tony_cunningham

John,

Could you be a bit more explicit please. What adjustments can its software not do in 16-bit? Do you just scan in 16-bit and then do the adjustments in Photoshop in 16 bit. Thanks .......... Tony

Many thanks Ed, Robert, and Q.D. I did not formulate my question very clearly. I have a 16 bit scanner and do my adjustments in 16 bit with Photoshop before converting to 8 bit.

 

The problem was that someone asked me for advice about purchasing this particular scanner and I could not make out from the specs whether it really did scan in 16 bit or was jsut converting to 16 bit after scanning. The additional info was useful though, because I had not even worked out that A/D meant analog/digital!

Does anyone know if this MF scanner scans at 8 or 16 bit? The

literature states '16-bit A/D converter', but I have no idea what

that means. If it was a 16 bit scanner why would it have to convert

anything?

 

Thanks ......... Tony

As an Imacon user who has had to wait for more than two months for a spare part for the second time in a year, I can only hope that they they can improve the service. It certainly can't get any worse.

Pavel - I never said anything about it being a good option. I said:

"I use mine with P67 lenses with no problem."

It works - that's all. The results are not in any way comparable with 6x7 scanned with a good scanner - 17 MB compared to say 150 MB gives an idea.

 

Like it or not several of my customers are perfectly happy with the results for their brochures. It is the only Pentax digital option at present, but their commitment to digital for the future is encouraging.

Douglas - Nice one - what type of tripod do you use for the P67 in such low gravity situations?

 

Seriously, to answer Steve R's original question as far as landscapes and cityscapes are concerned. Anywhere I am living or travel to regularly. There I have the most chance of exceptional weather conditions, perfect light or something unusual. Steve, you commented to me not so long ago "You really have to live here to photograph in these mountains!". Same applies to Amsterdam, Paris or Death Valley etc.

I made the following statement in the above posting:

 

"Pentax already makes a digital back (ist D) that works with both 67 and 645 lenses. It is only 6 megapixel and produces a 17 MB 8 bit TIF file that would be acceptable to Corbis. I use mine with P67 lenses with no problem. It is a good camera and my only concern as an MF enthusiast is that the files it produces are too small, but they are acceptable for professional use!"

 

It is correct but misleading. A fellow forum member has pointed out that Corbis will only accept 17 MB 8 bit files for what they call editorial use. He commented:

 

"...in Corbis jargon, "editorial" means spot news and papparazi stuff. Everything else is considered "commercial" without regard for what it would be thought of in the rest of the industry."

 

Corbis requires 33MB UNINTERPOLATED. This may reduce to 31 MB in October, but in either case this is a big file and very much limits the choice of digital camera / back. It certainly excludes the 1st D.

Digital is making fast progress and it seems likely to me that most manufacturers will stop making film cameras / backs over the next 3 years. A few specialists will remain - like Cosina perhaps - because film does have some advantages. The stock library Corbis for example will only accept digital submissions from October of this year and are already expressing a preferance for images made with digital cameras on quality grounds. Images submitted from scanned film will have to be twice a big as digital.

 

Pentax already make a digital back (ist D) that works with both 67 and 645 lenses. It is only 6 megapixel and produces a 17 MB 8 bit TIF file that would be acceptable to Corbis. I use mine with P67 lenses with no problem. It is a good camera and my only concern as an MF enthusiast is that the files it produces are too small, but they are acceptable for professional use!

 

Pentax will further develop this line and I suppose that the next model or the one after that may well be the equivalent of 645 in image quality. If they are going to stick with MF they will also eventually produce a digital back for the 645.

Dave - I had a P67 105 mm lens with this problem. It was useless for color photography giving everything a yellow cast. I read subsequently that if you expose such a lens to strong sunlight for a while the color fades. I have not tried this though.

Yes, there is a ring that screws into an 80 mm thread in my Takumar 400. It will screw in very easily in either direction and I think this might be intentional. Inside this ring is a 77 mm thread, presumably for a filter. I have both 77 and 80 mm filters so I could remove the ring and screw an 80 mm filter directly into the lens I suppose?

Steve,

 

I have just bought a 400 Takumar. At first I thought it had a rear filter, but there is no glass in it. There is also no place for the glass to have been. It is just a threaded ring that appears to have no function. Any ideas?

Can anyone advise reliable sources for purchasing and processing 120

films (Velvia, Provias, 100G) in Las Vegas and Tucson. I'm flying

into Vegas from Europe in a couple of weeks and would like to avoid

the hassle of bringing film with me. Thanks ......... Tony C

Steve R - Would you expect these distortions to be a problem with the 55 mm? I have used the 45 mm and 75 mm f4 extensively for bridges and never noticed any distortion levels that worried me. The 55 mm always seems to get postiive reports. Reading Steve's initial questions again I noted that he has problems with group portraits. I use the 75 mm for this and never have a problem. I have done the occasional big group with the 45 mm and also never noticed anything that bothered me. I do find lenses in the 15 to 19 mm range for 35 mm give unacceptable distortion at the edges when photographing groups and for that reason would not purchase anything wider than the 45 mm for the P 67 if Pentax were to ever make a wider rectilinear lens.

Steve,

If you can take the photo from a higher location you won't need a shift lens. You need to have the camera level when you take the photo. Photoshop also allows you to correct for this distortion.

 

Another technique that I use a lot is to use the 45 mm and compose in portrait (vertically) with the subject at the top and cut off (not literally) the bottom of the photo. By doing this I effectively end up with a 6x4.5 cm usable negative, but it is a lot cheaper and lighter than carrying a shift lens. You could also do this in landscape and keep the subject to the top of the picture and you end up with a panorama effect. The 75 mm shift is not really wide enough for my purposes.

Yaron,

You might not need either of theses lenses. On 35mm my standard lens is a 35mm and I also prefer the 75mm as a standard on my P67. If you like a slightly wider standard lens you have a choice of the 75 mm f2.8 or the older f4. I had the 105 mm, but only took one film with it in 8 years - noting wrong with it, as with 50 mm on 35 mm just a size I never use.

I purchased this camera the day after reading the Luminous Landscape review. It was the first review I could find that dared to be critical. I had admired the way he handled the 14n and had been waiting with interest to see what he would do to the Pentax. I interpreted his review as being very positive.

 

I am very happy with the camera. All the positive points mentioned on Luminous Landscape are correct in my opinion. Some of the criticisms are correct and some are overstated or at least a personal opinion.

 

THE POSITIVE POINTS FIRST:

 

Good build quality.

 

Switch for setting focus points to multi, variable, single / center.

 

Green button selects correct exposure settings even in Manual mode.

 

Handy AF button on the rear panel can separate autofocus function from shutter release.

 

Turn-on time is about 1 second - as fast an any digital body.

 

Three separate combinations of custom functions.

 

Matrix metering exceptionally accurate even in back-lit situations.

 

Multipoint auto-focus very quick and accurate.

 

Image quality is good. It only starts to drop a little behind the Canon 10D at ISO 800 and above.

 

The 18-35 is a great consumer lens - a little distortion at 18 mm, but it costs about $100 and comes with hood that allows polariser rotation. Excellent performance with strong backlight.

 

Images on the web have indicated the camera's images are "soft". Pentax has avoided over-sharpening images in the camera. When sharpened in Photoshop they are fine.

 

That's not a bad start!

 

NOW THE MAIN NEGATIVE POINTS:

 

The name. Not an issue for the user, but it is just plain stupid. The main loser is Pentax. "So which digital camera did you choose?" "The Pentax, you know the one without a name." I have had this conversation several times in the last month and within seconds we are talking about the Canon and Nikon offerings. The conversation never returns to Pentax. My dealer calls it the 'Nameless'.

 

Its small size - this is a Pentax feature like it or not. Pentax has made 'edgy' cameras for years. Take the LX 35 mm body - 'Nameless' is 2.5 cm (1 inch) deeper from front to back than the LX. It is also 0.5 cm higher than the LX and it weighs 70 g more than the LX. It is 1.5 cm narrower than the LX and if they had just added that 1.5 cm on the left hand side, everyone would have said "Wow it fits so comfortably in the hand." 'Nameless' is noticeably lighter than the Canon 10D.

 

The joystick button is too small.

 

The battery issue discussed by Luminous Landscape is a non-event as far as I am concerned. I get two days continuous use out of 8 year old NiCd rechargables with 5 sec image review, but no flash. How many photographers don't have rechargeable batteries these days? If you are going somewhere where there is no electricity you can always take the special CR-V3s that do about 1000 pics.

 

�It is virtually impossible to get the CF card out of its slot� - it is a bit fiddly, that's all.

 

No histogram display possible during post-exposure image review. I don't find it a problem to use the one available on playback.

 

The camera does not have a flashing overexposure warning on the image review screen. Canon has this on some of its video cameras and also on the 10D - very nice, but I can live without it.

 

So the above are the main negative points on the review. Again I agree with them all (except battery), but they are really not serious for me.

 

I DO HAVE SOME ISSUES GLOSSED OVER OR OMITTED BY LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE:

 

There is a projection at the top front of the camera where the flash is. This gets in the way of the tripod foot on an old 300 mm lens I have. I can get around it but it is a real pain. I don't know if this could be a problem for other lenses.

 

The software for converting RAWs is a joke and here Luminous Landscape lets Pentax off very lightly. I would expect better if I bought a toy digital camera for a 10 year old. You have to carry out photo manipulation on a smaller than 1/4 screen window that cannot be expanded. The files exported are set at 72 dpi !!! Great for the web site builders, but you can buy a $200 camera for that.

 

You can take TIFs directly on the camera, I don't think this is possible with the 10D, and this saves messing with the above disaster, but the review time becomes uncomfortably long and magnifying the photo becomes impractical.

 

The review time is longer the longer the exposure time (shutter speed) for a photo. This is very noticeable with direct TIFs. I'm not sure if this is normal with other digital backs?

 

The battery holder appears to reduce the capacity of the batteries. You can take 450 pictures with 4 NiMH rechargables and no battery holder, but according to the manual if you switch to 8 with the battery holder it drops 400 photos. I can hardly believe this is true. Perhaps it means you get an extra 400 and there has been a mix-up in the translation.

 

So it is early days, but I think 'Nameless' will make a name for itself in spite of the Pentax marketing department. As for the Luminous Landscape conclusions, they are probably a bit harsh, but 'hit a base run' is a bit like the name of the camera - meaningless - unless perhaps you happen to live in North America.

 

I used to purchase Velvia from a lab where they tested each batch of film. The results as far as I can remember:

 

Iso 50: 10%

Iso 40: 70%

Iso 32: 20%

 

I suppose these films were manufactured in Europe so it might differ in your area. Whatever camera or lens I use I meter at ISO 40 and also bracket at +1/2. If it is a really critical shot I bracket at -1/2, 0, +1/2 and +1.

Thanks for all your responses. I have looked at this again more carefully and with more lenses.

5 P67 lenses with P67 adapter are perfect on the LX.

 

With screw to K adapter on LX:

20mm f4.5 screw mount focuses between 2 inches and 9 feet (the close-up options are quite interesting!)

55mm f1.8 screw mount focuses to infinity.

100mm f4 macro screw mount focuses very close to infinity, just a fraction off (no problem for this lens I suppose).

120mm f2.8 screw mount focuses very very close to infinity but not quite.

300mm f4 screw mount gets very very close to infinity and as I can't see much more that half a mile away from my house this lens may well be focusing to infinity.

 

The adapter fits fine and seems to drop in slightly deeper than the outer surface of the bayonet mount. I think the only serious problem is the 20mm f4.5 and I am now wondering if very wide lenses might not work with this adapter. None of you seem to have gone wider than 35mm.

 

Yes - my next action will be to take a few films with the various combinations, but with the Pentax bayonet lens and the P67 lenses appearing to focus so acurately I think the LX is OK. I could always buy a Spotmatic for these lenses, I bought the LX mainly as a backup body for my P67 system anyhow, but it is a very nice camera.

I have just purchased an LX with a 50mm f2 lens that appears to be in

very good condition and seems to work fine. It has the standard prism

and the standard matt screen with the split circle. It focuses to

infinity. Over recent months I have also purchased 5 Pentax screw-

mount lenses from 20 to 300mm. All appear to be in excellent

condition and the 20mm looks unused. I also have a Pentax made K to

screw adapter that appears to never have been used.

 

The adapter fits easily into the LX and all the lenses screw easily

into the adapter. The problem is that not one of them will focus to

infinity. The worst is the 20mm which is clearly way out. The others

are out on infinity by varying degrees. In practice, stopped down

this may be of little practical significance, but it clearly states

in the LX manual that these lenses should focus to infinity with this

adapter.

 

Anyone got any idea what is going on? Is this normal?

 

I also have the P67 adapter and the P67 lens I have tried focusses

perfectly to infinity. Thanks in advance for any help.

Paul - Many thanks for your very helpful reply. For me that spells compatibility, especially considering the differences between the original P67 design and the *ist D. Exposure compensation and auto-bracketing are bonuses I was not expecting.

 

I am curious as to why you suggest that a camera that only uses the centre portion of the image should give worse results than 35 mm? I would have expected the opposite. I have read that digital results with 35 mm lenses can be unpredictable and may not depend on the 35 mm performance of the lense, but I am straying off topic here. I expect that the chromatic aberation tendence with the P67 600 mm might be acentuated on the *ist D.

 

Jeff - I hade hoped that they might support this camera with a really good, purpose made 16-35 mm F2.8 zoom, but obviously I was not expecting that for $200!

Some Pentax users reports are filtering onto the Web as the camera becomes available. Elsewhere on photo.net I found:

 

"6x7 135/4 (with #3 tube) and 67 165/2.8 using 6x7->M42 and M42->K converters. Once again, with the lenses set to manual stop down metering in Av mode worked just fine."

 

Sounds worth giving it a try.

This issue has me totally confused. The only thing that stands out clearly is that if you want any useful info about Pentax cameras the last place to go is Pentax. Your Pentax man was not the only one who has made this comment and I think it is rubbish. Why advertise the *ist D as compatible with P67 if it is not? We are not talking about one lense anyhow, at least I have not seem a 20 to 1000 mm zoom advertised for this camera!

 

You might want at least one lense that fully matches the camera for convenience, lightweight and perhaps auto-focus etc, but I note that all the new lenses for the *ist D seem to be around f4 - pathetic. With the P67 we have quite a few faster options like the 75/f2.8, the 105 and even the 600 mm can manage f4 (for focussing convienience anyhow). Suppose you have the 600 mm f4 for the P67 system. This will be a 900 mm f4 on the *ist D. I can think of quite a few uses for a small digital back on a 900 mm lens - not every day, but a few times a year.

 

I sold my reserve P67 back after not having used it once in 8 years. I decided to get a Pentax 35 mm back with the adapter as an emergency reserve. Then I hit the current Pentax 35 mm compatibility problem that is detailed on B. Dimitrov's excellent site - www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ So the decision was to get a secondhand LX, but just as I started to look, the *ist D came into the picture. 6 MP seems far too small to me, but then so is 35 mm, and 6 MP will manage a full page if not a double page spread. All would not be lost if my P67 body was to fail.

 

Dimitrov covers the compatibility of all lenses with the *ist D in a comprehensive table - the trouble is I can't understand it. If any of you could have a look and explain in simple English what he is talking about and how this relates to P67 via the adapter I would appreciate it. He implies that the old Pentax screw threaded M42 lenses will be fine on Av (via adapter K). I suppose Av is aperture priority automatic? Someone else has also confirmed that this is the case. Dimitrov also says that all lenses mounted via a manual-diaphragm adapter will be ok on Av - is that the P67? Incidentally his review of the *ist D is quite positive.

 

But he also says that NO Pentax lenses of any kind work fully manually on the *ist D, except at full aperture - that sounds like some kind of a joke! Surely not. If I fix a P67 lense to a *ist D how can it stop me shutting down the aperture? And if it won't meter, does that matter? I use a spot meter mostly anyhow, but even that should not be necessary. If you take a digital photo you can see if it is incorrectly exposed and make the necessary adjustments on the spot surely. If you don't trust the screen you have the histogram and if you bracket either side of that how can you go wrong or am I missing something? This is no use for sports photographers of course, but for landscape, macro and studio it should be fine.

I use rice bags - home made cotton bags with rice in them.

I have a huge one that remains permanently in my vehicle,

a medium sized one and a really small one for putting in a jacket pocket when travelling. The latter just fits under the P67 body.

 

These are much better than any tripod and the total cost was about the sama as one Velvia film. Obviously they have one huge disadvantage - you must be able to find something to rest them on.

 

I use fence posts, lamp posts (pressing sideways), post boxes, park benches, parts of vehicles, tree stumps, waste buckets, rocks, walls, corners of of buildings etc. I can place the big one on one end on the ground where it stands about a foot high and I can lie behind it with a tele lens resting on top.

 

You will have to assess the potential number of resting places in advance, but it doesn't sound as if there will be many post boxes!

Hi Jeff,

I have been researching the same issue for a while. You might find these sites useful:

 

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/

 

and

 

http://www.concentric.net/~Smhalpin/BriefComments.html

 

I must say I am still very confused. There is now also the *ist D digital option.

I never had any problems handholding an old 6x7 (no mirror lock-up) with ISI 100 films in good light and shutter speeds above 1/60. I did not even own a tripod in those days. Looking back at those transparancies, they are mostly as sharp as those I take today with tripod and mirror-lock-up. The only compromise I had to make was depth-of-field. I carried the old 6x7 in my briefcase all over the world with the 45 amd 75mm lenses and a rice bag for poor light situations.

 

Nowadays I almost always use a tripod, but that has little to do with shutter shake and I also use a tripod for almost all my 35mm work. Incidentally I sometimes use a very light tripod for dawn and dusk photos. The technique is simple. Aim for a 10 to 20 sec exposure. Open the shutter with the lens covered and wait until all is stable. Uncover the lense for the exposure period and close the shutter. This does not work in all situations of course e.g. windy conditions, but dawn and dusk are often calm.