|
Forum: Maintenance and Repair Articles
09-11-2013, 06:45 PM
|
| |
Tom, beautiful job! And, a timely report too as I have a repair job I need to do which involves removing the top cover from the right side (i.e., the one under the wind lever ).
May I ask you a couple questions about that? First of all, are the two "special screw types" as they are labeled in your pictures, right hand threaded? I ask because I got as far as the first one you have shown, but found that my usual spanner tool wasn't' quite up to the task. Unless it is just reverse threaded, which would account for it. Also, Is the home made tool you showed designed for that? Or did you use something else to get this off?
Thanks,
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
09-03-2013, 09:10 AM
|
| |
Lee, glad to hear you went for the larger bag. Even so, I suggest you make a mental note to be extra attentive every time you open the camera back inside the bag, as it is rediculously easy to accidentally push a thumb (or a casette or spool) through the shutter curtain. That could really ruin your day! :eek:
Good luck!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2012, 02:10 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
08-10-2010, 10:16 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the recipe, I will have to give it a try as soon as I can get around to exposing some more Efke 25. :)
Here is the Tri-X 400/HC-110 semi-stand development I mentioned if you would like to give it a try:
- Keep all liquids at 68F throughout
- HC-110 dilution 1:112 (start with 4 ml concentrated syrup and add distilled water to make 450ml)
- Presoak with distilled water for 2 minutes
- Develop for a total of 25 minutes
- Agitation: first 30 seconds using slow inversion, then let stand with just 4 inversions at 16 minutes and 4 more at 8 minutes.
- Stop, Fix, wash and dry per your usual methods (I am assuming most of this doesn't matter except for possibly keeping agitations slow and maintaining the temperature. But for what its worth I use a water rinse in place of a stop bath)
The 4ml of syrup is below the usual 6ml minimum often cited, however I didn't have any issues with it.
As I said before, I really need to try to repeat this and then experiment to fine tune it. But in the one test I felt it really brought up the shadows while doing a nice job of protecting highlights, it showed considerably smoother grain than my "standard" development with Tri-X, and allowed for at least box speed if not a stop more.
Here is a sample. (Sorry, NOT taken with the Pentax - this was using an old 6x6 Meteor camera with its meniscus lens)
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
08-09-2010, 09:55 AM
|
| |
Luc,
I like Kodak Tri-X 400.
With my Pentax 6x7 I had always used just the slow stuff (for both B&W and color, actually). But recently after getting interested in more "basic" MF cameras - including toy cameras (I have a Holga) and vintage cameras with simple meniscus lenses - the fact that I use these almost always hand-held, and the fact that I don't plan on printing the resulting images large have encouraged me to try faster film.
What attracted me to Tri-X for those uses was that it was considered a kind of classic film with a traditional "look," and that it was easy to find (and hopefully will be for a long time). What's more, I liked the idea that I could develop it in Diafine for a speed boost, and also increase the exposure range over which I could get usable results. That last point can be very important when using cameras with such limited exposure control.
My main qualm about it was that I have usually had to rate it at 200 ASA when developing in my standard developer, HC-110. I just couldn't seem to get good shadows out of it when rated at 400. Hmm, maybe that's what that traditional look is all about! ;) Also, it seemed a bit grainier than I would like if I were to ever try it for "serious" landscape work in which I would want to print large.
However, just recently I had some very encouraging results with Tri-X and semi-stand development in HC-110 that seem to overcome those qualms. The grain was much finer and smoother than I have seen previously, and (pending some further testing) it looks like I am getting at least rated speed out of it, and possibly up to one stop more. I hope I don't eat my words in saying that, since I really need to scan a test roll I took and verify that I can duplicate the results before I am really sure. But if you are interested I can provide details. I would also be very interested in hearing about your development techniques with the Efke 25.
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-18-2010, 10:05 PM
|
| |
That is exactly what I have been doing. Here is a thread I contributed to on photo.net with some discussion of this idea: Help archiving film. And here is another about what type of sleeving to purchase and where to get it: What sleeve to use for 120 and 35mm?. So maybe those will be of some use.
Still there is no perfect solution. One of my issues is that I cut my 6x6 and 6x7 rolls into different lengths (numbers of frames) based on how many are most appropriate for my scanner, and this means different cut lengths. So basically this means I end up with two different size envelopes to deal with. I am still thinking of how I might standardize this a little more.
Another alternative I have been considering is that there are some storage pages with slots actually designed to hold sleeved frames. I.e., the film goes into the sleeving, and then the cut sleeves go into a storage page. But I you don't like inserting strips directly into storage pages, then maybe dealing with the sleeves going into the pages doesn't really add anything.
Good luck,
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-22-2010, 12:56 PM
|
| |
I think it is still worth being aware of optimum apertures (in terms of sharpness, as well as color aberrations) of your lenses. It is easy to forget that the classic near-far landscape style is not the only genre of landscape/nature photography, and certainly there are inumerable other styles where DOF is not a driver for aperture choice. In such cases, opening up to a more optimum aperture can facilitate larger enlargements by improving the sharpness of the objects you care most about in the scene.
Even when large DOF is deemed important, sometimes there is enough margin that you can afford to go with a larger aperture to sharpen the parts of the scene of greatest interest. An example of that is when there are no near objects in the scene (imagine a panoramic landscape with no real foreground), or when the scene is "flat" (say for example a closeup of lichen growing on a rock face).
So overall there are times when knowing the "cherry aperture" is useful. But I would agree that it becomes less important as one moves to larger and larger formats.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-21-2010, 10:03 PM
|
| |
It is a misperception that diffraction somehow manifests itself as soft edges only. Ben's response that diffraction is the same all over the image circle is spot on. I suspect that soft edge complaints among the small format crowd are more the result of optical aberrations at larger apertures, especially with some of the zooms.
To answer about f/22 in MF specifically, I will add my voice to the others in saying that it is a more than acceptable f/# for the format. When trying to maximize DOF for landscape shots I feel that I am quite good at f/22 and would probably go as high as f/32 when necessary (on the few lenses which actually stop down that far). Those f/#'s are about 2 stops slower than what I used for 35mm landscapes, yet the larger film real estate with MF seems to more than compensate. Of course if you are coming from the LF world already, then I am sure that extolling the virtues of larger formats is only preaching to the choir!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-03-2010, 11:03 PM
|
| |
I probably should have followed up on this earlier. Although I haven't yet fixed the problem, I have discovered the apparent cause of the effect after emailing Eric Hendrickson. According to him, "In your picture, the dark line at the very edge indicates the shutter bounce system is going bad. It usually shows up on faster speeds but can progress to the slower speeds in time. What happens is the second curtain comes back into the format and blocks the light leaving that part underexposed. I can replace the bounce system for you. " Patrick, I can't say for sure what you are seeing is due to the same problem. But it is interesting that it appears as a light stripe instead of darker as in mine. Not sure what that means!
In my case this problem started showing up after I sent the camera in to Eric for a more generic shutter problem and some other things. Since then I have also noticed that the image spacing varies, so I may have a film advance problem too. All of this has me wondering about the overall reliability of this model. But I suppose that is a topic for another thread.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
12-17-2009, 01:10 PM
|
| |
First of all congratulations! I am very new to the camera myself so I understand the joy of holding the thing in your hands and playing with it for the first time. :)
As to the shutter... if you simply opened up the back and closed it again everything you describe is perfectly normal. As someone suggested above, there is a trick to being able to "dry fire" the shutter. If you are not aware of it here is the procedure: with the back open rotate frame counter to just past "0", using your finger on the knurled top . While holding it in this position, close the back. That's it. And yes, it kinda takes three hands!
Sorry if you already knew that, and had done that before observing the problem - unfortunately if that is the case then your camera may have a real problem.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
12-14-2009, 11:03 AM
|
| |
It is always on the short section which corresponds to:
- the top of the image in vertical orientation, or
- the right side of the image in horizontal orientation.
In terms of the actual film plane (since the image is inverted on the film plane), this corresponds to the left side of the camera as viewed from the rear (i.e., the side from which the film door opens). Hope that makes sense!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
12-13-2009, 11:02 PM
|
| |
What would account for a thin darkened band along the short edge of my 6x7 images? Assuming the attachment works you can see what I am talking about at the extreme top of the image, in the sky. This is not a scanning artifact as the effect is evident on the slide itself. It is most noticeable whenever there is a uniform region (such as sky) across that edge of the image. The only thing I could think of was maybe the shutter is somehow hanging up at the extreme end of its travel; although that would be a little surprising since I just had the camera CLA'd. Any thoughts?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
12-13-2009, 10:40 PM
|
| |
I ended up buying the folding hood finder recently because like you, I find the incomplete view of the prism finder (the metered one in my case) rather frustrating. Somehow that 90% FOV seems disproportionately smaller than would be suggested by the loss of a mere 10%. I'm sure one can get used to it, but for me using the waist level finder (or no finder for that matter) has largely been a happy solution. It probably depends a lot on what you like to shoot though. For me, interested mainly in landscape/nature work and with a preference for spot-metering - not having my prism's center-weighted meter isn't really any kind of loss. I don't mind dealing with the inverted image. But I do like the extra magnification of the folding hood - it helps with focusing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
11-16-2009, 09:51 AM
|
| |
troyz: Yes, I tested that just to be sure. Specifically, with MLU engaged and with the shutter set to a long exposure so I could see the effects of the shutter release and the mirror release separately, I tripped the shutter using a cable release. There is no obvious camera motion when the shutter releases, but a noticeable vibration when the shutter returns.
And just to remind you, this is with the 6x7 MLU body, not 67II. I don't know if there would be a difference, but I wanted to point that out just in case.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
11-14-2009, 09:26 PM
|
| |
If you are attaching to an Arca-Swiss style system, the only L-bracket now being made as far as I can tell is the Kirk BL-67II. At least when I was searching for one a few months ago, that was all I could find (but I will happily stand corrected if there is something else out there!)
According to Kirk the BL-67II is only for the 6x7II, but after reading several reports that it was actually compatible with the older bodies as well, I took the chance and bought one for my 6x7. Happily I can say that it fits fine, with the only slight annoyance being that you have to remove the bracket to change the battery. There are no other interferences or incompatibilities, although when I first installed it, I thought there was - it seemed like I couldn't open the back. But I quickly found that if I biased the bracket in one direction when mounting it (using the slight slop in the mounting hole) then there is just enough clearance to open and close the back.
The one think I should point out about the bracket is that when shooting in vertical orientation there is a noticeable camera flex or vibration when the shutter fires. This hasn't translated into images softness in my limited number of shots so far (I'm only on my 5th roll or so). But then again I use MLU for every shot, so I can't make any claims about what you would get without using MLU. In any event I do wish they had made the bend area of the bracket beefier.
There is apparently an older version of this bracket too, as I saw one once on eBay. I don't know for sure if it was for the 67II or the older bodies (or both). The thing looked both simpler and beefier than the newer version (particularly in the bend area if I recall correctly). So it might be worth looking into if you can find one.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
10-06-2009, 12:09 PM
|
| |
Still looking? I see that Adorama has two of the folding variety ("folding focusing hood") listed at the moment.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
09-08-2009, 08:29 PM
|
| |
So that's good - it sounds like the two versions are pretty well equivalent, so it sounds like I may not have to concern myself with which version I get. Now if I can just avoid Scott's experience I should be in pretty good shape! That's a good point too about buying from some place with a reasonable return policy. But it reminds me that I should be ready to test the lens with a roll of film or two as soon as I get it.
Interesting shot tuco - you have me looking to see what an O2 filter is now. :)
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
09-07-2009, 07:58 PM
|
| |
One of these days I would like to pick up a 45mm f/4 lens for my 6x7. Is there any reason to prefer either the older or newer version of this lens? I understand the optical prescription is the same. But are there any differences to note? Build quality? Propensity for "sample variation"?
Also, should I expect much of a price differential between the two?
Thanks,
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-19-2009, 11:54 AM
|
| |
Adding my 6x7 to the list (hope I did it right!)
002 - *ist
000 - MZ-60/ZX-60
005 - MZ-S
003 - MZ-6/MZ-L/ZX-L
000 - MZ-30/ZX-30
002 - MZ-7/ZX-7
000 - MZ-50/ZX-50
000 - MZ-M/ZX-M
001 - MZ-5N/ZX-5N
001 - MZ-3
001 - MZ-10/ZX-10
000 - MZ-5/ZX-5
000 - Z-70p
000 - Z-70/PZ-70
000 - Z-50p
000 - Z-20p
001 - Z-20/PZ-20
002 - Z-10/PZ-10
000 - Z-5p
000 - Z-5
005 - Z-1p/PZ-1p
001 - Z-1/PZ-1
000 - SFXN/SF1N
000 - SF7/SF10
000 - SFX/SF1
002 - ME F
001 - P30T
002 - P3N/P30N
000 - P5/P50
000 - P3/P30
000 - A3/A3000
002 - Program A/Plus
009 - Super A/Program
007 - LX
001 - MG
001 - MV1
000 - MV
010 - ME Super
004 - ME
011 - MX
010 - K1000
001 - K2 DMD
006 - K2
000 - KX Motor
009 - KX
000 - KM Motor
001 - KM
M37:
000 - Asahiflex I
000 - Asahiflex IA
000 - Asahiflex IIB
000 - Asahiflex IIA
M42:
000 - AP
002 - K
000 - S
002 - S2 / H2
003 - S3 / H3
000 - S1 / H1
004 - SV / H3v
000 - S1a / H1a
004 - Spotmatic
001 - Spotmatic SL
002 - Spotmatic SP1000
001 - Spotmatic SP500
005 - Spotmatic SPII
000 - Spotmatic SPIIa
000 - Spotmatic Electro
000 - Spotmatic ES
004 - Spotmatic ESII
008 - Spotmatic F
Other than 35mm format:
003 - 6x7
000 - 67
002 - 67II
000 - 645
000 - 645N
000 - 645N II
002 - 110
000 - 110 Super
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
06-21-2009, 10:39 PM
|
| |
Bloggs,
I would be curious to know which polarizer you decided to go with, and why. For a while I was toying with the idea of getting a linear polarizer instead of the circular variety, since my 6x7 doesn't really need it, and since they can typically be had at somewhat lower cost. But then I got to thinking about how I will be metering. Basically, I am a spotmeter kind of guy :), and in fact I recently purchased an old Pentax V Spotmeter which I intend to use with my new toy :D, especially for slides. Anyway, when I tested the spotmeter with various polarizers I found out that unfortunately it is rather sensitive to the type of polarizer used. When looking through a linear polarizer, the spotmeter showed errors of up to something like 1 stop (I don't remember the exact difference).
In the end I suppose I just need to accept that the polarizer is going to cost an arm and a leg - just suck up the cost for a good one, and be done with it!
As for the ND grads, its good to know the Hitech 4x5's are working well for you on this lens. Do you have a sense of how far up or down you can place the ND grad "line" before the other end of the filter starts being visible in the scene? Maybe I'm not doing the math right and 5 inches is enough to keep this from happening at all. In any event, I'm curious about the limits here as I could be quite happy with the less expensive Hi-Techs compared to the Lee 4x6's, provided they have enough coverage.
By the way, I have only just today run my first roll of film through the camera, so I have been a little slow at getting up and running! But I am definitely still mulling over my options for a filter system, so I appreciate the feedback.
Jeff
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-17-2009, 07:01 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the information al-khalil. To follow up on my situation, I just took the plunge and purchased the 55-100mm zoom! :D I am still not sure if I will be getting the 45mm lens down the road, but given that I will have at least the zoom it is pretty certain that my Cokin-P system isn't going to work, so that part of the puzzle is solved and I am now looking at either the Lee holder system or the Cokin z-Pro.
Let me ask specifically for the 55-100mm zoom then: can anyone with this lens describe which filter system they are using, and what vignetting issues they are having with it (if any)? If either system can work, it may come down to the polarizing filter, which is quite expensive in this size. I am accustomed to having a solid, high quality, multi-coated glass CP, so I would like that for this system as well, if I can afford it. With Cokin, they have their own special unit (Z164) which is mounted on an adapter to go in the first slot (closest to the lens). Can anyone comment on the quality of this polarizer? (I think I read that it is resin, not glass). The Lee system calls for a larger, 105mm polarizer mounted out front, which requires purchasing an additional adapter (if I understand it correctly).
As for ND grads for the system, I notice that the Hitech versions (the brand I use with my Cokin P) are only 4" x 5", while Lee's are 4" x 6". It seems to me that the 5" length might not quite be long enough given the diameter of this lens. Anyone find otherwise?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-11-2009, 04:12 PM
|
| |
Thanks Ron, that's the kind of information I was looking for. :)
I'm not sure if "drop-in" is the right term. What I am referring to are polarizers that are designed to be placed in the first slot of the holder (not screwed onto the lens), and can be rotated in the holder.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-10-2009, 12:09 PM
|
| |
I have a number of questions regarding vignetting with filter holder systems and specific 6x7 lenses. For my 35mm setup I use a Cokin-P holder which I use mostly with ND grads. Now that I am putting together a 6x7 system I was hoping to use that same system. However, it occurs to me that it might not be big enough for some 6x7 lenses and could lead to vignetting, in which case I would probably have to just bite the bullet and invest in the Cokin Z-pro system for the 6x7.
I am still mulling over exactly which combination of lenses to purchase for my kit (I have only have the 105/2.4 lens at the moment). But the one thing I have read is that the 45mm f/4 apparently does vignette with the "-P" holder (with which filters, I don't remember). People talk about hacking off the last slot or two from the holder and apparently have made it work; but I would prefer not to do that.
The 55-100mm zoom is another lens which I may be interested in, but it seems like it is a non-starter with the Cokin-P holder given its big 95mm filter size (Cokin-P goes up to 82mm, I believe). Then again, maybe one could use a step-down ring to mount the P holder. Has anyone done this and does it vignette at the wide end? I'm guessing this isn't going to work, but figured I would check first! If not, is anyone using the z-pro system with this lens?
So I am curious what people use and where the vignetting issues are. For reference, the minimum "stack" of filters I want to plan for is a polarizer and one grad. And that is assuming a drop-in polarizer, rather than screw in.
Thanks.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-13-2009, 10:02 PM
|
| |
Well that puts the final nail in that coffin then! (not that I'm surprised really)
To answer your question mk07138, I did pay a little bit over your threshold for "might get a little peaved." ;) Not by a lot really, but still... So I just sent off a message to the seller to see if he is willing to work with me on this. We'll see what happens.
On the plus side, this camera has already convinced me that I am really going to enjoy 6x7! Aside from its problems, I just love handling the thing. I can't seem to get over the incredibly satisfying "kitch-a-CLUNK" every time I press the shutter (well, when it actually fires properly, that is)! The camera is such a delightfully strange mix - equal parts beauty and beast. It conveys a real sense of precision engineering, but delivered with all the assertiveness of a Sherman tank!
Anyay, I guess if you have one you know what I'm talking about. :)
Thanks
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-10-2009, 01:06 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the replies. Here's my last "grasping at straws" attempt to solve the battery question: Is there any chance that the type of battery matters? The manual calls for a silver-oxide battery (which I know isn't made anymore), and I am using a Duracell lithium battery. What are you using, and does it matter?
Aside from that issue, I mentioned there were other problems. For one, although the meter "works" (in the sense that the needle moves) it is very inconsistent and the position can be changed by jiggling the camera about. Basically it is useless.
Also the prism doesn't seem to sit very securely on the camera - there is more play than what I would have expected. This may be due to bad seals (I assume there should be some, but its mostly just a sticky layer of gum left where the prism sits on its frame). I notice that the back has more "play" in it too, so it wouldn't surprise me if it needs new seals all around.
The last thing is something which seems really odd - the exposure counter dial appears to be on backwards (see the picture below)! It is clocked 180 degrees from what the manual shows and what I see in pictures online. So unless this is just some rare version of the camera I don't know about, I might think it is the result of a poor servicing attempt. I have not run any film through the camera yet to know if it affects proper film advance or frame counting or anything along those lines.
Finally I agree with you desertscape, I should try to return it. Unfortunately given the statements in the auction about "no returns" and "all sales are final", I don't think he will go for it. But the camera is hardly "fully functional" as stated.
Jeff
|
