george_rhodes

<p>I bought one of the first Minolta AF 400mm f4.5s brought into the U.S. and have been using it ever since. It is stunningly sharp, even wide open. Rated the best of any minolta telephoto ever built. It is light weight for a 400mm of its quality and is built like a tank. In my opinion, the best 400mm ever made by anyone at any price. </p>

<p>Thank you Peter, Richard, Steve and J R for your responses to my question. Very eye opening and informative. Years ago, when I tried to find long Minolta glass to rent, I couldn't find anyone to rent it from. I'm glad to see that has changed. I wasn't aware that there were so many people to rent Minolta/Sony equipment from today. With so many good rental options already out there, I'll just drop my idea of adding rental equipment to my business offerings. Thanks again, guys. </p>

<p>I hope this is an appropriate post for this forum. I am considering the possibility of offering

rental AF lenses for Sony/Minolta digital and film camera users through my photography business. I

would start with lenses I already have, such as the outstanding Minolta 400mm f4.5 APO, matching M

inolta 1.4x TC, Tamron SP 70-210mm f2.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Minolta 50mm

f1.4, etc. I would also have the Maxxum 9 film camera available and a complete Pentax

67 medium format system, with the best lenses available, as well as tripods. Rental requirements would be

similar to other photo equipment rental companies and rental prices for the Sony/Minolta equipment would be sli

ghtly lower than similar offerings from Canon and Nikon equipment renters. Woud anyone on this forum hav

e an interest in such a thing? I would appreciate any feedback on this subject. Thank you in advan

ce. George Rhodes at <a href="http://www.ge

orgerhodes.com">www.georgerhodes.com</a>.</p>????????????????????????

I make a good living from selling fine art color photographs. With my Pentax 6X7 equipment, I rtoutinely print 24" X 30" prints that are tack sharp with essentially no grain, even when using 400 speed film. I generally shoot fine grain 50-100 ASA films. When I exhibit my work, I'm frequently asked if I use large format. I print up to 40" prints that are very sharp, but the grain begins to become noticeable, although not at all objectionable. Sharp prints are VERY dependant on proper technique, of course. A competitor/friend of mine, uses a 645 Pentax and produces beautiful prints, up to 40", although the grain is a bit more noticeable than what I get from my 6X7 prints and his prints are not quite as sharp, although they are very acceptable. Many years ago, when I was faced with the same decision, I went with the bigger film size, since large print quality is my primary objective. However, that was many years ago. Pentax will soon be releasing a 645 digital camera, so if you go with 645 now, you'd already have lenses that would work in AF mode on a 645 digital body up the road. The digital 645 MIGHT produce results with resolution and possibly tonal range that equals that of the 6X7 film format. Of course, the Pentax 67 lenses can also be used on the 645 bodies and the AF confirmation light does light up when they are in focus, but you would not have AF with the 67 lenses on a 645 film or digital body if that matters to you. I does not matter to me any more. I'm personally very happy that I went with the 6X7 format. It works very well for me. The 645 is apparently easier to use than the 6X7, but that was never an issue with me. I've been doing this for a long time and I know how to utilize equipment to its best advantage. The more I use the AF 35mm do-everything equipment for certain things, the more I enjoy the challenge of using my manual focus, match needle big Pentaxe 67s. It's the end results I'm after and to me, the Pentax 67 equipment is a breeze to operate, compared to 4X5 or any of the larger formats that many of my counterparts use. All things considered, I get results from 6X7 that are almost as good as with 4X5.

 

www.georgerhodes.com

I have the 300mm Ed IF and it produces stunning results. I would go for the 300, plus 1.4 TC, which would give you a 420mm f5.6. If you later buy a 600mm, then you would have a 300mm, a 420mm and a 600mm. The only way I would recommend getting the 400mm, is if you don't need a 300mm. If that is the case, then with the 400mm, you would have a 400mm and a 560mm, with a 1.4X TC, in which case, you would then not need the 600mm.

My friend has a pristine, mint (used only once) Pentax 67II body

with AE finder. I'd like to buy it. What have any of you paid for

a used, but essentially new, 67II recently and what do you think

would be a fair price to pay? He's had the camera for more than a

year, so I guess the warranty is probably no longer in effect. I'm

not sure how long Pentax warranties their equipment. Thanks in

advance to anyone who responds.

I'm betting he probably is referring to the Pentx, but who knows. He needs to let us know which 6X7 camera.

 

George

I have an answer to my own question. I was happy to find that Pentax still stocks the gaskets. There is a top gasket and a bottom gasket. The gaskets cost .80 cents each. There is also a small shipping and handling charge.

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I finally found a TTL ring (the last one they had) at a place called "Central Camera Company".

I'm looking for a TTL ring for the Pentax 67. It is a little

plastic ring, that fits over the shutter speed cpntrol dial, when

the TTL meter is in place. Without the ring, it is very difficult

to adjust the shutter speeds, with the TTL meter in place on the

camera.

 

Does anyone know where I can find one? Pentax no longer stocks them

and B&H & KEH don't have any. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you,

 

George Rhodes

george@georgerhodes.com

The foam gasket/seal on the bottom of my old Pentax 67 TTL meter

became gooey and mostly melted/corroded to pieces. It was slopping

up everything. It became such a problem, that I removed it

entirely, to where the bottom of my meter, where the foam used to

be, is now a shiny smooth black surface. I would like to replace

the gasket with new material. Does anyone know where I get the

material to make a new foam gasket?

 

George Rhodes

www.georgerhodes.com

The darkening/burning around the edges of the images seems to follow the shape of the animals in some cases, indicating to me that it was done with controlled intention, after the image was captured. In the interview, Mr. Brandt states, "The level of control I have with dodging and burning the image, through curves and levels manipulation of localized areas - is wonderful."

I use a Pentax 67 (latest model before the Pentax 67II), with mirror lockup. The viewfinder was rather dim, so I had a Maxwell Bright Screen with grid lines put in, which helped my focusing. The screen cost me something close to $200.00 and about $65.00 to have it installed locally. I also now wear glasses, so I had to put in a +1 diopter, which only cost me about $20.00. A Pentax 67II has a brighter screen and a diopter adjustment for the viewfinder. I inderstand that the 67II has a slightly quieter mirror, better ergonomics, including a right hand grip and it has automatic aperture priority, with averaging or spot metering. I have a TTL match needle meter for my 67, which is a quite accurate averaging meter. A Pentax 67 body in very nice condition, with standard prism, dimmer screen and no diopter adjustment, can be purchased for less than half the price of a new 67II with standard prism. I guess it comes down to a financial decision. Are the added features of the newer 67II worth the extra money to you? When I purchase my next Pentax body, it will definately be a 67II, although I am currently perfectly content with my souped-up version of the 67.

I highly recommend the Pentax 67 for landscape photography. I shoot scenics with mine professionally and absolutely love my Pentax 67 system. I strongly disagree with those who recommended a rangefinder or especially a TLR. With either of those types of cameras, it is extremely difficult to use a polarizer or graduated neutral density filters, the two most used filters in landscape work. Pentax lenses are first rate. I use the 90-180mm f5.6 zoom and it is optically superb. I also use the 300mm ED and its performance is simply stunning. The wide angles are also excellent and their short range zoom is very highly rated, although I have no personal experience with that particular lens. If you want to view from the top, Pentax makes two of that type of finder for the 67. The finders are interchangeable, of course. I use the TTL match needle finder and have found it to be quite accurate as an averaging meter. The camera and lenses are a bit heavy, compared to some other medium format systems, so you'll need a good tripod. However, in my opinion, any serious landscape photographer will want to use a tripod. With the use of proper technique, 6X7 images are big, beautiful and sharp.

I had a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. In my opinion, it was a rather cheaply made lens that did not produce images up to my standards. However, it is also priced accordingly and is therefore very affordable.

I have never used a Mamiya 7II, but a fellow fine art photographer I know well, who uses one to shoot primarily landscapes, achieves stunning results with his system. Since it is a rangefinder, he has no mirror/shutter shake issues, but it isn't the easiest camera to use graduated neutral density filters or a polarizer with. The Mamiya camera and lenses are smaller than their Pentax counterparts, but there are fewer lens options with the mamiya. I shoot primarily landscapes with a Pentax 67, always on a tripod, using mirror lockup. When using wide angle lenses and locking up the mirror, I have never had a problem with mirrror/shutter shake. That has never been an issue in my shooting, until I get up over 100mm. I know how to compensate for shutter/mirror vibration in what many consider to be the problem range of shutter speeds with longer lenses anyway, so that is not an issue in my shooting. I'm known among my peers to be neurotic about achieving critically sharp images. I consistantly produce very sharp 24" X 30" prints with my Pentax lenses. Other photographers consistantly rave about the sharp resolution of my prints. The lenses I use are all extremely sharp. I use the 45mm f4, 75mm f4.5, 90-180mm f5.6 and 300mm f4 ED lenses. The zoom is amazingly sharp and the 300mm f4 exhibits absolutely stunning performance, in case you would ever want something besides a wide angle. Pentax also makes a critically acclaimed 55mm-100mm wide angle lens. If I were you, before I made a decision on which system to go with, I'd borrow or rent both cameras with a wide angle lens and try them out. The Pentax would certainly be less expensive than the Mamiya.

I've been using the 90-180mm f5.6 since it's introduction into the U.S. When I first used the lens, I was surprised at how good it is. I love this lens! I have found it to be absolutely tack sharp, with very little distortion. It is one of my sharpest Pentax lenses. It is big and slow, but that doesn't bother me, because I always use it on a tripod and I shoot primarily landscapes. You have to use proper technique with this big lens, in order to benefit from its superb capabilities. The gain in quality in a 6X7 transparency, compared to a 35mm transparency, produced with the very best 35mm lens, is spectacular. There simply is no comparison. Once you see the results you are capable of producing with the 6X7 Pentax, you will never want to shoot 35mm for landscapes again. Best wishes on your wise decision.

I'm a fine art photographer and print my images up to at least 30". Therefore, I shoot almost exclusively in 6X7 medium format. Also, since I shoot what I like, on my own time frame and have done very few assignment-type shoots in my life, I have no need for doing things "fast", which is a big benefit of digital capture, from what others are saying. My age is probably also a factor. I grew up with film and much prefer the look of film over digital capture. To me, digital represents the time in which we are currently living, where everything seems to be made faster and cheaper...not crafted to perfection any longer, but fast, cheap and "good enough".

Troy, I agree with your assessment of this lens. Mine is definately one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. A wonderful lens that I soemtimes even use hand held.

I read a fairly recent review by Popular Photography that gave the new Minolta 300mm f2.8 SSM a relatively unimpressive performance rating. I'm not sure what to make of this. Years ago, P.P. also gave the Canon 400mm f5.6 a similar relatively low performance rating, but users of the lens, including famed Arthur Morris, claimed the lens exhibited excellent performance. Does anyone have personal experience with the new Konica/Minolta SSM 300mm f2.8? If so, what is your opinion? Has anyone seen another evaluation of the lens?

I have a Hi-Lux grid screen in my Pentax 67 and I'm very happy with the performance of the screen.

Eugene,

 

Where did you find this information?

Hi Gloria,

 

I've enjoyed your contributions to this forum for years. I'm impressed and inspired by your plan for travel and artistic/personal growth. That should prove to be quite a fascinating, challenging and fulfilling adventure. I believe you have the spirit and mativation to make this whole thing work out well for yourself and I wish you the very best of luck in your journey.

 

I live less than an hour south of Wakodahatchee and have managed to figure out, over a long period of time, through many trials and tribulations, how to make a comfortable living completely from the sale of my fine art photographs. By the way, I am also a painter, but for more than a dacade have been working only in the medium of photography. Anyway, I may hopefully have some useful advice for you. First, I agree with your decision to use film, instead of digital capture. Most of us fine art photographers much prefer the look and quality of film over digital, especially if you want to print very large. Although I have had quite a number of images published in varied types of publications for many types of applications over my career, I long ago realized that selling images for publication was not the way for me to go personally. For one thing, that is a very crowded market. I decided to go where I would have a greater potential for success. For me, that was to self publish my "Florida Untamed" notecard line and also a number of posters and then market them myself. I was able to get well over a hundred accounts, including Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million. Well, that, along with my publishing credits and a pretty good number of awards, such as in the "Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition" by the BBC, helped me to establish a reputation and history of proven success. I eventually decided to drop the notecards and posters and most of the publishing, in order to sell original photographs through galleries, gallery/gift shops and art festivals. That turned out to be a good decision. I went full time with that about 12 years ago and have not been sorry. I currently do about 30 shows per year, from Key West to Ocean City, Maryland and also sell original photographs through galleries and gallery/gift shops in various locations throughout Florida and North Carolina. I grew up by the ocean, love the ocean and am inspired by it. Not surprisingly, I have pretty much stuck to a theme of marine-oriented scenics (both man-made and natural) and marine-oriented wildlife (aquatic, terrestrial and aerial) for my original photographs. I highly recommend working toward a recognizable theme and style. Sticking primarily with a single general theme for my images has been very important to my success. You'll eventually want people to look at your newest piece of work and say, "That looks like a Hopkins". Repeat patrons make up a big part of my sales. I use 35mm for some wildlife, but usually use my Pentax 67 system for anything else. Using excellent shooting technique, the best fine grain films and the very best printing equipment and technique, I consistantly get very high quality prints, up to 40", from my 6X7 negatives or transparencies. 4X5 has the potential to yield even better results, but is not as spontaneous to use as 6X7.

 

Hopefully, something I've written here may be of interest to you. In any case, Gloria, I wish you a very exciting, rewarding, successful and safe journey, as you embark on this next phase of your life.

When using my 45mm and 90mm only, I use a Bogen 3221 with 3047 head, with excellent results. When I use longer lenses, I get better results with a sturdier tripod.

Definately spend a little more money and get the 7. I used a 9xi for years and the autofocus is not nearly as good as the new 9 or the 7. The 9xi is built well, but the 7 is a much better camera in all other regards. In my opinion, there is no comparison.