Pentax 67II vs. 645
Charles McDowell
application is handheld aerial photography, where I am also the pilot,
so ease of use is very important. I was hoping someone could comment on
the pros and cons of these two systems. I've read many positive (and no
negative) reviews of the 645. My only concern is the fact that the
negative is substantially smaller than the 6x7. Any thoughts on how
much difference there really is in sharpness (say in a 16x20 print) and
whether it is worth the extra hassle? With the 6x7, I've got two
concerns: how hard is the thing to load really? Numerous people have
had negative things to say about this aspect. Changing film in the air
would be roughly similar to changing film while driving a car down the
interstate, is this feasible? Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to
mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
it matter at that speed?
Thanks for any input.
Charles McDowell
cmcdo...@home.com
n...@spam.com
> I've read many positive (and no negative) reviews of the 645.
One thing no review can tell you is how the camera will fit you in terms of
ergonomics. I owned the 645 and *hated* the tiny control buttons so before
you make your final call - try to locate a sample of each and play around with
the controls (shutter, aperture, meter etc.) to make sure they make sense
to you.
> My only concern is the fact that the negative is substantially smaller than
> the 6x7. Any thoughts on how much difference there really is in sharpness
> (say in a 16x20 print) and whether it is worth the extra hassle?
Sharpness is determined by the lenses and film, not the camera. Both cameras
use Pentax SMC lenses and are capable of producing very sharp results. The
645 may be a bit sharper at slow speeds due to the dampened mirror, but I
encountered no problem with my 67 and I assume the 67II is even better in that
respect.
I suspect what you're really asking is the amount of detail in the enlarged
image - this is where the frame size comes into play. From my experience you
will be hard pressed to tell them apart at 11x14 given a good print (I
produced Lightjet prints from both). But if you want to go larger than that -
the 6x7 will have the upper hand.
> With the 6x7, I've got two concerns: how hard is the thing to load really?
> Numerous people have had negative things to say about this aspect.
> Changing film in the air would be roughly similar to changing film while
> driving a car down the interstate, is this feasible?
Both cameras are a hassle as neither has interchangeable backs. The procedure
is pretty much similar with both. The 67 may have the advantage as it
stays in one piece (with the 645 you need to take out the insert and put
the camera aside for the process). Same drill - move spool to takeup position,
insert roll, insert tip into takeup spool etc. There is no way to do this
one-handed or without looking. I could not do it while driving. Maybe
pilots are more gifted in that sense :)
> Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to mirror lockup?
The shake is due to mirror slap, not lockup. If you plan to use the thing
handheld in a moving plane, I doubt that will even be a concern as you will
probably be shooting at speeds greater than 1/60.
For slower exposures, I always use a sturdy tripod and lock the mirror up on
the 67. The 645 has a dampened mirror that does a pretty good job.
> For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
> it matter at that speed?
Not from my experience.
Hope this helps,
-G
http://spyra.com
BHilton665
>I'm considering the purchase of either a 645 (not n) or a 67II.
I use the Pentax 645 with 7 lenses and a Mamiya 6x7 with 4 lenses. Have played
with the Pentax 67 but haven't owned one. I like both formats.
>I've read many positive (and no
>negative) reviews of the 645. My only concern is the fact that the
>negative is substantially smaller than the 6x7.
It's not substantially smaller, it's one print size smaller. The 6 cm side is
common to both so the long side of a 645 print will blow up to the same size as
the short side of a 6x7 print at comparable magnification. That is, a 16x20"
print from the 645 has the 6 cm side blown up to 20" while a 20x24" print from
6x7 also has the 6 cm side blown up to 20".
>Any thoughts on how
>much difference there really is in sharpness (say in a 16x20 print) and
>whether it is worth the extra hassle?
I get excellent 16x20" prints on Ilfochromes with the 645 and by going to Tango
drum scans and printing on a Lightjet or Chromira printer get excellent 20x24"
digital prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The 6x7 offers similar quality
prints one size larger, ie, 20x24" analog and 24x30" digital. These are to my
tastes and tastes vary but I exhibit in museums and sell large prints so the
buyers seem to agree. These are all shot from a tripod, not hand-held from an
airplane though.
>With the 6x7, I've got two concerns: how hard is the thing to load really?
WIth the 645 I have four inserts which are pre-loaded and I and can easily
exchange them once a roll of film is complete. The Pentax 67 is much slower to
load.
>Changing film in the air would be roughly similar to changing film while
driving a
>car down the interstate, is this feasible?
Probably not for the 67, easier for the 645 if you have more than one insert.
You might want to rent the 67 for a day and see what's involved in changing
film. You'll likely not find it easy.
>Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to
>mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
>it matter at that speed?
I think mirror slap wouldn't be a problem at 1/250th but haven't really seen
any studies on it. The landscape guys I know who use the Pentax 67 always lock
up the mirror but you can't do this in the plane, of course. The 645 has no
mirror lock up but the mirror is well-dampened.
The biggest question I'd have is how large do you want to make your prints. If
16x20" or less I'd say get the 645; if larger prints are needed get the 67.
Also note your film cost is 33% less since you get 30 frames on 220 film with
645 and 20 frames with 6x7.
Bill
BHilton665
>Both cameras are a hassle as neither has interchangeable backs. The procedure
>is pretty much similar with both. The 67 may have the advantage as it
>stays in one piece (with the 645 you need to take out the insert and put
>the camera aside for the process). Same drill - move spool to takeup
>position, insert roll, insert tip into takeup spool etc.
This is true if you have only one 645 insert but if you have more than one it's
easy to switch a new pre-loaded one in, I've found. If you have to re-load the
inserts in mid-air then it's a problem (similar to the 67) but so long as you
have pre-loaded extra inserts it's easy to pop them in.
Agree with the other points you make in your post.
Phil Stripling
>SNIP<
> whether it is worth the extra hassle? With the 6x7, I've got two
> concerns: how hard is the thing to load really? Numerous people have
> had negative things to say about this aspect. Changing film in the air
> would be roughly similar to changing film while driving a car down the
> interstate, is this feasible?
I'd say loading is more difficult that a 35mm camera. I have the original
67, and for me it's a two-handed, all my attention job. The camera has
spools. After you've finished a roll, you open the back, unlock the spool
with the little knob at the bottom, take the roll out being careful not to
let it unroll, lick the sticker, and glue it onto the roll. Then you unlock
to other spool, put it in the take up side, make the slots in the spool
match the tabs in the camera, then lock the spool in. Then you unseal the
fresh roll, take off the cover, remove the sticker that keeps the roll from
unrolling, put the roll in the camera, make sure the slots line up with the
tabs, lock the spool in. Then you pull the paper out over the shutter
without touching the shutter, and put it in the little slot on the take up
spool, and wind till the arrow on the paper matches the arrow on the
camera. Then you make sure the back is set to 120 or 220 as the roll, make
sure the film advance is set to 120 or 220, close the back, and wind till
lock. Not only would I not do this while driving, I _could_ not do this
while driving. Your mileage, of course, will vary. I have no clue on the
645, which has inserts you can pre-load.
> Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to
> mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
> it matter at that speed?
I normally handhold my 67, and vibration from mirror slap has not been an
issue.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
Mike
a Cessna 170 solo while taking his photographs. He normally had 3 or 4 35mm
Pentax cameras in a case by his feet and a Pentax 6x7 with him on the seat
of the plane. One of the things that he most like about the Pentax 6x7 was
the flatness of the film plane. This was important to him because he
normally worked early or late in the day when there was not much light, and
he often shot wide open (aperture) with minimal depth of field. He shot
both B&W and color, although he is most famous for his B&W shots. He used
the 35mm cameras for color, but I am not sure if he used it for B&W also.
Don't know if he changed film in flight. I obtained the above information
from Aperture Number Eight-Five published in 1981. In addition to comments
from the photographer, there are 8 images by Garnett in this issue of
Aperture. Garnett has also published several books of his photographs.
Here is an interesting web link:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/green.htm
You can probably find out more info about William Garnett by doing a search
on the web.
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
Geoff Bryant
F5 to Mamiya 645 Pro TL and then changing again to Pentax 67 II. Expensive?
Yes, but also an education.
I really enjoy medium format compared to 35mm. Sure, 35 is easier but MF
just offers so much more picture quality. I was happy with the change to the
Mamiya until 645 stated to seem a little too much like 35mm. I could have
lived with it, but then, right there in the window at my local camera shop,
was a new Pentax 67 II. What's more a whole raft of secondhand 67 lens had
been traded that day.
I picked up the 67 and for a 35mm shooter it felt absolutely right. After a
few checks to see that it matched my preferences I bought it.
I shoot mainly horticultural subjects with the camera almost always on a
tripod. I use mirror lock-up 99% of the time, so I really appreciate the
smooth shutter of the 67 II. (Don't confuse the whisper of the shutter
opening and closing with the bang of the mirror returning after exposure.)
Yes, the mirror goes up with a thump, but at 1/125 or over it shouldn't be
an issue. The few handheld shots that I've taken look fine. However, the
shallow depth of field of MF means that you may not always be happy with the
results form the apertures you'll have to use in order to get speeds
suitable for handholding.
I agree with the comments about 67 not being a huge step up in image quality
over 645, certainly far less than 645 is over 35mm, but the effects of the
lesser enlargement required for any given print size and the smoother
tonality of 67 are noticeable.
Film loading is undoubtedly the most awkward part of the 67. I despaired
over it to begin with. Just getting the spools out of the camera was
difficult, let alone loading a new roll. Now, about 20 rolls later, it's not
too tough. Sometimes I even get it right first time, but I couldn't drive
and do it. Hell, I really need a drink just to steady my nerves before
reloading, and you shouldn't drink and drive.
Over the last 5 years I've moved from Minolta to Leica to Canon to Nikon in
35mm and then from Mamiya to Pentax in MF. It's cost me but I'm really
starting to feel at home with the Pentax 67 II, which, if you want to know,
is a great advancement over the original 67.
Geoff Bryant
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
gordito
BHilton665 wrote:
> [....]
> It's not substantially smaller, it's one print size smaller. The 6 cm side is
> common to both so the long side of a 645 print will blow up to the same size as
> the short side of a 6x7 print at comparable magnification. That is, a 16x20"
> print from the 645 has the 6 cm side blown up to 20" while a 20x24" print from
> 6x7 also has the 6 cm side blown up to 20".
There's an absolutism about this that bothers me, as though there were
no perceptable differences between different negative sizes until you
get to a print size large enough to push the limits of the number of silver
bits in the piece of film that you're printing from.
Should I not be able to see the difference between a 4x6 snapshot-sized
print from 6x7 and the same size print from 35mm? I can, even when
they're on Fuji Reala and well-exposed. I can tell the difference between
8x10s printed from 6x4.5 negs and those printed from 6x7. There's a
depth, a smoothness, that's visible in the larger negs at print sizes far
smaller than the max sizes that you mention. These qualities are more
important to me than then largest size I could print to without getting
totally disagreeable grain.
Sanjay
645. However, if you have multiple inserts on the 654 it will be easer;
however, the 6x7 will give you more to work with. A suggestion would be not
to take the photos handheld. I use my 67II with the Bogen Suction Cup
W/camera Support on the glass in my car while driving and to take long night
exposures with it (stop and engine off) for lightning shots while staying
safe in the car. It will also help changing the film by freeing a hand. I
found the 6x7 loading difficult at first but it is really not all that
difficult but more time consuming. Mirror shake would not be a problem at
that speed with a lens 165mm or lower.
Bogen Suction Cup W/camera Support Bogen BG 3289
http://www.adorama.com/details.tpl?cart=99373454142503&sku=BG3289&disp_main-category=Tripod&disp_category=Misc.Camera%20Supports&disp_Sub-Category=
Eric Stral
I have owned both cameras and here is my opinion FWIW.
The 67II will have larger negs yielding beter enlargements. The meter prism
on the 67II is far better than the meter on the non-af 645. Its a breeze to
focus and handle. But I must admit handling is a function of the
individual, I have pretty big hands. Loading film is a problem for me.
With big hands I never got the hang of getting the spools in the camera
easily.
To be honest, I no longer own the camera for the following, very personal
reasons.
1. I really had trouble with the spools. You should try this out by
renting or visiting a camera shop
2. I do mostly macro work and the 200mm lens and the extentions I needed
made the camera very off balance and difficult to use, even with a tripod.
Now I own the 645n. It has better controls than the 645 and the great
metering system used in the 67II. I find the backs easy to load, even with
tight gloves. I will load up several backs when I need them and changeing
them is very easy. For macro work the package is just easier to handle.
I can attest that Pentax optics are great, whether you use the 67 or the
645. However, if you go the 645 route I recomment the 645n with the better
controls and better metering system than the old 645.
On the meter, the 67II and the 645n over spot, average and a 10 segment
overlaping matrix meter. The old 645 is not that sophisticated. My
experience with the meters has been very positive.
Please feel free to contact me via e-mail if you want to speak over the
phone.
Hope this helps,
Eric
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
Tony Clark
the film. At $150. to $175. for the day, it sure beats the possible
downside of taking your eyes off what is really important.
I went from shooting 35 mm to the Mamiya 645 Pro and was very
happy with the results. Besides, a Polaroid was seconds away and
you can get away with one back and multiple inserts. When possible
I would shoot 220. After four years, I moved up to the Pentax 67 II
and have been quite intent since then. The only downside is the need
for a dedicated body for the Polaroid back and a slow 1/30th flash
sync. But, I have the 90LS and 165LS lenses for when I need to
sync up to 1/500th.
The loading process is no longer than any other medium format
camera. I have worked with Hasselblad, Mamiya 645, RZ's and
Fuji 68's and the process takes about the same amount of time.
Do you need multiple film backs or a couple of bodies?
Every system has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages.
The object is to find the one that fits your hand and requirements.
Good luck,
TC
Ladagency
for aerial (big accounts like big blow-ups) I don't see the need for such a
massive camera.
If you could find a mini-field camera that takes Linhof type 6x9 backs and use
220 film, you can pre-load a few backs (yes expensive unless you can find them
used) and why an SLR for aerial shots? You want a flat film plane and you will
be shooting at infinity, . . . so why the SLR?
As a field camera, your choice of lenses is greater in design and price and
limited only by the lens board. Again, cam driven focus is not relevant since
you can just pre-focus and lock it down and forget about it.
There are some special UV filters for Aerial photography. They are tinged
yellow to really cut out the blue.
Happy flying and be safe. Go for the largest piece of film because that is the
Achilles heel of sharpness in blow-ups.
John Halliwell
<mfel...@qwest.net> writes
>William Garnett, probably the most famous aerial fine art photographer, flew
>a Cessna 170 solo while taking his photographs.
There was a mid-air collision in the UK a year or so ago between two
light aircraft. The investigators found one solo pilot had been trying
to do just that, definitely not recommended.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Hamish Reid
Well, I'm a (VFR) Cessna pilot and a P67 user, and my main
concern with the P67 (I or II) is the difficulty of doing in-flight
film loading. In my opinion, it's likely to be almost impossible to
do this and retain situational awareness, keep the plane steady,
etc.
Yes, the results of using a 67 from the air are beautiful (I've done
it from the right seat), but I'd be more likely to try to use a
camera with a decent changeable back or inserts. I'm not really
familiar with the 645, but if that has a decent back, go with it. Or
get a Hasselblad :-).
And, from my experience, at 1/250, shutter shake, mirror shake,
etc., are not a problem with the 67.
YMMV, etc.
Hamish
BHilton665
>A suggestion would be not
>to take the photos handheld. I use my 67II with the Bogen Suction Cup
>W/camera Support on the glass in my car while driving and to take long night
>exposures with it (stop and engine off)
I'd think this won't work on a small airplane due to vibrations, right?
Mike
"Ladagency" <lada...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010628134326...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
You want a flat film plane and you will
> be shooting at infinity, . . . so why the SLR?
William Garnett, who has taking aerial photos for over 50 years, says the
Pentax 6x7 has the flattest film plane of any camera (120 or above) he knows
of. That's why he uses a Pentax 6x7. Most 120 cameras with removable backs
are notorious for not having absolutely flat film planes because they wind
the film backwards from the natural curl of the film. Remember that he
often shoots at wide open apertures with minimal depth of field.
Another interesting point that I have heard some people make is that a
Pentax 6x7 body costs about the same (or less) than a Hassy film back. I
don't know if he looks though the viewfinder or just aims the camera, but I
don't think the "SLR" part is the issue.
George Stewart
autopilot, so I wouldn't recommend the 67. My recommendation would be
the non-AF 645 with a 70mm back. This should give you all the
shooting you could do without having to reload and divert your
attention form flying the aircraft. The 67 is a great camera, but
loading is a hassle and it requires two hands to wind the film, which
wouldn't leave any available for the yolk/stick.
George
Robert Monaghan
infinity, wire aiming sportfinder, flat film plane design, some models
take interchangeable magazines, and at $200 per camera/body/leaf shutter
lens on the used market, it's cheap enough to buy more cameras rather than
mess with film loading, yet fine optics second only to Mamiya 7/7II; the
controls are oversize to make them easier to use, esp. with gloves on etc.
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/aerial.html for more details
===============
probably better to ask the aerial photo pros at:
From http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photolists.html:
To subscribe to AERIALPRO list for professional aerial photographers send
e-mail to:
and in the body of the message write only this:
SUBSCRIBE AERIALPRO
- for those interested in the fine points of professional/commercial
aerial photography.
=======
hope this helps bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmon...@mail.smu.edu *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*
Charles McDowell
Thanks for the reply (and everyone else). Can you explain the whole
70mm deal to me? I'm not very familiar. I did noticed the 645 had an
option for a big 70mm magazine. What are the actual dimensions of 70mm
film (7x?)? Can you get popular film types in 70mm?
I owned a Hasselblad camera for about 5 years, and I never really found
the film loading to be a big deal. Is the 67 really that much worse?
By the way, I'd be lying if I said I never flew no-handed. I currently
use a Nikon with 80-200mm zoom, which is too heavy for one hand. I'd
fully expect to do the same thing with whichever camera I get.
Thanks,
Charles
C.L.Zeni
>
> personally, I'd recommend something more like a rapid omega 6x7, taped to
> infinity, wire aiming sportfinder, flat film plane design, some models
> take interchangeable magazines, and at $200 per camera/body/leaf shutter
> lens on the used market, it's cheap enough to buy more cameras rather than
> mess with film loading, yet fine optics second only to Mamiya 7/7II; the
> controls are oversize to make them easier to use, esp. with gloves on etc.
>
> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/aerial.html for more details
Ditto...A Koni with its focus nice and tight doesn't creep...all have
quickly interchangeable backs but only some (Rapid M and 200) can do
mid-roll. Backs can be had for under $100 pretty easily. Only real
caveat is to find one that's not thrashed - wedding photographers loved
them.
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
379 pounds of Samoan dynamite.
Roy L. Jacobs
easy to load if you have a bunch a inserts. I prefer the 220 inserts for 30
frames. The P67 is hard to load and cannot be done quickly. Thus have an
assistant or at least 2 bodies and shoot 220 film. Shake for lenses up to
200mm should not be a problem at 1/250 of a second but airplane bounce may
be a problem. I suggest 2 or 3 P67 bodies bought used, 220 film and a 105 mm
lens and the 200mm (n) lens. You will want to tape the lenses at infinity.
I use the 645 as a street camera, and for portraits with flash. II use the
67 as an outdoor scenic camera usually on a tripod. Image quality from
both camera is excellent.
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
Brian Ellis
ended up analyzing it like this: why does medium format exist? One reason
and one reason only - to get a larger negative. Why am I interested in
moving from 35 mm to medium format? One reason and one reason only - to get
a larger negative. So if the only reason the format exists, and the only
reason I'm interested in it, is to get a larger negative, doesn't it make
sense to get the largest negative possible? For me, the answer was yes and I
opted for 6x7. I've seen all sorts of numbers used to show that a 645
negative isn't really that much smaller than a 6x7 but look at them
together. There's a big difference.. With small prints (like 8x10) it
doesn't show up as better "sharpness," it shows up as improved tonal range.
As you get into larger prints (11x14 and up) it shows up as both improved
"sharpness" and improved tonal range.
"BHilton665" <bhilt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010628002333...@ng-mp1.aol.com...
John Halliwell
Brian Ellis <bell...@earthlink.net> writes
>Many of us went through similar dilemmas when entering medium format. I
>ended up analyzing it like this: why does medium format exist? One reason
>and one reason only - to get a larger negative. Why am I interested in
>moving from 35 mm to medium format? One reason and one reason only - to get
>a larger negative. So if the only reason the format exists, and the only
>reason I'm interested in it, is to get a larger negative, doesn't it make
>sense to get the largest negative possible?
Depends what you want to shoot, some like to shoot action and within a
range of lens focal lengths, the 6x4.5 is as easy to shoot action as
35mm, the 6x7 isn't. I know people have and do shoot with Speed Graphics
and still get good shots, my point is it's easier with 6x4.5.
> For me, the answer was yes and I
>opted for 6x7.
Why not 6x9, larger still? There's still a compromise, otherwise you'd
be looking at 5"x4" or 10"x8" negs.
> I've seen all sorts of numbers used to show that a 645
>negative isn't really that much smaller than a 6x7 but look at them
>together.
I find the 645 an ideal step, especially when space is limited in the
bag. Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages, choose one
(or both if you feel like it).
Richard G. Samuels
aerial use the 67II is not going to be much different than the 6x7.
The 645 is much faster to shoot with the motor drive and has more
choices of fully automatic exposure, easier to reload with film inserts,
and has a higher flash synch speed. With 220 film, it shoots 30 pictures
per roll compared to 21 for the 67II. For solo aerial photography I'd
use the 645 with 220 film and carry preloaded film inserts. I can reload
my 645 much faster than most 35's.
The 6x7 is good for more relaxed shooting, like formal portraits,
landscapes, macro photography or where the larger negative makes a
difference. I have an extra body to use when I need to "reload" quickly.
Both are great cameras with excellent lenses. They are both close to
indestructable. They have entirely different design philosophies. It is
a matter of choosing the right tool for the job and I don't even think
it's a hard decision in this case.
Mike
"Richard G. Samuels" <ri...@samuels.com> wrote in message
news:3B3C5249...@samuels.com...
Charles McDowell
thing for me to deal with when trying to zoom, compose and fly at the
same time. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how I'd take a good meter
reading while flying without using a through the lens meter, but that
would be just doing what the computer is doing for me anyway. Certain
circumstances (ie snow) require you to second guess the cameras
decision, of course. You can still use the spot auto exposure in that
case, put it on something that isn't snow and lock it in...
I may be lazy, but I'm not even thinking 67, just 67II, because I don't
want to change my whole method to accomodate full manual exposure.
Charles
Mike
1. The photos were "fine art" B&W photos
2. The photographer used the zone system.
If not, then I retract my statement.
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3C7376...@home.com...
n...@spam.com
Why is it people assume fine art is necessarily B&W?
> 2. The photographer used the zone system.
While flying a plane?
Mike
because of the 6x7. Seems like 35mm would work fine for color with the
right film, but I didn't mean to offend anyone.
Using the Zone system while flying a plane is much easier than using AE TTL
and trying to make sure the camera was pointed exactly right so as to not
fool the meter. Using a separate meter (a light weight digital spot meter
perhaps), the photographer would meter different values of the scene and
come up with one exposure for the current conditions. Several shots would
then be made with that exposure and the photographer would not even have to
look through the viewfinder to compose the image (since he was flying a
airplane), much less worry about the AE metering for each shot.
Generally speaking, AE metering and the Zone System don't work very well
together for B&W, in an airplane or on the ground.
<n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:9hi8pg$ls5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
David Glos
purpose, I think the P645 is going to be the far better camera, simply
because of film loading and winding issues. As PIC (pilot in command), your
absolute first priority is piloting your aircraft, and anything distracting,
like having to take both hands off of the controls to wind and load your
camera, would bother me. It is possible to shoot the P645 one handed, with
its built in auto winder, and if you have extra pre-loaded inserts
(relatively inexpensive, ~$150/ea), load the camera. Neither is possible
with the P67. Also, consider taping your lens at infinity (actually test
real infinity focus since most lenses can focus just a bit past), and using
the P645 on shutter priority (at 1/250 sec or higher, aircraft vibration can
cause issues can cause issues at lower shutter speeds). You might find you
actually get sharper photos with 400ISO film, as compared with 100ISO,
simply because you can use higher shutter speeds.
If at all possible, I strongly encourage you to find a safety pilot/buddy to
work with you on this project. It will allow you to concentrate on the
photography, while, somebody else handles the controls and looks out for
traffic. You can still handle the take off and landing duties. Best of luck
with your decision.
Regards,
David Glos
Charles McDowell <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
> I'm considering the purchase of either a 645 (not n) or a 67II. My
> application is handheld aerial photography, where I am also the pilot,
> so ease of use is very important. I was hoping someone could comment on
> the pros and cons of these two systems. I've read many positive (and no
> negative) reviews of the 645. My only concern is the fact that the
> negative is substantially smaller than the 6x7. Any thoughts on how
> much difference there really is in sharpness (say in a 16x20 print) and
> whether it is worth the extra hassle? With the 6x7, I've got two
> concerns: how hard is the thing to load really? Numerous people have
> had negative things to say about this aspect. Changing film in the air
> would be roughly similar to changing film while driving a car down the
> interstate, is this feasible? Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to
> mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
> it matter at that speed?
>
jjs
"Charles McDowell" <cmcdo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B3A7E26...@home.com...
> I'm considering the purchase of either a 645 (not n) or a 67II. My
> application is handheld aerial photography, where I am also the pilot,
due to
> mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
> it matter at that speed?
Oh man, what an image. Loading film while flying. Be sure to be on your
cell-phone at the same time. Shake isn't your main problem. Vibration is. If
you let the camera touch the fuselage, no high speed will help.
jjs
"Brian Ellis" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NgU_6.3173$eL5.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Many of us went through similar dilemmas when entering medium format. I
> ended up analyzing it like this: why does medium format exist? One reason
> and one reason only - to get a larger negative. Why am I interested in
Indeed. Why use 120 if you are only half the film area? Makes no sense to
me. They should call 6x4.5 "Small Medium Format". The only 6x4.5 camera I
have ever used which justifies the smaller film format is the equally small
Zeiss folder. Damn, I use it and can't remember the model number. 530, I
think. The one without the shutter release on the body. Tiny. Light.
Accurate rangefinder. Soft lens. :)
jjs
"Mike" <mfel...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:0n2%6.1455$RN1.1...@news.uswest.net...
> Using the Zone system while flying a plane is much easier than using AE
TTL
> and trying to make sure the camera was pointed exactly right so as to not
> fool the meter. [...]
ROTFL! I'm dying of laughter. Here's a guy who is doing it all
single-handedly - flying the plane, loading the camera, taking the pictures
and filling in Zone System cards at the same time. So, why not auto-pilot
the camera, too.
jjs
"Robert Monaghan" <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote in message
news:9hg74i$mth$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
There you go and spoil a perfectly entertaining thread with real-world
advice which works perfeclty well without spending a fortune. You just plain
take the fun out of it, Robert. :)
jjs
"George Stewart" <gdst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cbda941a.01062...@posting.google.com...
> I'm a pilot and own the Pentax 6x7. It sounds like you don't have an
Now I'm really scared. Perhaps the original poster could tell us when and
where he flys so we can stay out from underneath. What a scene "That's me,
officer, in the last frame in the wrecked camera. See, I'm LAUGHING!"
Mike
meter readings using only a separate very light weight spot meter. You are
not holding the camera while taking the meter readings. Then you determine
the exposure that is based on the general lighting conditions that are
present. If you are experienced, you may not even need a meter reading to
determine the correct exposure. The exposure that you determine can probably
be used for multiple images of the same general scene. Then you put the
meter down and set the exposure manually on your camera and set focus at
infinity. Then your aim the camera at the scene your are interested in and
you take the photographs without have to look though the viewfinder. You
don't have to look through the viewfinder because you don't have to worry
about the auto-exposure being fooled by the specific light values as to
whether they are in the center of meter pattern or on the edge, etc.
With an auto-exposure camera it is very easy to get the wrong exposure
unless you carefully make sure that the proper values are hitting the
designated meter pattern of the auto-exposure system. If you take a portrait
of someone, the exposure should be the same regardless of whether the
background is pitch black or pure white. But in these situations,
auto-exposure cameras are frequently fooled, resulting in poor exposures
UNLESS you are very carefully looking though the viewfinder on each exposure
to make sure the metered area of the viewfinder is exactly on your subject
(not the background). This makes for a dangerous situation while flying a
plane.
This seems much easier than actually looking through a viewfinder of the
camera to take each exposure while flying a plane. Photojournalists have
done this for years because of the situations they are in where they have to
hold the camera above their heads and shoot without looking through the
viewfinder.
"jjs" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:9i2nud$j4d$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
FOR7
You should try one of the Fuji 645 AF models. "Soft lens" is the last thing you
will be thinking about when you see your results. I own one myself and the
image quality is quite a difference from 35mm so apparently for me and many
others 645 works just fine. You could say that a Mamiya 7 would also be compact
but that would be a relative term considering the Fujis are even more compact
with retracting lenses. I don't need interchangeable lenses for my medium
format needs and I certainly do not want to carry around a 6x7 slr, especially
while travelling and unless a person is blind or getting poorly made prints 645
shows an obvious difference from 35mm.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
John Stafford
> No. You don't do it at the same time, bozo. First you take a couple of
[snip voluminous and sill post]
So you state the very obvious even after dozens of other people
already had in a group full of people who should already know how to
use a meter. What's it prove, except you are a good typist.
Mike
the post I was responding to when he said:
"So, why not auto-pilot the camera, too."
JJS also seemed to think that one would be figuring out the exposure at the
same time as making the photograph, when he says:
"Here's a guy who is doing it all single-handedly - flying the plane,
loading the camera, taking the pictures
and filling in Zone System cards AT THE SAME TIME (emphasis mine)."
I took his statements to indicate that he thought an auto-exposure camera
was easier to use in this aerial photography.
I hope JJS was not offended by my reference to Bozo, but he said, in three
consecutive posts in this thread, that he was LAUGHING (his emphasis, not
mine) about this subject. By the way, I believe that I was the first one in
this thread (in a previous post) to explain how a manual exposure might be
easier than auto-exposure while flying a plane
.
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:ef8b745.01070...@posting.google.com...
Clint O'Connor
hands to do the loading. Totally agree with Phil's "do not do this while
driving" comment - even professionals couldn't do this. The film will pop
out and unspool onto the floor while the plane stalls and dives into the
ground. Bummer, wasted roll.
Have you considered a box camera? e.g. Bronica, Hasselblad, etc. They have
interchangeable backs and while the backs are expensive, you can preload
several backs and not deal with changing film. Or get a 70mm long roll
back.
Aerial photography generally has fairly stable light conditions doesn't it?
I should think you can meter the general condition and then shoot the entire
roll at that speed and f/stop, especially with the wider latitude of print
films. Adjust by an f/stop or two when passing under or out of clouds.
Autoexposure would be a disadvantage due to the possibility of metering an
inappropriate area without sufficient attention to what you're metering.
"An experienced 67 film changing user (not necessarily at taking pictures)."
Clint O'Connor
"Phil Stripling" <phil_st...@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qu2119...@shell4.tdl.com...
> Charles McDowell <cmcdo...@home.com> writes:
>
> >SNIP<
> > whether it is worth the extra hassle? With the 6x7, I've got two
> > concerns: how hard is the thing to load really? Numerous people have
> > had negative things to say about this aspect. Changing film in the air
> > would be roughly similar to changing film while driving a car down the
> > interstate, is this feasible?
>
> I'd say loading is more difficult that a 35mm camera. I have the original
> 67, and for me it's a two-handed, all my attention job. The camera has
> spools. After you've finished a roll, you open the back, unlock the spool
> with the little knob at the bottom, take the roll out being careful not to
> let it unroll, lick the sticker, and glue it onto the roll. Then you
unlock
> to other spool, put it in the take up side, make the slots in the spool
> match the tabs in the camera, then lock the spool in. Then you unseal the
> fresh roll, take off the cover, remove the sticker that keeps the roll
from
> unrolling, put the roll in the camera, make sure the slots line up with
the
> tabs, lock the spool in. Then you pull the paper out over the shutter
> without touching the shutter, and put it in the little slot on the take up
> spool, and wind till the arrow on the paper matches the arrow on the
> camera. Then you make sure the back is set to 120 or 220 as the roll, make
> sure the film advance is set to 120 or 220, close the back, and wind till
> lock. Not only would I not do this while driving, I _could_ not do this
> while driving. Your mileage, of course, will vary. I have no clue on the
> 645, which has inserts you can pre-load.
>
> > Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to
> > mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would
> > it matter at that speed?
>
> I normally handhold my 67, and vibration from mirror slap has not been an
> issue.
>
> --
> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
> Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
> http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
Mike
the film backs you mentioned.
"Clint O'Connor" <cl...@argonauta.com> wrote in message
news:EqZ17.45960$WT.82...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
George Stewart
Charles,
I've only shot with the Pentax 645 a few times, and never with the
70mm back. My limited understanding is that this back was/is
available only for the older manually focused 645. it came with an
extension eyepiece so that one could see through the viewfinder - the
film back was big (but not too expensive). I think it allowed 100
shots before reloading. As far as film availabilty, I'm sure its slim,
but it should work. I think the 645 would be good, because one could
frame and snap-off several shots quickly.
George