steve_rasmussen

A classic landscape shot. Well done.

If you already have medium format lenses on hand and they fit into focal lengths that you need, then yes, they can work well.

There has been some manufacturing variation in both the lens mount and with the lenses themselves. I have had fit problems in the past but nothing so bad to where the lens would not mount. This was a quality assurance issue that Pentax never addressed.

I have heard of the high speed shutter issue with the Pentax before but it is rare. I would return the camera.

To add a bit to what Alan has said; the rays emanating from distant objects enter a lens in a parallel fashion but rays emanating from objects at macro distance are diverging. These diverging rays push the focus back further and behind the focal plane, thus requiring compensation by using one of several methods to bring the focus to a usable place.

The 90-180 zoom does make noise, it is normal for this lens. I know, I have owned one since they were released.

Probably the best E 6 lab is AgX in Michigan. Mike L has top quality at a fair price. He still does 220.

The effects of putting a plate (filter) behind the lens is discussed by Kingslake. The focus will change and be pushed rearward a bit but if your depth of focus is deep enough via smaller stops it will not be noticed. The added aberrations will be minimal. I had done what you are suggesting on a Pentax 35mm Fisheye (6x7) many years ago with success.

I have a similar situation where I can use my wife's cell phone on the lower end and a 6x7 on the high end. So I opted for a Sony RX100 with Zeiss glass (zoom) and 20MP as an in between camera. Love it.

All this depends on how you are using a 6x7. In landscape work where DOF is important and smaller stops are used, you are using the lenses deep into the diffraction zone. For my Pentax 67 as an example, f/11 seems to be sharpest for most lenses (meaning that stopping down to that point is where it is no longer aberration limited but diffraction is just starting to be the dominant factor for unsharpness). Shooting a landscape at f/32 or f/45, diffraction dominates to the point that using a full frame digital makes more sense shot at a wider aperture. One of the diffraction formulas in the film days was 1380/ f number to give the maximum LP/mm possible. When using this formula, one can see the limitations of 6x7 ( and 4x5). If however you are using the 6x7 in an applications where the lens is not stopped down to this degree, a 6x7 will do great when comparing to 35mm film or digital. Also, you said there was a 45mm for the Pentax, as the widest MF lens: they also made a 35mm but it was not rectilinear.

You could try the one for the 67 with an adapter but you will not not have the full barrel distortion seen when used on the 67.

Agree that the traffic on this site has slowed over the years. I think the face lift that they gave it recently was an attempt to modernize and regain the traffic of old.

I never thought this site would last this long. I mostly hang out in the Medium Format area but since I'm a Pentax shooter, I do visit here on occasion. Photo: Pentax 6x7, 45mm lens, Velvia 50, Plustek 120 scan--- Tonga

Only the Pentax 67II has spot metering but if you use that or the TTL meter on the older versions, it is still a good idea to use a gray card to meter. Spot metering is a "nice to have" feature but if you go with the 67II to get it, you will have a camera that is not historically as reliable as the older models. I love the M7 and its famous optics but the P67 system has 30 optically different lenses to choose from, while the M7 is pretty limited. It is not so much the mirror shake that is the problem on the Pentax but the shutter. For hand held work, not much of a problem. For tripod work, it can sometimes be an issue but mostly with the lenses longer than the 200mm in the 1/2 to 1/30 second range. I have traveled with a Pentax since 1989 and like it for that purpose but find it a bit awkward for street work. In the end, the M7 didn't have enough flexibility for me. If I were forced to choose a different camera, it would be the Pentax 645Z. ($$$$)

The desert in snow; southern Arizona-- Pentax 67, 200mm, Velvia 50.

"The goal is to achieve very light and soft portraits, like the ones some wedding photographers get using a Contax 645." You might want to skip the digitization of the print film images and just give your customers the physical print made from the negative. But do find a better lab.

David-- Yes there has been a change in landscape style. There seems to be a trend of under saturated and unpolarized. I have seen my share of bleached out, nearly white skies, foliage with nasty reflections and burned highlights in the scene. I believe that this style was brought about by the move to digital by most shooters. Editors/publishers came to expect this understated look and so when film was submitted for publication, it was considered "dated". The style pendulum has swung too far into the understated camp in my opinion but I agree that Velvia, when abused was too far in the saturated camp. Velvia could not be used in all landscape cases and that got shooters in trouble. I do like the Provia compromise.

Even though Arizona is hard to beat, my favorite place is the South Pacific. A 35mm film shot, taken with Provia 100.

Welcome to the forum Gary. Glad you found us. I've been here for 20 years now. Desertscape

Great Exuma, Bahamas-- 35mm film 1995

Josef Muench, David Muench and Tom Till.

<p>I shoot a lot of macro work and went through many 67 lenses in my quest to find the best lens for my work. Even though the 135mm is not soft, it is also not in the top five 67 lenses in sharpness. Is it sharp enough for publication work? Yes. I found that I preferred to use my 165LS and 90-180 zoom with tubes for macro work, mostly because they gave me better subject to camera distance. Plus, they both had f/32 DOF just like the 135 but the zoom also had f/45 when needed. The 100 macro was just too short in focal length for me to consider. I had wished that Pentax updated the 135mm with a 165mm Macro. Never happened. </p>

<p>Regarding the thought of putting the stops behind the lens; this would cause too much vignetting to be useful. </p>

<p>What can sometimes happen is that the advance lever appears to be fully advanced but actually is not. You might wonder why the lever is not coming back from that position, thinking it is fully advanced but it won't if it's not fully wound. This has happened to me once many years ago. Try advancing it a bit more but be careful not to force it beyond the normal pressure used when advancing film. </p>

<p>This is turning out to be a bad year for fall colors in CO due to the early sub freezing temps. </p>