patrick_drennon

Been using my 1348 w/ B1 for a few months now. WOW, light and stable, helps tons with vibration dampening. I don't even worry anymore about critical shutter speed (as you can tell I use P67's).

 

I'm using the Arca Swiss quick release. Why do other respondants dislike this piece of equipment? I know nothing about the RRS or other quick releases.

Just my $.02 worth. I do not own the 55, I do own and am very

impressed with the 45. I think the perspective recorded by the 55 is

way too similar to that of the 75. I would opt for the 45. That said I

must admit that I particularly like the effect of the semi-extreme

wide angle of the 45, some folks don't.

I love my P67II. You will hear all types of responses but thet're all great cameras with each better at some things than the others so read the posts and decide which one best fits what you think you'll do with it

Gene,

 

From the previous posts my recommendation is obviously not popular but needs mentioning anyway. I carry a P67, P67II (P67 mounted w/ a 45 f/4, P67II w/ a body cap), 105 f/2.4, 165LS f/4, polaroid back, hoods, meter and about 8+ rolls of film in a Pentax trunk case. It's been very durable and has been flawless protecting the cameras. The drawbacks are #1-weight,#2-the pieces I listed completely fill it up and #3-they aren't cheap. But if you are using this case for storage, studio or work from a vehicle I think it's the best choice

Engineers are such a pain. Particularly those that are photo-freeks, just ask my wife. Seriously though these 2 double E's have provided some good advice and info I didn't previously know, thanks guys.

Barry's Camera near the intersection of 635 and 35 on Harry Hines.

Juan,

 

This may or may not help. I use TMax 100 exclusively (with the exception of some TMax 400). I develop EVERYTHING (TMax 100) 7 minutes with dilution 'B' HC-110 @ 68 degrees F. I shoot far more 120 than 35mm but I can't tell it to be any different. I haven't done the extensive testing with 35mm that I have with 120. I feel very comfortable with the degree of control I have over 120, however I hate to admit it I don't care with the 35mm as long as I have images with decent shadow detail, my 35mm usage is mostly snapshot.

Raymond,

 

He CANNOT use this camera for long exposures independant of the battery. The only P67 that will do this without battery drain is the new P67II.

I use the trunk case for two bodies and the orientation for both is in

the 'normal' landscape position.

Old post but fun question. I agree with John and some of the other posters. The advantages offered by 4X5 unshifted are not astounding. But in studio still-life or architectural/landscape where shifts and tilts enhance the outcome, the view camera has no equal in the MF world. There are some cameras that get close but I know of no MF (non-view type) that can match a monorail for range of movements. That said, sheet film cameras are a major pain that often completely offsets the advantages.

 

I still occasionally use my 15 year old Sinar F. It isn't fancy or fast but it can do things I could never ECONOMICALLY match in MF. One note, I personally find the 4X5 polaroids vastly superior to my P67 polaroid back and often use it just for that. Many friends in the hobby keep and use both types of cameras.

Thanks Steve for another great field test on a lens all of us are

interested in. Please help with instruction or guidance on a P67 photo

homepage. That's the best idea I've heard in a while. Even though we

can't show performance on resolution I'm always curious what people

accomplish with their P67's. I would love to contribute but know little

about web programming.

I don't think you're over your head, this is how people learn. Previous poster's cycling suggestion is probably accurate. If it is a Novatron it can easily fire fills w/out firing key. On some packs you have an option of turning on an alarm that tells you when this occurs and on what strobe. Best avoidance is power pack or other (visual perhaps) flash confirmation. I've made the sync mistake more than once but caught it on polaroid. Most times I've had this happen the sync cord has come loose, but in that case everything not hit with alot of natural light was dark, that doesn't seem to be what you're describing. Keep experimenting to see if you can cause and control the behavior (several rapid fires, etc.), the only cost of practice and experimentation is film and time.

I don't think you'll EVER find this forum sick of questions such as this. I am a P67 user (both original and the II) so I know the camera and its strengths and weaknesses. If I thought whatever camera I bought would spend all of its time on a tripod and money was not a controlling issue I would be hard pressed to decide between the two systems. The decision would not be based on optics (I guess I was blessed with one of the GOOD 105's). The RZ is superior in close-up and in on-tripod verticles. The P67 is faster handling (until a film change is required where it's slower). P67 has a 600 f/4 available, no such animal or near eqivalent for the RZ. I've used an RB and really liked it, but I was unable to produce results superior to the P67 which I like better, but I handhold it alot of the time (I know it's criminal but I've gotten some great shots handheld). I agree with the previous poster's comments, the RZ IS handholdable, but not for long. Best advice is like everyone else, try out both, they are so different that one will work and feel superior FOR YOU.

Most of the popular MF systems offer shift lenses. The arch work I've done would be difficult to do with an MF rangefinder (doesn't mean you can't, I would have struggled with it). That would limit your choices to the various SLR options.

 

Your description of use would not take advantage of MF's best qualities, that being portability and speed. If I had the same description of use I would be looking at large or medium format view cameras. The best of MF system movements available pale in comparison to view camera movements. You also pay a huge premium for that flexibility (a Pentax 67 shift lens is more expensive than a basic sinar with a good 210 f/5.6 lens). The cut film pain can be helped with roll film backs. Just a suggestion. If you have your heart set on MF there are a gazillion threads on each system in the archives.

I have owned three enlargers over an 18 year span. The last 15 years I've spent with an Omega D-V XL. If you want solid, dependable construction there is no better enlarger. I second (or third) the previous posts on the critical nature of the lens. I particularly agree with Victor's comments on Schneider. I have an old 50mm Companar that was cheap and has horrible astigmatic distortion. My Componon-S is great. My 80mm is an APO Rodagon and it too is awesome but not particularly superior to the 5.6 Minolta I used before it. Biggest bang for the buck is my 135mm El-Nikkor, absolutely flawless lens with no bells and whistles. If I had it to do over again I would buy the El-Nikkor 80mm instead of the APO, there just isn't enough difference to justify the gap in cost.

 

That said, I want to emphasize the importance of the enlarger. I agree with the previous poster who said that the enlarger is essentially a controlled light source with the lens dominating the quality. Although mostly true the enlarger chassis and light source influence the outcome a great deal. Most 2 1/4 enlargers (Omega C700 series, Beseler 23CII, Vivitar VI) are prone to vibration (stability) problems at enlargements over 8X. This is not to say you can't get good enlargements but you need to have a very steady table well away from air handlers or washing machines and you need to let these enlargers "quiet down" after focus before tripping your timer if the head is very far up the column, if you don't take these things into account you will have soft prints that will tend to be blamed on the lens. You also need the ability to adjust the lens carrier to provide a perfectly parallel lens plane to base board. The D-V XL provides this flexibility as well as being immensely stable even at extreme head heights. By the way, the dichroic head and stablilized power supply are very well designed for repeatability and consistency, another plus if you do alot of darkroom work. Sorry if I've gotten wordy.

I have both cameras. I can't think of any reason I would ever attempt to fit the TTL from the P67 on the P67II. The shutter speed link would overhang, Pentax indicates that the two are not compatible. The waste level finder IS compatible. I have an old style rigid finder and have already used it several times on the P67II.

Professional films do not suffer color shifts at any greater rate than amateur films. Pros tend to refrigerate to get batch consistency. If all things remain constant, i.e. film, paper, chemistry, development times and temperatures, the dichroic settings change little, if any. When I was consuming 100 sheets a week this was important for obvious economic reasons (time and material). At this time I consume 20-30 sheets a month and can take the time to customize color settings to every roll if needed. I still refrigerate but will routinely use negative and chrome rolls that have been left unrefrigerated for long periods. With your rate of consumption you don't need to worry at all except if the film is significantly out of date, that CAN cause problems.

A great answer from Sam W! Ken, you would be advised to rent an MF system for a weekend, as Sam did, then do a side by side comparison. You will undoubtedly see a difference but the degree to which that drives you toward MF will depend on economics. If the difference is worth the cost you will eventually make the investment. If you can't see sufficient difference you'll stick totally w/ 35mm or opt for the least expensive (and least flexible) MF system for use only when you need it. Many very good photographers have tried MF and simply do not feel it justifies the cost for their style of picture taking. Some of those guys still beat the MF afficianados in contest on a regular basis!

I may be late but I have the P67II and the OLD rigid magnifying hood

does work with it and it does not stick out as far as the AE finder.

It should work with your bellows.

I've had a P67 for about 4 years and agree that it is a pain to load due solely to the difficulty getting the spool sprockets to engage.

 

I was the proud recipient of a P67II for Christmas and can say that FOR ME it is substantially easier to load. I've not ever had trouble with spool engagement. I even spent a day with it on my 600 f/4 in portrait (sideways), which used to be the ultimate frustration with my P67, with not a single glitch. I also have a 645Zi and agree it is easier to load but the gap is much narrower now.

 

One note, the Fuji spools (you know the ones with the quick hook) never helped my loading difficulties with my P67. They work great in the P67II again due to the ease of spool engagement. There is always the chance that this particular 67II is just easy. I'd always thought my particular P67 was just annoying until I read the posts complaining about it.

I'm assuming by 'too dark' these are transparencies. As mentioned mine require a light table to see. On B&W negatives I've had no trouble seeing the image. My eyesight is such that it is much easier to discern through a loupe.

I've had a Fuji 645Zi since October '98. All of Franks statements are accurate. I use it as a 'backup' in landscape situations if it will cover. The zoom range, as stated, is quite limited but the output is very good. As Frank said, landscape requires turning the camera on its side which is different, but not impossible to get used to. It is fast and with the leaf shutter I've seen no shutter induced softness.

 

Now for the opinions (heh-heh). I've been immensely impressed with the image quality of the 645Zi......but. The absolute optical performance of the Mamiya (which I've seen but not experienced) is at least as good, so the image size difference would make it difficult to compare the two cameras. As much as I like the little camera it does not produce the same magnified image quality as my P67. If the absolute measure of this 'quicker' camera is image quality, buy the M7, if speed and light weight are more important then you'll love the 645Zi. One final point that may or may not be relevant. My wife has appreciated the 645Zi much more than the P67. P67 system add-ons are never ending, the 645Zi is pretty much complete as purchased.

Unless I misunderstood, the plain wooden grip like I have on my P67 is now discontinued, so your only recourse may be the used market. There is another grip (also wood) designed specifically for the TTL flash on a P67II. It's a whole lot more expensive. Seems like I paid less than $90 for the old version where the new one is over $250. These are from memory so I wouldn't swear to it.

I got the opportunity to try the Schneider, Rodenstock, and Pentax

loupes side by side and ended up with the Pentax. It isn't better, I

just couldn't tell any difference so it was (for me) easily best

value.

P67II has the ability to MLU without battery drain. P67 does not.