Vibration differences between Pentax 67 models?

[David R Munson]

I haven't been able to find this info anywhere, despite some digging. What I want to know, specifically, is whether the 67 II has any less vibration from the mirror assembly than the earlier models do. Thoughts?

 

[David R Munson]

I have one with the mirror lock-up, but it has some problems and I'm not sure yet whether I want to try to round up a new body (67 II probably) or just get an adapter to use the 105mm lens on my Mamiya 645 in the interest of simplifying things.

 

[Keith]

I read somewhere that the mirror is not the main offender for the kick you get from the big Pentax ... the focal plane shutter is equally responsible for the shock felt throught the camera.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dunno about vibration but from experience with a company I worked for 30+ years ago, and from 67 using friends (all professional) the II is impressively more reliable (or less unreliable).

Cheers,

R.

 

[David R Munson]

I read somewhere that the mirror is not the main offender for the kick you get from the big Pentax ... the focal plane shutter is equally responsible for the shock felt throught the camera.

This is true, actually. I had forgotten about that. I actually just went and held the 67 at a slow speed and found that the big jolt I feel is primarily at the *end* of the exposure. It seems to be the shutter closing as much as (more than?) anything else.

 

[Paddy C]

I can't see any info to indicate that the shutter/mirror assembly underwent a change from the 67 to the 67II. However, the 67II has speeds from 4s-1/1000th whereas the 67 was 1s - 1/1000th in manual. That may not mean anything. I wouldn't know.

This camera seems to have a lot more controversy surrounding it than any other I've looked into. People seem to think it is almost completely incapable of being used under 1/250th, or that the lenses are sub-par, etc. Then you'll hear all sorts saying sharp images were obtained hand held at 1/60th (or even less, of which I'm skeptical).

The general consensus seems to be that the shake is induced by the shutter more so than the mirror. You can read a bit about that here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml

And from that web page:

With a 300mm lens and 1.4X extender, a shutter speed of 1/10th of a second, and with the camera mounted on a light weight Gitzo 1228 carbon fiber hiking tripod with an Acratech ball head, there is so much shutter-induced vibration that the shot is blurred. This is shown in the frame below and its accompanying enlargement. Please note that this photograph was taken with the mirror locked up and with the use of a cable release! The sharpness destroying vibration is from the large focal plane shutter. A light weight tripod just doesn't cut it with this camera.

I quite like how the author is using pretty much everything you're not supposed to use. Typical of LL, however. A bunch of whining gear-heads taking boring photos and complaining about the resolving power of lens A.

I have to assess my negs under a loupe (I don't have a lightbox at the moment...need to get one) to determine where the threshold lies.

My suspicion is that the complainers are using the camera under extreme conditions (as above...300mm, plus extender, plus light-weight tripod, plus slow shutter speed) and that the hand-holders aren't looking at the negs using a powerful loupe. So the truth of it might be somewhere in the middle.

Based on what I've read, I see no reason to believe that the 67II assembly is better than that found in the 67. Certainly not in practical terms.