Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,763   Online: 1207
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Don't worry Bob, nobody's forcing you to use the term if you don't care to!

    By the way, I don't see any of your imagery in the gallery nor any links; it'd be nice to see your stuff.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #22
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    736
    Images
    32
    I'm going to be honest and say that there is either a huge crop of Pentax 67/6x7s out there with non-existant shutter breaks or shock absorption, or my eyes are shot. Seeing as I'm 21, and have 20/20 vision, and look at all my negs with Schneider or Rodenstock loupes, I highly doubt it's my eyes. I've handheld my Pentax 6x7 at speeds as slow as 1/30 or 1/60 and gotten completely sharp frames, provided I'm braced properly, and breathing slow.

    All this malarkey about the 6x7 being a tripod only camera, or only useable above speeds of 1/125 or 1/250 handheld is completely off base. I can say I've witnessed the camera recoiling on a tripod plate, but that's what MLU is for. When I do shoot it on a tripod, I have never had secondary vibration issues. Keep in mind my Pentax is the original 6x7, with MLU, not a newer 67, or 67II. I've shot a newer 67 as well, and still never had this issue.

    Bruce Weber shot the 67 cameras for nearly 100% of his professional work, and my dad used 3 of them in conjunction with his Hasselblads and RZ67s for a very long stretch of his fashion career. I never once saw him use the Pentax on a tripod.

    I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I just think that it's being blown far out of proportion.

    As to this 3D-effect nonsense, get the 105/2.4 or 150/165 2.8 lenses, ratchet them open, find some directional light for your subject and look for the "oh!".
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    I'm going to be honest and say that there is either a huge crop of Pentax 67/6x7s out there with non-existant shutter breaks or shock absorption, or my eyes are shot. Seeing as I'm 21, and have 20/20 vision, and look at all my negs with Schneider or Rodenstock loupes, I highly doubt it's my eyes. I've handheld my Pentax 6x7 at speeds as slow as 1/30 or 1/60 and gotten completely sharp frames, provided I'm braced properly, and breathing slow.
    Unlike Chris, I'm a long way past being 21, but I have much the same results as quoted above. The mirror/shutter slap CAN be a problem in certain scenarios, but it's an overblown problem. For that narrow band of scenarios where it is a problem, MLU makes a significant improvement.

  4. #24
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,515
    Images
    15
    Yes, we're way beyond the bright-eyed year of 21 here, too!
    Nobody explicitly said the Pentax 67 is a tripod-only camera (I am aware of many on the Pentax forum who do use a tripod). Individuals have their own preferences, especially those with small hands and mild dystrophy — myself. Most of my shooting is with a tripod, with several shots I've done handheld delivering less than optimal results at 1/60 and 1/125, even when braced. MLU is used all the time. A switch to ISO400 produced better results (1/250 1/500) but over so many years tripod-shooting I do like — and don't mind, the tripod base for enhanced (but not failproof) surety.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

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






  5. #25
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    The Pentax 67 series is among the most long-lived medium format cameras ever. I don't think it achieved that status by making fuzzy negatives. There are other cameras with big mirrors and shutters too and no one seems to complain about them. Ever see the shutter on a Speed Graphic? And, leaf shutters are not vibration-free either.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    699
    It's all BS and It simply depends on people's walt disney calibrated monitors that have nothing to do with real life prints or metallic prints (that have the ability to give a 3D look with the cheapest P&S)

  7. #27
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Well then turn off your "walt disney calibrated monitor" and look at some real slides and analogue prints!

    By the way, I don't see any of your imagery in the gallery nor any links; it'd be nice to see your stuff.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #28
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,094
    Images
    60
    A "3D" effect results when the light and subject is right, and the rendering of the image (selective focus, bokeh, micro-contrast) contributes positively to the result.

    Obviously the lens design can contribute to the latter factors.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentax 67's nice, big focussing screen and good viewfinder might help photographers notice and record the former.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #29
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Let me turn this argument upside down and ask the obvious: what would you do to make an image look more two dimensional? I do that deliberately sometimes to get a juxtaposition of different shapes etc. I sometimes like for an image to look like a form drawn on paper.

    For me, to create a "flatter" image, I typically stop down so everything is in the DOF, and I look for fairly equal emphasis of light throughout the image.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Well then turn off your "walt disney calibrated monitor" and look at some real slides and analogue prints!

    By the way, I don't see any of your imagery in the gallery nor any links; it'd be nice to see your stuff.
    This new term "ThreeDeeNess" that one can often read on internet forums is just another term that newbies use to justify their general non-talent by buying a new lens: "The Zeiss Sonnar has excellent ThreeDeeNess"
    You have to admit that it's quite pathetic.

    And I don't feel that I have to show my work in order to have my opinions validated by someone else.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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