marcelo_p._lima

I was just watching the Kuerten x Ferrera ATP tour match in Hamburg, on ESPN, when they quickly showed a guy taking a closeup shot of a player (while he was seated, between matches) with a Pentax 67II and what looked like a 90/2.8 lens. Curious, at least, since most sports photography is done in 35mm. Sure, the player wasn't moving at all, but it still surprises me to see a P67 in a tennis court at all.

 

<p>

 

Has anybody seen/used the P67 for action shots like this?

Does anyone mind posting their results (or pointing us to a URL with the scans)? This is a recurrent question/topic in this forum but very few people actually show results. I'm also looking for a scanner and I'm curious as to whether that Epson 1600's density is enough for good work (it should be, at 3.3). Thanks.

Joe, thank you for your response. I called Pentax again and got the parts dept., but the same lady answered the phone and didn't know exactly what parts I was talking about (nor had she ever seen the prism in question). I finally e-mailed her a photo of the prism with an arrow pointing to the eyepiece. It turns out that this is what I need, for which I'll have to pay with a check (apparently they don't take credit cards):

<p><i>

1. 71081.Y010 (Eye-cap), in stock, $1.74 <br>

2. 71081.Y008 (Eyepiece Tube), in stock, $14.16 <br>

3. 71003.L007 (Protection Glass), in stock, $6.24 <br>

4. 71081.Y009 (Protection Lens Retainer), in stock, $0.60

</i><p>

So there it is, for anyone who needs it in the future.

I recently lost the eyepiece that comes with the Pentax 67II's AE

Prism (the rubber ring with glass piece that screws onto the prism).

It is a part that COMES with the prism out of the box...but I'm

having trouble explaining to the lady at Pentax USA what it is that I

need exactly, since there are about 4 parts that she tells me I need.

 

I tried getting her to grab a prism so that I could show her over the

phone, or at least to visit a website with the same picture of a 67II

prism, but she couldn't do either. Does anyone know the part names?

Glass element, rubber ring...??? I'm pretty sure I don't need the

rubber "tube" she tells me I need.

 

Thanks for the help.

Yes, I've used the Pentax 67II in very cold weather, with no problems. I was surprised to find that someone with the P67 didn't have problems in the cold, since a lithium battery (which the P67II has) is usually needed in these conditions. I experienced no problems with the II; the meter (AE prism) and all other functions worked very well, for hours, on and on.

Hi everyone,

 

<p>

 

I recently lost the eyepiece that comes with the Pentax 67II's AE Prism (the rubber ring with glass piece that screws onto the prism). It is a part that COMES with the prism out of the box..but I'm having trouble explaining to the lady at Pentax USA what it is that I need exactly, since there are about 4 parts that she tells me I need.

 

<p>

 

I tried getting her to get a prism so that I could show her over the phone, or at least to visit a website with the same picture of a 67II prism, but she couldn't do either. Does anyone know the part names? Glass element, rubber ring...??? I'm pretty sure I don't need the rubber "tube" she tells me I need.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the help.

On thing that no thread seems to mention about the famed Minolta Dimage Multi is that you need to individually cut the 6x7 (or 6xWhatever) frames to scan them, *and* handle the carrier with a cotton glove, or you'll get fingerprints on the "anti-Newton-ring-treated" glass. Just imagine how much of a pain that would be, if you plan on making something even 1/10th the scale of photo.net. So I started looking for alternatives and it seems that the Scanmaker 5 is indeed a good one. For one thing, it provides the same 3.6 Dmax as the Minolta.

 

Mike, is this the density for 6x6 scans? Do you have the scanner's manual in pdf format? Can you load strips of, say, 3 frames instead of having to cut each 6x6 frame?

Dan,

 

<p>

 

I've owned my P67II since February and today, as I read your e-mail,

pulled it out of my bag and for the first time ever, noticed the

reflection you mention. It doesn't bother me, since I always look

through the viewfinder straight on, but you're right, it does exist

(and it's not the white of the eye, it's from the prism or the

focusing screen).

Yeah Mark, thanks for the tip. I hadn't thought of that. I've already

used your trick!

Does anybody know of a good trick to bring down the mirror of the P67II after it's locked up (without exposing the frame, of course)? Sometimes I lock it up, ready to shoot, and something happens (like the sun goes behind the clouds, or the scene changes) and I'm forced to shoot because even if I shut off the camera the mirror comes down but exposes the frame anyway.

Dan, the P67II (at least mine) does work as advertised. But Steve is

right. My lenses (200mm, 90mm and 45mm) do have very fine dust

particles (or I should say 1 particle visible, perhaps in not all the

lenses) which is enough to disturb you if you're investing your money

in them. With all the competition and modern manufacturing techniques

it's unacceptable to have lenses which don't fit the mount or with

dust particles in the lens elements. Pentax is a <i>very</i> weird

company in that it doesn't pay too much attention to customer

feedback, as far as I can tell.

Hi Steve,

 

<p>

 

Hmm...that's intriguing. So maybe I'm confusing Andromeda with some

other object. But if it's angular size is 6x that of the full moon,

shouldn't it cover six times more room on the sky than the full moon?

So the problem with it is that it's much fainter than the moon. This

is where using a telescope proves better; the main purpose of

telescopes is to be light buckets, or photon-collecting lenses, if

you will. Because of their larger diameter, telescopes can "see"

fainter objects than camera lenses. But I'm still curious about

Andromeda's size...

 

<p>

 

regards,

Marcelo

Hi Steve,

 

<p>

 

I doubt you will have enough magnification for the Andromeda Galaxy.

In my observational astronomy class, we used a Meade telescope which

magnified the equivalent to around 1000mm (in 35mm photography) and

even then we could barely see the galaxy. I think your best bet for

that kind of astrophotography is to use a telescope and a sky

tracker; there are many sites on the web about this, specifically

with photographers who use the P67. With the tracker you can also use

lower speed film, but you will probably need to expose for a few

hours.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Marcelo

I have been playing around with the DOF equations sent to me by Tom and I found something interesting: the size of the circle of confusion varies according to the distance you focus. Well, it's not really that the size varies, it's just that since DOF is a non-linear function the scale on the lens cannot accomodate these differences and so it seems that there is a different value for "c" throughout the scale.

 

<p>

 

For example: with the 90mm lens focused at about 7m, guesstimating from the markings on the barrel, you get dof from about 3. something meters to infinity at f/22. This corresponds to a c of 0.092. However, if you focus this same lens at about 2.9m, to get 2m on the closer part of the f/22 marking and 5m as the farther part of f/22, c now has a value of 0.054.

 

<p>

 

This probably isn't news to most people--but I never knew about it. This means that if you want to use 0.065mm as the circle of confusion for 6x7, the markings on the barrel are underestimating dof when you focus close, and overestimating it when you want infinity in focus.

 

<p>

 

What does everyone think of this.. ?

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Marcelo

 

<p>

 

ps- I found the same thing is true for the 45mm lens, of course. C = 0.092 to get infinity in focus at f/22, and c = 0.036 if you include 0.7m to 1.5m between the f/22 markings.

Rene,

 

I think you've got it backwards. AF systems split the beam (half goes down to a sensor which performs the focus) and thus need circular polarizers. I didn't know that AE prisms split the beam...

 

In any case, I have the P67II w/ AE prism and I use a linear polarizer with no problem. I called Pentax several times, e-mailed them several times, and they always told me that I could use a linear polarizer. Apparently that line about needing a circular polarizer was put in the manual because Pentax only sells circular polarizers. In any case, I wouldn't really trust the manual that much. It's so full of typos it's not even funny.

Jim,

 

I think you're talking about a "hard-edged" graduated filter, as opposed to a soft-edged one. Singh-Ray makes these and a huge variety of them--they even custom make them for you. I don't have any yet(they're expensive, about $100 each) but B&H sells them (they also sell direct). They fit the Cokin P system.

Steve,

 

<p>

 

About discontinuing the 100 macro: I didn't understand why Pentax

came up with this lens in the first place! I would think a macro

would be more useful if it were more "tele" and thus gave you more

working room. It doesn't seem as if they're using any kind of

"consumer feedback" because this was a recent introduction. I also

don't understand why Pentax designed this lens to provide 1:1

magnification with an ADAPTER when the equivalent focal length Nikon

lens does this without any extras.

I wouldn't discontinue the 90mm though. I really like this lens--I

find it approximates better a "normal" lens for 6x7, and is closer to

my old 50mm in 35mm than a 105 would be. Today I got back some

chromes which surprised me; this lens also performs extremely well

wide open.

It seems as if our discussions invariably revolve around lenses; we

should start lobbying (sending mail, whatever) to make them listen to

our suggestions.

 

<p>

 

regards,

Marcelo

Hi Tapas,

 

<p>

 

I agree with you that it is annoying to have different filter sizes.

I have the 45/90/200 lenses which all have different threads.

 

<p>

 

It is interesting that the Mamiya RZ has all lenses in a 77mm size. I

didn't know that. I got into MF recently (been shooting w/ my Pentax

for less than 3 months now) but I know that back in November when I

started looking into MF, if I had a ton of cash to spend, I would

probably have bought a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II because it's such an

incredible system.

 

<p>

 

But I'm happy with the Pentax. Some things (filter sizes, a 35mm w/a,

closer-focusing teles) could be fixed, definitely.

 

<p>

 

To go back to your original question: of course Steve will answer

this better than I, but if Mamiya can do it, Pentax could have

definitely standardized their filter sizes. If nothing else, they

could've laid down the blueprints for all their lenses and simply

picked the largest filter size of them all and stepped up the fronts

of all other lenses to match that.

 

<p>

 

It would be nice if Pentax were a more "responsive" company--it seems

to me that they're not very good listeners..

 

<p>

 

regards,

Marcelo

Rick,

 

I have very limited experience with the low contrast films you mention, but I have reasonable experience with Fuji Velvia for snow shots. I think it's a really good film for what you'll be photographing; rate it iso 32 or 25 to get the snow whites really white.

Shooting Velvia will also intensify the blues you will encounter when shooting glaciers, though I must confess that I have never shot glaciers per se, just snow landscapes.

Happy shooting,

 

Marcelo

I have just received my Sekonic dual synch cord (for use w/ Sekonic

meters) which has a male connector for the meter, a male connector

for the camera, and a female connector for the flash.

 

Since I have never used strobes before, I have some questions: I am

trying to connect my SB-24 to my P67II and I need, instead, a male

connector for the flash as well. I could use the connector piece for

the meter but that would defeat the purpose of the "dual" synch cord.

 

Does anybody know of a "female to male" converter? Or should I just

buy another, short male-to-male x-synch cable (even though I couldn't

find any at B&H..) ?

 

Finally, out of curiosity: would my female connector work with real

studio strobes ? It's strange that the SB-24 is built the other way

around...

 

Thanks in advance.

I have searched for posts about these accessories but haven't found a

good description. I realize that both of these hoods give 100 %

coverage but I wanted to know, specifically, how does the folding

focusing hood WORK, because apparently it has a flip-up magnifier ?

How does this work ? Don't you always see a 100 %, 1.5x magnified

image?

 

And what about the rigid magnifying hood ? Apparently it doesn't have

a flip-up magnifier, so is it a fixed 100 %, 1.3x magnifier ?

 

Because both of these magnify the image much more than the P67II's

0.75x, is it automatically much easier to focus with them?

 

 

I only have the specs for these hoods made for the P67II, but I guess

they must be the same for the P67.

 

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Marcelo

Gordon,

 

Thanks for your answer. I actually got a chance to see one today and I guess it is shorter than 50mm...more like 35mm (in 35mm format). By the way, I was really impressed by how much the zoom actually zooms. Obviously, nobody seems to use it at anything other than 1 degree, so it doesn't matter.

 

regards,

Marcelo

I would like to know from users of this meter what is the general

angle of view if you look through the viewfinder. I know that the

spot function goes from 4-1 degrees, but that's what the circle in

the viewfinder limits you to. But what is the overall angle of view

of everything you see in the viewfinder (comparable to what lens in

6x7 or 35mm)?

 

Thanks in advance,

Marcelo

Tapas,

 

<p>

 

I completely agree with you that these lenses need major redesign.

Although I'm very new to MF, the opinions I've seen around the web

aren't that positive, as you said.

I bought the 200mm/4 as a general purpose short tele, thinking about

using it as a portrait lens too. I was a bit disappointed with its

close-focusing abilities, though. It seems that to do serious

portrait work (if you're working with fashion, for example) you need

the auto extension tube set, which will allow you to crop a bit of

the model's head and get a REALLY close shot.

I find Pentax a somewhat bizarre company. It seems that there are

"Big Brothers" in Japan that control the entire affair, with no

regards to what is happening in the USA (I don't know about Europe,

you could tell us). You've probably read posts of people who called

Pentax in Colorado and it seemed like they really didn't know what

they were talking about, or they told you that Pentax in Japan "does

not release that kind of information.."

I also find it interesting that there are still no ad campaigns for

the 67II in the US..

My point is that I get the impression that it is hard to make oneself

"heard", and that in this respect, Pentax might not be a very

"friendly" company. Maybe we should all try snail-mail, as Steve

suggested.

 

<p>

 

regards,

Marcelo

Steve, Tapas; in response to the original post,

 

<p>

 

What exactly is a rectilinear lens? Does that mean that lines are

straight and not curved?

 

<p>

 

Does a lens still qualify as rectilinear if lines near the edges are

slanted, for instance a building on the right of the frame would look

sheared (slanted) to the right? Does the 45mm qualify as a

rectilinear lens?

 

<p>

 

If so, I agree with you that a rectilinear 35mm would be much more

useful. Also, I hear that it has problems with light falloff at the

edges. Is there any solution for this? It seems that by the design of

the lens, attaching a neutral density filter (the ones that correct

this kind of defect) is impossible.

 

<p>

 

Tapas, why do you think that the lenses in the 135-300mm range need

to be worked on? I agree that the 300mm would need some redesign

because of the difficulty of setting it up on a tripod, but aren't

all the other lenses in that range optically (and ergonomically)

excellent?

 

<p>

 

regards,

Marcelo