michael_mahoney

Ruben: The main advantage of a waistlevel finder is in its ability to

provide you with 100% of the viewing area, and the ability to view it

all at once, as opposed to "peering around " with an eyepiece viewer.

Should provide you with more ability to compose.

The ridgid magnifying hood has 1.3x magnifcation, and offers diopter

adjustment. The folding focusing hood basically shields the ground

glass from ambient light, and offers a flip up/down magnifier. Both

will reverse the image left to right, but if you wear glasses or

otherwise have problems with eyepiece viewers, the folding hood is

your best bet. BTW, the rigdid hood makes a great 6x7 slide viewer!

Hope this helps.

This thread has evolved into a "film war" which is not such a bad thing - the're usually amusing and often informative.For instance I learned that Kodak is DISCONTINUING Pro 100 just TWO MONTHS after a KODAK REP informed me that Pro 100 had recently undergone significant emulsion changes to improve color and suggested I try it as a replacement for Ektar (another recently discontinued Kodak film).

Either a previous post suggesting that Kodak simply repackages old emulsions to clear out their warehouse is correct, or Kodaks film development program is at best shortsighted and at worst dishonest and inconvenient to serious photographers trying to obtain consistent results.

Tom: Some points to consider: First - Some posts complain that Reala has been difficult to print accurately. You may want to search the archives on that one. Second - Kodak Pro 100 has been recently changed to a different emulsion, supposedly improved. When Ektar was discontinued some months ago a Kodak rep suggested the PRN 100 as the closest replacement within the Kodak line. I loved Ektar, and have bought some new PRN 100 but have not used it yet. The old PRN was not so bad for landscapes. Third - If you're shooting all over the world, and in sometimes locations off the beaten path, it is an unfortunate fact that many consumer labs would have had more experience in producing "correct" prints from a common standard such as VPS or PRN than a somewhat more sophisticated ( additional layer ) film such as Reala. In other words, odds are most labs already have a "Pro 100" channel, increasing your chances of getting an acceptable print the first time.

But it all comes down to which film you prefer, and what your final output will be. If one film were so clearly superior to all the others, we would have only one film on the market !!!

You may want to check the archives using the search for both these films, as threads exist on both, and the Fuji vs. Kodak vs. Agfa war has already been fought many times before. Good luck with your Mamiya 7.

Richard: The 45CX is a 45C without the geared rise and fall or revolving back, as near as I can tell. The 45c weighs 9lbs., so the CX should be a little lighter. You've seen the Toyo site info, you may want to try the B&H site as well - very informative on Toyo. Address: www.bhvideo.com/photo/large/toyo/45c.html

You may want to try the Large Format Digest as there are reviews on the cameras you mentioned, as well as the lenses. They also have a Q&A forum. Address: www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/

Virtually any 4x5 view camera can be adapted for 120 use by inserting a roll film back. Does that make the camera "medium format"? I rather agree with the post that suggested defining medium format as any camera manufactured to use 120 roll film,( and that would include quite a number of "view" cameras) but I would have liked to see the original for sale ad left undeleted. There are other forums dedicated to "large format" and perhaps the ad would have been better placed there, but we need to be a little more elastic in our definition of "medium format".

To Toyo AX / AII users: Have you had any problems using a 90 lens with a standard board?. Also how much coverage would this length of lens need to have to use all movements fully?. One last question -- Have you any second thoughts on your camera, or any unexpected dissapointments? Many thanks in advance.

Which field camera model offers the most movements, and as a medium format photographer looking to increase DOF in "near-far" images and the ocassional requirement to produce straight lines in buildings, etc. which movements can I do without. Thanks in advance.

Is anyone aware of the performance of the Horseman VCC. It is an attachment to a SLR which permits the use of large format lenses and movements.

I have a Sekonic 408 which seems to be hard on batteries, requiring replacement every 10-12 hours useage. Any similiar experiences?

Your experience with the 600 F/4 is similiar to mine with my 400 F/4.

I beleive both lenses are Takumars of an older design. I don't experience your "red line" problem, but it took me a while to figure out that my 400 gave its best performance around F11 to F16, and that it needs to be well supported, and sheilded from wind. Also avoid shutter speeds around 1/8. Used carefully, this lens is quite sharp.

Steve R. may be able to offer additional help if he reads your post.

Good Luck.

The main reason for the price gap lies in the additional features offered in most other medium format systems and not offered with the Pentax 67 system. You can review the features offered on all the systems and determine which are important or indispensable to your own style of photography, and make your decision.

As a landscape camera, the P67 system offers a full line of lenses with outstanding optics, and a simple rugged body at a price which is hard to resist.

Waistlevel finders have the advantage of letting you see all the composition at once, in the same size as your slide or neg will be, with 100% coverage. For many years I struggled with prisms, made more difficult with my eyeglasses, and then I discovered the waistlevel finder, and it was as though a huge light came on - no more peering around inside a prism, getting bits and pieces of the composition, and never really seeing the whole image at once. Now I could see the total image before I got it developed, and I found my images became stronger because of this. Now the only reason I use a prism is if the height of my tripod makes waistlevel veiwing difficult.

Long live the waistlevel finder.

Michael Mahoney

There are already quite a number of sites available for submitting your work for evaluation by subscribers, so we would be in some respects creating another forum in an area already well covered.

OTOH, it would be interesting to see "The face behind the names" as it were. Perhaps we could offer another category for image submissions only. I for one would like to give it a try.

 

<p>

 

Michael Mahoney

mmahoney@public.compusult.nf.ca

While on bulb setting and either holding the shutter button down, or squeezing the cable release my camera takes the exposure after 2 seconds, regardless of how long I hold the button down.

The mirror returns, and the exposure is completed. The only way I can get a bulb setting is to set the speed between 1000 and X.

Whats the problem here?

 

<p>

 

Mike Mahoney

mmahoney@public.compusult.nf.ca

Cokin lists the filter factor for each of their filters on page 37 of their yellow "cokin creative filter system" booklet.

Since you don't have an internal meter, you can measure the light loss with a spot meter by holding the filter in front of the meters receiving lens, or borrow someones SLR with an internal meter, and hold the filter in front of the lens in manual mode.

 

<p>

 

Mike Mahoney

Would you use standard B&W filtation (red, orange, etc.)with T400CN, or would these filters simply give a color cast?

 

<p>

 

Mike Mahoney

Steve: Thanks for your suggestion regarding two tripods. I am guessing that the tripod collar to camera distance is greater on the 600, permitting the use of two tripods. As the tripod collar on the 400 is less than 3 inches from the camera tripod mount hole, two tripods would be difficult, but your posting got me to thinking about some kind of bracket joining the collar and body, then mounting to a tripod.

I'm sure that the Pentax 400 optics are superb, and the softness I'm getting is more related to my technique ( or lack of !) than any lens defect.

I am beginning to wonder if my tripod and head combo is adequate (Manfrotto 055 with a 168 ball head).

I'm also going to try a faster film to get higher shutter speeds.

Thanks Again.

Mike Mahoney

I recently acquired one of these lenses, and have yet to be satisfied with it. It is quite a bit softer than either my 45 or 75 at middle apertures, and it is prone to shutter shake.

It has a 25ft minimum focusing distance (25 feet!!!), and uses the outer bayonet to mount, which can require more than a little patience.

Add its weight, and difficulty in setting up with smaller to mid sized heads, and I now realize my better choice would have been a 135 or 165 with a teleconverter.

Just my $0.02

Regards,

Mike Mahoney

My P67 with a 400mm lens attached fell foward while on a tripod, and hit a rock. Although the prism took most of the hit, the cable release broke off and while removing the threaded end that had been left inside the shutter release button, I noticed that the release button had been bent almost to the point of touching the exposure counter / film winding lever.

Is anyone aware of possible problems by leaving this bend in the top of the camera ( the metal top is bent, not the button itself )?

The shutter release works fine, although I have not had a chance to replace my cable release yet, so I don't know if it will work with the cable, but I'm assuming it will.

Any experienced comments would be appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Mike Mahoney

Please ignore this question, I have asked it twice by mistake. Thank you Steve for your reply to my previous posting.

Mike Mahoney

Is anyone aware of the construction of the P67 400 f4 Takumar lens, and also when it was replaced with the newer Pentax EDIF lens.

Many thanks,

Mike Mahoney

I've just bought an older 400mm lens for my P67. The person who I bought it from was unaware of its vintage, perhaps 10 to 12 years old. The markings are as follows: Super Multi Coated Takumar/67

Asahi Opt., with a seven digit serial nbr.( No Pentax name except on the leather lens cover). The lens has no auto/man DOF preview lever, just a ring halfway up the lens barrel to set the aperture.

Can anyone help me with establishing the approximate age of this lens, as well as the construction of the lens as to how many elements and groups and type of glass used. Also if any advice can be offered as to which stop range would offer best performance.

I am using a B+W linear pol filter on both my 45 and 75 lenses and it works fine, with the exception of ocassional loosening of the outside ring that holds the glass.

You will not need a circular pol filter as the P67 is of course not autofocus but as a matter of interest, the linear pol works fine with my Nikon 90 autofocus with both the 300 f4 and a Sigma 70-210 2.8.

Some recent postings on hyperfocal formulae reminded me of Ansel Adams

"The Camera", and that you could set the hyperfocal distance with a

Hasselblad lens by using the scales on the lens barrel. I seem to recall that you focus @ infinity, then move the infinity mark back to line up with whatever stop you are using. I am unsure if this is correct, but the idea was that all you needed to focus @ hyperfocal distance was found on the lens itself, and no additional formulae were required. Is there a similiar facility on the Pentax 67 lenses, and is anyone familiar with the procedure?