[w2ck]

Hi,

Well, there it is, my friends. If I am allowed to call y'all friends after only 50 posts. But, most have been here in the MF forum. So, I think I can call folks here in the MF forum friends.

My wife would call you fiends. Yeah, like that silly commercial for some smartphone game. :P

She says I ought not to hang out with you. Bad Influences.

Why?

Because a Pentax 6x7 showed up this week. She saw it and wondered 'what now?'! Yes. What now, indeed. And, then she figured out it was a film camera when I popped the back open. Mr Been Digital Since 1999 here with a film camera he didn't have from before 1999. Yup.

Why?

Because of all these threads regarding the 6x7. I just had to know what you guys are on about! Will I ever shoot film again. No. Well. Maybe not. Well. I am looking for my 120 film developing tank and eyeballing film and chemicals on websites and eyeballing enlargers on eBay. So, maybe I will. B&W.

And, I did locate my nice stainless steel 135 film developing tank. The 120 wasn't with it as I thought it would be. But, there were three moves between when I last developed my own film and this farm. And, still a bunch of old boxes to sort thru on rainy days. I have been pulling out lots of stuff to trash or donate to the local thrift store on rainy days. But, that is another story.

Anyway, I am piecing together a (hopefully) working 6x7 off of eBay. I have the body. I lost the matching auction for the metered finder. But, now am onto one for a plain finder. Is OK as I would use my digital camera to play meter for me and then just shoot the 6x7 manually. The body is from a camera shop and they say it works fine except for the 1/1000 shutter speed is erratic. Sometimes it is OK, sometimes a bit slow.

Anyway again, I took a hard look at the size of this thing and was surprised it was as small and light as it is. I am comparing it to two Kodak APS sensor DSLRs from the days of yore. One based on a Canon EOS-1n and the other based on a Nikon F5. The Canon is a tad smaller and the Nikon a tad larger than the 6x7. Both weigh more in the hand. Old modified into digital from film designs. Not as svelte as the designed to be digital units.

The 6x7 mirror box does *look* huge, but it doesn't stick out much further when it comes to overall depth compared to these old Kodak units I used for decades (and continue to use once in a while).

But, the 6x7 does look huge compared to the 645D.

What I need now is a Digital Back. Yeah! And, I already know that would make it a lot larger and heavier. I have lots of experience with digital conversion backs on film bodies. :P

So, now a serious question: I see these Polaroid backed units for cheap. Some are Fuji and others NPC. I know the film didn't exist for a while, but then some returned from the dead. But, I was never much into Polaroid except for the old B&W Pull-Apart form that my antique electronic instrument (think oscilloscopes) documentation cameras used.

Are any of the new Polaroid film packs usable in either of these backs for the 6x7?

Stan - now dipping my toe into Pentax 6x7 waters

Oh, and maybe, just maybe, I will trek off to a NC lighthouse with the 645D tomorrow. Finally!

[tuco]

If you are going to use a digital camera for metering, you can both keep the P67 lighter with a waist level finder (aka folding hood) in lieu of a prism and you can use the digital camera as your 'Polaroid back'.

[johnha]

Welcome to 6x7 ownership.

I'm pretty sure there are no current instant film options and that the only use of a Polaroid back would be to use sheet film.

The 6x7s with Polaroid backs are probably cheap because they don't have the film door to convert back to 120/220.

Your right, they aren't big or heavy (repeat as necessary while hauling them around).

[Apet-Sure]

Oh, and maybe, just maybe, I will trek off to a NC lighthouse with the 645D tomorrow.

I have seen a few of our lighthouses. Oddly enough, I never had a camera with me. If you don't mind the long ferry ride (which is quite relaxing), I can recommend the Ocracoke Island light at dusk as being very picturesque. Of course, any of them would be a worthy subject. I regret I didn't get a shot of Hatteras light while it was still at the water's edge, before they moved it to keep it from falling into the ocean. The move was quite an interesting and humerous story. The lighthouse got two citations from the police for traffic violations. One for exceeding the maximum safe speed for a lighthouse, and the other for running a stop sign. A video was produced covering the whole project. No doubt it's available at local shops if you get over that way.

[zzeitg]

Bad influence? Sure. We are the people our parents warned us about.

[w2ck]

Hi,

I have plenty of shots of Hatteras. First with a Nikon D1 and then several other makes and models and, last Fall, with the Nikon Df. But, that was the Max Resolution: 16 MP. I have others, Bodie Island, Currituck, Oak Island (NC, not Nova Scotia!) and Cape Lookout. All the same story. I keep changing cameras. Bodie and Lookout I have Df shots for. The rest, the old Kodak 760c. I need to get to Okracoke and Old Baldy as I have never been to either.

The wife's Master Plan is selling quilt block sets of the seven NC lighthouses. Seven sets, with each house being featured printed large and the other six smaller. So, three on each side of the featured one. Sort of a new take on a T-shirt she prints of her pen and ink drawings for the past 30 years.

Anyway, the new Plan is to inkjet print these on a specialized textile printer I have. So, now I want to have more by way of image taken by more by way of photo gear than I have before. Hence, the 645D and a few lenses. But the Plan has been delayed. Anyway, it is about to begin. Some houses I know when to be there. Hatteras in the morning, Bodie in the late afternoon, for example. This will take several trips, and that alone will be fun.

The 6x7 is just something to satisfy my curiosity for now. I don't know that I will get too much into it. But, some B+W and a simple darkroom that I can see. Sort of going back to my beginning in 1973 when it was B+W 120 roll film and a 6x9 box camera.

The Polaroid part only entered my thinking of one being Something Different altogether. If the film had returned when I wasn't looking. Hey, for $75 bucks, might be a cheap bit of different fun. But, there would have to be film still.....

Stan

[tuco]

If you want a digital back for a film camera, a Hasselblad is a better choice than a Pentax 6x7. Any digital backs you probably would really want will be expensive, lack many features of a 645D/Z, won't have much in the way of wide angle lens options and you most likely will never handhold the camera.

[w2ck]

Hi,

All true enough. I had a Kodak digital back on a Contax 645 long before Pentax even announced the 645D. Worked most of the time, but could be a real PIA. It had this thing where the body and the back got out of sync. Anyone want half a shot? It was a different experience to the Kodak backs on the 135 format film bodies. Of course, the later models used modified film bodies and they were integrated such that they were seamless. But, then, the modifications meant those film bodies were never able to shoot a roll of film again.

I had originally thought to maybe switch back and forth with that Contax, but never did. What I really wanted was what the 645D is, but it wasn't around yet. And, then when it was, it was too costly. Even the napkins to mop up my drool cost too much. :P

No, I don't see where I would actually want a digital back on a P 6x7 given my previous experiences. I can see returning to film, though. B+W to keep things simpler.

But my main reason for spending the $80 on this one was to see just how big it really is. And, it is not nearly as big as I was expecting. Up until now, my MF experiences have been with 645. Unless we want to count that Ansco box camera.

Stan

[tuco]

...
But my main reason for spending the $80 on this one was to see just how big it really is. And, it is not nearly as big as I was expecting. Up until now, my MF experiences have been with 645. Unless we want to count that Ansco box camera.

Stan

My DSLR with a sports 70-200/f2.8 lens is a very heavy setup. But seriously, put a folding hood on your 6x7 just to keep it simple and shoot the camera on a compact tripod. You get 100% view and magnification for critical focus.

[Silent Street]

No, I don't see where I would actually want a digital back on a P 6x7 given my previous experiences. I can see returning to film, though. B+W to keep things simpler.

Well, such a fanciful trinket did exist for the Pentax 6x7 / 67 cameras around 1998 to 2000 (can't remember who the manufacturer was — thought it was Grimes, but no), just when digital was gaining traction, and Kodak's own 'uge and bigly digi cameras needed some undeniably hefty competition. It necessitated that the factory back of the 67 have a native release pin (on the right, where the hinge is, usually to fit a high-capacity rollfilm back) to facilitate no-tool removal, and the shutter to be modified to be constantly open (?). Otherwise, the back hinge was literally destroyed to fit a digital back, which from fading memory was an humongous contraption that required power to be shared from the camera's base-mounted battery via an extension cord — hardly practical, except for geeks looking for kicks. It's probably a good thing such a piece machinery didn't cotton-on given the already significant weight of the 6x7 / 67 (to me! )

But my main reason for spending the $80 on this one was to see just how big it really is.

And it's not big?
Alrighty, then. Now add five or so 67 lenses and march 20km over hill and dale and report back...

[rdenney]

The 67 is such a lovely machine. It’s really the grand expression of metal-bodied Japanese SLRs, even compared to a Nikon F or a Canon F-1. Think of how big a step forward it was compared to, say, the Norita 66 that was only a few years its predecessor. It has the perfect combination of mechanical shutter with electronic timing. The 1969 6x7 was a far better camera than the 1995 Exakta 66 Mk. II (which was more Pentacon Six than anything).

I’m glad I have them, even I only run one roll a year through them.

Rick “feels the same way about Sinar view cameras” Denney

[w2ck]

Hi,

Nice shot with the light on.

We didn't go today. Weather not so good on the coast. Maybe next weekend.

Now I am looking for one of those waist level finders, too. I didn't even know there was one until yesterday. I have one for my Nikon F5, so I do understand them. Will work a lot better given the big focusing screen.

Stan

[Halide]

Apparently there is a way to use Fuji Instax film in the 67. I happened to see a youtube video detailing this technique, but have not yet tried it as you require an Instax camera to "develop" the film.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Halide

[golden1245]

Apparently there is a way to use Fuji Instax film in the 67. I happened to see a youtube video detailing this technique, but have not yet tried it as you require an Instax camera to "develop" the film.

Instax film in the Pentax 67 - YouTube

Halide

wow that is awesome! thanks for linking that video!

[barondla]

Apparently there is a way to use Fuji Instax film in the 67. I happened to see a youtube video detailing this technique, but have not yet tried it as you require an Instax camera to "develop" the film.

Instax film in the Pentax 67 - YouTube

Halide

Absolutely amazing! I have the Pentax and Fuji cameras. Will have to give this a try.
Thanks,
barondla