steve_vancosin

I will tell you a little known secret...get a 0.25 diopter filter(B+W makes them). No messy handling tube to mount and dismount, just screw the filter on the front of the lens. Hear me now and believe me later, the results will be just as good with less hassle and expense!

Dave, you said," Professional studio photography depends heavily upon Polaroid tests,

and Pentax is so inconvenient to use with Polaroid that you will soon

want to throw the whole system in the trash. You also need a separate

body for Polaroid, and that, plus the expense of the Polaroid back, will

blow your budget in a hurry."

 

Even in the face of this, the 67 is the hot ticket for the big names today. As far as the expense issue, a 67body is less expensive than a Hassy back for god's sake! The body you dedicate for the roid back also becomes your spare body, saving even more!!

Ted, your points are well thought out and generally correct. After all, it is 6X7, so crop a little for those times you need a real tight shot. On the other hand, portraitists that use the P67 system use either the 200 or the 135 macro when they require a head only shot. If forced to use the 165, an extension tube is commonly used (quite impossible with the M67). Hassy users must do the same with their 150 also.

I think when he said he doesn't take photos he meant prints.

The trouble with all these diffusion under the enlarger lens methods is that the result will show the dark areas diffusing into the lighter areas - exactly opposite of "real" soft focus. I suppose that if you weren't able to do it in camera, the next best thing would be Photoshop.

"a fun introduction to MF"...Since there is nothing in common between this camera and "real" MF cameras(except for the film), it would not be an introduction at all. Besides, why do you need an introduction? The only difference IS the film. Sure, there are operational differences but still you get to set one aperture and one shutterspeed per exposure!

Children and autofocus, a dynamic duo!

That chrome ring you are talking about is put there to protect the filter threads when no filter is attached to the lens.The lens filter threads on these are easily dinged because the rim is so thin, this was an attempt to help stop this.

Mmmmmmm.....I wouldn't put the Autocord second after Rollei. The Mamiya TLR's are undoubtedly better and you get changeable lens sets too!

Gregg, just a few qualifications-

a. you can't get lanolin from your nose unless you are a sheep.

b. the softars are made of plastic not mineral glass.

Scott, if you are implying that iso400 shot in 645 is better than velvia in 35 I have to take exception here. That simply is not true.

yes, don't forget, you have to change the pressure plate AND the film counter.

I too would like to explore the option of using a 2X with my 80 for portrait applications. I was able to get a loan of a Kenko from my dealer. I have only run a few rolls but so far, at least for portraits it seems fine. My dealer said I could expect sharpness to suffer at the edges, but for portraits that is not a problem. Actually, some softness in the center would be ok - it takes a special face to stand up against a blad lens' sharpness. It is a bit more difficult to focus at 5.6 but then the 150c is 4.0, not a big diff. The actual results though are fine and unlike the 150c, you can focus to get as tight a headshot as you could want, which is something else to consider. If anyone else is using this combination I would like to hear your comments.

I read a post in another forum from a guy with a Hassy that had a problem with the "aux shutter" in the body causing partial underexposure of his negs. I know nothing about Hassy but you might want to check it out.

People have mentioned that they are using tmax at 1:7 and 1:9. Can anyone using thse dilutions give their time and temp figures? I would like to try these dilutions myself and a good starting point would be welcome. Also, any comments on your results vs. 1:4 . Thanks!

Wondering if anyone has carefully compared APX25 with TMX100? Where does APX fall between tech pan and TMX with respect to grain and contrast? The reason I ask is because I have been doing portraiture with Tech pan (35mm) and getting a very good result. However, I could do without the special developing and the filtering (cyan) necessary to correct for the extra red sensitivity.

sorry but the P645 does indeed work at one shutterspeed without batts. The bottom of the body has a part that screws into the little hole on the side so you can advance the film and cock the mirror. It is tricky but the procedure is spelled out in the intruction book.

I just recieved an e-mail response from Kodak to this question. In case anyone is interested, Kodak recomends CC40C, or CC50C (cyan)

I've been experimenting with Tech Pan for portrait work. I was wondering what filtering would be appropriate in order to reduce the effect of the high red sensitivity in this film. I would appreciate any other comments by others using this film for portraiture.

Both of your answers were true statements, however, They did not answer Dan's question - "Will the MF lens capture more detail?"

The answer is no. I think Dan needs to see that the film is the limiting factor here, not the lens.

I can relate to your problem as I too use a P67 and wear glasses. The best solution all around is to get contact lenses. Otherwise, if you take your landscape shots horizontal, you can get the "waistlevel" finder, with the added benefit of 100% coverage - the prism only shows 90%.

Although I have been pleased with results using Tmax developer for the Tmax films, I would like to give XTOL a try. So far using Kodaks recomended times my negs are way too thin at every dilution except 1:1. Can it be that you need to have a minimum amount of stock in the tank regardless of the dilution? Also I woulld like to hear about the resulting negatives in terms of contrast and printability at the various dilutions. Thank you for any help.