Originally posted by lbenac Hello Leping,
I just checked your (his) web site and specially liked the gallery with IR shots.
I was a little bit surprised by the home page with a description of your (his) history made in a third person narrative mode (wondered if I was on the wrong page for a second) but as I said really liked the IR gallery.
That is a good argument in favour of the 67...
Cheers,
Luc
Hi Luc,
The infrared works were out of a converted Canon 5D not the 67. You can tell from the 3:2 aspect ratio -- I never crop my composition. I hate Canon bodies absolutely but have to still use it since multiple advantages with IR in the sensor and AF systems over Nikon, my much preferred 35mm system. For one I can't check sharpness at focus point at 100% pixels without multiple (actually 6) pushes which drives me continuous crazy while with Nikon bodies it is one touch. Canons are for ladies not photographers unless they have special needs.
I was a mechanic for many years. I modified my heavy Gitzo 1548 tripod so that I can hang my 35lbs+ backpack to the center column vert securely high up nearing the disk. Then of course MLP, long soft release and self-timer, plus all my body weight over the body to further dampen the shutter vibration, and never bother with 1/8 and 1/15 speed.
It is not mirror but the horizontal traveling of the shutter, which creates an internal torque so that the camera will shake, actually twist or rotate horizontally. With a laser pen you can easily see how the beam jump on a wall easily even on a tripod. As the result the landscape shots are not sharp (through my 22x loupe or after scanned either drum or Imacon/Hasselblad) if the above techniques are not applied, but if I only shoot vertical I can get away with much flimsy setups such as a Bogen 3021. You can clearly see the blur pattern is always horizontal. 67II (I went through 3 bodies and thousands of rolls) is little bit better than the old 67 but not by too much.
Even I use all the damping techniques mentioned above, avoided triggering with slightest amount of wind, and with focusing untouched, with the long 67 lenses (80-160 at the long end, 165, 200, and especially the 300 ED IF, some times with 1.4x) I could manage to get out one really sharp chromes in every 3-4, for reasons I still don't fully understand, so I often got hand cramp from film winding and shutter pushing in exciting days. If you only print 20x24 you may not need to waste so much film, but if you look close the 48x60 in my client's lobby you know what I am talking about. The 300 ED IF is specially hard because it is such a super sharp lens by itself, and any vibration will show clearly. I also learned I have let the camera stand on the tripod (actually my heavy Arca-Swiss B2G Giant head which helps) and let the long lenses hang out, not to use the collars on the lenses themselves. Letting the 67 hang on the lens end is calling for failures.
I have never got sharp results with the 2x on film, no matter what I do. I read people had to resort to two tripods to use long lenses on the Pentax 67. However, when I tried it with the 300 ED IF on a Canon 5DII (before I converted it to IR at maxmax.com) I get sharp results on the 5um spacing sensor, thus I learned the problem is not the Pentax optics, which is second to none to me, but still instability in the support, or inadequacy of my shooting method. That time the Canon was hanging from the lens and you see how different it is when you have the Pentax 67 at the same position.
All these said, I love the Pentax 67 system and still use it when possible. But, I repeat what I said, it needs thorough testing and understanding, and you can not be lazy or wish you can get good result without carrying heavily, unless you only shoot wide angle (even I did see horizontal blurs with the 45mm lens on a 3021, my first tripod before I found it has a big play and does not resist any twist force).
Thank you,
Leping