Pentax 67 or 67II?

[gabri.guido]

Hello!
I'm writing this post in order to have your opinion about those two cameras.
I would love to buy one of them and I was waiting for the best deal. Now, I've found two guys who are selling their equipment, but I don't know if it's a deal and which one is the best for my kind of photography. I would use this camera for portrait, essentially.

So, I've found a P67 plus 3 lenses (55,75,200) for 885$ or a P67II plus 105mm for 1088$. I think prices are great!

But I have also another question: which one would you pick up and why? Is the 67II a real upgrade from the 67, and is it worthed?
I'm not a professional photographer so I'm not here searching for the perfection or a top-level camera, but I want to know if the 67 is anyway good or I should invest in the II model.

Thank you!
Gabriele

 

[wildbill]

I had 2 67II's and loved them. The AE metering with the 67II is the most accurate meter out there. I sold them recently because I don't shoot much roll film any longer. I have those 3 lenses for sale as well, all smc models.

 

[coigach]

Will 2nd Vinny's recommendation of cameras and meter. I've a good number of cameras / systems, but the P67II is still my main workhorse system.

 

[resummerfield]

I agree with the 2 previous posters... I have both the P67 and the P67II, and always pick the 67II. The P67 remains a very good camera, but I just like the P67II more.

 

[destroya]

67II, without a doubt. get it and enjoy it!

 

[Alan9940]

I have both and as others have already commented I'd go with the 67II without a doubt! The focus screen is significantly brighter making it much easier to obtain critical focus, the AE prism will provide dead-on accurate exposures in most lighting conditions, and the whole ergonomics of the camera is greatly improved by the built-in grip. With the older 67 you really need the wooden handle, if you intend anything handheld. Bottom line, get the 67II and don't look back!

Good luck!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What are you looking at by way of the non-67II body?
The old Asahi-Pentax/Honeywell 6x7 bodies should be given a wide berth. Dating from the mid-1960s, legions of them have seen decades of heavy service, many different users and probably zero TLC. There are rare exceptions, but you must have your wits about you, especially on eBay. The newer Pentax 67 bodies dating from 1992 (when they ceased production) have many good engineering improvements over the earlier bodies, one of these being a somewhat more robust meter coupling chain (the proverbial archilles heel, this chain can break if a procedure is not followed to release tension from it when removing/refitting the prism and lens in a specific order). This latter idiosyncracy doesn't apply to the 67II, which has modern metering (which some users like) and a propensity for a fading LQD display over time. There are other idiosyncracies that effect the 6x7 and 67 bodies, fewer, if any on the 67II (beside the display). I create all my work with the later 67 body and will not ever move to teh 67II or any MF system with onboard metering (I use multispot/MWA). BTW, the 55mm lens mentioned in the line up, if it is the newer SMC Pentax 67 55mm (not a lousy Takumar) should not be passed up as it is a very solid performer optically. The 75mm is so-so, unless it is the 75mm f2.8AL (unlikely).

 

[aoresteen]

I'd pick Eric Hendrickson's brain at www.pentaxs.com. As he repairs them, he would be able to tell you what internal differences there are and issues getting parts. His phone number is on his website.

Good luck!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gotta disagree with a few things above. The standard 75/4 is superby sharp - one of the very best lenses in their lineup in this respect,
and with excellent bokeh too. But it is a bit dim to focus, so you generally need to attain critical focus with an accessory magnifier. If you want a brighter 75 for handheld work at lens than infinity, then the 75/2.8 would be preferable; but is it worth four times the price to you? It WON'T be actually better optically, just a stop brighter. The older P67 MLU bodies have proven wonderfully reliable. So if you find one in good condition, dust seals n' all, do you really want or need to spend three times as much for a P67 II ? Sure, if you have sufficient budget, go more recent. But don't expect better pictures. I will agree that older non-MLU bodies and old Takumar lenses are much less desirable.

 

[Tom Taylor]

Besides the P67II's superior metering capabilities and very accurate electronic controlled focal plane shutter, the focusing screens are user-changeable in the P67II and the film advance mechanism was improved.

Thomas

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

All of the SMC Pentax 67 f4 lenses can be quite a challenge to focus precisely, and I do concur with the need to get hold of either a right-angle viewer (with its adjustable dioptre) or a central-spot magnifier. f4 lenses are even more of a challenge if a polariser features prominently in one's imaging. I have a small tool pouch attached to my tripod head which has both of the aforementioned viewing aids in it. The 75mm f2.8AL is not a problem to focus any conditiions, and it rises above the others with creature comforts such as a delicate touch of focus, a soft-touch jump through the apertures and those beautiful aperture blades. A stop extra does matter — a lot to a great many photographers involved in landscape work. I used the 75mm f4 and like all the other f4 lenses was just as annoyed by the focus issue.

The old 6x7 bodies are only reliable up to the aperture coupling chain snapping or the shutter speeds drifting to inaccuracy (thus, store ANY P67 camera with the shutter speed dial to B or T, not on a figure). Plenty of people have run DIY repairs on the chain but it's the focus callibration and lens mount flange precision that is buggered after disassembly. We really do need more professional repairers handling these placid beasts of burden so that DIY failures don't make it onto the market to create major problems, unbeknownst, to other potential buyers.

 

[Tom Taylor]

I have the 67II with 11 lens - just abut everything from 45mm to 400mm. Focusing on any camera requires your devoted attention to get it right. For the 67II I use the magnifying eyepiece and the split-image focusing screen. Coupled with a series 3 Gitzo w/Arca-Swiss z1-sp I don't have a problem obtaining sharp focus. Actually I prefer the Pentax 67 lens over my Nikon lens (F6) because it is easier to obtain the hyperfocal focusing point with the Pentax (I like my landscapes with a sharp foreground and background). Once you learn how to use it, the 120 soft focus is a gem. However you need the standard micro-prism screen for that lens and the 67II allows you to swap screens in the field without sending the camera back to the factory to have the screens swapped-out as you do with the older 67's.

Thomas

 

[DREW WILEY]

You just need to settle on one body system or the other, because the finders are not interchangeable. Lenses are.

 

[Tom Taylor]

Not all 67 lens can be focused with just one focusing screen that's why Pentax engineered the newer 67II so that the user could swap out focusing screens instead if having to send the camera back to the factory.

Thomas

 

[DREW WILEY]

That statement doesn't make much sense, nor have I ever heard it before. All the lenses are engineered to focus on the same plane. Some situations might be more convenient with one screen type than another, but you should still be able to use a general-purpose screen for any lens. Besides, swapping out finders is far easier and will make a bigger difference. The chimney finder makes focus much easier, though it
can be a pain in the butt for vertical compositions. And the supplementary eyepiece magnifier for the pentaprism will allow much more precise focus with any lens. This kind of camera is just what it is, and one body versus the other gives only a relative edge in convenience.
When I'm hunting big game (big crisp enlargements) I use a big gun (large format), replete with the necessary corrective movements.
With medium format, compromises are the name of the game. And anytime anyone even mentions hyperfocal, that's a kind of focus compromise. I'm at peace with the system and not advocating one body style over the other. That was settled for me when I acquired the
accessories dedicated to the older camera body, which I do not want to repurchase. Here's my logic: this is a convenient travel camera,
and if it gets stolen or damaged, it will be affordable to replace. If I was younger, I'd upgrade to the 67II; but I'm confident my older gear
will last the duration for me. I already spent enough this year with purchase of the 300EDIF. Now that is some lens!!

 

[Tom Taylor]

See http://www.manualslib.com/manual/121756/Pentax-67ii.html?page=73#manual. In practice I have found the split image finder very difficult (it blackens out) with the 300 SMC F4 and pointless with the 120 soft.

Thomas

 

[DREW WILEY]

Interesting. I'll take your word for it. I just use it with the standard microprism finder on my older style 67 body and it is a charm to focus.
But given the extremely shallow depth of field, the magnifying chimney hood is the cat's meow accessory for this lens. It's the widefield astrophotographers who are really into the special features of the 67II. I could care less about the metering difference because I always use
a handheld spotmeter for everything.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Not all 67 lens can be focused with just one focusing screen that's why Pentax engineered the newer 67II so that the user could swap out focusing screens instead if having to send the camera back to the factory.

Thomas

Where is this stated in published literature or specifications relating to the Pentax 6x7 or 67?

FYI, photographers can interchange the P67 focusing screen if they have access to a collimeter (or an accurate equivalent device) to calibrate focus in three places. Focusing is only a problem in very dim light with e.g. the 55mm f4 or 45mm f4. Besides which small focusing errors are easily taken care of with hyperfocus.

I have never desired to have a different focusing screen with the Pentax 67 because that fine, unobtrusive microprism spot provides the precision required and nothing more is needed. If photographers are persistently on the prowl for more focusing screens, they are either lacking the skills and control to achieve precision focus or just towing along with the me-tooism brigade. Seriously, nobody should be getting anal about one camera's focusing screen vs another. Just get on with photography.

And that includes meters.
Metering systems for me are passé and I do not (and never will) choose a camera (even for 67II) for hollow claims as to how well its metering system performs. I take the credit for the creation of the photograph from a metering and technical standpoint — from the standpoint of everything from the moment the shutter is tripped to wind-on, and I have handled scenes of extreme illumination that would put any matrix meter in a thorough bind. When are people going to remove themselves from persistently salivating over things like metering in cameras? Just take full, unbridled control. Nothing better than a multispot meter (and 4 decades of experience) to leapfrog over even the most "intelligent" evaluative or matrix meters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I never had a problem focusing the 55 with the ordinary screen. It was too wide a lens for my general preference, and I only took a handful
of shots before selling it, though one of those shots did pay for that lens several times over. It has far more illumination falloff than the 75,
so would be amenable to a center filter if someone does desire that kind of supplementary correction. But otherwise a very crisp well-corrected lens, at least in the later versions.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I never had a problem focusing the 55 with the ordinary screen. It was too wide a lens for my general preference, and I only took a handful
of shots before selling it, though one of those shots did pay for that lens several times over. It has far more illumination falloff than the 75,
so would be amenable to a center filter if someone does desire that kind of supplementary correction. But otherwise a very crisp well-corrected lens, at least in the later versions.

Interesting, as I owned the 55mm f4 for 2 years and made several large prints about +/- 80x70cm in size and they are beautiful to look at. The 55 struck me as a particularly unwieldly lens to handle with small hands with a feel that never quite warmed with me. But it was the view I was interested in. I wanted a wider lens so dropped down to the 45mm f4 — a choice that had to be made very carefully given that several soft specimens of this lens had been found which are not at all representative of its performance, just a notch under the 55mm. Happy and sorted and no further lens purchases planned.

 

[johnha]

I have a 67 (the 2nd model) with a split-image focusing screen and a 6x7 MLU with a micro-prism screen - I find the micro-prism easier to focus with. The metering prisms for these cameras can be flaky and only offer 'average' metering across the whole frame - as long as you take care you can get perfectly good results on transparency film. You can swap lenses with these prisms BUT if you remove the prism you need to remove the lens and put the prism back on before remounting the lens (you could break the meter chain if you don't).

I prefer not to use the wooden handle - you can cradle it like a 35mm SLR without - the handle gets in the way but it makes a sure grip when carrying it (I use either two straps or one strap with four strap lugs for security).

Price depends entirely on condition - many have seen very hard professional use - anything earlier than a 67II will be the best part of 20-30yrs old. I bought from a used dealer - finding any model in the UK was quite difficult and 67II's were much more expensive.

 

[ColColt]

I've looked around here and there and it seems most of the nicer 67II's come from Japan but, I'm hesitant about buying them as I've read and was warned about very possible fungus problems from hot, humid climates. I guess it's where and how they've been kept but didn't want to gamble. Still, I'd love to have one as I love my 6x7 and this would be even better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've had superb results with Japanese dealers per se. The only time I've ever encountered fungus in an allegedly mint lens was from someone
in the East USA. I think they had honestly rated the lens; but then it developed a bit of fungus in storage over the winter they shipped it without re-checking the condition. Japan isn't tropical. Look at the latitude. A lot of it can be darn cold.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

We get fungus on lenses here in Australia, typically in far north Queensland and Darwin where it is often extremely humid (and in Melbourne today it is also extremely humid). But then people aren't necessarily careful with storage of photographic stuff. Fungus spores are everywhere and only need the right conditionds to spring to life. I have a P67 right angle finder that came from Japan otherwise mint in condition but it had fungus in it (and dust). I carefully stripped it down and scrubbed things up with hydrogen peroxide and cigarette ash (courtesy Mumsy, who smokes like a steam train...) — two neat tricks that are used by Zeiss in-house. Nothing to speak of at all in the finder now. I generally, but not always, avoid shooting with vulnerable equipment in very humid conditions e.g. with the wooden ZeroImage pinhole camera; if I shoot at all it is brief.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm getting ready for an allegedly very damp winter by refreshing all my dessicant in the camera and lens storage areas. I had one excellent enlarger lens where the fungal mycelium just started around the edges but didn't get into the typical stopped-down area. I put it into a special dessication box for a couple of months and that at least stopped it. I've also used that to clear up light meters and lenses that got soaked on trips, either by being dropped in a creek or by deliberately taking shots looking right up into waterfalls (waterproof darkcloth and lens cap briefly removed). Rescued a couple of a friend's very expensive Zeiss MF lenses that way, after he slipped in a creek. Snowmelt, so no mineral stain residue. Creeks in desert canyon are another subject, and a very unpleasant one.