Pentax 67 Gas!

Thank you very much, everyone, that helps a lot. Now, at least I know what my options are.
The perplexing thing is that the inside of the hood is definitely threaded, as if for a filter. No matter, I'll look at one of the other suggestions. I had no idea there were bayonet filters, not mentioned in my manual, I don't think.
Thanks, again, everyone, most helpful.
 
Pentax 6x7 + 55mm f4 / Kodak Ektar 100 / Epson V550 scan

25265462022_b02987361a_c.jpg
 
Film: Kodak Tri-X 400
Camera: Pentax 6x7
Lens: SMC Takumar 55mm F3.5
Developer: Kodak D-76 1+1 at 20C for 09:45 min
Scanner: Epson Perfection V800 Photo

 
Try scanning on a real scanner. I thought the DOF was thin when I scanned on my V700. With the compensation in added sharpening because of the nature of flatbeds it increased the perceived DOF. Scanning with my Nikon scanner no sharpening is needed and a lot of shots reveal their actual focus.

25772811655_436b7b5304_b.jpg


25146204333_5e8a9e4975_b.jpg


25746746546_ee0d0f30ea_b.jpg


25472118540_b3e17a31fa_b.jpg
 
I have really enjoyed reading this thread and seeing all the photos so I registered and want to try to keep it going. I just bought my Pentax 67 last year with the 55mm f4 and 200mm f4 and have really enjoyed it a lot. I replaced the light seals, mirror bumper, light seal around the Metered TTL finder but have not had to do much else. Oh I did use Caig Deoxit on all the electrical contacts I could easily get to including the shutter selector switch which I hear can be an issue. No other issues since then though. In the last year I have picked up the 75mm, 135mm, and 300mm. On my wish list are the 105mm, 165mm, and 45mm. I'm mainly a landscape and nature kind of guy. Here are a few shots from my first test roll:
Shot on HP5+ developed in HC110. Lens is 55mm f4

Shot on HP5+ developed in HC110. Lens is 55mm f4
 
jason.ritchie06 said:
I have really enjoyed reading this thread and seeing all the photos so I registered and want to try to keep it going. .......On my wish list are the 105mm, 165mm, and 45mm. I'm mainly a landscape and nature kind of guy. .....f4
Click to expand...

Good for you, and welcome! I know you said landscape, but of the lenses on your wish list, I'd personally go for the 105 first. Some people say it is a bit soft, but if you look at Colton's shot, above, well........maybe it's just fine; a gorgeous lens IMO, and obviously great for portraits.
The 45 is pretty close to the 55 you already have, and the 55 might be the better of the two, though nothing wrong with the 45.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Good for you, and welcome! I know you said landscape, but of the lenses on your wish list, I'd personally go for the 105 first. Some people say it is a bit soft, but if you look at Colton's shot, above, well........maybe it's just fine; a gorgeous lens IMO, and obviously great for portraits.
The 45 is pretty close to the 55 you already have, and the 55 might be the better of the two, though nothing wrong with the 45.
Click to expand...
Wow! What a beautiful shot! So I have taken your advice and started shopping for the 105 but it seems they have really started getting scarce! I shop Adorama's used section quite a lot and they used to have a large selection of 67 lenses but they are really starting to dwindle as are KEH's stock so I will have to watch Ebay for one to come up. I really want to collect them all! I have not posted in a while due to making my yearly trip to southern Florida and then the NC mountains but I was able to capture some nice shots from these locations that I hope to share in the next few days when I get all the film developed. I shot my first roll of Kodak Ektar 100 down in Florida. I developed it myself using the Unicolor C-41 Press Kit and I have to say I am impressed! I like to shoot long exposures of water and learned first hand how long exposures can get due to reciprocity failure! I was using a roll of Pan F+ with an ND 10 filter and the compensated exposure was telling me 27 minutes! I wound up doing a lot of bulb exposures just holding the shutter open and guessing how long and these turned out pretty well too.
 
I had a Pentax 67. The ergonomics were good, the build quality high, the 90/2.8 lens was sharp as a tack... BUT it was the only SLR which I have owned with shutter vibration/mirror shock problems, even at 1/125 (handheld). I don't use a tripod and i don't have the horrific wooden handle.

Don't get me wrong, at web-page or small (8x10") print dimensions the prints look fine, but the loupe shows there was blur caused by movement. And if i'm going to shoot 6x7 film, i want the sharpness to be resolved down to the film grain. Which does happen with the RB67 at 1/125 (very easily, handheld!!!) But not with the Pentax.

I sold it.

It's sad, because i firmly believe Pentax makes some of the best lenses ever.
 
flavio81 said:
I had a Pentax 67. The ergonomics were good, the build quality high, the 90/2.8 lens was sharp as a tack... BUT it was the only SLR which I have owned with shutter vibration/mirror shock problems, even at 1/125 (handheld). I don't use a tripod and i don't have the horrific wooden handle.

Don't get me wrong, at web-page or small (8x10") print dimensions the prints look fine, but the loupe shows there was blur caused by movement. And if i'm going to shoot 6x7 film, i want the sharpness to be resolved down to the film grain. Which does happen with the RB67 at 1/125 (very easily, handheld!!!) But not with the Pentax.

I sold it.

It's sad, because i firmly believe Pentax makes some of the best lenses ever.
Click to expand...

Under those conditions I see blur with any camera. You say the RB67 isn't blurry but I do better with my Pentax 67.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom