Pentax 6X7

I did not read the whole thread, so I dunno what has come up yet. But I beleive there are 4 types:

a 6x7 sans MLU
a 6x7 with MLU
a 67 (always features the MLU)
and a 67II (always features MLU)

I have had two of the 6x7 with MLU and two 67's.
The first two have died in uncommon ways that are not due to the camera itself. The two 67 are still prefect.
If you have to choose, I'd say never take a sans MLU version. I also prefer the 67 over the 6x7 with MLU. They are newer and if I've understand it correctly, they also have some inside improvements.
But the 6x7 MLU will do just fine.
I would be carefull with broken counters. Mostly it is not only the counter that is broken but the whole transport mechanism will behave weird. So if you can get a bargain on a broken counter, always ask for a testfilm.
One other thing is the exposure dailer. Make sure it clicks obviously when changing exposure times.
Though not for every pupose I can strongly recommend this camera. when shooting people or doing reports/weddings I can imagine the pentax 67 will be a pain. I love it for everything that can be down slow. I also worked with hasselblads, and like the pentax more.
That's one more thing I always hear people about: Film loading is a pain. I don't agree. It's almost as simple as with a regular 35mm SLR. the haselblads are way harder.
Get a wooden handle, a heavy tripod and a pentax 67

game

I have the Pentax 67 and the 75mm 2.8,105mm 2.4,165mm 2.8, and the 300mm non-EDIF. I shot Hasselblad for some years, but always found it's rendition to be clinical and harsh.That's just my opinion. That camera was always too finicky for me,as well. Again, that's just my opinion. When I bought the Pentax for nothing 5 years ago, I was overjoyed. The lenses are just as sharp as my old Hasselblad lenses, but with much smoother gradation and rendition. The 75mm 2.8 is an amazing lens. It's really the one that's on my camera 80% of the time. The only time it failed me was in Shanghai when I was taking pictures of Pudong from the Bund and sort of pointed it up and for some reason all the buildings sort of lean into each other. That's really the only time I have noticed any distortion with it. I shoot handheld 75% of the time and the fast maximum aperture of the P67 lenses make me very happy. The 165mm f2.8 is a great lens, the 105mm is a pretty good lens, and the 300mm is VERY good on a tripod. Not so much fun handheld. I shot with the 135 macro for a few months and, while it was very sharp, I felt it to be too harsh for the kind of work I do. Congratulations on buying your camera. The lenses are so dirt cheap right now, I'm thinking about rounding out my kit.

sanking said:

I would be very interested in your opinion of the 55-100 zoom so if you have time please post your comments here on this thread.

Click to expand...

Sandy,

It sounds like you'll be out my way at the end of June, you'd be welcome to try the zooms then (I've got both of them).

Craig said:

Sandy,

It sounds like you'll be out my way at the end of June, you'd be welcome to try the zooms then (I've got both of them).

Click to expand...

Hi Craig,

Yes, I plan to be in Calgary with Eric Rose and his wife Erna in late June, early July, and I would love to try out those zooms. Look forward to getting together with you.

Best,

Sandy

game said:

I did not read the whole thread, so I dunno what has come up yet. But I beleive there are 4 types:

a 6x7 sans MLU
a 6x7 with MLU
a 67 (always features the MLU)
and a 67II (always features MLU)


game

Click to expand...

Hi Game,

Thanks for the good information. This was a very useful post in helping me to understand the various manifestations of this camera line.

Sandy

The newest(late 90's) 55mm f4.0 is a killer lens. I was recently able to resolve and read 156 lp/mm at F5.6 on gigabit film (not easy to do without a microscope). This is near to the defraction limit for F5.6 on-axis. The 55 mm lens is the only lens I have ever tested that shows almost no change in center resolution from F4 to F32. If I had to give up everything except one camera and one lens, this would be the one I'd keep. Since I currently own 25+ cameras and probably twice as many lenses, this is no small decision.

FWIW

Gene

25 cameras? is that all?

LOL



I won't tell you last count!

R.

genecrumpler said:

The newest(late 90's) 55mm f4.0 is a killer lens. I was recently able to resolve and read 156 lp/mm at F5.6 on gigabit film (not easy to do without a microscope). This is near to the defraction limit for F5.6 on-axis. The 55 mm lens is the only lens I have ever tested that shows almost no change in center resolution from F4 to F32. If I had to give up everything except one camera and one lens, this would be the one I'd keep. Since I currently own 25+ cameras and probably twice as many lenses, this is no small decision.

FWIW

Gene

Click to expand...

Very impressive results. I have never been able to get anywhere near that kind of resolution on film.Would you comment on your test procedures? Test target, method of exposure, EI of exposure, method of development of film, etc.

Sandy

genecrumpler said:

The newest(late 90's) 55mm f4.0 is a killer lens. I was recently able to resolve and read 156 lp/mm at F5.6 on gigabit film (not easy to do without a microscope). This is near to the defraction limit for F5.6 on-axis. The 55 mm lens is the only lens I have ever tested that shows almost no change in center resolution from F4 to F32. If I had to give up everything except one camera and one lens, this would be the one I'd keep. Since I currently own 25+ cameras and probably twice as many lenses, this is no small decision.

FWIW

Gene

Click to expand...

Gene,

How often are you in a situation where the film (and even which film) can resolve 156 lp/mm?

Rich

genecrumpler said:

The newest(late 90's) 55mm f4.0 is a killer lens. I was recently able to resolve and read 156 lp/mm at F5.6 on gigabit film (not easy to do without a microscope). This is near to the defraction limit for F5.6 on-axis. The 55 mm lens is the only lens I have ever tested that shows almost no change in center resolution from F4 to F32. If I had to give up everything except one camera and one lens, this would be the one I'd keep. Since I currently own 25+ cameras and probably twice as many lenses, this is no small decision.

FWIW

Gene

Click to expand...

Gene brings up an interesting point that doesn't really have too much to do with real photography. Most of us aren't worrying about resolving 156 lppm. But out where I work we use the P67 lenses on our high speed movie cameras for exactly the reason Gene states. I have 4-55's 4-90's and 3-165's. So these rather large lenses that would cover 6X7 easily, in our application, are covering 1 X .75 inch. The sweet spot right in the middle. and we typically run them at f4 - 5.6. 360 frames per second with a little vacuum pump that sucks the film flat against the hard chrome platen. And I can make tack sharp 11X enlargements.

I now return you to your thread.

Hi Jim,

Very interesting post. So your company chose P67 lenses over other lenses like Hasselblads etc? Is their sharpness the reason?

William

jimgalli said:

Gene brings up an interesting point that doesn't really have too much to do with real photography. Most of us aren't worrying about resolving 156 lppm. But out where I work we use the P67 lenses on our high speed movie cameras for exactly the reason Gene states. I have 4-55's 4-90's and 3-165's. So these rather large lenses that would cover 6X7 easily, in our application, are covering 1 X .75 inch. The sweet spot right in the middle. and we typically run them at f4 - 5.6. 360 frames per second with a little vacuum pump that sucks the film flat against the hard chrome platen. And I can make tack sharp 11X enlargements.

I now return you to your thread.

Click to expand...

Here's one made with the 75mm f2.8 lens (the sharpest lens I own) in Shanghai.

Oh yeah, that was shot handheld at f8 and 1/60th.

Doug Webb

Pentax has produced a 300mm EDIF lens that I have tried, but didn't purchase because I couldn't afford it at the time, that is really outstanding, the older 300mm lens is also very, very good. They have also produced a modern 400mm 4.0 and an 800 6.7 lens. These last 2 lenses are very large and very heavy and very expensive, although possibly could be purchased used for a reasonable price. I believe that the 300 EFIF and 400mm EDIF 4.0 are reviewed on photo.net. The older lenses, like the 600mm 4.0 are preset lenses.

I have an older 67 that has mlu and I replaced the screen with a Maxwell screen, which is great. If you are contemplating using the longer lenses, be sure to use a really solid tripod, tripod head, and camera to head mount (mine is a Kirk, I think, or Really Right Stuff, can't remember). Camera to tripod head mounts that don't have a metal pin that goes into the body and are not well made allow for too much movement with the big 67 shutter. I get superb results from my 67 now that I have the Maxwell screen and a solid camera to tripod head mount with the 45mm, 75mm, 135mm, and 165mm lenses, all of which I recommend highly. I occasionally use the 2x converter on the 135 and 165, but I have noticed that I need to hang additional weight on the tripod to get the sharpness I want with the higher magnification. I absolutely love the Pentax 67 body and lenses and also use it handheld with the 165 2.8 lens for portraits often with no problems.

You shouldn't have problems with the screen on a new 67II, it is a modern, bright screen. Good luck.
Doug Webb