New toy!
I've wanted to get into medium format for a while, but the high cost of digital MF equipment ($20k+ for a camera with no lens) left me thinking it wasn't going to be possible for me for a long time, and the fact that digital MF usually isn't very MF (6x4.5 at the largest, not 6x6 or 6x7) was somewhat disappointing as well.
However, I've recently realized how cheap some very good MF film equipment is in the used market now, so I started doing some research. After considering ultra-inexpensive options like the Yashica-Mat TLR, I decided I was too addicted to interchangeable lenses and TTL viewfinders and narrowed my options down to Bronica, Mamiya, and Pentax. The affordability of Pentax 67 bodies and lenses, plus the fact that the P67 is basically just an ordinary SLR with elephantiasis (plus interchangeable viewfinders, a very cool option) won me over. I placed an order with the ever-reliable B&H, and my new toy arrived last Thursday.
Here it is, with a Canon 5D Mark II next to it for size comparison:
From what I've read online, the most common "standard" lens for the P67 is a 105mm f/2.4, but this one came with a slightly wider 90mm f/2.8 (roughly equivalent in view to a 45mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera) which seems to be generally very well regarded by P67 users. The viewfinder is a very SLR-like pentaprism with a TTL exposure meter; you can, if you like, substitute a waist-level viewfinder where you look down into the top of the camera. The waist-level finder provides a 100% view of the image, but then you have to use a separate light meter. (I find that my Canon 5D Mark II meters very similarly to the Pentax's viewfinder, so it would be easy enough just to use the digital camera to meter and verify correct exposure before shooting film. This is pretty much equivalent to the way some people use a Polaroid back with replaceable-back medium and large format cameras. The P67, however, does not allow for replaceable backs.)
So far I have only put one roll of B&W film (Ilford FP4+ 125) through the P67 to verify that it was fully functional. The P67 makes an amazingly loud noise, and noticeably kicks, when the mirror and shutter go off. Some people compare it to firing a shotgun, which is an understandable exaggeration. I can't claim to have created any great works of art with this camera yet (I'm still getting used to its much shallower DOF, for one thing), but here are a couple of my initial test images:
1. Red rose (f/2.8, with a yellow filter)
2. The view from my front yard at mid-day (f/11, yellow filter, imperfect focus)
However, I've recently realized how cheap some very good MF film equipment is in the used market now, so I started doing some research. After considering ultra-inexpensive options like the Yashica-Mat TLR, I decided I was too addicted to interchangeable lenses and TTL viewfinders and narrowed my options down to Bronica, Mamiya, and Pentax. The affordability of Pentax 67 bodies and lenses, plus the fact that the P67 is basically just an ordinary SLR with elephantiasis (plus interchangeable viewfinders, a very cool option) won me over. I placed an order with the ever-reliable B&H, and my new toy arrived last Thursday.
Here it is, with a Canon 5D Mark II next to it for size comparison:
From what I've read online, the most common "standard" lens for the P67 is a 105mm f/2.4, but this one came with a slightly wider 90mm f/2.8 (roughly equivalent in view to a 45mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera) which seems to be generally very well regarded by P67 users. The viewfinder is a very SLR-like pentaprism with a TTL exposure meter; you can, if you like, substitute a waist-level viewfinder where you look down into the top of the camera. The waist-level finder provides a 100% view of the image, but then you have to use a separate light meter. (I find that my Canon 5D Mark II meters very similarly to the Pentax's viewfinder, so it would be easy enough just to use the digital camera to meter and verify correct exposure before shooting film. This is pretty much equivalent to the way some people use a Polaroid back with replaceable-back medium and large format cameras. The P67, however, does not allow for replaceable backs.)
So far I have only put one roll of B&W film (Ilford FP4+ 125) through the P67 to verify that it was fully functional. The P67 makes an amazingly loud noise, and noticeably kicks, when the mirror and shutter go off. Some people compare it to firing a shotgun, which is an understandable exaggeration. I can't claim to have created any great works of art with this camera yet (I'm still getting used to its much shallower DOF, for one thing), but here are a couple of my initial test images:
1. Red rose (f/2.8, with a yellow filter)
2. The view from my front yard at mid-day (f/11, yellow filter, imperfect focus)
0
Comments
It's a great camera and I hope you enjoy it as much as I like my Mamiya
The Pentax 67 system is a classic and wonderful system. The increase in usable image size versus the 645 systems is appreciable too.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Actually, it doesn't seem like used P67 lenses are all that expensive until you get up to 400mm and beyond. B&H and Adorama both have a selection of lenses they claim are in excellent condition (and I've found them to generally be reliable about such things) for only a few hundred dollars each. The longer telephoto lenses get very large and heavy (e.g. 13.2 pounds for a 600mm f/4, equivalent in field of view to a 300mm lens in 35mm), so I may force myself to stick with 35mm for anything beyond 200mm or 300mm. There is a limit to how much I really want to carry around, after all.
Thanks. The RB/RZ67 was the other finalist, and everything I've read about it says it's a great system. Price was the main differentiator for me.
The Pentax is currently loaded with a roll of Velvia 50; I hope to upload something more from it in another week or so.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Thanks! Yes, I decided that if I was going to go MF I was going to go for 6x6 or larger. The square format was somewhat attractive due to the fact that you never need to turn the camera on its side (square is square either way), but then again for the same reason you end up cropping more to get the rectangle you usually really wanted in the first place.
I was thinking I might need to invest in a new tripod for this thing, but I just shot the sunset on my 15-year-old cheap Velbon Victory 450 and it seemed to keep the camera quite stable, so maybe it will do. On another forum I came across a recommendation for the Slik Pro 700DX, which no doubt is a superb tripod and not even all that expensive, but I'll stick with what I have until it proves itself not to be up to the task.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.