Pentax 6X7 pics.

f/16 · Aug 1, 2013

I was happy to get home from work and tinker with it. Figured out how to load film, fire shutter without film, and activate MLU. I thought the eyecup KEH has was expensive at about $30, so I passed on it. Glad I did, because the Nikon DK-2 fits perfectly on the eyepiece! I had to do an extensive mod to the Pentax 645 eyecup to adapt it to the DK-2. But this one was a perfect fit. On the last photo with the arrows, is this normal for the foam seals to stop there, or is some missing?

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 1, 2013

Nikon F100 eyepiece correction lenses and eyecups will fit the 6x7. Also, eyecups designed for the 67ii.
Good quality eyecups can be fetched from fleabay for around 16 ex ChinaLand; the dealer I use had them made specifically for him in a factory because he, like so many others, was incensed at the extreme price being charged at retail. I have seen Pentax OEM eyecups being sold for around $70 at J&JVENCKUS on FleaBay — that pair are serial offenders who never modify the extreme postage no matter what the size of it is you are buying.

The camera looks in good knick, with typical brassing from a well-used body. Just beware of the presence of the huge shutter curtain when drawing the leader across from a roll of new film; all too easy to press on the curtain...

RattyMouse · Aug 1, 2013

God, that's a huge shutter!!

faustotesta · Aug 1, 2013

This is a great camera. I own both a hasselblad and a pentax. I must admit the takumar 105 seems (to my eyes) a lot better than the planar 80

wblynch · Aug 1, 2013

RattyMouse said:
God, that's a huge shutter!!

You should see those Graflex 4x5 cameras with the curtain shutter!

f/16 · Aug 2, 2013

This weekend I plan on running a couple of test rolls through it and checking for light leaks since the foam light seals do not go all the way across the back door(see last photo I posted).

craigclu · Aug 2, 2013

Your foam appears to end where my bodies' do. I believe all's well! Use a substantial support and.... Have fun!

f/16 · Aug 2, 2013

craigclu said:
Your foam appears to end where my bodies' do. I believe all's well! Use a substantial support and.... Have fun!

Thanks. Now I feel better. Tomorrow I'll run a couple of test rolls before shooting something important. It's going to be weird(and expensive)-ONLY 10 exposures per roll.

Josef · Aug 6, 2013

faustotesta said:
This is a great camera. I own both a hasselblad and a pentax. I must admit the takumar 105 seems (to my eyes) a lot better than the planar 80

I agree. It's also sharper and has even more character than the fabulous Contax 645 80mm F/2.

polyglot · Aug 6, 2013

f/16 said:
It's going to be weird(and expensive)-ONLY 10 exposures per roll.

You get used to it

Just think, you're supporting the film industry! The next stop is 70mm backs, that gets you about 60 frames of 6x7 on a roll...

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 7, 2013

polyglot said:
You get used to it

Just think, you're supporting the film industry! The next stop is 70mm backs, that gets you about 60 frames of 6x7 on a roll...

Ugh! 60!!? That's a God-awful amount of printing and framing. It's tough enough a task to work through (physically and financially) with just 10 frames...

polyglot · Aug 7, 2013

Sure. Nothing says you need to print and mount every single frame; it allows you to more-easily take photos with higher risk of failure (e.g. unpredictably-moving objects (children!) and shallow DOF) and not care that you missed a good fraction of them. Or you can just load the camera once every month or two, whatever.

f/16 · Aug 7, 2013

polyglot said:
You get used to it

Just think, you're supporting the film industry! The next stop is 70mm backs, that gets you about 60 frames of 6x7 on a roll...

No, I'll be happy with 120 film. Got the 2 test rolls back today. Those images are huge! You don't need the loupe unless you want to see some fine detail. I got a couple of underexposed(about 1 stop)images with the 165 lens wide open, but not stopped down. Now I need to run another test roll and see if it something I did wrong the first time(hope that's all it is )

And another thing-DOF is insanely shallow. I'm afraid I will have a lower percentage of shots in sharp focus.

polyglot · Aug 7, 2013

Yes, you must be very careful with the focus! f/2.8 on 6x7 is about the same DOF as f/1.4 on 35mm but small errors are more obvious because they're no longer hidden by the grain.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 7, 2013

f/16 said:
No, I'll be happy with 120 film. Got the 2 test rolls back today. Those images are huge! You don't need the loupe unless you want to see some fine detail. I got a couple of underexposed(about 1 stop)images with the 165 lens wide open, but not stopped down. Now I need to run another test roll and see if it something I did wrong the first time(hope that's all it is )

And another thing-DOF is insanely shallow. I'm afraid I will have a lower percentage of shots in sharp focus.

f22 to f32 (and a tripod!) for anything at all beyond 3m with the 165mm lens. That lens is capable of exceptionally sharp results but you must accord it respect with technique. Remember the 165LS was designed as a portrait lens, and it works brilliantly as such with its shallow depth of field. In the landscape context though you need to think further away...

What's with the underexposures? Lever to Auto on the lens; no need for stopped-down use, if that's what you've inadvertently done...
Whenever you have an image under- or over-exposed by the camera's own meter, repeat the sane scene but meter it with a handheld meter. Record the results. It's possible to get wonky results with hand-held metering too! Repeat errors may indicate a problem with the aperture coupling of the lens, the camera's own meter (if it is fitted with the TTL meter) or not setting the aperture values to the click stops. Remember the 5-stop range of the onboard meter: 2.5 Stops up and down from centre, so even a slight rise or dip of the meter reflects a change in exposure.

AgX · Aug 7, 2013

I got several 35mm cameras where the original light seals are only short patches where one would expect complete sealing.

The reason for this is not clear to me. Maybe the design did not foresee patches at all, but leaks ocurred and complete sealing hampered easy closing of the back.

destroya · Aug 7, 2013

f/16 said:
.........And another thing-DOF is insanely shallow. I'm afraid I will have a lower percentage of shots in sharp focus.

I'm going through the same growing pains right now, but happy to have something new to work on.

f/16 · Aug 8, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
What's with the underexposures? Lever to Auto on the lens; no need for stopped-down use, if that's what you've inadvertently done...
Whenever you have an image under- or over-exposed by the camera's own meter, repeat the sane scene but meter it with a handheld meter. Record the results. It's possible to get wonky results with hand-held metering too! Repeat errors may indicate a problem with the aperture coupling of the lens, the camera's own meter (if it is fitted with the TTL meter) or not setting the aperture values to the click stops. Remember the 5-stop range of the onboard meter: 2.5 Stops up and down from centre, so even a slight rise or dip of the meter reflects a change in exposure.

I have the non metered prism and was using my handheld meter. I'm going to shoot another test roll and hopefully it was something I did wrong and the camera's fine.

About the shallow DOF-now that will lead to some creative possibilities that can't be done with 35mm and APS-C digital.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 14, 2013

f/16 said:
[...]
About the shallow DOF-now that will lead to some creative possibilities that can't be done with 35mm and APS-C digital.

...Unless you have a tilt/shift lens in 35mm allowing exquisite adjustment of DoF and planar alignment.

You can then pull off a minor miracle...

Pentax 6X7 pics.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency