patrick_drennon

Just emphasizing Dermot's recommendation. Lock the mirror up and you'll likely rid yourself of all your problems.

Thanks Tim, we all appreciate these types of efforts.

You may or may not be aware of how the manual focus works on the Zi. There is an AF/MF button on back of the camera. When this is depressed and the master dial is turned it changes the manual focus distance to some distance between 1m and inf(1m, 1.1m, 1.2m, 1.3m, 1.5m, 1.7m, 2m, 2.5m, 3m, 4m, 5m, 7m, 10m, 20m, inf) these are the set distances available for manual focus, it is not infinitly adjustable. There is no through the viewfinder focusing possible outside of AF. That said, it is a two step process but would be difficult to do in the order you describe.

Steve,

 

<p>

 

I've sat and let your comments eat on me for a while and this is my

view in agreement. The so-called 'slick' publications to include

fashion, editorial, and photographic arts magazines MUST be

politically charged. I fully believe that some of the 'trends' in

photographic presentation had to result from an assignment with a

deadline where-in the photographer made a dreadful mistake and sold

the editor on it's 'neuvo-style' value because it was different. The

problem with innovation as concerns style is that different is

considered innovative. In absence of any other talent, when the

standard is a high quality photograph using the tools with the

greatest skill and effort then 'different' is often a shoddy shadow of

that effort embraced for its 'uniqueness', not necessarily its

absolute quality. With the explosion of publications this 'unique'

style also is faster and cheaper to produce with the end result being

the forcing of inferior product on the public while telling them this

is what is innovative so you HAVE to like it. Just look at the crap

shown by the popular designers (clothing) and purported to be

innovative. The vast majority is repulsive at first glance but the

public eventually embraces it because it's the latest thing and since

it's Donna Karan it MUST be good. It's a sad commentary on our

direction as a society, but pendulums always swing both ways. The

cream of the photographic talent will eventually rise to the top if

and when the public makes its economic statement refusing to buy in to

shoddy styles and trends. I would call this my $.02 worth but I

probably overdid it.

Have had some minor to moderate flare when shooting into the sun but no ghosting (w/ the 45 f/4).

Have used this lens as primary for several years BECAUSE of the perspective. Performance is outstanding at all apertures. Best of my P67 lenses closed down all the way (f/22). Near zero barrel or pincushion and no noticeable falloff at edges (important for emphasis of off-axis subjects). Any wide rectalinear lens on any camera will empasize converging lines so you have to watch leveling of camera. I know of no other version of this lens. Reasonable price for a used 9 condition or better is probably in the $500-$600 range.

 

Check out some of Steve Rasmussen's posts. He too is 45 user. Great lens, you won't be disappointed.

I know this is an old post but couldn't resist. It's interesting that the original poster chose the 11X14 threshold for his query. My best 35mm and normal 6X7 negatives or trannies don't look astoundingly different to me until my enlargement size hits 11X14. For most 8X10 stuff I probably wouldn't be significantly disappointed if I'd done it in 35mm. This observation negates the very real issue of tonal range which will make even 4X6 output different between the two. I personally prefer the 67 output aesthetically so I tend to default to that if possible no matter the planned magnification.

Hassy stuff is great. Pentax also. I venture you will be impressed with the 55. I have the 45 and have seen nothing out-perform it. I hesitate to knock anything I don't own or haven't tried, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on Hassy, except I've seen some outstanding results from the system. I do have an extensive P67 system and can say without hesitation that even after seeing Hassy results I'd still start a P67 system. In some ways it's superior, in others it's inferior. For your stated purpose (landscape) I'm confident it is at least equal, if not slightly superior (due only to negative size issues). It is a bit heavier and less portable though.

I've owned a 645Zi for over a year and love it. But.....I shoot only about 20% landscapes. I think the previous posters are steering you in the right direction. The 6X9 & 6X7's lack of internal metering will probably not bother a landscape photographer as much as the portrait layout of the 645.

 

If it was me (and it isn't) I would go for the bigger negative. I also have a 4X5 enlarger that can handle the extra 2cm. That consideration may be the most critical in this case.

As Steve is using the term 'overhang' I believe it relates to the

weight set out from the tripod mounting point of the camera. When the

combined camera/lens center of gravity extends a significant distance

from the tripod mounting point, this 'overhang' magnifies any

vibration induced from the mirror or shutter. Any camera/lens

combination will suffer from this phenomenon which is why long

telephotos have tripod mounts on them close the camera/lens center of

gravity.

 

<p>

 

The 165 f/4 LS with the 1.4 tc will have the center of gravity some

distance from the tripod mount (I own the 165 LS and this is true

without the teleconverter). It will not be nearly as severe as the

same rigup with the 300 because the 165 is much shorter and lighter.

Matthew,

 

The 'GX' lenses have been discontinued. At the top of B&H's GX680 lens web page is an entry called 'GX M/GX MD' lenses. If you click that you'll see a list of the non-discontinued lenses.

There are NO dumb questions and yes it becomes a mild telephoto (rough 35mm eqivalent +/_ 90mm).

The greatest chance is that either of the systems you mention will make you quite happy. They are both expandable as your interests expand and marketable if you decide to relieve yourself of some equipment. Both have a history and a following. Unless I'm mistaken you will be doing the VAST majority of your assignments at less than 11X14 size. If this is true you will have trouble noticing the difference (note that I said 'have trouble', not to be read as no difference) at those magnifications. That said, for me it would be a pocketbook consideration and there might be little difference there in an area where used equipment is readily available.

 

The only one of the two I've used is the RB. Great camera, but it is HUGE.

Steve,

 

<p>

 

This may sound nuts but I've actually done this more than once. If you

have any of Kodak's final rinse chemistry for transparencies it is

apparently a nonionic surfactant (sort of like photoflo without the

cationic charge). I'm not sure the charge matters, but if you make up

a batch and wash the affected slide with it, rubbing the finger

printed area with your fingers, squeegee the slide and hang to dry you

should do no damage yet effectively clean the transparency. I would

recommend trying this with a sample you can afford to lose before

attempting it on your commercial stuff but I've yet to do anything

negative to a transparency yet. I have damaged B&W negs that were

fixed with a non-hardening fixer but that is a different animal.

Couldn't have said it better, thanks Scott.

Steve, I've read on other forums the new 300 will be internal focus.

My current lenses are 45, 105, 165LS and 600 so the 300 would be a

logical final addition (unless you can talk Pentax into making the 35

rectalinear).

I have been a P67 user for several years. I've shot it handheld and on tripod. I just haven't had the awful experiences with the P67 noted by a significantly broad cross section of posters in this forum. These postings have made me go back several times and take another look at my results but I still love the camera. I do have some 'soft' chromes, but in every case it was photographer error. On a good tripod or handheld at the right shutter speeds it does as good a job as any of the Rollei, Blad, or Mamiya prints I've seen.

 

I was allowed (for lack of a better word) to get a P67II for Christmas. It is an improvement but the big mirror is still there and you know it every time you squeeze one off. Where it seems to be better is in MLU. On longer exposures (over 1 second) with the mirror locked up it is very easy to feel the affect of the first curtain travel. The P67II is more effectively damped than the P67. But again the P67 has never bothered me.

 

Jeffrey, you should read and consider every post on any camera you buy (they aren't cheap). This MF enthusiast's opinion is the P67II is as good a 'system' camera as you can find. It has limitations and disadvantages, but every system you consider will have that. Look at all aspects, shoot a roll of film with it. You may move on to another system, but then again you may find it fits you perfectly. If it does just be aware of the limitations and have fun.

Have had a 645Zi since October '98. In 50 rolls of film I have 8 shots out of focus. Of those 8 I can blame only 1 on the camera (subject location was where it should have been yet focus was obviously wrong). In ALL of the other cases the subject is off center and I had missed the focus lock point. If you want a dependable point and shoot MF with astounding sharpness DO NOT stay away from this camera, just realize that what Paul said is true and compensate.

Where I live (desert of west Texas) there is NO 120 chrome processing available. Only alternative is mail off. Unicolor's 3 step is a good, dependable process, but will not save money and is subject to criticism on output. It is also a very poor process for push processing. Kodak's 7 step is tedious but much better in push process performance.

 

IMHO if dependable commercial processing is available use it, I can't imagine that you'll save money in the long run doing it yourself. If commercial processing is not a viable option you can dpendably do it yourself but educate yourself on what the various options can and can't do.

If it is indeed a really good price I personally would jump on it. I have a 600 f/4 and it is a pain in the a-- to use. But...... when you nail a shot with it there is NO equal. The compression of perspective and the detail @ 16X20 combine to produce striking photographs. If you desire this perspective I'm certain the lens is capable of producing sharp images, just be prepared to be irritated in the short term. Steve's right, if you want a sharp result you need two tripods which negates speed but Peter is also correct, you get sharp results with the 600 @ 1/1,000 sec. (thank heavens the P67 has that speed available). Out doors I shoot almost nothing slower than 800 with the camera on a monopod and get consistently good results if I don't mis-focus.

My GA645Zi has not caused a problem to date either handheld or on tripod. I always thought I shot about 50/50 portrait/landscape. Turns out I tend more in the natural direction of whatever camera I'm using. Portrait for the Fuji, landscape for the P67. The exception is studio work where in glamour/fashion I shoot almost everything portrait and still-life almost all landscape. Short answer is don't let that dictate your choice, it just isn't that important.

Couldn't let this go without suggesting the P67 w/ 55mm f/4. I don't use the 55 (I like the mild distortion of the 45) but the work I've seen done with that lens is nothing short of eye-popping. I bring this up because I noted NO distortion with that lens corner to corner. It is also a near perfect perspective match with the 28 on a 35mm camera.

 

This setup has essentially no advantage over the M7 with the 50 (I've not seen any images from that lens so I don't know what rectalinear distortion might be present). The M7 will be much lighter and the leaf shutter lenses will cause substantially less vibration at slower shutter speeds but the 67II has a wonderful AE prism available and the cost is MUCH less compared to the M7. At the very least you should test drive one before you commit to a "system". The Fuji will likely do everything you would want while providing a 35mm aspect ratio and outstanding optics (I've got a GA645Zi and it's tack sharp), you lose only system flexibility and automatic exposure control. Isn't this fun?

 

Your original post sure did sound like a perfect sales pitch for the P67II. Landscape, 35mm handling, automatic exposure control with a wide selection of metering functions and the 55 is a near perfect match to the 35mm 28 in a VERY high quality optic.

I agree with Paul. But it is most crirical that you don't scrimp on the lens. I use an Omega DV-XL w/ dichroic head and it is wonderful but everybody I know that uses a cold light or condenser with a filter drawer produces results on par (I've not personally seen an image advantage in muti-contrast papers with the dichroic head). I have though seen good, meticulous photographers struggle with poor enlarging lenses. I have a lens for each major format, 50mm is a Schneider, 80mm is an APO Rodagon and 135mm is an el-nikkor. If I was starting from scratch on a tight budget I believe the el-nikkors offer the best image quality per dollar spent (although the APO Rodagon is descernably better I don't know that the difference justifies the wild price variance).

I've been using an Omega DV-XL w/ dichroic head for 15 years and it has been rock solid and dependable. I have some experience with other enlargers in an institutional environment but their age and condition was such that a good evaluation was impossible. That said, there are multiple choices that would work well, with my limited experience I know that one such successful choice is the DV.

I've had a Duoscan for about a year now and am satisfied with its performance. Be aware that the software is moody and Agfa's tech support has ranged from good to absolutely horrible.