PENTAX 67 and rumours about vibration
Jjjcsjr
I've used a Pentax 67 for many years and the vibrations problems are true.
Get a very big tripod (heavy) and sand bags. Don't be fooled by someone
saying their prints look good, until they compare with and without a very
heavy tripod and sandbags their just blowing smoke.
I've spoken to Pentax and they know of the vibration problem, also search
the Web for several sites which discuss Pentax 67 vibration.
Jim
Marc
Danny...
You have 3.... I have 2 bodies without the 'vibration' problem.
The shutter seems to be the real reason for this and not the mirror.
Have your shutters checked! Most older (or well used ) bodys could
use an adjustment and Pentax in Colorado will do it for you.
Hasselblads need annual service to keep 'em right, and I don't
think you can expect 'stellar' performance from anything without
some attention. If they stick or jam (Hasselblad) you get 'em fixed.
But the Pentax's just keep chugging along...and often are neglected. The
Mamiya 7 IS nice...but how do your 500mm shots compare?
Danny Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Pardon my sarcastic way, but lets get this straight.
>
> A camera that requires not 'a tripod' but a 'very large tripod' with sandbags?
> A camera that is universally thought of as the loudest of all current
> SLR's (what was that my physics prof. said about noise and its corelation
> to vibration?) .
> A camera that has inspired spirited debate about _heavy vibration for years.
>
> You'll have us beleive that booming vibration is a rumor with _this camera?
>
> I own three ptx 67's and though I love them, the optics aren't universally
> stellar and the thing vibrates. I also own a Mamiya 7 and the optics are
> _universally better than the Pentax.
>
> Danny Gonzalez
>
> In article <19970423134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Danny Gonzalez
MarBau
Like most things photographic, if its a problem for you, then it is a
problem. But for many P67 owners, the probem doesn't exist, so there is no
problem.
Mark.
The above thoughts are opinions, flame me for errors in fact but do not flame me for having an opinion.
Jjjcsjr
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Like most things photographic, if its a problem for you, then it is a
problem. But for many P67 owners, the probem doesn't exist, so there is no
problem.
Mark.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
Often we miss problems without the knowledge or experience, they are still
problems!
How often have you seen a print someone thinks is great and very sharp,
and they just don't have a very good print to compare to. Don't take
anyone's word for the virbration problem, make some test with sandbags
and you'll see just how bad the vibration is. If you have not taken the
effort to test then you can't know how good your images can be.
Jim
MarBau
Jim,
Don't assume your problem must also be someone elses problem. Perhaps you
should look at your tripod as a possible culprit.
Jjjcsjr
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jim,
Don't assume your problem must also be someone elses problem. Perhaps you
should look at your tripod as a possible culprit.
Mark.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
Read my first message again, Pentax admits to shutter vibration problems
with the 67. They suggest using 10lb to 25lb sandbags to dampen
vibrations. I think this is not my problem but the Pentax 67 problem.
I sold the camera and lens, got tired of the sandbags <g>. Ever wonder why
in the Shutterbug magazine there is so many used Pentax 67's? Maybe these
people are unhappy with their equipment, they don't dare say that or else
they could not sell their used camera.
Jim
MarBau
That's fine Jim, all I know is that stock images from my P67's over the
years annually bring in around 10 to 20 grand. I guess the art directors
are "vibration blind"!
TAKE PHOTO'S MAN, don't get hung up on equipment!
Do you think Gaugan and Van Gogh argued about the best brand of brush!!!
Ron Roberts
>Mark
>
>Read my first message again, Pentax admits to shutter vibration
problems
>with the 67. They suggest using 10lb to 25lb sandbags to dampen
>vibrations. I think this is not my problem but the Pentax 67 problem.
>
>I sold the camera and lens, got tired of the sandbags <g>. Ever wonder
why
>in the Shutterbug magazine there is so many used Pentax 67's? Maybe
these
>people are unhappy with their equipment, they don't dare say that or
else
>they could not sell their used camera.
>
>Jim
Jim there are hundreds of almost everyh brand of camera for sale in
Shutterbug.. Doesn't make them "bad" cameras..(G) Man there must be a
zillion Nikons for sale.. Are they bad also?
I have shot with a Pentax 6x7 for over 10yrs now... NEVER had a shutter
vibration problem.
I inquired on the Pentax web page about this and the answer was no,
vibration was not a big problem with the camera... could you post the
source of your report?
Ron
Ron Roberts
In <19970427072...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mar...@aol.com
(MarBau) writes:
>
>
>That's fine Jim, all I know is that stock images from my P67's over
the
>years annually bring in around 10 to 20 grand. I guess the art
directors
>are "vibration blind"!
>
>
>Mark.
Mark,
So true... My P6x7 makes me money on a regular basis also.. Your
right!!! Take photos and keep on truck'n.. If you don't like a brand
get something else but keep shooting...
Ron
Jjjcsjr
Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
I inquired on the Pentax web page about this and the answer was no,
vibration was not a big problem with the camera... could you post the
source of your report?
<<<<<<<<<
Ron
I was having problems with sharpness with long lens and the Pentax 67. I
called Pentax and talked to a company rep and they told me that any time
you have a shutter that big it can cause vibration. He suggested using
sandbags. Don't just take may word for it, do a search on the web using
yahoo. There are several good articles on the Pentax 67, they discuss
camera vibration. Or find the book called Image Clarity, High-Resolution
Photography by John B. Williams.
As you know, using a long lens with any camera can reveal camera
vibration. Using a shorter lens such as a 90mm or 55mm wouldn' t be such a
problem. What was frustrating to me was that I really liked the Pentax 67.
Jim
Jim
j.r. pierce
dan...@mail.idt.net (Danny Gonzalez) wrote:
>A camera that requires not 'a tripod' but a 'very large tripod' with sandbags?
I handhold my 6x7 all the time. I get fine results. Sure, if I'm
going for that museum quality 20x24 print, or the light is poor and
I'm down below 1/60 or doing macro work or whatever, yeah, I use a
tripod. But for the bulk of landscape field work I do, generally
around 1/250 or 1/125, I have no problem with handhelds as large as
16x20".
>A camera that is universally thought of as the loudest of all current
>SLR's (what was that my physics prof. said about noise and its corelation
>to vibration?) .
The bulk of the NOISE is from the mirror returning. Since the shutter
is already closed, any vibration from this is a moot point.
Here, do a test. put your 6x7 on a tripod, set it for 'B', lock up
the mirror, lightly touch the body with a finger (very sensitive
vibration meter), then fire the shutter (holding it open). Feel any
vibration on shutter-opening? No? I didn't THINK so. if you DO feel
vibration here, then something is wrong with your shutter.
-jrp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
Due to the ever increasing volumes of spam, I do not accept email.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rathke
MarBau <mar...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970427072...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
:
: TAKE PHOTO'S MAN, don't get hung up on equipment!
:
: Do you think Gaugan and Van Gogh argued about the best brand of brush!!!
:
: Mark.
:
While I whole-heartedly agree with Mark, I must point out that this is
rec.photo.EQUIPMENT.medium-format. Aren't we supposed to get hung up on
equipment in this forum?:-)
Tom Rathke
aero...@juno.com
DGarth
Isn't it interesting...the Pentax 67 has been in production longer than
any other medium format or 35...over 20 years. If it had a big "vibration"
flaw, wouldn't Pentax have been forced to redesign it?.
The reality is that the Pentax is so good, and such a good value, with
such good lenses, that they can still sell a camera designed 25 years ago.
Quite a record.
I use mine mostly for hand held helicopter aerials with Velvia. These
chromes consistently knock the socks off my clients and color separators
because of their sharpness! I'm often forced to shoot at 1/500 at f4, or
1/000 at 2.8
Vibration can be a problem with any focal plane shutter or moving mirror
used with long lenses or high magnification.
Dave Garth
Danny Gonzalez
Isn't it also interesting that _every, single discussion of the Pentax 67
ends up on the subject of vibrtion and recoil. Both the mirror and first
curtain release visiblly move the camera, even on a fairly solid tripod.
I'll agree that the camera is emminently usable and is capable of fine
results (given specific lenses), but to totally discount the vibration
problem as 'non-existant' and/or trivial is nothing short of delusional.
Next thing we'll all be saying that Fuji GX680's are an easy handheld
choice for the photographer on the go.
Danny Gonzalez
In article <19970428014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, dga...@aol.com
Ron Roberts
In <19970427165...@ladder01.news.aol.com> jjj...@aol.com
Jim,
Again, I have been using mine for about 10yrs without qa vibration
problem.. Of course there is the mirror lock up that I do use a lot..
My suggestion is just buy something else and keep on shooting..
Ron
TC
DGarth wrote:
>
> Isn't it interesting...the Pentax 67 has been in production longer than
> any other medium format or 35...over 20 years.
Well, I'm quite fond of Pentax (owned one since 1971), but - and
this is a minor point - they haven't been around the longest.
The H*ss*lbl*d 500C was introduced in 1957 (and the difference
between a 500C and a 500C/Modified is less significant than that
between a Pentax 6x7 and a Pentax 67).
>I'm often forced to shoot at 1/500 at f4, or
> 1/000 at 2.8
I get a Zerodivide Exception whenever I try that.
j.r. pierce
jjj...@aol.com (Jjjcsjr) wrote:
>Read my first message again, Pentax admits to shutter vibration problems
>with the 67. They suggest using 10lb to 25lb sandbags to dampen
>vibrations. I think this is not my problem but the Pentax 67 problem.
When or where did Pentax recommend 10 to 25 lb sandbags??? Certainly
not anywhere I've ever seen.
MarBau
I just called up Pentax in Englewood. The guy I spoke to laughed when I
said there is someone posting on the web that Pentax advise using sandbags
with the P67. He has worked for Pentax USA for 15 years and has never
heard of such nonsense!
But there are always a few loonies in every crowd, I have a customer that
insists his Hasselblad cannot be used on a tripod because it sets up a
bounce of some sort, he insists he only gets sharp negs when he handholds
it!
Takes all kinds I guess!
Mark.
Some people make art to impress others.
I make art to impress myself.
W Marshall
Danny Gonzalez <dan...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Isn't it also interesting that _every, single discussion of the Pentax 67
>ends up on the subject of vibrtion and recoil. Both the mirror and first
>curtain release visiblly move the camera, even on a fairly solid tripod.
>I'll agree that the camera is emminently usable and is capable of fine
>results (given specific lenses), but to totally discount the vibration
>problem as 'non-existant' and/or trivial is nothing short of delusional.
fun camera that took good, but not great, pictures.
Then I had occasion to use it with studio flash. The results were
fantastic! Far sharper than anything I had before, in spite of
careful tripod use, mirror lock-up, etc.
The lesson was that the high speed flash had eliminated the
vibration effects of the camera.
Subsequently I sold the Pentax system, and got into brand H,
which has great lenses without the vibration effects of the
Pentax focal plane shutter.
Your odyssey may vary.
W. Marshall
good, but not great
Scott Bufkin
MarBau wrote:
>
> I just called up Pentax in Englewood. The guy I spoke to laughed when I
> said there is someone posting on the web that Pentax advise using sandbags
> with the P67. He has worked for Pentax USA for 15 years and has never
> heard of such nonsense!
Just goes to show you that it depends on who you talk to - even at
Pentax. I talked to Peter at Pentax USA in Englewood about a year ago
on the same topic. He told me that people have seen shutter vibration
effects and suggested hanging weight from the tripod.
Using my P67 with the 105 at f/5.6, MLU, Velvia, on a Bogen 3021 with a
Linhof Profi II head, I saw softening of the image at shutter speeds
between 1/30 and 1 second. I examined the film under a 20x stereo
microscope.
The softening is subtle and probably won't bother most people - if they
see it at all. If you don't see it, great - don't worry about it. But
don't tell me I didn't see it - I did.
Scott Bufkin
sco...@intermec.com
Roger Books
MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
> But there are always a few loonies in every crowd, I have a customer that
> insists his Hasselblad cannot be used on a tripod because it sets up a
> bounce of some sort, he insists he only gets sharp negs when he handholds
> it!
Has he tried a different tripod? Harmonics are funny things.
Roger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reply-to: address in the headers is a valid address, if you want
to send me e-mail just hit reply and it should work fine. If your
newsreader is broken and can't deal with that then send your e-mail
to: 970805022...@mail.state.fl.us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jjjcsjr
Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just goes to show you that it depends on who you talk to - even at
Pentax. I talked to Peter at Pentax USA in Englewood about a year ago
on the same topic. He told me that people have seen shutter vibration
effects and suggested hanging weight from the tripod.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Scott
Thanks for the second opinion.
When I had shutter vibration problems with the Pentax 67 it got me
wondering so I tried sandbags with my Hasselblad and noticed an
improvement also. Ran some test with and with out sandbags with various
cameras and found that the added weight will improve sharpness with just
about any camera.
I found this excert from the book Image Clarity, by John Williams:
"The focal-plane shutter commonly used in single-lens reflex cameras is
the second source of internal vibrations.......Shutter vibrations are thus
most troublesome in the range of shutter speeds between 1/2 to about
1/60th second. Shutter vibrations can be suppressed in this range of
shutter speeds by loading or stressing the tripod."
I reccommend this book, it has some very interesting topics. You must cut
MarBau some slack, he seems very new to photography and his statements
seem to come from his lack of experience. We all had to begin somewhere,
so excuse his rudeness.
Jim
MarBau
Jim wwrote:
<<<I reccommend this book, it has some very interesting topics. You must
cut
MarBau some slack, he seems very new to photography and his statements
seem to come from his lack of experience. We all had to begin somewhere,
so excuse his rudeness. >>>
Yes Jim, perhaps I am new to photography compared to you! I've only been
putting bread on my table through photography since 1980!
BTW, pease don't tell my customers that last year were billed for $56,000
that I'm a newbie!
Jjjcsjr
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>
Yes Jim, perhaps I am new to photography compared to you! I've only been
putting bread on my table through photography since 1980!
<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
Then why don't you act like it?
Insulting people because you can't grasp a concept or don't have any
personal information on the subject is a sign of immaturity. Maybe you
just are immature in your life in general, oh well. Good luck.
Jim
MarBau
If you took my post as a personal insult I apologise.
I get pretty sick of people on this newsgroup relating a probem they had
and then shouting from the rooftops that because they have a certain
problem it must mean that every one has the same problem.
Saying that Pentax admit the problem and that putting sandbags on your
tripod is the only way to fix it is irresponsible. Many, many people use
P67's with no shutter or mirror vibration problems.
Danny Gonzalez
> MarBau wrote:
> > Many, many people use
> > P67's with no shutter or mirror vibration problems.
Marbau,
The problem with the above reasoning is that people who dont own the Ptx
67 are looking here for honest reviews and opinions on cameras that
they're considering buying. Many people also use the Pentx 67 and do
experience a bad vibration problem. Bad enough that _most 67 users don't
recommend handheld shooting. What shall we tell the people considering
the Ptx 67? That your shooting the Wallflowers with the camera (on a press
pass), or that they might like to try it for themselves, before being
disappointed by their results?
Danny Gonzalez
Scott Bufkin
MarBau wrote:
> Saying that Pentax admit the problem and that putting sandbags on your
> tripod is the only way to fix it is irresponsible.
Pentax did admit the problem to me. Saying that they did is not
irresponsible - it's a fact. Certainly, there are many things which
could be done to "fix it," assuming that in each person's specific case,
there is anything to "fix."
> Many, many people use
> P67's with no shutter or mirror vibration problems.
No doubt. I saw shutter vibration on mine, but only under very
carefully controlled tests and using a 20x microscope to examine the
results. Your milage *will* vary.
Scott Bufkin
sco...@intermec.com
MarBau
I don't mean to question your integrity but I really have a hard time
believing Pentax would have said anything of the sort, at least officialy.
No doubt an individual employee could have said it and if this is the case
you should be quoteing the employee, not Pentax.
Mark. (who is glad to own one of the very few vibration free P67's)
Mark Bergman
I guess those people that want to buy the P67 will have to buy one
because they are not going to get an honest review here. 90% of the
people seem to have no vibration problem (me included) but the other 10%
won't give up insisting there is a problem. RENT a P67 and try it.
Now I wish this thread would stop; it's gone on for months and is going
nowhere.
Danny Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > MarBau wrote:
> > > Many, many people use
> > > P67's with no shutter or mirror vibration problems.
>
Jjjcsjr
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
I don't mean to question your integrity but I really have a hard time
believing Pentax would have said anything of the sort, at least officialy.
No doubt an individual employee could have said it and if this is the case
you should be quoteing the employee, not Pentax.
<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
Let me get this right, you call Pentax, talk to an individual employee who
denies vibration in the Pentax 67 and the use of sandbags. Then you insult
me, now you tell Scott that it must have been an individual employee who
talked to him so it does not count. It looks like your backpeddling mighty
fast <g>.
Get your act together! Your wrong when you say your Pentax is vibration
free, if you would do some checking (read some books) you'll find that all
cameras have shutter vibration. All shutters cause vibration, some more
than others. This is a fact. This vibration may cause a decrease in image
sharpness, and other times it may not.
Jim
Jeff D. Johnston
Gentlemen:
If you wish to continue to trade barbs, please take it email. You've
taken this way past the point of being informative.
In article <19970506144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jjj...@aol.com
says...
MarBau
I asked the Pentax employee if Pentax had ever publicly stated that P67's
have a vibration problem, the answer was no.
If you are going to quote organisations or people it would be a good idea
if you got your facts straight, representing one person comments as
"Pentax admits" is wrong and if you do not know that there is no use
continuing this exchange.
Show this ng. proof that Pentax says P67's have a vibration problem
otherwise stop clogging the board. You made the statement in the first
place, now back it up!
Mark.
Scott Bufkin
MarBau wrote:
>
> I asked the Pentax employee if Pentax had ever publicly stated that
> P67's have a vibration problem, the answer was no.
And what was the name of this "Pentax employee?" The person I talked to
was Peter Bunch. And this Pentax employee you spoke to... he's head of
corporate communications, right? So he would know beyond any doubt that
Pentax has never publically...
> If you are going to quote organisations or people it would be a good idea
> if you got your facts straight, representing one person comments as
> "Pentax admits" is wrong and if you do not know that there is no use
> continuing this exchange.
Hmmm... so when the person you talked to says something, he speaks for
Pentax. When Peter Bunch says something (even though he's a Pentax
employee), he's one person and does not speak for Pentax?
Actually, neither of them speak for Pentax - they both have their own
opinions based on their own experiences. They're both individuals who
happen to work for Pentax USA - that's all.
> Show this ng. proof that Pentax says P67's have a vibration problem
> otherwise stop clogging the board. You made the statement in the first
> place, now back it up!
I didn't make the first statement - just jumped in because I had
something relevant to ad. As I've said before, I did carefully
controlled tests, I reported the results. You choose not to believe
me? Fine - that's your choice.
As for clogging the newsgroup, well... you might want to take some of
your own advice.
Scott Bufkin
sco...@intermec.com
Joseph Albert
In article <336F00...@mwci.net>, Mark Bergman <bmwrr...@mwci.net> wrote:
>I guess those people that want to buy the P67 will have to buy one
>because they are not going to get an honest review here. 90% of the
>people seem to have no vibration problem (me included) but the other 10%
>won't give up insisting there is a problem. RENT a P67 and try it.
Maybe that's because vibration *is* a problem for the particular types
of work they do, but not for the types of work the other 90% of the
folks do.
I'll say it again-- there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" camera.
Every camera ever made has strong points-- things it does well, and weak
points, things it doesn't do well. P67 is no different.
The reason these silly arguments go on for so long is that the folks on
one side are pointing out legitimate limitations of something (every
camera has them), whereas folks for whom the camera has worked well
take this as an assault on the worthiness of the tool and the wisdom
of their purchase decision. If you aren't having any problems using
a particular camera for a type of work and getting satisfactory results,
then congratulations, you've found the right thing for you or your
application.
Renting before buying is a good idea, but it would be too expensive to
rent for enough usage to discover all the little quirks of a camera.
That's why some folks do like to hear about all the experiences of
long-time users of a systems-- then they can make an intelligent
decision based on making sure that the types of work they do won't
put them amongst the inevitable minority of folks who end up being unhappy
with any given camera.
Joseph Albert
UnderAchiever
In article <19970506164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com says...
>
>I asked the Pentax employee if Pentax had ever publicly stated that P67's
>have a vibration problem, the answer was no.
>
>if you got your facts straight, representing one person comments as
>"Pentax admits" is wrong and if you do not know that there is no use
>continuing this exchange.
>
>otherwise stop clogging the board. You made the statement in the first
>place, now back it up!
>
Right on, Mark!
I've used a Pentax 67 for years and never noticed a problem with vibrations.
Didn't hear about it until after I connected up to the Internet.
You'd never know there was a problem looking at my pictures.
Hey, maybe there really ISN'T a problem, after all?
I have spoken.
The UnderAchiever
Paul Rumohr
> And what was the name of this "Pentax employee?" The person I talked to
> was Peter Bunch.
I don't know who Peter Bunch is but I sold my Pentax 67 system because of
the mirror vibration affecting my hand held location photography. A real
shame such a large neg you know, but all that shaking...
I believe people buy the Pentax 67 system because it's the most versatile
67 system for the price. I would hazard a guess that it's the camera's
mirror vibration that causes many to get rid of them.
I would have loved to have kept it but...
KA CHUNK vibration vibration vibration
KA CHUNK vibration vibration vibration
KA CHUNK vibration vibration vibration
Paul Rumohr
Jjjcsjr
Joseph
Well said.
Jim
UnderAchiever
In article <paulr-06059...@p12.hwts10.loop.net>, pa...@loop.com says...
Yes, yes, yes, you probably just needed to put on some weight so
that your body mass vs the Pentax was more proportionally in your favor.
However, remember that if you bought a more pricey MF camera, you'd
be hearing the camera store's cash register...
KA CHING $$$$$
KA CHING $$$$$
KA CHING $$$$$
ALVENER
If you read the manual you'll see that Pentax recommends locking up mirror
for exposure times longer than 1/30th of a second. Not really a hassle.
Also having failed to lock up the mirror hasn't really affected the superb
quality of the images this system is easily capable of.
Jjjcsjr
>>>>>>>>>>
If you read the manual you'll see that Pentax recommends locking up mirror
for exposure times longer than 1/30th of a second. Not really a hassle.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you read the prior messages, you'll see that were talking about shutter
vibration. Not mirror vibration, it was a given that the mirror was locked
up.
T. Newman
Not to run this thread into the ground, but I have found that the vibration of
the shutter is little to none, and the return of the mirror is where the
vibration comes from.
Todd Newman
Danny Gonzalez
In article <338B5C...@ksar.usu.edu>, "T. Newman" <to...@ksar.usu.edu> wrote:
>
> Not to run this thread into the ground, but I have found that the
vibration of
> the shutter is little to none, and the return of the mirror is where the
> vibration comes from.
>
> Todd Newman
Todd,
It seems that you've brought life to an almost dead thread. No ground yet....
I found a number of interesting tests that people have done, each proving
that the vibration problem is very real and _measurable. For the
interested, here's a good one from last year:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: arne...@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Anthony E Arnerich)
Subject: P67 Bad Shutter Speeds Confirmed (pretty much)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:30:21 GMT
Remember the thread a couple of weeks ago about bad shutter speeds in the
Pentax 67? Well, I asked the initiator, Jay Schlegel, a few questions, and
he suggested that I take a look at his frames to see for myself. I accepted
the offer.
I received 7 frames of Velvia, of a scene showing some houses at a coast
line in Anacortes, WA I presume. Pretty country, Jay, and the houses are
bigger than what we get in Silicon Valley. :-) There are pairs of
frames for 1/4 sec, 1/8 sec, and 1/15 sec marked "weight" or without
that designation. There is a frame marked 1/30 sec without the word
"weight". In all cases, Mirror Lock Up was employed, and several seconds
elapsed between MLU and shutter fire.
On the houses are shake roofs (nobody commented on that ironic pun)
which Jay used for his evaluations. There is a lot of extremely fine,
low contrast detail on those shingles. Unfortunately, the sun angle
was fairly low on many of those shingles, so that there is an enhancement
of the contrast of those details. This would not be a problem if it were
not for the fact that the frames did not match in terms of the sun being
equally cloud free. I found that the contrast in the shingle detail
was as much a function of cloud cover as it was of camera or weight settings.
With a 7X Nikon Loupe I even got the impression that the unweighted 1/15
sec exposure was sharper than the weighted one. But then I have old eyes.
Jay tried to run through those exposures quickly enough so that he could
fit them all in between clouds, but he wasn't 100% successful.
So I needed a finer probe of image sharpness than the shingles. Luckily,
there was a wide selection of fine sharp details running in horizontal
and vertical directions on each frame. On one house there is a window
that appears entirely black except for thin white strips partitioning
the window into panes. There is also an ornate brass exterior lamp with
a grid of even finer metal reinforcements around the glass globe. There
was also a basketball backboard on the back of which were several fine
black lines in many directions, against a white field. But try as I might,
I only got a suggestion of differences between the frames on these details.
My conclusion is that my eyes were not good enough to detect any significant
sharpness degradation at an equivalent of 7X56mm x 7x70mm, or in effect a
print of size 16" x 20". I believe that Jay made a similar statement in
his posting.
What I did next was to put each frame in turn into my enlarger (a Beseler
23C with Dual Dichro Head, 6x7 carrier, EL-Nikkor 80mm/5.6 lens) and
examine the image using my Micro-Sight 3 grain magnifier (25X magnification).
I set the enlarger to nearly 8x10 projection size - 3.3X almost exactly
was what I used - for a combined total magnification on the order of 80X.
The Velvia grain was easily seen sharply, which is the real significant
condition.
This level of magnification showed everything very clearly, or otherwise
as it would be from frame to frame. The window pane seperators were the
best probe of the sharpness, because they ran in directions essentially
aligned with the camera axes.
The observations:
1) In all frames, the horizontally running window bar was extremely sharp.
Therefore there was no camera shake in the pitch, or vertical axis.
2) In all weighted frames, the vertically running window bars were ex-
tremely sharp, and basically on par with the sharpness of the horizontal
bar.
3) In the 1/15 sec unweighted frame, the window's vertical bars were quite
obviously blurred. The blur quantity was on the order of 1/2 the width
of the bar.
4) In the 1/4 and 1/8 sec unweighted frames, the window's vertical bars were
blurred even more so than was the 1/15 sec. The blur quantity was on the
order of the full width of the bar. In fact, the blurred bars were a stop
darker because the white light got diluted into an equal amount of black
background. I regard this as an extremely sensitive test.
The conclusions:
a) Jay is correct in noting that the shutter can cause a degradation of
sharpness, and that it is speed dependent.
b) I disagree with Jay that 1/15 is the worst speed in that regard.
c) Weighting the camera can solve the problem very well.
d) You probably won't notice the effect in 16x20 prints if you use a decent
tripod. You probably would notice it in a 30x40 print with the naked eye
if you looked closely.
e) The culprit is the second shutter curtain.
i) It only appears in exposures in which the first and second curtain
move independently
ii) The first shutter curtain is finished being accelerated before
the exposure begins
iii) The second curtain is accelerated while the shutter is open
iv) 1/15 isn't as bad as 1/8 because the first curtain is being
decelerated during part of the time that the second is being
accelerated, thus canceling part of the jolt (this time scenario
is conjectural on my part, but reasonable I think)
*****
Now why is the weighting that Jay applied useful? He slung the strap of
his camera bag over the pentaprism. Now since the problem is expressed
as a twist of the camera + lens about the vertical axis, Jay didn't apply
any significant angular moment of inertia (only the strap, which is very
lightweight). This leads me to another conclusion, namely that some "soft"
joint, such as the tripod center post to the tripod boss (the casting that
joins the center post and the three legs), or the tripod foot to the deck,
was stiffened up because of the additional weight.
My own personal bias is against putting much weight on top of removable
pentaprisms (*every* expensive camera repair I've even needed had been to
pentaprisms, and I don't like the idea of squashing the box that determines
the position of the focus screen), so I would personally be inclined to
simply weight the tripod. But that's just me.
*****
Now for the real flame bait - this is certainly a problem that scales with
the size of the focal plane shutter - but I'll even claim that this can be
a problem with leaf shutters too. The quick will point out that there is
little or no translational moment generated from a leaf shutter operation,
but the savvy will realize that there is an unbalanced rotational moment
about the shutter axis. All those blades rotate in the same direction. The
leaf blades are very lightweight, but there are 5 of them and they have
a very high acceleration at the mid point of the operation cycle. So before
you blindly claim that your Hassy is immune from these problems, and start
taunting P67 owners, you just *might* want to run a test first.
But to all, a word of encouragement: even with a big FP shutter the effect
is rather small - and it's curable.
Jjjcsjr
Todd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
Not to run this thread into the ground, but I have found that the
vibration of
the shutter is little to none, and the return of the mirror is where the
vibration comes from.
<<<<<<<<
Todd
I think you'll find that all shutters cause vibration to some extent. I've
found with very critical tests that all medium format cameras will benefit
from weighting at certain shutter speeds, even Hasselblad. I've spoken to
Mr. Wildi of Hasselblad fame, and he places his hand on the camera to
limit shutter vibration. In the book he wrote, The Hasselblad manual he
goes into detail about shutter vibration.
I think you may need to do more tests <g>.
T. Newman
To the P67 haters:
As I said "little" to none. I do not disagree. Any focal plane shutter produces
some degree of vibration, but everyone that speaks on P67 has the philosophy
that the camera is somehow UNuseable becaues it has a focal plane shutter.
I myself prefer a leaf type shutter, and quite honestly if Rollei made
interchangeable lenses for the 'cords or 'flex's, I would still be using those
bodies,(no I don't want a Mamiya 330). I believe it is how you shoot, and how
much patience you have. These two things do not obviously make for a better
shutter, but if you are able to "think and interpret" when shooting, anything
is possible.
Todd
Jjjcsjr
Todd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
To the P67 haters:
As I said "little" to none. I do not disagree. Any focal plane shutter
produces
some degree of vibration, but everyone that speaks on P67 has the
philosophy
that the camera is somehow UNuseable becaues it has a focal plane shutter.
<<<<<<<<<
Todd
Calm down and take a deep breath. If you'll read my message again you
might notice that I was discussing shutter vibration for the Hasselblad
and leaf shutters. I liked the Pentax 67 very much, but determined that if
I had to carry a 25lb sand bag, I might as well shoot with an 8x10 view
camera, same weight and better quality <g>.
Adam
I think that the point he was trying to make is that you don't need to carry
a 25 pound sand bag.
Jay Schlegel x6878
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
*** NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! ***
DON'T DRAG ME BACK INTO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
-jay
-----------------------------------------------------
In article <dannyg1-2805...@ppp-32.ts-12.nyc.idt.net>,
--
-jay Jay Schlegel, Unix Systems Administrator,
Intermec Corp, Everett WA
j...@intermec.com OR --> jsch...@eskimo.com
T. Newman
Thank you Adam. Someone always seems to need to put something out there
that is not even on subject. I did not mention anything about sandbags or for
that matter view cameras! This was the posting.
Todd wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> Not to run this thread into the ground, but I have found that the
> vibration of
> the shutter is little to none, and the return of the mirror is where the
> vibration comes from.
> <<<<<<<<
>
> Todd
>
> I think you'll find that all shutters cause vibration to some extent. I've
> found with very critical tests that all medium format cameras will benefit
> from weighting at certain shutter speeds, even Hasselblad. I've spoken to
> Mr. Wildi of Hasselblad fame, and he places his hand on the camera to
> limit shutter vibration. In the book he wrote, The Hasselblad manual he
> goes into detail about shutter vibration.
>
> I think you may need to do more tests <g>.
Todd wrote-
To the P67 haters:
As I said "little" to none. I do not disagree. Any focal plane shutter produces
some degree of vibration, but everyone that speaks on P67 has the philosophy
that the camera is somehow UNuseable becaues it has a focal plane shutter.
Danny Gonzalez
Todd,
I neither hate the Ptx 67, nor do I think it's "UNusable". What I proposed
(and what I assert still) is that the Ptx 67 produces an inordinate amount
of mirror and shutter vibration as compared to any other MF slr and that
it is far less consistent in producing acceptable results either handheld
or at slowish speeds.
I also can be pointed to, to have said that the opinion that 'the camera
is fine and doesn't have any vibration problem' is one of optimistic
delusion. It is a good camera and, for the most part, a good system. I own
it, I use it and I almost love it; I won't however, recommend it as
anything other than a system that has an inherent vibration problem _until
Pentax has properly fixed the design.
Shall I post another of my archive of _realworld tests_ that deal with the
67's excessive vibration and how to best deal with it? I have many. Please
post test results that confirm your view, if you would.
Danny Gonzalez
MarBau
<<<Shall I post another of my archive of _realworld tests_ that deal with
the
67's excessive vibration and how to best deal with it? I have many. Please
post test results that confirm your view, if you would.>>>
Don't bother! This subject has been done to death on this ng.
Basically it comes down to this: The P67 does have mirror vibration
problems, just like every SLR. The solution is to lock the mirror up.
Some people believe the P67 has a shutter vibration problem too, they are
entitled to their opinion. Others either have the same problem but don't
notice it or they do not have the problem at all.
If you are a happy P 67 owner like me, rejoice!
If you think the P67 suffers from a shutter vibration problem, it's
simple, just sell your camera and buy something else! (And quit lying that
Pentax is aware of the your "problem")
There, problem solved!
gra...@delphi.com
Danny Gonzalez <dan...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>(and what I assert still) is that the Ptx 67 produces an inordinate amount
>of mirror and shutter vibration as compared to any other MF slr and that
>it is far less consistent in producing acceptable results either handheld
>or at slowish speeds.
>it, I use it and I almost love it; I won't however, recommend it as
>anything other than a system that has an inherent vibration problem _until
>Pentax has properly fixed the design.
P67 when tripod mounted has noticeable vibration induced blur, especially
pronounced at 1/15 second.
What I would like to know, for myself and other non-tripod/non-landscape
photographers is real world experiences handheld at the flash sync speed
of 1/30th (1/45th) second.
As an example, let me mention that my Kiev 66 is personally unuseable at
the sync speed of 1/30th second due, I suspect, to mirror slap.
*However*, add a handgrip and I can go 1/15th second with no noticeable
blur. What about the P67 in synchro-sun shooting with or without a grip?
Jjjcsjr
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
If you think the P67 suffers from a shutter vibration problem, it's
simple, just sell your camera and buy something else! (And quit lying that
Pentax is aware of the your "problem")
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
What ever happened to your buddies at Pentax? I must have missed the
message from Pentax, or maybe your were just wrong! Me thinks your afraid
of the truth and now resort to insults, if the truth hurts.
I did sell my Pentax 67 camera and bought a new system, cured my problems
real fast<g>.
MarBau
I was told that Pentax, like most big companies, have a policy not to get
involved with ng's.
I'm glad your have freed yourself from that awful shutter vibrating
monstosity!
Mark, (posting to this thread for the last time)
Danny Gonzalez
Oh but Mark,
I am a happy Pentax 67 owner; can't you see my smile?
Now, what was it I'm _lying about ? Just being obtuse Mark? Care to offer
any _proof of your assertion that there isn't a shutter vibration problem?
Maybe we should all just rely on your most evident powers of observation,
eh?
Danny Gonzalez
In article <19970603202...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
(MarBau) wrote:
> If you are a happy P 67 owner like me, rejoice!
>
> If you think the P67 suffers from a shutter vibration problem, it's
> simple, just sell your camera and buy something else! (And quit lying that
> Pentax is aware of the your "problem")
>
> There, problem solved!
>
> Mark.
MLAFLY
An earlier post I made either on this thread or a different thread
(concerning my tests) and then all the posts thereafter should lead to a
slightly different conclusion than you made (no offense!) and that is,
noticeable vibration induced blur CAN BE pronounced and not that it is
necessarily so. It will depend on your technique and tripod/head, when
used. Handheld results, for me, were outstanding and I suspect dampening
from the hands was the reason.
In other words, there is not a reason in the world to be concerned about
buying one. All of my portraits with flash (synched at 1/30) or without,
all of the B&W landscapes (I tend to print to 11x14 an only rarely to
16x20 in BW) and all of the architectural and commercial stuff (aviation
facilities and aircraft) were simply outstanding. From color negatives,
I've seen 20x30 prints that are great. I am further convinced (without
having used a 38mm biogon or Rollei's version) that the 45mm PX 6x7 lens
(latest version) is one of the best or the best wide angle lenses made.
The point of my tests were to find out which compromises I could live with
- a Bogen 3058 (18 lbs!!!) or the Gitzos's (320, 410, 340). Even though
possibly flawed by my measurement method, it did emphasize to me that
proper care and useage made a difference in my photographs. But, I also
had to carry the stuff and use it in some crazy situations which often
violated the "rules".
All this means is, I would recommend you buy one without hesitation, test
to find how you get your best results, leave room for an excellent tripod
in the budget and an excellent flash and then astound your friends,
neighbors and customers with the superb results. Oh, and have fun.
Mike
In article <xZPcZIS...@delphi.com>, gra...@delphi.com writes:
>Following this thread, it seems that the consensus opinion is that the
>P67 when tripod mounted has noticeable vibration induced blur, especially
>pronounced at 1/15 second.
>What I would like to know, for myself and other non-tripod/non-landscape
>photographers is real world experiences handheld at the flash sync speed
>of 1/30th (1/45th) second.
>As an example, let me mention that my Kiev 66 is personally unuseable at
>the sync speed of 1/30th second due, I suspect, to mirror slap.
>*However*, add a handgrip and I can go 1/15th second with no noticeable
>blur. What about the P67 in synchro-sun shooting with or without a grip?
Mike Long (mla...@aol.com)
Andrew Koenig
> I neither hate the Ptx 67, nor do I think it's "UNusable". What I proposed
> (and what I assert still) is that the Ptx 67 produces an inordinate amount
> of mirror and shutter vibration as compared to any other MF slr and that
> it is far less consistent in producing acceptable results either handheld
> or at slowish speeds.
You are cordially invited to examine
http://www.research.att.com/~ark/pictures/norway/huge/gudvangen5.jpg
which was taken with a handheld P67 (albeit at 1/500) from a moving ferry.
The 24x30 inch print I had made from that negative shows no motion blur,
even when you look at it closely.
More pictures in
http://www.research.att.com/~ark/pictures/norway/overview.html
All of those pictures were taken with a P67, some at slow shutter speeds
(with the mirror locked up). Several of the others have been enlarged to
24x30, too.
--
--Andrew Koenig
a...@research.att.com
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Scott Bufkin
MarBau wrote:
>
> Some people believe the P67 has a shutter vibration problem too, they
> are entitled to their opinion. Others either have the same problem but
> don't notice it or they do not have the problem at all.
Exactly! They "have the same problem but don't notice it or they do not
have the problem at all." Several people have performed and reported on
carefully controlled tests which show 1) that the P67 suffers from
subtle shutter vibration in the 1/30 to 1 sec range, and 2) the problem
can be mitigated through weighting the camera or tripod, or other
methods.
> If you think the P67 suffers from a shutter vibration problem, it's
> simple, just sell your camera and buy something else!
I don't understand why knowing of the problem and successfully using the
system are mutually exclusive. The P67 is an excellent camera - if this
problem doesn't bother you or you work around it, why sell the system?
>(And quit lying that Pentax is aware of the your "problem")
I'm the one who described a phone conversation with Pentax USA in
Colorado in which the repair representative told me that others have
reported this problem and that weighting the camera seemed to resolve
it. I even posted the name of the person I talked to. Pentax is indeed
"aware of the problem."
BTW, I'm glad MarBau has posted his last in this thread (so he says).
Many knoledgable people have reported on detailed tests - MarBau has
done no tests. I posted the name of the person at Pentax that I talked
to - anyone interested could have called him to confirm. MarBau has
posted no names at Pentax. Some people just seem to take negative
comments about their possessions very personally.
--
Scott Bufkin
[Note: Please change <nospamdot> to <intermec> when replying.]
Danny Gonzalez
Andrew,
Though I'm sure that the Ptx 67 _is capable of fine results, enlargeable
to ...whatever, what you've offered hardly qualifies as evidence of proof
for the assertion that the camera 'does not have a vibration problem'. For
that, you're going to have source a real, honest to goodness test; like
the ones I've posted that support my position.
Sorry,
Danny Gonzalez
cry...@loxinfo.co.th
In article <dannyg1-0606...@ppp-63.ts-7.nyc.idt.net>,
Hi Danny, I have purchased a Pentax 67 recently and conducted all sorts
of tests before I head out on time consuming trips for a photo exhibition
I'm doing by December this year. Tried shots at 1/2 second 1 second 1/30
etc. with mirror up and mirror down positions and all shots came out
sharp with no evidence of mirror or (worse) shutter vibrations, all shots
were taken on a tripod though. I think that this is a good camera but it
needs to be used on a STURDY tripod to avoid vibrations. I have one
question though, when you take of the prism, you see the screen and above
it in the metal there is a groove through which runs some kind of fine
chain which apparently runs all around the bayonet mount and has a spring
connecting the ends. Mine broke due to Thai customs playing around with
the camera as they were inspecting it, thinking about how much money they
could make. The camera still works fine, I assume this is no vital part
for its function, but would like to know what it does though? Hermann
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Isaac Crawford
What I want to know is this...Has a picture ever been ruined by this
"vibration problem"? An earlier post said that the blur was noticable
on a 30x40 print!!!! How often does anybody enlarge that much? And
even if you do, would it make an otherwise good picture bad? IMHO,
unless you are into scientific or instrumtation photography, where every
detail is ESSENTIAL, mirror shake is a non issue.
eyes
Danny Gonzalez
Hermann,
I'm very interested in your test results and would like to know more. As
for the chain, this is the meter coupling for the cameras aperture sensor
and is needed for proper function with the TTL prism. The repair is around
$150 if I remember correctly.
Luck,
Danny Gonzalez
In article <8658165...@dejanews.com>, cry...@loxinfo.co.th wrote:
-snip-
MarBau
the chain tells the TTL meter what aperture your lens is set at.
Mark.
Danny Gonzalez
Isaac,
It does indeed make a large difference in everyday picture taking. I
bought (and then sold) a brand new 67 system because I thought the camera
incapable of useful results, especially with the 135 macro and 165 2.8.
Phots takens with these two lenses were terrifically unsharp and I thought
that I had bought a truly lousy camera.
Over the course of the next year, I took a close look at the results some
of my peers were getting with their Ptx 67's and listened intently to them
as they told me how to handle the vibration prone camera. After much
experience and experimentation, I re-bought a system.
My experience with certain lenses doesn't jibe well with the experience of
many people involved in this conversation (and I respectfully acknowledge
their experience). I could never get good results in the wider aperture
range of the 135, 165 2.8 or the 300/4. Never.
OTOH, I've found that the 165/4 leaf lens and the 400/4 ED are very easy
to get great results with. The 165/4 in example, is phenomenally better
than any of the three 165 2.8's I've been through in the last 7 years.
I've found that the extreme weight of the 400/4 ED balances the camera and
is the only lens capable of taming the 67's recoil. The camera is quite
smooth with this lens mounted.
Come to think of it, there's a parameter that I've never added to this
thread in the above and I think that it should be noted: Of the many
lenses that I own, the only focal lengths that seem overtly effected by
the vibration problem are the 135, 165 2.8, 200 and 300. The shorter focal
lengths are harder to deal with in the 'red' zone (1/30th - 1/8th), but
the difference isn't that far from what you'll get with any other MF slr;
maybe you'll lose one shutter speed.
I did do a fun test on a Bogen 3035 tripod (13 pounds I think) and the
3047 head, where I did a modelling light-lit series of exposures with the
165 2.8@1/30th. I then darkened the room and did a series of open flash
only photo's and then, a series where I mixed ambient with flash. The
differences were startling. Only the open flash alone results were truly
sharp. Both the ambient and ambient'/flash mix results were unacceptable.
I've done similar tests with the RZ67, Mam and Ptx 645, Rollei 6008 and
H'blad 2000FCW; only the H'blad F camera produced results that were
visably different through the series (all systems were compared at 1/30th
of a sec. synch. for consistency), and even that didn't have _nearly the
variation I saw with the Ptx 67 results
It does seem odd to me that I could never get proper results from my 165
2.8 as it is consistently praised as a very well corrected
astrophotographic objectiv.Does anyone else have a poor experience with
their 165 2.8?
Best,
Danny Gonzalez
In article <5nfo8c$lc8$1...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, ey...@webtv.net
Isaac Crawford
I can see your beef if you're talking about astrophotography (although I
thought I covered that under "scientific" photography".) I guess that
my major gripe is the fact that people seem to think that they can't
make a decent image if it isn't "critically sharp". Folks, I hate to
tell you this, but fantastic pictures have been made for hundreds of
years with equipment that was incapable of being "critcally sharp". A
good photographer will make good pictures regardless of what kind of
camera they use (or what format). If you have made a bad image, blame
the photographer, not the equipment.
If you claim that the Pentax 67 is "limiting" you because you
cannot make sharp 30x40 prints from it, might I suggest that you're not
matching the right tool for the right job? If you are going to
routinely make 30x40 (or larger) you might consider a view camera
(funny, this whole thread reminds me of a Nikon user on the 35mm group
complaining that he can't get "sharp"16x20 prints made from his
wonderful piece of equipment. Of course it's wonderful, but the answer
seems obvious to posters on this newsgroup...8-))
I guess I'm just fed up with sharpness freaks. I've never seen a
bad picture that would have been good "if only he had weighted down the
camera!" If you really want aneasy way to get sharper prints, don't
enlarge as much (i.e. print smaller or shoot larger...). Or even better
yet, look at the image as a whole, not under a loupe! :-))
eyes
MLAFLY
In article <dannyg1-0906...@ppp-21.ts-12.nyc.idt.net>,
dan...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>It does seem odd to me that I could never get proper results from my 165
>2.8 as it is consistently praised as a very well corrected
>astrophotographic objectiv.Does anyone else have a poor experience with
>their 165 2.8?
Danny,
I obtained superb results from my 165 2.8. As an example, on a shot taken
at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, I shot across a grass field of some trees in
a stand (probably 200 feet or so), blew up the negative a bit and can
still see cracks in the trees crisply. (Pan F with Perceptol, which does
make a difference).
I have nothing but good things to say about the 165, 90 & 45.
Should we hold you responsible if this starts a whole new rumour thread
<g>
Mike
Mike Long (mla...@aol.com)
Danny Gonzalez
Mike,
I suppose that I'm good for the blame on any one of the 'rumors' covered
here. I'll gladly take the credit and the blame <s>.
Are you getting consistently good results from your 165 in the 2.8-4
range? I can see great results in the 8-16 range but, by then, you'll be
shooting at the dreaded 15th/sec.
Best
Danny
In article <19970610013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mla...@aol.com
Danny Gonzalez
Issac,
I can understand your sentiment but I do believe you're missing some
serious forest there Issac. Most people I know using 67 use it with the
implicit understanding that they're going to be getting a sharper, more
coherent result than if they were using 35mm. In many instances, the
Pentax 67 has failed me and has not 'beaten' the result I would've had,
had I used 35mm.
If these failures were my fault, why is it that I can get routinely
phenomenal results with a H'blad, Rollei, Pentax 645, Mamiya 645 or even
the Exacta 66, in the same situations? It's a given that I shouldn't have
been using a tripod mounted( Bogen 3035/3047, which supports my 4x5 SLR
quite nicely), vertically oriented Ptx 67 w/165 @2.8 and a 30th for
daylight studio work (w/ MLU employed) , but it was experience that taught
me I couldn't get a quality result. As a matter of fact, if I hadn't been
listening to the Ptx 67/165mm optimists, I would've been using my RZ. I
wanted the extra lens speed and I put trust in the musings of people who
said it would work 'beautifully'.
So there you have it. My crusade of publically announcing the vibrative
faults of the Ptx 67 are the fault of you, and people who agree with your
point of view<s>. Until I get 165 @2.8 results that concur with the status
quo, I'll respectfully, but loudly, disagree.
I do second Mark's (aka Mlafly) opinion on the 45mm and the 90 (for the
most part, I do find the 90 distorts the corners a bit).
In the end, it's not you I'm forced to convince of the quality of shaky
results; my clients aren't very quick to buy "fantastic pictures have been
made for hundreds of years with equipment that was incapable of being
"critcally sharp"". Why should any of the rest of us non-believers
consider this myth as a means of excusing the cameras most obvious faults?
Danny Gonzalez
In article <5ni9hn$7pl$1...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>, ey...@webtv.net
(Isaac Crawford) wrote:
-snip-
FOR7
I guess I'm just fed up with sharpness freaks. I've never seen a
> bad picture that would have been good "if only he had weighted down the
> camera!" If you really want aneasy way to get sharper prints, don't
> enlarge as much (i.e. print smaller or shoot larger...). Or even better
> yet, look at the image as a whole, not under a loupe! :-))
>
> eyes
Since your reproducing something when photographing would it not be nice
to get the maximum sharpness as possible so you can see every detail
possible.? Makes sense to me.What's wrong with trying to have your image
as sharp as possible especially when you spend more money for a MF camera?
I have seen and have many pictures that would have been better if only if
it wasn't for the lack of maximum sharpness and detail. Sure there is alot
more to taking a beautiful picture but unless you are purposely trying to
soften your image for some abstract reason then having a sharp print is
just as important l to a good photograph as proper composition is. In most
every case the average person will pick the sharper image.I thought about
buying a Pentax67 but decided on getting a Fuji 6x9 instead for the even
bigger negative. One good lens is fine for me for what I would use it for
and haven't heard a single bad thing said about them.
Isaac Crawford
Danny,
For the record, I don't own a Pentax 67. I use a Mamyia TLR (whose
lenses aren't as sharp as the Schneider on my Exakta 66...:which has a
decent mirror shock to it as well...:-) I just want to defend a pretty
darn good camera! The fact is every camera has its limitations, for the
67, it just might be the "shutter shock" that you have noticed (I
believe you! I believe you!). Or it might not be, you see, not everyone
needs to enlarge to HUGE prints, and not everyone will find the shock to
be a problem. Seems to me that there are still a lot of positives to
this camera (not least of all the price). There are a lot of people
that make great images with this camera, and swear by them. Are you
going to say that they're wrong? Of course not, it does't make any
sense to. Use whatever tool that works for your situation . As a
rcomandation, you might want to check out the Fuji 6x8 camera, it should
be pretty easy on "shake" AND it will give you bigger negs. Have fun...
P.S. I work in a duping lab that works for some of the best stock
agencies around (Graphis stock, Gamma Liasion, Index Stock, ect...), so
I see a TON of new pictures each month. Guess what the hippest, most
happening thing at these agencies is...Diana cameras, and other things
that are blured or out of focus. Seems to me that you just need
different customers...:-))
eyes
David Garth
For many years I corresponded via the CompuServe photo forum with Ctein,
the renowned technical writer who has written many, many articles for
Camera and Darkroom, Photo Techniques and many others.
Ctein's speciality is highly accurate lens and systems testing, both
with practical "real world" and optical bench tests. He has probably
written more about resolution than any other contemporary writer.
What's the personal 6x7 that he uses and loves? A PENTAX 67! Seems odd
to me that a fellow who can tell you almost every lens' of every system
would choose Pentax if this vibration rumor were true.
Ctein has stated many time that many of the Pentax lenses are equal to
many of the Hassy lenses, and that while the very best Hassy lenses
(like the 60mm) blow most other lenses away, because of the larger
negative, actual results on film will almost always be nearly equal or
slightly favor the Pentax. That's what's I've found after 18 years of
using both systems, and it's good enough for me, too.
David Garth
MLAFLY
Danny,
I guarantee the exposure was at f11 to f16 on a tripod (Gitzo 320 at that
time), with the mirror locked up.
I never avoided any shutter speed with the Pentax 6x7. I think I mentioned
it before but my testing was to see how good I could do at all speeds. So,
even though I may have been reading motion after the shutter closed (or
before it opened), I figured the more solidity I could achieve, the better
my results would be. Others may find it to be different, but my tests
showed the 320 and a Bogen 3047 with the MLU worked great. The Gitzo 410
was rock solid and my current Gitzo 341 excellent and a great compromise
as it is lighter than the 410. My tests did not fare well with the Arca
Swiss B-1 but in actual results, it was great so I would not recommend
avoiding one. Water is a very fluid liquid (or a very liquid fluid). So
any small movement will show - including those which have no effect on
photography.
Also bear in mind the photography I do: 1) aircraft & aviation facilities;
2) landscapes and cityscapes; 3) some portraiture. Highly technical work
or printing to huge sizes might show different results than I had.
Someone else posted about a certain med. fmt. camera that "it depends on
your end useage". What a great statement. If we are hobbyists and file
them after processing, then we should be happy with what pleases us. If
for small useage (magazine articles, 4x5 or 5x7 prints, etc) then the same
goes. If for large B&W printing or huge color printing, format and camera
idiosyncracies (sp?) come into play.
IMHO.
Mike
<<Are you getting consistently good results from your 165 in the 2.8-4
range? I can see great results in the 8-16 range but, by then, you'll be
shooting at the dreaded 15th/sec.>>
Mike Long (mla...@aol.com)
David Garth
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Today I was in a used book store and was looking through David Muench's
beautiful book on Utah. As is typical of his books, all the photos were
tack sharp, even reproduced full page in this very large format book.
In the back are some photo notes. Some of the photos are shot medium
format, some tripod mounted, some handheld...all with a Pentax 67!
I guess he hasn't read this thread and doesn't know yet how difficult it
is to take a sharp picture with the Pentax 67.
If your pictures are not sharp with a Pentax 67, look first at your own
technique, and stop whining about this camera.
MarBau
I just got done developing a roll of TX from my P67, yes the camera was on
a tripod (sans cable release) with the 200mm. Thru the 10x loupe her
eyelashes were tack sharp (her head occupied 10% of the image at most!).
But of course according to some of the people here I must be dreaming, Oh,
BTW I didn't even lock the mirror up, (naughty me!)
You know what they say, poor craftsmen blame their tools!
jtsatsk
>Not to beat a dead horse, but...
>
>Today I was in a used book store and was looking through David Muench's
>beautiful book on Utah. As is typical of his books, all the photos were
>tack sharp, even reproduced full page in this very large format book.
>
>In the back are some photo notes. Some of the photos are shot medium
>format, some tripod mounted, some handheld...all with a Pentax 67!
>
>I guess he hasn't read this thread and doesn't know yet how difficult it
>is to take a sharp picture with the Pentax 67.
In fairness, you should know that David Muench's camera of choice is a
Linhof. OTOH, his son Marc Muench works primarily with P67. Neither of
them seem to be as hung up on equipment as some of the contributors here,
preferring instead to concentrate on the images they create.
--
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
// Joseph I. Tsatskin jts...@primenet.com
// maintainer of Pentax FAQ http://www.primenet.com/~jtsatsk/pentax.html
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Johnston
In article <jtsatsk-1206...@ip021.phx.primenet.com>,
jts...@primenet.com says...
>
OTOH, his son Marc Muench works primarily with P67.
Well, its NO WONDER that Marc isn't nearly as famous as his dad.:-)
Fortunately for me, I ssstarttt to vvvibbbbrattte when my shutter speed is
between 1/15 and 1/4. This perfectly counteracts the shutter's movement and
provides adequate dampening, allowing me to take wonderful images for all to
enjoy!
Can't we all just get along? (and move along?)
j.r. pierce
mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>I just got done developing a roll of TX from my P67, yes the camera was on
>a tripod (sans cable release) with the 200mm. Thru the 10x loupe her
>eyelashes were tack sharp (her head occupied 10% of the image at most!).
>But of course according to some of the people here I must be dreaming, Oh,
>BTW I didn't even lock the mirror up, (naughty me!)
Heh, IMHO there's little point in mirror lockup at speeds around 1/125th
or faster. I don't think the mirror even hits the top stop before the
shutter has finished its thing.
-jrp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
Due to the ever increasing volumes of spam, I do not mix mail and news
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Gonzalez
David/All,
Listen up. Those of us who complain of a 'vibration problem' with the
Pentax 67 (for the 30th time), do not claim that it is impossible to get
truly impressive results with the 67. I'm not sure whether to take the
hyperbolic tides of this post I'm replying to in stride, or just cite my
damn resume. Let me put it this way: I'm plenty qualified to speak....
For the fun of it, I've started an email conversation with Ctien and have
already found _agreement over some key points. I'll ask if he can post his
own comments to this namesake thread of yours.
One final point. Please try to disagree without malice (I'm not "whining"
anymore than you are!!). None of us is looking for a flamewar.
In article <339F81...@slochamber.org>, dga...@slochamber.org wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse, but...
>
> Today I was in a used book store and was looking through David Muench's
> beautiful book on Utah. As is typical of his books, all the photos were
> tack sharp, even reproduced full page in this very large format book.
>
> In the back are some photo notes. Some of the photos are shot medium
> format, some tripod mounted, some handheld...all with a Pentax 67!
>
> I guess he hasn't read this thread and doesn't know yet how difficult it
> is to take a sharp picture with the Pentax 67.
>
Danny Gonzalez
Mark,
In direct sun, you can get eyeash detail out of a 110 throwaway camera.
"Poor craftsman"? Are you looking for new ways to have fun with tripods?
Don't pull the amateur letter carrier routine; have some respect for
educated viewpoints that differ from your obviously astute observations.
DG
MarBau
<<<In direct sun, you can get eyeash detail out of a 110 throwaway
camera.>>>
Really? How interesting, guess I and most other photogs have blown
thousands of bucks over the years buying all this expensive stuff when a
110 throaway would have done just as well!!!
You lose credibility when you come out with ridiculous ones like the one
at the top of the page.
Re CTEIN, If you have read him for years like I have you must be a little
suspect of some of his findings over the years.
I remember him saying most top enlarging lenses are lemons and you are
very lucky if you get an acceptable one, he also brought up the focus
shift with VC papers thing which I have never seen ANY evidence of, (our
lab has Schneiders/Rodenstocks and Nikkors) Many in the photo press
dispute this too and the chief lens designer for Rodenstock pointed out
the fact that CTEIN was comparing apples to oranges in some of his tests.
CTEIN also stated that XTOL is useless with some type of film, Techpan???
despite some people in the darkroom ng saying they have great succes with
it.
Sure, post CTEINS musings, but they will be subjected to much more
vigorous examination than in the cosy compuserve forum!
Some of us here actually do photography instead of just talking/writing
about it.
r._urban
In article <339F81...@slochamber.org>, David says...
>
>Not to beat a dead horse, but...
>
>Today I was in a used book store and was looking through David Muench's
>beautiful book on Utah. As is typical of his books, all the photos were
>tack sharp, even reproduced full page in this very large format book.
>
>In the back are some photo notes. Some of the photos are shot medium
>format, some tripod mounted, some handheld...all with a Pentax 67!
>
>I guess he hasn't read this thread and doesn't know yet how difficult it
>is to take a sharp picture with the Pentax 67.
>
>If your pictures are not sharp with a Pentax 67, look first at your own
>technique, and stop whining about this camera.
As a Pentax 67 owner, I have taken many 1/30sec shots that all came out sharp. I
too must concur with the previous posting, as I wasn't aware that according to
this rumor-mongering thread (and other similar ones of past), my pictures would
be blurry due to not using a tripod!
Who would start such a rumor? Someone who was trying to justify a more pricy MF
camera? Or, someone who heard the mirror slap and just assumed the camera shook
like a house next to a train track? 8-)
My .02 cents, anyway.
R. Urban
Danny Gonzalez
In article <5npg3c$5d3$1...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, je...@msg.ti.com (Jeff D.
Johnston) wrote:
> Fortunately for me, I ssstarttt to vvvibbbbrattte when my shutter speed is
> between 1/15 and 1/4. This perfectly counteracts the shutter's movement and
> provides adequate dampening, allowing me to take wonderful images for all to
> enjoy!
Jeff/All,
Funny you should mention the 1/15th speed in this thread. What follows is
my query and then Ctien's first reply to the question of whether he thinks
that the Ptx 67 has a vibration problem:
>>Ctien,
My name is Danny Gonzalez and I've been involved in a Usenet debate that
your name
came up in. The thread title is 'Pentax 67 and rumours about vibration'.
The gist of what
has been said is that you don't believe that the Pentax 67 exhibits a
vibration problem and
I was hoping to get your opinion on the subject.
Congrats on the book and thanks for your CIS photoforum protest about 'selective
discrimination' of individuals and their views.
Best
Danny Gonzalez
"Date: 12 Jun 97 13:49:09 EDT
Dear Danny,
I don't know how your folks are defining a problem, but here's
what I know.
The Pentax 6x7 is well-damped down to 1/30th of a second. The
mirror slap
is actually on the low side for a mirror that big. The vibration problem occurs
when you go to 1/15th. At that speed, you practically have to bolt the camera to
a concrete pillar to get it to hold still <g>. It gets *better* again
below 1/15th.
When traveling with a relatively lightweight tripod (not my 20-lb Bogen
monster),
I'll stop down two more stops, if possible, and expose at 1/4 sec rather
than 1/15th
second, if possible. The results are notably sharper.
I do't know why 1/15th is such a big problem. Some of us have
discussed whether there might be a mechanical resonance having to to with
the timing of the release of the two shutter curtains. It seems unlikely
it has anything to do with the mirror, since that wouldn't get better
again at low speeds. Be that as it may, all explanations are hypothetical,
to say the least!
The observations, though, are reliable. I notice that you said the
thread
is titled "Pentax 67 and rumours about vibration". Rumours seem to be
typical Net
fare-- is this a conversation among 6x7 users, or just people who "have
heard that..."? I know a lot of 6x7 users. None of them report that the
camera exhibits an unusually high level of vibration for a medium format
SLR. And most of us have used a lot of different medium format cameras.
Whether it makes the camera suitable for your specific need is another
matter entirely. If you need a really low level of vibration, none of the
6x6 or 6x7 SLR's are going to do the trick. You'd be better off with a
medium-format rangefinder or the Pentax 645, which is extraordinarily
well-damped.
The camera's also *heavy*. Not as bad as the Bronica GS-1, but
worse than
almost anything else in that format range. In terms of design, it's a
great field
camera, and I'm willing to deal with the weight. A lot of folks aren't,
and I don't
blame them.
Is this of any help?
Thanks for those nice compliments!
pax / Ctein"<<<<<<
Something for everyone, eh?
Best,
Danny Gonzalez
Ron Roberts
In <5npg3c$5d3$1...@tilde.csc.ti.com> je...@msg.ti.com (Jeff D. Johnston)
writes:
>In article <jtsatsk-1206...@ip021.phx.primenet.com>,
>jts...@primenet.com says...
>>
>OTOH, his son Marc Muench works primarily with P67.
>
>
>Well, its NO WONDER that Marc isn't nearly as famous as his dad.:-)
>
speed is
>between 1/15 and 1/4. This perfectly counteracts the shutter's
movement and
>provides adequate dampening, allowing me to take wonderful images for
all to
>enjoy!
>
>
>
Yes PLEASE!!!!!!
Michael Gudzinowicz
Danny Gonzalez <dan...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Mark,
>
>In direct sun, you can get eyeash detail out of a 110 throwaway camera.
>"Poor craftsman"? Are you looking for new ways to have fun with tripods?
>Don't pull the amateur letter carrier routine; have some respect for
>educated viewpoints that differ from your obviously astute observations.
So Danny, if your P67 isn't sharp below the synch speed, why haven't you
sent it to Pentax to have them check and replace the first curtain
shutter brake?
There are a lot of "asute" photographers using the system who have looked
for the "vibration problem" comparing strobe and modeling light exposures
of test targets, and found it to be non-existent or trivial with their
equipment.
In a prior post, Danny Gonzalez <dan...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>If these failures were my fault, why is it that I can get routinely
>phenomenal results with a H'blad, Rollei, Pentax 645, Mamiya 645 or even
>the Exacta 66, in the same situations? It's a given that I shouldn't have
>been using a tripod mounted( Bogen 3035/3047, which supports my 4x5 SLR
>quite nicely), vertically oriented Ptx 67 w/165 @2.8 and a 30th for
>daylight studio work (w/ MLU employed) , but it was experience that taught
>me I couldn't get a quality result. As a matter of fact, if I hadn't been
>listening to the Ptx 67/165mm optimists, I would've been using my RZ. I
What a line of BS... other than a few rare examples of 6x6 SLR lenses,
_none_ are nearly as sharp at f/2.8 on axis as they are stopped down to
f/5.6-f/8, or in the corners at f/8 to f/11, and that includes CZ,
Schneider, Mamiya, Pentax... They weren't designed to be used wide open,
and if you can't see the difference in sharpness, you need a new 20X loupe.
DOF for a 16x20 print from 6x7 @f/2.8 is equivalent to f/0.7 with an
85mm lens using the 35 mm format for an 8x10 print, which raises another
issue apart from shutter speeds. At 5', acceptable DOF is less than
1.5", so unless the subject is rather flat and the camera perfectly
aligned, the "test" is suspect even with a "perfect" lens. The latter
should be obvious to anyone with even a moderate amount of MF experience.
Perhaps the poor performance was due to a sticky cable release? Soft
rubber on the vertical tripod head? There's a host of non-user
"technical' factors which can be blamed...
Jack
Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure, post CTEINS musings, but they will be subjected to much more
vigorous examination than in the cosy compuserve forum!
Some of us here actually do photography instead of just
talking/writing
about it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark
Are you trying to be funny? You sure are funny, do you realize how
silly you sound.
I checked DejaNews Author profile and it shows you posted 1,324
unique postings. Yes 1,324, with that much activity I don't see
how you have time to "do photography". It seems your post was
really about yourself, keep the laughs comming!
MarBau
No, we can't just "get along" there are those that have to justify their
outrageosly expensive camera purchases by demeaning a system that has been
around for eons and has been used by MANY very famous photogs, they feel
better if they berate a "lesser" system, that way it makes them feel so
good that they spent so much on a overpriced Hassy or other system!
MF is always a compromise anyway, if these P67 haters were so concerned
with "ultimate image quality" they would already own a LF camera.
Danny Gonzalez
In article <5nrjfe$k...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
shoo...@ix.netcom.com(Ron Roberts) wrote:
> >Fortunately for me, I ssstarttt to vvvibbbbrattte when my shutter
> speed is
> >between 1/15 and 1/4. This perfectly counteracts the shutter's
> movement and
> >provides adequate dampening, allowing me to take wonderful images for
> all to
> >enjoy!
> >
> >Can't we all just get along? (and move along?)
> >
> >
>
> Yes PLEASE!!!!!!
Hello all.
Not before I have my fun.... Dug this out of the humor archive:
>>>>>>>>>
From: J...@delphi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Kachunky cameras
Date: 5 Sep 1996 04:01:56 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <50ljbk$8...@news2.delphi.com>
References: <50h9af$i...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com
> Let's hear it from readers: which is the
> least kachunky med format SLR?
I feel this thread may be a thinly-disguised party for bashing
the Pentax 67.
If so, some basic truths must be revealed.
First of all, you should know that the Pentax 67 was never
designed as an actual camera for shooting: it was a display
device to be hung out in front of camera stores, over the
sidewalk. The first photographer to actually cock and fire one
noticed that, though his hair had turned white from the
shockwave, his sinuses had instantly cleared. After the hernia
operation, he used his Pentax 67 constantly, especially at the
onset of a cold or flu.
Body-builders were also attracted to the Pentax 67. They didn't
care that portraits from these cameras always showed people who
looked wide-eyed and startled, as if they had been recently
frightened by a loud noise. These cameras were great for pumped
and ripped upper-bodies.
Press photogs cherished their P67's when covering hurricanes and
tidal waves: they'd shoot with their Nikons and lash themselves
to their Pentaxes! But I digress.
You asked about the kerplunk, er kachunk, eh? Well, long, long
ago, before "red eye" was a problem for flash photographers,
Pentax 67 shooters were coping with the problem of "red EAR":
Color portraits and candids shot with Pentax 67's showed subjects
with crimson ears from the repeated auditory abuse they suffered
each time the camera was fired.
By the way, rumor has it that Pentax is currently
researching a solution based on existing red-eye reduction
technology (a series of quick pre-flashes before the real
flash fires).
The new Pentax 67 may include new red-EAR reduction
technology, which slams a heavy screen door a few times
before the actual exposure, to numb the subjects' ears
immediately before the shutter actually trips.
The other problem directly attributable to the impact of the
Pentax 67 mirror-return, is a type of focus blur. After the
shutter-release is tripped, the sonic boom begins advancing from
the camera toward the subject at mach 1. The wave-front reaches
the subjects just as the shutter opens, and the subjects are
knocked backwards, sometimes by mere millimeters, sometimes by a
zipcode or two.
Consequently, Pentax 67 lenses have an extra focusing mark
on their focusing-rings, similar to the "infra-red focus"
mark on other lenses.
This SSR pre-focus mark ("Sonic Subject Relocation")
predicts the focus for the spot where the subjects will
come to rest after the blast. It is to be used only when
shooting the P67 in small unmuffled rooms.<<<<
Danny Gonzalez
Michael,
I have three Ptx 67's and two of them were bought new and were very close
to new when I did the test. They work fine. They are fine. Please, spend
your own money; not mine.
> There are a lot of "asute" photographers using the system who have looked
> for the "vibration problem" comparing strobe and modeling light exposures
> of test targets, and found it to be non-existent or trivial with their
> equipment.
Not one of them has chimed in here. I asked for one test. Just _one test
that refutes the _numerous tests I've posted. "A lot"? So, Post 'em!!
You know, this is getting to be idiotic. Why don't we start talking about
test parameters for doing something that would satisfy most as being
valid.
You first Michael.......
Danny Gonzalez
In article <5nr780$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
MarBau
Danny, now you have totally confused me! You say you have 3 P67's that are
fine but that you have posted many tests that show they are junk??
What am I missing here?
Danny Gonzalez
Well,
Obviously there are some people who get it and some who don't. Why don't
you post what you consider as valid test parameters and then we'll argue
about whom gets to actually _do (something? Mark?) the test.
Danny Gonzalez
In article <19970614071...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
(MarBau) wrote:
> No, we can't just "get along" there are those that have to justify their
> outrageosly expensive camera purchases by demeaning a system that has been
> around for eons and has been used by MANY very famous photogs, they feel
> better if they berate a "lesser" system, that way it makes them feel so
> good that they spent so much on a overpriced Hassy or other system!
>
> MF is always a compromise anyway, if these P67 haters were so concerned
> with "ultimate image quality" they would already own a LF camera.
>
Ron Roberts
In <dannyg1-1406...@ppp-34.ts-10.nyc.idt.net>
dan...@mail.idt.net (Danny Gonzalez) writes:
>
>In article <5nrjfe$k...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>shoo...@ix.netcom.com(Ron Roberts) wrote:
>
>> >Fortunately for me, I ssstarttt to vvvibbbbrattte when my shutter
>> speed is
>> >between 1/15 and 1/4. This perfectly counteracts the shutter's
>> movement and
>> >provides adequate dampening, allowing me to take wonderful images
for
>> all to
>> >enjoy!
>> >
>> >Can't we all just get along? (and move along?)
>> >
>> >
>>
Actually I didn't write the above...
Ron Roberts
Michael Gudzinowicz
Danny Gonzalez <dan...@idt.net> writes:
>Michael,
>
>I have three Ptx 67's and two of them were bought new and were very close
>to new when I did the test. They work fine. They are fine. Please, spend
>your own money; not mine.
If they work "fine", why are you blaming the camera's design for
unaccepatble results with the 165 mm used @ f/2.8 and 1/30th of a second?
Your post of Ctein's comments refutes your conclusion regarding
vibration, since he indicates that the "problem" doesn't exist at the
shutter speed (1/30) you cited, but at 1/15. I don't see how your
Ctein's citation is relevant to the example you chose (f/2.8 and 1/30th).
The 1/15th "problem" seems to be a "problem" for only a handful of
photographers out of the thousands who use or have used the system, but
every year or two, it gets recycled on the sigs.
MF and LF lenses aren't designed to be used wide open in most cases,
where depth of field is nil... 1.5" at 5 feet in the example you gave.
(part of the my post you choose not to quote.) Using the 165 at f/2.8 in
a "studio" situation is a _rank beginner's error_, and to draw
conclusions from it is ridiculous.
Also, Zeiss and Schnieder MF lenses don't perform well at all @ f/2.8
compared to f/8 - some design parameters are compromised for coverage and
cost. If one doesn't have a clue as to which apertures provide
aberration correction, it is an operator problem - not one with lens
design.
Also, Ctein indicated that the "problem" didn't occur with a stable
tripod, and again, you've seemed to choose conditions (vertical) which
maximize any "problems" assuming depth of field was adequate.
If you choose to draw any conclusion from a "test" conditions which
aren't suited for medium format photography, as Mark suggested, it is a
"craft" or operator problem. The conditions which you cited wouldn't
hold up to scrutinty as a test for a 110 or 35 mm camera, much less
medium format.
>> There are a lot of "asute" photographers using the system who have looked
>> for the "vibration problem" comparing strobe and modeling light exposures
>> of test targets, and found it to be non-existent or trivial with their
>> equipment.
>
>Not one of them has chimed in here. I asked for one test. Just _one test
>that refutes the _numerous tests I've posted. "A lot"? So, Post 'em!!
I think you might re-read the posts, since two individuals other than
myself have posted that they don't have the "problem" with vibration.
Of course, you dismissed the comments from a professional photographer /
custom printer, who makes large sharp prints for a living, and appeared
to ignore the other.
Your use of the term "not one has chimed in here", again lacks
credibility, since I certainly "chimed in" or you wouldn't have replied,
and likewise others have "chimed in". Or did you conveniently forget
that?
Deliberately misrepresenting facts really isn't appreciated by most
readers, especially when contradicted by your own posts.
>You know, this is getting to be idiotic. Why don't we start talking about
>test parameters for doing something that would satisfy most as being
>valid.
>
>You first Michael.......
Oh, please... learn how to do depth of field calculations on your own
from David Jacobson's faq or other sources. Anyone who who uses a long
MF lens at f/2.8 has real "problems" with understanding the format.
A number of people have discussed lens testing in depth over the last few
years (David Jacobson, Bob Atkins, etc.), and the comments need not be
reiterated. For targets I use back-lit USAF test patterns at 1:1000
contrast made on 4x5 lith film, and low contast prints of the same (the
pattern is made using the 1/12th powers, not 1/6th). If you want to
duplicate the old Modern or Pop "pseudo-MTF" tests, I posted the simple
methodology to LF a couple of months ago, and I acquired the equipment to
do it.
For a testing clue, one doesn't stop the lens down to achieve lower
speeds but adjusts lighting at the optimum f/stop (f/8 or f/11) or uses
ND gels to vary speeds. In past P67 threads, some people have stopped
down the lens to get slow speeds, and were looking at diffraction
effects. Comparison to a strobe gives a point of reference, however,
unless a rigid support system is used, most cameras won't show optimum
resolution or in other words, the 3047 set-screws should be "set" into
the camera base.
Rather than whining, learn how to use a camera as others have suggested.
Posting "results" with a 165mm lens used at f/2.8 and 1/30 certainly
undermines your credibility.
Or better yet, get rid of the P67s and use your Rollei, Hassy, and Mamiya.
I've run tests (sketched above) on those systems which I've all owned,
and well as the P67, and vibration is trivial when the camera is used
properly. And likewise, MF lenses work best when stopped down to give
adequate DOF, corner sharpness and aberration corrections, as design
compromises have always dicated.
Danny Gonzalez
Mark,
You're missing my point. If you read my Overview:67, you'll find that (as
I've repeatedly said here) I _like the Pentax 67; almost love it. My point
in joining this thread was that there was about a months worth of pure
denial about, what I consider to be, the fact that this camera has a
vibration problem.
I have, for the last few years, been collecting tests that people have
done that either prove, or disprove the problem and the preponderance of
evidence, from users other than me, supports my findings.
My interest in the subject is magnified by the position I'm put in being
the writer of the Overview series, here I make honest
comparisons/criticisms of system choices. I think it irresponsible to
ignore/denigrate people who experience the problem and recommend the Ptx
67 as 'problem free'.
The only sticking point (that I can see) is that there isn''t a test
methodology that is convincing to enough people, to finally prove, one
way or the other, whether the problem is larger than with other systems.
Which brings us to where we are.
I'll write a test proposal later tonight and we'll have some debate about
whether the methodology is correct.
Some of the things I want to see clarified are:
Whether the camera gives very different H'held results from people of
different upper body strength.
Whether larger hands make a difference H'held.
What exactly the is causing the most image quality loss; mirror, first or
second curtain.
Why some longer lenses seem to work better than some specific shorter FL
versions. Is it balance?
I have other systems I can test, for valid comparison.
Danny Gonzalez
In article <19970615071...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
(MarBau) wrote:
> Danny, now you have totally confused me! You say you have 3 P67's that are
> fine but that you have posted many tests that show they are junk??
>
> What am I missing here?
>
Isaac Crawford
Another potential problem for this thread is the aspect of manufacturing
tolerances. It is quite possible for something that is built within
spec and still not perform properly. In other words, the "brake" for
the shutter may be off by 1/16 (which is within spec), and the shutter
itself may be off by 1/16 (also in spec), but together, they're 1/8 off
(which becomes noticeable in finial prints). BTW all of the above
numbers are purely imaginary (duh!) and are used for the sake of
argument... This effect might help explain why some people see this
"problem" and others don't.
I know that Pentax makes fine cameras, but is their quality control the
same as a Hassey or Rollie? I don't know, but I assume that some
compromises had to be made to get the price down to where it is.
eyes
MarBau
<<<I know that Pentax makes fine cameras, but is their quality control the
same as a Hassey or Rollie? I don't know, but I assume that some
compromises had to be made to get the price down to where it is.>>>
Don't know about cameras but their quality control for lenses is legenday
in fields like bino's, microscopes,theodolites etc. Admitedly, PENTAX
started life as an optical coy, and later made cameras.
Re; compromises, I know 2 camera repairmen well and both say that as far
as ruggedness, big metal parts etc, no camera comes close to the P67.
Perhaps it is a bit cheaper because there is no computer/complicated
electrical circuitry involved. The P67 with a non TTL prism is, after all,
about as basic as a camera gets, (apart from the elec shutter)
Jay Schlegel x6878
In article <33a44406...@news.scruz.net>,
Heh Heh,
I too had previously thought this to be the case. I just took some scenics
from a boat handheld at 1/125th with the 165mm f/2.8 (Pentax67) and concluded
that while 1/250 (my usual minimum speed for this situation) is OK, 1/125 is
not adequate without using MLU. The only frames that didn't suffer obvious
vibration blur (which is distinctly different in appearance from simple camera
movement) were those in which I locked the mirror up and did my best
to maintain the composition for 2 seconds prior to releasing the shutter.
--
Note: remove the "xspam." from the email address
-jay Jay Schlegel, Unix Systems Administrator, Intermec Corp, Everett WA
j...@xspam.intermec.com OR --> jsch...@xspam.eskimo.com
Isaac Crawford
I've always heard good things about Pentax lenses (QC wise), and I know
that the parts in Pentax cameras are decent. I guess I was more
concerned with the tolerances, not so much the build quality of the
parts. Or to put it another way, how critical are they about how well
they go together?
eyes
CorrPro96
I just want to add to this very recondite discussion, that there are many
variables and peculiarities, if not idiosyncracies that bewitch and
be-fall those of us who have tried to produce quality photographs,
sometimes under the pressures that others, or we ourselves create.
I am a long time user of this machine, and many others.
I apprenticed under a photographer who was a WW2 combat photog, and before
that, a printer for Underwood and Underwood.
We're both on the scrap heap at this writing, but I recall his teaching me
on a location shoot, that you never go with any one camera; you always use
a back-up. The camera we both used for back-ups was the Graflex XL. It's
Rodenstock and Zeiss lenses, plus the interchangeable backs, covered all
our assignments.
My standard practice with the Pentax-on-tripod, was to place my hand on
top of the prism, with a bit of hand pressure, straight down.
I never was able to find fault with vibration, sharpness, etc.
Negatives and transparencies from the Pentax and the Graflex were
comparable, with the Pentax usually winning on composition, due to the SLR
advantage.
The posting that referred to an increase in vibration at 1/15th second was
interesting to me. Whenever possible, we always bracketed shutter speeds
and apertures. I would recommend that practice to all of you in your
technique.
My lenses are the old ones.... 90 LS...55 the big filter job...150f4, and
the wonderful 35 fisheye.
That old 150 is a great portrait lense BTW.
Lively discussion.... enjoy.
Hi Danny... great little piece...
MarBau
Well, considering I've been online for about 5 years I'm not suprised at
the number of posts.
I spend less than 15 minutes a day online, whats your point???
Mark Bergman
This has been going on way too long. Other people have asked you to
quit, please take it to email.