bill baker

The latest CameraArts includes a new product blurb about the Metz 54 MZ-3. Features of interest to 67 shooters are film format designation for the auto flash zoom and high-speed flash sync capability. Since the 67 doesn't have a HSS flash mode there's no way to use this with TTL flash metering, but I'd be curious to see how it might work in auto mode. Does the 67 generate a flash trip signal to the X terminal with the shutter set faster than 1/30th? I know you're supposed to set the shutter to X, but I sort of assumed the body generated a bare trip signal every time the shutter was tripped, whether or not the dial was set to X or B. I can't see any reason to lock out the flash trip for speeds above 1/30th other than extreme idiot-proofing.

I just dropped Kirk Photo a note asking them to add a picture of the

custom bracket to their web catalog. We'll see if they do.

Sure, no problem varying ambient/flash ratio using my 67II/Metz 40 MZ-3i/SCA 3701 module combination. I set the Metz on auto synch and then override the f/stop setting on the flash to get the ratio I want. You can even program in a flash mode setting that would do this automatically but I haven't bothered to learn how.

 

The real problem, as always, is working around the slow flash sync speed of the 67. The SCA 3701 will do second-curtain sync with a 67II, but you lose another stop of shutter speed, and 1/15th gets pretty ridiculous most of the time. But at least the motion blurs look realistic.

Andrew, Roland answered your question but I thought I'd add that you can use the more sophisticated SCA 3701 adapter with the 67II. Metz recommends the 372, but I have used the 3701 with my 67II and a 40MZ-3i for about a year now. Works fine, including second curtain synch, although that drops you to 1/15th. You have to override the focal length ID (if you have a zoom flash) but otherwise all features work fine.

 

My main problem with this combo is that the extended flash foot of the 3701 makes for a tippy package when mounted on the hotshoe grip. I'm shopping around for a bracket that'll mount the adapter firmly and place it over the lens, but I haven't found anything non-clunky yet.

Hmmm, I guess none of us can afford it, judging by the dearth of

responses. I'd sure like to give it a test drive, but none of the

rental shops in the Bay Area have it in stock yet.

What seems odd to me is that the Mamiya 7 incorporates a small mount

projection even though it's a rangefinder. I assume there must be

limit of distance from focus plane to rear element below which it

becomes difficult to design a sharp lens for a given image circle.

It'd be a lot more attractive system if it were more compact.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, it's pretty damn amazing that Pentax could design a 6X7 165mm/

f2.8 lens whose front element fits inside a 67mm filter ring. Why,

then, did they drop down to f4 when designing the 165mm LS, even though

they used a 77mm filter ring?

Seems like the more interesting comparison would have been a subject

ten feet away, because if the close focus performance of the newer

200mm isn't significantly better at the faster stops, at portrait

distances, then there isn't a helluva lot of reason to buy the newer

version.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for doing the comparison, though. Nice to have the data.

I don't know about the 1300-series Gitzos, but the 1410 (with center

column) and Arca-Swiss B1 makes a rock-solid support for my 67II.

There isn't that much difference between the non-column base and the

column base *without the column extended*. I did shoot a series with

the column extended recently and the negs turned out sharp, but I was

using a 55mm lens and long exposures. Even with the 1410, I wouldn't

want to use more than 12-18 inches of column extension unless I really

needed it to get the shot.

 

<p>

 

If you find the center column base to vibrate too much, you can always

buy the non-column flat plate base and swap it in for the the column.

It doesn't cost that much. The used 1400 legset package I picked up

included both plates, but I have yet to use the flat plate.

Wow, I'm basically SOL, then. Thanks for the replies, guys.

What is the overall distortion pattern of the new (rubber ring) 55mm f4 wide angle? I'm trying to stitch together a series of exposures in Photoshop in order to create a panorama, but the overlapping image areas don't match up and it looks like it's due to lens distortion. Whatever the reverse of barrel distortion, that's what it appears to be. But applying either the Pinch or Pincushion (reverse Spherize) filters don't correct the distortion. Is this type of lens distortion non-linear?

I doubt the pan base of the standard B-1 would accentuate shutter

shake. When you lock that sucker down, it's *solid*. I mean, that's

what you're paying for, after all.

Bruce, I think you're pretty much describing the P67 plate RRS offers.

I don't see the point in adding intertial dampening mass in the base

plate, though. I suppose you could add weight to the ballhead stem to

increase dampening mass in the vibration transfer path before the

ballhead, but I doubt it would make much difference. Based on my

(dusty) physics and watching my P67II fire on my Arca-Swiss B1/Gitzo

1410 combo, I think that with any decent head the vibration transfer

and subsequent resonance is going to be pretty much instantaneous and

relatively uniform throughout the whole support system. That is, I

think the shutter braking momentum more or less causes the whole mass

to "twang" and the dampening effect will be mostly caused by the

overall mass.

 

<p>

 

I actually rather doubt that either a generic A-S plate, let alone a

fitted plate, allows much rotational vibration (twisting). I think the

lateral displacement axis is much less than resistant to intertial

transfer than the rotational axis if you look at the mechanical setup

of the masses. The lever arm of the body/head/tripod is much, much

longer than that of the shutter and mount fitting. But I think you'd

have to mount the head on a concrete block and do test shots of grid

targets in order to really figure out what's going on.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, RRS doesn't offer a plate for either the Nikon S-2 or

Sputnik stereo, so I use the generic A-S plate with those bodies. You

can always use the generic plate, of course.

Mostly what people are referring to are the RRS base plates. RRS makes

Arca-Swiss style mounting plates tailored to a range of camera bodies.

In theory, a fitted base plate reduces vibration because it conforms to

the body so tightly. In practice, the big advantage for P67 shooters

is that the large size generic Arca-Swiss plate is a pain to leave on

the body when shooting handheld, catches on partitions when loading

into a bag, etc., but you can leave the RRS plate on permanently.

Makes a nice base for your palm when working handheld. If RRS would

incorporate a strap grip the plate would be nigh on perfect.

 

<p>

 

Their web presence is pretty thin, but you can find 'em at http://

www.reallyrightstuff.com. The rest of their product line is heavily

weighted towards 35mm shooters, especially the F5 crowd.

Milton, clearly you're up on the technical details. I'm not clear on

why a shutter delay might cause the TTL meter to generate a premature

quench signal, though.

When I ordered my Really Right Stuff mounting plate I included a note asking if they'd be interested in designing a version of their B61 converter clamp that could be used with a P67 (the current one requires a laterally oriented plate). Bryan Geyer, the owner, replied that they might do it but the cost would probably be prohibitive. He claims he'd have to do an initial run of 500 units plus eat the cost of acquiring a body for design purposes.

 

<p>

 

I think he misunderstood my request, since the design wouldn't have to be specific to the P67. Other MF bodies use longitudinal plates. OTOH, 6x6 bodies and leaf shutter systems don't really need a reorientation bracket. Still, I have to wonder if we could pony up enough advance orders in the P67 community to support the design. The B61 lists for $177. Pricey, but I'd pay it. Anyone else?

I second that kudo for getting sharp exposures at 1/30th handheld,

Steve. Your technique must be flawless. I'll dip down to 1/90th with

the 165mm, but I really try to keep it at 1/125th and faster.

 

<p>

 

Speaking of speeds and candid shooting, I'm surprised at how often I

bump into the 1/1000th shutter speed limit. If I load film fast enough

to work in outdoor shadows, I can easily find myself locked out of the

faster stops when I shift into sunlight. If you want to isolate your

subject with shallow DOF, it's a real limitation. OTOH, it's an

interesting way to force yourself to compose for all elements in the

viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

I'm learning B&W darkroom technique currently and, so far, the only

time I've really felt limited in printing by film grain was with Delta

3200 pulled a stop. What I see under the enlarger is softness due to

motion blur from using too slow a film. The 6X7 negative gives you a

lot of headroom for enlargement before grain becomes an issue, so you

should really use it. If you're working with shutter speeds in the 1/

250th-1/500th range, you can shoot one-handed and not have to worry

about motion blur.

That's a good price. If you look through the old messages on this

forum and the MFD Pentax 67 topic you'll find relatively little

discussion of that lens. Doesn't seem to be real popular.

How do either of these compare to the standard Pentax screen in the

67II, which is supposed to be significantly brighter than the older 67

screens? I had problems focussing off the frame center recently during

a semi-low light setup with my 165mm f/4 using the OEM 67II screen and

I'm intrigued by the Brightscreen. The split image with prism collar

screens look very handy, but cost so much I'd want to see a significant

improvement in brightness over the Pentax screen.

 

<p>

 

Bruce, if you're in Sacto you must be having the same problems I do

with shopping Pentax 67 gear: only two pro shops that stock 67 stuff,

Pardees and Action, and only the latter is an authorized dealer (and *

really* expensive). Where would one go in the Bay Area to sight test a

Brightscreen in a MF body? Not Gasser's or Pro Camera. Calumet?

Keeble & Suchet?

Jeez, a new version 200mm for under $600 in good condition? I didn't

know they were going that cheap. I paid around 90% of B&H list for a

NIB 55mm via eBay and thought I was getting a good deal.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I took a second look at the lens when I was in the shop Friday

and it's a metal ring model. In excellent shape, though.

There's been a 200m SMC Takumar in the consignment display at the local pro shop for a month or so, and I noticed this morning that they dropped the price to $450. I couldn't tell whether or not it's a late model 200mm without having the staff pull the lens out, and since I'm not in the market for a 200mm I didn't bother. It's a rubber ring model, though. Based on KEH prices, $450 would be average for an early model but a real steal for a late model. Lens looks EX/mint minus and has the caps. If the lens is from the batch of Pentax gear as the 165mm LS I bought then it's probably been handled carefully.

 

<p>

 

The shop is Camera Arts, here in Sacramento, 916-736-3084. The co-owners, Ginny, John and Marquita, are really nice folks, but none of them shoots Pentax so I doubt they could tell you if it's a late model 200mm. They're not really set up as camera brokers, either, but might quote you a fair price for shipping. Not affiliated with CameraArts magazine, BTW.

I thought all lenses had some degree of spherical abberation, and that

the correction for it was usually optimized for one subset of its focus

range. I'm probably mixing up optical concepts. All I'm really asking

is if the specific macro design you're throwing out would detract from

using it for portraiture, on the theory that Pentax would be more

likely to market a tele-macro if they think it has multi-use appeal.

I'm gonna take a serious shot at shooting drags this summer. The local

strip has a rather relaxed attitude about spectator safety: the crowd

barriers are only 20-30 feet from the tracks and are just standard

freeway dividers. No need for big tele-glass, but be ready to duck

thrown rods! Needless to say, it's not an NHRA-certified track. At

the nostalgia nights they get some fine looking old rods, though.

 

<p>

 

More interesting would be a series of candids of the fine folks leaning

on the barriers sucking down Buds. There's a certain Darwinian

selection going on I'd love to capture. And then there's the yahoos

who hang out behind the staging pad when the jet and rocket cars run.

 

<p>

 

I'd love to shoot surfers with my 67 system but I think I'd be stuck

doing it from the beach with a rented big-gun tele. I used to bodysurf

in big NorCal rollers but that was years ago, and I can't see myself

trying to tread water in a safe spot off the break while trying to get

off good shots. I'd be curious to know how sturdy those underwater

waterproof bag systems are, though, the EWA-Marine ones. In some spots

being able to work waist-deep vs. knee-deep will get you a lot closer

to the surfers.

This may seem a tenuous 35mm/MF comparison, but you'd think Pentax

might take a hint from the phenomenal sales (for a prime) of the Nikon

105mm macro due to its exceptional performance as both a tele-macro and

portrait lens. The specific optical design you're describing, Steve,

would that be optimized for an ultra-flat focus field? I gather that

some portraiture mavens don't prefer an ultra-flat field, but I'd give

it a whirl.

I've recently been revisiting the issue of using flash with my 67II system. Seems to me that what's needed, short of redesigning the focal plane shutter for a faster basic sync, is a way to sync the LS lenses with the TTL flash circuitry in the body. All that's really needed is a way to key the flash trip to the leaf shutter while still passing along the quench signal from the body to the flash. Not that hard, right? How about taking the basic Pentax 5-pin to hotshoe adapter and adding a jack for a PC cord to the LS, patching in the shutter trip from the LS cord for the trip signal pin of the 5-wire input? Wouldn't that work? And make the module a screw-in unit that would mate to the body using the 5-pin socket with a hotshoe on top, about the height of the prism. That would give you the equivalent of a high speed flash sync hotshoe (when using a LS lens) with something close to the form of a standard 35mm SLR hotshoe, just offset a tad. Beats the hell out of having a heavy flash mounted on the moment arm of the Pentax grip. Besides, I hate that @#%! grip, with or without a flash mounted.

 

<p>

 

Obviously, the TTL calculation would be based on the 1/8th shutter speed of the focal plane shutter, but if I understand how TTL works the body calculates a quench signal based on the reflected flash metered through the lens and doesn't particularly care how long the shutter is open once it's metered the flash pulse. If the 67II had flash compensation built in then I could see that the TTL calculation would need an accurate shutter reading, but if I understand the 67II specs right it's only calculating an overall correct exposure, not balancing between flash and ambient illumination.

The disappointing thing is that the Pentax engineering staff doubtless

think they've already answered this problem with the shutter/mirror

improvements in the 67II body. I bet they even had some lengthy

discussions about whether to try increase flash sync versus

concentrating on quieting the shutter during the design process. For

all the improvements, though, the results of the shutter redesign are

pretty disappointing when compared to the current state of the art.

Top of the line 35mm SLR blade shutters achieve, what, an order of

magnatude less shake? Even with 4X image area to shutter, I can't

believe that Pentax engineers couldn't devise a better shutter system

for the 67II given the modest spec. of the system (1/1000th top speed,

1/30th flash sync). Cost was doutbless an issue, but again, compared

to 35mm SLR's, the price/performance ratio of the 67II shutter is

nowhere near what smaller bodies achieve.

 

<p>

 

I recently inherited my Dad's venerable Nikon S2 rangefinder. At equal

shutter speeds, with the 67II's mirror locked up, the S2's shutter

"shake" is astonishing slight compared to the 67's. Yes, the 67's

curtain shutter is four times the size of the S2, but the S2 is a forty

year-old design! To me that indicates that, if Pentax wanted to stick

with a curtain shutter for reasons of economy, they still could have

designed a better-damped one.

 

<p>

 

I'm happy with the sharpness of my shots using my 67II handheld, but I

don't have anything longer than the 165mm in my bag and compromise on

film speed rather than shoot slower than 1/90th. I have noticed my

tripod-shot negs have gotten appreciably sharper since I shelled out

for the herkin' Gitzo 1410 and Arca-Swiss B1. But the price margin I

paid for the monster legset and ballhead, over a more modest setup,

would pay for half a new 67 lens. That's money out of Pentax's pocket.

And though I'm drooling over the new 300mm (not because of the ED glass

but for the much shorter min. focus), there's no way I'd lay down two

kilobucks (and change) for one without being able to shoot with it on

one tripod.

 

<p>

 

Steve, you've written a number of times that Pentax doesn't seem to

respond to customer input. Seems to me what the 67 line needs more

than anything is a savvy product marketing guru focused on the USA/Euro

sales market, someone with the clout to get the Japanese home office to

focus resources on the true priorities of the customer base.