tony_cunningham

<p>I have a circle of black card with a rim that I just hang over the lens hood. When I forget it a cupped hand works. Alternatively holding the camera firmly on a rice bag with one hand/finger while turing the speed ring also works.<br>

I have not tried a cable, but there is no 'B' setting on this camera, so I am not sure whether this works.</p>

<p>Yes, I felt that the double technique minimised the amount of perspective correction needed in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I used to do this a lot with my GSW690 (65 mm lens). It worked fine and I often gave the image an additional tweak in Photoshop. 56x56 mm is still quite a large negative and it is a lot easier and cheaper than using a shift lens or field camera! I posted about this here I think - long ago.</p>

<p> I tested the DA* 16-50 mm at 28 mm, the M 28 mm f3.5 and the M 28 mm f2.8 on a K20D at ISO 100 on a heavy tripod at 1/50 f8 in all cases. Processing was with Silkypix Pro, all settings default.<br>

Examination of the images at 100% indicated that the DA* 16-50 was best, very closely followed by the 28 mm f3.5 and trailing somewhat the f2.8.<br>

The DA* 16-50 was much better than the others at the center bottom of the image, but apart from that there was little difference between it and the f3.5.<br>

The best looking image overall at 25% was actually the f3.5, because the lighting was nicest at that moment. I imagine you will be happy with the f3.5. I don't know what it is worth, but a lot less than the DA* 16-50 that's for sure.</p>

 

<p>Hi Matt - I have both the M 28 mm f3.5 and the M 28 mm f2.8. I kept the f2.8 because it was lighter. The f3.5 is supposed to be better. I will compare the two on a K20D this afternoon (European time) and report later.<br>

In the meantime there is some info here:<br>

http://stans-photography.info/</p>

<p>> I hope Nikon and Canon have an answer to this, as the D3X and 1Ds simply are not on par with digital medium format, even if they are finally getting close to film medium format!<br /> <br /> Why should they have an answer? They are not involved with medium format film or digital and this Pentax will not threaten them significantly - different market. They will threaten the Pentax at only 30 MP. The Sony Alpha 900 is already up to 25 MP and it 'only' costs around $2700. Also not all digital medium format is great, although most is of course.<br /> <br /> > Medium format film ''still'' has an advantage over digital?<br /> > Definitely, luminous landscape did a head to head with the FF Canon and both the images and the conclusion of the writer basically said the same thing, it's close, with no real winner.<br /> <br /> This article "State-of-the-Art 35mm Digital vs.Medium Format Film" was published in another era (2002). It compared a Pentax 67 scanned with an Imacon with a Canon EOS 1Ds. The latter was an 11 MP full frame camera. The P67 did not come out of this comparison very well. Since then Canon, Nikon and Sony have introduced full frame DSLRs that exceed 20 MP.<br /> <br /> > I don't know if the D3X broke this barrier but again, for the cost, it is probably close. When you consider the alternative "step up" in IQ from $8000 Nikon D3X to a $10,000-$40000 medium format system, MF film still is quite relevant in this day and age.<br /> <br /> The Nikon D3X is a very expensive camera and from the perspective of price it is not representative of this sector of the market, particularly when compared to the image quality on offer from the Canon 5D II (21 MP) and the Sony Alpha 900 (25 MP). Both these cameras are below $3000.<br /> <br /> > you have to 'waste' a chunk of pixels to get a MF shaped format, so my evaluation if the FF will NOT yet replace MF film other than in theory.<br /> <br /> Medium format cameras (that use 120 film) are available in 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17, so you can take your pick. 6x9 is more or less the same 'shape' as 35 mm. I use most of these formats and scan on an Imacon Flextight 949 - this is just below the drum scanners in quality. I have been comparing these options with the above mentioned full frame 20+ MP cameras.<br /> <br /> Looking at the Pentax 67, I can scan to approximately 9,333x8,000 pixels - looks impressive at first sight. If I take a Canon 5D II it is only 5,616x3,755. The 5D II makes quite clean files up to ISO 800 or even 1600. This means that unlike film it can be doubled in size for fine art work, taking us to 11,232x7,488. It is also possible for less critical work, but still of excellent quality (e.g. ink jet on canvas) to multiply by 2.5 - 14,040x9,360.<br /> <br /> This is not theory. People are doing this and making very high quality prints. I also make high quality prints with my Pentax 6x7, but unfortunately they are not better than those made with the latest DSLRs above 16 MP and probably not much better than with a really good K20D file. I will try this out of curiosity and report the results.<br>

Anyhow I am really looking forward to the new Pentax MF digital camera and just hope it is compatible with the Pentax MF film camera lenses. </p>

<p>I had one of the last GW690 IIIs to be produced. I was always happy with it. Most of the results went to stock and I rarely made prints, but coincidentally one of my customers has a 40 inch wide print he made from one of my Velvia transparancies. I have never bothered to look at it that closely, but today from a distance of about 8 inches I noted that 39 inches of the width of that print are perfect (most detail is in the middle). Half an inch at each side was a little soft - perfectly normal I suppose. I suspect there was considerable variation from lens to lens. The first GW690 III I received went back immediately. It had a 2 mm diameter air bubble in the middle of the lens! </p>

<p>Apart from its intended use a hood will protect from accidental damage, especially if like me you almost never use a filter.</p>

Even if you achieve perfection you will be reducing about 60 MP of data to 14 MP. Also the format will not quite match. I tried this with the istD when it first came out. Issues I can remember are:

 

The quality of the lens. You may need a special copying lens; a macro lens may not be good enough.

The evenness of the light source - flash is probably best.

Contrast is a big issue.

Dirt on the original (this is a problem with scanning as well).

 

If you process RAW you may be able to minimize some of the problems.

 

My advice would be don't waste any time on this route, but find a good company to scan your best material. Drum scanning may be too expensive, but good quality CCD scanners are fast and produce quality acceptable for stock use. Incidentally that good company need not be local. There are a number of good scanning companies in India for example. You could minimize the risk by sending a few at a time. I used to send my 6x7s from Europe to Mexico for scanning, although now I do use a local company here in the Netherlands (www.dia-scan.nl).

 

If you really want to pursue the K20D route then you could look at the Bowens Illuminitran. I have seen these on sale for $50 (probably a lot less than the Pentax adapter). You get a controlled and very even flash light source and a very neat way of reducing contrast. You would need to check that the K20D will fit though.

> Has anyone tried using an extension tube to cut down the 10 meter focusing issue.

 

I have used the extension tubes with the bayonet mounted 500 mm. The helicoid extension is more convenient though. I will see if I can take a few images in the coming days and measure the closest I can get with the various ring combinations.

 

> With the anti-shake function I can hand hold it.

 

What I meant by this is that it is possible to hand hold this lens and obtain acceptable results. I do not do it regularly and it is not a pleasant experience, but it can be useful. As Douglas says it is really not a heavy lens; it is its length that makes it a bit difficult to handle; and you can hike with it. Dave - those river landscapes were taken using a very heavy tripod. Sitting for a couple of hours waiting for the perfect light while handholding this lens is not something I would care to do!

 

I have dug out a couple of my river landscapes and have taken a few new hand held images. I will see if I can make these available along with the tube results in the next few days.

I have a Pentax to EOS adapter for Pentax M42 screw mount lenses. I did not know it was possible for the bayonet lenses (without damaging them). I have used this lens on a K100D super. It is quite good and and reasonably sharp. With the anti-shake function I can hand hold it. I have not used it much and mainly in rather extreme conditions (storms over rivers) where color rendition was not an issue due to the rather monochrome conditions. I use it for landscapes and I suppose trying to focus manually on moving subjects would be difficult.

What exactly is supposed to happen with the 283? I have been using one with 5 Pentax cameras (inc *ist D and K100D super) for years without noticing anything. Admittedly I don't use flash that much. Searching for this flash unit on other Pentax forums indicates than other people are using it.

The following spring to mind:

 

1. Professional photographers need to be able to differentiate themselves from the rest.

 

2. Such a large file can be heavily cropped and still yield a high quality full page image.

 

3. Landscape photographers (for example) could make large-scale prints of high quality.

 

4. Large prints of very high quality can be made for exhibitions, trade shows etc.

 

50 MP is not particularly large when compared to scans made from slides made with medium and large format cameras.

Personally I'm hoping Pentax do eventually reach 28-24 MB full frame. Not so long ago the Pentax 6x7 was a

standard camera for many professionals.

Have you looked at the photos in this review - they are quite dreadful. Either the guy has no idea about photography or he is trying to make the camera look like a very poor performer. The weather conditions and time of day could not have been worse. I looked at 205, 178 and 231. Nothing appears to be sharp, there is little resolution of detail (231) etc. etc.

 

Unfortunately I suspect that most people who are not familiar with Pentax will look at the images first and never bother to read the text.

Steve - I have now tested the Pentax 67 45, 55, 75, 90, 135 and 200 mm lenses on a K100D super and contrary to my comments above, which related to the istD, I could not fault any of them, except perhaps the 135 mm (not even certain about that). Some of the photos were as sharp as anything I have seen on a digital camera.

 

I particularly remember the images I took with the 55 mm and the istD - severe flare and what I thought were internal reflections. The only flare I could achieve with the 55 mm yesterday was with a low sum in the image and even that was not excessive. I have no idea what could have caused the difference.

 

It is much easier to show these images than describe them so I will set up a website. I was planing to do this sometime anyhow.

Hi Steve - I have almost a full set of P67 lenses (except the zooms) and have been using Pentax digital cameras since the first weeks of the one with the silly name (* ist D or something similar). I agree almost completely with Brad's sales person - a rare thing these days.

 

From what I can remember the 45 mm was excellent and the 55 mm useless. The 75 mm was so-so, 90 mm not tried, 135 mm useless, 200 mm just about ok. The 400 mm can't remember and the 600 mm was disappointing. The 45 mm does make a very entertaining lens on a little 6 MP camera.

 

I skipped the K10D, but while waiting for the K20D I purchased a K100D super. This is superb with the old 35 mm lenses. I can hand hold the 500/4 with anti-shake on and get excellent results. The 300/4 is brilliant. I expect hand holding the P67 600/4 may also be possible (for very brief periods!)

 

In time I will try all the P67 lenses on the K100D super and the K20D for you and report back - it could be that I will revise the statements above as I have a lot more digital experience now. I am rather busy at the moment so if you give me a priority list that would be a help - sorry can't help with your beloved zooms though!

Try posting this in the Medium Format section, you may find more P67 owners there.

Robert - I have never been satisfied with scans of medium format slides made with anything less than a drum scanner or an Imacon. After years of not being satisfied with pro-lab scans I eventually purchased my own Imacon. This worked reasonably well, but it took me a long time to learn to scan well and even then scanning (and cleaning) was simply too time consuming for me. (I took a lot of MF slides in that period). Eventually I sold the Imacon and found a specialist company that did do it well. I now use the European based <a href="http://www.dia-scan.nl">Dia-scan</a>. There must be some companies in the US doing this as well and if you just need good quality scans for the web that should not cost very much. Try shopping around locally.

> is it very limited in use because of the "fish-eye" effect?

 

This is personal, but unless you have a specific reason for using a fish-eye lens I suggest you hire one for a few days and decide whether it suits your style. (If you can't hire a Pentax then hire a Canon or Nikon body with the type of fish-eye lens that you think you might need). I did this and decided I could do without one. Then some years later I did purchase a rectilinear fish-eye lens and have used it twice in about 3 years.

Two other differences that are very important to me, but will be less so to most people are that the 110D is 20 g heavier and it does not have an IR remote. I use the IR feature to trigger the camera by radio control at distances up to 300 m.

I use a 14MP digital camera and a P67. In my opinion a good scan from a good P67 slide made on a top quality scanner provides a digital image that is an order of magnitude better than the digital equivalent. It is also an order of magnitude more expensive of course.

I'm not sure where you are, but if it helps I have my Pentax 6x7 stuff (and 6x9) scanned by <a href="http://www.dia-scan.nl/index_gb.html">Dia-scan</a>. They work internationally and do a good job. They are aware of the cleanliness requirements for stock, but if you wish you can keep costs down by doing the digital cleaning yourself.

This is from Feb 2007. So perhaps?

<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/21/pentax-busts-out-hasselbladian-31-6-megapixel-645-digital/">Pentax 645 digital</a>

When looking at my local camera shop website I came across the following:

 

<a href="http://www.fotokonijnenberg.nl/product_list.php?idc=1749">Pentax 645 digital</a>

 

Curiously is is placed in DSLRs rather that medium format digital. At first I thought it might be old but 30 MP, I'm not so sure!

I think it is just old pricing never removed from site. In the early days I paid well over $2500 for this camera in Europe. I did earn the $2500 back withing a week though using that camera. Sold it for $500 last year and may well regret that. Now I have used several other DSLRs (up to 14MP) that have all been inferior cameras I am also wondering if the ist-D may eventually become a collectors item. It was certainly one of the most underrated cameras ever made. It had one dreadful weakness - its name. I could never tell anyone what a good camera it was because I could not remember what it was called and the few times I could remember, the conversation ended abruptly at that point.