I am thinking about adding a medium format system to go along with my 4x5 for na ture/landscape photography. What are people using? I was at the Photo East exp o last weekend and played with the Pentax 67II (it certainly is big, even compar ed to my Wisner) and the Mamiya 7 II (never used a rangefinder before). Also, I talked to several digital printers, i.e. West Coast Imaging, Bill Nordstrom and NancyScans, and they all opine that at a 16x20 enlargement, there is little app arent difference between lightjet output scanned from 4x5 and from 6x7 assuming careful technique. Any thoughts? Thanks.
I've been using the Pentax 6x7 for about 15 years now. It's a real workhorse and reliable. The 6x7 II appears to be a solid piece of equipment in every respect. You will find that people either love these camera's or hate them.
For years I've been using the 6x7 back on my Graflex 4x5 with great results. 16x20 to 30x36 traditional enlargements have yet to disappoint. Have not explored digital in this format however.
Josh: You didn't state the reason you wanted to add the 6x7 to the LF system. Is it because of weight or less stuff to tote around and set up? The Pentax is a good, solid camera that operates like a 35mm on steroids. One of my best friends has one with a couple of lenses and his prints are very sharp. Although quicker to operate and set up than LF, by the time you add a lens or two the weight and size of the outfit rivals a 4x5. The rangefinder camera are great for people shots but not first choice for scenics/nature without a lot of experience. They are very fast to operate hand held and in dim light situations. Why not borrow or rent a 6x7 back for your 4x5 and see if you like the format and roll film? Good luck with your quest.
The Pentax is truly a good camera system, great selection of lenses...and if you use filters a lot, the SLR feature is a plus. Negative is its size and bulk. If you want a "point and shoot" 6x7 camera, nothing beats the M7...it has the sharpest MF lenses of any MF camera on the market. Part of the reason is the inherient focussing benefits of a rangefinder camera and partly because its Mamiya's latest and greatest lens technology. If you shoot wide angle, the 43mm lens is breathtaking. Negatives are.... very limited lenses, nothing longer than 210mm and even that is f11 I beleive, not very automatic, no TTL flash, hard to use filters, a bit frail...the focussing mechanism can be knocked out of alignment which can be re calibrated at the factory, benefits, it's extrmely small and light even including the lenses, sharpest chromes you will ever see.... At 16x20, you will not see a difference vs. 4x5 unless the 4x5 utilized the benefits of movements...
Josh, I started with Pentax 67 and added 5X4. For me, there is a difference between the results from 67 and 54 at 16X12 'traditional' enlargements - difficult to define. The 67 results are sharper but the 54 is tonally better. Probably subjective but I havent had the same bite from 54 that I get from 67. I have been using HP5 Plus with 54 and FP4 or Tech Pan on 67. The 54 lens is an older 135 Symmar so it may be a different answer with a more modern higher quality lens.
I am now looking for a compact and light 54 so that I can have the best of both worlds - relative portability and good quality.
Bear in mind that the P67 will need a tripod at least as big - if not bigger than a compact 54, the mirror will always need to be locked up for optimum quality (yes it is really noticable) so the only major gain will be bulk in terms of film. IMO....
The primary reason would be ease of set-up and use. Any weight savings for the body and lens would be an added benefit but not the primary reason. As to tripods, I am using a Gitzo 1228 with the Wisner and I assume that this would more than suffice with the Mamiya but I am not so sure about the Pentax. I shoot Provia F and Velvia exclusively, btw.
Josh, I use the pentax 67 as well as 4x5. I really like having something that is quick to use and flexible. It is as at-home in the mountains as it is in the studio and since it requires fewer accessories, it is much easier to pack than a 4x5. I'm quite happy with 20x24 lightjets produced from 67 slides. As far as tripods go I use a big 3036 when at home, but use a Gitzo 1227 when hiking and it works fine if you are careful.
I've used the P67 system for many years and if used with care it can produce high quality, large prints. The mirror thump (image shake) is a problem for the slower speed films and as stated above, a good tripod, mirror lock-up and cable release are mandatory.
I have just recently sold all my P67 equipment and I bought a lightweight 4x5 field camera and I now use the Sinar zoom 120 film holder which gives me the option of format size from 6x4.5 through to 6x12 and of course the 4"x5". I've found that setting up and using the Ebony 45 S Ti is just as quick and easy as when I was using the P67. Also the cost of the Sinar back is much less than the cost of a P67 camera and lenses (especially a P67 II).
I think you'd be pleased with the P67 AND 4x5 camera combo, but for me the option of the 120 Sinar back and a lightweight 45 camera was a better choice.
I use an older P67 and have a huge battery of lenses to accompany it. I love that camera even if it is a huge, loud, inelegant tank. The results are outstanding compared to 35 mm but by and large it isn't that great as a landscape camera because you can't use movements and it really does end up weighing more than a 4x5 if you carry a lot of lenses around. For people shots it is great. The 165 2.8 lens has fabulous bokeh and is exceptional at wide apertures.
But when I want to take a landscape shot, I use the Speed Graphic or my Deardorff. Once in awhile on a hike I'll take the P67 without a tripod if the light is good, and one or two lenses, and shoot handheld. But now you're talking snapshots.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks