patrick_drennon

Thanks Steve, I don't tend to respond to your field tests when I read

them but I think we need to make sure you understand we all appreciate

the efforts that go into it. Keep it up!

I have a 600mm f/4 for a P67 that requires at least a monopod (nearly 18 lbs. combined lens/camera weight). I use a Gitzo G1565 and am pleased with it. The mounting plate on that pod swivels through about a 30 degree arc so it requires no extra head. Like Jeff said, in most cases I can't imagine that you would need any sort of extra head. A monopod inherently provides a great deal of flexibility in aiming but also doesn't lend itself at all to the adjustment of an independant head while in use (it's sort of a two handed tool if you see what I mean).

IMHO, "standard" was meant to mimic, as mentioned earlier, human vision. "Typical" human vision, when not trying to ascertain points in the periphery, is roughly 45 degrees of coverage. It happens that a lens of 45 degree coverage in the various formats, roughly equates to a focal length equal to the diagonal measure of the film. The P67 offers 2, 90 and 105. These are 53 and 46 degree coverages respectively. I think the idea is to preserve perspective. A 45 deg. coverage lens from a 6 X 4.5 (+/- 78mm) will be a 67 degree coverage lens on a 6 X 9. This equates to a 35mm lens in 35 format. A 35mm lens is considered a mild wide angle, wide enough to be used for perspectives that are not close to a "normal" perspective. There is nothing negative about an 80mm lens on a 6 X 9 camera. A good photographer will generate beautiful shots with it. But when used full frame the resulting photograph will not look like the same shot taken with the same lens on a 6 X 4.5. These observations are opinions only but for me, were the basis for my selection of the 45mm f/4 for the P67. This lens most closely mimics the 21mm in 35 format and produces (when used properly) some great distortions in perspective. My 15 year old Mamiya M645 with its 45mm f/2.8 lens will not produce the same perspective control even though both cameras use 120 film and 45mm lenses. I submit that this holds true with "normal" lenses. As a previous poster alluded, pick the lens that provides the perspective you are trying to achieve, whatever the focal length, but that will vary with the various 120 formats.

Apparently the 645wi is fundamentally similar to the Zi. If that is true you just bloodied your nose on the one true drawback to these remarkable little cameras. If it is the same then there is no other way of controlling what is and isn't in focus. I 'try' to deal with this using the Zi by using the DOF chart (using Gene's 1-2 stop rule), manually setting the aperture and placing the auto focus rectangle on a DOF midpoint. To date this has been dependable (if you exclude photogrpher error). IMHO it is way too easy to try to get these cameras to do things that only SLR's should be asked to do. In my experience you either need a film plane or SLR ground glass, or a split image rangefinder to accurately accomplish what you are trying to do. It isn't possible with a Zi, if the 645wi is the same basic design it will not work there either.

Chris,

 

I agree with your assessment in the shutter shake problem with the curtain relationship you indicate (it is quite logical). It probably doesn't apply to this case however. At speeds of 1/30 sec. and slower the lead curtain is all the way across the film plane prior the second curtain follow. I think it has to be that way because of the 1/30 X-sync speed being the fastest at which neither curtain is between the film and lens.

I agree with the 2 stop margin mentioned. Using the 45 f/4 scale (and supported by actual prints), at f/22 using f/11 on the scale you can accomplish a DOF of +/-5' to infinity.

I use a P67 and shoot the majority of shots with the 45 f/4. I have not noted edge softness and tend to use the wide coverage to emphasize off axis subjects in the frame. I REALLY like this lens and am always impressed with its performance, particularly at optimum apertures (includes f/22).

 

That said, I've been invloved in shows with a couple of guys who are M7 shooters with the 43. Neither they nor I can discern a significant differential in performance between the two lens camera combinations used in similar applications (their cameras perform better handheld, the P67 whips them on any subject inside 1 meter camera to subjct distance). They both tend to win more consistently, but that's because they're better photographers, not because of any significant difference in camera performance.

Craig,

 

Since this thread has kind of turned into a discourse on plusses and minuses of the Zi I thought I'd add a little. I've had a Zi for right at a year now and have put somewhere around 40 rolls of 120 through it. I found it very easy to get used to the portrait aspect. I've apparently always shot about 50% portrait and 50% landscape (never noticed prior to buying this camera) and it is very easy to shoot landscape handheld. It has the same disadvantages on a tripod that other cameras run into when you need to turn them on their side but at least fuji put the controls easily available whichever way you have it turned. The disadvantages mentioned are accurate, with no split image in the viewfinder it is difficult to manually focus. I tend to keep 400 films in it since the negative size tends to negate grain problems in everything up to about 11 X 14. I use it like others, as a big negative point and shoot, and use a P67 system for everything else. I've been shooting MF for 17 years and LF for about 15 and am still blown away by the image quality from this camera, it is nothing short of amazing when you consider its size and flexibility. It is possible to expect too much out of it, if you want total control in dim light with slow films and/or close subjects, you may be disappointed. But if you want a lightweight, fast handling, autofocus, take anywhere camera that will very effectively cover a good 80% of the typical photographs taken you will be delighted.

M645 1000S is a metal frame 6 X 4.5 cm camera that does NOT have interchangable backs but was the anchor for the Mamiya M645 line 15 years ago. To my knowledge the last M645's were produced prior to '85 but are still good cameras compatible with the current 645 lenses and film inserts.

I forgot to mention my valuable (oh boy) opinions on lenses. I have a Schneider 50mm, a Rodenstock APO 80mm and an el-nikkor 135mm. I believe the best values are the nikkors (I'm not saying best lenses, just best values). They are very well corrected for flat field and render color accurately.

About 20 years ago give or take, Vivitar manufactured a great dichroic condenser enlarger called the Vivitar VI. There are still a few around and I think they're a superior value to the 23CII or 6X6 Omegas. I use a D-5XL now but upgraded solely for 4X5 utility. I loved the Viv VI.

 

I've seen a couple of them on e-bay over the past months.

 

I would recommend sticking with some form of a dichroic head on whatever enlarger you settle on.

If you like your Fuji and you have those kind of bucks to spend the Fuji GX-680II will shift and tilt. If I had the bucks I'd replace my Sinar 'F' with one.

If you plan a 'modern' system (this is NOT meant as a swipe at the Crown Graphic or Mamiya Press) then the P67 will be worth the 'wait and save' approach. Pentax's upgrade to the 67 only renders a couple of prism finders obsolete so they are sending a clear signal of where they plan to go for the long run. You can get close to the target budget if you'll settle for a non MLU and an older Takumar 105. The lens will never be wasted and the body can be relegated to a dedicated polaroid or secondary body as you add to the system. The MLU body is better but there were thousands of great shots taken by some wonderful photographers with the old body without MLU.

 

I am also a big fan of the Fuji rangefinders, but they are a seperate issue. My feeling is that if you are desiring to upgrade to a 6X7 then you will probably want to try other options as you progress. A system camera will allow this, the Fujis will not. The guys I've seen use these cameras successfully (some unbelievable stuff) were not 'system' tpyes of photographers and really had started and stayed with the Fujis.

I've had one almost a year. 30+ rolls with a significant use of the on camera flash and the battery meter still shows full so it isn't a battery eater. It has been durable and reliable. The normal aspect is portrait, turn it on side for landscape. It is program w/ two levels of aperture preferred automatic and manual. It is quite weak in the manual focus mode but the autofocus is quick and accurate if the focus square is placed properly. It will take some getting used to because there is so much packed into a compact package so it can be unorthadox in operation. You would be very impressed with the output, it is remarkably sharp and contrasty, B&W is great.

 

It will not compete effectively with the M7, not the least due to differential in image size. I don't see how the M7 lenses could be superior but it's a great camera with great lenses and a bigger negative. You won't get 32 shots out of a 220 roll with it like the Fuji. Shorter answer the M7 will be a superior alternative.

 

One last thought, I'm VERY happy with mine and have never regretted buying it.

This is going to sound stupid so forgive me. In the postings I didn't see where anyone told Bill why the waist level is a pain vertically. Just in case it isn't already understood, when you turn the camera on its side the image is upside down. Normal viewing is right side up and laterally reversed which can take some getting used to, the real problem is trying to compose an upside down image in the vertical position. View camera freaks deal with both upside down and laterally reversed images all the time, so it can be done.

I've had a Duoscan since the first of the year. It is my first experience with 'higher' end scanners so I have nothing to compare it to.

 

The machine has worked fairly well but when asking for software generated resolution near the mechanical limit it will sometimes return an error message instead of a scan (sometimes it does this at lower esolutions, .eg. 400 dpi). Agfa's response to this was "it does that sometimes when the scan is too complex". I can tell you it has NOTHING to do with the complexity of the scan but I got no help from the manufacturer. Sometimes a complete system/scanner reset would cure the problem, often not. Agfa's customer service has ranged (in 4 calls) from dismal to good. Two times I got a guy who was helpful (same guy), the two other times a got a guy who obviously couldn't care less if I fell off the face of the earth.

 

The machine is a good scanner (with the limitations previously mentioned). I cannot wholeheartedly recommend it due to the weakness in their service.

My P67 experience is identicle to Jim's. It has happened 3 times in 3 years all with Kodak film. It has caused no long term problems and has been easy to unload so far. I responded in order to add the warning of the fragility of the P67 winding mechanism. If you feel this unusual resistance, stop and either unload then or get in a darkroom and unload. I have heard too many horror stories of P67's rendered inoperable by inadvertantly forcing the winding lever. I have no experience w/ 220 film in the P67.

I've had one since Oct. '98. I have not shot any 220 to date but have put +/-30 rolls 120 through mine. Familiarize yourself with the threads on the drawbacks of the camera. If you know the limitations of the camera and do not expect it to do something it wasn't designed to do then you will most likely become very attached to it. If its limitations cause you problems you'll get rid of it, several good photographers have. I also use a P67 so I don't need it to do everything. If it is your only MF resource there is a small but very real possibility that you will be disappointed. I've had zero malfunctions to date (if you exclude photographer error).

If you look at the posts here and on the medium format digest page

you'll find plenty of argument on this topic but little good solid

data.

 

<p>

 

I have the 105 f/2.4 and am pleased with it. The people I've spoken to

who have the 90 also like it. If I had the 90 I would keep it, I have

the 105 and intend to keep it. In other words, IMHO there is nothing

about either lens that would cause me to give it up for the other.

I use the NPC back on a P67. When it arrives on order from B&H you

will have two pieces 1) the back and 2) a replacement body half hinge

unit. The body half hinge unit allows fast removal of the normal back

and replacement with the polaroid back by means of a sliding pin. It's

installation can be done by a camera repair shop (I did it myself by

carefully pealing back the sticky leather, removing the existing

hinge, replacing it with the new unit and putting the sticky stuff

back down).

 

<p>

 

Once this is installed the change is a 10 second operation with no

tolls required. Film loading is a much more time consuming and complex

ordeal.

 

<p>

 

As the previous poster noted this is not practical in mid roll. Also

note that if you shoot one polaroid and remove the back the next

polaroid (type 669 has 10 sheets per packet) is ruined and my

experience is, if you wait a long time (in terms of days) the one

behind it is often unusable. With the cost of polaroid film it is

painful to use 3 sheets of film to get one shot. I tend to shoot

everything I think I'll need to test to use as much of a polaroid

packet as possible before switching to the normal back.

 

<p>

 

On my Bogen quick release tripod head, not only can it not be changed

on the tripod but the camera mounted with the polaroid back will not

mount on the tripod at all. You can space it up about 3/4" to get

enough camera bottom clearance, but I've yet to trust the stability of

such an arrangement.

 

<p>

 

The quality of a polaroid from a 4X5 back is good enough to evaluate

sharpness with a loop. This provides confirmation of depth of field

calculations as well as shift affects. The P67 polaroids are not

capable of providing such detail. There is a fiber-optic block about a

1/4" thick that makes up for the inability to have the film pack at

the normal film plane location. This setup provides enough diffusion

to make sharpness evaluation very difficult. It can be checked

relative to known subjects in the image only.

 

<p>

 

The only time my back has been a pain in the butt is when I have

attempted to use out of date film. It has been flawless in several

hundred shots when using current film. There seems to be something in

the cement they use to allow the tabs to follow one another that

screws up with age and causes the next sheet progression to foul up.

When it does it is very easy to cover the rollers with developer and

pull the guts of the film pack out without intending to.

 

<p>

 

Finally, on the question of is it worth the $$. For me it is

an unqualified yes. I have two 6'X 2' light banks and a 3'X 5'

softbox that I use routinely. My polaroid consumption is confirming

studio lighting. I use models in this work and have tended to change

something before going to roll film so it is economic for me. I don't

tend to worry about what the polaroid can't tell me (depth of field,

etc.) so it is a successful piece of equipment FOR ME.

 

<p>

 

I am now working on my wife to allow me to get a P67II so that I can

dedicate the P67 to the polaroid back. I've done fine for several

years without out it so it isn't necessary, it's just a 'want'. Hope

this helps.

This is my second post to a question I've seen many times on this forum. My first answer, though short, seems to reflect the consensus. Greg's post started me thinking about how I actually progressed in photography as a hobby and like Greg please consider this as just one person's experience.

 

I started shortly after I got married 18 years ago (when my wife allowed me to spend the $) with an Olympus OM-2. Within a few months I'd flipped out and bought a Vivitar VI enlarger and processing gear and threw myself headlong into it. About a year later I talked her into letting me get a Mamiya M645 (she really is a nice lady). My use of the OM-2 dwindled to nothing. I used the M645 for everything including zoo trip snapshots. I can't call this smart nor a proper application of equipment, it's just what I did. I got very comfortable with the camera and was more accurate in prediction of exposure and content with it than the OM-2.

 

I still have the Mamiya system as well as the Fuji 645Zi (which is markedly superior to the old Mamiya). I also now have a P67. The Mamiya never gets used now and I still tend to snapshoot with the 6X4.5 Fuji. In other words I still don't use 35mm for anything. Both of my kids do sometimes use the Olympus for projects that require more than a point and shoot but I don't. I could have sold the Olympus 15 years ago and never missed it but frankly most of the folks who post here very effectively use MF and 35mm, thus my first response. Sorry for all the wind.

Fundamentally, MF is not a substitute for 35mm, 35mm is not a substitute for MF. They are not bent toward same use. Keep 35mm system.

 

Larger consideration is, are you prepared (lab, darkroom, etc.) for MF?

John's right in my opinion. Rent the lenses and adaptor and try it. I've got the 165LS and it is a pretty big lens. I've heard the 55-100 is also large so the convenience factor may not exist.

 

At the larger magnifications you mention I think you will see a difference (in my opinion, even with medium to long tele's)with the 6X7 being clearly superior. But at 11X14 there's a better than even chance you will see no discernable difference all else held constant.

45mm in 6X7 roughly equates to a 21mm in 35mm format, 55 is close to 28mm.

I have the P67 (not the P67II) w/ 4 lenses and would not change a thing.....but. As big a proponant as I am of the P67, the M7 is a better match to the description of use you gave. The P67 is bulky, intrusive and noisy. I would challenge anyone to differentiate image quality but the P67 is not good handheld. You do not list one type of shooting that would be considered the P67's strength (macro, telephoto, LONG telephoto). The M7 is a great camera, I've seen shots from the 43mm and they were great (I love that focal length).

 

The only possible advantage I can see to the P67 is possibly price. I'm still an avid P67 fan but it isn't best for everything.