Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,623   Online: 701
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Images
    15
    I should have mentioned in my post I don't freeshand my 67: everything is shot from the tripod because the film is either Velvia 50 or 100F and lenses are f4 with polarisers and much of my work is in rainforests where lighting is very low.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Toronto Ontario Canada
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    335

    Pentax 645 vs Pentax 67

    Thank you all for your suggestions and insights to these two cameras and how they handle and feel in use. I can always count on unbiased and real world experienced opinions. I've decided to stick with the 645.

    Thanks again to all who have responded.

    Doug

  3. #13
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    I haven't used a 67, but I doubt handholding would be an option for me - I have average sized hands for a woman, but am a bit lacking in arm strength.
    All right, Bethe- drop and give me fifty! Do that every day for a couple months and you'll be handling that 67 like it was a feather!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #14
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,419
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    All right, Bethe- drop and give me fifty! Do that every day for a couple months and you'll be handling that 67 like it was a feather!
    LOL

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    309
    I have had my P67 II since 2002. I use it almost exclusively on hiking trails. It is not a studio camera to me. Rather it is a fantastic huge 35 mm camera that gives stunning sharp large 6x7 negatives. I don't understand why people think it is a studio camera. It is heavier but in terms of handling it is not much different from a classic 35 mm cameras.

    It takes a little more effort in loading say a roll of 220 then set the speed of the film and the metering to one of the 3 choices and dial the speed dial to auto. After that I just wind, compose and focus and depress the shutter button. Repeat that for another 20 times to get a total of 21 shots. No hassle whatsoever. It's not a studio camera. It is the opposite. If you use one you will know what I mean. It is a great camera for outdoor natural light portraiture too. It is plain wrong to regard it as a studio camera.

  6. #16
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by mtjade2007 View Post
    I have had my P67 II since 2002. I use it almost exclusively on hiking trails. It is not a studio camera to me. Rather it is a fantastic huge 35 mm camera that gives stunning sharp large 6x7 negatives. I don't understand why people think it is a studio camera. It is heavier but in terms of handling it is not much different from a classic 35 mm cameras.

    It takes a little more effort in loading say a roll of 220 then set the speed of the film and the metering to one of the 3 choices and dial the speed dial to auto. After that I just wind, compose and focus and depress the shutter button. Repeat that for another 20 times to get a total of 21 shots. No hassle whatsoever. It's not a studio camera. It is the opposite. If you use one you will know what I mean. It is a great camera for outdoor natural light portraiture too. It is plain wrong to regard it as a studio camera.


    The 67II is not the 67 or 6x7 (both fundamentally primitive in terms of metering, control and lack of focus or systemic automation), nor is the 645 in any way similar to the 67 or 6x7. There is a very big difference in handling due to the non-existent ergonomics, but anybody can 'warm' to the beasts.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    The 67II is not the 67 or 6x7 (both fundamentally primitive in terms of metering, control and lack of focus or systemic automation), nor is the 645 in any way similar to the 67 or 6x7. There is a very big difference in handling due to the non-existent ergonomics, but anybody can 'warm' to the beasts.
    It is true that P67-ii is much improved over the older P6x7 and P67. However, that's just the latest improvement over the original design of the Pentax 6x7 system. The Pentax 6x7 system was not designed to be a studio camera. Not even close. That's what I meant.

    I see that you have an opinion about having to tilt the camera 90 degree to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. Did you ever use any 35 mm SLR before? All 35 mm SLRs require that too. Was that a problem to you? I would actually find it a nuisance of a rotating back for 35 mm SLRs. To change the orientation something has to turn 90 degrees. It would be appropriate for a studio camera to rotate the film back but for an outdoor camera such as Pentax 67 isn't it easier by just turn the whole camera 90 degrees?

    Non-existent ergonomics for older versions of Pentax 6x7 or P67 cameras? I am afraid this is a misunderstanding of the camera. I had a 500C/M before getting my P67-ii. That was the camera completely lack of systemic automation. It was a studio camera obviously.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mtjade2007 View Post
    I see that you have an opinion about having to tilt the camera 90 degree to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. Did you ever use any 35 mm SLR before? All 35 mm SLRs require that too. Was that a problem to you? I would actually find it a nuisance of a rotating back for 35 mm SLRs. To change the orientation something has to turn 90 degrees. It would be appropriate for a studio camera to rotate the film back but for an outdoor camera such as Pentax 67 isn't it easier by just turn the whole camera 90 degrees?
    Agree

  9. #19
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,048
    Images
    38
    "Non-existent ergonomics" is just very untrue and unfair in this situation. To declare it as unquestionable fact is just silly. Ergonomics is the study of how a machine fits with the human using it. In my hands and in my use the Pentax 67 is nearly perfect for my use. I would personally say the Pentax 67 is very well designed for Ergonomics.
    I like the weight and balance and how the camera sits in my hands and how the controls are placed. I would say ergonomically it is better than my beloved Rolleiflex for comfort of use. It hangs better over my shoulder, it fits my hands more naturally and the format is more natural to my eye. It is a beautiful camera to look at as well.
    To a large degree ergonomics is relative to the human using the machine. Of all my gear which includes 8x10, 4x5, 6x6, 6x7, 35mm, studio lighting, multiple tripods and stands, I would say that the Pentax 67 is near the top in pleasurable ergonomics right up there with my Nikon F100.
    Dennis

  10. #20
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by mtjade2007 View Post
    It is true that P67-ii is much improved over the older P6x7 and P67. However, that's just the latest improvement over the original design of the Pentax 6x7 system. The Pentax 6x7 system was not designed to be a studio camera. Not even close. That's what I meant.

    I see that you have an opinion about having to tilt the camera 90 degree to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. Did you ever use any 35 mm SLR before? All 35 mm SLRs require that too. Was that a problem to you? I would actually find it a nuisance of a rotating back for 35 mm SLRs. To change the orientation something has to turn 90 degrees. It would be appropriate for a studio camera to rotate the film back but for an outdoor camera such as Pentax 67 isn't it easier by just turn the whole camera 90 degrees?

    Non-existent ergonomics for older versions of Pentax 6x7 or P67 cameras? I am afraid this is a misunderstanding of the camera. I had a 500C/M before getting my P67-ii. That was the camera completely lack of systemic automation. It was a studio camera obviously.
    Whatever. There's no denying the P67 is a plus-size camera that requires a big-a$$ tripod, head, and not a little planning before flipping that considerable mass into portrait/vertical orientation. The lack of mid-roll film change and the need for a hefty tripod kept me from buying one after baby-sitting one for a year. Optics are first-rate--no fight there. I just find my Mamiya RB 67 Pro S easier to handle in and out of studio settings: close-focus without tubes or extra lenses; swappable film backs; and the rotating feature let me use a tripod that's stable but light enough to make a truly portable 6x7 kit.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin