gene_crumpler6

For an experienced 35mmer, you might want to consider a fuji Rangefinder. These are a lot of camera for the money and the combination of the 6x7 negative and the outstanding optics will blow your socks off!!. These can be purchased for $700-800 used and they have a counter on the bottom that tells you how many rolls of film have been through the camera. I considered one before taking the plunge into a new p67 system with 3 lenses and new 6x7 omega and 80mm el nikkor. I may pick one up in the future as a complement to the p67 system.

 

<p>

 

I use pro nikon equipment and in my opinion you need to go to 6x7 or 6x9 to get the max advantage of MF over top of the line 35mm.

Ian:

 

<p>

 

Rather than purchase a dryer, consider a dry mount press. I'm assuming you are not going to produce large numbers of 16x20's. You can purchase a couple of drying screens(ordinary aluminum window screens) to dry your FB prints and then use the press to both flatten the prints and to mount them. With 16x20 prints, if you plan to mat and display them, dry mounting is the best way to go.

 

<p>

 

I got a almost new press for 1/3 the price of a new one, by placing a WTB ad on photo.net. I got a response in one day!

Dry them on a clean surface first. Then after they are dry, take a damp cloth and wipe the back of each print just enough to make them limp, them place between two pieces of CLEAR mat board and place about 5-6 pounds of weight, such as books or magazines, evenly over the surface ans allow to redry for a day. Be sure not to place any prints emulsion to emulsion, as they will stick and be ruined.

 

<p>

 

A dry mount press can also flaten prints, but ultimately, FB print will pick up moisture and become uneven again.

 

<p>

 

With FB prints you really need a dry mount press or a dryer to get flat prints.

 

<p>

 

I got a dry mount press to mount FB paper and abandon RC paper, once and for all.

The new seagull with the four element lens is available for a web

price of $119 at calumetphoto.com! Scoop up a couple!

Les:

 

<p>

 

Call Pat Keiger at (336)983-9513 to check on any clubs in Ashville.

Pat is the President of the South East Council of Camera Clubs.

If you got 120 film, you can respool it on a 620 spindle. I've done it several times using an old kodak tourist 620 camera. If this is the case, e-mail me and I will explain how to do it. Quite easy!

Use 70% isopropyl as the final rinse. Soak in the alcohol for 1-2 minutes, hang up to dry in 10-15 minutes. no spots of streaks what so ever. Replace the alcohol after about 20 rolls of film. It works!!

Trace and Chris

 

<p>

 

The 55mm F4 is a super lens, probably pentax's best lens. I've had mine for a little over a year and I am continully amazed at the sharpness of the negatives/prints I am getting! The 55 stays on the camera 80-90% of the time.

Truely a MAN'S camera!! If he lenses slipped off and on like my nikons, and the wind lever flipped as easily as the nikons, I would feel that the p67 was flimsy, which it ain't.

One other option is the Seagull TLR at Calumet for $139. You can try MF on the cheap and if you like it you can then budget for first class MF equipment. If you don't like it, you can sell the Seagull for $75 and your MF experience will have only cost you $60 to $70. Or keep it as a nice knock-around camera.

My experience with the 105mm is different. Mine was purchased new two years ago. At f16 and f22 the images get unacceptablely soft. The pentax booklet warns that pix will not be the best at the smallest apertures. My lens tests confirm this fact. Have't used it in "macro". I assume you are talking aobut at the closest focusing distance. I have the new 55mm and it is so fantaastic, that I keep on the camera most of the time. The 105 does't get much use.

Ron:

 

<p>

 

Another thought. For 40 + years I spend what photo money I had mostly

on 35mm nikons and gradually put together a really decent system. At

the same time, I dabbled with MF with three old rolleis, a yashicamat,

and two mamiya C-series cameras, never spending more that $300 for any

of these.

Therefore MF did not really grab me, because;

 

<p>

 

1. My nikons were of top quality and I tended to want to use them,

rather than the old tired $300 SLR's

 

<p>

 

2. As a result, I didn't fine tune my MF technique and thus the 35mm

pictures were much better.

 

<p>

 

3. I finally bit the bullet and bought MF gear(including all new

darkroom equipment) that inspired me to get serious with MF technique.

Now I love MF and have to take the nikons down once in a while to

remember how to use them.

 

<p>

 

The point of all this is that obtaining first class equipment, in my

case, inspired me to be serious with the format. I noticed this

"quality" effect when I bought my first nikon in 1968. Prior to that

I had been using a bunch of used rag tag 35mm equipment. My

photography got much better when I though I would get better results.

Undoubtly, I could have taken the same pictures with my old yashica

pentamatic, or my old petri, but I just didn't.

 

<p>

 

My $0.02 worth.

Ron,

 

<p>

 

You will need to make bigger enlargements to see the difference! Or

get your finisher to crop the negatives to get a bigger blowup on an

8x10 print. These types of comparisons are easier if you have your own

darkroom.

 

<p>

 

As to the kiev cameras, I would think long and hard before getting one

of those. We have had some hot debates about the quality of Keiv

cameras on photo.net. I haven't owned one, but the general concensus

is that they are trouble prone and the lenses are quite variable in

quality. The Ukrainans(sp?) are not world renown for high quality

goods.

 

<p>

 

The basic problem here is that $500 won't get you very far in the MF

arena!

My vote is to keep the 35mm system and come up with another $200 and

buy a used Fuji 6x7. A lot of camera for the money and one I was

considering before deciding to go and spend some bigger $ for a P67

system. I'd still like to have one as a complement to the P67 system.

 

<p>

 

The fuji lenses are reported to be outstanding.

My experience with 3 lenses, all new, 55, 105, and 200. The 55mm F4 is

very, very sharp. The 105 is very sharp except at F16 and F22, where

it really gets soft(others have not reported this poor a performance

with their 105s at 16 and 22). The 200 is a good lense but not

outstanding-definintely not up to the 55mm. If I were starting again

I would get the 55 and the 135. I'm currently lusting after the new

100mm macro, but haven't found an extra $1200 in my photo budget, yet.

 

<p>

 

If you would like my lens test results, e-mail me.

I've been able to produce quite sharp 16x20 B&W prints with my 80mm

Mamiya and a 105 chrome that has since broken beyond repair. For my

current 80mm black lens, I tested as follows:

F4-- 45 lp/mm

F5.6- 48

F 8--- 72

F11- 72* optimum

f16- 72

f22- 42

 

<p>

 

If I stay in the f 8 to f16 range, good 16x20's and beyond are doable.

 

<p>

 

These numbers compare fairly well with my new p67 lenses, considering

that I have $350 in the C33 system and almost $4k in the p67's.

 

<p>

 

Since from the above you have probably guessed that I am a sharpness

freak, I would first test your mamiya lenses, then get hold of a 3.5

planar and perform the same test. That would be my determining factor

in the decision to trade or not.

 

<p>

 

Of course if you don't plan to print any thing past 11x14, then ignore

the above.

John;

 

<p>

 

I'm not an expert on Rollei F models, the latest I've owned was an

E-2. The Xenotar and Planar are both available on the models C, D,

E, and F's. The 3.5 planar is supposed to be the best lens put on a

Rollie TLR.

 

<p>

 

Clean F's go for high $ as they are very collectable (collectors are

keeping some great cameras out of our hands). Check E-bay or shutter

bug to get price ranges. Other than the weight issue, I'm not sure I'd

trade the C330 for a rollei. The Mamiya 80mm lens is very good and I

doubt that you would see much difference except in 16x20 and larger

blowups if even then. Plus you also have the 135, which I've never

used, so I can't comment about that lens.

I have used filters to protect the lenses on both 35mm and MF in the past and I usually removed them to shoot. Currently, I've aquired lens hoods for the 8 or so lenses that I use with any frequency and these provide a great deal of protection, so I don't use the UV's any more. I'm also very careful about the use of lens caps.

Both enlargers I own can do wall projection. Both have XL capability, one is a new omega and the other is an old spiratone enlarger that I XL'd for $3.00 (it is an old pole type and I went to the hardware store and got a 4 foot piece of pipe to replace the orginal pole). It is just not very convenient to hang print paper on the wall. Floor projection is a bit easier, but still not the easiest way to go. Wall mounting the existing girder or getting an XL girder is the best bet.

Another way to do this is to build a enlarging table with a movable base board. I checked with bessler a while back and they want $1,600 for an enlarging table, so building one is much cheaper. I'm currently building a new home with a darkroom and print handling room, so I've explored a lot of these options in the last few months.

Tony.

 

<p>

 

Building such an extension is possible, but I don't think it would be stable.

 

<p>

 

There are several ways to get bigger blowups with the standard column.

 

<p>

 

- Reverse the column on the board(I don't know how much of a hassle that is with the 23c), place a weight on the baseboard and project on the floor. The danger is that the enlarger may fall over! Not good.

 

<p>

 

- Wall mount the enlarger. I'm sure beseler sells such a wall mount.

Cost for this?? A good alternative is to build one yourself if you are handy and take care to insure that everything ends up aligned.

 

<p>

 

- Purchase an XL column from some one (beseler?)

 

<p>

 

- Get a wide angle enlarging lens. These tend to be expensive.

 

<p>

 

The bellows should not be a problem. As you go to bigger enlargements, the lens has to move closer to the negative. If this should become a problem, there are inverted cone boards available to move the lens closer to the negative. Invert the cone and you can get closer, i.e. very small enlargements!

 

<p>

 

The last alternative is to buy a new XL enlarger and don't worry about all of the above.

Split contrast printing may be more of a hassel than it is worth! As

a busy professional my self, I have limited time in the darkroom and I

believe in KISS. I have a lot of other interests that I am developing

in anticipation of retirement(not to mention I just remarried last

year). I have in the past developed techniques that are time

efficient. Once I retire in a few years, I will have more time for the

darkroom.

 

<p>

 

One technique that can dramatically improve the look of your prints,

with not a lot of additional time in the darkroom, is selective

bleaching. Bruce Barnbaum is a master of this technique. Although I

have not been to Barnbaum's darkroom work shop, three members of my

club have been and they learned a lot!

 

<p>

 

I have adopted the Ilford archival processing system to save time. In

the past I used RC papers to reduce darkrom time, but I am now moving

back to FB papers to get the additional print quality. Selenium toning

is easy and only adds 5 minutes to your processing train. Despite the

general wisdom that Ilford papers don't tone well, I find the increase

in D-max with MG FB papers gratifying.

The 55mm is an outstanding lens! The 105 is excellent as long as you

stay away from the smallest apertures F16 and F22 where the 105 gets

very soft. I understand the 90mm is similar to the 105.

 

<p>

 

I also have the new 200 and it is not Pentax's best lens. If you are

going to do landscapes, the 55mm (new F4 version)would be a

great choice.

 

<p>

 

If you only can swing one lens, the 135 might be your best choice.

 

<p>

 

If I had to buy from scratch, the 55 and 135 would probably the combo

I would get.

Tapas:

 

<p>

 

You are not telling us is that current lenses can not be used with the

P67II. I understood that all lenses functioned the same. Or are you

just referring to the elimination of the chain linkage between the

prism, the body and the aperture linkage?

Alex:

 

<p>

 

I loved 35mm panatomic-x and used it for a number of years. T max 100

is a suitable replacement for it with better grain structure and

speed. I currently use TMX in 120 and tech pan in 35mm. I wouldn't go

back to panatomic-x now even if it were available.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

t-max 1

Dave:

 

<p>

 

As a long time nikkon user, if you are use to top-of-the-line nikkor

lenses and the eyelevel capability of the 35mm SLR, I would suggest

that you look at the p67.

I have used a number of 6x6 TLR's over the years and never was happy

with the results using waist level viewing. I tried a hassey with a

90 degree prism, but I found it a bit awkward. I decided to go with

the p67 system as a way to combine the largest usable negative,

6x7,(optimum negative for 16x20's), not be involved in the hassels of

4x5 work, and retain the spontanity of the 35mm format. My p67 with

ttl prism and normal lens weighs in about the same as an F4 with lens

and batteries. In addition, you can purchase all of your equipment new

for the price of well battered hassey stuff. As to lenses, I can tell

you that the NEW 55mm f4 is a marvel, retaining fantastic sharpness

from f4 to f22(there is no apparent diffraction effect). The 105mm is

very sharp except at f16 and f22 where it really falls apart. The 200

f4 will produce acceptable 16x20's but is not quite up to the 55 and

the 105(at f5.6).

 

<p>

 

The 45mm lens is reported to be quite sharp. You won't have

interchangeble backs, but it sounds like you have plenty of other

equipment, so this may not be a big deal. The new p67II with aperture

priority and new ergonomics looks interesting and is reported to be

priced at about $2000 for the body and meter prism.