Pentax 67/Exposure compensation..

[Jer]

Hi all, would really appreciate some feedback here,

About a month ago I purchased a Pentax 67 MLU, and then a 105mm f2.4 and then a 55mm f3.5, to hopefully replace my F3. Originally I was hoping that switching from 35mm to 120 (and a 6x7 at that), would give me what i'm looking for exposure-wise, and in many ways it has. I really enjoy the expansiveness of the aspect ratio, and the sharpness I am able to achieve is unbelievable.

I'm noticing however, that with my style of photography- solely utilizing available light and often indoors, all while trying to quickly capture fleeting moments- this camera (or medium format in general) may not be the best fit. Along with that, even when shooting well-lit indoors (and even outdoors at times..?) with my Pentax loaded with Portra 800, i'm guaranteed to be subject to color shifts due to underexposure (i'm assuming), while my F3 would easily nail it. I have found that I am able to hand hold even down to 1/30th quite easily, but that seems to be of no avail.

So that all brings me to seek some advice:

Is there a way to compensate for the color shifts due low light exposures short of post-production, external lighting sources, or even using a tripod for longer shutter speeds? (asking a lot, I know). Could pushing in-development be a way to get around this? Worse yet, is this just something you can't even work around with such a large camera while hand-holding?

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE: any ideas for any alternatives? Lighter-weight medium formats? Smaller ratios?

Again, thank for reading and any help.

(I've attached some of the worst offenders below
Indoors were shot on Portra 800, outdoors were shot on Portra 400)

 

[Carter john]

I have a 6x7 and it is not a grab shot camera. I do use the metered prism and have found it fine, maybe yours is off. You could check it against your F3, and compensate with ISO change on the meter. For color problems with now led lighting, tungsten, or mixed I use ColorPerfect which has a high learning curve but once you learn how to scan and use ColorPerfect you will like the results.

Here is a good tutorial on scanning color film:

http://www.coltonallen.com/getting-the-most-from-color-negative-film-with-your-epson-flatbed/

 

[DREW WILEY]

First of all, don't underexpose the film. When in doubt, test in analogous lighting prior to any serious project. Second, you probably need corrective filters for artificial lighting. Today's miserable low-E light sources don't make life any easier in that respect. You're NOT likely to be able to post-correct certain things, so don't count on that. It's far easier in the long run to do your homework in advance and do any necessary color corrections during the shoot itself. This is nothing new - it's how it's
been done for decades. Often photographers had to bring in their own lights balanced to the film. With the P67 there's no compensating dial; you simply readjust your ASA if you want to use TTL metering. I prefer a handheld light meter; but what matters most is experience with your chosen meter. The P67 system isn't realistic handheld unless fast shutter speed are used. There's a simple alternative : it's called a good tripod. And I recommend mirror lock-up for any exposure longer than 1/60th. Don't get frustrated. There's a learning curve when you step up to a larger format. Spending some time to figure it all out will be well worth it. If you simply have to have something more automated, the Pentax 645 system would be appropriate,
and with an adapter, you can still use your P67 lenses. But there are real rewards learning how to manually control the
pertinent variables.

 

[wiltw]

Medium format is fundamentally NO DIFFERENT in terms of achieving 'proper exposure' than any 135 format camera. The ONLY difference is that medium format lenses have a smaller f/stop for it max aperture, so you have to use smaller apertures even with the lens 'wide open'. If you shot with your F3 using f/2 you might be stuck shooting with your Pentax at f/4, but shooting with f/5.6 is the same for both formats.

'Exposure compensation' merely uses the reading provided by the meter, but then adjusts that to give more (or less) exposure than what the meter initially would have suggested, it does NOT change the exposure needed to achieve 'proper exposure'.

 

[shutterfinger]

The ONLY difference is that medium format lenses have a smaller f/stop for it max aperture

With smaller apertures one must use slower shutter speeds to get the equivalent exposure obtained with a larger aperture opening. 1/125 @ f2 will be 1/60 @ f3.5 or 1/30 @ f5.6.
Many indoor shots require 1 to 1 1/2 stops more exposure than indicated due to light falloff from the source.
Get an 18% gray card and read the exposure off it and put it in the scene for test purposes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I am surprised you would freestyle the Pentax 67 without the assured, peace-of-mind stability of a tripod, used in conjunction with mirror lock up (though that is not always appropriate in spur-of-the-moment shots), to achieve the absolute best in imaging quality the camera is easily capable of. It is an awkward camera to freestyle efficiently, not particularly helped by its rudimentary provisions. Or it's shameless display of noise...

The P67 TTL meter has a 5 stop exposure range, so as a form of bare-bones exposure compensation, you may benefit from aligning the needle slightly above the mid-line (+0.5 or further up to +1.5) : bracketing a few same-scene shots with progressively more exposure doing this for a comparison (and take notes of this process as a concise frame-by-frame reference) . More reliably (with experience), is to adjust either the baseline shift, or the final metered value of your hand-held meter, to give a small overexposure 'key' (same amounts as previously mentioned) , especially if you are printing (e.g. by hybrid or wet means) and a stop or so of illumination will be lost. The images you have posted on this thread "look OK" to me, but then I am viewing them on a less-than-ideal (and hyper-saturated) Samsung S9, not a colourimetrically correct and balanced monitor in the studio (I am on-loc running metering workshops interstate)! I don't see anything wrong with your Portra choices either.

A leaf shutter lens would not provide any tangible advantage in your circumstances unless used in conjunction with strobe(s).

It has a very, very good metering system but having said that, I would not fall back to the F3 when the 6x7 is a cheerful 400% bigger than 35mm and provides superior imaging quality and cropping options if you are printing really large. Whatever rows your boat best...

.::Garyh

 

[trendland]

Hi all, would really appreciate some feedback here,

About a month ago I purchased a Pentax 67 MLU, and then a 105mm f2.4 and then a 55mm f3.5, to hopefully replace my F3. Originally I was hoping that switching from 35mm to 120 (and a 6x7 at that), would give me what i'm looking for exposure-wise, and in many ways it has. I really enjoy the expansiveness of the aspect ratio, and the sharpness I am able to achieve is unbelievable.

I'm noticing however, that with my style of photography- solely utilizing available light and often indoors, all while trying to quickly capture fleeting moments- this camera (or medium format in general) may not be the best fit. Along with that, even when shooting well-lit indoors (and even outdoors at times..?) with my Pentax loaded with Portra 800, i'm guaranteed to be subject to color shifts due to underexposure (i'm assuming), while my F3 would easily nail it. I have found that I am able to hand hold even down to 1/30th quite easily, but that seems to be of no avail.

So that all brings me to seek some advice:

Is there a way to compensate for the color shifts due low light exposures short of post-production, external lighting sources, or even using a tripod for longer shutter speeds? (asking a lot, I know). Could pushing in-development be a way to get around this? Worse yet, is this just something you can't even work around with such a large camera while hand-holding?

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE: any ideas for any alternatives? Lighter-weight medium formats? Smaller ratios?

Again, thank for reading and any help.

(I've attached some of the worst offenders below
Indoors were shot on Portra 800, outdoors were shot on Portra 400)

View attachment 210820 View attachment 210821 View attachment 210822 View attachment 210823 View attachment 210824

How to begin Jer? ....?

Perhaps in this way : You own a Pentax67 that's fine - so what is to do now ?
Change your workflow fundamental - go away from that you've done with your F3!

Yes I know (you did it and have shown with your shots) ....real nice by the way.

But the way you changed isn't quite enough. You mentioned it with some questions - and of course I see some problems.

1) 105mm / 30sek I remember to challenge with some boys in the neighborhood as a child : to hold
1/30 ....sharp / 1/15. sharp 1/8 sharrrr... (sometimes I reached sharpness by holding cameras beside a tree a.s.o.

You have exeeded me.... 105mm 6x7 = ~ 50mm at 35mm !

But is it still a chilhood challenge. My prints in 9x13 cm seams to had sharpness with 1/15 (35mm lenses) but that is illusion!

I remember to shot 300mm + extender = 600mm handhold! It is possible with Pentax 6x7 some shots "shine" sharp for smal prints....!

So 600 mm is = 300mm with 35mm Film Pentax has 1/1000 but my E.I. allowed just 1/250!

A last example ? Ok - 105 mm 30sec (from trypot) UNSHARP !! Because of what ?

Because of mirror lock ? Pentax67 has - of course I used it. Because of missing camera wire trigger !

I can not believe till today - from my understanding the first 2, 3, 4-5 sec. of exposure may have seen
"Vibration" but I exposed 30sec and didn't care about trigger camera by my hand.

So I guess you have same illusion on sharpness as I ? (my 30sec. shots ARE sharp "I swear") sharp means =
sharp via inspection of 6x7 film, sharp from prints in 13 x 18, - but my lab called me and stated :
The print you wanted in 50x70cm isn't possible due to sharpness. I got a prov stripe in diagonal form they were right : light unsharpness

(I did several shots may be some are "real" sharp so it was my finger!)

Pls. use a good Tripod for ALL indoor shots Jer!

Next : Pentax67 is a fast camera (also from my point) but it is "relative fast" extrem fast in comparison
with this here:

A good friend and fine colleguage is a proud owner of a 6x8 and is still shooting film for architectual shootings BTW.

But don't start a second "challenge" against your F3. The same is (from my point with fast speed Films).

Start a challenge with sharp prints in max. size - there you'll win easily with this film for example :

Yes it is discontinued I know - find a prof who has a frozen cache and is willing to let some to you.

This is part of my cache (the better film from my point) :

If you like E6 Velvia50 is also ok!

with regards

PS: Pentax67 was fast enough for fashion shooting !
With following set up :

1) 220 Films
2) outdoor
3) second body/ second lenses
4) good "assi" wich should be able to load films faster than his photographer is able to expose
21 frames (with Pentax67 II)
PPS : No challange today - much too expensive from films/developing/ full workflow is too slow
(very seldom)

PPPS : Stop underexposure !

 

[GLS]

The P67 system isn't realistic handheld unless fast shutter speed are used

Depending on what you mean by "fast" I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say with lenses up to the 105mm, and with good technique, sharp results can be reliably achieved hand held between 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. Of course, a tripod will generally give better results, but the camera is still perfectly usable in the hand.

Here's one I like to trot out when the hand-holdability of the Pentax 6x7 is called into question. 55mm lens, 1/60th:

 

[trendland]

Hi all, would really appreciate some feedback here,

About a month ago I purchased a Pentax 67 MLU, and then a 105mm f2.4 and then a 55mm f3.5, to hopefully replace my F3. Originally I was hoping that switching from 35mm to 120 (and a 6x7 at that), would give me what i'm looking for exposure-wise, and in many ways it has. I really enjoy the expansiveness of the aspect ratio, and the sharpness I am able to achieve is unbelievable.

I'm noticing however, that with my style of photography- solely utilizing available light and often indoors, all while trying to quickly capture fleeting moments- this camera (or medium format in general) may not be the best fit. Along with that, even when shooting well-lit indoors (and even outdoors at times..?) with my Pentax loaded with Portra 800, i'm guaranteed to be subject to color shifts due to underexposure (i'm assuming), while my F3 would easily nail it. I have found that I am able to hand hold even down to 1/30th quite easily, but that seems to be of no avail.

So that all brings me to seek some advice:

Is there a way to compensate for the color shifts due low light exposures short of post-production, external lighting sources, or even using a tripod for longer shutter speeds? (asking a lot, I know). Could pushing in-development be a way to get around this? Worse yet, is this just something you can't even work around with such a large camera while hand-holding?

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE: any ideas for any alternatives? Lighter-weight medium formats? Smaller ratios?

Again, thank for reading and any help.

(I've attached some of the worst offenders below
Indoors were shot on Portra 800, outdoors were shot on Portra 400)

View attachment 210820 View attachment 210821 View attachment 210822 View attachment 210823 View attachment 210824

Depending on what you mean by "fast" I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say with lenses up to the 105mm, and with good technique, sharp results can be reliably achieved hand held between 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. Of course, a tripod will generally give better results, but the camera is still perfectly usable in the hand.

Here's one I like to trot out when the hand-holdability of the Pentax 6x7 is called into question. 55mm lens, 1/60th:

Hi GLS,
I know that you know for sure - but let's state in general :
The slowest speed for exposure should be (for sharp pictures) "focal lenght = exposure/sec.

That would mean for 35mm cameras with lens 50mm = 1/50 sec. let's say 1/60 sec. Ok?

But some amatheuric photograpers often are not able to hold their cameras still. Some others
may be able to have a very good hand and get sharp pictures with 1/30 (always 50 mm focal lenght).

You may notice unsharp 1/125 shots from grandma on 50mm because it is still possible (from holding camera extrem bad due to her age.- not from focussing)

With 1/250 also grandma has sharp pictures with standard lens (not possible to reach unsharpness from moving camera from my point)

But what is the definition of sharp from movement ? The definition is based to normal format prints.

So a sharpness of just 85% seams to be sharp! On a smaler print! If you have max. prints it is a good way to " prove " sharpness. There are allways just two conditions (sharp or ubnsharp) so there is nothing between.

I guess I am able to hold Pentax67II in a good manner while shooting - but (just to me) a factor /2
is necessary = 1/125 sec like a grandma safety zone.

To be quite sure I often work with /4. = 1/250 sec(50mm).

Because most of 1/60sec. shots can't be 100% sharp on big format prints. The same is with some of 1 (bad days) 1/125sec. shots.

If you just need 5x7 prints with 120films you may not care about all!

So a midt format camera as we are regarding need (min. 1/100sec with 105mm standard lens)
a 1/125 sec.

But possible to shot fine pictures (with 105 lens) at 1/60 sec. possible AND nice to shot 1/30sec.

(But that isn't what one would need for large prints).

Your workflow you mentioned is different because a wide angle lens changed the full issue dramatical.


Because 55mm is full within the rule mentioned above = 1/60 sec. that should be sharp of course!

I prefer 1/125 sec. with that lens (min.)

But to snapshot with Pentax67 (what is realy possible - indeed) you definitivly need higher speed films.
What isn't so funny with max. enlargements but total ok with smaller prints!

My Problem with Pentax67 is : I want to have 5.6/8 AND tele lenses at the same time. You definitivly
need real light of course. Or higher speed films. But the camera served a 1/1000 (what is great with that biggest shutter) but sometimes I realy need 1/2000sec.

So a good Tripod should come to every shooting ! But between I also "love" handhold workflow but it isn't allways possible. So we are speaking of a "compact tripod system" right!

with regards

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I've successfully "handheld" the P67 even with 300mm lenses; but that was at high speeds and the lens actually resting on a coat atop a car roof or fence post etc. But ordinarily, I use the same big Ries wooden tripod which I use for an 8X10 camera when shooting that big telephoto. When I get down to a 165 or 200 telephoto, a solid but less extreme tripod is still in order. Now I also have a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder with a 90mm lens, and compared to the P67 with the 105, it is stunningly easier
to handhold - even more stable in an ergo sense than working with my Nikon F. But it's a fixed lens camera; and even the pricey M7 system has darn little to offer once you get past wide angles. Therefore the P67 remains a highly versatile product with a wide range of focal lengths. All the later lenses tend to be superb, and now pricing is amazingly low for most items, and the supply abundant. But frankly, what is or is not "sharp" is hard to tell from a web posting. In my case, I often need to include medium format 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as shots taken with 4x5 and 8x10, and that's like asking a tortoise to cross a freeway safely. But with everything optimized, it's entirely possible. ... With the P67, either handheld or on tripod, the biggest issue is getting the shutter done before that huge mirror slaps. This means you have to shoot 1/60th or above, preferably well above, unless you use the mirror lockup. This can easily be proven with side by side shots and a good
magnifier. Of course, long heavy lenses tend to amplify the effect more than short ones, and heaven help you if you use a cheesy ballhead on a flimsy tripod! But the P67 lineup does include some fast lenses, unlike certain competitor MF choices.
But among handheld applications, the P67 has long been prized for shooting from airplanes; and they also had an underwater housing, which is now hard to find. Fashion photographers also loved the system for its ergonomic body,
and fast lenses with good "bokeh", though the selection of leaf-shutter lenses for flash use is limited to a few key focal lengths.

 

[trendland]

Hi all, would really appreciate some feedback here,

About a month ago I purchased a Pentax 67 MLU, and then a 105mm f2.4 and then a 55mm f3.5, to hopefully replace my F3. Originally I was hoping that switching from 35mm to 120 (and a 6x7 at that), would give me what i'm looking for exposure-wise, and in many ways it has. I really enjoy the expansiveness of the aspect ratio, and the sharpness I am able to achieve is unbelievable.

I'm noticing however, that with my style of photography- solely utilizing available light and often indoors, all while trying to quickly capture fleeting moments- this camera (or medium format in general) may not be the best fit. Along with that, even when shooting well-lit indoors (and even outdoors at times..?) with my Pentax loaded with Portra 800, i'm guaranteed to be subject to color shifts due to underexposure (i'm assuming), while my F3 would easily nail it. I have found that I am able to hand hold even down to 1/30th quite easily, but that seems to be of no avail.

So that all brings me to seek some advice:

Is there a way to compensate for the color shifts due low light exposures short of post-production, external lighting sources, or even using a tripod for longer shutter speeds? (asking a lot, I know). Could pushing in-development be a way to get around this? Worse yet, is this just something you can't even work around with such a large camera while hand-holding?

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE: any ideas for any alternatives? Lighter-weight medium formats? Smaller ratios?

Again, thank for reading and any help.

(I've attached some of the worst offenders below
Indoors were shot on Portra 800, outdoors were shot on Portra 400)

View attachment 210820 View attachment 210821 View attachment 210822 View attachment 210823 View attachment 210824

Depending on what you mean by "fast" I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say with lenses up to the 105mm, and with good technique, sharp results can be reliably achieved hand held between 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. Of course, a tripod will generally give better results, but the camera is still perfectly usable in the hand.

Here's one I like to trot out when the hand-holdability of the Pentax 6x7 is called into question. 55mm lens, 1/60th:

Hi GLS,
I know that you know for sure - but let's state in general :
The slowest speed for exposure should be (for sharp pictures) "focal lenght = exposure/sec.

That would mean for 35mm cameras with lens 50mm = 1/50 sec. let's say 1/60 sec. Ok?

But some amatheuric photograpers often are not able to hold their cameras still. Some others
may be able to have a very good hand and get sharp pictures with 1/30 (always 50 mm focal lenght).

You may notice unsharp 1/125 shots from grandma on 50mm because it is still possible (from holding camera extrem bad due to her age.- not from focussing)

With 1/250 also grandma has sharp pictures with standard lens (not possible to reach unsharpness from moving camera from my point)

But what is the definition of sharp from movement ? The definition is based to normal format prints.

So a sharpness of just 85% seams to be sharp! On a smaler print! If you have max. prints it is a good way to " prove " sharpness. There are allways just two conditions (sharp or ubnsharp) so there is nothing between.

I guess I am able to hold Pentax67II in a good manner while shooting - but (just to me) a factor /2
is necessary = 1/125 sec like a grandma safety zone.

To be quite sure I often work with /4. = 1/250 sec(50mm).

Because most of 1/60sec. shots can't be 100% sharp on big format prints. The same is with some of 1 (bad days) 1/125sec. shots.

If you just need 5x7 prints with 120films you may not care about all!

So a midt format camera as we are regarding need (min. 1/100sec with 105mm standard lens)
a 1/125 sec.

But possible to shot fine pictures (with 105 lens) at 1/60 sec. possible AND nice to shot 1/30sec.

(But that isn't what one would need for large prints).

Your workflow you mentioned is different because a wide angle lens changed the full issue dramatical.


Because 55mm is full within the rule mentioned above = 1/60 sec. that should be sharp of course!

I prefer 1/125 sec. with that lens (min.)

But to snapshot with Pentax67 (what is realy possible - indeed) you definitivly need higher speed films.
What isn't so funny with max. enlargements but total ok with smaller prints!

My Problem with Pentax67 is : I want to have 5.6/8 AND tele lenses at the same time. You definitivly
need real light of course. Or higher speed films. But the camera served a 1/1000 (what is great with that biggest shutter) but sometimes I realy need 1/2000sec.

So a good Tripod should come to every shooting ! But between I also "love" handhold workflow but it isn't allways possible. So we are speaking of a "compact tripod system" right!

with regards

Well, I've successfully "handheld" the P67 even with 300mm lenses; but that was at high speeds and the lens actually resting on a coat atop a car roof or fence post etc. But ordinarily, I use the same big Ries wooden tripod which I use for an 8X10 camera when shooting that big telephoto. When I get down to a 165 or 200 telephoto, a solid but less extreme tripod is still in order. Now I also have a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder with a 90mm lens, and compared to the P67 with the 105, it is stunningly easier
to handhold - even more stable in an ergo sense than working with my Nikon F. But it's a fixed lens camera; and even the pricey M7 system has darn little to offer once you get past wide angles. Therefore the P67 remains a highly versatile product with a wide range of focal lengths. All the later lenses tend to be superb, and now pricing is amazingly low for most items, and the supply abundant. But frankly, what is or is not "sharp" is hard to tell from a web posting. In my case, I often need to include medium format 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as shots taken with 4x5 and 8x10, and that's like asking a tortoise to cross a freeway safely. But with everything optimized, it's entirely possible. ... With the P67, either handheld or on tripod, the biggest issue is getting the shutter done before that huge mirror slaps. This means you have to shoot 1/60th or above, preferably well above, unless you use the mirror lockup. This can easily be proven with side by side shots and a good
magnifier. Of course, long heavy lenses tend to amplify the effect more than short ones, and heaven help you if you use a cheesy ballhead on a flimsy tripod! But the P67 lineup does include some fast lenses, unlike certain competitor MF choices.

I totaly agree with you concerns hand held 300mm because I just remember my workflow with 600mm handheld (it was indeed you described) I forgot it : sure I leant the camera on EVERYTHING I was able to find.AS a Tripod repalcement. So it was "handheld 50%" with 600mm but it wasn't fine I did it just one time! But in that manner 300mm should be quite ok.
(I am most using 300 for portrait and for portrait allways with tripot)

with regards

 

[trendland]

Sorry something goes wrong with double reply....???

with regards

 

[DREW WILEY]

The "rule", apparently trying to extrapolate things up from 35mm, is largely nonsense. Does everyone have the same shaped hands relative to bulk, or the same steadiness as a surgeon? And like it or not, that big 6X7 mirror has quite a kick to it. It has to raise up past the the curtain shutter, which then has to fully open and close, before that mirror goes KER-LUNK at the top. Well, I know the feeling of either breaking this one REAL rule and at least getting a spectacular shot suitable for an 11X14, and wishing I had time to set it up on a tripod, do it right, and have an even crisper shot. But by then the light would have been gone. I could say the same thing about formats in general. There was an instance not long ago where a stunning scene truly deserved to be shot on 4x5, but the light was rapidly changing. So I had to do with the P67. In that case, the light level was way too low for anything handheld, and I was able to quickly mount the 6X7 on my tripod, and thankfully had 120 ACROS in it. Now I get wonderful 16X20 prints from that neg; but I'm certainly not going to try to push my luck to 20X24.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here's one I like to trot out when the hand-holdability of the Pentax 6x7 is called into question. 55mm lens, 1/60th:

The slowest shutter speed being 1/lens focal length [50mm ==> 1/50 second] is a guideline from medium format. Not an iron clad rule, but a starting place.

Hi GLS,
I know that you know for sure - but let's state in general :
The slowest speed for exposure should be (for sharp pictures) "focal lenght = exposure/sec.

That would mean for 35mm cameras with lens 50mm = 1/50 sec. let's say 1/60 sec. Ok?

The guideline has been use by 35mm camera users for years successfully, but remember:

1. It came from medium format.
2. Has been used successfully for 35mm and 4"x5" hand held cameras for decades.
3. It is a guideline, not a carved in stone rule.

 

[DREW WILEY]

More likely carved in butter which melts at a very low temperature. Sure glad I didn't know anything about that rule back when I was a teenager shooting only 35mm. And what I could hold steady at 1/8 back then, I can't do at 1/125th in 35mm reliably today. But I can get good 6x9 shots with a 90mm lens at 1/60th, sometimes even 1/30th, probably because a rangefinder lens is shorter and lighter, and utilizes a leaf shutter (no big mirror and prism). But I certainly wouldn't want to cramp anyone's
personal style. I've gotten some very nice shots with a P67 and the 55 lens handheld, as well as 75 and 105. Not so much the 165, where a tripod seems mandatory, for me at least. Of course, if one is willing to pay a premium, there's a fast 75/2.8 which would be nice for handheld work. I use the slower version 75, which is optically superb, but needs to be tripod mounted with an accessory eyepiece magnifier to achieve critical focus, unless the scene is at infinity and a known focus. It's a rather dim lens, esp with a deep filter on it. But I needed to save my money for the 300 EDIF. ... now that's a fantastic piece of glass! I have no regrets buying it.

 

[GLS]

But I needed to save my money for the 300 EDIF. ... now that's a fantastic piece of glass! I have no regrets buying it

I've been eyeing that one up myself recently. The 100mm macro also looks very good.

 

[trendland]

The slowest shutter speed being 1/lens focal length [50mm ==> 1/50 second] is a guideline from medium format. Not an iron clad rule, but a starting place.



The guideline has been use by 35mm camera users for years successfully, but remember:

1. It came from medium format.
2. Has been used successfully for 35mm and 4"x5" hand held cameras for decades.
3. It is a guideline, not a carved in stone rule.

Hmm ... - a guideline (so as a "rule" where you are allowed to follow also as you are allowed to ignore?...) - yes that's what I mean. So guidline is indeed a better term - thanks Sirius Glass!

And if you "ignore" that guidline you may RISC unsharpness ! But that is within the responcibility
of each photographer. So it may be luck if it is sharp unless you followed that guide!

with regards

PS : I remember a test of different tripods. 35mm Film, around 1000mm lenses, 1/1000/1/2000 sec.
all cameras with mirror lock (the masses of mirrors with 35mm cameras are real "light" in comparison
the vibration is also real "light" - we should not forget the mass of 35 cameras is also ",light" in relation
may be that is a compensation in total concerned to the heavy weight of Pentax 67).
But the resulting unsharpness was on several frames !?
With wire trigger ? That is amazing. How could that happen ?
1000mm unsharp with 1/2000 on tripot?
Wind, vibration, bad tripots !

Ok we would not speak about 1000mm handhold! But I have an idea of that mentioned guidline
is a good "insurance" and like instrumental redundancy in civil aviation my personal workflow
with "double safety" isn't such bad.

with regards

PS: Also in this test of a photo magazine ALL prints were real sharp - but at last the unsharpness was identified on max. prints.
PPS : I realy need no maximal print of every single shot I ever make on 120 Film.
But what I realy need is the Option to max. print of every single shot I ever make on 120 Films.
That resulting consequence is for me in regard of resolution and sharpness :
slow speed Films, f - 5,6/8 (hyperfocal distance and sweedspot are also fine by the way)
AND in concern of exposure time 2 Times save / sometimes 4 Times save.
That would of course not make sence to the OP - but in regard of indoor shots I would hold
on my recomandation : T R I P O T. ! .... same is in concern of underexposure

 

[GRHazelton]

As far as mirror slap and the need for mirror lockup The Luminous Landscape some time ago tested the Pentax 645nii which has such feature with the mirror locked up or not using a long lens. Their conclusion was that with THAT camera perceived shake came AFTER the shutter closed, and had no effect on the sharpness of the image. As the happy owner of the 645n,which lacks mirror lockup I was pleased to discover this. So,the OP could sacrifice some negative size for easier handling by getting a 645, and with the lens adapter he could use his 67 lenses on the 645. That said, the BIG negative from the 67 is a real draw. I do use a tripod with my 645 when I can; I shoot mainly landscapes and closeups with it, so a tripod makes real sense.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hmm ... - a guideline (so as a "rule" where you are allowed to follow also as you are allowed to ignore?...) - yes that's what I mean. So guidline is indeed a better term - thanks Sirius Glass!

And if you "ignore" that guidline you may RISC unsharpness ! But that is within the responcibility
of each photographer. So it may be luck if it is sharp unless you followed that guide!

with regards

PS : I remember a test of different tripods. 35mm Film, around 1000mm lenses, 1/1000/1/2000 sec.
all cameras with mirror lock (the masses of mirrors with 35mm cameras are real "light" in comparison
the vibration is also real "light" - we should not forget the mass of 35 cameras is also ",light" in relation
may be that is a compensation in total concerned to the heavy weight of Pentax 67).
But the resulting unsharpness was on several frames !?
With wire trigger ? That is amazing. How could that happen ?
1000mm unsharp with 1/2000 on tripot?
Wind, vibration, bad tripots !

Ok we would not speak about 1000mm handhold! But I have an idea of that mentioned guidline
is a good "insurance" and like instrumental redundancy in civil aviation my personal workflow
with "double safety" isn't such bad.

with regards

PS: Also in this test of a photo magazine ALL prints were real sharp - but at last the unsharpness was identified on max. prints.
PPS : I realy need no maximal print of every single shot I ever make on 120 Film.
But what I realy need is the Option to max. print of every single shot I ever make on 120 Films.
That resulting consequence is for me in regard of resolution and sharpness :
slow speed Films, f - 5,6/8 (hyperfocal distance and sweedspot are also fine by the way)
AND in concern of exposure time 2 Times save / sometimes 4 Times save.
That would of course not make sence to the OP - but in regard of indoor shots I would hold
on my recomandation : T R I P O T. ! .... same is in concern of underexposure

I use the Hasselblad 500mm lens only on the tripod, and with the 2XE extender too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As far as mirror slap and the need for mirror lockup The Luminous Landscape some time ago tested the Pentax 645nii which has such feature with the mirror locked up or not using a long lens. Their conclusion was that with THAT camera perceived shake came AFTER the shutter closed, and had no effect on the sharpness of the image. As the happy owner of the 645n,which lacks mirror lockup I was pleased to discover this. So,the OP could sacrifice some negative size for easier handling by getting a 645, and with the lens adapter he could use his 67 lenses on the 645. That said, the BIG negative from the 67 is a real draw. I do use a tripod with my 645 when I can; I shoot mainly landscapes and closeups with it, so a tripod makes real sense.

Mirror slap on the Hasselblad is not a factor either, probably for similar reasons.

 

[DREW WILEY]

When my older brother was selling Rollei and wanted to show people how smooth the shutter mechanism was on the SL66, he'd set the camera on a table, then place dime ON EDGE atop it, trip the shutter with a cable release, and the dime wouldn't even tip over. If you tried that with a Pentax 6X7, the coin would land in the next county. The mirror-lockup option is there for a reason. But I remain very very skeptical that other med format cameras are not affected at all with long lenses. I've seen one half-baked "test" after another in periodicals or on the web where the visual "evidence" provided could have been printed
with tinted buckshot. Not everyone has the same definition of "sharpness". Maybe one can get away with all kinds of things
in the small enlargements typical of magazine reproduction, but methodology which separates the men from the boys in that respect, so to speak, doesn't rely on lame excuses like "normal viewing distance".

 

[Sirius Glass]

When my older brother was selling Rollei and wanted to show people how smooth the shutter mechanism was on the SL66, he'd set the camera on a table, then place dime ON EDGE atop it, trip the shutter with a cable release, and the dime wouldn't even tip over. If you tried that with a Pentax 6X7, the coin would land in the next county.

Mirror slap is an over exaggerated claim made by RF shooters because they are jealous of the shutter noise of some slrs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another photographer wanted me to shoot his wedding. I did their formal pose with a 4x5. But they wanted full 6x7 negs for the ceremony itself. He loaned me his huge flash head, since I didn't have one. The minute I entered the sanctuary, the pastor's wife accosted me, and directed me to a sign in the doorway, "No photographs allowed within the Sanctuary". But my friend said he was paying both me and for use of the building, so ignore both that sign and the pastor's wife. OK.
But that weren't no Leica I was carrying.... WUNK, WUNK, KER-LUNK !! Kept everybody awake, at least.