For a 16x20 Lightjet there is no difference between 6x7 and 4x5 without movements. I'd rather carry a 35mm along with LF. This way, I have the choice of ultimate quality or ultimate speed and convenience in adverse conditions. If you have a Pentax II system and a 4x5, you will likely find yourself leaving one of them in the car, since combined they are pretty heavy. Then you will run in a situation where you wish you had the other system.
Josh if $'s no object ignore this post and by all means investigate the Mamiya 7. O/W though I've thoroughly enjoyed an old Mamiya Universal system that allows 6X9 as well as 6X7 backs and has a nice range of lenses. These were pre-idiot proof and function more like a small view camera than the usual modern MF. Shutters are just like the view cam's and must be cocked each time. Focus is by rangefinder, or if it's a tricky situation there's a viewing ground glass that replaces the back. It is my "color" system, and seems great for 20X30 enlargements. J
Like a lot of others who responded, I've used the Pentax 67 for about seven years and like it a lot. I'd disagree with the person who said it isn't good for landscapes - for me, that's where it excels. I mostly use it on a tripod (Bogen 3221, Arca Swiss B1 head)and I think any tripod that will handle your Wisner will be more than adequate for the 67. I occasionally hand hold and it works well hand held as long as the shutter speed is in the 1/60 and up range. I've never experienced the mirror slap problem with slower shutter speeds that someone mentioned and have never understood why it would be a problem since the loud slapping sound you hear is the mirror returning to position after the photograph has been made but maybe I just haven't been sufficiently critical. I use the 75 mm shift lens and so get some movements (rise and fall) which is great for the architectural photography that I sometimes do. I've had major problems with the film advance system, which was a weak link with some 67s and is by far my main complaint about the camera, but supposedly this has been fixed with the 67II. I use 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 (and a very occasional 35 mm). With an 8x10 or an 11x14 black and white print, I see no difference in sharpness or tonal range between the 67 and the 4x5. I haven't done enough 16x20s with both to know whether there's a difference at that size. There isn't much difference in bulk and weight between my 67 with five lenses and my 4x5 (a Linhof Technika V) with four lenses so if you're looking for significant weight or bulk saving I don't think you'll get them with the 67. The 67 is much quicker to set up and use, plus the 220 film I use (HP5+) gives me a lot more exposures when I'm in the field. Those are the main reasons I sometimes use the 67 in lieu of 4x5 or 8x10. I've found the very basic averaging meter on the 67 to work well. It seems to do just as good a job as the much newer, more sophisticated meter that was on the Nikon F4 I used to have and on the N90S I now have. The slow synch speed with flash (1/30) is a disadvantage for some, but I don't use flash so it doesn't matter to me. Also, Pentax makes two leaf shutter lenses that can be used to eliminate the synch problem. I tried the Mamiya 7 (not the II) and liked it o.k. but I didn't see enough advantages to it for me to compared to the Pentax to justify the much higher cost of camera and lenses. As I recall I couldn't focus close enough with the right lens to make a head and shoulders portrait and there were some kind of complications when using a wide angle lens. If weight and bulk were critical to me, I probably would have sprung for the extra money and accepted the problems of a range finder system, but they aren't so I didn't.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
John, I use a Fuji GSW690. It is a great lens attached to an essentially free body. They come in 6x7 and 6x9 with several different lenses. The 6x9 image is not realy much smaller than 4x5. These are great "portable" large format stand-ins. Jeff
Josh: I had the honor of testing the first Pentax 6X7 in the early '70's when I flew to California to make the official portraits of the Lockheed L-1011, at Palmdale, California. I was mainly using Hasselblad and Nikons, but was asked to test the new camera. (Pentax was a client) Lenses were excellent, camera was big and clunky. Biggest problems for me was the noise when the shutter when off and the mirror went up and down. I almost wished for my pistol range ear-muffs, to spare me the noise. In 30 degee weather, with a wind speed of 20 knots, the camera performed very well, but every time the shutter went off I had an image of what kind of tripod I would use for long exposures. I came up with the answer when I recalled what Ansel Adams had told me over dinner....that the ideal tripod was a cubic yard of concrete with a 1/4 X 20 bolt sticking out of the top. (:-) Richard Boulware - Denver.
I bought an M7 a few years ago because I wanted great image quality you can walk around with and I'm not disapointed. Not cheap thou and I worried about theft so I recently bought a $100 Rolleiflex that I can't put down. Old Zeiss Tessars have their own unique patina, hard to explain but many great images from the Rollei over the years.
When I was shopping for a new MF system about a year ago (to replace the ailing Mamiya 645 that had replaced an old Mamiya twin lens), I tried just about everything out there. I eventually settled on a Mamiya RB67 and have been very pleased with it, especially with the quality of the KL-L lenses. It's great for close up work since it has the built in bellows and is also great for cold weather since it's totally mechanical, but being about the same size and weight as a car battery means it's not always a joy to carry around. If you want light weight and good glass, the Mamiya 7 is unbeatable. Incredibly sharp optics, light, easy to use. Of course, if you don't like rangefinders, it's not really a good option. The Pentax 6x7 is a very nice camera, too, but I could never really get into it much because of the lack of interchangable backs.
I too use a Pentax 67 system beside the 4x5. In my first years of serious photog raphy, I found it easier to compose with the P 67 pentaprism than on the reversed GG image and had many good images from it. Now I tend to use the 4x5 more but have the Pentax with me when I can afford two bags, for those occasions when setting the 4x5 is not possible or would take too long. The plusses of the Penta x are i'ts rugged construction, easy operation, large range of lenses, affordable compared to other brands, larg ely found on the second hand market. I use it on tripod with mirror up lock and cable and the results are ver y sharp. Enlarged to 16x20", you hardly notice the MF size, but of course on larger images, the 4x5 format will s how it's superiority.
I regularly shoot with an RB and 4x5 also and love the rotating back of the RB... just like shooting square format, no turning the camera for verticals! It's great. Enlarging to 16x20 is NO problem!!!!
Time to rent both of them, as they both sound like good contenders.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks