trace_dibble6

I have to agree with most of the other posters, particularly Lex. Cokin filters belong in the toy and gadget category. You've made the plunge, spent a lot of money on your 67II and lenses, presumably in search of image quality. It would be very counterproductive at this point to turn some very fine lenses into something less by forcing them to see the world through junk resin.

 

My vote is (and was) for Lee. Yes, they're costly. But once you've spent the money, then allowed time to pass in which you absorb the economic shock waves, you wake up on a new day--a day in which you possess a set of filters that synergize with your lenses, as opposed to handicapping them.

I recently was handed a Minolta Hi-Matic E rangefinder camera (given

to me a friend who picked it up at a yard sale, had no use for it,

told me he would like to see it "go to a good home"). The first

thing I discovered about it, much to my chagrin, is that it used a

certain, long discontinued variety of mercury batteries. Is this

thing just a paperweight now, or is there a means of binging back to

life?

Thanks Terry, Jay, Bill, Chris. Excellent feedback from all. The weight problem doesn't bother me, because as Terry guessed, I always use a tripod. Nor does the manual film advance (I'm lazy, but not THAT lazy). Nor is the shutter speed limitation problematic to me. I like the idea of not being a slave to a battery, and the RB's potential use as a nutcracker has to be considered a plus.

 

What does concern me, however, is the inconsistency of lens quality. I'm not an individual possessed with an overabundance of "luck," and prefer not to rely on it. If I'm understand this correctly, the RZ and RB each have a dedicated line of lenses. If I might ask one final favor, could anyone explain this a little further?

What are you thinking, Arie? You moved up from 35mm because you wanted higher quality images, right? Even if the LM was capable of a 1/1000th speed, you might consider using more like a 50 ASA film for two reasons: first, stopping down to F22 introduces an image degrading diffraction problem (also, any unnecessary glass you put in front of the lens simply for the purpose of limiting the amount of light reaching the film plane will hurt the image; Putting sunglasses on your camera ain't the way to go about it), and second, as a general thing, slower film is better film. It might hamper you, require the use of a tripod at times, but the end product is the priority. "Quick and dirty" is for 35mm.

Can anyone tell me, in a nutshell, what the essential differences

are between the RB67 and the RZ67? I'm trying to integrate into my

decision two factors: (A) The RB67 can be acquired for a song on

Ebay these days, and (B) I only shoot landscapes. If the RZ demands

a larger investment for features I have no use for anyway, I'd--of

course--prefer the RB and cash left in my pocket. On the other hand,

the greater mistake would be to get the RB, only to realize later

I'd made a mistake. So what's the story, guys?

Kudos to you, Arie, for opting for a camera born well over 40 years ago--it was manufactured from 1958 to 1962--that nonetheless will outperform any modern 35mm autoeverything glamour queen. The race, as they say, goes to the swift. But in an arena where image quality means crossing the finish line first, your turtle will do it everytime, while the 35mm hare slumbers. Ultimately, nothing beats a much larger film area.

 

Your questions have been answered, but I have a piece of advice regarding the selenium meter: I have found that it's not to be relied upon in every situation. I had much better results by either the use of a hand-held meter, or by holding an 18% grey card in the selenium meter's line of sight.

 

By the way, if you need a manual--long out of print, of course--you can get a reprint here for $10: http://www.photobooksonline.com/books/userbk29TLR.html

I felt that same feeling--the bottom dropping out of my stomach--when the same thing happened to me, Ryan. I had presumed that the film advance, and most every other aspect of of the camera's functionality, worked precisely the same as a 35mm SLR. I was never so relieved in being wrong in my life. Your first guess is correct: you simply need to have film in the camera

How's this for polite and professional?: "How absurd. How utterly absurd and impotent. At one time, I was of the belief that California led the nation in the number of left-of-center, intellectually lightweight, self-important politicos that seek the gratification of their egos by means of placing their mark, however insignificantly and ineffectually, in the penal code--at the expense of such trivialities as human freedom, human rights, human culture and the artistic expression thereof. New York, to my chagrin, has consistently proven me wrong. Her subways are as rich a mouthful of human essense as any to be found on the globe. But we will be denied the flavor of it for the self-aggrandizement of the small in our midst. The terrorist, in the meantime, will not be impeded, nor even inconvenienced."

I second the suggestion of getting a different camera, either with interchangeable lenses or a non-interchangeable wide angle affixed. A Mutar is not unlike teleconverters--or any other secondary, afterthought optic--in that they transform an otherwise excellent lens into something less.

"deep depth of field at f2.8..." Holy Christ. "depth of field" and "2.8" is a contradiction in terms to begin with. Taking matters a fractional stop lower down would make little, virtually no difference. If a hand-holdable shutter speed is the sole priority, use a faster film. Or for that matter--if image quality is down a few rungs on the ladder of priorities--ditch the RZ in favor of a 35mm point-and-shoot with a 1.8

Been there, done that, Pavel. I invested heavily into a five lens P67 system, carried it in a backpack all over the American southwest. I loved it to pieces, mind you, but there's a better way. Especially if portraiture is a component of your equasion. You'd find 4x5 to be a bit cumbersome for that. And, I suspect, You'd discover that looking through that surrogate viewpoint that a rangefinder camera offers to be a poor substitute for the real thing.

 

There are at least two significant drawbacks to the P67: (1) 1/30th max flash synchonization, a problem Pentax saw not fit to address with the P67 II, and decidedly an issue for portraiture. Yes, you could sidestep that with the 165mm leaf shutter lens, but on a $3000 budget you'd have to expend resources disproportionately for that band-aid (2) The P67 has a long and storied history of vibration problems, not a surprise considering the mechanical realities of its huge mirror and focal-plane shutter. Yes, you can lock up the mirror and throw away the key, but there's little you can do about shutter slap (I have a distinct, horrible memory--somewhere in Utah--of lashing my P67 onto a heavy tripod, rotating it up into the vertical, screwing in the cable release, locking the mirror, pulling the trigger with the confidence that I'd done everything right, then SEEING the whole structure vibrate like a Washington wife suddenly denied her normal daily complement of Valium. It was a heartrending sight to behold).

 

If your choice in a camera must encompass everything from portraits to landscapes, here's my suggestion: Mamiya RZ67. Don't go digital, because God will get you for it. You'll spend eternity in hell, knashing your teeth. The shutters are all of the leaf variety, and inherent to the lenses. And they're getting very cheap to acquire. Check out Ebay.

You "love dearly" a tripod? Dude, you're like WAY too wrapped up in non-organic material things. And that's bad, bad karma. Chill out, man. I can tell you the way to San Jose--or what to wear in your hair in 'Frisco--but all I know about Los Alamitos is that they got a track there where they whip a lot of rad horses to death to finish first so that the fat-ass rich man gets richer, but the mass of men (and chicks) lead like lives of quiet desperation. Oh, and Los Alamitos is pretty close to Long Beach, where I've gone with my board to shoot the waves a few times. Grunge, man. The fish got mercury. The sand's loaded with fecal stuff. Long Beach: a long, skinny cat box. Anyway, didn't mean to trip on you. This Hakuba thing I don't know about. Like sorry.

Larry;

Bottom line: teleconverters are garbage optics, corruptions that make mediocre telescopes out of otherwise fine lenses. Spend the money, buy a 300mm that is engineered as such. Don't compromise, or all your images will exhibit the effect of compromise. Even if you can't detect the image degradation without the aid of a loupe, you'll know it's there. Knowledge will lead to anxiety, then to depression. Soon, you'll be drinking heavily, snapping at your wife and beating your kids. Ultimately, you'll graduate from detox, check into rehab, then surrender to the fine young men in white smocks who will escort you to a soft-walled efficiency apartment (of sorts) from which no sharp object can be found.

 

And all because you took the low road and bought a teleconverter. Don't do it. Don't damage beyond repair the lives of your wife, children and photographic images. Nobody gets into medium format to produce soft trash.

Art, this may not be the answer you want to hear, but here it is anyway: all things considered, you already have what you need. Add another lens or two, perhaps, but don't change your platform.

 

I owned a P67 once, along with five lenses and many appurtenances. I loved them to death. Still do (wherever they may be; I sold the entire collection via Ebay, piece by piece, and now the family is scattered to the wind across several states. The 55mm F4 is doing fine, sent me a postcard. The 45mm complains of abuse, of irregular, non-ionic dust removal). Be that as it may, I now recognize that the Mamiya RB67 is superior. No shutter slap. Put this guy on a tripod, lock up the mirror. You won't see better results this side of a 4X5 or larger view camera. If weight is really so much an issue, then forget the whole thing. Get into bed with Microsoft and sell Ansel Adams down the river.

" 'Of course, it has MLU, so if you�re on an tripod, it�s not a problem.'

MLU doesn't solve all the problems with the Pentax 67, where a good percentage of the vibration comes not from the mirror but from the shutter"

 

First of all, the urban-legendary problems with the P67 shutter are quite irrelavant, because the RB67 uses leaf shutters integral to the lenses, as opposed to the P67's focal plane shutter the size of a barn door.

 

Moreover, the P67 shutter problem has yet to become a matter of documented, unassailable fact. Heretofore, all the evidence in that regard is anecdotal, the subject of home grown "research," and all over the map in terms of results.

Ash, if what you're looking to do is to dip your toes into a larger format as painlessly--i.e., inexpensively--as possible, the way to go is with a used Mamiya 124G TLR. It's a very basic, all manual 2 1/4" square format with excellent, albeit non-interchangeable lenses; to borrow the Nissan Extera phrasing on the matter, "...Everything you need. Nothing you don't." I bought one at a camera show a few years back for about $150. No frills, as I said, but I made 16" X 20" enlargements from it the blew away anything that any 35mm camera could approach. No matter how many, or how sophisticated the electronic gimmicks associated with 35mm, nothing beats a large piece of film and a good lens.

Not to cloud the issue, Said, but there's something to be said for Jeff Drew's post. I understand the motivation for owning a Hassy for the sheer sake of owning a Hassy--not unlike the motivation of owning a Mercedes--but unless you the end result of all your work is square prints, that means cropping your negatives down into something not far removed from 645, which itself it not all that far removed from 35mm. And that would seem to defeat the whole purpose of taking the "step further."

That ain't the worst of it, Jean-Pierre. Much later in his life, Adams became professionally associated with Polaroid; a spokesman of some sort. Many serious artists have moments of prostitution tucked away among the other skeletons in their closets.

I must admit I'm puzzled. I don't see the point to this. Do I have this correct, that you've cropped a 67 image to 35mm proportions, compared them to a full-frame 35mm image, and concluded that 35mm is "superior?" Might you as well mount a Volkswagen engine in a Ferrari and conclude the same about the Volkswagen, or chop the legs of a 7-foot NBA player off at the knees and proclaim the subtle superiority of 5-foot NBA players? Nevermind the obvious absurdity--that you've taken the single example of a particular 67 make & model, compared it to the singular 35mm exemplar, and made the blanket format vs. format conclusion, along the way ignoring the patently abberant images (I suspect you just couldn't resist, and kicked the Pentax 67 tripod, oh so gently, just that once)--the real question I have is SO THE HELL WHAT? If there was some practical application to the technique of cutting a 36 X 24mm paper doll out of a 67 image, I might see a value to this. As it is, I recall with great clarity the moment I saw my first test exposures taken with a Yashica 124G, my first MF camera (which cost me a good deal less than the bell & whistle-laden Canon I had been using), all of my previous experiece having been with 35mm. I had never seen so fine an image that I had taken myself. And that, my friends, is the equation

Actually, Anatole, I think that the "They" Ward was referring to was The Powers That Be who, in their infinite wisdom and authority, mandated that an instruction--dare I say an order?--to fold the tab under MUST be printed at the end of each roll, or (presumably) you can't manufacture or sell 120/220 film. I have a hard time believing that a blanket decree of such power has issued on the mere behalf of all the high school film developer grunts loading bulk reels. I could be wrong...........

I've been through this once myself, Art. The 55 3.5 was the first 67 lens I owned. I fondly recall the look of it, the forward element the size of a grapefruit, but the 100mm filter size promised to be an orgy of expense. I inquired with Lee USA about a custom 100mm ring adaptor; it was my misfortune to be leaning back on a barstool when they gave me a price. the barstool is now so many matchsticks; I came out of it ok, bruised a bit, but wiser. Do yourself a favor and "flip" the thing, beauty though she is. There's a law of nature that covers this: if you acquire a beautiful object, you'll find yourself spending a fortune buying her expensive accessories.

 

My understanding of the P67 55mm lineage is that the 3.5 was good, the 2nd generation 4.0 was "soft," and the current 3.5 is the best of the lot. I don't recall the specifics on distinguishing the newer 4.0 from the older, but it had to do with markings (SMCT vs. Super-Multi-Coated-Takumar, or something like that)

Dinosaur that I am, I have no use for digital "photography," that

modern day pictorialism and harbinger of the downfall of western

civilization. Be that as it may, a thought occured to me: rather than

breaking out the trusty Polaroid for test exposures, is it possible

to configure a digital camera in such a manner that every aspect of

Velvia (light sensitivity, color balance, image contrast, etc.) would

be accurately simulated? If I could see the effect of my exposure

choice, and of adding or backing off a half stop, I could see where

this would be a valuable tool. Is this a pipe dream?

The P67 mirror vibration that David alluded to is indeed a seismic event, but if, as you've stated, you primarily shoot landscapes, it should a non-issue. I've done the same with a P67 for years, and on no occasion have I made an exposure in any other manner than bolting it firmly atop three very solid metal legs, the mirror locked up and immobilized. I see no reason to do otherwise, short of sheer naked laziness.

 

Having said that, I'd be less than honest if I didn't mention the subject of shutter vibration, of tremors that are reputed by some to exist at speeds of 1/30th or less. This is a long and storied Beelzebub, a ghost in the machine. Some say that it's myth, some not. All have expended much emotion, both pro and con. Longstanding Friendships have been dissolved, marriages ended in unsavory divorce. Thus far, and so far as I know, nations have not gone to war over it, but the matter is relatively young if the measure of time is the history of western civilization.

 

And thus my chest is bare, but for one last wisp of darkness: if I had it to do all over again, make the choices, spend the money, I'd gleefully ditch the idea of both Hasselblad (I've never been one for prestige for its own sake) and Pentax, and buy an RZ67. Then a lens. Then another lens. Et Cetera.

Given your stated wishes and limitations, Greg, I can't believe the Pentax 67 hasn't come up. Granted, it has limitations of its own--notably, the 1/60th flash synchronization--but having been in your place and having done all the research, I am of the firm opinion that the most bang for your buck is with the P67. Over a period of time, acquiring one piece at a time from various camera shows, I put together a one body/five lens arsenal for an amount that would otherwise have bought me an RZ67 with a "normal" lens.

James Webb: a name which, not unlike Henry Peach Robinson or Oscar Rejlander, will, in the words of Ansel Adams, "...negotiate oblivion."

 

The Pictorialism of the 19th and early 20th century met a slow and tortured decline, and ultimate demise, because a fraudulent artistic medium will, in time, expose itself as such. Momentarily popular, but spat out--as will bubble gum when the sugar is exhausted--this one borrowed upon the integrity of both photography and paint art, but had none of its own, other than the scissors-and-paste-pot-paper-doll handcraft it always was.

 

So will it be for digital "photography" when the emperor disrobes, and the discovery, not of the living, albeit naked stuff of humanity, but of the phantom under the cloak of the artist.