Pentax 6x7 Costs

[MattKing]

There seem to be a lot of very happy purchasers from Japan in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[ColColt]

bureaucratic red tape? Just curious.

Customs taxes, fees, clearance, etc. I just shipped a camera to the UK and it took me ten minutes to fill out the forms for shipping.

 

[DannL.]

Customs taxes, fees, clearance, etc. I just shipped a camera to the UK and it took me ten minutes to fill out the forms for shipping.

That's interesting. I haven't had to ship to the UK yet. When I do ship to South America and Europe, I have only had to fill out the standard Declarations forms. Some times as many as 5 or 6 forms per package. But, that's really simple stuff. I've received numerous photography items over the years from Japan, China, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, New Zealand, etc . . . with no hassle whatsoever. What I really like about receiving from Japan is the speed of shipping. I ordered a part for the 6x7 on the Aug 29th and had it in my hands yesterday evening. I've seen faster. I once ordered a Horseman HF and received it in 2 days flat. So, when you said "bureaucratic red tape", I suspect that must be a UK thing. Having family in the UK, I'm sure the opportunity will eventually arise where I will need to send them something.

 

[ColColt]

A two pound camera cost me $66 to ship there. I thought that a bit extravagant. That was via the EMS, I think it's called, because you get insurance and a tracking number. some of the cheaper methods don't offer that service. I had no recourse. This fellow(Sover Wong) is the best in the business for fixing Nikon F2's and mine was sick. He is to the F2 what Ben Casey was to brain surgery. How could you go wrong with Wong?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I went thru utter hell getting a fifty year old Norma view camera shipped from the UK. All kinds of customs forms and threatened return charges involved from FedEx. The irony of it was that, as a camera, it was under the blanket of electronic technology. That was pretty ironic, because it was pre-digital, and for another thing, I'm here in the SF Bay Area, which is light years ahead of the UK in electronic R&D anyway, and hardly interested in stealing their secrets, let alone Swiss machine shop techniques half a century old (though the Norma represents the apex of traditional machining craft). By contrast, I just got in my long coveted P 67 300 EDIF lens from Japan in just four days, in utterly pristine condition with no extra paperwork at all. Good price too.

 

[DannL.]

I shipped USPS to Spain about 2 weeks ago. The package, if I recall, was about 21 lbs. and had the ritual 5 declaration forms. It only cost about $85 to ship, and it arrived at it's destination in 9 days. You might have saved some with USPS Priority Mail International. If you use Flat-Rate International, that shipping method might be a tad expensive if your item doesn't weigh much. Of course, everyone's mileage will differ.

 

[ColColt]

From what I understood, the most secure shipping service from the US is the USPS Express Mail International (EMS) as it includes web tracking and $200 insurance as standard. You can insure more as well but DO NOT DECLARE THE VALUE TO BE GREATER THAN $250 BECAUSE THERE COULD BE MORE CUSTOMS DELAYS. USPS Priority Mail International also includes tracking but not insurance. The cheapest is First-Class Mail International, but there is no tracking or insurance. It’s actually not bad, as there’s tracking to the US border.

 

[DannL.]

Back to my original inquiry. It's possible that receiving packages in Oz from Japan would be a different story. But, here in Oklahoma we seem to have hassle-free shipping directly from Japan, just like Drew mentioned. And something to look forward to . . . if you order enough items from individuals in Japan, you will undoubtedly end up with a small collection of handmade origami figures.

 

[DannL.]

ColColt, are you going to invest in a 6x7 again?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Drew, let me know what you really think of the 300mm edif as I would like to dump some of my less used equipment and purchase one. It would pretty much complete my line of lenses for the P67. John W

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shot a test roll last nite back to back, regular 300 vs EDIF. I already know what to expect. The EDIF is one of the best MF telephotos ever
made, so good in fact, that it's often used by wide-field astro photographers using either high-end MF digi cams or DLSR's. I work strictly with film myself, but did order a supplemental Nikon F adapter for it. The older 300 is nice to have on road trips for black and white grab shots. With a contrast filter on it, it's plenty sharp, given the fact that distant views are more affected by atmosphere than optics. I've never had my truck broken into while I'm off backpacking; but if it happened, I wouldn't want my best 6x7 gear to be in there. The 300 EDIF, by contrast, will get pampered. It's easier to stabilize due to the tripod collar on the lens itself, has superior performance at wide apertures, and is much better color corrected. I lucked out getting one "preowned" but seemingly never used at all. It's immaculate, yet had drifted down into my budget range. I'll go out to the coast with it this weekend for some field shots. I use a wooden Ries tripod just like shooting large format. That's one of the secrets to either of these 300's. You need some mass under them. And mirror lockup is essential except at higher shutter speeds. There are several of these for sale in Japan right now at about half the price of a couple years ago.

 

[JW PHOTO]

That's one of the secrets to either of these 300's. You need some mass under them. And mirror lockup is essential except at higher shutter speeds. There are several of these for sale in Japan right now at about half the price of a couple years ago.

Drew,
I don't have a wooden tripod and probably never will, but I do have a pretty heavy Bogen/Manfrotto 3033 with a very heavy and very good Kirk BH-1 head. This setup handles everything I have with no problem. I have heard the debate about metal vs wood when it comes to harmonic vibration. I think it might be true with lighter aluminum tripods, but I don't think it would be very much with mine. Might have to check or test it out sometime, but I'm not very concerned. As for buying a 300mm? I was very surprised at the going prices on the big auction sight. The standard 300mm f4 lenses are going for as low as $90.00 to 100.00 (without shipping costs) in very nice shape and the 300mm EDIF at under $1,000.00. Those prices are almost unreal. I might just get a cherry 300mm f4 standard lens for now since I have nothing longer than the 200mm. Maybe it's all I really need because I really don't use much longer than my 165mm LS. Yup, that's what I'll do for now, go cheap. Thanks Drew. John W

 

[ColColt]

ColColt, are you going to invest in a 6x7 again?

Giving it a lot of serious thought. In fact, I'm looking at one now with a 90LS lens along with the 75 f4.5 and handle-all less than $1000. I've been watching it for about three days not agonizing over whether I ought to get it. I paid more that that for two lens when I had my last 6x7 outfit. what I like about this one I inquired about the focus screen and it does have the biprism, as Pentax calls it, which is a definite plus. I never did like the micro prism than was standard and had it replace on my other two.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 75/4.5 is an exceptional lens. Super sharp and lovely bokeh. But if you shoot handheld, the brighter viewing of the 75/2.8 would be more convenient. Now back to 300's: I'll continue testing over the coming months. The 300 EDIF is extraordinary crisp and contrast for a telephoto, even fully wide open at f/4, and even better than most shorter P67 lenses. Plenty sharp for use on 35mm cameras too. Since the tripod mount is a collar on the lens, you can rotate the camera from horizontal to vertical without need for a pan-tilt held at all (anyone who uses a ball head with a rig this heavy needs their bald head examined!). I don't use tripod heads at all. At shutter speeds 1/125th or higher, like with color film and wildlife, people, or infinity shots, the collar works superbly. But, despite the superb optics, the reputation of harmonic shutter vibrations at mid-range speeds, almost undetectable with shorter lenses, starts seriously kicking in. Since I often shoot slow speed black and white films through deep red contrast filters, this becomes a challenge. The options are to simply attach the camera itself to a heavy tripod, like I do with the conventional 300, or do something really substantial, namely, spend a hour or two in the shop and machine a brace which supports and vibration-dampens both the lens ring and the camera, with the tripod thread itself going in between. I've made numerous gadgets like this before. No problem. Fun in fact. And I should be done just in time for our best wildlife and bird season here on the coast, when the wind dies down and the air becomes exceptionally clear.

 

[StephenT]

I took a look last night at some of the eBay listings and except for the EDIF's the lenses are generally ABSOLUTE bargains! If I didn't already have multiple 67 bodies and a good selection of lenses, I would be buyer.

 

[ColColt]

It's amazing at what they cost now as opposed to 15-20 years ago. You've got your choice of a bargain body or one that's LNIB for a lot less than they were new in the past...ditto for the lens.

I guess I'm not sure why. That was a great system and I made a partial living using it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's called progress. Just how much quality does one need for the typical magazine stock shot? much less, for silly web usage? That's why I'm
so grateful for all these advances the pixel peepers are clamoring for. Then they sell off their film cameras, and make real pro photo gear
more affordable for people like us. That's what I call progress.

 

[ColColt]

Indeed. Looking through a closet today I found my old rapid focus ring for the 90-105 lens, Sailwind bellows and associated equipment, 67,77 and 82mm filters in UV and Yellow, sync cords and some lens and body caps. Looks like I need to search for more. No telling what I'll run across.

 

[Alan Gales]

It's called progress. Just how much quality does one need for the typical magazine stock shot? much less, for silly web usage? That's why I'm
so grateful for all these advances the pixel peepers are clamoring for. Then they sell off their film cameras, and make real pro photo gear
more affordable for people like us. That's what I call progress.

Yeah, and they constantly update their digital cameras with the newest incarnation. You can pick up their old digital cameras on Ebay for a song. Even if you don't like digital they are great for taking Ebay pics or showing a photo of your film camera or darkroom on the forum.

 

[ColColt]

Back in the mid 80's I did an essay on the East TN Mennonite community and this was one of my favorites I shot with the 6x7 and 90 f2.8 lens. film was Agfapan 400 in Rodinal.

img018a by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[ColColt]

Yeah, and they constantly update their digital cameras with the newest incarnation. You can pick up their old digital cameras on Ebay for a song. Even if you don't like digital they are great for taking Ebay pics or showing a photo of your film camera or darkroom on the forum.

Digital has it's place. I have a couple myself. I was surprised at the quality of a 19.5mb RAW file changed to jpg for print purposes. This one of my favorite buddy was turned into a 16x20 canvas print and hangs in my living room. I have to wonder what that photo would have looked like with my 6x7. I'd say very comparable.


_DEF3557aa by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

...I have to wonder what that photo would have looked like with my 6x7. I'd say very comparable.


Better actually, but that depends on the knowledge of the people involved at the scan step. Things are prepared to finished print size rather than a file size.

 

[ColColt]

Best I recall, that was about a 3-4mb jpg. It started out 19.5mb but, after some PP and resizing turned out 3-4mb. Either way, it was big enough to render a superb looking 16x20. I feel quite confident the lab I use to use, before they went totally digital, could have done a great job with a 6x7 negative of the same shot.

 

[ColColt]

Well, I've agonized over this long enough. Time to either make the purchase or get off the pot. I found a super nice 6x7 with handle, 90 f2.8 lens and 75 f4.5 later lens and caps(not Takumar) and think I'll jump on it before it's gone. I've been watching it for days and time to do something.

 

[ColColt]

I finally decided to go with this one. It was the best looking one I found and has the biprism I like so well. I think I'll enjoy it as I did the other one. Moreover, I bought the late 75 f4.5 lens to go along with it.

P6x7 by David Fincher, on Flickr