dr_smith1

Ok - I'm posting this here because several people have asked me over

the past couple of years about problems with uneven frame spacing on

the 67II where 120 roll film only yields 8 frames. It was about that

long ago that I posted asking about the issue and I've finally gotten

around to sending the body to Colorado for service. <p>

 

Today I got the repair estimate in the mail. The total for the repair

comes to $245 not including tax and shipping. The estimate shows the

following items(note that I also requested they perform a CLA since

they already have it apart): <p><ul>

<li>Repair or replacement of parts and assemblies as needed. Cleaning

and calibration of all functions to ensure proper working order.</li>

<li>Replacement and lubrication of worn gears, tension springs and

levers. Disassembly and repair of transport sub-assemblies. Adjust

frame spacing and check with film.</li>

<li>Repair of shutter curtains, timing gears and bounce prevention

assemblies. Align and calibrate curtain tensions and exposure to

factory specifications.</li></ul>

 

So there you have it - at least so far. If the final paperwork has

more info, I'll pass it along.

Since it was a rental - don't sweat it too much. You might consider telling the shop about it, but they may try to charge you for the repair - It's really no different than renting a car and bringing it back with a dent in the fender(regardless of the fact that it had the dent when you drove it off the lot).

 

Anyway - My Pentax 67II suffers the same problem currently. I really need to send it in for a CLA, but haven't had the time to box it up for shipment. For what it's worth, mine doesn't care what the temperature is - the frame spacing is messed up the same way at -20F and at 80F.

 

The only difference between your problem and mine is that the frames at the beginning and end of the roll are properly spaced. The ones in the middle can have up to a 2 inch gap, typically somewhat less than that. I only get 8 frames/roll also.

I think the problem with comparing areas on 35mm vs 645 is that comparing simple area doesn't convey the actual benefits. The real measure of the difference in quality is the enlargement factor and 645 is going to be enlarged less than 35mm for the same size print. Therefore, there's no question that 645 is superior to 35mm. Statements like "645 is really no better than 35mm" is just plain false. For those of you who actually believe statements like that, maybe it's the technique that needs improvement instead of the equipment.

 

From my own experience, 16x20 from 645 shows no grain unless you're only an inch away from the print. Clearly, only a grain sniffer would ever get that close and at that point, it's not about the what's in the photograph anymore.

Andreas,

 

The only sekonic I saw available on the B&H website was the L308B-II which is also a flash meter. Interestingly, sekonic.com lists the sensitivity low end as being EV 0 while B&H says it goes down to EV -5.

 

Did you buy a used meter that's different than the one I'm talking about? I'm a bit confused because I could find no other Sekonic meter with 308 in it's name.

A very timely request! I've been looking at meters myself lately.

 

The one thing I run into *all the time* is that meters that only go down to EV 2 are simply not sensitive enough. I tend to do indoor natural light, outdoor evening type stuff and I keep hitting the limits on my old sekonic.

 

The best I saw recommended was the Quantum which goes down to EV -7, but it's apparently not available anywhere and those who did buy one aren't willing to give it up.

 

The next best was the Gossen Lunasix 3s which goes down to EV -4, but it tends to be pricey at $280.

 

Next up from that was a Gossen Sixtomat Digital which goes doen to EV -2.5. Personally, I have a hard time even considering a light meter that is less sensitive than this. The digisix is only senstive to EV 0 and I don't think that's enough of an improvement for me to consider buying it(my current low end is EV 2).

 

None of the current Sekonic offerings were better than Gossen's. I've yet to check out any of the Pentax's. Finally it would appear that Minolta doesn't currently offer a meter that doesn't also do flash metering - a feature which I would never use.

 

Any additional information is much appreciated.

I have to concur with the previous response. It would be really nice to *see* the images - without needing a plugin that limits your audience to only those who buy mainstream computer equipment. Otherwise, I can't comment on any of your pictures as I have yet to even see them.

I'm surprised that anyone would suggest using a hack saw or other cutting instrument near a lens. If you're worried at all about the possibility of getting filings or other grit into your lens, this isn't a good idea. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that we had a lengthy discussion right here on this forum about the problems associated with getting sand into the focusing helicals of a lens...

 

If you do decide to cut it off, at least use some plastic and tape to protect the rest of the lens.

Just wanted to mention that what we write is heavily influenced by what we read. In college I took an advanced writing course, and we spent most of our time reading. According to the professor, we were to improve our writing by reading advanced texts - and advanced, they were. Practically unintelligible to the common man, but somewhat accessible with a little in-class review of the prior night's reading.

 

I tend to agree with his point of view - spending time reading online forums has killed my naturally good spelling and grammar. It only takes a few readings of a commonly misspelled/misused word to get me thinking it's normal.

I've searched the archives for this and outside of a couple of references to the problem, I haven't seen anyone comment on the final resolution.

 

I have a Pentax 67II that's incorrectly spacing the frames. The first couple of frames are very close together, but gradually the frames get to be over an inch apart by the end of the roll.

 

I know it will have to be sent in for a CLA, but what I want to know is: How much did it cost you to have it fixed? Who did the repair or who might you recommend? What was the turnaround time? I asked Pentax USA all of these questions, but couldn't get any concrete answers out of them.

 

Thanks.

I've been using the system with only the normal lens. I've found it to be a real pleasure to work with - especially in black&white. I have a 16x20 photo taken on Neopan 400 with this camera that's really quite nice - even though it does show a small amount of grain.

 

I don't understand why everyone's so down on this system. Yes, the range of lenses is limited, but the results I'm getting make it worth every penny.

I disagree - if consumers continue to shoot film and stand against the supposed trend toward digital, it'll be the digital camera that will have to be hauled away by the truckload. The way I see it, the photo companies are using this as an opportunity to improve thier year over year profit margins and photographers are getting the shaft.

 

If enough of us say no to this tactic, they will *have* to continue support for film cameras. However, I think too many of you have already rolled over to play dead - or at least, that's how it sounds to me. If you let them steam roll you, you can't complain later on about losing money year after year due to equipment upgrades.

 

As for the professionals among us - you're in the worst position of all. Who's going to pay the costs of your up-to-date digital gear when joe-down-the-street can take shots with his little p&s that are 'good enough'? After all, the trend here is not toward quality photos, but towards the cheapest way to produce an image. Since Joe can play photog at the wedding for free(because he also has a day job) and the quality is 'good enough' and oooohhhh - it's digital, so he can take thousands of bad photos in an afternoon, your career may be in danger.

 

The day I _can't_ buy film, I'll consider going totally digital.

I think the key statement is here:

 

<ul>"Under Section 526 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the importation of any foreign-origin merchandise bearing the MAMIYA trademark, without the written consent of Mamiya America Corporation, is unlawful and prohibited. Unauthorized importations are subject to seizure and forfeiture by the United States Customs Service."</ul>

 

The interpretation being that customs will not import a product with the registered trademark of MAC - assuming it was manufactured by a foreign company. If you keep reading through it, you begin to realize that all they've done is asked customs to enforce the tradmark on items that may have been manufactured in foreign lands - not prevent re-importation of items that were already manufactured by MAC which are legally bearing the MAC trademark. IANAL, though.

A quick follow-on to Robin Smith's post above:

 

I've also noticed when viewing general landscape pictures that a lot of them lack 'subject' - it's all background with nothing in the foreground to draw the eye. I have this same problem when I'm trying to do landscapes and I find I can make them more interesting if I choose to highlight a specific feature - a lake, pond, tree or something like that. My goal for the fall is to make every picture have a subject - not just to capture the colors.

I recently gave Dale labs a try. For color work, they do a good job at a reasonable price.

 

B&W is another story, however. Apparently they're not capable of producing an optical print from non-chromogenic B&W film. They insist on making a digital print onto color paper. While the resulting images don't have any color casts, they don't carry the same dynamic range as a true B&W print on B&W paper. I haven't tried sending them any XP2 super to see how they do with chromogenic B&W.

 

If you can deal with an incredibly slow turn around(expect to wait a month), A&R color labs in Rochester do some really nice work.

On the Bronica RF - I don't think it would work well for headshots since the focal length of the longest lense is so short - certainly not a classic focal length for that purpose.

 

On the horizontal/vertical issue, I tend to switch back and forth a lot. Reading the forum, I get the impression that a lot of people shoot landscape all the time which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If the primary features in your composition run vertically, you'll get a lot better use of your film real-estate if you shoot portrait - rather than shoot it landscape from further away and crop later on. In short, it makes little difference to me if the viewfinder is vertical or not - I still have to rotate the camera half of the time.

I know I'm late to answer, but anyway...

 

The start mark on Reala is extremely obvious. It literally says

"START" right next to an arrow running all the way across the

backing paper,IIRC. I can understand your difficulty though. The

first time I ever loaded 120 film, it seemed to wind on forever

before it finally got to that mark, but I was determined I'd

find the appropriate markings or sacrifice the roll. Fortunately,

Fuji made it easy to find. Odd though that the import film

I get from b&h still says 'start' on the backing paper - I might

have expected it to be in japanese or something like that.

I had a similar problem with my P67. Two different cable releases, both functional on various bodies. One of them won't fire the P67 no matter what. The only visible difference between them is the size of the center pin - oddly, the one with the larger pin fires the 67 just fine and the one with the smaller pin doesn't.

 

I'd take the camera to the store and see if another brand of release works better.

I guess I can understand your frustration here - that is, if you paid full price for the kit. If you pick up a used item(KEH, Ebay, etc) or you buy new today with the rebate, I don't think it's such a bad deal.

 

Yes, you do have a limited selection of lenses but its otherwise the only changeable lens medium format rangefinder out there besides the Mamiyas. Even the Mamiya 7 can't compete with this camera for its compact size, and for me this is a major feature. I like being able to make a larger print than I can in 35mm, but at the same time I don't want the weight/bulk when I'm on a hike somewhere. For those qualifications, it's the only available choice, in my opinion.

 

The vertical/horizontal thing really doesn't bother me, either. In any given photo you have to ask yourself, "Do the strong lines in this scene run horizontally or vertically?". Many times, the answer to that question will dictate what orientation I'll use for the composition. As it turns out, about half of my compositions are horizontal, so it really doesn't make that much difference either way - I'll have to turn the camera on it's 'unnatural' side about 50% of the time either way.

Because it saves me from having to revisit every forum topic to follow the discussion. I also don't have to re-read every post in a particular forum just so I can see the 'new' material.

 

It really saves a lot of time(if you can keep the various threads separate in your head, which isn't a problem for me).

The 67II does lock the lever, but to be honest, I've never really cranked on it to find out if it would ratchet in the extreme case.

 

--drsmith

I'm currently signed up to get the Daily Medium Format Forum Digest. So far, I get about 1 per week and even then, the threads are seriously inconsistant. If I were to put the current digest up side-by-side with the previous digest, it's clear that in many cases, I'm reading responses to questions that never appeared in the digest at any time. It's like jumping into the middle of the conversation all the time. Very rarely, if ever, do I see a thread from start to finish without a flurry of posts missing from the discussion.

 

Do you have any plans to fix this?

Well - let me add a couple of things.

 

First, on the 67II, the shake isn't nearly as bad as has been reported in the various forums. If you put the camera on bulb, mounted on a tripod for a portrait shot, and release the shutter you'll notice that the first half of the shot is nothing more than a simple click. The mirror flips up out of the way and the first shutter curtain opens without any visible vibration whatsoever. The second half, on the other hand, is entirely different. After the shutter closes, you'll hear a loud kerchunk and see some vibration. If you ask me, it's nothing to worry about as the worst of it happens after the picture is already recorded on the film.

 

As for steadiness there are several techniques. Mash the camera against your head - if you're worried the leatherette will leave an imprint on your cheek, that's good. Keep your elbows tight to your body. Control your breath. Probably the most important check right before you squeeze the trigger is to take a split second to examine what's going on in your lower back - if you're lower back is too tense, you'll have a tendency to sway. If that's the case, adjust your feet so your stance is more stable/comfortable. All of these were learned at the rifle range(not with a camera, either).

 

Finally, be aware that no matter how good you are with a camera hand-held, you'll always get sharper results with a tripod.

 

--drsmith