[FireMate]

Wow, haven't stepped into this side of the Pentax forums in a while!

Still have my DSLRs, still have my 110 SLR, still use my myriad of 35mm Pentaxes...

but after experimenting with some old box cameras, I kinda fell in love with medium format negatives. I even liked the results from scanning them, really!

So it was to my great surprise that I found a very inexpensive Pentax 67 camera, with the extra bright screen added at some point, and the wood grip handle.

Combine that with the 105mm 2.4 lens, and I have to say, I am more than impressed... In fact, I've almost fallen in love with this camera for that lens alone! It's still very sharp even at 2.4!

Here are a few of the first shots I've taken with it (this was a test roll, so nothing very creative in the shots, bare with me):

First shots are done at 2.4, so, WIDE OPEN:






now, this one was stopped down, to what was about 3.6:




I really, really love this armoured tank... I mean, um, Camera...

[FireMate]

Oh and since I didn't say it, I was using Kodak TMAX400CN film. In case anyone's curious.

[f:stop fitzgerald]

Wow that's a beautiful dog. Thinking of getting into medium format myself, although I think a good 35mm camera with good B+W film could also work. Ilford 64 for instance.

[FireMate]

Thanks! She's an Australian Shephard!

[Tokina]

Stunning quality! Size does matter

[HawaiianOnline]

Ah yes, medium format film still retains its magic despite the prevalence of digital. I am very satisfied with my 645N. Beautiful shots BTW!

[J.Scott]

I also recently bought a medium format camera - a Yashica Mat 124G - and the results were very impressive. I read somewhere that if 6cm X 6cm film is scanned at 4000 dpi you have the equivalent of an 80 mega-pixel picture. Try to afford one of those in pure digital format!

The quality of the images speaks for themselves - the lens and camera do a smashing job together. You also have a good eye for composition. (I used to have an Australian Shepard, too! He was a great dog!) Even though you used 400 film there is plenty of detail. I like it!

What scanner did you use? It looks like there is a bit of dust on either the face of the scanner or the film. Do you do your own developing too? That is the next step in my photographic adventures.

Great job! I'd love to see quality scans of colour reversal film too. Thanks for sharing.

[Mike Cash]

It looks like there is a bit of dust on either the face of the scanner or the film.

The two most important accessories for scanning are a blower brush and a pair of white gloves.

[and]

Wow that's a beautiful dog.

What about the girl


These are great shots and the shallow dof and the way it hits the poi perfectly like keepign the whole head of the dog in focus and the rest of the body oof its very nice to look at, no doubt the lens is sharp too. this makes me want MF... I wont go back to film though... bring on the 645D

[Nesster]

Excellent tone, there's no substitute for film square inchage

The 'other' advantage of MF is the perspective and DOF that comes from longer lenses being 'normal' and 'mild telephoto' etc. You don't get that view / gestalt by cropping a 105mm to 35mm or APS size on these negatives, or using whatever equivalent focal length gives the same coverage on the smaller formats.

[m8o]

Those photographs are luscious! Beautiful dog and beautiful model; she really knows how to pose and your angles on her are great; I like her make-up too. A relation to you or model with someone doing the make-up? ...or just the normal way she walks around..?

[R.ticle One]

Holy Shmokes! I'm astonished! That depth blows me away...

R.