richard_reddy

Hey Doug! Many thanks for your simple fix. My 67ii has been sitting for a time, and came up with the "Perr" code. When I removed the viewfinder, it worked just fine, so that localized the problem. Your fix is wonderful. On the third repetition the camera started working again with viewfinder installed.

I love my Pentax 67II !!!! It was nice of you to make this effort.

<p>I'm waiting for a camera that is three inches in length, will run for years on 1 eV of energy, incorporates 360 degree angle, in 11 spatial dimensions, generating images on the high side of the terabyte range. The camera must incorporate a quantum computer, fully utilizing the four states of a quantum qubit, and should transmit information instantaneously utilizing entangled photon arrays, over any distance, across the multiverse. I'd like it in two weeks. </p>

<p>Failing that, I may cave in and buy the 5D Mark II. It's a pretty good rig. As potent images are really a state of mind, any camera will do. </p>

<p>I use film and digital. Digital is okay for situations where photographers would use 35mm color film. Since digital is also easy to handle, it is pretty much the industry standard these days. Some would say it's a low standard, but artists can get decent results with a digital rig. I do.<br>

I also use medium format cameras for portraits and "statue" shots (formals), or for shots having a sense of architectural grandeur. Nothing beats the fine grain of medium format images. Millions of pixels are only a fraction of the resolution produced by billions of grains of metallic silver present in a developed negative. My EOS 5DII has over 20 MP, and one can buy fancy digital rigs with 40 MP or 60 MP. It's like the old adage twice nothing is still nothing. Film still has 1000 times the resolution. That's right! Three orders of magnitude. This is extremely important for black and white photography, and transparencies are also a different universe from digital. <br>

I believe that artists are getting soaked for digital gear, but that's a different matter. Whenever a few firms have a lock on the market, we see the same thing. Canon rules the market, I'd say. But they are benevolent despots, for the most part.<br>

On the plus side, film equipment in good condition can be found cheap. Best to pay a little more at a camera store, where one gets a guarantee on used equipment. My 5K of medium format gear, all in very good shape, would have cost over 35K new. This is the effect of people selling film cameras with the idea of using digital instead--many great cameras have been discontinued and used gear is cheap. It won't be for long! Prices will reverse when the current supply is exhausted, and no new cameras are being produced. We are already seeing this.<br>

My only quarrel with digital is the "digital or die" pitch, where manufacturers scare artists with the threat of extinction if they don't go along with the program of buying and using expensive gear. The high costs of digital have driven many artists out of business, and the residual value of the equipment is nothing to write home about. See what you can get for that 10K Canon 1D which makes 4.3 MP images, or a 12MP Hasselblad back. There are many hidden costs like the computing power one needs for large files, the cost of software, and the cost of traversing a steep learning curve. <br>

Photography is a small business, so buy what you can afford. Photographers are artists, so buy the tools you like to use. Don't let clients push you around, and don't do business with high-pressure sales people. Think about your work flow!!! If you want to shoot the wedding, drop the film at a lab, and go have a beer--some artists would say this is more civilized than being tethered to computer with hundreds or thousands of images that require post processing.<br>

Have fun! If you've never shot weddings before, I suggest going out with a wedding photographer in the role of an assistant to get the flavor of this enterprise. It's hard work!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks to Robert for his thoughts on using the larger Componon lenses. That's also what I have in mind. The Componon elements will screw directly into a Copal 1 shutter. I didn't check with dividers, but I think the lens is still an f/5.6 aperture. I will have SK Grimes engrave stops next time I visit RI and they will check maximum aperture size against my 5x7 enlarger lens--which is also a 180 Componon, mounted in a barrel. <br>

This probably sounds like a quest to perfectly match the taking lens to the enlarger lens, following the photography myth that input is then exactly equal to output--and images with mystical symmetry will follow. Actually enlarger lenses are flat field lenses, so enlarger work is optimum and focusing at infinity is not. My plan was only to put a good copal1 shutter to work, using the elements from a broken Componon enlarger lens--an opportunistic 180mm lens that is out of the ordinary. <br>

I mounted it today and tested the lens on my 5x7 Kodak. It's very sharp, and the image circle does seem limitless. I can employ maximum rise with no vignette. A Componon is actually one one of Schneider's best lenses--it has 6 elements in four groups, and is designed to enlarge 5x7 negatives (to very large print sizes).<br>

Anyway, cutting to the chase--I think it's a good view camera lens mounted in a shutter. It's fast, very sharp, and there is generous room for view camera movements, especially in the near-field. A flat-field lens is great for close-up subjects of all kinds, but performance is quite respectable focused at infinity. It is like "macro" lenses that cost considerably more. The 180mm Componon accepts 58mm filters on the front threads if anyone wants to know. <br>

I'm with the "try it, you'll like it" school on this, especially for a top-notch six element design. I wouldn't be surprised if the images were comparable to the G-Clarion design, which is also six elements in four groups. The sharpness should be comparable, but the Componon is an f/5.6 while the G-Clarion is f/9, a considerable difference in brightness. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>B&H Photo sells this camera. It's $2400. You can use view camera lenses down to 90mm, and also mount Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad lenses. The main limitation, I expect, would be wide angle optics--just what you want for architectural subjects. I don't see how you could focus something like a 35mm or 28mm wide angle lens at infinity, or inside normal working distances.<br>

I expect a wide angle shift lens would also be standard equipment. For the money, I might try Canon's 17mm tilt/shift wonder--but for product photography, studio photography and macro (tabletop) the Horseman would be a gem. <br>

I actually have the same set of problems with my Pentax 67 II rig, which I can mount on the back of a Sinar F. Shorter lengths won't focus to infinity (but could be used for close-up photos at greater focal length). Love the image of the Sinar F_P above, ready to go to work. I guess it is possible to mount any camera on the rear standard, install a bag bellows, and mount lenses on recessed boards. But again, the smaller the film (CCD area) the less you can do in the wide angle range because back-focus becomes impossibly small--limiting infinity focus and camera movements. </p>

<p>Just the same, the Horseman sure is a pretty camera! I really like it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My Pentax 67 lens is light as a feather! How is that? It is ***<strong>ALWAYS ON A TRIPOD</strong> ***. Typically, the only weight is that of my cable release. <br>

Helpful hints?<br>

Read the instructions. <br>

Always use a tripod, and if you have mirror lock-up, it is recommended for slow speeds due to the possibility of mirror vibration. <br>

Working apertures f/8-16 will improve sharpness.<br>

Avoid extreme movements. This is not a view camera lens. Good rule of thumb: Try to get your subject framed with 15mm of movement, as opposed to 20mm. Reserve the extra movement for situations where sharpness at the edge of the frame is not critical (for example, clouds)<br>

Use a lens shade--flare is a very big problem with lenses of this kind. What you cannot see will greatly undermine image quality, outside the image area. Intrusion of flare can be very subtle. Physically block obvious sources of flare. A polarizer is also a good way to block flare, and watch out for the occasional reflection picked-up by other types of filters. <br>

The 75mm Pentax lens is very sharp! Along with 90mm f/2.8 and the 105mm f/2.4, this is the sharpest lens in the Pentax system. <br>

I agree that Tim has created some superb images. Keep up the good work! Never sell your shift lens!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting I should find your question while looking for the very same item! As it happens I have two solutions in mind, one cheap and dirty, and the other highly elegant. </p>

<ol>

<li>Using your B60-->67mm adapter, mount the adapter on the FRONT of the filter, which we then flip over with the idea of mounting the Hasselblad filter upside-down. To do this you need to buy something that can be found on eBay; nifty little adapters with a male 67mm <br /> thread at both ends. It is used in macro photography. Plug this into the female 67mm threads on your adapter, and you have an upside-down Hasselblad filter that will mount on any 67mm thread. There are a few potential problems. With a wide angle lens, it might vignette. Also, exposing the acrylic side of softar lenses is probably a bad idea--and I am notsure the effect remains the same if you flip the filter over. Pretty easy to check both of these situations with a digital body. </li>

<li>Anyway, that is my crappy solution. The elegant solution is to have to SK Grimes, photographer's machinists in Rhode Island, make you an adapter. Just tell them you want the lowest profile possible, 67male on end and B60 on the other. They'll want a B60 filter and the adapter will be over $100. Not cheap, but SK Grimes is class act--all the work is pro-quality. </li>

</ol>

<p>Since the first solution will only cost you 10 bucks, you may decide to use the cludge to begin with and plan to spend a few bucks later on the elegant solution, so you don't damage Softar filters. As you probably know, 67mm filters work very well on B60 lenses, and the lens hood will fits outside the filter ring. In the same way, a lens hood might protect the acrylic side of a Softar from fingerprints or dirt. <br>

There is yet another possibility. Canon/Nikon/Pentax bodies will accept Hasselblad lenses with a suitable adapter, and then you meter in aperture priority or stop-down mode. With CF lenses you can set the aperture, lock it open, focus/meter and shoot. So there is the option of using the whole lens, B60 filter mounted. I think there are also adapters for Mamiya and Pentax 645. This is another cheap solution--unless you think your other lenses are better than Hasselblad CF (I seriously doubt that!).<br>

Have fun.</p>

<p>I agree comparisons of squares and rectangles are pure folly! But 6x7cm format can be compared more closely than 6x6cm. It is very nearly a 2:1 ratio, and since I shoot in both formats, this is verified by the sense I get shooting. This gives us a key to 6x6 and 6x9 formats, which will have a smaller or larger horizontal angle of view, respectively--at a given focal length. If your not an optical engineer, forget about the diagonal and vertical view! Most everyone equates angle of view with human eyesight which tends to be around 52 degrees.<br>

By the way, this is why large format is well-loved by wide angle fanatics (yours truly). In 8x10 format a normal lens is 360mm! I shoot 5x7 and 4x5 format, and even though I know certain designs are optically equivalent, there is often difference in feeling that most everyone picks up. <br /> This gets way too subjective to offer any reasonable defense--I can only suggest others try large format. Maybe you'll see what I mean, maybe not. <br>

The good thing is that everyone takes to the new format like ducks to water, and confusion over focal length / angle of view is just a lack of experience.</p>

<p><strong>By all means... </strong> Read the manual. One manual will do for both LS lenses--they work the same way. Where do you get a manual when Pentax USA took down all the literature? <br>

I just found a copy this evening. Pentax CANADA web site has the manual for this lens (90mm f/2.8 LS) at their site. It's about 14 pages. <br>

Good glass! Enjoy</p>

<p>I am in agreement with Laura B. The Hensel 3 light kit is a good deal, and anyone would agree the engineering is top-notch. Radio control saves the artist a lot of walking around, and it's built-in. That means you can adjust power levels--on three channels--with feather control, or fire the flashes independently.</p>

<p>Hensel gear also looks nice, including the case. This is not lost on me--photography is all about appearances. My lights don't get banged around because I set them myself, and look after <br /> them. Not even a ding in the reflectors! (knock on wood)</p>

<p>Even in circumstances where gear must be shipped from Germany, I would be inclined to buy additional items from this firm. Power output and color temperature are consistent, requiring no correction for digital images or daylight film (assuming neutral backgrounds/subject). If you look at Hensel's other gear--6000 Joule packs, and high end strobes--it will be clear that monolights are hardly even a challenge for this firm. Hensel is a world leader in this field, with very powerful and innovative products. </p>

<p>If you don't mind forking over a generous sum, the portable MPG power pack can drive two of the lights for locations with no electricity. But you have to turn off the modeling lights before firing them (limited current draw is allowed). This seems a sensible addition (1000 Joules of portable power) if you get outdoor gigs.</p>

<p> </p>

Excellent results with a Metz CL-45 unit. Highly recommended.

Pretty too.

Reply to Q. G. de Bakker's comments. I see your point about not getting carried away with comparisons.

Just the same, Hasselblad Zeiss lenses do have greater optical resolving power, in line pairs per millimeter, and

67cm format has more film area, so each camera has virtues when considering how much information is captured in a

frame. I get the impression it's a wash, and prints the same length will have equivalent definition.

Now, what if you put a 6x4.5 (4 square inches) back on the Hasselblad, with the intention of framing a

rectangular image? Wouldn't the Pentax be a better choice for rectangular images? A 6x7cm negative is 6.2

square inches, and that is 55% larger than 645. This is why I used the word "substantial". Since it's a

question of which camera is better for a particular type of subject, we could say Pentax "wins" the day.

Most photographers would agree there's a BIG difference between 645 and 67 formats.

On the other hand, if I envision using a square frame, then I could use a 6x6cm back on the Hasselblad, or crop

the Pentax 67 negative to 6x6cm. Which is a better choice? Now we have the same negative area with either

camera, 5 square inches, because I have to crop the 6x7cm negative to get a square frame. In this circumstance,

the Hasselblad "wins" because Zeiss optics have slightly greater resolving power, for a given film area. So this

is a small difference, but a real difference connected to optical design.

I am inclined to defend the choice of words. The difference between 645 and 6x7 is quite substantial! Where the

differences are modest, we can still say one choice "wins" over another as a contrast-comparison

theme involving subtle, but distinct differences.

I am really trying to draw attention the fact that an artist's intentions--even basic elements like composition,

have a drastic effect on what we can expect in the way of image quality. If you plan a square frame, Hasselblad

is 6x6. If you plan a rectangular frame, it's a 645. For me, the Pentax is a better tool to get

rectangular images, because I set 6x6cm as my lower limit for medium format. For print sizes I would make from

645, 35mm would also do the job.

The nice thing about Hasselblad: square format is excellent without cropping, for many subjects--especially

portraits. I like it a lot and have just added PME45 metered finder, Acute-Matte D screen, and 120mm f/4

CF Macro to my Hasselblad gear. At 54, a brighter viewfinder, with laterally correct image is very helpful for

sharp focusing (as are Hensel strobes with 300-watt modeling lights!).

Photography is all about feeling. What better reason to buy, or continue using a camera? Honestly, that's why

I bought a Hasselblad and am expanding the system to modest size. It's very useful, very reliable, and the image

quality is superb.

Thanks for your thoughts on the 2000 series bodies. I never suspected the shutters might be little guillotines!

Eek! Great Halloween camera!

Reports on the death of 500 series cameras are greatly exaggerated! I bought a 500 C/M and love the camera. It is a work of art by itself, with great optical and mechanical refinement. I have a few lenses 80mm Planar CF and 250mm Sonnar. Plan to add a 150mm Sonnar and probably the 60mm Distagon. Also have a Pentax 67II with a full compliment of wide angle lenses, including a fisheye and am quite happy with the images.

I recommend used equipment without a lot of wear, and CF series lenses with Prontor Shutter, as opposed C series with Compur shutter. The H1 will accept film backs, but the square format is better. Medium format has an optical price, and what I want in return is a generous increase in film area over 35mm format. 2+1/4 square makes it, but 645 does not. Hasselblad has certainly changed their tune! For many years they condemned 645 format, insisting it was a bad tradeoff, while extolling the virtues of square format.

Also stayed away from the 2000 series bodies with focal plane shutters. There were reliability problems, and I don't know

all the details--but Pentax 67II has an excellent shutter, and very fast medium lenses. The cameras are roughly equal.

For a rectangular print, the Pentax wins, because you'd have to crop a Hasselblad negative. For a square print, it would be necessary to crop the 6x7 negative, and the Hasselblad would deliver substantially better results. Obviously, leaf shutter lenses are much better for artificial light.

I still don't like 645, but a lot of people do. I think H1 lenses are actually made by Fuji. I have four Fuji view camera lenses and wouldn't complain about that! Superb glass, and remarkably efficient, low-cost production. That's business.

You should know that revolution is a poor choice of words for digital. In revolutions, people become free, but in digital

photography they are tethered to computers. That's why you'll find seminars on Photoshop, a very complicated beast, and digital workflow in most US cities. A lot of people would rather give you a seminar than hustle work in commercial photography. Can't say I blame them. It's more like a hostile takeover!

Now speaking as a physicist, with undergraduate background in computer science, digital is pretty cool. Right up my alley! It can also be a lot of fun. But the best digital rig doesn't hold a candle to 35mm film, in spite of advertising claims to the contrary. Digital has millions of pixels and film has billions of grains of metallic silver. Pixels are all the same size and the silver has a wide size distribution. Digital is perceived as "realistic" because it has a large color palette. However the art of B&W photography has no color, and relies on resolution. Digital cannot take you there. The same is

true of transparencies and delicate, beautiful Polaroid prints--where sharp lines make everything work.

So the idea of "going digital" is like saying you will remove the hammers from your toolbox, and use screwdrivers for

everything. You won't find Boston Symphony replacing the grand pianos with a digital synthesizer! Too many music lovers. Likewise, the Great Chiefs of Europe have the deepest contempt for McDonald's and Burger King. That is really what digital does, mostly--it serves commercial interests where the end product, newspapers, magazines, web sites, et cetera, where output is less than 300 DPI. Digital is actually overkill for what we see every day, very low resolution.

High definition television is low resolution...

I don't want to rant too much against digital. I use it and am quite resourceful with post-processing, storage, backup and archiving. Digital prints are getting better--but I don't trust the claims of manufacturers on archival quality. Most of my digital prints have been wiped out by sunlight, while photographic prints on the same walls are just fine, including Cebachrome. What I dislike about digital is a continuous stream of advertising claims that would make pathological liars blush. Fortunately some good web sites are popping-up with first-class testing of digital SLRs, so this creativity will be

harshly curtailed.

You can put a Phase One Model 21 on a Hasselblad C/M and get 18MP. The image is cropped so a 40mm would

be more like 60mm. The images are substantially better than Canon's top of the line SLR this year, but this will

not be so next year. Phase One will not be idle either. Before long, the entire current digital crop will be doorstops. I think the back is $8000. It's not a rip-job, digital technology is costly to manufacture and the margins

are quite competitive. With a $150 used A12 film back, you can get images with more than a thousand times the resolution of an 18MP file, that can be enlarged to three feet without objectionable grain, at normal viewing distances.

Want to "go digital"? Enjoy yourself--it's fun. Like a Big Mac, we also get instant gratification (and valuable real time

feedback). Photoshop is the land of dreams; you can do anything (almost). Prints are getting better all the time, but efforts to mimic silver papers don't really work. If they fade like Dorian Grey, don't be surprised--but if you've backup, an

image can be reprinted. I think I like digital--but it's not a mature technology like film, which has undergone continuous refinement for over 100 years--and was genius in the first place.

Of course, anyone is free to have hammers and screwdrivers in the toolbox. They are not mutually exclusive, and this is why all the major manufacturers continue to make film backs, and film bodies (if they can sell enough to break even).

Now my Pentax 67II is discontinued and obsolete. Should I stop using it? The camera will likely outlive me! I take very good care of it. I also shoot with a Kodak #1 5x7 view camera--I replaced the bellows, and with modern film + Fujinon glass, this camera never had it so good. The Kodak is just a light tight box, with an optical train and recording media, like the most sophisticated digital rig--except the Kodak has view camera movements, and fine art image quality. The Kodak is obsolete, and walks all over every camera that Hasselblad has ever made by virtue of 35 square inches of film.

What matters is eye and brain. Content. That is the machinery at work--the real value. Artists are the past, present and future of photography, not technology. That's just the paintbrush.

<div></div>

Short Answer: You can. (I think) At least I will be giving it a try.

What you need is something to use for purposes of comparison,

with known value in joules (watt-seconds). I plan to use a quantum T2,

at maximum output, reflector in normal position, and call that 150 watt-seconds,

at a distance of ten feet.

I will meter this with a flash meter, in a stationary position ten feet away, ISO 100,

to get the corresponding EV number. Energy output is proportional EV. So if I

get EV 16, but a dedicated strobe delivers EV15 (at 50mm zoom), then there's a

difference of one stop, so the strobe is 1/2 the intensity, all things being roughly equal,

about 75 joules.

By setting each unit = normal angle of view, meter ISO 100, same distance, you

eliminate some variables and get an idea of how the intensity of a dedicated

strobe compares to the intensity of known calibration in joules. I set up a Minolta

flash meter to measure when a flash is detected, and bump the test button with

the strobe at 50mm zoom, manual, full power.

70-75J for a Nikon SB800 sounds about right, in the neighborhood of a Canon 550EX,

as far as guide numbers go. Strictly by the seat of the pants, Canon & Pentax's most

powerful dedicated units seem about 1/2 the power of a T2, which delivers quite a pop.

If I have time to do the little test, I will post estimates of output in joules. This seems

like a good approach--letting the meter handle square root of two factors, and working

with multiples of EV instead.

Manufacturers should really publish this information!

One additional matter of interest; on the subject of system design...

Pentax 67II has an interesting flash setup; hot shoe grip + shoe mount flash, made for TTL metered strobe. It covers the 75mm focal length. Since interiors often have deep shadows, a dedicated strobe is useful. So is TTL (quick, accurate).

Since you're going to put the shift lens on a tripod anyway, 1/30th flash synch, and cable release--will do just fine. Contrast control and TTL modes will work with this lens.

Greetings...

Thanks for this lively little discussion; I found it quite helpful.

Just got my 75mm Pentax shift lens today. Used, but you wouldn't think so.

Mint condition. Shueido Camera (eBay) sold me this item for 900 USD (a bargain!). Got it here from Taiwan in less than a week. (standing ovation!)

Few people want large format these days--I use it for my own enjoyment.

For commercial shoots, shifts are invaluable--by far the most common difficulty in image management. Tilts are nice too, but this kind of work really calls for a view camera.

If other visitors are curious, this is a phenomenal lens! The construction is

outstanding. It's very easy to use if you read the manual, available as a free download at the Pentax web site. It's a 9-element design with outstanding

optical quality--have yet to put images on film, but being an engineer and physicist with a background in optics, I can see how Pentax went to considerable toil in design and manufacture. Hats off! This lens is a real

beauty!

To echo a thought expressed above--where you don't have space to

back up, haul out the 55mm or 45mm focal lengths. The 67II is designed to be

used as a system, so one lens does not do everything. With a big 67 negative, there is generous room for cropping with the fixed focal lengths.

The 75mm shift delivers a moderate angle, for images with a natural perspective--where wide angle effects don't take over the image. It's exactly what I want!

Should I recommend all the 67 series wide angle lenses? You bet!!!

Wide angle lenses seem to be a weakness of my Canon 35mm equipment. Even the costly lenses have issues of distortion and aberrations, and construction of auto-focus lenses seems a little sucky to me. Greatly prefer using the Pentax for 90 percent of my wide angle subjects, or any subject that might be printed > 8x10.

Canon's 24mm TS-E is an exception to the rule. This is a real good lens,

with a few minor drawbacks. Small distortion at the edges is easy to get rid of if you crop the image--most clients wouldn't detect a problem. 28mm f/1.8

is also a superbly sharp lens, even at 1.8 The TS-E also incorporates tilts and rotation. It's the premiere wide angle lens for Canon users who are

not fond of auto-focus. A little heavy--but that's a good thing (sturdy construction!).

Barry--thanks for the trivia on front vs. rear tilt. I am in the

same boat with my Kodak 5x7, and primarily use rise/rear swings.

Reports on the death of the P67 are greatly exaggerated! My 67II system is being expanded, at unprecedented low prices. I guess it's all part of the digital craze.

If everybody has what they want, that's fine with me, but I do expect a counter-revolution down the road (and an MS degree in applied physics in 2008).

This is no cause for gloom. Let me tell you about my favorite camera. It's a Kodak 5x7 view camera, never a high-end item, discontinued long before I was born in 1954. Medium format was a little more practical,

and 35mm just took the world by storm!

With modern film and Fujinon lenses, my Kodak never had it so good!

It's about 100 years old, and delivers better prints than any medium format camera ever made, including my lovable Pentax 67II.

So, when Pentax says they'll discontinue the 6x7II and 645N we can just smile. Your grandchildren will buying these cameras on eBay!

I think reports on the death of film are greatly exaggerated (like all the other advertising claims connected to digital imaging)! If we use our eyes, it is clear that billions of grains of metallic silver, with

a wide size distribution profile--give greater resolution than millions of pixels that are all the same size. Not to mention, much greater dynamic range to capture high-contrast subjects in the first place. Dynamic range is not a small concern. Many of the best images to be found in the history of photography involve high contrast, that just fits in the range of film. With a digital camera, those images would be throwaways!

I'm not knocking digital. Use it for the web or printed media. 8 or 10MP is more than we need! But don't let anyone tell you that high-pass filters (digital CCDs) have 7 stops dynamic range. That's a

crock!

Personally, I would hate being "freed from film". I love film, which is a very high-tech material, the result of massive R&D and long refinement. Folks who are freed from film are tethered to computers!

Since the 80 thousand dollar printer is probably more than artists can afford, you still do business with a lab--after all that time spent tending to the images in Photoshop. In every populous city, it's easy to find seminars on how to "manage your work flow". We are definitely talking about a lot of work, but prices for photo services have not increased to compensate artists for this work. You can have that unnecessary "work flow", which film technology got rid of with fully automated labs (with occasional custom intervention).

I think photographers are beginning to see that digital imaging is much more work, and expense than shooting with film. This is especially true for artists who get many good shots on a role of film.

Think about it:

Say you shoot ten rolls of 220 at a wedding. Conventional wisdom holds

that the 67II is big, heavy, and hamstrung by 1/30th flash synch, ergo

not a good camera for weddings. Wrong! I get superb images, and can carry it all day, along with a Hasselblad C/M. The wide strap is a good investment.

Anyway, the film will cost you 80 bucks, and for 25 bucks a roll, you can get great processing, so we're up to $330. That's nothing beside the cost of a wedding.

Say you buy a 30 thousand-dollar Hasselblad digital rig. How much cost

is apportioned to each job? Instead of dropping the film off at a lab, you go home and work on the images to 3:00 AM! What is your time worth? Better have at least 4GB of RAM and ample storage. How much for a high-end computer? Then you send the images to a lab anyway, because you don't have a high-end printer. If you do, it cost more than the Hasselblad! Side by side, images made from conventional film, by means of an enlarger, on photographic paper, are better than digital prints!

Comparisons made by those who sell, sell, sell digital, involve comparison of scanned film images digitally printed. There's a big loss of resolution there--and you might never have gotten the images we have on film from a digital CCD, due to issues of dynamic range.

In the world of IT, this is the much talked about cost/performance ratio. Film is a very good value, and a mature technology. Digital is

a young, costly, labor-intensive technology that can definitely break the bank and frequently disappoints artists. (fraudulent marketing claims play a role in that).

I think manufacturers will find themselves in the same boat with digital technology as Pentax did with the 67II and 645N. We will have a lively consumer market for digital, which has all the appeal and instant gratification of a Big Mac. Billions served! But will professionals be wanting those cameras that cost more than cars, and have big limitations?

The good old days are still here! Do the shoot. Drop off the film.

Order-up some prints, or print yourself. My Omega Chromega E just walks all over the best digital printers on earth--especially with

5x7 negatives. An Omega E could be had for $6000. That's less than

10 percent of a high-end digital printer. I truly dislike digital papers, but photographic paper is lovely--a whole different look and feel.

For the price of high-end digital (or any digital that you put 300 hours or more per year into), one could by a 16x20 view camera, and Schneider Fine Art lenses to cover the image (then you can print with

a light bulb!).

Economics!!! Pardon may digital rant, folks. Having said film will back with great interest and vigor, I thought I should give some reasons for saying so. Quality, ease of use, and especially economics.

Enjoy those wonderful 67IIs!

Hi Bernhard,

The answer to your question: Get both! The 55mm is more useful for general photography. In short lengths, a difference in focal length of 10mm equates with a much wider angle of view for the 45mm. But there are times when this is exactly what artists need. They are both excellent lenses! The 45mm is almost as wide as a 20mm in 35mm

format--a superwide angle.

The 45mm is somewhat temperamental. If you put on a thick polarizer

it can vignette, and it will also vignette if you stack filters. You can use the slim versions, but some of them have no provision to clip on the lens hood. Now this is not a problem if the filter is a polarizer--you don't need a hood if you're shooting with that. With

the 45mm you can also poke gel filters into the rear holder.

I tip my hat to the fellow who is dissatisfied with digital--and built

a Pentax 67 system. May the Gods bless this digital revolution! Prices are crashing for medium format optics, and that has put high quality within my reach! 7 stops of dynamic range are better than 3.

And billions of grains of metallic silver are better than millions of pixels. Thousands of times better, as a matter of fact.

No need to follow the herd. We can always use our eyes and brains!

I don't want to be "freed from film" and tethered to a computer! It's

much easier to produce finished images and hand them a lab (or print

myself). Having blasted digital once again, I am slightly hypocritical. With some effort (and maybe fill flash) digital seems fine for printed media or the web--I use a Canon 30D and think its a

good rig--BUT A DIFFERENT MEDIUM. In quality terms, film is light years ahead.

A note to Kevin & others. Thanks for your input. Thought I would put

my 500 c/m back to work. The Metz (auto) flash has a good reputation; I

will be getting one of those.

Your input has been very helpful--Thanks.

I have a 67II rig, and Canon equipment, including a 30D.

To get more from the Pentax? I suggest using a tripod; as a

preferred method of shooting. ( Boy, I hope I can use my tripod today! )

It's a pretty big camera and heavy too. Vibration can be a problem.

If you have mirror lock-up, use this for longer focal lengths.

It's great you are doing tests; this is the mark of a good photographer. But there is always more to learn.

Test your digital against a Canon film body, with the same lens. For resolution, digital has millions of pixels. Processed film has billions of grains of metallic silver. So, the difference in resolution is not a small issue. Film has three orders of magnitude

more resolution--many photographers won't have digital with this in mind.

Highlights and shadows? That is very tricky. You really need a notebook and a spot meter. But Canon digital SLRs are in the neighborhood of slide film, maybe 3.5 stops. Color film has about

7 stops, and B&W film has terrific dynamic range, about 9 stops.

As each stop means twice as much light (or half as much)this is a

major concern--film is much better for shooting outdoors, where high

contrast scenes are common.

Now there is the Great Digital Sales Pitch, where they compare digital

to color film. But call Canon on the telephone and ask them "what is the dynamic range of your 20D CCD Sensor" They won't tell you!!! It's

a trade secret!!! In actual fact, I think they are concealing the weaknesses of the digital medium.

I tested a 10D and found the range to be about three stops. The 30D is clearly better, but it does not have the dynamic range of color film by any stretch, unless they mean COLOR (TRANSPARENCY) FILM, or

some color print film with short range. I recommend using fill flash

outdoors, where that makes sense, to bump the shadows in the foreground. This can be helpful in reducing contrast, and a Canon meter will balance the exposure well.

Really we should watch out for the advertising trap of digital. There is no legitimate comparison to made with film, which is an entirely different medium. Digital manufacturers compare there products to film, but this a false analogy. They only want to sell you expensive

cameras.

Resolution and dynamic range are intimately related. A CCD is blind to

detail outside it's dynamic range. In highlights or shadows, you

get MUCH LESS DETAIL than film, and this is where the level of detail

is critical. This is why many professionals think digital images are

are "cruddy" and prefer to use film cameras for their personal work.

For commercial work, with controlled lighting, digital is a no-brainer. Do clients want to pay more for film processing, when they can get photographers to do copious amounts of post-processing for free? Probably not! That is why there are workshops all over the

place on "how to manage your Photoshop workflow", which means a lot of

work at the computer!!!

Should artists doing watercolor "go digital"? Should they replace the

grand piano in Symphony Hall with a digital synthesizer? If you consider the foolish questions, they give insight on the issue of film

verses digital--an issue manufactured by corporate marketing types.

They hope to win all the debates, by spending hundreds of millions of

dollars in advertising, but we can always go out on a limb and think for ourselves.

Digital is not "Freedom from film", more absurd marketing hype. It's a

great deal of work, tethered to a high-end PC (images require a lot of memory, CPU power and plenty of storage), using costly software with a steep learning curve (Photoshop), with I/O devices like scanners and printers which are really only suitable for proofs, unless you invest heavily.

How does this compare with dropping off your cans of film at the lab?

I am not against using digital. But before changing to another medium, we should know what kind of image quality to expect, how much work is actually involved in creating images, how much learning is necessary to do it right and so forth. With a degree in computer science, and an MS in progress (applied physics), I take to digital like a duck to water--but it's still necessary to go to a lab; I don't

have big bucks to buy drum scanners, or commercial quality printers.

Printers in the thousand-dollar range deliver inferior quality, but the cost as much (or more) than lab prints when add up the ink cartridges and paper. My Epson 2200 is mostly used to print text, like a 50 dollar printer. Likewise, the i900 Microtek is used to

scan prints for the web.

For much less money, much less effort and work, much less knowledge and experience--photographers are free to put up a darkroom. This is where the Pentax 67 (or any medium format 6x6 or larger) really shines. 35mm negatives are tough to work with, but medium format negatives are big and beautiful--very easy to print.

Digital is actually a trick carried out with a large color palette.

The images look realistic because they have a lot of colors. For black and white, digital is the wrong tool, in my view. Digital

frequently requires post-processing, so digital photographers may find

they need to revise images in Photoshop, and still go to a lab to get

prints. The lab will charge 100 bucks per hour to do Photoshop work!

Not an option for most photographers.

Digital prints are nothing like prints made from film. Glossy is not really glossy. Paper with silver has a different appearance and feel.

Paper for printing film delivers higher resolution, and continuous tones. If you spend a fortune, it is possible to mimic film--but why the expense when anyone can just use film?

With digital, they will sell you anything! For example, my 30D has the

1.6x sensor, so you lose your wide angle lenses. You can buy the same lenses over again, just for digital, but for the price/quality combination, I consider them a blatant rip-off, and not really pro quality optics (affordable wide angle lenses are a weakness of the Canon system in the first place--no where near as good as Nikon).

Since Canon knows you have a problem (wide angle lenses are no longer wide angles) they charge stiff prices for a low optical quality fix.

And it is Canon who created the mismatch!

To me, digital is like a Polaroid, in that we get instant gratification (and proofing). However, Polaroids have better dynamic

range and much greater resolution. Not to mention, incredibly rich delicate colors. I guess that's a bad analogy. Let's say digital is like a Big Mac! We were much better off with all those wonderful burger joints in the fifties and sixties, without indigestion.

Yes, I'm knocking digital. Somebody has to take those egotistical

liars down a peg or two! But I am not knocking visual art, or the

content of digital images. Content rules the day! If photos communicate with vigor, a Pentax K1000 will do just fine.

I have a Kodak 5x7 view camera and some Fuji lenses. The 90mm SW f/8 Fuji will cover 57 without much movement--and this is very wide angle lens,a view equivalent to about 18mm in 35mm format. They can be found for less than 500 on eBay, sometimes less than 400--depending on condition (Image Circle = 215mm, you need 209mm to cover 5x7) This lens takes a 67mm filter. With this lens you are likely to get some light falloff across the field but still sharp across the field. Light falloff can be corrected by dodging the center of the image when

you print.

A very good Fuji lens for this format is 125mm f/8 SW. They sell cheap because the image circle isn't big enough for 8x10 format, and more than people need for 4x5. It's absolutely a 5x7 design, with plenty of room for camera movements (280mm image circle). Compared to 35mm the angle of view is similar to a 24mm lens. For most subjects requiring modest movements, illumination is uniform across the field.

As you approach the edges of the image circle there is modest light

falloff.

The 150mm f/5.6 W lens will also cover 5x7 (223mm)with little movement,and they are easy to get. This lens has an angle of view roughly equivalent to a 28mm lens in 35 format. Mine has a 55mm filter, which I adapt to 58mm. 5x7 is asking a lot of this lens, but

it works.

Possibly the best choice is the Fuji 210mm f/5.6--a really exceptional

lens. The angle of view is like a 35mm lens, when used in 5x7 format.

It has a whopping 300mm image circle for generous movements and takes

a 67mm filter.

Hope you find this helpful.

Sorry I can't give you more options, but I know something about lenses

I use on my Kodak. They are all very sharp lenses, and

not too expensive. If you can raise your budget to $500, that would

probably be enough to get any of the lenses mentioned here.

I suggest paying attention to the filter sizes, if you are shooting black and white. Filters are expensive and in B&W you are likely to want a few contrast filters and maybe a polarizer (linear will do).

This way you get good separation of values on panchromatic film.

I am very happy, astonished really, by Fuji sharpness. They are pro

quality, computer-designed lenses--very well constructed.

It's often better to buy from a dealer, where you can test the shutter

and see if they seem right. Older lenses may need adjustment/overhaul of the shutter. My lenses have Copal shutters. Figure $150 if you need an overhaul and maybe 50 mount the lens. Wide angle SW lenses and the 150mm W use a Copal 0 hole, while the 210mm uses a Copal 1.

If the hole in your lensboard is too big, you will need to buy a lens

board or have one made.

One minor point. Linear and circular polarizers are doing exactly the same job. I think anyone will be fine using a linear polarizer on a

Pentax 67II, with any of the three available metering patterns. Since exposure measurements are time-averaged values of light intensity, exposure errors are extremely unlikely, even with the 2 percent spot meter (which is an enormous area when looking at light propagation).

For autofocus cameras, you're on your own. I adapt 67II lenses to my

Canon bodies because I prefer manual aperture and focus.

What is the difference between a linear and a circular polarizer? This is physics, having to do with the time evolution of vibration directions for waves of light (and all EM radiation) in three dimensions. Since polarization is perpendicular to the direction of light propagation, it is treated as x,y components on a plane. You could have linear polarized light--often called x-polarized or y-polarized along an axis (or in between at some angle) That's linear polarization. If linear polarized light is coming right at you, it would (theoretically) look like a line (oscillating from zero to maximum amplitude) as it approaches you. From a position to your right

or left, it would look like a moving sine wave on a plane. This is like looking a sheet of paper from edge (direction of propagation) or the side--not so difficult to visualize. You could rotate the paper vertically, horizontally or somewhere in between, and the edge will look like a line with a particular orientation in space as it approaches you.

Polarization describes the electric field of the wave. Every E-field

also a B-field (magnetic), also polarized, but we don't need to worry about that because it's oriented at 90 degrees. If you know one, you know the other. In photography, we always mean polarization of the electric field.

Getting back to the sine wave, two light waves can be out of phase.

Then you have circular or elliptical polarization. If the two waves are out of phase by 90 degrees and have the same amplitude (the height of the wave), we say they are circularly polarized. If they are out of phase by some other angle, or differ in amplitude, then the light is elliptically polarized. Two waves are just a quantitative and conceptual model--what we actually see is an ocean of waves spanning the visible spectrum, partially polarized (by reflection). All polarizers block light that is not vibrating in a specific direction,

which is why you compensate by 1/2 to 1 1/2 stops for less intensity.

You can also visualize circular/elliptical wave fronts. Coming right at you circular polarized would scribe a circle, and elliptical polarization would scribe an ellipse. From the side, as the waves pass by, you would see a Helix for circular polarized light, and a "squashed" helix for elliptically polarized light, as the wave progresses in time.

If it all seems strange and complicated, that is definitely the flavor

of graduate physics. Polarization and the time evolution of waves in space relies upon Maxwell's Equations, The Schrodinger Equation, and quantum mechanics. Mathematics dominates the picture, and many other physical properties come into play. So there is a devil in the details that optical engineers who make our equipment must certainly contend with.

So the easy answer is that polarization is the direction of the electrical field as it travels through space, oscillating at a particular frequency, with a specific wavelength(color). Intensity is

constantly changing, so camera meters are really giving you a time average of light intensity. Direction can be visualized as a line, circle or ellipse--and circular polarization is really a special case of the ellipse where phase differs by 90 degrees.

You don't need to know this to do photography. Knowing light visually is something of itself. Personally I get more use of contrast filters

for B&W film than those expensive polarizers.

One very good thing to know is that you don't need a lens hood if a

polarizer is attached to the front of the lens, because side light cannot get through the polarizer. One large polarizer, with appropriate step-down adapters, will cover a range of lenses--and the adapters are very cheap.

The same strategy will work for other filters--if we just pause to use

our eyes. Side light generally is typically coming from one direction, usually near the sun. When taking a picture without a lens

hood, use your hand, a clip-board, notebook, or magazine to cast a shadow on the front of the lens. I get very good use of 105mm filters

on 82mm, 77mm, and 67mm Pentax and Fuji lenses. Nobody in the world will know that you used a copy of Newsweek as a lens shade. Since filters are so expensive, it's better to improvise and save your money

for optics or camera bodies.

Even a good filter is more glass in your optical path, so I use them conservatively. Lens hoods are desirable--but frequently ineffective

anyway--especially with wide angle lenses--where blocking the light yourself outside the field of the lens is more effective than a hood.

Size of the image circle? Just a thought. Project the image of bright sunlit windows on a wall that's in shadow. Cut out a lost frame (we all get those) and pin it on the wall. Set the aperture in the working range of your lens, and you will how the image circle compares to your film size.

Hasselblad cameras are beautifully made, but if you have a real interest in perspective control, a view camera is better. I restored an old Kodak#1, and also have a used Sinar F (for field) camera with Fujinon glass. Images are of superb quality. From a 5x7 negative, you can also crop to 6x17cm format--and from a 4x5 negative, you can crop to 6x12cm. Considering the price of Fuji Panoramic cameras . . .

Really, optics designed for view cameras are better adapted to this kind of work--and you can easily pick lenses with a generous image circle, one that just fits your film format, or something in between.

My favorite format is 5x7, because the image on ground glass is just the right size. 4x5 will get you a better selection of film, which doesn't matter much for B&W photography. 8x10 or larger will give you breathtaking images, but I find it more difficult to compose the image and film is very expensive. It's all a matter of individual preference. Hasselblad cameras and optics are virtually unrivaled in the world of fixed-focus. But as view cameras, there are more than a few drawbacks and limitations. Photographers tend to be most successful when they choose the right tool for the job--and view cameras are still the best game in town for subjects that require perspective control. Rather than impose limitations, they greatly

extend creative options.

I really like the idea of using a view camera to shoot medium format, but didn't need to buy one of those hugely expensive rigs designed for

this purpose . . .

Instead, I have an adapter to mount my Pentax 67II on a Sinar lens board. Pentax is somewhat unique: The camera has an inner and outer mount. The outer mount is for very big telephoto lenses, where the camera hangs on the back. What you do is scare up an extension tube for the outer mount, have SK Grimes marry it to Sinar lensboard, and viola! You get a terrific medium format view camera, with metered, reflex viewing, 120/220 film, full macro capability, generous swings, tilts, shifts, rise/fall, leaf shutter + flash synchronization at 1/500 (set the camera on B). You can also use the focal plane shutter,

and set the leaf shutter to "T". With a short rail and bag bellows, this is not by any means an imposing rig. You can slide the tripod

mount backwards for better balance. It will vignette with extreme movements, but you can see a vignette bright and clear. I just replace the back with second hand roll film back, after focusing the image and metering the scene.

Since the 67II has a focal plane shutter, I can also use barrel lenses

to shoot medium format.

This long story is just to suggest choosing options that make your equipment more flexible, literally, making best use of what you already have. My C/M could probably be adapted too, but the Pentax is just as good. The film lies very flat, and the meter is excellent. The shutter is accurate. What a contraption! I really love it. And I can work much faster than large format photographer you know! The Pentax 67II body is also used to set up 4x5 shots, accurately metering

the central 6x7cm slice of the frame, usually where you find the subject.

So, friendly advice. Apply creativity to your camera gear!

For far less money, you can build the most remarkable rigs, that deliver extraordinary optical performance, ease of use, and technical control.

And what about Hasselblad? My cold dead fingers!!! I love the C/M and Zeiss lenses, but they are for specific kinds of work. For other jobs, use or invent other tools.