Pentax 67...panoramic?

[tallenpatterson]

I know you can buy the kit to make this shoot panoramic on 35mm. However, I'm trying to figure out why I simply couldn't just shoot and crop with medium format? I'm thinking for darkroom use, I could fabricate a negative carrier in panoramic size. If digital, likewise when sizing/cropping.

Seems like it wouldn't take long to learn roughly where your image is going to be in camera. Just trying to justify why I would want to snag a XPan or Fuji TX-1 or even the conversion kit for the 67. Any input?

 

[AgX]

Using a type 135 instead type 120 or 220 film is more economic and yields greater variety in film sorts.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Of course you can crop in printing to make a high aspect ratio print. Its been done.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why not just crop 4x5 film itself, or use a 6x12 roll film back? You'll have a lot more real estate on the film that way.

 

[tallenpatterson]

Why not just crop 4x5 film itself, or use a 6x12 roll film back? You'll have a lot more real estate on the film that way.

Portability factor. I'd like to do some street work, etc. Thinking it'd be much easier this way, plus the Pentax 67 was given to me as part of a deal when I sold my Durst 8x10 enlarger. Thought I'd put it to work...

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a difficult camera for handheld street work unless you invest in something like the 75/2.8 lens and shoot relatively fast film. I rarely truly hand
shoot it, though do get good results if I can simply rest the camera on a car roof or fence post and use higher shutter speeds. A monopod might work.
Their 105/2.4 and 165/2.8 are excellent fast lenses. I've never owned one of their 90's, so can't comment on them. I wouldn't try altering the camera. 120 film is abundant and cheap. Just crop it if necessary.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Portability factor. I'd like to do some street work, etc. Thinking it'd be much easier this way, plus the Pentax 67 was given to me as part of a deal when I sold my Durst 8x10 enlarger. Thought I'd put it to work...

Haha! What!? "Portability"? The Pentax 67!? You're kidding! This is a heavy beast, not a svelte Olympus XA. Drew is right: fit the 75/f2.8AL or 90mm f2.8 (both are very bright, light and squat lenses compared to the rest of the SMC-P67 lens stable) and film, say 400-800iso film. Even in street photography, there is no motordrive available for the P67, it's all wind...wind...wind...wind...wind...wind -- this alone can be tiring, and the camera really doesn't lend itself to rapid-fire photography unless you are masochist and have a gaggle of assistants to swap over bodies as the film is wind to the 10th (and last...) frame. Really, a tripod would be a seriously consideration for inclusion in your kit, rather than a neckstrap. Any which lens I put on the P67, I absolutely loathe the thing around my neck or on my shoulder; I discarded the neoprene OP/TECH strap because of its ridiculous bulk that did nothing to create the illusion of not carrying a 3.2kg camera! Plonk Pentaximus on a tripod (as I do) and you'll spare the world new and inventive swearing.

 

[tallenpatterson]

Haha! What!? "Portability"? The Pentax 67!? You're kidding! This is a heavy beast, not a svelte Olympus XA. Drew is right: fit the 75/f2.8AL or 90mm f2.8 (both are very bright, light and squat lenses compared to the rest of the SMC-P67 lens stable) and film, say 400-800iso film. Even in street photography, there is no motordrive available for the P67, it's all wind...wind...wind...wind...wind...wind -- this alone can be tiring, and the camera really doesn't lend itself to rapid-fire photography unless you are masochist and have a gaggle of assistants to swap over bodies as the film is wind to the 10th (and last...) frame. Really, a tripod would be a seriously consideration for inclusion in your kit, rather than a neckstrap. Any which lens I put on the P67, I absolutely loathe the thing around my neck or on my shoulder; I discarded the neoprene OP/TECH strap because of its ridiculous bulk that did nothing to create the illusion of not carrying a 3.2kg camera! Plonk Pentaximus on a tripod (as I do) and you'll spare the world new and inventive swearing.

Thank you...have never even laid eyes on one. It's a freebie with lenses...shall be arriving soon.

 

[tallenpatterson]

Thank you...have never even laid eyes on one. It's a freebie with lenses...shall be arriving soon.

So assuming now if portability is what I'm after, back to the XPan/TX-1 then?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

So assuming now if portability is what I'm after, back to the XPan/TX-1 then?

Well, wait and see...try it when it comes. The P76 is no lightweight, no speed-demon and has idiosyncracies that could well make you cross-eyed, in addition to crippling the camera (so do get hold of a .pdf owners manual of the Pentax 6x7 or 67 (6x7 = 1960s; 67 = 1990s) e.g. from Butkus before mollycoddling the poor thing). But the image quality is something to behold (if you know your game!) and an abundance of lenses to flog on the used market puts quality medium format photography within easy reach, though not always within easy-budget reach. In the meantime, does Pentaximus (below) look the "portability" thing to you? That set up (with tripod) is 6.2kg... Makes the flash-bang XPan look quite cute by comparison, yeah?

 

[tallenpatterson]

Well, wait and see...try it when it comes. The P76 is no lightweight, no speed-demon and has idiosyncracies that could well make you cross-eyed, in addition to crippling the camera (so do get hold of a .pdf owners manual of the Pentax 6x7 or 67 (6x7 = 1960s; 67 = 1990s) e.g. from Butkus before mollycoddling the poor thing). But the image quality is something to behold (if you know your game!) and an abundance of lenses to flog on the used market puts quality medium format photography within easy reach, though not always within easy-budget reach. In the meantime, does Pentaximus (below) look the "portability" thing to you? That set up (with tripod) is 6.2kg... Makes the flash-bang XPan look quite cute by comparison, yeah?

View attachment 160239

Looks like a monster indeed. Then again, I used to shoot weddings hand holding a RB67...ouch...lol

 

[splash_fr]

I know you can buy the kit to make this shoot panoramic on 35mm. However, I'm trying to figure out why I simply couldn't just shoot and crop with medium format? I'm thinking for darkroom use, I could fabricate a negative carrier in panoramic size. If digital, likewise when sizing/cropping.

Seems like it wouldn't take long to learn roughly where your image is going to be in camera. Just trying to justify why I would want to snag a XPan or Fuji TX-1 or even the conversion kit for the 67. Any input?

You can crop with 120 film with the added benefit of a small "shift functionality" as you can select what part to crop...
You need the kit if you want to see sprocket holes on the prints!

Rgds,
Gerd.

 

[Meso]

I loaded a 24 exp roll of 35mm film in my Mamiya RB67 just for fun, but it just doesnt make much sense as I got the same amount of frames as with 120, it would probably make more sense to use a 220 back and 36 exp roll.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you...have never even laid eyes on one. It's a freebie with lenses...shall be arriving soon.

Another example of the corrupting power of found money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Size and weight are relative. I consider my Pentax 6x7 to be my mini-cam. Nice for quick road snapshots or being on vacation with my wife, who doesn't like waiting while I fiddle around under a darkcloth with a real camera. It's a light enough system that I can carry a couple bodies and several
lenses all day in a shoulder pack. It can be handheld using normal to wide lenses at higher shutter speeds. And it gives a big enough neg to do decent
16x20 prints if one is careful. It also an affordable highly reliable system. But realistically, you need a tripod most of the time, so certainly not a
casual snapshot system in the sense that 35mm cameras are.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Size and weight are relative. I consider my Pentax 6x7 to be my mini-cam. Nice for quick road snapshots or being on vacation with my wife, who doesn't like waiting while I fiddle around under a darkcloth with a real camera. It's a light enough system that I can carry a couple bodies and several
lenses all day in a shoulder pack. It can be handheld using normal to wide lenses at higher shutter speeds. And it gives a big enough neg to do decent
16x20 prints if one is careful. It also an affordable highly reliable system. But realistically, you need a tripod most of the time, so certainly not a
casual snapshot system in the sense that 35mm cameras are.

 

[tallenpatterson]

Another example of the corrupting power of found money.

Not just found money on this...I hit the mother load. Had an ad seeking a 4x5 enlarger since I shoot a Speed Graphic and Aero Ektar lens. Have been wanting to do a darkroom forever, as I greatly miss it. Get contacted, and the guy says he has one I can have. Then says, I can have the other items in the storage unit also. Once I arrive, there, packaged in professionally built crates, sits an entire community darkroom. Durst 184 8x10 enlarger in fantastic shape with Rodenstock 300mm lens; Durst 1200 4x5 with CLS 501 head and everything you could buy extra in immaculate shape; ZBE Sentinel w/Starlite 55 head and all negative carriers/keyboard/probe in like new condition, Jobo ATL-2 Plus complete with multiple drums, manuals, extras in like new shape; 4 enlarger lenses (Schneider 90mm HM; Schneider 45mm HM; Rodenstock 50mm N; Rodenstock 50mm G), and Fujimoto CP51 image processor. He tossed in the high end safelight and more. Few days ago someone handed me a brand new, never used Epson R2880 photo printer. I swear I'm going to play the lottery before this streak comes to an end...crazy things going on!

 

[DREW WILEY]

We previously discussed this on another forum. You might want to temporarily rent a storage space until you figure out what gear you want to keep
and what you will try to sell. I had an analogous predicament not long ago, yet even bigger; but at my age I just took what I can personally use,
and didn't want to get involved in dealing with any surplus, so most of that is now scrap metal despite its staggering initial worth, and I am speaking
in millions. If I don't know how to fix it, I don't want it. But those enlargers you're getting are something I know how to repair. I refurbished a 184
over the holidays, almost to "like new" condition, but just haven't had time to actually print with it yet. The Fujimoto and Jobo processors are still in
high demand. I've got a big roller-transport processor still sitting in a box that I might never get around to using, and was offered a $100,000 one
after that. No thanks. Too much chemistry. I'll stick with big one-shot drums for my own RA4 needs.

 

[mtjade2007]

But realistically, you need a tripod most of the time, so certainly not a
casual snapshot system in the sense that 35mm cameras are.

I actually use my Pentax 67-ii handheld 99% of the time and almost never got a blurred picture. But I agree it is a sure bid if printing to 16X20 and larger is my goal I would shoot with a tripod too. My point is you really don't need to worry too much to shoot with a Pentax 67 camera handheld. In my real life experience I have little problem to print large prints from 6x7 negs shot handheld from my P67-ii. I visit Yosemite National Park with it frequently and shoot handheld with no worry of blurred pictures.

 

[mtjade2007]

I have a lot of 46 mm long rolls of film cold stored in my freezer. Initially I bought the film for my Camerz long roll camera but I never got to use them over the years. Now I am thinking to shoot them in my Pentax 67-ii. They will come out in panoramic size of pics in 46x70. This is very possible. I have made from used empty 120 film spools to narrow the film width from 60 mm to 46 mm. These modified spools will fit in my P67-ii like regular 120 spools. Now all I need to do is to figure out how to spool my 46 mm film to the modified spool with trimmed leading and trailing paper from my used 220 rolls. I can also use such 46 mm film on my modified 120 film spools in Mamiya RB67 as well.

 

[gone]

When you see a Pentax SLR MF camera in the flesh, it's a sobering sight. When you pick one up, the first thought is to set it right back down. Same w/ the big Fugi MF rangefinder cameras. I have no intention of shooting either, although I did buy them and tried. Wasn't for me. At least the Fuji didn't have a shutter that would awaken Bela Lugosi in his grave.

Anyway, your idea on the pano cropping would work fine. I experimented w/ some 35mm negs by cropping them to get a "virtual" pano and liked what I saw very much. No, they don't look exactly like a pano shot from a pano camera, but you have to really look closely to see that small difference.

 

[mtjade2007]

When you see a Pentax SLR MF camera in the flesh, it's a sobering sight. When you pick one up, the first thought is to set it right back down. Same w/ the big Fugi MF rangefinder cameras. I have no intention of shooting either, although I did buy them and tried. Wasn't for me. At least the Fuji didn't have a shutter that would awaken Bela Lugosi in his grave.

Why bother to comment that it is not for you if it is not for you? It's none of your business, isn't it? Sorry, can't resist in expressing my feeling.

 

[FujiLove]

I still shoot 135 because there are more film types available, some being particularly interesting such as the Kodak movie stocks.

I use a Hasselblad 503 camera now, about which nobody seems to write long forum posts bemoaning it's weight. I used to own a P67. With the 90mm lens and WLF it was only slightly (300g?) heavier than the Hasselblad. Nothing in medium format land. This ten stone weakling used to walk all day with that outfit. No problem at all.

The Pentax is a damn sight less fussy to use than the 503 too. And easier to focus. More stable to hold. The shutter noise is no more intrusive. It's a third of the price. Larger negative. Lenses are just as good as the Zeiss.

Sigh.

Anyone want to buy a new camera? It has a lot of shiny chrome and a fancy badge ;-)

 

[Prest_400]

When you see a Pentax SLR MF camera in the flesh, it's a sobering sight. When you pick one up, the first thought is to set it right back down. Same w/ the big Fugi MF rangefinder cameras. I have no intention of shooting either, although I did buy them and tried. Wasn't for me. At least the Fuji didn't have a shutter that would awaken Bela Lugosi in his grave.

The pentax 67 has become quite appreciated recently as I'm seeing. The Fujis (I have and decided for one of the GW fixed lens ones, bang for the buck) get quite a bad rap for the size and the ping of the shutter. Actually they are 1460g, indeed big but so is the film gate but quite ergonomic. Maybe it is the 35mm form factor that by way of comparison makes them more titanic. Sometimes it feels like the ridiculously big Fujica, but actually it is rather portable.
A Pro AF SLR (DSLR too) with a grip and f2.8 zoom doesn't have anything to envy in weight and size to some medium format rigs. Even the 645 SLRs aren't petite.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is so light and easy to handle that it's largely replaced my need for 35mm. I love the analogous format proportions. But it does have a fixed lens and is a rangefinder. In this respect, the Pentax 67 is far more versatile, especially when long focal length lenses are desired.
Not as versatile as a 4x5, but obviously quicker to use, especially in wet or windy weather. I really don't worry about either the "whirrr" of the Fuji or the "Ker-Lunk" of the Pentax. Library photography has never been my thing anyway.