Silent Street

The 1989-onward Pentax 67 had several notable engineering improvements, specifically in the winding mechanism, mirror damping, transport, film counter and shutter balance. This is the camera I recommend people look for rather than the often bashed and belted Pentax 6x7 (from 1969) which frequently turns up with age-related faults. These cameras also would have been used in quite heavy professional applications, with the winding mechanism over-represented in fault presentation. No complaints about the 104mm, though its' not one I took too, going instead for the 75mm f2.8AL. The 55mm f4 is a stellar performer, well known for its uniform sharpness, and is matched by its wider stablemate, the 45mm f4. It is optically superior to the earlier Takumar f3.5; both lenses, with a polariser in place, can be irksome to focus accurately with the standard coarse Pentax 67 / 6x7 focusing screen. This is where a right-angle viewing attachment can be mightily helpful. The meter has a 5 stop range (+/- 2.5) and is quite good with exposure, but will require more care with slide film. Metering is down to 1 second only, so you will need to be versed in using a handheld spot/multispot/duplex/incident meter to stand-in where the camera leaves off. MLU is most commonly employed to separate shutter inertia and mirror slap, both of which are pronounced in the Pentax 6x7 / 67 cameras, and this feature is used right across the lens f/length range with a tripod to guarantee absolute sharpness and freedom from blur, which is not visible in 6x4" postcard prints, but will be disturbing when the negative is enlarged to more than a meter (as I commonly do). See the item I wrote in Pentaxforums.com regarding the safe removal and reinstallation of the P67 TTL prism to avoid breakage to the meter coupling chain. This does not render the camera inoperable, but will require stop-down metering until the chain can be repaired, often now with jewellery/beading wire. Note that the lens mount will require collimation for precise focus after reassembly. I do not consider this a DIY task, not even going so far to recommend YouTube videos. Eric Henderson at pentaxs.com can repair the chain. Keep the shutter speed dial to B or X when the camera is not in use; it is known that leaving the shutter cocked and the shutter speed dial on a marked setting can result in derangement of speeds.

Either/both. Depends on what film you are using; I spoke from the viewpoint of transparency film rather than negative, where an arbitrary EI can be applied without undue worry to the end result. With transparency film, my long-term practice is to err on the side of underexposure, as highlights are unrecoverable if overexposed. That said, establishing the correct EI for sequential multiple exposures is one of experimentation and analysis (= experience!), again, especially critical with transparency film. I still make errors with MEX, especially when light is changing or fading (twilight, for instance). Flat to overcast light across all exposures will benefit from a slightly higher multiple EI; bright light over multiple exposures goes the other way, pulling back the exposure, though flaring is likely; it's not really a good idea to stack many multiple exposure frames shot in very bright light unless there is some overriding artistic/abstract effect desired.

Prices will vary by market; what happens in the US may not be replicated in the Asia/Pacific/Oceania region, or they may be smaller or incremental. This has been seen with the release of E100 earlier on when prices were unreasonably high coming onto the market, before settling at much more realistic prices. I am not all that convinced there is "increased demand" for, particularly, Kodak's products as opposed to Ilford and Fuji, from where I am in Australia. Granted, it's a smaller market, but there are worrying signs that the initial interest expressed about E100 (in 35mm) has waned considerably. No great uptake has been reported from known dealers with the 120 format E2100. Jesus. Photrio is absolute garbage.

A much simpler method is to simply multiply the film speed (which is in 0.3 stops) by the number of multiple exposures, with no other adjustment required. This has been my method for 40+ years!! Example, 3 exposures: film speed of 50 * 3 = EI125 —> This is the new speed setting to put on the ISO dial. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LAST EXPOSURE, REMEMBER TO RESET THE ISO DIAL TO THE BASE ISO OF THE FILM (IN THIS EXAMPLE, ISO 50). Additionally, unless you have some specific abstract intention in mind, any time you are involved with multiple exposure, the camera should be mounted on a tripod and not moved at all from one exposure to the next, save for any desired / intentional adjustment to focus, f/length or aperture. Slide film can be used this way too, however you will need to make generally narrow adjustments to cater for its shorter latitude (tolerance for over- and -underexposure) compared to the more generous chacteristics of negative film, be it colour or B&W.

It's been known to have failure of shutter after heavy use, and as with any Canon SLR (1, 1N, 1V, and variants) it should be tested for any sign of emergent problems. The RS is realtime system. I would get rid of the consumer grade EF lens stuck on the front and go for an L-series lens, which is better matched for speed and focus precision metrics with the pro bodies. My EOS 1N is still in service; bought in 2004 for what was then a king's ransom, then added to with the best of the L-series primes and TS-E lenses.

Humidity damage can also cause this mottling. Backing paper issues require specific and prolonged circumstances to impart an affect, unless you are talking about Kodak's infamous run-in with their TMax films and backing paper from a few years back.

Moiré; a pattern on the film that can interfere with the scanner sensor. One set is from scanning negative film; the other is from scanning transparency film, and I suspect they are not making the specific adjustments to the scanner for each different film type requiring a change in settings. Also ensure that Ektachrome is not frozen before use, and if refrigerated, it is allowed to reach room temperature over a few hours.

Optical printing is today by and by the preserve of home hobbyists or photographers aligned with fine art labs with highly customised workflows requiring traditional darkroom print production. For colour work, RA-4 is predominantly digital in production today. RA-4 machines (Lambda, Lightjet, Pegasus, others...) are costly and messy machines to maintain and eventually these dinosaurs will fade to black as parts cease to be available. Takeaway = use them while they are here! You need to have a very high knowledgebase to obtain the very best from scanning negatives and/or printing RA-4, or indeed the (defunct) Ilfochrome Classic (all-analogue) process; you cannot walk into a lab and say "process, scan and print lovely pics of this please..." You will likely end up with something that does not meet your expectations. But how can it when the lab doesn't know what you want? Your full brief will include which pic (to scan), the profile, colourimetrics, print output (RA-4 or giclée -- B&W or colour), print profiling, finished size and the media type; if you do not specify this, the lab usually uses its "cheap and handy" defaults, and this is where problems can start. A full-service pro-level lab will ask questions (you will be expected to know the answers e.g. what exactly you want) and it unforunately won't be cheap. A lab offering bespoke darkroom printing service will likely even be more expensive, as you are paying for the printer's time and skills. ' To take a line from Bob Dylan, 'times they are a-changing', and the Canon T70 you mentioned was a bit of a hit 35 years ago...

Out of this world...:D

I have been a user of Canon's 17-40 f4L lens since 2003 and swear by it, as I do for all of the L-series lenses (8 in total). These ultrawide lenses need to be used with care in composition. These ultrawide lenses are not rectilinear: point them up and you will have converging verticals coming into the frame. You will also need very strong foreground 'anchors' for the images to avoid everything looking tiny and far away. I don't know what is driving the thought of consideration for another camera. Lenswork is far, far more important. I don't know what constitutes "crisp" in real estate photography, the vast majority of which I see locally having been extensively Fauxtoshopped and retouched e.g. blue skies are a must (row upon row upon row of photographs), definitely not overcast or rainy (see that wet road and the driveway? So, about that bright blue sky...)

Canon engineer: "That's not a bug. That's a feature!"... I had a tiny crawling insect in my long-ago disposed of EOS 5 that resisted all attempts at removal, hiding in the far inaccessible reaches of the prism after the focusing screen was removed. The camera was set aside for a few months while I got ownership of an EOS 1N under way. When I went to get the EOS 5 out, there were hundreds of bugs!! It was sold for parts. (The bug and proliferation was not the sole and only problem afflicting that camera: broken rear cover latch, control dial and lens release all had to be replaced, then the display drivers, the cost of which well exceeded the net value of the camera). I think your camera should be sent in for professional servicing. The bugs can leave detritus that will eventually stain, if not etch, into the glass or plastic of the focusing screen or masks. If it's a silverfish, get it out quickly.

Any partial or full scrambling, illegibility of either the external or internal LCD displays can often be traced to a fault in the display driver circuit. This is common across the EOS range, and particularly bad with the EOS 5 models. An EOS 5 that I serviced in 1994 had extensive corrosion in the vicinity and on the display driver circuit. It was repaired, but a sequalae of unrelated and compound problems consigned the camera to trash. The camera at the time was only 3 months old. Returning the camera to the seller for a refund is fine, but otherwise if you are keeping it, I recommend that you have the camera professionally examined at a service facility (not necessarily Canon's). It may not be possible to repair an advanced fault as parts for early and discontinued EOS bodies are difficult to source, save from like-bodies. Corrosion of the EOS 1 was is also known to be more problematic than the following 1N with better its weather-resistant sealing around the body (by way of mention, the next-gen 1V took this several levels higher in thoroughness). The EOS 1 was very basic compared to the improvements that came out with the later EOS 1N in 1994, and which even today makes the camera a reasonable investment, but being so electronic-centric, one must always keep in mind the possibility of fault or failure somewhere along the line of ownership. Heavily used and abused specimens should, as a rule, be avoided.

Laser-etched. Nothing drawn on (nor should it be!) or cut on. Beattie screens were extremely troublesome in a few cameras years ago, particularly the EOS 1N. Metering errors in the over- range were very common and tended to blunt the benefits the screens provided in extra brightness. If there is poor accuity in the central area of the screen, you should carefully check the seating of the screen. Just a very tiny amount of misalignment can give BIG problems with precision focusing.

In real world practice, especially for professionals, one does not use both a lens cap and a lens hood; one or the other, but not both. If it was me, I would throw away the cap and keep the hood, because that is the more useful 'accessory'. Failing all else, get a genuine Hassie lens cap from KEH or some place else.

Parts ceased to be available in 1994, and residual inventory was long gone by 1998, so yes, scavenging parts from a like-camera is the only way to go. B (Bulb) is a "dead zone" for the Pentax 6x7 / 67 camera. When Bulb is in actual use, that is when the camera is draining power from the battery (a modification exists to enable either/both cameras to be operated independent of a battery so it can be used for astrophotography over very long periods of time). In places on the internet I have read of people picking up the Pentax 6x7 / 67 and dropping it onto a hard surface, several times, and then declaring "it's fixed now!" regarding the sticky mirror solenoid. I guess every village has an idiot...o_O

Unopened, unexposed film (120) in left pocket of trousers, exposed, marked and wrapped film (in tin foil) in right pocket. Ongoing rolls in a small compartment in the camera bag. I often work away a short distance from my bag and historically having to go back and forth to it for a roll or two of film has been my Achilles.

This is really only a temporary fix. This does not solve the problem where age and wear are very usually the problem that can only really be remedied with full replacement of the parts giving trouble. This is particularly true with the very old Pentax 6x7 camera from c. 1969 which have seen heavy professional use in the distant past and must be expected to develop age-related faults over time. A more reliable fix is usually done by taking like-parts from another body (with such parts extensively cleaned and tested) and assembled. This however introduces a continuous cycle of redundancy and reliability because mint/new parts have long ceased to be available. Shutter speed anomalies can also be related to the switch board under the shutter speed dial e.g. dirt or the accumulation of corrosion (very common!). Remedial action is disassembly and thorough cleaning with an electronic solvent. FYI, never store any of the Pentax 6x7 or 67 cameras with the shutter speed on any marked speed: store it on B only. Similarly, the camera should not be left over a long period of time in a cocked state, as this too will effect shutter accuracy.

The perceived wear from extensive changing of backs does not always hold true. Backs are often stored loose in bags and trunks where they come into contact with e.g. lenses, flashes, additional bodies and accessories. It is not, in the strictest sense, any indication of the number of times the back has been changed. Do the vast majority of professional users, this wear is of no consequence whatsoever. What should be given more scrutiny and weight is with Hasselblad's lenses, particularly since a few have turned up obviously dropped heavily with resulting problems with operability (focusing and shutter activation). Badly worn, scratched, abraded and generally traumatised lenses are a very big red flag to many users on the used-equipment market. Hassie bodies and backs on the other hand keep going on and on and on...

Don't let yourself be too influenced by what you are viewing on a computer screen. Who is to tell how much an image has been altered/improved/modified or otherwise contrived from its original conception? How old are RB lenses? Decades old. And which ones are you referring to specifically? You cannot paint them all with the one and same brush. That said, how well the equipment performs also comes down to how well you know your lenswork. The Pentax 67 (this refers to the 1990-era releases designated SMC Pentax 67, lenses maintain a somewhat dated internal structure (time-proven Distagon and Biogon) but add a number of snazzy (and expensive!) flourishes in the updates in the opening years of the 1990s. ED glass in the 400mm SMC Pentax lens and double aspherical elements in the 75mm f2.8AL are but two stand-out examples -- , both pretty much the priciest and most sought after in the Pentax 67 stable. Both these lenses mentioned have beautiful contrast and astonishing clarity, but you do pay for this and many people cannot justify the expense when there are comparable lenses e.g. the 75mm f4.5 and 75mm shift lenses, though heavy and dated even by recent release standards. The lovely 75AL has a feathertouch, spring-loaded aperture dial, precise focus and aperture blades that must be seen to be appreciated -- a perfect circle. Old Pentax Takumars are not on the table as a recommendation.

Imaginary. Not a chance at all of that happening. The format is simply too small.

For just an occasional hobbyist user, it makes no sense to invest in a digital back for Hasselblad, which will not be cheap and not pay itself off unless you are producing work for sale to provide some sort of recompense over the investment. Continue shooting film if you are not using the camera day in, day out.

Circular (bullseye) levels have never been effective or accurate as levelling aids and it is unfortunate so many photographers come to rely blithely on these simple and difficult little things for assumed accuracy. The best ones are, as always, the line levels, either singular or bidirectional. Hot shoe levels are often in error because of the offset of the mounting plate attaching the camera to the tripod head which gives a misleading baseline "level". Most professional tripod heads e.g. Manfrotto have more than one line level (which are also replaceable) and are visible in vertical and horizontal orientations e.g. the Mg medium format levels with large rectangular QR plates. Third party line levels can be purchased from camera stores and attached to the flat and smooth sides of the tripod head (in the absence of native levels) with thin double sided tape. When doing this you must first ascertain absolute level with something of known precision e.g. a builder's multilevel or a multi-sensor tool app for your phone which makes advantage of the sensors within the device to provide a visual reference of precise level. Though rare, the Pentax 67 can take a grid/microprism focusing screen which will be a boon for visual levelling. However, it is not really a DIY job, with the screen requiring collimation for focusing accuracy in three places at the centre and precise adjustment using the shim screws.

Save yourself a lot of trouble and angst with what is essentially an old-school camera hobbled by equally old-school sync speed! Invest in one of the Pentax 67 leaf shutter lenses (but thoroughly check operation before purchasing, particularly the LS blades: both lenses require specific storage protocol to be followed to prevent weakness of the blades under tension), either 90mm f2.8LS or 165mm f4LS. In active use with LS in operation, the FP (camera) shutter must be set to 1/8 second (do not be concerned about when using an LS lens in LS mode), while the leaf shutter speed can be set anywhere on marked speeds from 1/60 to 1/500. A strobe/sync is attached to a cold shoe in the optional handgrip (left hand side), or held off-camera by other means. During LS use, the strobe or flash cord is connected to the X-sync socket on the LS lens in use, not the camera. Effectively, an LS lens bypasses the tedious camera shutter for all but it's native sync speed. In the absence of an LS lens, the default position is, as you have noted, a very unsatisfactory 1/30s sync speed and no more than that. It is very difficult (and always has been) to get around this without looking at supplementary lighting. When using strobes and flash, a separate hand held flashmeter/incident (or multispot) meter is essential to arrive at the best balance of ambient and flash exposure. Be it noted that using an LS lens bypasses the TTL meter of the camera, hence further reinforcement of the use of a hand-held meter. [ User of SMC-P 67 90 2.8 and 165LS lenses ]

Derangement of shutter speeds is common with the older first to third generation Pentax 6x7 cameras; there were small engineering improvements to the circuit under the shutter speed dial in the 1989-release Pentax 67. When not used the shutter speed dial should be set to B and, if and where fitted, the mirror lock-up taped over to prevent accidental activation (which will flatten the battery). Setting the dial to bulb does not use any power until such time as mirror lock-up is activated. The problem is not rare with the Pentax 6x7, and can be accompanied by shutter drag; I have seen about 30 such examples since the early 2000s, and most of those have come about through neglect rather than misadventure. I would also be confident in saying the seller would have been aware of this as an existing problem and thus you do have grounds for returning the camera for a refund unless you go the (potentially) expensive route of repairs. In many cases, repairs can be more than the net worth of these cameras and in also go into a cycle of continuous redundancy and unreliability as parts are taken from other cameras (new parts have long ago ceased to be available).

There are a lot of things to come to grips with, and to understand with the Pentax 67. Has the focusing screen been removed at some time? When this has been done, the screen must be calibrated in three places around the central spot for focus at near and far distances. ? Possible broken meter coupling chain If the meter coupling chain has been repaired (breakage is common and requires disassembly of the front of the camera for access) , both the lens mount flange and the focusing screen will then require joint calibration with a collimator, again for accuracy of focus. Regarding this last item, read this sticky I prepared on the pentaxforums.com site re prevention of breaking the meter coupling chain: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/58-troubleshooting-beginner-help/372838-advisory-pentax-6x7-67-meter-coupling-chain-ttl-meter-prism.html The 105mm f2.4 lens is reasonably robust, but should be also be checked independently of the camera for any misalignment that may have been occasioned through eg dropping.