patrick_drennon

I have the 100 and the 210. Can't see any difference, both are

remarkable.

I want to get it on record......Mr. Reichmann does it right! I wish

everybody who created or perpetuated a stupid argument on one

of these forums was required to support himself with the

completeness (is that a word?) and elegant simplicity he does.

<p>

Fabulous sight! Helped me with my 600 f/4 by bringing to light

some handling and image issues I hadn't thought of.

Great response Jeff. I hope to not fan the flames but would like to

offer a perspective.

Could it be that the huge drop in US sales (which make up such

a significant portion of the total) is due to the tightening of

descretionary spending? If you take significant fraction of the well

to do non-professionals who buy Hassy gear and rubber band

their wallets it would easily account for the sales drop. If so,

they'll be back as soon as a recovery releases the funds (with

their wive's permission of course). I'm not a Hassy user but

retain a great deal of respect for the system. I appreciate their

tendency to be somewhat staid and IMHO their current situation

is likely (note I said LIKELY) not a reflection of their lack of

innovation but a result of current market realities.

Now I'm pissed! No one EVER follows me around. If I never

knew where I stood before.......

Also the assumption is that you increase f/stop by one full step

(i.e. 5.6 to 8) to cut transmission in half (I know it's

obvious.....but).

The camera is excellent for the application you describe. As far

as I know, the only 2 lenses that have vignetting problems at all

are the 50 & 65. The others do not vignet at any extreme of the

movements. I have a 100 & 210 only (neither vignet at all) so I

can't say from personal experience, I am telling you what I have

heard from a couple of experienced users.

oops.........I thought you listed the short zoom, didn't make since

after I posted since it starts @ 55, missed the reference. Tripod'll

be fine for either.

Paul, your tripod is plenty for the 55 and shouldn't be any

problem with the zoom either.

I've had darkrooms in 4 dwellings for a total of 20 years. All have

had white walls and have caused no problems at all. If you are

building a purpose built darkroom in a professional structure

then, sure, paint affected walls flat black. For an amateur

application it is overkill and does produce a dreary environment

for solving a tiny problem.

Again, I agree with all of the responses. I have a 50mm f/2,8

Componon S, an 80 mm f/4 APO Rodagon and a 135mm f/5.6

ElNikor. All are great lenses. I do believe the Nikor to be the best

balance of cost and performance (IMHO).

I've had a 600 for about 4 years. The mount is a straight bayonet

engagement (no rotation) that is locked down with a threaded

collar after engagement. It will engage the camera either

landscape or portrait (lens stays upright with R&P focus on

bottom). Basically, if you want to change you take the camera off,

turn it 90 degrees and put it back on.

<p>

Fringing at f/4 varies from 1 to 3 on your scale. Variance depends

on the level of contrast in the image. In areas of an image where

black meets white it can be very bad with a distinct red line in the

white area. It quickly disappears as the lens is stopped down.

<p>

Contrast and sharpness are excellent. It is the most difficult lens

I've owned to produce acceptable images. Your prior experience

should help you. I find it VERY unforgiving of mediocre technique.

But......when it works, it is truly wonderful. One just doesn't tend to

'accidently' produce good images with it.

Have had both cameras for 2 years now. The spot and matrix

metering on the II are neat additions but for ME, don't justify the

cost differential. I have the wooden grip on the P67 and find

either camera ergonomically friendly.

<p>

IMHO, if Pentax was attempting a step change with introduction

of the II they missed the mark. I really admire and respect both

cameras but not particularly one over the other. If I'm carrying the

camera only with no hand held meter the P67II is more flexible

only due to the metering. The II's finder is 1 1/2 to 2 stops

brighter than the P67 which makes it easier to focus in low light

situations but I don't tend to have trouble with the older one. I

think you'll grow to love either camera, the romance might be

easier if it doesn't cost as much.

Steve/Phil,

<p>

I check two forums everyday, this one and MF Digest. I find it

entertaining and useful. I have an unspoken appreciation of both

of your efoorts over the years in handling it in such a

professional manner. Sounds like the future will be no different,

again, my compliments. Just in case it makes a difference, I

prefer the seperation between the two. Most of the posts on this

forum are by fairly dedicated users, lots of helpful data. The MF

forum seems to attract more comparison posts and flame wars,

lots of fun and entertainment, just not as much truly useful data.

I have a 680III. I would guess that Dave has either a 680 or a

680II, anyway, you don't need to worry about the AA pack with a III.

It uses regular old CR123's and mine has had +/- 40 rolls

without needing a change. I agree with Dave about lens

selection, it is purely personal, either one you list will be

outstanding. It is one of the quirks of the system though to have

so many focal lengths so close together.

I haven't had any trouble at all changing bellows but the regular

bellows (IMHO) is a waste of time. With either of the lenses you

mention you will not be able to use much if any of the

movements focussed at or near infinity. The standard wide angle

bellows stays on my camera all the time now. It focusses on

infinity with both my lenses (100mm & 210mm) while still

allowing full movements.

This is strictly an OPINION, but the metered prism was very

poorly executed by Fuji. It has a mundane center weighted

pattern making the cost outlandish in proportion to application. I

bought a right angle finder (1/6 the cost) and stick with a hand

held meter. The remote is a great add-on. I also bought the

80mm rails and extended wide angle bellows making it a great

macro system.

I think you've made a marvelous choice based on what sounds

like good logic. Dave is right though, it would probably be good

idea to rent one first just to make sure.

The tendency on this forum (including myself) is to respond

about that with which we are familiar. Beseler and Omega make

up 90% of everything I've seen used in the U.S. I personally am

not familiar with the Meopta.

That said, you mention that the Meopta is 'robustly built'. If that is

true and there is a way to align the carrier/lens board with the

base with some since of dependability then it is likely going to

serve you well. Enlargers don't tend to get alot of abuse during

their years of service so the the sales points tend to be

adjustability, dependability and light source quality. If those

criteria are satisfied you will have made a successful purchase.

The suggestions promoting a 4X5 are good ones by the way

(adds flexibility to the process).

I have the f/4 LS and love it. Never used the f/2.8 so can't

compare.

I have a 600mm f/4. Also a HUGE lens that I use routinely for

sports photography. It's actually useable on a monopod.

Lens/camera combo weighs about 16 lbs. Best used with a 2

tripod setup, one on the lens and one on the camera. The 800 is

even larger (by a bunch) but only gains a 2 degree reduction in

field of view making it an odd choice in my mind.

I shoot a GX680III. The only advantage I've found to the format

size is when shooting in studio on standard width seamless, I

have no problem with hitting the edges on full length shots. For

me it seems to affect alot of what I shoot (I also have a P67

system). I've accidently turned into somewhat of a camera

collector and they all seem to be wonderful at certain things.

None do everything perfectly.

One other strange note, I use an Olympus A3 size dye sub

printer. The true max area is actually 10.2 in. X 7.6 in. That just

happens to be the exact aspect ratio of 6X8. I found that out by

accident but have used the discovery to advantage several times.

I've used the Zi for the same purpose you describe since Oct.

'98. One thing to add, it isn't quiet. The zoom is quite audible and

the winder will get attention. Other than that I don't have single

complaint.

I like my Polaroid Sprintscan 120. It's a true 4000 dpi. With a

good subject the output is amazing compared to my old Agfa

Duoscan. I also managed to save some poorly developed

transparencies with it, great tool. Dimage is probably at least as

good, if not better.

Dave and Terry give GREAT advice on rental. Terry is particularly

accurate on matching the 680 to your style (as Dave had said in

a previous post). It's a great system that is NOT a match for every

style and application. If it was me I'd probably replace the 4X5

with the Fuji and keep the M7 for times when portability was a

priority. If you buy the camera and expect to be the do-all end-all

you'll likely be disappointed. Never heard of anyone giving up

680 to go back to another camera (doesn't mean it hasn't

happened).

Dave and Terry give GREAT advice on rental. Terry is particularly

accurate on matching the 680 to your style (as Dave had said in

a previous post). It's a great system that is NOT a match for every

style and application. If it was me I'd probably replace the 4X5

with the Fuji and keep the M7 for times when portability was a

priority. If you buy the camera and expect to be the do-all end-all

you'll likely be disappointed.

LF lenses on 680 are not linked and require the mirror to be

locked up turning the camera into an excessively expensive (and

not nearly as flexible) view camera body. There is no net gain

over a Toyo field using view camera lenses on this camera and

a good deal of loss in available movements.

I have both bodies. I've never had any problem focussing the P67

but you need to know the P67II is probably 1 1/2 to 2 stops

BRIGHTER making it obviously superior in lower light situations.

Chin, I shoot still life and people (all studio) w/ the 680. Dave hit

it right on the money in his post. If I want to shoot a low angle

shot requiring a shift I just take it off of the camera stand and

handhold it, no way to do that with a monorail. I've done all of the

calculations with a monorail and still have to check DOF and

compostion, it's just so much easier and faster with the Fuji. I've

not used the Sinar F since I got the Fuji and have yet to wish that

I had. When I get back to the house tonight I'll e-mail you some

examples of work from the Fuji.