thomas_janik

Steve:

 

My question was one of curiosity, not implied criticism of Pentax (I have K1000, an LX, 2 645?s and 67, how loyal can a customer be?) The design of the 645 120mm allows very good performance from infinity to life-size without any tubes or additional items. The design is clearly different from the 135mm and, I assume, the 100mm in the 67 system.

Is there some optical reason Pentax did not use the design of this lens in a 67 equivalent?

 

Regards,

 

Tom

I am curious as to why the design used in the 645 120mm macro is not

used in a lens for the 67. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd

appreciate hearing them. I know weight might be an issue, but anyone

willing to haul around the 67 and tele lenses shouldn't have a

problem with that. Thanks in advance

I have a Pentax 645 grip which has developed a problem: If I turn on

the power,the camera will take one exposure and then attempts at a

second exposure yield no response from the camera. Turn off the power

and then back on and the grip again allows one exposure. I am fairly

certain the problem is in the grip, since I tried a different grip on

the camera and it functions normally. Anyone else encountered this

problem and have a suggestion? (The batteries are new)

Jerry, Bill:

 

Thanks for the replies. I also learned from these tests that lack of sharpness I sometimes attribute to zooms is a photographer problem, e.g. the 40-80 Pentax zoom I have I had regarded as a so-so lens, yet it came out very sharp in my test. I then realized that I chose this lens often when walking on the street in low light situations. It's not the lens, it's a shakey photographer with the lens wide open.

Just a comment on a non rigorous lens resolution test, comparing a

Pentax 80-200mm F4.5 M zoom to a 200mm F4 M Pentax lens. I had never

tested my own lenses before and assumed the fixed focal length would

yield better resoulton and contrast. When comparing slide shots of a

newspaper at 50 ft with each lens under idenical conditions (F8,1/250

sec, tripod, mirror up), I can't see a difference even under a 20x

microscope. Anyone else had the same observation or have a link to

test results?

Erik:

 

There is a broken (dropped) LS 6X7 lens on ebay now

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30038&item=3814532957&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

George, Kelly, Bill and Louie:

 

Thanks you all for your comments. Now I know what I have. The item was not advertised as a 4x5, I just assumed it was so I don't feel justified in asking the seller to allow me to return the item. I already have some 4x5 equipment and (holders, developing tank, film) so I may try to find a 4x5. I'll just be more careful this time. This mistake didn't cost very much. I'm new to ebay and was very cautious at first, but I've been very happy with the items I have purchased and have found the sellers to be honest. The camera appears to be in good shape. The focal plane and lens shutters appear to work well the glass int the lens is perfect. The ebay link if you want to see the other photos is:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3809886169&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6

 

Kelly if yo're interested mine is #250844 with a Kodak Ektar 127mm F4.7 #ES5120. So made in 1940?

 

Thanks to all,

 

Tom

Thanks Louie, George and Bill for you speedy replies.

 

The holders don't fit because it's not a 4x5; the ground glass is 3.5x4. I included some photos from the listing. The only model name appearing on the camera is "Graflex', on the front. On the rangefinder side is a plate with "Speed Graphic and curtain aperture settings. Thanks again (another lesson learned).

I purchased a 4x5 Speed Graphic (Century model, I believe) on ebay

without asking the right questions or doing enough research, so now I

have a problem. I assumed the camera would accept standard 4x5

holders. It doesn't, standard holders are a little too large. Can

anyone tell me what holders I need to find to use this camera?

Thanks

For what it is worth:

I too am scanning Kodachrome (30 years of K II, KX, K 25 and K 64). I have been using a Minolta 5400 and have looked for a loss of sharpness with the use of ICE; I don't see any when comparing scans of the same slide with and without. There is a a very slight difference in color, other than that the only difference is the absence of dust in the ICE scan. If you can, try the Minolta; I believe the extra resolution is worthwhile ( I don't see grain in in

K 25 scans)

I am a recent owner of a 67. After reading some of the forums, I am

curious if anyone has compared results from a Pentax 67 to those

from a 645 under a variey of conditions. I ask since it has become

apparent from the forums that MLU and a heavy tripod are essential

for the 67 at any slow shutter speed; the 645, on the other hand,

appears to be fairly vibration free. Does the shake in the 67

negate the advantages of a larger format?

 

Thanks

Just to add to the mixed opinions: my first 5400 didn't work out of the box. It was replaced and does a wonderful job with Kodachrome (which is all I have and the reason I chose the Minolta). I have never had a banding problem and posts at other forums indicate the new software has greatly reduced it for those who do.

Thanks to all who took the time to offer insights.

I am planning a trip by air carrying film and cameras. I haven't

traveled recently and am concerned about exposure of the film to X-

rays. Any suggestions to get film there and back.

 

Thanks

Eric:

 

The Minolta scanning software has a histogram, curves and other adjustments similar to those in Photoshop. Output color spaces include: Adobe RGB, CIE, Wide-gamut color match and others. This option must be selected in the software under "color matching, output color space". I tried scanning the same slides without a color space selected and with Adobe rgb. Observations: The file is not tagged with a colorspace, it must be assigned in Photoshop; the distribution of pixels in the histograms for each is the same, i.e. the overall shape of the curve and appearence of the image. However in every case (4) the mean value of the pixels is 5-7% less in the images scanned under Adobe rgb (the median is shifted by the same amount, indicating to me thet the curve is just shifted, no redistribution of values has occured.

Thanks to everyone for the thorough responses. One more question: the Minotla software allows the designation of Adobe rgb or many other color spaces (default is none, I'm not sure what that means); if I understand Eric's comments, it would be preferable to scan with no spce designation and then convert based on the particular image.

 

Tom

I am new to scanning and digital printing in general. I have read

forums, web sites and books trying to understand the process. I am

using a Minolta 54400 scanner and an Epson 2200. I have the

impression I should follow the following sequence: scan in 16 bit

linear; open in PS 8, assign adobe rgb as the color space, adjust

gamma to 2.2 and so on and finally use the profile for the specfic

paper when printing. My question is the following: if I open the

scan and assign the profile supplied for the Minoltal 5400 linear (

which reomoves the necessity for a large gamma adjustment), what is

the value of converting to Adobe rgb as a work space? Since to print

I must then convert from whatever working space to the paper

profile. Any insights would be appreciated.

Paul:

 

I am new to scanning and have had a 5400 since October. I choose it after reading in many forums that the Nikon ICE would not work with Kodachromes, which comprise 99% on the images I want to scan. I have had a few problems with the Minolta (the first one didn't work at all and was exchanged), but I am very pleased with the results and the ICE has worked amazingly well on Kodachrome. Make sure your computer can handle 220 MB files (I have a new one now).