Pentax 67 magnifying viewfinder

[fastw]

Guys, has anyone used the magnifying viewfinder for very precise focusing? Have been having problems with shallow DOF close up portraits. Using 135mm macro which isn't very fast, a 90mm 2.8 might be easier to focus precisely. Would that finder make it easier?

 

[DannL.]

Good timing. My Pentax 6x7 had been setting for about a month and a half. I picked it up yesterday and had the worst time trying to focus. I figured it was the camera, as I can still focus fine with my Canon T3. The difference being, I can adjust the diopter on it. Then I switched to focusing with my left eye. That was somewhat better. But, I would rather use my right eyeball for focusing. Habit, I suppose. I was working with the 90mm 2.8 attached, so I would say the 90mm is somewhat difficult to focus also . . . that is, if you have old eyeballs like mine. I only use 1.75 reading glasses as needed. So, I too am interested in this subject.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are two ways to get very precise magnification. One is to use the clip-on adjustable-diopter magnifer with the pentaprism. This critically magnifies just the center of the ground glass, then flips out of the way for general viewing. A superior device is the chimney hood, which has an excellent built-in diopter adjustment, sees the entire ground glass image, and is brighter than the prism. But it's a headache to use for vertical compositions. The little flat folding "waist-level" finder does have a flip-away magnifying glass, but it's not adjustable, and not as well
protected from ambient light (glare) as the chimney hood.

 

[DannL.]

I just now ordered what is called a "2X eyecup" off ebay. $19 with free shipping. Once received, I will chime in and give my opinion. I really prefer my current basic configuration, the metered prism. Plus, half of my shots are in portrait. I know from other cameras that I once owned, that the chimney and WLF simply would not do in my situation. I understand there are diopter cells that can be installed in the prism, but I haven't a clue which one I would need.

 

[DREW WILEY]

An optometrist could tell you which diopter, and even have one custom made if he knows the diameter.

 

[flavio81]

Guys, has anyone used the magnifying viewfinder for very precise focusing? Have been having problems with shallow DOF close up portraits. Using 135mm macro which isn't very fast, a 90mm 2.8 might be easier to focus precisely. Would that finder make it easier?

I have the magnifier. But i think the advice of Drew Wiley is best: Use the chimney hood. I suspect it would be far quicker and easier to use. With the RB67 i can precisely focus using the WLF, while the pentaprism of the P67 has too low a magnification. I think the chimney finder would be best.

 

[Michael W]

I think the Pentax 67 viewing screens are not as bright as they could be as a lot of people struggle with fine focus. I have the magnifier and it makes a noticeable difference. If using a tripod it would be ideal. If hand holding the camera you have to be careful not to move the camera position if after focusing you then flip the magnifier back up to see the full frame. I find it's instinctive to bring the camera back to my eye which puts it out of focus. Rather, I have to hold the camera in position ad bring my face towards it.

 

[Gabrioladude]

I will jump in to this discussion

love the camera, hate the focusing challenges
which I don't seem to have with other cameras
I saw a post recommending the magnifier so I purchased it
didn't help me

I have bifocals so it is a challenge getting the correct diopter to correct for the problem
if you have bifocals you have to be careful to look through the viewer consistently with either the top or bottom of your glasses
I find cameras with adjustable diopters so much easier to use

learned that the right angle finder for the P67 has an adjustable diopter
so I purchased that. It works great. Fixed the problem for me

however it is inconvenient to use because you have to screw it in (i.e. replace the existing diopter with this finder) every time you use it and you really can only use it when on a tripod.

 

[fastw]

Even if the magnifying finder works, there's still the problem with shooting in portrait orientation. Because of this I decided to look at alternatives. Just came back from Camera Exchange (http://www.cameraexchange.com.au/) here in Melbourne, where I had a really good play with both the RB67 and RZ67. Had the magnifying finder on both and am amazed how much easier they were to focus. Not only that, but the closest focusing distance on them is just crazy. Wish I had tried them years ago, when I got into the whole P67 system.((there was a url link here which no longer exists)). I should have listened to some of you then. On my last trip to India, where I mainly shot close up portraits, I probably missed half the shots. Not by miles, just millimeters, but that's enough. Come monday, I'll be a proud owner of a whole new RZ67 system. Anything I should be aware of when buying it, please let me know. I'm thinking of getting the 65 and 110 and maybe two backs for now.
Cheers, Wojtek.
btw. highly recommend John from the CamEx , as he'll always consider trade ins, swaps and such.

 

[DannL.]

Congrats on the RZ67! I went directly from the RZ67, to replacing it with the Pentax. I couldn't find a comfortable way to throw it over my shoulder and run around. The ergonomics didn't work for me. But, it was definitely a fine system. With the prism, I seem to recall it being a somewhat heavier and bulkier creature. In your case, with portraits, you may find it to be perfect. The only way I get to thoroughly test these cameras, is to dive in, and buy them. Chime in and give a report after you've had a chance to use it for a while. Curious minds would love to know.

 

[fastw]

Will do

 

[flavio81]

A classic dillema: RB67 versus Pentax 67. I own both and the RB is by far the superior system, except that the P67 is smaller, lighter, quicker to operate so I feel like getting out with the P67 more often than with the RB.

The best camera is the camera that is with you at the time of the crucial moment, so which camera is better? Using this criteria, the Pentax.

 

[fastw]

Traded the P67 with some lenses on the Rz67 with the 65La, 110, 360 and two backs. Shot and developed one film and quite happy already.Easier to focus and brighter viewfinder (magnifying).
Better? Probably.

 

[DannL.]

Your negatives very well may be sharper with the RZ. As I mention elsewhere, I noticed recently while testing, that the 90mm 2.8 for the Pentax was a bit soft at f/11 when used close-up, ie within a foot. I want to verify this at f/32 and see if the results may be better . . . I hope. But, I know from experience that theses lenses all have their own special character.

 

[flavio81]

Note that f32 will most likely "equalize" performance between all medium format lenses, due to diffraction.

 

[DannL.]

Received the "2X eyecup" today. When I opened the package I took them both out . . . and shook my head in wonder. Ha! The order was for two eyecups, and not a 2x multiplier as I had imagined. Anyhoo, my camera never had a eyecup. I installed one, and believe it or not I can actually focus easier. I think my vision has gotten better. Who knows????

 

[MattKing]

Received the "2X eyecup" today. When I opened the package I took them both out . . . and shook my head in wonder. Ha! The order was for two eyecups, and not a 2x multiplier as I had imagined. Anyhoo, my camera never had a eyecup. I installed one, and believe it or not I can actually focus easier. I think my vision has gotten better. Who knows????

I bet you are glad you didn't order a "6X eyecup" (if there is such a thing)

 

[DannL.]

I bet you are glad you didn't order a "6X eyecup" (if there is such a thing)

That's funny!

Now that I think about it . . . With the eyecup there is now more distance between my eye and the focusing screen within the camera. It makes sense that focusing is now easier.

 

[fastw]

Tested the focusing skill on Robal. Seems to be pretty good.

 

[DannL.]

Cute dog! What breed is that, may I ask?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've shared this on related threads before, but my own brother was once a Linhof and Rollei salesman. He could recite all the various things that were so much better about the Rollei and its lenses than the Pentax, and why it was worth four times the money; and he'd make the sale.
He even owned a lot of Rollei gear himself. But everytime we were out shooting together, he asked to borrow the Pentax. Why? He got better
pictures with it. More convenient and ergonomic, I suppose. And the lenses aren't exactly shabby.

 

[flavio81]

I've shared this on related threads before, but my own brother was once a Linhof and Rollei salesman. He could recite all the various things that were so much better about the Rollei and its lenses than the Pentax, and why it was worth four times the money; and he'd make the sale.
He even owned a lot of Rollei gear himself. But everytime we were out shooting together, he asked to borrow the Pentax. Why? He got better
pictures with it. More convenient and ergonomic, I suppose. And the lenses aren't exactly shabby.

It's a nice machine and I like mine, but it isn't perfect of course. Very ergonomic, for sure!

 

[fastw]

Cute dog! What breed is that, may I ask?

It'a a chihuahua

 

[DannL.]

Finally got around to getting a Waist Level Finder for the 6x7. What a relief. I can focus. I was curious about this, as I never had trouble before when focusing WLF type cameras. The prism on this camera had been causing me some grief.