Pentax 6x7 MLU Polaroid/back door

abruzzi · 08-28-2018, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by torashi

Yes, they produced a one time product from old chemical stock and sold it through crowdfunding. It seemed mediocre at best. I think they are related to the same people of impossible film, now called "Polaroid originals".
It's so sad that Fuji didn't think of the users. They could've just sold that part of the business, or make it independent, and keep producing it in some way or another. Or at least publish their know-how, so anybody bold enough could start producing it.

you're thinking of New55 I think. This is someone starting from scratch. Like I said, I don't hold out much hope, pack film seems pretty niche.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/08/21/florian-doc-kaps-gears-up-kickstarter-campaign/

Summer25 · 08-28-2018, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Silent Street

I agree. Additionally, if you get your hands on either a 90mm f2.8 or 165mm f4 leaf shutter lens, you can then use studio strobes with higher speed sync than the camera's native 1/30s. I do not do many portraits, but the one I made was with an ordinary 90mm f2.8 lens.

I’ll have to do more research then and see which lens is best suited for what I’d like to shoot. I’ll def be doing full body shots so it needs to meet those needs. Thanks to those who suggested different lenses. Looks like I have homework to do.

---------- Post added 08-28-18 at 05:42 PM ----------

My camera is currently set up with a Takamur 6x7 55mm 3.5. Apparently he used this camera to shoot weddings. I also want to shoot landscapes especially with the Everglades around here. What is the best use for this lens I have?

**gofour3** · 08-28-2018, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Summer25

What is the best use for this lens I have?

It's (55mm) a perfect FL for landscapes, so you are good to go.

Phil.

abruzzi · 08-28-2018, 07:57 PM

A 55 on 6x7 is wide angle, equivalent to around 28mm on 35/full frame. I use mine as a landscape lens, but it probably too wide for most portraits. The 55 can also be good for architecture. It’s not so wide that it feels “warped wide” (my term and my opinion.). I’d suggest finding a150/2.8. It’s a great lens, in a common focal length for portraits, and it can be found cheap. I got mine mint for about $100. The 105/2.4 is a very nice lens, but the current bokeh obsession has driven up prices to $300+ for a good condition one.

tuco · 08-29-2018, 08:00 AM

I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures.

abruzzi · 08-29-2018, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by tuco

I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures.

I never said you can't use it for people pictures, just that its not ideal for most types of portraits.

tuco · 08-29-2018, 01:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by abruzzi

I never said you can't use it for people pictures, just that its not ideal for most types of portraits.

Sure.

Perhaps this is what people mean for a portrait? It seems anytime focal lengths for portraits are talked about the classical head shot is what's inferred and the only kind of portrait too. Also, the longer focal lengths in the larger formats mean less distortion in the lenses for equivalent wide angle lenses in small format in general.

165mm LS

Last edited by tuco; 08-29-2018 at 02:04 PM.

desertscape · 08-29-2018, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Summer25

I also want to shoot landscapes especially with the Everglades around here

You could easily add the 45mm and 75 f/4.5 to your 55mm and have a pretty good landscape setup. Or you could go with the 55-100 zoom since they have come down a lot in price.

Silent Street · 08-29-2018, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

You could easily add the 45mm and 75 f/4.5 to your 55mm and have a pretty good landscape setup. Or you could go with the 55-100 zoom since they have come down a lot in price.

My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good.

I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it.

torashi · 08-30-2018, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Silent Street

My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good.

I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it.

Perhaps you'll love that FL if you get your hands on a 67 55/4? A sharp beast!

Summer25 · 09-01-2018, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Silent Street

My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good.

I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it.

The lens is definitely clunky and I don't have a lens cap for it. Good news though, the replacement back cover from Erick came in the mail today! I'm one step closer to using this beast!

---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:23 PM ----------

Originally posted by tuco

I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures.

Great photos!

---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:26 PM ----------

Originally posted by abruzzi

A 55 on 6x7 is wide angle, equivalent to around 28mm on 35/full frame. I use mine as a landscape lens, but it probably too wide for most portraits. The 55 can also be good for architecture. It’s not so wide that it feels “warped wide” (my term and my opinion.). I’d suggest finding a150/2.8. It’s a great lens, in a common focal length for portraits, and it can be found cheap. I got mine mint for about $100. The 105/2.4 is a very nice lens, but the current bokeh obsession has driven up prices to $300+ for a good condition one.

I was searching and did notice a big price jump between the 2.4 and 2.8. I still have a bit of time to decide. For now I'm just going to do a couple test rolls with the 55mm and get comfortable with the camera before jumping into my portraiture project. In the mean time, anyone have any good articles or personal experience with shooting portraits that they can share. Mine is more towards the artistic route and not business type photos.

Silent Street · 09-01-2018, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Summer25

The lens is definitely clunky and I don't have a lens cap for it. Good news though, the replacement back cover from Erick came in the mail today! I'm one step closer to using this beast!

---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:23 PM ----------

Great photos!

---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:26 PM ----------

I was searching and did notice a big price jump between the 2.4 and 2.8. I still have a bit of time to decide. For now I'm just going to do a couple test rolls with the 55mm and get comfortable with the camera before jumping into my portraiture project. In the mean time, anyone have any good articles or personal experience with shooting portraits that they can share. Mine is more towards the artistic route and not business type photos.

"Artistic route" portraiture. Hmm.
Does your 67 have the (rare) multi exposure facility on the right-hand side of the camera below the 120/220 film format selector? Cameras with this have been used for very interesting special effects using multi exposure with one lens or two over xx number of frames (no limit). I am attempting to find the fellow who did some of this here in Australia. I do have the ME facility on my 67 and that is only used in the landscape context, and not immediately evident when it has been applied!

derek lep · 10-05-2018, 11:49 AM

The NPC Polaroid back you have (Summer25) was manufactured with a spring-loaded hinge pin, so that the back could be easily changed from the Polaroid back, to the normal camera back.

The hinge pin is activated by partially opening the camera back, using the right hand side of the back as normal, then, when the back is open by about 5cm there is a tiny slot head screw in the outside left-side hinge top. This tiny screw is the lever. Using your left thumb nail you can gently slide the hinge-pin down and release the entire camera back.

It's a bit tricky because you have to keep the back partially open as you do what I just described, being careful to keep the back in the same axis so that the pin slides down cleanly and smoothly.

The original camera back will have probably been adapted with the supplied (from NPC) replacement pin strip, which also included the tiny slot screw headed sliding pin.

So, now the regular camera back can be attached without having to remove the leather.

Pentax service centres were aware of this adaption and swapped over the left side pin strip for many owners that bought these NPC backs.

Many purchasers of the NPC Polaroid back would keep the original camera back in the the case that the NPC back came in.

That's basically it. I may have more info somewhere if you need it.

The original back is probably kicking around somewhere with all the other stuff where the camera came from.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 67 (not 6x7) with no MLU	irvirv	Pentax Medium Format	7	05-13-2021 12:50 PM
shutter mechanism problem on Pentax 6x7 MLU	gavett.jake	Pentax Medium Format	7	05-31-2018 09:42 AM
Pentax 6x7 W/MLU Questions	mikecable	Pentax Medium Format	2	09-22-2017 03:51 AM
Pentax 6x7 MLU question Film counter Dry Fire	pepler	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	08-15-2017 10:57 PM
Misc back door, front door - lorikeets & Rouletts	Cee Cee	Post Your Photos!	12	03-21-2013 10:55 PM

08-28-2018, 08:55 AM	#16
abruzzi Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: New Mexico Posts: 788	Originally posted by torashi Yes, they produced a one time product from old chemical stock and sold it through crowdfunding. It seemed mediocre at best. I think they are related to the same people of impossible film, now called "Polaroid originals". It's so sad that Fuji didn't think of the users. They could've just sold that part of the business, or make it independent, and keep producing it in some way or another. Or at least publish their know-how, so anybody bold enough could start producing it. you're thinking of New55 I think. This is someone starting from scratch. Like I said, I don't hold out much hope, pack film seems pretty niche. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/08/21/florian-doc-kaps-gears-up-kickstarter-campaign/

08-28-2018, 05:36 PM	#17
Summer25 New Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 13 Original Poster	Originally posted by Silent Street I agree. Additionally, if you get your hands on either a 90mm f2.8 or 165mm f4 leaf shutter lens, you can then use studio strobes with higher speed sync than the camera's native 1/30s. I do not do many portraits, but the one I made was with an ordinary 90mm f2.8 lens. I’ll have to do more research then and see which lens is best suited for what I’d like to shoot. I’ll def be doing full body shots so it needs to meet those needs. Thanks to those who suggested different lenses. Looks like I have homework to do. ---------- Post added 08-28-18 at 05:42 PM ---------- My camera is currently set up with a Takamur 6x7 55mm 3.5. Apparently he used this camera to shoot weddings. I also want to shoot landscapes especially with the Everglades around here. What is the best use for this lens I have?

08-28-2018, 07:56 PM	#18
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Originally posted by Summer25 What is the best use for this lens I have? It's (55mm) a perfect FL for landscapes, so you are good to go. Phil.

08-28-2018, 07:57 PM	#19
abruzzi Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: New Mexico Posts: 788	A 55 on 6x7 is wide angle, equivalent to around 28mm on 35/full frame. I use mine as a landscape lens, but it probably too wide for most portraits. The 55 can also be good for architecture. It’s not so wide that it feels “warped wide” (my term and my opinion.). I’d suggest finding a150/2.8. It’s a great lens, in a common focal length for portraits, and it can be found cheap. I got mine mint for about $100. The 105/2.4 is a very nice lens, but the current bokeh obsession has driven up prices to $300+ for a good condition one.

08-29-2018, 08:00 AM	#20
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures.

08-29-2018, 11:51 AM	#21
abruzzi Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: New Mexico Posts: 788	Originally posted by tuco I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures. I never said you can't use it for people pictures, just that its not ideal for most types of portraits.

08-29-2018, 01:05 PM - 1 Like	#22
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by abruzzi I never said you can't use it for people pictures, just that its not ideal for most types of portraits. Sure. Perhaps this is what people mean for a portrait? It seems anytime focal lengths for portraits are talked about the classical head shot is what's inferred and the only kind of portrait too. Also, the longer focal lengths in the larger formats mean less distortion in the lenses for equivalent wide angle lenses in small format in general. 165mm LS Last edited by tuco; 08-29-2018 at 02:04 PM.

08-29-2018, 01:23 PM	#23
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by Summer25 I also want to shoot landscapes especially with the Everglades around here You could easily add the 45mm and 75 f/4.5 to your 55mm and have a pretty good landscape setup. Or you could go with the 55-100 zoom since they have come down a lot in price.

08-29-2018, 03:25 PM	#24
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by desertscape You could easily add the 45mm and 75 f/4.5 to your 55mm and have a pretty good landscape setup. Or you could go with the 55-100 zoom since they have come down a lot in price. My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good. I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it.

08-30-2018, 05:48 AM	#25
torashi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Medellín Posts: 1,322	Originally posted by Silent Street My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good. I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it. Perhaps you'll love that FL if you get your hands on a 67 55/4? A sharp beast!

09-01-2018, 04:22 PM	#26
Summer25 New Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 13 Original Poster	Originally posted by Silent Street My vote is for the 45mm for landscape use and the 165mm LS (as per Tuco's example) for portraiture. Alternatively, either of the 90mm lenses are also good. I have owned the 55mm lens but became annoyed by its clunky design, stiffness of focusing and overall lack of refined 'feel' compared to e.g. the squat 45mm and the elegant 75mm f2.8AL. That said, I created three of my all-time greatest images with the 55mm back in 2012, but I do not miss it. The lens is definitely clunky and I don't have a lens cap for it. Good news though, the replacement back cover from Erick came in the mail today! I'm one step closer to using this beast! ---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:23 PM ---------- Originally posted by tuco I think the 55mm does okay for people pictures. Great photos! ---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:26 PM ---------- Originally posted by abruzzi A 55 on 6x7 is wide angle, equivalent to around 28mm on 35/full frame. I use mine as a landscape lens, but it probably too wide for most portraits. The 55 can also be good for architecture. It’s not so wide that it feels “warped wide” (my term and my opinion.). I’d suggest finding a150/2.8. It’s a great lens, in a common focal length for portraits, and it can be found cheap. I got mine mint for about $100. The 105/2.4 is a very nice lens, but the current bokeh obsession has driven up prices to $300+ for a good condition one. I was searching and did notice a big price jump between the 2.4 and 2.8. I still have a bit of time to decide. For now I'm just going to do a couple test rolls with the 55mm and get comfortable with the camera before jumping into my portraiture project. In the mean time, anyone have any good articles or personal experience with shooting portraits that they can share. Mine is more towards the artistic route and not business type photos.

09-01-2018, 06:06 PM	#27
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by Summer25 The lens is definitely clunky and I don't have a lens cap for it. Good news though, the replacement back cover from Erick came in the mail today! I'm one step closer to using this beast! ---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:23 PM ---------- Great photos! ---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 04:26 PM ---------- I was searching and did notice a big price jump between the 2.4 and 2.8. I still have a bit of time to decide. For now I'm just going to do a couple test rolls with the 55mm and get comfortable with the camera before jumping into my portraiture project. In the mean time, anyone have any good articles or personal experience with shooting portraits that they can share. Mine is more towards the artistic route and not business type photos. "Artistic route" portraiture. Hmm. Does your 67 have the (rare) multi exposure facility on the right-hand side of the camera below the 120/220 film format selector? Cameras with this have been used for very interesting special effects using multi exposure with one lens or two over xx number of frames (no limit). I am attempting to find the fellow who did some of this here in Australia. I do have the ME facility on my 67 and that is only used in the landscape context, and not immediately evident when it has been applied!

10-05-2018, 11:49 AM	#28
derek lep New Member Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 1	The NPC Polaroid back you have (Summer25) was manufactured with a spring-loaded hinge pin, so that the back could be easily changed from the Polaroid back, to the normal camera back. The hinge pin is activated by partially opening the camera back, using the right hand side of the back as normal, then, when the back is open by about 5cm there is a tiny slot head screw in the outside left-side hinge top. This tiny screw is the lever. Using your left thumb nail you can gently slide the hinge-pin down and release the entire camera back. It's a bit tricky because you have to keep the back partially open as you do what I just described, being careful to keep the back in the same axis so that the pin slides down cleanly and smoothly. The original camera back will have probably been adapted with the supplied (from NPC) replacement pin strip, which also included the tiny slot screw headed sliding pin. So, now the regular camera back can be attached without having to remove the leather. Pentax service centres were aware of this adaption and swapped over the left side pin strip for many owners that bought these NPC backs. Many purchasers of the NPC Polaroid back would keep the original camera back in the the case that the NPC back came in. That's basically it. I may have more info somewhere if you need it. The original back is probably kicking around somewhere with all the other stuff where the camera came from.