Hi Joe,
This is basically my first post here, and I'm responding to your question of whether a digital shooter can appreciate a Pentax 67. I sincerely feel that the answer is a resounding YES!
I shot with a Nikon 35mm system for years, but didn't feel like I was getting the quality enlargements that I wanted. Yes, I could enlarge to 8"x12", but beyond that, the image quality declined, even using my best technique - tripod, MLU, cable release, etc.
So, I started doing my research into an MF camera that I felt would meet MY needs, which was mostly nature & landscape at the time (this was about seven years ago). In doing my research, I came across the P67 system and realized that I had seen one hanging around the neck of a photographer while I was in the Grand Canyon - a clear memory, because I'd never seen a camera that big! After completing my research, I decided to go with the P67 and bought a 6x7 body and 200 mm Takumar lens on ebay. After my first roll of film, I was hooked! A few months later, I sold the 6x7 and bought the 67 model, and several lenses. After a couple of wonderful years of the 67, I bought a 67II (and now, a second one, both of which have the timer & MLU), and even more lenses. I have a whole slew of lenses between 45mm and 400mm, and love most all of them - I feel that the SMC 105 is about the sharpest lens that I own.
You raise a lot of very valid points about the shortcomings or difficulties of the P67 system. By the same token, you didn't raise the limitations of your digital system. I also shoot digital, and each camera fills certain needs, sometimes overlapping needs. But, the 67II system requires me to slow down and be more deliberate. The other issues that you raise aren't really issues for me, as I've invested into the system - a heavier tripod, a 165mm leaf-shutter lens, flashes, etc. Yes, this is a heavy package to carry, but I feel that the quality of the images make it worth it.
I now shoot several weddings each year. I'll use the digital equipment for the "quick" photos - ceremony, reception, arrivals, informal images - while I use the 67II for formal poses. When you can clearly see a bride's smallpox scar on her arm, or the tiny little zipper on the back of her dress, then you know that you're onto something. Yes, most of the wedding prints that I sell are 8"x10", but there's a very distinct difference in the quality between the digital and the MF camera. The MF images are just so much smoother and sharper.
I've seen many discussions about pros & cons of digital vs. MF. And, I feel that the discussions should be about digital *AND* MF. Each serves its purpose. But, when I take a digital image and get a 17 mb .tif file, and then scan my MF images and get a 60 mb .tif file, you can understand that I really am getting about four times more information that can be used to make wonderful images.
Regarding the issue of hand holding, yes, the size of the 67II does make this an issue and imposes some limitations. But, when I've been pushed, I've made some great handheld images. I have one hanging on my wall that's 4'x5' (yes, feet), that was shot handheld with a P67 and a 200mm lens, at f/8, 1/125", on Portra 160 - and it looks wonderful
at the proper viewing distance, and even closer. When I'm at weddings, I shoot quite a few of the formal poses with my 105 mm lens, sometimes handheld, sometimes on a tripod.
So, yes, it can be done, to include the P67 in your repertoire, but it does take some time and getting used to. But, when you see those first transparencies, you'll be hooked!
Good luck,
Tim!