Once again, I come back to all you guys/girls for much needed photography advice. :)
I have meet someone who is selling his Pantax 67 medium format camera. This is the older version 67 version, without the wooden handle.
The kit is great. 4 Pantax lenses, from wide to a 170mm I believe. The lenses doesn't have fungus in them, although some minor dust specs around the edges. The camera body seems great, with the prism viewer. Everything seems to be in order, and the owner said he has it services about 1 year ago.
He's selling it for $900! Is that a deal or not?
I shoot mostly 35mm, and have always want to go into medium format, but I am hesitant because I travel a lot and it might kill my back on those long duration trips.... And it does not have a mirror lockup, which is useful when it comes to longer exposure shots. And also, I'll need to get a good new ballhead..... :( $$$
Should I do it? $900 with the body and 4 lenses... Or should I save up money for one like the Mamiya 7? Ahh!! It's killing me!
Buying a heavy, bulky film camera of any type seems rather short-sighted in this day and age. I travelled on trails and such for a long time with an equally bulky (if not more so) Mamiya 6x7 system, and would not want to carry all that weight when I could just get a killer digital system with the money I'd save from not buying/processing film.
Plus, a Pentax 67 without mirror lock-up is an engraved invitation to non-sharp images. It was one of the older 67's hallmarks. (Or in this case, haul-marks!)
Posted by Grant Collier on July 12, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I agree. I've compared shots from my EOS 5D with shots from my medium format and I believe the quality is just as good. In 1.5 years, I figure I've saved over $3,000 in film / processing. In another 1.5 years, the cost of all the new digital equipment, hard drives, etc. will have pretty much paid for themselves. If you want a film camera I'd just go all the way up to a 4x5, as that's the only way you're going to get better quality than a good digital. I don't see a compelling reason to buy medium format camera unless you don't shoot much or you're looking to take lots of night shots. And even a less expensive digital camera will produce better quality than the 35mm you're shooting now.
Chun, I bought a Pentax 67ii a bit over a year ago that had the body, AE Prism, wood grip and a 75mm lens for about $1100, plus tax at Englewood Camera. I'm pretty sure the 67 doesn't have mirror lock up. The mirror's movement is about as subtle as a car door slamming, so having mirror lock up is critical to getting the most out of the format. If you want to consider a Pentax MF system, I'd highly recommend getting a 67ii. I absolutely love mine. I got the Nikon 9000 ED scanner with the glass plate carrier (critical) for an additional $2000. At that time, it was about even with the cost for just the 5D body.
It's a hard call which way to go. I have a Canon film body with the new 24-105 IS L series lens. It's a good everyday lens, which cost as much as my initial MF setup, but the fixed Pentax lenses blow it away for sharpness. I was a 35mm shooter as well before stepping up to MF. I looked just a little at LF, but that's a totally different means of shooting. The Pentax setup was an easy adjustment as it is like a 35mm camera on steroids. I will say weight is a major issue. You will need to use a good tripod and tripod head - again to get the most out of the format. If I want to take the MF setup with a few lenses and then my 35mm with the 24-105 lens for quick shots, my typical weight for the backpack, food, water, film, filters and gear is about 45 lbs! It's good excercise for my lazy rear end, but its definitely hard work. MF is also quite a bit slower to use. I've found I've taken better pictures by being slower, but you may miss some shots, especially if you were going to shoot wildlife. My real job keeps me very busy, so I only shoot 1 or 2 days per month. So as Grant stated, my shooting habits work well financially with just the MF. I think with MF, learning to use a good scanner and utilizing some PS skills you'll get an image that can be made larger than digital, IMHO. Your tradeoff is a HUGE amount of time and effort though. Most of my available time for photography related stuff is late at night after work. As such, I put in some decent scanning and computer time which does not take away from shooting time, which is limited. Unless you are wanting to make huge gallery prints that you can stick your nose up to (48" wide or so), or are submitting photos to Arizona Highways, you may find digital will suit you much better. It will give you much more time to spend in the field when you don't have to scan images or fiddle with 280 MB images in PS. An image made is much more useful than one never taken because you were sitting in front of a computer instead.
I have heard that 4x5 is actually lighter than my Pentax setup. The sheet film will get a bit expensive and you'll taken even fewer shots with LF than you would with MF. It will also be harder to experiment. I've not used LF or scanned it in, but I know you need to use a flatbed scanner or have it drum scanned. I belive flatbeds have gotten better, but I believe they may not be as good as a transparancy scanner - lower resolutions and lower DMax. Your image in the computer is the result of the film + the scan, so a quality scan of MF may compete with a poorer scan of LF. Perhaps someone who's used both could speak to this better.
Kind of long, but I hope this helps. Make the best educated decision you can, then don't second guess it. All the formats can produce top notch shots that people will buy if you learn how to use each system correctly. Good luck!
I have had a Pentax67II for a few years now, it is my camera of choice. All I can say is do not buy the Pentax67 without the mirror lockup. If you are a roadside shooter the weight is not a problem but all I can tell you is I am not a roadside shooter and I take mine with me with camping gear too. As far as the image quality compared to digital I definitley say it is better. You drum scan a 6x7 it will beat out digital at larger sizes no question. It might not be cheaper than digital with film and processing but I still love to look at a chrome on a light box. That's my 2 cents!
Posted by Mel Ladewig on July 13, 2007 at 10:37 AM
On the other hand, I recently purchased a 4X5 system with two Schneider lenses for $100. Granted the camera is a monster rail camera and the lenses are older single coated or non-coated ones, but the lenses and the Compur shutters work. I can transfer the lenses to new boards if I get a field camera and they would still work.
Like the others, I think the mirror lockup would be a problem, but would the lenses make up for it? In other words, the lenses would work on a 67ii, so are the lenses worth the $900? If so, I would probably make the purchase, use this camera and look for a nice 67ii down the road.
Like Jody, I think that 35mm digital is probably on par with 645, but I would think that 67 would be a little better than 35mm digital right now. Now digital medium format is another story.
First, make certain that this Pentax 67 body has the mirror lock-up feature. It's a must for most nature/landscape shooting. If not, let it go.
I'm guessing that a decent P67 body w/ MLU could be had for $400 to $500 on ebay. In this situation, I hope that you have a slightly higher degree of trust than with an anonymous seller. If you're still interested, ask the seller if you can borrow the camera for a couple of weeks and then shoot some trannies before you decide. Also, you didn't mention if this is a metered prism or not, and I suspect that you'll want the metered prism (which is still in that $400-$500 range). Go to ebay and check out the completed listings to get a sense of whether the prices seem reasonable...
Most of the lenses for the P67 cameras will sell for >$100 each. You haven't described which lenses are for sale, but the whole deal does sound reasonably priced.
Now, in terms of whether you should or not, that's still your call. I LOVE my Pentax 67II system! I started by purchasing a used Pentax 6x7 (the oldest model), then purchased a Pentax 67 (the second generation), and now have a couple of P67 IIs (the most recent version). Yes, they're heavy. Yes, you'll slow down your composing, etc. And, yes, once you achieve some competency with this tool, you'll be taking better photos, I feel.
I shot 35mm for years and finally got frustrated with the print quality - the quality was fine for 35mm, but not as high of quality as I wanted. I've been exceedingly happy to have made the jump to the P67 system, and own many of the lenses. I'd still like to own & use LF equipment - someday. I have a couple of images that I've printed and sold that are 4'x5', taken with this camera while handholding. Most of my prints are 16x20 and larger, and I've sold a few, too (which is nice, since this is my profession!). And, I also own a dSLR, because I still have a lot of fun with it, snapping, etc., and there are a lot of times when the MF system is too much and too slow, like taking informal shots with my family/friends, or capturing images when I need to do a lot of handholding, such as the wedding ceremony.
So, if you want larger and higher quality prints, then I'd encourage you to consider an MF system. But, with an MF system, you'll also need a tripod and the ability to carry around the heavier, bulkier equipment, and I figure that an image costs me at least $1 each for film and processing...
Chun, it sounds like you are mainly considering this because it seems to be a killer deal. And I will grant that a legendary MF SLR and 4 lenses for under $1000 is a tempting concept. But I would counsel you to not do this on an impulse.(The fact you have posted the question rather than reaching for your checkbook is a good sign of objectivity!) There are a lot of great deals on film equipment out there, and they are only likely to get better. Have some fun researching your options and definitely borrow and try a few MF cameras before you plunk down the cash.
You could even consider experimenting with a really inexpensive MF entry camera, the Century Graphic. You can pick these up on Ebay for a hundred or two and they are really fun to use and surprisingly portable: my stripped-Century-based field kit weighs around 12lb including 2 lenses and 2 filmbacks and a tripod. You might have to spend a little extra for a better film back (6x7 lever wind type) to get acceptably flat film, and a bit on a lens upgrade (a $50 127mm Rodenstock Ysarex Polaroid "takeout" is a wonderful lens) to really start getting quality images. You could experiment as long as you want and turn around and sell the stuff for pretty much what you paid for it. That's cheap entrtainment!
BTW, as someone mentioned inthe recent post on MF digital, don't forget the DOF issues that longer lenses of medium and larger formats create. Stopping down is a way of life! OTOH, you can get very serviceable if not stunning scans from MF using a relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner from Epson or Canon.
Oh my gosh!! All your inputs are great! Can't ask for more. But in a way it's making my decision even harder!
That Pantex does have a metered prism, but NOT have mirror lockup for sure, so I've made up my mind NOT to buy that one. I will check out the Century Graphic though, just for the heck of it. I think I'll wait for the "right" camera system to come instead spending my much needed $1000 on something that doesn't have a mirror lockup.
I do want to be able to print out into large prints, but I think my 35mm stuff is adequate for now.
This discussion is kind of fun for everyone to join in, to see what you all think. No one is wrong, just different opinion.
Discussion
8 repliesOnce again, I come back to all you guys/girls for much needed photography advice. :)
I have meet someone who is selling his Pantax 67 medium format camera. This is the older version 67 version, without the wooden handle.
The kit is great. 4 Pantax lenses, from wide to a 170mm I believe. The lenses doesn't have fungus in them, although some minor dust specs around the edges. The camera body seems great, with the prism viewer. Everything seems to be in order, and the owner said he has it services about 1 year ago.
He's selling it for $900! Is that a deal or not?
I shoot mostly 35mm, and have always want to go into medium format, but I am hesitant because I travel a lot and it might kill my back on those long duration trips.... And it does not have a mirror lockup, which is useful when it comes to longer exposure shots. And also, I'll need to get a good new ballhead..... :( $$$
Should I do it? $900 with the body and 4 lenses... Or should I save up money for one like the Mamiya 7? Ahh!! It's killing me!
What are your thoughts??
Chun Ming Huang
Plus, a Pentax 67 without mirror lock-up is an engraved invitation to non-sharp images. It was one of the older 67's hallmarks. (Or in this case, haul-marks!)
It's a hard call which way to go. I have a Canon film body with the new 24-105 IS L series lens. It's a good everyday lens, which cost as much as my initial MF setup, but the fixed Pentax lenses blow it away for sharpness. I was a 35mm shooter as well before stepping up to MF. I looked just a little at LF, but that's a totally different means of shooting. The Pentax setup was an easy adjustment as it is like a 35mm camera on steroids. I will say weight is a major issue. You will need to use a good tripod and tripod head - again to get the most out of the format. If I want to take the MF setup with a few lenses and then my 35mm with the 24-105 lens for quick shots, my typical weight for the backpack, food, water, film, filters and gear is about 45 lbs! It's good excercise for my lazy rear end, but its definitely hard work. MF is also quite a bit slower to use. I've found I've taken better pictures by being slower, but you may miss some shots, especially if you were going to shoot wildlife. My real job keeps me very busy, so I only shoot 1 or 2 days per month. So as Grant stated, my shooting habits work well financially with just the MF. I think with MF, learning to use a good scanner and utilizing some PS skills you'll get an image that can be made larger than digital, IMHO. Your tradeoff is a HUGE amount of time and effort though. Most of my available time for photography related stuff is late at night after work. As such, I put in some decent scanning and computer time which does not take away from shooting time, which is limited. Unless you are wanting to make huge gallery prints that you can stick your nose up to (48" wide or so), or are submitting photos to Arizona Highways, you may find digital will suit you much better. It will give you much more time to spend in the field when you don't have to scan images or fiddle with 280 MB images in PS. An image made is much more useful than one never taken because you were sitting in front of a computer instead.
I have heard that 4x5 is actually lighter than my Pentax setup. The sheet film will get a bit expensive and you'll taken even fewer shots with LF than you would with MF. It will also be harder to experiment. I've not used LF or scanned it in, but I know you need to use a flatbed scanner or have it drum scanned. I belive flatbeds have gotten better, but I believe they may not be as good as a transparancy scanner - lower resolutions and lower DMax. Your image in the computer is the result of the film + the scan, so a quality scan of MF may compete with a poorer scan of LF. Perhaps someone who's used both could speak to this better.
Kind of long, but I hope this helps. Make the best educated decision you can, then don't second guess it. All the formats can produce top notch shots that people will buy if you learn how to use each system correctly. Good luck!
Like the others, I think the mirror lockup would be a problem, but would the lenses make up for it? In other words, the lenses would work on a 67ii, so are the lenses worth the $900? If so, I would probably make the purchase, use this camera and look for a nice 67ii down the road.
Like Jody, I think that 35mm digital is probably on par with 645, but I would think that 67 would be a little better than 35mm digital right now. Now digital medium format is another story.
Mel-
Here's my $0.02...
First, make certain that this Pentax 67 body has the mirror lock-up feature. It's a must for most nature/landscape shooting. If not, let it go.
I'm guessing that a decent P67 body w/ MLU could be had for $400 to $500 on ebay. In this situation, I hope that you have a slightly higher degree of trust than with an anonymous seller. If you're still interested, ask the seller if you can borrow the camera for a couple of weeks and then shoot some trannies before you decide. Also, you didn't mention if this is a metered prism or not, and I suspect that you'll want the metered prism (which is still in that $400-$500 range). Go to ebay and check out the completed listings to get a sense of whether the prices seem reasonable...
Most of the lenses for the P67 cameras will sell for >$100 each. You haven't described which lenses are for sale, but the whole deal does sound reasonably priced.
Now, in terms of whether you should or not, that's still your call. I LOVE my Pentax 67II system! I started by purchasing a used Pentax 6x7 (the oldest model), then purchased a Pentax 67 (the second generation), and now have a couple of P67 IIs (the most recent version). Yes, they're heavy. Yes, you'll slow down your composing, etc. And, yes, once you achieve some competency with this tool, you'll be taking better photos, I feel.
I shot 35mm for years and finally got frustrated with the print quality - the quality was fine for 35mm, but not as high of quality as I wanted. I've been exceedingly happy to have made the jump to the P67 system, and own many of the lenses. I'd still like to own & use LF equipment - someday. I have a couple of images that I've printed and sold that are 4'x5', taken with this camera while handholding. Most of my prints are 16x20 and larger, and I've sold a few, too (which is nice, since this is my profession!). And, I also own a dSLR, because I still have a lot of fun with it, snapping, etc., and there are a lot of times when the MF system is too much and too slow, like taking informal shots with my family/friends, or capturing images when I need to do a lot of handholding, such as the wedding ceremony.
So, if you want larger and higher quality prints, then I'd encourage you to consider an MF system. But, with an MF system, you'll also need a tripod and the ability to carry around the heavier, bulkier equipment, and I figure that an image costs me at least $1 each for film and processing...
Good luck with your decision,
Tim!
You could even consider experimenting with a really inexpensive MF entry camera, the Century Graphic. You can pick these up on Ebay for a hundred or two and they are really fun to use and surprisingly portable: my stripped-Century-based field kit weighs around 12lb including 2 lenses and 2 filmbacks and a tripod. You might have to spend a little extra for a better film back (6x7 lever wind type) to get acceptably flat film, and a bit on a lens upgrade (a $50 127mm Rodenstock Ysarex Polaroid "takeout" is a wonderful lens) to really start getting quality images. You could experiment as long as you want and turn around and sell the stuff for pretty much what you paid for it. That's cheap entrtainment!
BTW, as someone mentioned inthe recent post on MF digital, don't forget the DOF issues that longer lenses of medium and larger formats create. Stopping down is a way of life! OTOH, you can get very serviceable if not stunning scans from MF using a relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner from Epson or Canon.
That Pantex does have a metered prism, but NOT have mirror lockup for sure, so I've made up my mind NOT to buy that one. I will check out the Century Graphic though, just for the heck of it. I think I'll wait for the "right" camera system to come instead spending my much needed $1000 on something that doesn't have a mirror lockup.
I do want to be able to print out into large prints, but I think my 35mm stuff is adequate for now.
This discussion is kind of fun for everyone to join in, to see what you all think. No one is wrong, just different opinion.
Thank you for all your inputs!
Chun Ming