eugene_crumpler

My testing and experience with the NEW 200/f4 is that it is pretty easy to hand hold and balances well with the body. The sharpest F-stops are in the 5.6 -16 range. Optimum appears to be f11. F22 drops a few l/mm.

As I recall from the literature, the internal battery that runs the meter must be returned to pentax to be replaced. This was one thing that caused me to decide against the 645 and get the 6x7 instead.

Large 1 pound oat meal containers will do the job for a curved film plane. However fitting a motor drive is quite difficult!

Scott;

 

<p>

 

I do all of the above in a totally darken room. No need to cover the lens.

 

<p>

 

I agree that hand holding (in my case a p67) below 1/250 is pushing it. I double the old rule about 1 over the focal length(which seems to work for 35mm), so if I have on a 55mm, I will not use less than 1/125 without support. For my 200mm, I use at least 1/500.

 

<p>

 

When I go to 1/125, I know not to count on getting a sharp 16x20.

 

<p>

 

I hear people say they can hand hold their Blad at 1/30, but I doubt it unless they are getting 6x6 inch prints.

Check this forum for a current discussion of some of these lenses.

I only test lenses this way any more. I lock up the mirror, open the camera shutter, move away from the camera and wait for at least 5 seconds. Then I fire the flash by hand off camera. I use the ratio setting on the flash for most F-stops, but for the smallest, I move closer to the target and use two to four flashes to get enough exposure. I use Tech pan for all tests.

 

<p>

 

I went to this method, when I found out that my P67 was too heavy for my then best tripod. I upgraded to a heavy bogen after that.

 

<p>

 

Camera shake, mirror flop, etc are eliminated to the maximum extent possible. I then view the negatives at max blowup on my elarger, and use a high magnification grain focuser to count lines.

 

<p>

 

I conducted a series of test like this with all of my filters to determine that lens quality was not compromised by any of my tiffen filters. I could detect no difference.

My experience with the 80mm El Nikkor is good. B&H will sell you a gray market new one for less than $200. Since the 80mm is a fairly recent addition to Nikon's line, a used 80mm would probably work well, but the asking price may no be much less than a new one(indication of demand).

 

<p>

 

Used enlarging lenses usually are not abused much, but fungus can be a problem. Get a trial period and make as big a full frame print as you can,(from a grainey negative such as tri x) stopped down at least 2 stops, and look at the corners with a loupe to determine how well defined the grain is compared to the center. Even a cheap lens can be sharp in the center, but the corners are the real story. Be sure to check all four corners, as unsharpness in part of the corners, but not all, indicates that your negative may be buckled or you have an alignment problem. Be sure that all four corners are equally sharp or unsharp, before keeping or sending the lens back. Don't expect the corners to be quite as sharp as the center except in the very expensive process lenses. You have to ultimately decide what is acceptable to you.

 

<p>

 

My experience is that in enlarging lens, you get what you pay for!

 

<p>

 

Nikon only makes one line of enlarging lenses and all apparently are of good to excellent quality. My 50 is great and the 75 I sold was great for 6x6 coverage.

 

<p>

 

Others let us know what the story is on other lens makers.

Dave J.

 

<p>

 

I tried using a 75mm El Nikkor, but the edges fell apart on the 6x7 negative(four element lens). Bought a 90mm Beslar used from B&H and it was NG. So sprung for new 80mm El Nikkor and got a jewel. Sold the 75mm to a blad buddy who thinks its ok for 6x6 (which it was).

 

<p>

 

Sucia; Unless you are on a tight budget or you KNOW that you won't be making anything larger than an 8x10, DON'T spend $$$ on a good MF camera and then skimp on the enlarging lens. Been there, done that!

 

<p>

 

Gene

I'll second the thought that the newer lenses are outstanding. All three of my lenses 55,105 and 200 are outstanding. The 55mm F4 is tack sharp from f4 to f22!!(Sorry guys, I still can't believe that this lens is as good as it is)

Jackie;

 

<p>

 

I have some liteature about competition rules and by-laws for camera clubs. I belong to two clubs here in the Research Triangle Area of North Carolina. One is a general interest club meeting in Chapel Hill and the second(which I stared about a year ago) is a specalized group for B&W only. Having started at least two other clubs in the past, I would be willing to provide some advice ideas on how to start one and trying to keep it going.

 

<p>

 

PSA also has a lot of ideas, althought some people don't like the "PSA Style"

 

<p>

 

E-mail me and I may be able to provide some help.

 

<p>

 

Clubs are tougher to start and keep going as people have less spare time than they use to. Our club mambership is predominately retired people, as Chapel Hill is a retirment mecaa.

Opps. I didn't catch that this was a professional assignment!!! I assumed that since this was a B&W shoot that it was a family job!!

 

<p>

 

Fill flash is a problem with p67, one reason that I still have a C33 mamiya. Any chance of borrowing a leaf shutter camera?

Although not a schneider, I just recently purchased an 80mm El nikkor.

Prior to the purchase, I e-mailed Nikon and they do not make an 90mm lenses, because their 80mm will cover the 6x7 fromat.

 

<p>

 

The 80mm is a 6 element design and in my experience, it covers the 6x7 format well. As to light fall off I found only about 25% drop from center to edge at 22x28 height(Omega c760xl). I always burn the edges of all my prints at least 10% as a matter of routine.

I have owned a P67 for about a year and 1/2, so I can not personally tell you about my experience with longitevity of my camera. However, a buddy who use to shoot a lot of weddings told me his held up for nearly 20 years before the film advance broke beyond economic repair. From my reading around this and other forums, the film winding mechanism may be the weak spot if there is one for this great camera. I try to remember to advance the film slowly to assure accurate framing and to not stress this system too much.

 

<p>

 

Some of this negative background may come from the fact that people get the P67 confused with some similar cameras (Pentacon, Exacta, and Norita to name a few) that were not as well built 6x6 cameras. The fact that its still a steady seller after 30+ years on the market, indicates something.

 

<p>

 

Or it may be Blad snobbery!

After all this discussion, why not just get out the old P&S and set it on fill flash and take then to the drug store? I got a point and shoot olympus because I didn't want to drag out all of the equipment to take pictures at family gatherings.

 

<p>

 

I always take it with me when I travel, regardless of what other equipment I have with me. I then have the required two rolls of "WE were there" shots. Then I use the serious gear for serious work.

The common thread here with all of us who read and respond to this forum is our interest in photography and our use or potential use of MF cameras. I also agree that many people myself included get involved because cameras are interesting gadgets. As the years go by

I have found that my interest is less in the technical aspects(perhaps because I feel that I have mastered these to the point that I don't agonise much about what film I use or if my developer is the best for getting max shadow detail), but in creation of images.

 

<p>

 

I photograph things in the world that I find visually interesting and perhaps create some emotional response in me. The challange for me is to get that image on a white piece of paper that only has black and shades of gray forming an image that others MAY also find visually and emotionally interesting.

I get excited just like a kid when I think I have captured such an image. Too often when the work print is viewed for the first time, disappointment and fustration are the first emotions.

 

<p>

 

Less frequently I feel the same excitement viewing the work print as I experienced when I released the shutter. I had that rush Tuesday night when a shot I found quite interesting and looked great as a negative, turned up as a great 8x10 work print. I rushed back and racked up the enlarger to get a 16x20 of this one!. Two prints later, I had a print that was not only visually intersting in the curves and lines, but had a tactile texture to it as if you could touch the surface of the print and feel the roughness of the hemp (picture was a rope lying on a dock).

 

<p>

 

I'll let family and friends see it, I will take it to my club and hopefully get a warm fuzzy or two and then hang it on the wall, until I tire of it or have a better print I want to be a constant visual presence in my life. I might even try to sell it in the future.

 

<p>

 

B&W photography and golf are my drugs of choice!!!!!!! Great addictions!

On additional thought on the pentax eyelevel finder. When replacing, take extra care to be sure the two latches are well secured. I had my prism drop off while shooting, but it landed in the grass and no harm was done. A little experience!!

You might want to look at the Omega C760XL system (handles up to 6x7 negatives). It is modular, so any type of head you want is available. I is well built as you would expect from Omega and has some nice features such as tilting head and tilting and sliding lens board for distortion correction and and other effects. The modular construction pretty well assures that everything will stay in alignment.

 

<p>

 

As always, don't skimp on the lens. El-nikkors at a minimum.

The orginal question was how to get 20x24 grainless prints. 6415 fills the bill in spades. 2415/6415 have the same characteristics as far as my testing indicates. They respond the same to the developers I use and I rate both at E.I. 100

 

<p>

 

Tech Pan is certainly not the only film that will produce essentially grainless 20x24 prints. T-max 100 comes fairly close, but at 20x24 you will see the grain easily in the middle tones. I tested several 120 films before deciding on Tech Pan and T-max 100. I decided to use t-max for general shooting and Tech Pan when I know before hand that I will want to make big blow up. My experience in frequent use is only with these two 120 B&W films.

 

<p>

 

There are a lot of other good suggestions above.

Scott:

 

<p>

 

Try it (2415), you will like it. The negatives are beautiful, lie flat with the milar base and the sharpness and grain are wonderful!

You will never know how good( or bad) your lenses are until you use this material!

I'll second the above recommendation. The pentax system has outstanding lenses and is a relatively simple machine compared to many of the other systems you are comparing. The price is nearly 1/3 of the hasselblad system. Do try to stick to the newer lenses and bodies. I have the 55, 105 and 200 and all are capable of excellent B&W blow-ups to 16x20 and beyond. The 55mm F4 is an amazing lens with outstanding performance.

 

<p>

 

 

As mentioned the flash is limited to 1/30 but I have not found this to be a problem as I do the same type of work you are doing.

 

<p>

 

 

I highly recommend a good sturdy tripod. Check out the possiblity of vibrations with any tripod you are considering using or buying.

 

<p>

 

Try and get a chance to use two or three of cameras if possible by renting.

For some good info on the New Hampshire White mountain area (which I visited two weeks ago) look up;

 

<p>

 

http://web2.superb.net/beauvais/photo/nh/

 

<p>

 

Dan Beauvais is a 4 star PSA exibitor in slides and is a native of NH.

 

<p>

 

I used his directions and got some great shots.

We might be getting a flame going here, but I have used tech pan 2415 as my primary film for 35mm for nearly ten years and my prints are excellent (not just my opinion, but a lot of judges liked them). I tried a lot of developers before finding TEC and used it exclusively. The right developer(not technidol) makes the difference. Unfortunately TEC is not available in the 2-solution formula any more.

 

<p>

 

I just go an e-mail about 10 minutes ago stating that initial testing with diafine and 2415 produces a wide tonal range at an E.I. of 100!

I'll be interested in how this discussions develops(pun intended).

My standard developer Ethol TEC which I have been using for over ten years apparently has been discontinued in the 2-solution form. I'm also moving and will be without darkroom facilities for the next three to four months, so I won't be able to experiment.

 

<p>

 

I've been using Tech pan and T-max 100 and have a year's supply of both in my freezer. Tech Pan will definitely give you grain free results with an E.I. of 25 to 100 depending on the developer. T-max will give you 16x20 prints from 6x7 with minimal grain probably with what ever developer you use. I found that T-max gave a better range of tones and a smiggen less grain than Pan F or XP-2. Tri X is still as grainey as when it was introduced in 1954! I undestand from several people that the Delta films are a bit better that the T-max's, but I have no experience with them at this point!

 

<p>

 

I've been e-mailing seveal fellows who are experimenting with different developers and I will be following their progress while I am "out of business" for the next few months!

I'm speaking as a hobbist who's main outlet is camera club competitions and salons, not commerical.

 

<p>

 

I've used MF and LF before, but from the late 70's until last year, I had worked to develop my vision and technique with 35mm. I spent a lot of time and money trying to squeeze the most quality our of my nikon's. Two years ago I realized that I had reached the limits of quality in producing exibution grade B&W prints from 35mm. So I purchased a p67 outfit as a compromise rather than move up to 4x5. I have had experience with sheet film cameras and I didn't want to get into that whole thing again.

 

<p>

 

I consider the p67 as a eyelevel overgrown nikon Ftn. I use it just like I use my nikons, except I now know that I have a better shot at getting a really clean 16x20. I don't thing my photography has gotten any better(or worse) except for the technical quality. Frankly the p67 is easlier to use for mostly handheld work. I can get less grainey 16x20's shooting T-max 100 at 400 than the tech pan shots at EI 100. I can shoot at 1/250 with T-max easier than 1/60 with tech pan.

 

<p>

 

So I tend to use a tripod less with the MF than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

So the MF move, for me, was strictly for improved B&W quality.

 

<p>

 

I got lucky and stumbled into purchasing a 55mm f4 for the p67 and am delighted at the outstanding performance of this lens. I thought I already owned some of the sharpest lenses availible from nikon, but have been suprised at the incedible performance of the p67 55mm at all F-stops.

I'll second your decision. I've been using the p67 system for about a year and I love it. I got the body, ttl prism and three lenses(55 105, 200) for under $3500 NEW. My limited experience says get the New 55mm F4. I am in awe of the quality of this lens!! The whole system is built like a tank.