, auto advance-the-film-frame, autocompose, autothink or auto-wipe-your-ass.

Yes, a larger piece of film always yields a superior result. And yes, that superiority may not be significant at 8" X 10"--especially if it's been scanned and digitized for use in publication.

 

But there's one other factor: the "slow down" effect. When I was a lot younger and was first dipping my toes into photography, I used a 35mm like a machine gun. Film was cheap. Take enough exposures of the same subject and one or two are bound to be keepers.

 

When I moved to larger formats, however, each individual exposure became--of a necessity--a project in itself. Each were far more planned, considered and executed than any I'd ever made with 35mm. I'll never go back, so long as I live.

Don't get me wrong with this: I'm not an aged, anti-technology nut

case pining for the past, killing a little time in the community

room of some assisted-living facility. When CDs went on the market,

my entire collection of 33 1/3 vinyl LPs tumbled with considerably

noisy protest into a plastic garbage receptacle. No regrets, other

than the potential antique value they may have contained.

 

Havig said that, I fear something of notable human artistic value is

being forfeited, is slipping into oblivion unnoticed, lost in the

pandemodium of cell phones and GPS positioners and MPS players:

That, of course, being the simple, yet paradoxically complex and

very difficult art of manipulating silver-based emultions into

serving your purposes. Fewer and fewer of these emultions are

available, as the digital cancer eats away at the demand for them.

Ektar, Kodachrome 25 and those of their ilk are a distant, if

cherished memory. The few that remain are of the speed-is-

everything, quality-is-nothing persuation.

 

There's an historical precedent to all of this: when photography

first appeared, it did so in a form that threatened paint art.

Pictorialism mimicked paint, was a bastardized poor-man's short cut.

The Ansel Adams of the world stepped in to clarify the matter, to

separate the art forms, each with their own distinct history and

methods.

 

To wit, there is no Ansel Adams to preside over the subdivision of

film photography and digital photography. Digital consumes film in

the manner that bigger fish eat the smaller. And a great era of

human artistic expression comes to a close, in much the same manner

that historical buildings are razed to make way for asphalt parking

lots.

Do you mean replacing a damaged back? Any camera repair business worth its salt can do that. Do you mean replacing the standard back with one that uses Polaroid film? Last I knew, Pentax can do that for you, but the camera must be shipped directly to them for the modification. To my knowledge, that exhausts all the possibilities, short of designing and building your own interchangeable backs.

I share your sorrow, Brian. I loved the bigger-than-life color saturation of Ultra. The next choice would be Ektar 25--oops, they quit making that, too. Seriously, the nearest equivalant pushes you over to the transparancy side of the aisle: Fuji Velvia

Not the answer you're looking for, Larry, but here it is: I did some experimentation with different types of circular filters and found them to be too erratic with respect to the problem of vignetting to be worth the trouble.

 

My advise would be to dirch the lot of them and invest in a Lee foundation kit with wide-angle ring adapters. I've used that combination and have stacked up to three onto my 45mm, with no hint of clipped corners. A side benefit: if you use neutral density grads, you can place the gradient anywhere on the frame you want or need.

Whoops. Yes, David. I meant Yashicamat 124G

David,

Of all the cameras I've used over the years, the most bang for the least bucks was in a Mamiya 124G. It had plenty of limitations, but for less than $200 I got a solid, all-manual, well constructed camera body with a very good lens.

I fear, gentlemen, that you and I are dinosaurs among men. Granted, digital is replacing film at a much slower rate of speed than CDs did away with vinyl LPs, but the writing is clearly on the wall. At some point, we will all be bearers of exquisite guns for which ammunition is no longer being manufactured.

David, did your superior powers of perception succeed in taking this in: "I hate to purchase another filter system, but am willing to do so."