[unkipunki]

I have come across a strange issue with recently received adapter and 67 lens. I bought a new fotodiox pro 67 to 645 adapter and a near mint Smc pentax 67 f4 200mm lens (late version). Obviously it is now a fully manual operation, that is not an issue for me.

What is a bit more of an issue is that when I set my 645Z to mirror up (with or without delay, or remote) the lens iris activates but there is no two stage camera action nor audible beep as it waits with the mirror up. No photo is recorded whatsoever. This is not the case with native 645 lenses.

Any ideas what might be causing this to happen?

---

Last edited by unkipunki; 07-08-2018 at 10:12 AM.

[unkipunki]

Upadate. It does work sometimes, but only for a couple of frames then it stops working for hours. This is definitely an problem for landscape shots. Anybody out there who knows how the mirror up is governed in relation to to lens mount variation please let me know.

[unkipunki]

The Mirror Lock Up works every time with the fotodiox adaptor attached but no lens. Once the lens is mounted on the adaptor it might work once or twice then goes back to ignoring the timer, sounding like a frame is being taken, but not recording any image. It is extremely frustrating.

[Bob L]

I've got seven P67 lenses but use the Pentax adapter and I'm not aware that this has ever happened.

[unkipunki]

I've got seven P67 lenses but use the Pentax adapter and I'm not aware that this has ever happened.

I have now found it to be the fotodiox/camera relationship that is somehow crippling some camera functionality. I have also found that 12 second delay will NOT work with the adaptor mounted, as well as mirror up.

I raised a customer support query with fotodiox with the mirror up issue saying it does work through Live View but not through Mirror Up and received this response.

Live view is mirror up though, but either case I do not think our adapter was meant for mirror control which in most cases requires lens communication. which with this adapter there is no lens communication.
Thank you

I don't think that this is a particularly useful reply on their part, clearly something unusual is happening with my setup.

I will be returning the adaptor and getting another manufacturers model. Maybe the Pentax one once I have the funds.

[Bob L]

...... I will be returning the adaptor and getting another manufacturers model. Maybe the Pentax one once I have the funds.

I could pop a Pentax adapter in the post if you want to try it.....just to be certain that there's nothing else strange going on.

Bob

[unkipunki]

I could pop a Pentax adapter in the post if you want to try it.....just to be certain that there's nothing else strange going on.

Bob

That is very kind of you. But I am in Scotland. That might be a bit far to be popping things in the post.

[Bob L]

I'm only just across the ditch in France?

[unkipunki]

Ah well. That would be very helpful. If it happens with a Pentax adapter I have an issue with the Z. If not it is a fotodiox issue. I will PM you my address, and get it back to you as soon as I have tested it.

[unkipunki]

Update. BobL kindly lent me a Pentax 67 to 645 adapter and all the issues disappeared. The fotodiox has been returned and Bob kindly sold me the pentax adapter. I look forward to investing in some more 67 lenses as I really like the cost to quality ratio achieved with this 200mm late version.

[unkipunki]

Update. BobL kindly lent me a Pentax 67 to 645 adapter and all the issues disappeared. The fotodiox has been returned and Bob kindly sold me the pentax adapter. I look forward to investing in some more 67 lenses as I really like the cost to quality ratio achieved with this 200mm late version.

[kaseki]

I have both a used Pentax Adapter 645 for 67 lens (Japan) and new counterpart Fotodiox Pro PT67 -PT645 (II), Very preliminary testing with my 645Z doesn't reveal much difference in normal shooting with a Pentax 67 55-100mm zoom lens. I have examined both adapters, and while the Pentax has more parts than the Fotodiox, the critical dimensions that I have measured are very close (within a tenth of a millimeter).

The Pentax has a ramped plastic non-conductive surface for the camera-side's lens conductor pins to slide on, whereas the Fotodiox appears to allow them to not contact anything. (In any case, the Fotodiox black anodize is not conductive.)

The Fotodiox springs on the iris tabs seem slightly stiffer than those of the Pentax, but on the other hand the Fotodiox spring stiffness is closer to that of the tabs on a 645 75mm lens at hand.

Iris setting and iris control tabs of the two adapters are very close in height relative to the back flange and also in width. The 75mm iris setting status tab is slightly lower relative to the flange than the two adapter counterparts, but the 645Z doesn't appear to have any feature that cares.

I don't see the mirror interacting with any of the adapter parts on either unit such that it would hang up. I need more mirror-up practice with both 645 and the 67 lens to detect differences in functional behavior.

On the 67 side of the adapter, one may notice that while 645 lenses use a pair of rear facing tabs, the 67 lens uses a rear facing tab for iris control, but a radial side tab for aperture reporting. It is difficult to observe the interactions of each of these lens tabs with their counterparts inside the adapters. I can observe that there are some differences in the apparent ranges of travel of the aperture reporting tab's pick-up adapter tabs of the two adapters. I don't believe that the 55-100 zoom's aperture setting tab motion challenges either adapter's range of travel. This might not be true of all 67 lenses.

I plan to update this when I've done some mirror up experiments. At present, I don't see an explanation for unkipunki's observed differences in adapter behavior, at least given the components available to me.

[unkipunki]

I have both a used Pentax Adapter 645 for 67 lens (Japan) and new counterpart Fotodiox Pro PT67 -PT645 (II), Very preliminary testing with my 645Z doesn't reveal much difference in normal shooting with a Pentax 67 55-100mm zoom lens. I have examined both adapters, and while the Pentax has more parts than the Fotodiox, the critical dimensions that I have measured are very close (within a tenth of a millimeter).

The Pentax has a ramped plastic non-conductive surface for the camera-side's lens conductor pins to slide on, whereas the Fotodiox appears to allow them to not contact anything. (In any case, the Fotodiox black anodize is not conductive.)

The Fotodiox springs on the iris tabs seem slightly stiffer than those of the Pentax, but on the other hand the Fotodiox spring stiffness is closer to that of the tabs on a 645 75mm lens at hand.

Iris setting and iris control tabs of the two adapters are very close in height relative to the back flange and also in width. The 75mm iris setting status tab is slightly lower relative to the flange than the two adapter counterparts, but the 645Z doesn't appear to have any feature that cares.

I don't see the mirror interacting with any of the adapter parts on either unit such that it would hang up. I need more mirror-up practice with both 645 and the 67 lens to detect differences in functional behavior.

On the 67 side of the adapter, one may notice that while 645 lenses use a pair of rear facing tabs, the 67 lens uses a rear facing tab for iris control, but a radial side tab for aperture reporting. It is difficult to observe the interactions of each of these lens tabs with their counterparts inside the adapters. I can observe that there are some differences in the apparent ranges of travel of the aperture reporting tab's pick-up adapter tabs of the two adapters. I don't believe that the 55-100 zoom's aperture setting tab motion challenges either adapter's range of travel. This might not be true of all 67 lenses.

I plan to update this when I've done some mirror up experiments. At present, I don't see an explanation for unkipunki's observed differences in adapter behavior, at least given the components available to me.

Hi, I couldn't see a reason for it happening. But it did happen with the fotodiox and not with the Pentax. I no longer have the fotodiox so can't check anything on it now.

[kaseki]

Hi, I couldn't see a reason for it happening. But it did happen with the fotodiox and not with the Pentax. I no longer have the fotodiox so can't check anything on it now.

Did your Fotodiox adapter have the "(II)" in its "Fotodiox Pro PT67-PT645 (II)" marking? Should we guess that the "(II)" designates a second version of the adapter, or designates (in a somewhat strange manner) that it is for the 645NII?

[unkipunki]

Did your Fotodiox adapter have the "(II)" in its "Fotodiox Pro PT67-PT645 (II)" marking? Should we guess that the "(II)" designates a second version of the adapter, or designates (in a somewhat strange manner) that it is for the 645NII?

Hi, yes it was a MkII

---------- Post added 18-05-19 at 09:21 ----------

It was also had 'Pro' designation