ben_greenberg

With great trepidation I will hereby publicly admit that sometimes, but not all that often, I will take a hand-held shot using the mirror lock-up on my Pentax 67 or 67II cameras. While I use a tripod whenever possible for my landscapes and the like, I have found myself in situations in which I could not get the camera in the position I wanted using the tripod. It was just impossible, even though I have a very flexible tripod. In those situations, I have positioned myself against something for greater stability when I can, like a tree trunk, got everything on the camera set very carefully, and, while holding the camera as still as possible, locked up the mirror and after a second took the photograph.

 

It is even more challenging since I typically bracket everything, so I have to note and remember the borders of the first photograph to duplicate the first shot. While there is not doubt that it is impossible to make each of the hand-held photographs exactly alike, they can obviously be quite close. When they are not exactly the same, the fact that I get approximately 10% more area in my photographs than what I see in the viewfinder allows me some cropping room if needed. I have also found my monopod helpful in taking such shots.

 

I would not try it for shots with a lengthy shutter speed but this would be, of course, subject to differences of opinion. I would do so for shutter speeds in the range of 1/8th to 1/30th or maybe even a 1/60th, depending upon what lens I am using. I might even try it at 1/4th of a second with my 45mm lens, if it were my only option. I believe it helps provide a sharper image, but I want to reiterate that I always use my tripod when that is an option.

E.J., thanks for the help on the dewpoint. This may show my ignorance even further, but how does one predict whether the dewpoint will be within 4 degrees of the low temperature? Is there a way of predicting what the dewpoint will be? Do I need to find out from the local weather people? What is the dewpoint? Thanks for any further help you can give me. Ben

I would like to add a few words of support to John Womack's offering with regard to exposure compensation. My experience with fog, which I absolutely love to shoot, is that it is usually lighter than the 18% gray card for which all meters are calibrated. Therefore, unless you overexpose by some amount the scene would likely be rendered darker than you remember. Of course, you may wish to render it lighter or darker intentionally, which is what previsualization and the zone system is all about.

 

I second the comments already received about filters in that you uusually don't need any. I have also played around in fog with filters and techniques that increase the fog effect, and they can yield interesting results. In addition to fog filters and breathing on the lens, anything that diffuses the image can modify it in ways you might find interesting. I prefer not enhancing the effect, but everyone has different preferences.

 

I also much prefer getting out before sunrise along the river to photograph foggy conditions, usually in the fall, before the sun gets up very high. One of these days I will learn about the dew point and how one can predict when the river will be foggy in the fall. I love the interplay of the sun just over the horizen highlighting the fog along the river, frequently yielding cool blue in the shaded areas and golden light through the fog elsewhere. It is truly magical. I am sorry I don't have an image to share with you for I am still waiting with some friends for the new Polaroid and Nikon MF scanners to come out this spring.

Warren, I have responded to this question before as have many others. I suggest that you search the site and you will see several postings that will provide valuable advice. I would say briefly that the P67II is dramatically improved over the old model, which I have used for almost nineteen years. I use both and I could recite a litany of issues and problems with the P67 (problems that, in my opinion, require you to have a back-up camera ... not a bad idea anyway if you shoot color and B&W like I do), although I still love using it. The P67II is in another class, however, with vitally needed and dramatic improvements. The new model is worth it if for only the new meteriing options, which I find to be very accurate when used intelligently, and the significantly improved film advance mechanism, which is so accurate that you can get 21 exposures on a 220 roll. The old film advance mechanism is very unreliable with a lot of shooting, leading to serious spacing problems. I still use my P67's but the P67II is my primary camera. I have had no complications or problems in one and one-half years of shooting with it. With regard to hand-held shooting, I always try to use a tripod in the field; however, under certain unusual conditions I have locked up the mirror while bracing myself and shot without a tripod. That being said, I have gotten some better results hand-holding the camera than some would suggest is possible, but I wouldn't do this when I am most serious about my shooting. I hope this information is helpful. Ben

Another good site is www.weather.com. It has a link for fall colors and I believe it is updated regularly.

I have owned at least four P67 camera bodies since 1982. Two were purchased at that time and the others were purchased during the past 10-12 years. During that time I have experienced certain problems repeatedly. With very heavy use, I have even worn out a camera making it too expensive to repair. The most significant problem is that the spacing between negatives can be problematic. It can vary from the norm in ways that you cannot know until you receive your processed film back from the lab and you find that some photographs may have overlapped. My experience is that you get to know your repairmen well and they keep the spacing problem and other problems from being serious. Don't get me wrong, I love the cameras and one learns what to do to keep using them.

 

In May 1999 I purchased a new P67II and I cannot express how pleased I am with it. This camera represents dramatic improvements over the P67. This is especially true with the spacing issues. While Pentax won't verbally acknowledge the spacing problems with the P67's, it seems to me that they did so by the incredible attention they put to the film advance mechanism in the new body, so much so that one now gets 21 exposures easily on 220 film. I am also very, very pleased with the three metering techniques with the AE prism. My experience is that they are extremely accurate. I have tested them in different conditions with slide film and they are right on. Of course, I am still compulsive enough that I still bracket extensively, certainly more than I need to.

 

I have used the P67II extensively during the past 19 months and, IMHO, it deserves high praises indeed. I have never had a single problem with it despite running more than a thousand rolls of film through it. One still needs to be carefull with mirror shake and my shooting in the field is almost always with a sturdy tripod using the mirror lockup. I don't share the horror stories some tell about shutter vibration problems, but I do often shoot at much slower shutter speeds that the range that gives people most of the concerns. I hope you find these comments helpful.

 

Ben

I also really appreciate hearing about a more affordable carbon fiber option. I was wondering if anyone has compared the vibration dampening results of carbon fiber tripods with wooden tripods, which are also more affordable options. I use a medium format system and this is an important issue for me. Thanks. Ben

I must be very lucky. I frequently carry my P67 or P67II on my Bogen (never can get used to saying Manfrotto) tripod with a quick release head over my shoulder and I have never had a problem; however, I had a more serious fall with a P67 in 1993 two days before my wedding that I still cannot quite believe. I was walking down the basement stairs at a friends house with my P67 and 75mm lens on a stroboframe bracket. I was bringing him my equipment because he was going to shoot my wedding with it. Fortunately I didn't have my bag with my remaining equipment over my shoulder. Halfway down the steps I slipped on a step that was a little shorter than the others. I fell face first onto a concrete floor. To help break my fall I instinctively put the camera and bracket in front of me at arms length. Needless to say, I hit the floor hard having fallen from halfway up the stairs. Unbelievably, I didn't break anything, in my body or my camera. Needless to say, I was a little sore for a few days; however, the camera continued to function perfectly. The only thing that happened was that the corner of the lens hood was dented in, and not all that much. I tested the camera immediately with some slide film and had it processed. The camera worked like nothing ever happened. While I am the last person to say that P67's are the sturdiest cameras around (I can tell you a lot about parts that wear out with a lot of use), I would like to find another camera that could have survived that fall. I doubt if the more electronic cameras, including the P67II, would have been able to do so. Needless to say, I don't recommend that anyone try this, and after reading this thread I will be even more careful with my Bogen quick release head.

 

Ben

I too have been interested in having a shift lens for my Pentax 6x7 system; unfortunately, I agree with the comment that the 75 mm is not wide enough for architectural use. I once had an extensive Nikon system and the 28 mm Nikkor Perspective Control lens was great. I don't believe, however, that the 75 mm will work nearly as well with its focal length. Does anyone know of any other options?

Ken, what is a Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter? Never heard of it. While I am at it, could I ask you what your filter of choice is to warm up your color photograph appropriately under an overcast sky? Do you know if it is available in 82 mm since many filters aren't? Thanks. Ben

I am also very interested in a good quality, reasonably priced scanner for 6x7 negatives and slides as well as prints. It would be helpful if those with recommendations could also share information regarding price and a source for the scanner they recommend. Thanks for the help. Ben

I would like to share a few thoughts. I have used the "sunny 16" rule off and on for many years but only as a guide. I would never trust it without some serious bracketing. There are too many factors to be able to predict it with any reliability.

 

First of all, it only applies when the sun is fairly high, at time at which I rarely shoot my landscapes. I am usually shooting at sunrise and 2-3 hours after or for 2-3 hours leading up to sunset. At those times the "sunny 16" rule is worthless. Second, the conditions have to be perfect for the rule. For example, for the exposure of 1/exposure index of the film at f/16, the sun has to be directly on the subject in the direction in which you are shooting. When the sun moves off at an angle, you have to start compensating and overexposing in accordance with the rule. It is even harder for subjects that are backlit. Third, one must recognize that shutter speeds and apertures can be off and this can significantly alter one's results.

 

I haven't done as much traveling as some of the people who have responded, but I agree the light varies somewhat in different places and possibly at different times of the year. The light on a perfectly clear day in California had quality to it that I have never experienced anywhere else. I have experienced cloudy days when I realized it was really the fog that was moving in on the coast. The "sunny 16" rule isn't much help at times like that.

 

I can't imagine anyone during this time with the quality light meters that are in many cameras and the hand-held light meters available actually totally depending on the "sunny 16" rule. Spot meters and incident meters are particularly helpful, since for many years I shot Pentax 67's with no light meter. If I had to use the rule because there is no meter available, I would not do it without bracketing. If the photograph is not worth insuring that you have a good exposure, it is not worth shooting.

 

Cost of course becomes an issue and it led me for a significant period of time to only shoot black and white. If cost is an issue for someone, then there are many accommodations that can be made. In any case, while I wish the rule was everything one wants it to be, unfortunately it is not. If one wonders about its accuracy, I would advise one to test it thoroughly. Shoot some slide film and keep accurate records. View the slides only on a quality light box.

 

Someone mentioned that he/she tested the rule on the moon,which is supposed to follow the rule for bright sunlight when the air is clear. My tests suggested that the moon would be underexposed by 1+ stop(s) that way. What have others found when shooting the full moon?

In my haste to provide my input yesterday on this matter, I left out a reference to the 45 mm lens early in my statement. Therefore, it might have been confusing about which lens I was recommending. I was trying to make a case for the 45 mm lens if landscapes are one's primary interest. Sorry for the confusion. I never did enjoy proof-reading.

I think you have gotten some excellent advice. While I agree the 55mm lens is more versatile if you plan to shoot people and other subject matter, I don't think you will be unhappy at all if you are going to primarily use it for landscapes. I use it extensively for landscapes and I find it to be wonderful. Someone mentioned that you can always crop down to a narrower view if you want with this lens but you can't always move back with the 55mm to take in more of the view. Due to its wide angle of view, you do need to be careful of the horizen line. As a result, I am very careful with my bubble level on my tripod. I find the depth of field when I stop way down, which is normal for me, to be difficult to match. I tend to love the lens so much that I have to push myself to take it off the camera and try my other three lenses. By the way, I also own the 75 mm and it made sense for me to buy the 45 mm to have more difference between the lenses I own. Hope this helps. I don't think you will be unhappy whatever decision you make.

I have had this lens for approximately seventeen years. While there could have been changes made in the recent version, if there have been changes, I remember that the f/stop in question was 3.4. I do not know the reason for that but that is what I have thought to be the case for all that time.

I have just purchased the Pentax 67II and the manual says I must use a circular polarizing filter. I have been using, I think, a linear polarizer with my old P67's and I don't want to have to buy a new 82mm polarizer if I don't have to. Do I need to if I plan to use the metering system built in the AE finder?

I badly scratched glasses for years before I explored contact lenses. Until I got the contacts, I could never see the edges of my pictures and I would get crooked photographs from time to time when I was shooting events. My disposable contacts were the perfect solution for me.

I have just purchased the Pentax 67II after owning several Pentax 67 camera bodies over the past 17 years. I am very excited by the metering capabilities, the much more precise film advance mechanism, the somewhat quieter mirror, the grip, etc. My initial Provia slide test of the multi-segment metering mode was very encouraging. One question. The manual refers to the need to use a circular polarizer. I think I have a linear polarizer that I have been using for some time. I don't understand why they may have said that. It is my understanding that circular polarizers are needed for auto-focus cameras and, of course, this camera is not. Does anyone know the answer to this problem? Do I really need a circular polarizer? I certainly don't want to have to buy another one at the cost of an 82 mm version. Thanks for any help someone can give me.