george_rhodes

Victor,

 

If you use proper technique, you should have no trouble producing very sharp 20" and larger prints. I use the same technique that Bob Cook uses and consistantly produce stunnungly sharp 24" X 30" fine art prints at all shutter speeds, even with my 90-180mm Pentax zoom. I always use a tripod and lock up the mirror, whenever possible. However, with the 135mm and shorter lenses, I consistantly produce razor sharp 30" prints, using a tripod, locking up the mirror and tripping the shutter with a cable release. The Pentax 67 is a wonderful camera, but you have to know how to use it properly. You have made a good choice.

There are also two fairly new excellent zoom lenses for the Pentax 67.

Hi Dr. Rilling,

 

Perhaps I can help. I'm a former art teacher, who is now a successful full-time professional fine art and nature photographer, who once worked as an X-Ray tech in surgery and had a friend who was a biomedical photographer. I believe I might be able to help you. I will preface this by telling you that I shoot only film and not digital, so my advice is for film cameras, but I believe it will also be helpful to someone using a digital SLR camera. I'm not taking into account magnification effects of lenses on digital cameras, as I have no direct experience with that and know nothing about it. So here goes....I've always firmly believed that outstanding work in the field of photography is due far more to the talent of the photographer than to the type of equipment used. You don't need an expensive 600mm lens to get excellent bird photographs, or to have a great time doing so. In fact, some of my finest bird images, as well as some of the best selling ones (which are not necessarily the same images) were shot with a 70-210 zoom. Having said that, I do recommend a longer lens for bird photography. I think a good lens for your needs might be the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO Macro Telephoto. The APO designation stands for apochromatic glass, which will give you a sharper image in a telephoto lens design. The nice thing about this Sigma lens is that it sells new for well under $1,000. and can be found used for far less than that. Sigma is an independant lens manufacturer that makes fine lenses at a far lower price than the major camera manufacturer's lenses. The build quality and optical quality of Sigma APO telephoto lenses is generally very good, although usually not quite as outstanding as the equivalent and far more expensive lenses made by Nikon. However, Sigma APO lenses are quite capable of professional quality images and many pros use them professionally. I believe you would be very happy with this lens. For macro work, I recommend the Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro lens. Tamron is another independant lens manufacture, who makes a line of very high quality professional lenses with the SP (Super Performance) designation. Their general consumer lenses, however, are a very different story. But...back to the 90mm...This particular SP lens is famous for being one of the finest macros ever made, at an extremely reasonable price. The lens can also be found used on ebay, at an even better price. I think 90mm is a nice focal length for both your orchid photography and your surgical detail work, at least when shooting film. I think 50mm would be too short and 200mm would be too long for what you want to shoot. 90mm would be just right, in my opinion. 90mm is what I prefer for flowers, such as the Bird-of-Paradise blossoms I grow in my yard. I like to place flat background paper behing the flower, so the background is a solid color. I place the background paper back far enough so the background is out of focus. I shoot on overcast days, in order to achieve even lighting, sometimes using a reflector (tinfoil or even a white piece of cardboard will do) in order to brighten up certain areas of the flower, without the use of flash. You would need a tripod for this and the less wind, the better. Some people prefer using flash when shooting flowers, but I think this frequently causes harsh effects. It just depends on which effect you prefer. For your surgical shots, you might want to consider a ringlight that screws onto the front of the lens, for hand-held even, flat illumination of your surgical images, if that is the effect you're looking for. Ringlights produce flat even illumination, which is scientifically good, but usually not very artistic or dramatic. I hope I have given you some helpful advice.

Steve, I specialize primarily in marine-oriented scenics and I have to tell you that I'm very impressed (and maybe a bit envious) regarding your Tropical Beaches shot. Very nice!

I think the Pentax 645 system is an excellent medium format choice that you can continue to grow with over the years. It is the choice of many hard-working professionals. I produce large 24" X 30" fine art color photographs, so I prefer the larger 6X7 format and use the Pentax 67 system, which I like very much. The optics are excellent. Having said that, the Pentax 645 is an excellent, more compact and more versatile system, with a huge number of excellent lenses available, including many excellent zooms. Pentax medium format lenses are optically excellent, priced lower than their counterparts and there is a huge selection of used Pentax 645 lenses on ebay, at very, very reasonable prices. With the pentax 645 you can have features that are not available in 6X7 format, such as autofocus and a built-in motor drive. This format is also smaller and lighter than 6X7, at least in the case of an expandable system with a large selection of lenses and other available options, etc. One nice feature with the Pentax medium format systems is that they provide an adaptor that enables the use of their 6X7 format lenses on their 645 bodies. You don't get autofocus with the 6X7 lenses, but you do get focus confirmation. So, up the road, if you wanted to, you could shoot the bigger 6X7 format if you so desired and use those lenses on you 645 body. Another great feature of the Pentax 645...This camera is known to have a very unique breaking system for its reflex mirror, that really does work to eliminate mirror slap that is such a broblem with most other medium format cameras, including the Pentax 6X7. The newest model Pentax 645 AF body has mirror lock-up capability, but most users of the older bodies say they never had a problem with mirror slap anyway, due to that unique breaking system on the mirror.

I make a full-time living selling my fine art photographic prints. I am successful and absolutely love what I do for a living. It was a long, hard road to my success, but it has all been very interesting and I've enjoyed the entire journey. For me, this was a passion that I knew I had to accomplish. I was driven to succeed. I never doubted that I would succed, at least to some extent. There was never a question as to whether or not I should spend the time and money to put together my first show. I knew I wanted to sell my work, so I just went ahead and did it. Of course, in the beginning, I had a regular job and was able to scrape together the money to print and frame some work. You have to start somewhere. If you know you want to do this, at least as a side thing, or even as a hobby, then you'll have other shows in which to exhibit or offer for sale any work that doesn't sell at your first show. I say, "Go for it". Really, what have you got to loose? If nothing else, it's fun to see the reaction of others to your work. Good luck.

From his posting, I conclude that Thomas is shooting with a Pentax 67 - not with the newer Pentax 67II.

There is some confusion here. The TTL prism is a match needle, manual meter, which was designed for the Pentax 67 - not for the newer Pentax 67II, which uses the newer, matched AE finder, which offers aperture priority automatic metering.

I agree with Douglas, that the TTL meter for the 67 is more of a center-weighted averaging meter and it is very accurate, at least for what I shoot, which is landscapes. You won't need to carry around the 35mm camera, because it won't be any more accurate. If you need a spot meter, I'd recommend a hand held meter. However, if your 35mm camera has a spot meter and you need the spot meter, then I guess carrying the 35mm with you would make sense, as you would not have to invest in a nice hand held spot meter. When shooting landscapes, my Pentax meter reads the same as the super-accurate honeycomb meter in my Maxxum 9, when the 9 is set on either honeycomb or center-weighted averaging. However, I strongly recommend bracketing your exposures a bit, just to be sure of getting the very best exposure. I'd do that with any type of meter, no matter how accurate it is. Sometimes a slightly overexposed or underexposed transparency looks best. I highly recommend the TTL meter for the Pentax 67. I think you'll like it.

I once heard of a brilliant man who was a scientist/philosopher/physicist, who started overanalyzing things and, as a result, started walking around his house in snowshoes. His good friend asked him why he was wearing the snowshoes. He answered that since everything in the universe is made up of atoms, nothing is actually as solid as it appears to us, so with the snowshoes on, he reasoned it would be less likely that he might fall through the floor. It all seemed perfectly reasonable to him. Sometimes real world results are more important than test results.

Test. Third try. Three strikes and I'm out.

Test #2. Long message would not register for second time, but "test" does.

Test

For some reason, my first response would not post. I shoot scenics. I still shoot some 35mm, but now shoot almost exclusively with the pentax 6X7 system. There simply is no comparison between a 24" X 30" print made from a 6X7 negative/transparency, compared to one made from a 4.5 times smaller 35mm negative/transparency. With 6X7 you have 4.5 times less grain and many times the resolution. I'm not sure if the central portion of a 6X7 negative/transparency the same size as a 35mm frame has the same resolution as the 35mm frame or not, but it doesn't have to in order to produce a far superior image. It certainly has many times the resolution as the 35mm negative/transparency. I can tell you that my Pentax lenses, including my 90-180mm zoom, are darn sharp, producing razor sharp 30" prints with almost no grain. I recommend that you rent a 6X7 camera and shoot a roll of transpare4ncies. When you get back your first roll of film, you'll be a convert. You won't even need a loop to proof your transparencies. 6X7 equipment is much heavier, bulkier and slower to work with than 35mm, but for scenics, especially if you plan to make large prints, there simply is no comparison.

TEST

If you're not going to go with 4X5, with its tilts and shifts, I think your best bet is the Pentax 67 with the outstanding 45mm f4. The 45mm in 6X7 format is equivalent to a 22mm lens in 35mm format. The 45mm is extremely sharp at f22, which is where you'll want to use it for architectural work, in order to obtain maximum depth of field. All but the earliest version of the Pentax 67 has mirror lockup.

I don't think my first response adequately answered the question. I have a suggestion that may help. Gustav, I have never owned a ballhead and am not familiar with the different ones. However, if I were in your situation, since your tripod is very sturdy and the combination seems rock solid to you, I would shoot a test roll and evaluate the film myself with a good loop. That would be far less expensive than buying a larger head. I like to test things like that myself and I don't always get the same results that others claim to get. Use fine grain film and good technique. Lock up the mirror, use a cable release, etc. If the results are not as sharp as you want them to be, you'll know you need to get a more substantial head. If you do need to get a more substantial head, I personally like the relatively inexpensive Bogen 3047 three-way head for use with the Pentax 67, which would be good, even with longer lenses, if you would ever decide to use one. However, this is a very subjective sort of thing and some will disagree with me on that. I hope this advice may help. In any case, good luck.

If your longest lens is the 90mm f2.8, an inexpensive and light weight Bogen 3221 with 3047 three-way head will absolutely be all you need to get rock solid support, with absolutely no problem from either mirror or shutter induced vibration, provided you lock up the mirror and use a cable release each time you shoot. I have used that tripod for many years with lenses from 45mm to 135mm, consistantly producing absolutely tack sharp 24" X 30" prints. I earn a full-time income from selling my fine art photographs, so I cannot afford to compromise on image quality. However, for lenses longer than the 135mm or zooms, I use a more substantial tripod.

I also use the same shooting technique as Bob Cook, with lenses longer than the 135mm. For 135mm and shorter, I get excellent results with a cable release and locking up the mirror. For 135mm and shorter, I have found a Bogen 3221 with Bogen 3047 head to be completely satisfactory, producing absolutely no mirror or shutter induced vibration with cable release and mirror locked up. For larger lenses, such as the excellent, but big and heavy, 90-180mm zoom, I achieve excellent results using the technique described by Bob Cook, with the much larger and heavier Bogen 3236 tripod and 3047 head. I use the Pentax 67 (latest model before introduction of the 67II) to shoot lendscapes and have found the TTL averaging meter to be extremely accurate. However, I usually bracket a bit anyway, just to be sure I'll get a perfect exposure.

I agree with a previous responder, that a P67 with 45mm lens would be excellent for your needs. There should be no vibration with either the 45mm, 55mm, 75mm, or 90mm Pentax 67 lenses. I use the 45mm and 90mm frequently for 24" X 30" fine art prints with oputstanding results. I use a relatively lightweight Bogen 3221 tripod with Bogen 3047 head, lock up the mirror and in four years of shooting, have had absolutely no degradation from mirror or shutter induced vibration. Perhaps you rented one of the bigger and heavier lenses, such as one of the zooms. For those bigger lenses, you need a sturdier tripod and improved anti-vibration technique. However, with a little practice, it can be easily accomplished.

For many eyars, I used the Bogen 3021 with Bogen 3047 head with my Pentax 67 and 45mm and 90mm lenses with fabulous results. I print 24" X 30" fine art and nature prints and make my entire living selling them, so I have extremely high standards. That tripod/head combination will be plenty sturdy enough, if you don't use lenses longer than the 135mm macro. Use good technique and lock up the miorror and you won't get any shutter or mirror induced vibration problems. With a longer lens, it will be a different story.

For times whern Velvia is too slow, I recommend using Kodak E100SW, which can be pushed to 200 with excellent results.

Another benefit of the new 90-180mm zoom for the 67 is that I believe it focuses closer than even the new 200mm. Also, it is sharper than the older 200mm and is at least as sharp as the newer version.

Have you considered the new 90-180 f5.6 zoom for the 67? I have found it to be very sharp and the zoom range would probably make it quite versatile for your studio work requirements.

Another option for 95mm filters would be the high quality optical Resin Lee or Singh Ray square filters that slide into the Lee holder that attaches to the front of the lens via an adapter. For landscape work, many photographers use the graduated neutral density filters by either of those companies. In that case, adding additional resin filters to the system is very practical.