Eye level finder for Pentax 6x7 which doesn't crop 10%?

[reddahlia24]

Hi! I work with a Pentax 6x7 and I’m looking for a way to compose without having to allow for the 10% crop that I experience with the eye level prism finder.. any advice or tips on alternative prisms welcome!

 

[Pieter12]

Does the focusing screen show 100%?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is no such thing available. You can use the deluxe chimney finder, which shows 100%, and has built-in diopter correction; but you have to look down into that.

The prism is heavy enough already; a hypothetical full sized one would only add more weight.

 

[reddahlia24]

Does the focusing screen show 100%?

No..

 

[Pieter12]

No..

The I doubt any finder will ever show you more without major camera body and optical modifications.

 

[OAPOli]

I believe the screen shows 100%. All the prisms (there are a few versions) show 90%, the chimney and folding waist level finders show 100%.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, all the screens themselves show 100%; but only the folding hood and tall chimney finder allow you to see that whole area.

 

[reddahlia24]

There is no such thing available. You can use the deluxe chimney finder, which shows 100%, and has built-in diopter correction; but you have to look down into that.

The prism is heavy enough already; a hypothetical full sized one would only add more weight.

Thank you!

 

[Lachlan Young]

@reddahlia24 for a lot of things, the waist level finder is less trouble and a lot less bulky than the chimney finder (which is bigger than the prism, albeit much lighter).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Hi! I work with a Pentax 6x7 and I’m looking for a way to compose without having to allow for the 10% crop that I experience with the eye level prism finder.. any advice or tips on alternative prisms welcome!

Take two steps back. Compose. Take two steps forward. Shoot.

I'm betting that's what you already do, but just in case...

 

[DREW WILEY]

No harder than taking a selfie. Go to the rim of the Grand Canyon. Concentrate on the image in the finder. Take two steps forward, and it's all done - forever. The only difference with a selfie is that they take two steps backwards. Has this actually happened? Yep. Numerous times every year.

 

[guangong]

While not familiar with the camera (I toyed with one at camera store years ago when Pentax 67 first introduced and decided not for me), is it possible that prism finder shows area for 67 slides, as was common with many 35mm SLRs?
Remember the days when a customer could take camera out of store, walk around and try camera out firing shutter, etc To form an opinion before buying? The world was a different place.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not likely. I mounted a certain amount of 6X7 slides, but the use of medium format for projection purposes was relatively very small. I doubt the alleged slide-based cropping in 35mm cameras had anything to do with that either. But trying to reduce bulk and weight could be a significant marketing factor, especially when you compare the weight of a 6X7 SLR to that of a smaller 6X6 or 645 SLR's. Remove the prism from a P67, replace it with a folding finder, and it's remarkable how much less it weighs.

And yeah, stores were different back then. In this very neighborhood there was a shop which specialized in Pentax 6X7, along with telescopes; nothing else. The owner was himself a superb tele-photographer. He even had huge P67 800mm teles for sale there - pretty much everything P67 related. I think he even had the underwater housings in stock.

 

[OAPOli]

I think you'd need to increase the distance to the subject by 10% to see the correct framing in the VF. A bit more than two steps in many cases.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What if the subject is at infinity, on the other side of the Grand Canyon? Do you need to swim the River at the bottom, then swim and climb uphill back?

After awhile one simply gets used to the system. Even the crop lines in my 6X9 rangefinder show only 90% or so. Fine we me. If I've made a bit of an error in composition, I have a little wiggle room left over on the actual exposure itself. With the Pentax 6X7 prism, I got comfortable with that 45 years ago. No big deal.

 

[dave olson]

An alternative is to remove the eyepiece and focus as a waist level. That's 100%.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try vertical compositions with a waist level finder. Not realistic.

 

[Pieter12]

Most SLR prisms show less than the actual frame, plus most negative carriers and slide mounts crop anyway.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on what kind of neg carrier. I enlarge 6x7 and 6X9 negs using a professional 5x7 inch glass carrier, so everything is printable. Even 5x7 negs themselves can be projected including their borders, although I generally go up to 4x5 negs with that particular enlarger.

 

[Lachlan Young]

is it possible that prism finder shows area for 67 slides, as was common with many 35mm SLRs

Think neg carrier and presentation mask instead. The whole system gives a clear impression of having been initially conceived for turning out 8x10's. In that context, the 135 Macro's ratios make complete sense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentax advertised as much - getting the most out of the film as well as the paper due to a matched ratio : 6X7, the "ideal format". Of course, that was countered by the 6X6 camp, who didn't need to rotate the camera from horizontal to vertical, and preferred to crop. Then 6X9 got even more real estate out 120 film, and better matched the 2:3 proportion of 35mm film or a 5X7 print. And there were a hundred other reasons why a pro might prefer one system over another.

I often travel with both a P67 system and a 6X9 Fuji RF. I'm not locked into any single proportion ideology. It's more about practical logistics.