Pablito
coco frío
It's not small or light, but it's quite manageable. I used to walk around all day with it. You might have trouble if you are what the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books used to call a "90 pound weakling." But as an overweight middle age guy with a bad back, I managed just fine.
Agreed, Pablito! For not being small or light, it carries amazingly well over a shoulder, with a wide strap. I like "vertical" carry, using the two right-side strap lugs, and put it over the right shoulder. Then, reaching with the right hand gets a good grip right away as I bring the camera to eye level.
But, I like the accessory right-side wood grip (as shown above) even better, so instead the camera hangs from the left shoulder on the left side strap lugs and my first grip is with the left hand. This has been a good way to carry it.
But, I like the accessory right-side wood grip (as shown above) even better, so instead the camera hangs from the left shoulder on the left side strap lugs and my first grip is with the left hand. This has been a good way to carry it.
aizan
Veteran
i'm sure it gets heavy if you hold it in your hands for half an hour, but it never came to that. i let it hang off my shoulder vertically with an upstrap. i used the new version of the 200/4, so that helped reduce weight further. that rig never strained my hands.
Wayno
Well-known
I've never seriously considered Pentax 67 and I don't know why as Takumar lenses are amongst the finest I've used - I've got several for my Spotmatic. Judging by the results I've seen the 67 lenses are of the same standard. Great shot above Cyrille! You'd better stop this talk Keith...
Speaking of cameras in dark places, don't forget that you've got three Rolleis sitting here in a filing cabinet drawer if you need to fund a new purchase!
Speaking of cameras in dark places, don't forget that you've got three Rolleis sitting here in a filing cabinet drawer if you need to fund a new purchase!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
LOL ... I knew you'd mention those and what a good idea ... I know you're looking after them well Wayne!
I think I'm definitely a person who likes to have a camera at eye level ... I can't see myself ditching the Hassselblad but I'll definitely consider a prism finder because it's such a fine camera and I love that 80m Planar that's on it!
Meanwhile the 67ii on eBay torments me!
ChrisN
Striving
Keith - if you'd like to try the Hassie prism finder I can lend you a PM viewfinder.
Last edited:
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I have a metered prism 6x7 with MLU ... wow, it's a brute of a camera. I find it heavy and not very ergonomic. But ... every time I develop my neg's I'm amazed at the picture quality. The 105mm F2.8 lens is an especially wonderful piece of glass. Excruciatingly sharp with wonderful, fluid bokeh.
The Mamiya7 is also a nice unit (never owned one) but it's probably considerably more expensive than a decent Pentax 6x7 + lens.
I've handled a Mamiya Super Press ... I'd dare say it's even bigger than a Pentax 6x7. It has the advantages of interchangeable film masks for 6x6 6x7 and 6x9 if I remember correctly. The lenses are supposed to be pretty good, but I've never heard anyone rave about them. These cameras are getting harder to find it seems, although they pop up on fleabay. My local antique camera vendor has one on his shelf right now, he wants $290 (Canadian), with a 90mm lens, I think. So they're cheaper than a Pentax 6x7, but you don't get metering or the same flexibility in lenses.
The Mamiya7 is also a nice unit (never owned one) but it's probably considerably more expensive than a decent Pentax 6x7 + lens.
I've handled a Mamiya Super Press ... I'd dare say it's even bigger than a Pentax 6x7. It has the advantages of interchangeable film masks for 6x6 6x7 and 6x9 if I remember correctly. The lenses are supposed to be pretty good, but I've never heard anyone rave about them. These cameras are getting harder to find it seems, although they pop up on fleabay. My local antique camera vendor has one on his shelf right now, he wants $290 (Canadian), with a 90mm lens, I think. So they're cheaper than a Pentax 6x7, but you don't get metering or the same flexibility in lenses.
dng88
Dennis
I just done my switch last two months - selling M8, CV 101 T, Rollei T, ... to Pentax 67.
I did try and still have my old Hassey lens bought last year with 4 lens. The issue with Hassey is that even if 2 Prism, it is not easy to handhold on eye level. I even got the grip .... but even with it, it is much worst than Pentax 67 in handling.
I ended with now 7 lens (55, 90 both LS and non-LS, 135, 165LS, 200, 300 nonEDIF) and NII plus nearly 3 extension tube, Helicord and reverse adapter. I even have the one for using my Leica/CV screw mount. So far very happy. Even using some of these lens with my D300 and it is okish, especially the 55F4.
I did miss leaf shutter lens as hand hold at 1/30 is a luck issue with 67 even with mirror lock ... I looked at Mamiya 67RZ, may be that is an even better option but once again the modular design frighten me after Hassey. Hence, no 1/15 like one taken with my Rollei T. Also, it is non-Zeiss, non-Leica, non-Rollei, non-..., only 1/30 sync speed for flash and it has no interchangable backs, ... But I think Pentax 67 is a good compromise especially NII Is such an advance camera - I like its spot meter, very good for my Velvia 50 picture taken.
The only one thing I really hate is it is very hard to load film to it. I started my film experience with medium format from 2004 with lots of these loading Holga, Yaschica 124G, Bronica 6x6 and 645, 6x9 back on 4x5, Hassey, Rollei, ... a lot but nothing as bad as Pentax 67. I do not expect it would act like my autoload Fuji 645Zi but somehow I go through all the possible advice on the web and there is no good way to load it quick. I do not want to carry 2 body and someone said using 220 is hard on NII.
Hence, if you can survive the slowness to load film, I recommend 6x7 even if it is not a RF and full of limitations which I bet many of us can live with.
I did try and still have my old Hassey lens bought last year with 4 lens. The issue with Hassey is that even if 2 Prism, it is not easy to handhold on eye level. I even got the grip .... but even with it, it is much worst than Pentax 67 in handling.
I ended with now 7 lens (55, 90 both LS and non-LS, 135, 165LS, 200, 300 nonEDIF) and NII plus nearly 3 extension tube, Helicord and reverse adapter. I even have the one for using my Leica/CV screw mount. So far very happy. Even using some of these lens with my D300 and it is okish, especially the 55F4.
I did miss leaf shutter lens as hand hold at 1/30 is a luck issue with 67 even with mirror lock ... I looked at Mamiya 67RZ, may be that is an even better option but once again the modular design frighten me after Hassey. Hence, no 1/15 like one taken with my Rollei T. Also, it is non-Zeiss, non-Leica, non-Rollei, non-..., only 1/30 sync speed for flash and it has no interchangable backs, ... But I think Pentax 67 is a good compromise especially NII Is such an advance camera - I like its spot meter, very good for my Velvia 50 picture taken.
The only one thing I really hate is it is very hard to load film to it. I started my film experience with medium format from 2004 with lots of these loading
Holga, Yaschica 124G, Bronica 6x6 and 645, 6x9 back on 4x5, Hassey, Rollei, ... a lot but nothing as bad as Pentax 67. I do not expect it would act like my autoload Fuji 645Zi but somehow I go through all the possible advice on the web and there is no good way to load it quick. I do not want to carry 2 body and someone said using 220 is hard on NII. Hence, if you can survive the slowness to load film, I recommend 6x7 even if it is not a RF and full of limitations which I bet many of us can live with.
barnwulf
Well-known
After reading this I am inspired to get out my 67II and do some shooting. I used to shoot a lot of landscapes and used a 67 for a few years and then got a 67II. 67II was a nice improvement with less vibration and with the AE prism. I have a collapsed vertebra in my mid back so weight is an issue for me. I can’t say enough about the amazing image quality and size and lens quality. Even though I haven’t used the camera for several years I just can’t bare to get rid of it. I have some 120 b&w film that I purchased a few months ago so I guess I had better get it out and use it.
hendriphile
Well-known
Let the incentive continue! Used the 200mm f/4, braced but no tripod. Using 400 speed film allowed a short exposure. Big print looks awesome...(a jetliner in the center with some detail)
gian
Established
I love mine too... and the 105/f2.4 has a beautiful bokeh and 3D effect...
I just do not use it enough!!
I just do not use it enough!!
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have to agree, I wonder why the 105mm has this 3D look. This isn't mine but it also has that look (Tommy Oshima):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/2114323047
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Damn you...Damn you all!!!
I had serious gas for this rig earlier in the spring. This thread did it:
Just bought a 67 with metered prism on eBay.
Now for some lenses. Oh and I guess I've gotta sell some stuff!
I had serious gas for this rig earlier in the spring. This thread did it:
Just bought a 67 with metered prism on eBay.
Now for some lenses. Oh and I guess I've gotta sell some stuff!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Damn you...Damn you all!!!
I had serious gas for this rig earlier in the spring. This thread did it:
Just bought a 67 with metered prism on eBay.
Now for some lenses. Oh and I guess I've gotta sell some stuff!
Be sure to look at the 'new' F4 55mm. Mine is really something
Paddy C
Unused film collector
My list (which I put together in the spring...GAS is hilarious really) is:
165/2.8
105/2.4
55/4 or
45/4
I have a project in mind (actually two) for this camera. I think the 55/4 will be just right for a lot of the work with the 105 for some of it. The 165 is for portraits which I would really like to work on a bit.
There's also the 200/4 which is cheap as chips, but I don't know that I'll need a third lens.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I think the 165 has a built in leaf shutter so it can be used with flash at any speed. The 1/30 max shutter speed is a drawback for the Pentax 67. I have the 105 and the 55 and am happy. I'm not sure I'll get any more lenses. The 165 with leaf shutter is tempting though. I also have waist finder which is wonderful. You can probably find one cheap. It is very easy to use for indoor work with low light and portraits. Good luck.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Gian definitely hasn't helped the cause here ... if I get a Pentax 67 I'll definitely want the 105mm f2.4 after seeing those!
The 67ii seems like quite a modern camera compared to the earlier versions and I do have a prefence for in camera metering ... when I have a meter with me I never seem to quite know what to do with it when I'm not actually using it.
Obviously a bit of a price premium for the later camera though!
The 67ii seems like quite a modern camera compared to the earlier versions and I do have a prefence for in camera metering ... when I have a meter with me I never seem to quite know what to do with it when I'm not actually using it.
Obviously a bit of a price premium for the later camera though!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Come to think of it I'm amazed that 'venchka' (Wayne) hasn't made an apperance in this thread ... he's a big fan of the Pentax 67 from memory.
Hope he's OK ... haven't seen a post from him for a while!
Hope he's OK ... haven't seen a post from him for a while!
Wayno
Well-known
Nice shots. I suppose that's a pretty fast lens for that focal length/format & obviously gives very narrow DOF.
There are two 165mm lenses, an f/4 with leaf shutter, and an f/2.8 without. Earlier on, there was a leaf shutter 90mm f/2.8, and the current no-shutter 90/2.8 as well.
A clue to earlier lenses is the Takumar name, which was given up sometime before the camera name change from Pentax 6x7 to Pentax 67. After Takumar, the lenses were called SMC Pentax 6x7. Newer lenses bear the Pentax-67 name.
Some lenses had optical differences between versions. The earliest 55mm was an f/3.5 Takumar with a very large front element, IIRC it used 100mm filters. The big Pentax 55mm lenses got a reputation for fine performance. About 1979 a new f/4 "Pentax 6x7" 55mm was introduced that used 77mm filters... much different in appearance and optics. The third and last version was "Pentax 67" 55mm f/4 which looked very similar to the previous model, but went from 9 elements in 8 groups to 8 elements in 7 groups. These are all excellent lenses, but it's useful to be aware of the different versions.
The 200mm f/4 also changed quite a bit... The S-M-C Takumar 6X7 200mm f/4 of 1971 is the same optically as the original Super Takumar 6X7 200mm f/4 of 1969 with 4 element design. Was redesigned in 1986 for lighter weight, a 5th element, closer focus, f/32, and filter size 77mm instead of 67mm... now "SMC Pentax 67".
There were also three different 75mm lenses... a regular 75mm f/4.5, and a larger manual-diaphragm Shift 75/4.5. Then one of the last lenses added to the 67 system (2001) was a smaller lighter Aspheric 75mm f/2.8 SMC Pentax 67 AL.
There are a couple of macro lenses to be aware of... First the original 135mm f/4.0 SMC Macro-Takumar 6x7 that had changes in the name and minor cosmetic changes over the years, easy to find on the market. With 5/3 construction it could well be a Heliar formula, like the small-format Pentax f/4 100mm macro. A bit confusingly, there's a later (March 1998) 100mm f/4.0 SMCP-67 Macro to replace the 135mm. This one has a front-screw-in "Life Size Adapter" allowing 1:1 magnification. It is a 6 element 4 group lens (obviously not a Heliar), and the Adapter is 3 elements.
There have been a lot of interesting lenses in the 6x7/67 lineup, as it's quite a rich system starting from 1969 but I think most didn't have optical changes (other than coating changes) across the various name and cosmetic changes.
A clue to earlier lenses is the Takumar name, which was given up sometime before the camera name change from Pentax 6x7 to Pentax 67. After Takumar, the lenses were called SMC Pentax 6x7. Newer lenses bear the Pentax-67 name.
Some lenses had optical differences between versions. The earliest 55mm was an f/3.5 Takumar with a very large front element, IIRC it used 100mm filters. The big Pentax 55mm lenses got a reputation for fine performance. About 1979 a new f/4 "Pentax 6x7" 55mm was introduced that used 77mm filters... much different in appearance and optics. The third and last version was "Pentax 67" 55mm f/4 which looked very similar to the previous model, but went from 9 elements in 8 groups to 8 elements in 7 groups. These are all excellent lenses, but it's useful to be aware of the different versions.
The 200mm f/4 also changed quite a bit... The S-M-C Takumar 6X7 200mm f/4 of 1971 is the same optically as the original Super Takumar 6X7 200mm f/4 of 1969 with 4 element design. Was redesigned in 1986 for lighter weight, a 5th element, closer focus, f/32, and filter size 77mm instead of 67mm... now "SMC Pentax 67".
There were also three different 75mm lenses... a regular 75mm f/4.5, and a larger manual-diaphragm Shift 75/4.5. Then one of the last lenses added to the 67 system (2001) was a smaller lighter Aspheric 75mm f/2.8 SMC Pentax 67 AL.
There are a couple of macro lenses to be aware of... First the original 135mm f/4.0 SMC Macro-Takumar 6x7 that had changes in the name and minor cosmetic changes over the years, easy to find on the market. With 5/3 construction it could well be a Heliar formula, like the small-format Pentax f/4 100mm macro. A bit confusingly, there's a later (March 1998) 100mm f/4.0 SMCP-67 Macro to replace the 135mm. This one has a front-screw-in "Life Size Adapter" allowing 1:1 magnification. It is a 6 element 4 group lens (obviously not a Heliar), and the Adapter is 3 elements.
There have been a lot of interesting lenses in the 6x7/67 lineup, as it's quite a rich system starting from 1969 but I think most didn't have optical changes (other than coating changes) across the various name and cosmetic changes.
Last edited: