Pentax 6x7 Costs

[ColColt]

I've been totally surprised at the low cost of Pentax 6x7 cameras and lens on ebay. I know there' nothing inherently wrong with that system as I had one years ago-superb camera and the 90 and 165mm LS lens I had were great and about as sharp as it gets. I may just have to get another system at the costs I'm seeing today. Some of the lens are actually under $200 and in good condition. I guess few liked a 35mm camera on steroids like I did.

Some claimed it was hard to hand hold and get sharp pictures. I never found that to be the case with the three lens I had-90, 45 and 165 lens. For portraits and weddings it just didn't get any better, IMO.

 

[mweintraub]

They are cheap. Snack them up before a professional photographer blogs about it and prices skyrocket!

It's not bad to hand hold at all! I've hand held the RZ67 with a 180mm and got very sharp photos.

 

[ColColt]

You're a better man than me! I've seen the RZ67 and it's even bigger than the Pentax. I had the 6x7 around my neck many times during the 1982 World's Fair and after several hours of that you come home with a neck ache. I think with a 90 f2.8 lens it was around 5 1/2 pounds.

 

[Alan Gales]

You're a better man than me! I've seen the RZ67 and it's even bigger than the Pentax. I had the 6x7 around my neck many times during the 1982 World's Fair and after several hours of that you come home with a neck ache. I think with a 90 f2.8 lens it was around 5 1/2 pounds.

I was there in Knoxville in June of 1982 for the Worlds Fair. No medium format then. I had just bought my first 35mm camera (Cannon AV-1) for the Fair and a trip to Florida beaches afterward. It was fun trip!


My buddy Harold has a real nice Pentax 67 outfit. He was going to sell it all until he saw how little everything is going for nowadays. He's decided to keep everything. They are a great bargain if you are in the market!

 

[ColColt]

I had a season pass and only worked two blocks from the fair. I was down there several times a week and took a zillion pictures both B&W and color. You may remember some of these.

WorldsFair0007 by David Fincher, on Flickr

the Candy Factory taken with Ektachrome 50 (Tungsten).

WorldsFair0003 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[wildbill]

Yeah, I decided to sell both of my 67II's recently since I never use them. The bodies went quick but no decent offers on several of the lenses I have left. They seem to be going for about 1/2 of what I paid ten years ago. The bodies have held their value quite well.

 

[DannL.]

I picked up my 6x7 this spring. Ordered each piece in the outfit from Japan. Ebay made that process really easy. Not finding any "like new" gear in the states, Japan has it running out their ears. The 6x7 is by far the most expensive system I've owned. But, it's worth every penny, in my opinion. I was looking for a system camera that had all of the features that I had enjoyed over the years. Now I have only one camera that uses roll-film.

Mine weighs in at 5 lbs. (90mm 2.8, metered prism, strap, uv filter, metal lens hood, loaded with film)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There are a greater number of 'average' performing lenses (Takumars) in the Pentax 6x7 / 67 lens stable alongside a smaller number of known stellar performers, among them the newer generation SMC Pentax 67 optics with re-jigged Distagon optical designs. Of these I count the 45mm, 55mm, 90mm, 165mm LS and the bitingly contrasty and sharp 75mm AL among the 'must haves' for serious work (mine is landscape/scenic). Every working photographer though will have his or her favourites and many swear by the early Takumars. Some Takumars are good, but they will not showcase the image quality capacity as well as the second generation lenses and (critically), refined technique.

As for handholding the 6x7 / 67 and getting sharp results, this is a furphy; if you only print to 6x4 or 5x7 (nonsensical as it is when the camera demands the biggest print you can find), the image will look sharp, and all well and good if that is all you ever do. Even under 4x loupé, an image will appear sharp. Try printing a handheld pic to a metre tall or across -- a very telling revelation will appear as to the severe jarring that occurs from mirror whack and shutter traverse, and this is especially evident with the 90mm and 165mm LS lenses because of their design. My 67 kit (body and 5 lenses and Sekonic multispot meter) is 12.4kg. To that I add my Manfrotto 190CX CF tripod topped with an Mg head...something like 14kg -- or double legit carry-on weight for flying, which poses a logistics problem in separating lenses.

 

[Alan Gales]

I had a season pass and only worked two blocks from the fair. I was down there several times a week and took a zillion pictures both B&W and color. You may remember some of these.

WorldsFair0007 by David Fincher, on Flickr

the Candy Factory taken with Ektachrome 50 (Tungsten).

WorldsFair0003 by David Fincher, on Flickr

Yep, I remember. Thanks for sharing!

We enjoyed the Fair and Knoxville, Tennessee was nice too.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yeah, I decided to sell both of my 67II's recently since I never use them. The bodies went quick but no decent offers on several of the lenses I have left. They seem to be going for about 1/2 of what I paid ten years ago. The bodies have held their value quite well.

The 67II's have held their value but the older models can go pretty cheap. My buddy has an older model with mirror lock-up. He bought it brand new back in the day. He's also got a bunch of lenses including one with a leaf shutter.

Then he has a Hasselblad outfit, a Rollei SL66 outfit and 3 or 4 Rolleiflex TLR's and that's just the medium format cameras that I know about!

 

[ColColt]

I had two bodies, both the 6x7 versions back in the late 80's-mid 90's when I was doing weddings/portraits. My main two lens for those functions were the 90 f2.8LS and 165 f2.8LS lens. With a sync speed of only 1/30th second I needed something that would not create ghost images which that slow speed surely would do. The LS lens were great as I usually would sync with my strobes at 125 or 250. Those lens, IIRC, were right around $600 each back then.

 

[ColColt]

I like the looks and functions of the 67II and especially the adjustable diopter, something every camera should have, but don't like the idea of the two strap lugs on the right and none on the left. Who has them camera upside down? I don't like carrying a camera that way but, it's just a quirk of mine, I suppose.

Another one of Pentax's problem areas is the focusing screen. I had a terrible time with the original screen in my first two 6x7's and had Pentax change them out to split image. It's not something that can be done like with a Nikon where you pop out the one you don't like and put another in it's place and commence shooting. The Pentax requires calibration that only Pentax cold do and even at that, when I got the first camera back from them it was still showing back focus issues so, it went back to them wit supplied example photos. This time they got it right. I've shied away from another 6x7 that didn't already have a properly calibrated split image screen for that reason. I don't know if they still have the screens and do this or not.

 

[LarryP]

The screens might have to come from ebay but Eric http://www.pentaxs.com/index.html could probably swap the screen with no problem. He might even have one laying around.

 

[ColColt]

That's good to know, thanks. I miss that camera and the superb pictures it took. I love 35mm but it doesn't hold a candle to medium format-that includes my Leica M2 and Summicron lens.

 

[Alan9940]

Years ago I did a fairly exhaustive test of my (at the time) Pentax 67 lenses--55, 105, 165, 200 (all late model)--against my Zeiss lenses for the Hassey and found that at my normal print sizes I couldn't tell 'em apart. Today, I have a 67II and carry just two lenses--a 55-100 zoom and 90-180 zoom. I cannot find fault with either of these zooms; other than that they're BIG, of course!

As for weight? Heck, carry around a complete 8x10 system for about 30 years and get back to me...

Best regards,
AlanH

 

[ColColt]

I can only imagine a 6x7 camera with a 90-180 zoom not to mention a view camera. That Margaret Bourke-White must have been one heck of a gal.

 

[DannL.]

I was checking out the 6x7 500mm yesterday on ebay. It looks like a fairly substantial lens. I was surprised how inexpensive it was. I wonder how well it would work for astrophotography purposes?

 

[jovo]

I love my 67. I have six lenses (45, 55, 105, 135, 200 and 300) and a working metered prism finder. I always use a tripod with it, and doubt I'd do well without one (I don't have the wooden handle that would help a lot I guess). BUT....even with the mirror locked up, the shutter vibrates enough that, when examined closely, there is a tiny bit of fuzz on point light sources. (lights on the 59th street bridge at night with a 45 second exposure.)

 

[mweintraub]

You're a better man than me! I've seen the RZ67 and it's even bigger than the Pentax. I had the 6x7 around my neck many times during the 1982 World's Fair and after several hours of that you come home with a neck ache. I think with a 90 f2.8 lens it was around 5 1/2 pounds.

I don't wear any camera around my neck. I carry them on the shoulder, or if treking for awhile without photographing anything, I sling my head around it so It's a left shoulder / side carry.

 

[ColColt]

Would anyone do this? Not me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bou...RO_laqncM:&usg=__J_GmZDYtlhXvUIDgEjMeqr0uLzU=

 

[DREW WILEY]

P67 gear has gotten so affordable on the used market that I'm now adding certain duplicate items that I couldn't justify before. For example, I sometimes use the 300/4 for telephoto grab shots from the road, typically with a red filter and films like ACROS. That lens is so cheap right now, even mint, that I'm not worried about leaving it in the truck while I'm off backpacking with one of my large format systems. But it's not the greatest color film lens - there's a bit of color fringing. So I'm now supplementing it with a 300 EDIF, one of the finest MF telephotos ever made, which I WON'T leave unattended like my "beater" gear. A lens like this requires the same degree of support as my 8x10, a nice solid Ries wooden tripod. But very precise handheld shots are possible with shorter lenses. The trick is to use higher shutter speeds before the mirror hits. In fact, the P67 is a fairly popular aerial camera. But if I can lean the camera on a rail or fencepost, or top of the car, that is even better. With tripod work, I always use the mirror lock.

 

[DannL.]

I love my 67. I have six lenses (45, 55, 105, 135, 200 and 300) and a working metered prism finder. I always use a tripod with it, and doubt I'd do well without one (I don't have the wooden handle that would help a lot I guess). BUT....even with the mirror locked up, the shutter vibrates enough that, when examined closely, there is a tiny bit of fuzz on point light sources. (lights on the 59th street bridge at night with a 45 second exposure.)

Just thinking out loud . . .

So, how do we know the "fuzz" is not an artifact of the lens or film being used? How would you determine that this is in fact a problem caused by the shutter?

If the camera is affixed in such a way that the film plane and lens "can not" physically move (or vibrate) whilst the shutter is open (during the exposure), then the shutter should not be the culprit.

The films characteristics could also cause this blooming. ie; internal reflections within the film substrate with bright light sources.

I have done enough testing with mine, on tripod, handheld, with and without MLU, and have never found evidence to prove the shutter moved the camera "during" normal exposures. Though, I'm definitely open to seeing evidence of this. I had considered the leaf-shutter test, but that would be a different lens (glass) altogether.

 

[Alan Gales]

Would anyone do this? Not me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bou...RO_laqncM:&usg=__J_GmZDYtlhXvUIDgEjMeqr0uLzU=

Sure. Why not?

She is actually partially inside the thing so it wouldn't be that bad. I've done a lot more dangerous stuff in construction. Not quite that high but the fall isn't going to kill you. It's the sudden stop.

A friend of mine, while still an apprentice, was on a job with a journeyman who was on a ladder over some concrete steps. His feet were only 3 feet above the ground. He fell and hit his head on the concrete and it killed him.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most alleged problems and complaints I hear about P67 lens sharpness issues, shutter vibration, etc are really due to either some undersized wimpy tripod, an insufficient tripod head, or unrealistic tripod technique.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There should not be *any* vibration or fuzzing of the image at 1/45 with MUP-pause-trigger on a decent tripod. I know this from working down to a full 45 seconds, to say nothing of the timed speeds on the 67. It is technique that will overcome the shortcomings of vibration. The camera is doing the best it can with what it has been given.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk