Pentax 6x7 versus Bronica GS-1?

[138S]

I bought the Pentax.

Perhaps you know it yet but let me say a tip, with those cameras, when exploiting narrow DOF (for a portrait, for example) we can nail focus by moving our body instead using the ring, I find it's faster and better, as when we rotate the ring we don't hold the camera as well, what I personally do is making a "coarse focusing" with the ring, then holding well the lens with left hand and then finely focusing by inclinating torse forward/back to nail focus in the eyes, for example.

Every one has his own way, just let me mention that I find this way more accurate and convenient.

One thing else , this camera can mount a nice wooden handle, in general it is not for shooting, it is for transporting the camera between shots.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I'm familiar with that technique, thanks. It all comes down to the context and framing, but I certainly use it. Cheers.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

Hope you enjoy your new camera, Rob. I had sellers remorse about the RZ67 so I went and purchased another one. This one is my 3rd
It's a lot like buying nice guitars but cheaper!

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Haha. I have enough guitars to last me ...oh...days! Always room for one more!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Wiki says the 35mm film back "never materialized", do you know something? (You were a tech rep for them ; ) Should I start looking?

35 mm back for GS-1 was never made as afr I can tell. They must have realized 6x7 camera is a bit too far up there to make something that would have likely had no takers. It looks like they finally admitted 35 mm backs for ETR & SQ were not such a stellar sellers. I think they should have only put out the panorama format out there, as standard 35 mm frame it's just not very logical given overall size of the camera/lens/back.

 

[RedSun]

The above is not true.

At the time when Bronica was active, all film formats were available. Bronica is known for be versatile and it wants people to carry one camera to cover all MF and SF formats. 35mm film back actually was popular. It was very logical for Bronica too.

The GS-1 series were made to be a studio camera, but also portable since Bronica says GS-1 body is smaller and lighter than any other 6x7 MF cameras. The price was high. So not so many GS-1 were made since the studio camera market was dominated by Mamiya and probably Hasselblad. So Bronica did not feel the need to make the 35mm film back for GS-1 series.

The regular 35mm film back and the pano 35mm film back for ETR and SQ share the same design. So if Bronica had ever wanted to make 35mm film back for GS-1, it would have made both versions.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The above is not true.

At the time when Bronica was active, all film formats were available. Bronica is known for be versatile and it wants people to carry one camera to cover all MF and SF formats. 35mm film back actually was popular. It was very logical for Bronica too.

The GS-1 series were made to be a studio camera, but also portable since Bronica says GS-1 body is smaller and lighter than any other 6x7 MF cameras. The price was high. So not so many GS-1 were made since the studio camera market was dominated by Mamiya and probably Hasselblad. So Bronica did not feel the need to make the 35mm film back for GS-1 series.

The regular 35mm film back and the pano 35mm film back for ETR and SQ share the same design. So if Bronica had ever wanted to make 35mm film back for GS-1, it would have made both versions.

OK, I was not aware 35mm film backs were that popular. But for the other part regular vs. pano 35 mm, what I meant to say was standard back diluted the market. I read back then and continue to see that today many are not aware there was a pano version. I'm not against them and I'd get one, if they were priced right. And to get one logically priced (the W that is) got to get lucky with a full kit.

 

[RedSun]

People at that time did not pay attention and did not care about so called "pano" back. Both 135 N and 135 W for SQ were sold at $589 each. And both 120 and 220 backs were sold at $539 each. Only after film market dried up that people want something that is different. So the demand and supply makes those "pano" expensive. Not many were made. The SQ version is even more rare than the ETR version.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

People at that time did not pay attention and did not care about so called "pano" back. Both 135 N and 135 W for SQ were sold at $589 each. And both 120 and 220 backs were sold at $539 each. Only after film market dried up that people want something that is different. So the demand and supply makes those "pano" expensive. Not many were made. The SQ version is even more rare than the ETR version.

Thanks, good to know.

 

[choiliefan]

I have an old piece of sales lit for the Linhof Technikardan S TK23 which lists an adapter back for Bronica 6X7/GS1 film holders.
Its listed as part #001685 says not for 47mm which I presume is a Super-Angulon lens. This is a 2X3 compact field camera.
It's interesting that Linhof and Bronica were aligned in this small way. Also listed is a Hasselblad back adapter and the usual Super Rollex roll holders.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I'm looking at macro-lens prices for the Pentax 67. There are two versions

• SMC Pentax 67 Macro 135 mm f4
• SMC Pentax 67 Macro 100 mm f4 & SMC Life-Size Converter

The former goes for about £50 to £100 here, while the latter £50 to £450. Yet the Pentax forum rate the cheap one as 4.8 stars out of 5, with wholly positive reviews. The more expensive gets 5 out of 5, yet from those who have both, they tend to say 135mm can get too soft, while the cheaper 100mm is sharper.

I just want one for closeups and still life work. Anybody here have experience with both?

 

[abruzzi]

I don’t have the 100, but I do have the 135mm. I think the 135 only gets to ~1:4 on its own. Generally I’ve like the images I’ve shot with it, but wanted the flexibility of the 100mm with the LSC. (If you’re looking on eBay, make sure the LSC is included, because by themselves, they’re pretty rare.)

 

[RedSun]

I have an old piece of sales lit for the Linhof Technikardan S TK23 which lists an adapter back for Bronica 6X7/GS1 film holders.
Its listed as part #001685 says not for 47mm which I presume is a Super-Angulon lens. This is a 2X3 compact field camera.
It's interesting that Linhof and Bronica were aligned in this small way. Also listed is a Hasselblad back adapter and the usual Super Rollex roll holders.

Bronica also had alliance with others to make long lenses and maybe something else.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I've just read that the 100 gets to 1:2 on its own with the LSC. Four times as expensive as the 135mm. Hmm.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentax offers practical add-on extension pieces. The 100 is newer than the 135, so that might be part of the factor in pricing differential. Even the regular 105 or 165 works decently up close with an extension.

 

[choiliefan]

So the LSC mounts to the front of the lens?

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, it’s the conical thing that looks like a hood:

some good info here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-100mm-F4-Macro-Lens.html

according to that page, it get to 1:2 without the LSC, and 1:1 with. The 135mm gets to .3x, or just a tiny bit more magnification than 1:4:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Macro-Takumar-6x7-135mm-F4-Lens.html

 

[Rob MacKillop]

As I only need it for close up work, the cheaper 135mm will do me nicely. For once I like the cheaper option!

 

[johnha]

Pay attention to the camera used in the reviews from PentaxForums. Some are using the 645 digital bodies, others FF DSLRs and some mirrorless (there are some who want a small body then whack a P6x7 lens and 3" adapter on the front). How these relate to 6x7 film may not be straight forward. I Iave the 135 but haven't really used it close-up.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Cheers, John. Will do.

 

[Lachlan Young]

As I only need it for close up work, the cheaper 135mm will do me nicely. For once I like the cheaper option!

The bit which gets ignored by the spec-sheet-licking reviewers is that if you make an 8x10" print from a neg that was shot at about 1:3.5 ratio or so, your object/ subject in the image will be life size in the print... And it's a whole heck of a lot easier to use than a 8x10 camera with a 480mm lens and nearly a metre of bellows!

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Ha, indeed! Good point, Lachlan.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, Lachlan, but that 8x10 shot, if properly done, will carry a lot more authority, especially if enlarged to a 30X40 inch print. A 35mm image starts falling apart, apples to apples, anything bigger than 5x7 (approx 4X magnification either way). And please note I'm comparing apples to apples, not apples to applesauce! I absolutely love what my 360 Fujinon A does at near-macro on 8x10 film.

 

[Soeren]

One lens for the Pentax that blew me away untill it fell apart was the 165mm f/2.8. Should I come around A P67II I would definitely get another 165mm.
I do find the Mamiya a better camera though partly because I prefer using waist level finders with MF and the finder is generally better. The sore Biceps after a full day out on the streets just adds to the experience

 

[GLS]

partly because I prefer using waist level finders with MF

You can get a WLF for the Pentax 67 cameras.