|
GobiasIndustries posted:I'm thinking my present to myself with my 2014 tax return is going to be a medium format camera. I've had my eye on the Pentax 67 and had a few questions: 1) is there a big difference between the 67 and 67ii? The ii is almost double the price from what I can find. 2) what would be the best lens to pick up for mostly landscape and wildlife photos? 3) I've noticed that 'body only' options on key don't include a viewfinder; what are the options there? 1. There's basically three models of the camera. The 6x7 pre-MLU, the 6x7MLU/67, and the 67ii. The MLU is the only difference between the first and the second. There's some small internal variations between the 6x7 MLU and the 67 - supposedly a few metal parts became plastic, but there's not really a practical difference. Maybe a very slight edge in durability. The 67ii is a pretty thorough redesign. It adds an improved mirror damper, drop-in focusing screen replacements, and the capability for a new autoexposure prism. 2. Up to you. If you like superwide, there's the 45mm. I had one, 22.5mm equivalent was too wide for me. The late 55/4 is incredible, best 28mm and one of the best landscape lenses I've ever owned. The early 55/3.5 uses huge expensive filters. The 75/4.5 is really popular for good reason, it's an excellent 35mm equivalent that's halfway between a normal and a wide lens. Both the 90 and the 105mm lenses are real similar and really good, the 90 is wider (~45mm equivalent) but the 105 is faster. I also have the 150/2.8 and like it - it performs exactly you would expect like a 75mm double-gauss would. Starting out, I would probably get the 75mm (1 lens), the 55 and the 105 (2 lenses), or the 55, the 105, and a 150 or 200mm lens (3 lenses). I generally like wides for landscapes and normal for a lot of other stuff. I think you will have trouble with doing wildlife unless you are at a zoo or are a working professional with a deep bankroll. The P67 system does have long lenses but they are expensive and technically demanding. They come in basically two grades, regular and EDIF. The EDIF are really good lenses, but expensive. The 300mm (150mm equiv) is $1200, the 400mm (200mm) is $2k, and the 800mm (400mm) sells rarely enough that it's difficult to price but I'd guess around $8-12k. The EDIF are redesigned 90s-era telephotos with ED glass. The "regular" versions are 70s telephoto designs usually based on a triplet (usually 4 or 5 elements). They sell for significantly less, but also produce significantly less resolution/contrast and much more CA wide open. So then you get to the question of how much reach you want. I know the bird thread says 400mm (equivalent on 35mm) is the place to start. That puts you at the very upper limit of the lenses available in the P67 system (the 800mm). The 800mm looks like this with the 1.4x TC mounted (the last set of grey rings):  And that is *not* a small camera on the end there. You could also use a teleconverter to boost reach at the cost of speed, the late teleconverter isn't bad at all on the EDIF lenses. It's not as good as spending the money for longer lenses, but it's cheaper. These lenses are also serious chunks of glass - you really should be on a good ballhead and tripod by 300 or 400mm and with the longer stuff you will probably need a brace or a separate tripod for the lens. The non-EDIF lenses are even larger and heavier for the same size (the 800 is 39 lbs with an 8-in diameter). 3. The biggies are the prisms and the WLFs. Prisms project an erect image into a viewfinder. The TTL version has a meter built in that reads from the screen, the plain one doesn't. These come in versions with a momentary timer switch and an on/off switch, I recommend the momentary switch, or saving the money and just getting the plain prism. It's a 60s era averaging meter, nothing special. The WLFs come in regular and a chimney finder version. I don't like WLFs, other people swear by them. They produce an image that is reversed left/right. (PR please post that image of your ghetto cardboard WLF) Finally there are the P67ii prisms, which are different and (I believe?) incompatible forwards or backwards with the regular prisms. They offer several of the same versions, plus an autoexposure prism with matrix, averaging, and spot meter among other things. e: If you wanted a cheap alternative, I think LF 800/8 teles aren't too bad, you might be able to adapt that with a rigid frame. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jan 6, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
I absolutely love the 75/4.5 I got from MrDespair with his P67. I keep contemplating getting a 45 or 55 to go with, but I feel like it's really not necessary. This 75 is great for landscapes already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
I finally bought a spot meter, a Minolta SpotMeter M. It's on its way from Tokyo. Hopefully this means I won't have to lug the DSLR around with me all the time to take shots on the Bronica SQ...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Bit of Portra 400. Looking at them now I feel like they're a bit too blue, how do they look to everyone else? Grey Corries from Spean Bridge, Highlands.  Near the Erskine Bridge, Renfrewshire.  Loch an Losgainn Mor, Argyll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Very blue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
That is what I thought. Going to blame working on my new monitor without calibrating it, looking at this page on the old one and the new one the colours of the photos and forum background are completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
On my screen it looks too green. I copied it into PS and did a really quick edit which revealed red in the shadows. Give this a try - tone down the red in the shadows, increase midtone blue, and tune from there. Just my 2c.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Hey MrBlandAverage, just wondering, for a shot like this:MrBlandAverage posted:
what did you meter for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
So my brother gave me his old bronica ETRS for Christmas with a couple rolls of portra 160, been screwing around with a light meter app and hoping I'm not loving up horribly with it. Any good advice? Also if anyone knows where I could get a spare darkslide that'd be cool.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Hey MrBlandAverage, just wondering, for a shot like this: I took an incident meter reading above the grass in front of that nearest trailer and got 40 seconds. I decided the grass was a little brighter than what I wanted to set as middle gray. I figured 2/3 stop was about the right amount of difference, so the metered exposure time was now 60 seconds. Add 2 stops for reciprocity failure and you end up with a 4 minute exposure, which is what I used. I didn't worry about the trailer interiors at all, fully expecting them to just be blown out, but Portra is sometimes even more awesome than I realize; there was plenty of usable information in there that I was able to pull out with curves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I took an incident meter reading above the grass in front of that nearest trailer and got 40 seconds. I decided the grass was a little brighter than what I wanted to set as middle gray. I figured 2/3 stop was about the right amount of difference, so the metered exposure time was now 60 seconds. Add 2 stops for reciprocity failure and you end up with a 4 minute exposure, which is what I used. I didn't worry about the trailer interiors at all, fully expecting them to just be blown out, but Portra is sometimes even more awesome than I realize; there was plenty of usable information in there that I was able to pull out with curves. Oh, Portra. These two photos are the same negative. I shot for the dark one, then pushed the levels up four stops after scanning to see what would happen.  one light by thetzar, on Flickr  white night by thetzar, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Once I get all my tax forms in I'll be getting in touch with ya about this (if it's still available). I'd much prefer buying from someone here, especially someone with the photos you've displayed It's still available
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Joining the Portra circlejerk. Just a normal image, right? Well except the fact that it's Portra 400 @ about ISO 6400 without any development push. Yup, it's a bit grainy and the shadows are going deep quickly, but hey I can see in the dark - with film!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Well except the fact that it's Portra 400 @ about ISO 6400 without any development push.  I don't know what magic Kodak use but I like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Joining the Portra circlejerk. Just a normal image, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
To add to the Portra 400 circle jerk, it handles mixed and tungsten lighting really well on its own without filters. Black magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
First time using my new scanner - Canon 9000F. It was a fairly painless process using Vuescan although I wish I could say the same about loading the film on the reel. I absolutely butchered it this time and scratched the negatives up pretty badly. HP5 and Rodinal stand development.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
third is nice 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Provia 100F, with not so amazing dynamic range as Portra Gate, Takayama, 2013 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I am surprised how much detail you can get from reclaimed instant film negatives. _DSC5637 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
This picture just sold me on the Pentax 645N.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
6x4.5 is a shamefully small format.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
dukeku posted:6x4.5 is a shamefully small format. Hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Took my 4x5 for a walk today to do some trial exposures with some hilariously expired Kodak Vericolor, but when I got to the top of the hill and unloaded my rucksack I found that my ground glass had snapped  . Fortunately two of the pieces are big enough that I could still use them to focus but it seems like getting a replacement before I go away is going to be a real pain.Related, has anyone flown with a LF camera? I'm a bit paranoid about leaving the ground glass to the mercy of the baggage handlers when there's going to be a lot of metal in my checkin bag, but a big bit of broken glass seems like it'd make a pretty great weapon so I'm not sure whether I'll be allowed to take it in my hand luggage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Took my 4x5 for a walk today to do some trial exposures with some hilariously expired Kodak Vericolor, but when I got to the top of the hill and unloaded my rucksack I found that my ground glass had snapped I've flown with my Chamonix a bunch of times and it's been fine. I would never, ever check any camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
You could replace the glass with some thin frosted Perspex (acrylic), it's not quite as sharp looking as glass but works well and is far less brittle/fragile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
dukeku posted:6x4.5 is a shamefully small format. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it that counts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Dunno if it's of any interest here, but I have not one ... but two exhibitions upcoming. Number one, at Totem Pole Gallery, Yoyogi and... Number two, at 3rd District, Shinjuku I guess what I'm saying is, that if you are in the Tokyo area around 24.01.2014 - 16.02.2014 feel free to swing by. Ninja Edit: Yeah I know the second one's URL and poo poo is weird. Also the title is "Un Places", photographers be bad at web stuff yo!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Hey, anyone know the exposure latitude of Provia 400x? I have a roll but no box. I've heard a few different things so I'm checking here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Hey, anyone know the exposure latitude of Provia 400x? I have a roll but no box. I've heard a few different things so I'm checking here. I found this: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/provia_400x_datasheet.pdf In my experience it has a bit more latitude in the shadows than Provia 100, which makes sense when you think about it. But I never bothered to quanitfy how much, maybe the datasheet can help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Dunno if it's of any interest here, but I have not one ... but two exhibitions upcoming. Good stuff on getting a couple exhibitions going, some really great work your showing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Yeah, congrats, you've definitely got a very coherent and appealing style that I would love to see on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
This one's not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Is there something about your viewfinder that makes you have to put heads in the exact center of the frame, regardless of the rest of the composition? When I notice it, it's really bothersome, like in this image where you cut off the woman at the ankles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
  Bonneville Dam bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Is there something about your viewfinder that makes you have to put heads in the exact center of the frame, regardless of the rest of the composition? When I notice it, it's really bothersome, like in this image where you cut off the woman at the ankles. She has ankles? I didn't even notice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
dukeku posted:
Rad. I've been working on my second home made 8x10 camera. It's a sliding box camera again, but the sliding inner box can be removed and rotated to give either landscape or portrait orientation. The focusing screen is a bit dull, it's just some frosted perspex at the moment, I'll see if I can get/make some frosted glass soon. I've got to finish off the mount for the lens board in the front, and also the tripod mount. I'll be using a cheap surveyors tripod - strong and light.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Hot drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 13:35
|
|
