[knumbnutz]

Hi there everyone,

I am chasing as much info on 67s and mainly 67ii as i can get, please help me out.

What I am looking to do is back up my K20D with a film camer and probably think the 67ii is the most appropriate. I mainly shoot landscapes and am happy to use a tripod.
So take in to account that the use of the 67ii will be for shots that have been already taken with the K20D.

1. How much of an advantage do people find the AE prism on the 67ii ?

2. which lenses are exceptional on the 67, I dont see much in the way of lens feedback. Are there lenses to stay away from or some that have higher reputations etc? Most of my stuff is wide-ish, I seem to use DA*16-50 at 16mm a lot and even find it not quite wide enough.

3. How do the images compare to say the K20D ? for those that have taken shots back to back (i know big open ended question but maybe comment on colouration or why that like film over digital in some cases etc)

Thanks for you time,
Neil

[yurihuta]

Archived page with Pentax 6x7 lens data and evaluations.

Pentax 6x7 Lenses

[yurihuta]

1. How much of an advantage do people find the AE prism on the 67ii ?
Thanks for you time,
Neil

Neil,

I believe the AE prism finder for the 67II is very similar to the metering system in the 645N and 645NII bodies. This is a dual, six zone meter. For me it works very well and was the reason I moved up to the 645N from the older 645 (only has center weighted meter).

I have not had direct experience with 67II AE prism.

Yuri

[knumbnutz]

Thanks for the info.
I had a look at the lens reviews, but to be honest, there is not a lot of info there.
Cheers
Neil

[Wheatfield]

Hi there everyone,

I am chasing as much info on 67s and mainly 67ii as i can get, please help me out.

What I am looking to do is back up my K20D with a film camer and probably think the 67ii is the most appropriate. I mainly shoot landscapes and am happy to use a tripod.
So take in to account that the use of the 67ii will be for shots that have been already taken with the K20D.

1. How much of an advantage do people find the AE prism on the 67ii ?

2. which lenses are exceptional on the 67, I dont see much in the way of lens feedback. Are there lenses to stay away from or some that have higher reputations etc? Most of my stuff is wide-ish, I seem to use DA*16-50 at 16mm a lot and even find it not quite wide enough.

3. How do the images compare to say the K20D ? for those that have taken shots back to back (i know big open ended question but maybe comment on colouration or why that like film over digital in some cases etc)

Thanks for you time,
Neil

I don't have the 67II (I use an older 6x7 MLU). I can't say I have ever missed auto exposure on the 6x7. It doesn't really lend itself to rapid shooting.

Lens quality questions are a non starter in this format. Enlargements are rarely big enough to see if the lens is good or bad. The only lens I've noticed any problems with is the Takumar 75/4.5 which is prone to flare. It's sharp as a tak though.
I really like the 45mm lens, the 135 macro is fantastic, as is the 90LS and the 105.
The Tak 200/4 is reputed to be not as good as it should be, but honestly, I haven't noticed any problems. I have 11x14 prints made from 6x7 negatives hanging beside 11x14s made from the 4x5, and honestly, if i didn't know which was from which, i wouldn't be able to tell them apart based on image quality.
I've had prints made as large as 40x60 inches for displays with excellent results.
The 45 is pretty much as wide as it gets (approximately the same field of view as a 24mm lens on 35mm film). The 35 is wider, of course, but is a fisheye, which gets tired pretty quick.
I suppose one could defish the images, but I don't scan film, so this option isn't open to me.

I haven't used my 6x7 since I bought my first DSLR back in 2003, so I can't make any direct comparisons but my take is that the images from the DSLR show grain like a medium format (no grain/noise) providing you are shooting at a fairly low ISO, but has detail closer to that which is gotten from 35mm film. I think the K10 was kind of the tipping point for print detail compared to 35mm film, with the K20 being somewhat better, but not up to medium format.
The lack of noise/grain does go a long way to making digital look better than film.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, that's if you don't *like* some grain.

I have actually been wondering if the 67II is battery-dependent.

There's a number of what-ifs involved, but getting better digital than I expected *has* rearranged my medium-format plans a little, and it means I could go a little heavier for some jobs I may be doing.

[TomE]

I only have a 67 without AF but the camera is so large it doesn't seem to me to lend itself to AF anyway. All the lenses I have a great (even on my K10D) with the adapter, although I do like my 645n better because it is so much more portable even though it is half frame MF.

The K20D and the 67 are two different animals and even though the K20D does some great images, those from the 67 are just amazing to look at and if printed the old fashioned way, in a darkroom, will blow the K20D away.

I think you are using the wrong camera for backup!

Tom

[Ratmagiclady]

I didn't know they made a 67 with AF, actually, that'd be like putting an automatic transmission on a Ferrari.

My thoughts on something like this are, is that if I can clack away with digital, I can take fewer shots and not worry about interchangeable backs, ...especially since 220 film isn't as common as it once was, so 645 isn't as attractive for as many things.

I still consider film my 'serious' work, but the more jobs a digital can do, the more situations there are in which it maybe really can make sense to go big with film. (And on me a 6x7 is *very* big. )

(Actually, you know, come to think of it, an AF 67 could have been useful to me trying to shoot weddings with the things: (they really weren't designed for this) I had to do all kinds of crazy things to reach the focusing ring, absent those knobby extensions you could put on there if you had em. I'd do stuff like tape a cable release to the handle-mount flash, and both focus and advance film with my right hand, etc. )

[knumbnutz]

I only have a 67 without AF but the camera is so large it doesn't seem to me to lend itself to AF anyway. All the lenses I have a great (even on my K10D) with the adapter, although I do like my 645n better because it is so much more portable even though it is half frame MF.

The K20D and the 67 are two different animals and even though the K20D does some great images, those from the 67 are just amazing to look at and if printed the old fashioned way, in a darkroom, will blow the K20D away.

I think you are using the wrong camera for backup!

Tom

Hehe Tom, backup is not quite how I was meaning in that sense.

Perhaps what i was trying to say is that I dont want to waste film as such, so what i want to do is happily snap away with the K20D getting the setup/exp/aperture/compostion etc right then when I want to get the best image available, transpose the setting to the 67ii, mount it on the tripod and take a couple of images.
This should reduce wastage and the image should be a known quantity/quality as such (afterall the same image is on the K20D from just a moment before).

Maybe I'm dreaming, but it seems appealing to have the best of both worlds, well until Pentax bring out digital backs for the the 645N......

Cheers Neil

[Wheatfield]

Well, that's if you don't *like* some grain.

I have actually been wondering if the 67II is battery-dependent.

There's a number of what-ifs involved, but getting better digital than I expected *has* rearranged my medium-format plans a little, and it means I could go a little heavier for some jobs I may be doing.

All the 6x7s are battery dependent, and none were autofocus.

[Blue]

For a general review of the 67ii go here: Shutterbug: New Pentax 67II

[Harry Potter]

I have a Pentax 67II with six lenses and the AE prism. Of the lenses I use the 75mm f2.8 the most. Without the AE prism I would find this camera loads less enjoyable. For digital slr I have a Sony A700. I shoot in the reverse order you suggest. I'll shoot the 67 or my Ebony 4x5 first and a digital camera is the last one I'll grab. I just don't like the look of big 20" and bigger digital prints. Just my preferences.

[Ron Boggs]

Been shooting the 67II bodies since about 2000. Just plain love the big images and the AE Pentaprism works just as reliably as any digital body Pentax has made (yeah, yeah the matrix meter specs change camera to camera), but they all work great for most situations but need exposure adjustment (I use exposure compensation) for bright scenes--snow or water and for dark scenes like coniferous forest shots. THIS IS TRUE FOR ALL METERS OF ANY BRAND.

Metering for shots with AE Pentaprism is generally accomplished with no more fuss than it is with any modern digi camera.

There are L brackets available for easier switching from vertical to horizontal and back. Really Right Stuff makes a tiny little bracket that form-fits the rounded barrel area near the bottom front of the camera.

I second the praise for the 45mm. It's a tremendous lens as is the 100 Macro and the M*300 EDIF.

To see some wide and some macro shots made with the 67II's and the lenses mentioned above, check my website under the Series 1 Gallery. All but one of those shots were made with the three lenses above plus the M*400/4 which I also like very much, but it's not a "normal" kit item.

I also really like the Zoerkendorfer (Zoerk) perspective control lens set up that uses a Rodenstock enlarger lens coupled with a 360 degree tiltable mount (not unlike the newer lensbaby, but with maximum clarity rather than maximum special effects as the goal). Pretty much allows unlimited depth of field and simplified view camera-like movements for spectacular "near/far" shots. Haven't posted any of these "tests" yet, but like it a lot.

[knumbnutz]

Hi Ron, How did you go with the sale of the 67, do u still have it? or it sold ok?
Cheers Neil

[Ratmagiclady]

Out of curiosity, is that AE prism the only metered one?