greg_lawhon

KL is right. There has been a lot of discussion on the Pentax Discuss Mailing List about the new Pentax 645nII. The features I recall reading about were mirror lockup, 1/2 increments in shutter priority and aperture priority modes, a number of user-interchangeable custom functions, and some new flash features (although I haven't seen anything about a higher sync speed yet).

Stefano:

 

Unfortunately for your intended use, the 135mm/f4 leaf shutter lens for the Pentax 645 must be manually cocked each time it is fired. That is accomplished by turning a ring on the lens barrel.

 

GL

You emphasized "EXTREMELY" tight, and here's my experience with the highest quality combination for that purpose: the P645's 120mm macro with the P645 1.4x converter. That gives you a 168mm lens that gets as close as you could want. I have used that combination for very tight head shots of my kids where I have only the face in the frame (and a small face at that!). They looked great and were so much fun that I made 24"x30" prints. Every eyelash is razor sharp, and this combination really surprised me - every bit as good as the 120mm used alone, which is very good indeed.

The Pentax 6x7/67/67II bodies seem to be the overwhelming standard for this type of photography. A search probably would lead to lots of threads and sites discussing the virtues of Pentax's 6x7 cameras, most of which proobably stem from the straight film path that aids critical film flatness. Here are a few:

 

http://www.astronomysite.com/mapug1/17/msg17963.htm

 

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/g6x7.html#Pentaxastro

 

http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/ARCHIVES/FEB97/msg00206.html

Joe:

 

Don't give up on the P67 yet! While it will never be as easy to load as your P645 was, most people seem to get over the learning curve with a little practice and some tips. Check out the thread titled "Pentax 67 Fast Way to Load?" under the Pentax 67 heading on the New Questions page. Here's the link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0002Xm

 

Good luck.

Wayne:

 

<p>

 

Try this thread, which I initiated with a similar question in

December:

 

<p>

 

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004Amj

David:

 

I'm not sure what they do, but Pentax authorized service facilities will do something to allow the P6x7 and P67 to take long exposures without battery power. Here's the URL for Pentax USA's FAQs for medium format cameras, with an excerpt from their site:

 

http://www.pentax.com/service/faq/serv_mediumfaq.cfm#2

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

"What factory modifications can be made on the Pentax 67 camera?

 

The Pentax 67 has the following modifications that can be performed by the Pentax Factory Service Center in Colorado:

 

A) Multiple Exposure: A switch is installed next to the 120/220 selector switch on the transport lever side of the camera and the transport system is modified. When the switch is moved, the film transport and film counter are disconnected, but the shutter can be cocked for perfect multiple exposures.

 

B) Time Exposure without Battery Installed: A new front cover which allows the mirror to be locked up utilizing a locking cable release. After the mirror and shutter are locked open, the battery can be removed, so there is no battery drain during long times exposures."

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Sounds like a cumbersome procedure if you have to remove the battery after starting the exposure, unless you use a lens cap or other cover so that vibrations caused by handling the camera during battery removal wouldn't show up on the film (and I suppose that if the exposure is long enough a few seconds of jarring the camera around might not make a difference in any event).

Jim:

 

I'm glad you weighed in on the 645N viewfinder. I too wear glasses and have trouble seeing all the screen area on some cameras, but not my P645's. I was surprised by the comment from Diego because it certainly didn't match my experience with the viewfinders of my manual 645's.

Barry:

 

I too have a 645Zi and love it. (In fact, the 645Zi replaced my GS645S). I would have suggested that to Ron as well, but the Zi certainly doesn't meet his criteria of "less than $500."

Ron:

 

Either of the Fuji cameras would be great for travel. You won't find anything better in that price range.

 

Here are the highlights of the differences between the GS645 and the GS645S:

 

1. The 645 is the folder with a 75mm/f3.4 lens. The 645S is not a folder (the lens assembly is surrounded by a metal "brush guard" for protection), and comes with the wider 60mm/f4 lens.

 

2. You're right about filters - the use of filters requires the hard-to-find lens hood for the 645, while the 645S takes standard 49mm screw-in filters. While the 645S was originally supplied with a rubber lens hood from Fuji, you can use any aftermarket wide angle hood in 49mm threads.

 

3. The price of the 645 is generally higher than the 645S because of scarcity. So you'll likely be able to find a 645S in great condition for your $500, but the 645 will either require you to pay more or settle for a body in lesser condition.

 

In addition, you need to check out the bellows in the 645 (the 645S, because it doesn't fold, doesn't have a bellows). They have a notoriously short life, developing pinholes at the corners. They can be replaced, but if needed you should factor that into the cost.

 

For $500 and travel as your goal, it would be hard to beat the 645S.

Kurt:

 

No abuse! And not just because it is Christmas Eve. Here you go:

 

1. Turn the command dial on top of the camera from "OFF" to "ISO."

 

2. The display on the LCD on the back door will probably say "Auto" from your last roll of Fuji barcoded film. Now just rotate the other dial on the top deck (the one that controls aperture in aperture priority mode) - the "Auto" will shift to ISO numbers so that you can manually set the film speed.

 

3. You're done!

Douglas:

 

Perhaps Pentax wasn't turning a deaf ear, but was listening to the rest of us! Having worked with other systems with interchangeable backs, I prefer the 645's insert system which keeps the body compact and makes for a much more solid package than one where a film holder hangs off the back. If you need interchangeable backs, then hey, that's why Mamiya and Bronica exist!

 

And while I would certainly take a mirror lock up, I have to confess that I have yet to see any situation where I have found mirror or shutter-induced unsharpness - and I do a lot of extreme closeup work in the "dangerous" shutter speed zones. So go figure - I'd take MLU but I haven't found that I really need it.

Sol:

 

<p>

 

While I happen to agree that the ebony wood and titanium Ebony cameras

are stunning themselves, they also make mahogany and titanium cameras

that you may find more attractive. See www.ebonycamera.com. Check

out the RW45 body there for an example of their mahogany bodies.

Bill:

 

Over the years I've seen some posts (on the Pentax forum, I believe) where some people have had good experiences with Pentax Canada's repair facilities. I believe there is one facility in Vancouver and another in Toronto, and if my memory is correct most people preferred the work done by the Vancouver group.

 

I also would be curious to know what went wrong. I've used my P645's for ten years without any need for service or repair. But just in case, I would love to know what troubles you had with Pentax in Colorado.

But Glenn, I'd feel terrible stealing that magnificent Planar from

you (I'm surprised not to see your name down there on the list of

bidders yet)!

 

<p>

 

Kerry's lens looks gorgeous, and I've enjoyed reading about it, but

I'm sure I could be happy with a humble Rodenstock or Nikkor for my

purposes!

I just picked up a late Crown Graphic Special that came with a 1968-vintage coated Schneider Xenar 135mm/f4.7 in a Copal 0 shutter. The lens appears sharp, especially good at smaller apertures, although with perhaps less contrast than more modern lenses I am used to. I don't have any other lenses in the normal range to compare with, so I would appreciate opinions about whether modern lenses would be noticeably better, particularly at wider apertures - f8 for example. I'm thinking about a 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar N as a possible replacement.

 

<p>

 

I bought this camera to experiment with handheld 4x5 use, and there will be times when I might like to use f5.6 or f8 instead of f16 or f22. Most of the lens reviews of both classic and modern lenses, such as those by Chris Perez and Kerry Thalman, first review apertures at f11, so I can't compare lenses there at wider apertures. Thanks for your help.

This particular camera

Laura (and Matt too):

 

Mel's answer was right on. Just two additional points:

 

1. In response to Matt's concern about the complication of Mel's umbrella rig: I thought so too until I tried it (or at least something similar). For gorgeous light by flash I use a Stroboframe bracket with a Photoflex Litedome extra small softbox (11"x15") mounted on top. It makes a huge difference in the quality of the flash that everyone notices. I thought it would be much more cumbersome than it really is. It's really quite light and easy to handle, and I don't mind trotting it out when I need flash.

 

2. I use Vivitar 283s and 285s as well, and agree that they both do a great job. But my Metz 40MZ-3i is my favorite flash for one reason that doesn't get mentioned much - up to 12 f-stop choices in automatic mode instead of the three or four available on most automatic flash units. It gives you the ability to choose the aperture and shutter speed that you want instead of working within the parameters that the flash will allow. For example, my Vivitar 283, when set to ISO 100, offers automatic settings at f2.8, 4, 8 and 11. If I want to use 5.6 I'm out of luck. With the Metz I can pick any aperture from f1 to 45 (granted, I don't have a Leitz 50mm/f1 Noctilux to use f1 with, and maximum flash distance at ISO 100 at f45 is only 1.9 feet, but at least about 8 or 9 stops can be truly useful). The Metz is a great piece of equipment, and for me was worth the extra cost for that feature alone, especially because I like using it for subtle fill flash. But the Vivitars and Sunpaks will do just fine as well if you don't mind working within the limited number of f stops they give you.

Stephen Shuart lists a variety of viewfinder masks in his inventory of

Graphic accessories. See http://www.stephenshuart.com.

By the way, I forgot to mention that the Coastar bracket cost $12.

Alec:

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the description of the elegant solution. I'll give it a

try. Sorry I missed that over at the Graflex site. In addition to

looking at all the regular articles on that site, I had scrolled down

through all the threads listed on the helpboard, but didn't see any

headings that looked like it covered the specific flash issue I was

asking about.

 

<p>

 

In any event, yesterday I also discovered a less elegant and interim

solution. At one of the local camera stores I found a cheapie Coastar

Flash Bracket (number B-48 in case you want to look for one). It is

an 8 inch x 1 inch piece of sturdy aluminum with a cold shoe mounted

on one end (It's actually mounted on the the right side of the

bracket, because the shoe has a tab in the front to keep your flash

from sliding too far to the front when you mount it. That requires you

to mount the flash to the right as the bracket comes configured in the

package). There is a slot about 5-1/2 inches long to the left of the

shoe through which a tripod mounting screw and knob intersect

the bracket. The top of the bracket is covered with ridged rubber to

better grip the bottom of the camera when you screw the bracket in to

the Graphic's tripod socket. This setup allows the flash to be mounted

off to the right side of the camera body, with the shoe ending up

about 3-1/2 inches outside the right of my Crown Graphic when extended

the maximum amount the slot will allow.

 

<p>

 

A couple of drawbacks with this quickie solution are:

 

<p>

 

1. The flash head on my Metz 40-MZ3 (or on any shoe mount flash for

that matter, like a Vivitar 283 or 285) ends up about even with the

lens. I'd like to raise it higher, as Alec's solution would allow.

 

<p>

 

2. The setup interferes a bit with the body shutter release, although

it wasn't too hard to reach it around the flash. It's possible to

turn the bracket around and mount the flash on the left side of the

camera, with a little work. The bracket will easily clear the strap

on the left, but would require some modification to the bracket. As I

mentioned above, the cold shoe is constructed with a metal tab on the

front of the shoe as a "stop" when you slide the flash in. You'd have

to bend it down out of the way so that you could mount the flash from

the former "front" of the shoe, and rely on the screw or clamp on your

flash alone to hold the unit steady. The shoe is mounted to the

bracket with 3 screws, so you can't just unscrew the whole shoe from

the bracket and turn it around as the holes will not line up. It

would require drilling new holes in the bracket, so I think it would

simply be easier to bend down the tab to allow the flash to slide in

from the former front of the shoe.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again for your help.

William:

 

<p>

 

It's easy to understand the assumption that a modern lens (at least in

terms of production, if not in design) would be multi-coated. I've

always wondered why Schneider doesn't bother to multi-coat these

popular lenses, even today. Multi-coating certainly has been the

standard for decades. It surprises me that Schneider would want to

make an exception and only single coat a few lenses when the rest of

the lens line goes through the multi-coating process. Wouldn't it just

be easier to multi-coat these too? Does anyone know why single coating

persists on the G-Clarons?

While not new to large format on a tripod, I have been intrigued by going handheld in 4x5 for some time. When I asked some time ago about experiences with the Gran View 4x5, most of the folks here talked me out of that and suggested going with a Speed or Crown Graphic instead.

 

<p>

 

And so I have. I just picked up a very nice late production Crown Graphic Special with Graflok back, top-mounted rangefinder, and 135mm/f4.7 Schneider Xenar in a Copal #0 shutter. It's what I hoped for and I'm grateful for the recommendation.

 

<p>

 

Now I'm trying to figure out some things that will allow me to do the things I want with this setup. I've been all through the posts here and the entire www.graflex.org site (which is very helpful and a great resource), but I haven't yet found the answers to several questions. I hope you can help.

 

<p>

 

1. I would like to use one of my shoe-mount electronic flash units with the camera. Is there a good way to mount a cold-shoe bracket on the body somehow? I've got some spare cold shoes from Stroboframe brackets, but I haven't puzzled out how or where to attach one. The right-hand flash bracket still is attached to my camera (without flash gun attachment, of course). It's got some different size holes on the "outer bracket", some on the "inner bracket", and of course the holes into the body from the inner bracket. I'm just hoping there's a time-tested approach that Graphic users have already figured out.

 

<p>

 

2. While I know from the graflex.org site how short and long a lens I can use on the body, I'd like to find a list of modern lenses in the 75mm-210mm range that are both narrow enough and shallow enough to fit inside the focusing rails and allow the body to close with the lens mounted. I can test any that I would buy locally, of course. And I can figure out which ones are pretty good candidates based on published specs about filter size, etc. (small lenses like Schneider G-Clarons, Fuji-A 180mm, or the 200mm Nikkor-M, for example, seem like they might work). But is there a definitive list of modern lenses that fit so that I won't be mailing one back in disappointment? I'm most interested in a 75mm, like a Rodenstock Grandagon f6.8, and something longer in the 200-210mm range like the Nikkor 200mm or G-Claron 210mm.

 

<p>

 

3. For purposes of calibrating the cams that my top-RF takes, is one particular focal length lens the same as any other lens of the same focal length? In other words, if I were to substitute a new Rodenstock Sironar 135mm lens for the 135mm Xenar now on the camera, would the rangefinder still be set up properly or would it need adjustment for accurate focusing? While they are both the same focal length, I wondered whether lens design differences would lead to a different focus point.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for all your help for my Graphic newbie questions.

I love my Sekonic L-508 as well, but a potential buyer should be aware that there soon will be an updated version to consider: the Sekonic L-608. I've read that the L-608 was introduced at the recent Photokina, with various improvements over the L-508, including:

 

* data display inside the viewfinder when using the spot meter, and

 

* display of percentage of flash illumination in scenes metered with

both flash and ambient contributions.

 

Mamiya America Corporation, which imports Sekonic meters here in the US, reports it will be available around year end.

Michael M wrote:

 

"I am personally not a fan of any 645, as my uasge is primarily during hiking and climbing excursions and the portrait format is not favorable for most landscape compositions. I have never seen a 645, yes even the Fuji's, that handle well rotated 90 deg."

 

Michael, your answer might improperly cause other readers who didn't know better to think all 645s were portrait format cameras. The Pentax 645N that the original poster asked about certainly isn't. Pentax 645s are landscape format cameras, so they don't have to be rotated 90 degrees for a horizontal shot. I don't believe the Bronica ETRSi or Mamiya 645s are either (but I haven't used them, so I don't want to say for certain that they are landscape format too).

Jay:

 

It sounds like your best bet here is to get a refund and try again. When that isn't an option, though, I wanted to point out that it is possible to correct lens separation. The guy to do it is John Van Stelten of Focal Point in Louisville, Colorado. He specializes in lens separation and coating repairs, and he successfully repaired the separation on my 2.8E's Planar taking lens.

 

The process requires him to complete the separation of the two cemented elements where you see separation at the edge, and then re-cement those two elements back together. He'll be very cautious to tell you that every once in a while he can't get the elements separated in the chemical bath required, but most of the time a "good as new" repair is possible.