Svitantti
Well-known
My second P6 six was from "Goldencameras" or something like that on ebay. Bought something from cupog too. Worked nicely, but I didn't use it much after all so I sold it and got a pocketsize 6x6 RF folder.
David Murphy
Veteran
I have a Pentacon Six three lens kit. I'm not impressed with it at all. The design is a good idea, but the camera is of mediocre quality. Most bodies need servicing and sometimes this is must be done regularly. The lenses like the ones from Zeiss do have good optics, but again marginal mechanical build quality. Stuck irises, wobbly or stiff mechanics, etc. are common issues. It has one big advantage: low cost. I may switch to the RB67 one of these days -- in my view a system that offers the most quality and flexibility for the least money in medium format.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi David,
Have you ever sent your Pentacon for service to Germany, like Nokton48 describes ?
If not, whom has been you paying time after time for "regular season" service ?
Cheers,
Ruben
R
ruben
Guest
Nokton48
Veteran
Sold most of my Kiev/P6 stuff, and reinvested the $$ in my Leicas. 
Last edited:
Ruben I'm glad to see you joyful over the Pentacon 6. Hope you have fun making pictures with it too. I remember seeing them years ago and thinking the concept was admirable, but never owned one. With a similar idea for a hand-held MF SLR, I bought into the Pentax 6x7 instead... now that was 33 years ago!
David Murphy
Veteran
To be fair here, I've noticed that overall Medium format SLR's, at least the four or so I've had some experience with (Kowa 6, Hasselblad, P6, and Kiev) are not as well made or as reliable as the best 35mm SLR's (that's right, I said Hasselblad). I'm not sure why, perhaps the market forces did not drive the high reliability engineering of mainstream 35mm SLR's, since medium format SLR's were targeted for more specialized and less competitive markets. Another reason may be that a medium format SLR is harder to make - more mirror inertia, film formats less adaptable to rapid and precise transport, shutter complexities and inertia, metering issues, and other complexities. The flexibily of the medium format SLR is its strong point, but if I'm going far from home I'd rather have a trusty TLR such as a Rolleiflex or one of several similar cameras (Autocord, Yashica Mat, etc.)
Oh, yes, I agree though that aesthetically the P6 is pretty. I expect to pick up some photos tomorrow taken with my recently acquired Flektogon in P6, so maybe that will change my mind.
Oh, yes, I agree though that aesthetically the P6 is pretty. I expect to pick up some photos tomorrow taken with my recently acquired Flektogon in P6, so maybe that will change my mind.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The P6 is a beautiful camera, but there are some things which drove me away. (I'm saying this as a Kiev 88 owner.) Notably:
- the bad viewfinder coverage (the finder only covers some 80-85% of the final frame), especially with the prism,
- the dim viewfinder image - you can put a Kiev or Rollei screen in there, and it's most definitely a good idea, and you can use a Kiev 60 prism for another big improvement,
- the film transport issues - some people have them, some people don't, there's a lot of techniques how people claim to avoid it on their bodies but those aren't apparently always transferable, so it boils down to hunting down a "good" body or spending a lot of money for Baier's transport kit,
- and the film flatness issues.
Mark Wood
Well-known
I have sent one Pentacon SixTL body to Pentacon for servicing/updating and was very impressed with the service and their helpfulness in e-mail correspondence. I'm not sure exactly what was done to the advance mechanism but I had the brighter focussing screen and mirror lock-up fitted - total cost including postage to the UK, about £180. Perhaps a lot to spend but the result is effectively a brand new camera. They were still servicing the earlier Pentacon Six models but not the Praktisix but I can't find the link to the information on the Pentacon web site.
The Baier modification looks interesting but at first sight, it seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't have to exist in a properly maintained/serviced camera.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Philipp,The P6 is a beautiful camera, but there are some things which drove me away. (I'm saying this as a Kiev 88 owner.) Notably:
- ..............the film transport issues - some people have them, some people don't, there's a lot of techniques how people claim to avoid it on their bodies but those aren't apparently always transferable, so it boils down to hunting down a "good" body or spending a lot of money for Baier's transport kit,
- ............
- .
I have to ask you the same I have asked to Gabriel:
By chance do you happen to read this page:
http://www.pentaconsix.com/Loading.htm
or know otherwise its contents ?
It starts with the following striking sentence:
"Loading the Pentacon Six or Exakta 66 is not difficult. I find it far easier to load than a Hasselblad (or Kiev 88!) film magazine. But nor is it as easy as loading many 35mm cameras. Get the loading wrong with any of these cameras, and you’re going to have problems, the most common of which is overlapping frames. But having said that, overlapping frames is not common at all, if the camera is loaded properly"
Then a non-usual way, and non straightforward nor intuitive special method is described in full detail
It is quite crucial for me to check if you have applyied the guidelines or not in order to if the guidelines work.
Cheers,
Ruben
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Ruben,
He's also quite honest in the end about that in the event all this doesn't work, one should still install Baier's loading indicator. I also like his remark that it's quite possible to do all this with only two hands; after all three-handed photographers are rather exotic birds.
Film transport on the P6 is suboptimal. The fact that you have to have lengthy loading instructions along with 9 pictures, in a way, only testifies to this. Transporting 120 film has been a solved problem for quite some time; it's a pity that the P6 stayed in the mid-1950s technically so that people have had to bother about this, develop loading aids and write dedicated articles and special guidelines for decades. In the end I think it simply boils down to whether you are careful in loading it, and whether you have a good camera.
this is basically a (good, detailed) guide to the operation of loading film straight and under tension. The only Pentacon Six-specific bits are the warning against letting the advance lever slip back, and the note about the film counter sprocket wheel. I don't think I saw this particular guide, but the content is more or less the same in the guides I've read.
He's also quite honest in the end about that in the event all this doesn't work, one should still install Baier's loading indicator. I also like his remark that it's quite possible to do all this with only two hands; after all three-handed photographers are rather exotic birds.
Film transport on the P6 is suboptimal. The fact that you have to have lengthy loading instructions along with 9 pictures, in a way, only testifies to this. Transporting 120 film has been a solved problem for quite some time; it's a pity that the P6 stayed in the mid-1950s technically so that people have had to bother about this, develop loading aids and write dedicated articles and special guidelines for decades. In the end I think it simply boils down to whether you are careful in loading it, and whether you have a good camera.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
The P6 is a beautiful camera, but there are some things which drove me away. (I'm saying this as a Kiev 88 owner.) Notably:
- the bad viewfinder coverage (the finder only covers some 80-85% of the final frame), especially with the prism,
- the dim viewfinder image - you can put a Kiev or Rollei screen in there, and it's most definitely a good idea, and you can use a Kiev 60 prism for another big improvement,
- the film transport issues - some people have them, some people don't, there's a lot of techniques how people claim to avoid it on their bodies but those aren't apparently always transferable, so it boils down to hunting down a "good" body or spending a lot of money for Baier's transport kit,
- and the film flatness issues.
Philip, I think we share the same reasons for leaving the P6 in favour of the Kiev (88, or 60 for that matter).
Regarding coverage, the P6 (at least the ones I used) had a tendency of screens going dim when long lenses are used. I had the 250mm Jupiter (a bazooka of a lens at that) with which the P6VF screen showed a dimmed image cropped at the top. The mirror hinge I think is too close to the screen and shows only the lower 75% of the image.
With long lenses (it happened with 180mm at times), the lower part of the picture also shows some vignetting. The loose flocking covering the mirror hinge casts this vignetting shadow. And it appears to be non-repairable. The flocking sags because of the hinge parts, and there is practical way to make it any flatter.
Loading is no easier too. I always found extracting the full spool from the take up compartment difficult. There is very little room around the spools. This makes retrieving the empty spool a chore too. A Kiev-6 does better in this respect.
Frame spacing is bad. I had overlaps when I wanted them least. The only nice thing I could say with the P6 spacing is that I often get 13 frames instead of 12.
It was the frame counter which finally made me gave up on the P6. If I remember it right, if the frame counter malfunctioned, loading, winding, and correct spacing becomes problematic. THe frame counter on two of the P6 I used kept breaking- no sort of fix could stay permanent.
It is true that the P6 is a pretty camera. But the 'pretty' factor lost out to two factors which I consider more significant: reliability and usefulness. Pretty indeed- I still keep my third P6 (broken) in a display case.
Last edited:
Nokton48
Veteran
Mirror cutoff is a problem, no doubt. More of a problem with 250 & 500mm lenses. Shorter lenses, no problem.
Agree about the transport issues, loading this camera correctly is a crapshoot. The Baier mod solves that problem forever, and he removes the sticky factory grease, and re-lubes with WATCH OIL. He charts the speeds for you, before and after CLA, at high and low temperatures. You would not believe the difference, with the watch-oil install, the actual speed numbers are -close- to perfect. I mean, they are amazingly good. He also does some modification to the pressure plate. The Baier mod is worth every penny.
Agree about the transport issues, loading this camera correctly is a crapshoot. The Baier mod solves that problem forever, and he removes the sticky factory grease, and re-lubes with WATCH OIL. He charts the speeds for you, before and after CLA, at high and low temperatures. You would not believe the difference, with the watch-oil install, the actual speed numbers are -close- to perfect. I mean, they are amazingly good. He also does some modification to the pressure plate. The Baier mod is worth every penny.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Quite a lot of pennies incidentally if you go for the full package. If you want the whole thing, it's 120 EUR for the CLA, 180 EUR for the "complete" film flatness modification, 95 EUR for the transport control, 60 or so for an adapter to use Kiev prisms that actually show the whole focusing screen (instead of only 60% or so of the final picture), and finally another 100 or so if you want mirror lockup as well. These things do sum up! Better do without that mirror lookup and stay with a simpler film flatness patch.
The mods themselves are excellent though.
It's still no guarantee. I know one guy who had a Baier-modified P6 and ended up throwing it into the Meuse into a fit of rage when it locked up on him once again on a shoot. (He then switched to Kiev 60s.)
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
One of the big attractions of the camera to me back in the early 1970's was price, both for the cameras and the great Zeiss Jena lenses. I assumed the low price was due to lower labor cost in East Germany together with the fact that there were a few changes in U.S. distributers, who they dumped their unsold inventory. I couldn't really see, externally, any difference between my Pentacon-Six and my Practisix, and they both ended up with the same frame spacing problems and drove me nuts with the undersized prism.
When the wife went back to school studying pre-med and we had two little kids who needed to eat, I started shooting weddings again (I hate them) and I guess that was the real reason that I switched over to Hasselblad. I needed the reliability and high speed flash synch.
Let's not forget that the Hasselblad 500C also had a penchant for locking up; you'd have to remove the lens and turn a screw to free it up, which meant always keeping a little screw driver handy.
When the wife went back to school studying pre-med and we had two little kids who needed to eat, I started shooting weddings again (I hate them) and I guess that was the real reason that I switched over to Hasselblad. I needed the reliability and high speed flash synch.
Let's not forget that the Hasselblad 500C also had a penchant for locking up; you'd have to remove the lens and turn a screw to free it up, which meant always keeping a little screw driver handy.
Last edited:
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Al,
Nowadays there is an adapter enabling to mount a Kiev prism, in my case a non-metered Kiev 6c prism, instead of the original P6 prism whose limitations are well known.
What I would like to know is what actions you took in front ot the frame spacing problem.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
Nokton48
Veteran
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
- he replaces the aluminium pressure plate with a stiffer, stainless steel plate
- the silver dots hold the pressure plate at a particular distance
- the film channel guides are machined to be half as wide
- the roller on the left also aids the stability of the film.
It's all a bit technical for me but this is why he says it is better:
a) the original pressure plate is not actually flat
b) but even if it was, the original pressure plate holds the film flat at the edges, by sandwiching it between the plate and the film guide rails. This causes the middle part of the film to bow away from the pressure plate, so it is not held flat in the picture area, where it is important.
c) what he does is add the silver dots so that the the pressure plate is held against them by the spring pressure, rather than pressing directly against the film and the guide rails under it at the edges
d) the guide rails are machined down a bit so that they are actually a bit nearer the shutter rather than exactly at the film plane, also they are a bit narrower (i.e. there is a then a very small distance between them and the pressure plate, rather than direct contact as before).
e) he says that this means that the natural curl of the film ensures that while the absolute edges of the film are not in the correct film plane, they press the middle of the film (i.e. the picture area) against the pressure plate. Since the pressure plate is held in the correct place by the dots, the film is held in the correct position against the plate by its natural tendency to curl.
the diagrams here make it a bit clearer:
http://www.baierfoto.de/planlage.html#Platte
in the diagram, left to right is actually a top to bottom view. The black line is the film+backing paper, the blue things are the guide rails, the red squares the silver dots in the picture and the red flat thing the pressure plate.
- the silver dots hold the pressure plate at a particular distance
- the film channel guides are machined to be half as wide
- the roller on the left also aids the stability of the film.
It's all a bit technical for me but this is why he says it is better:
a) the original pressure plate is not actually flat
b) but even if it was, the original pressure plate holds the film flat at the edges, by sandwiching it between the plate and the film guide rails. This causes the middle part of the film to bow away from the pressure plate, so it is not held flat in the picture area, where it is important.
c) what he does is add the silver dots so that the the pressure plate is held against them by the spring pressure, rather than pressing directly against the film and the guide rails under it at the edges
d) the guide rails are machined down a bit so that they are actually a bit nearer the shutter rather than exactly at the film plane, also they are a bit narrower (i.e. there is a then a very small distance between them and the pressure plate, rather than direct contact as before).
e) he says that this means that the natural curl of the film ensures that while the absolute edges of the film are not in the correct film plane, they press the middle of the film (i.e. the picture area) against the pressure plate. Since the pressure plate is held in the correct place by the dots, the film is held in the correct position against the plate by its natural tendency to curl.
the diagrams here make it a bit clearer:
http://www.baierfoto.de/planlage.html#Platte
in the diagram, left to right is actually a top to bottom view. The black line is the film+backing paper, the blue things are the guide rails, the red squares the silver dots in the picture and the red flat thing the pressure plate.
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
btw, I just had a look in the back of my Rolleiflex SL66 and the pressure plate works in exactly the same way as the baierfoto modification, so presumably it is a legitimate solution to the film flatness problem
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Hello everyone, just my two cents, I've had my Pentacon Six since 2005, I had the film transport issue so I had the camera fully serviced at Pentacon GmbH in Dresden, and also had them add the MLU functionality to my P6 (not the TL model). I've enjoyed a vast variety of lenses and recently bought (last weekend) a nice MC Biometar 120/2.8 (latest version, multicoated, almost brand new). and today, a nice little M67 yellow filter Never ever had a single failure with this camera ever since it was serviced by Pentacon. I've always been a Contax lover, but I would rather see my Contaxes go than my Pentacon Six. Now let's see your photos!
Cheers,
Max
Never ever had a single failure with this camera ever since it was serviced by Pentacon. I've always been a Contax lover, but I would rather see my Contaxes go than my Pentacon Six. Now let's see your photos! Cheers,
Max