Would you buy this?

[arildah]

(if at all interested in medium format film photography, and need a starter "kit")

I have a chance to buy a Pentax 6x7 (the original, I believe) with mirror lock up, waist level finder, extension tubes, 75mm, 90mm, 150mm and 300mm, meter, wooden grip and a case, all for about $550 (locally, Norway, so about 3000 kroner). My gut is saying yes, as I´ve been drooling after a larger body for quite some time, and the reviews the 6x7 and its younger siblings have are great.

Would you buy this, were you me?

I´m shooting a Canon 1D mkII with an assortment of decent primes from day to day, and I have no plans of selling off my digital gear.

As this is my first post in this forum, I hope I haven´t stepped on any toes or posted this in the wrong forum.

[DeeJay]

Welcome dude! And welcome to medium format. Film or digital, it's great and will find a camera as simple as that lets you focus on your pictures and takes you further. Makes you slow down and really analyse the shot. I think film in particular is a great way to learn. You gotta make the shots count!

That camera is awesome and that kit is an incredible find. Had one for years. Only downside of it I believe is the paltry flash syncbut if you can adjust for that then your cooking with gas. You can also stick a polaroid back on it if you wanna get a second body later. Check out the ones by NPC.

Beautiful lenses and handles great. Super-Simple controls etc. The way a camera should be I think!

Obvioulsy check the gear out as much as you can but they are tank like and little can go wring with them.

Have fun man - watch your pics get better in time, but expect a learning curve stepping up to medium format.

Oh and get a solid tripod!

But welcome to the forum - any questions don't be afraid to ask!

[arildah]

Thanks, DJ!

I´m probably going to do landscapes only with the camera - at least at first - so the slow ss flash sync won´t be a problem.

Any recommendations for a decently heavy alu tripod? Will use that for both my digital gear and this. I have a CF Triopo now, but it doesn´t like me stacking stuff over 5kgs on top of it - my 1D with L-plate and 24/1.4 is just acceptable with the proper dampening underneath - a combo that weighs about 2.5 kgs. My dad has an old Bogen alu tripod that seems incredibly solid, but I can´t see him parting with it any time soon, no matter how little he uses it.. He´s a gear whore, good thing it´s not genetic!

[bcooter]

Thanks, DJ!

I´m probably going to do landscapes only with the camera - at least at first - so the slow ss flash sync won´t be a problem.

Any recommendations for a decently heavy alu tripod? Will use that for both my digital gear and this. I have a CF Triopo now, but it doesn´t like me stacking stuff over 5kgs on top of it - my 1D with L-plate and 24/1.4 is just acceptable with the proper dampening underneath - a combo that weighs about 2.5 kgs. My dad has an old Bogen alu tripod that seems incredibly solid, but I can´t see him parting with it any time soon, no matter how little he uses it.. He´s a gear whore, good thing it´s not genetic!

The pentax 67 was an interesting system, I had it at one time.  The issues are the mirror has more bounce than the tailgate on an old Dodge pickup truck and it takes the manual dexterity of a brain surgeon to load the film quickly.

Also you need an extra body for a polaroid back and the flash x sync is somewhere around watching water boil and waiting for rain in South Texas.

Some bodies were also film scratchers so be careful.

Honestly if your shooting landscapes there are many interesting film cameras out there for around the same price.  The RZ, Fuji 680 with rise and fall.

I've known a lot of photographers shoot the pentax, but never on anything that doesn't breath or move.

IMO

BC

[ondebanks]

I've known a lot of photographers shoot the pentax, but never on anything that doesn't breath or move.

IMO

BC

Cooter, you gotta be kidding. What about the likes of Yoshikazu Shirakawa? Stunning books, on landscapes and mountains that don't breathe or move, but nevertheless a Pentax 6x7 man.

The big Pentax was also THE #1 medium format camera for film-based astrophotography, and and still has its fans actively using it in that genre. Those stars and nebulae don't breathe or move either...well they only move very, very slowly! 

Ray

[KevinA]

(if at all interested in medium format film photography, and need a starter "kit")

I have a chance to buy a Pentax 6x7 (the original, I believe) with mirror lock up, waist level finder, extension tubes, 75mm, 90mm, 150mm and 300mm, meter, wooden grip and a case, all for about $550 (locally, Norway, so about 3000 kroner). My gut is saying yes, as I´ve been drooling after a larger body for quite some time, and the reviews the 6x7 and its younger siblings have are great.

Would you buy this, were you me?

I´m shooting a Canon 1D mkII with an assortment of decent primes from day to day, and I have no plans of selling off my digital gear.

As this is my first post in this forum, I hope I haven´t stepped on any toes or posted this in the wrong forum.

Sounds like a good buy if it's all OK. Shoot mirror up.I have 3 various Pentax 67's and lenses. I also shoot Canon, 1DsmkII and smkIII, they generate about as much affection as my TV remote. The camera I have most love for right now is a Rolleiflex 3.5F. I love the new films like Portra, it's a great landscape film I feel. You do need to spend on a scanner to get the best out of those 6x7 negs.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com

[robert zimmerman]

the camera itself is a dinosaur, but the lenses are just wonderful.
I shot quite a few landscapes on a u.s. road trip two years ago and all can say is: stunning.
you'll love it if you can get acceptable pricing on film development and printing.
i've never been a fan of scanned film...i'm sure some can do it, but i've always prefered wet prints.

film is magic ; )

[arildah]

Thanks for all the replies. In the end, I had to deprioritize this for the time being, and I would have had zero chance checking out the equipment in advance. It has to be said, though, the used market in Norway on equipment like this is pretty small, and I would never worry about getting decent shape equipment from the used market I frequent on the net (that is - unless the seller actually states a defective shutter or something like that).

Some other time, then.. 

[qwz]

Very nice setup indeed, if
a) you a familiar with 6x7 aspect ratio (dor me is critical and i prefer only 2:3 1:1 1:2)
b) you shoot b&w or colour? if colour - do you have a place to process E-6
c) do you have a good scanner?

[Dave Gurtcheff]

Very nice setup indeed, if
a) you a familiar with 6x7 aspect ratio (dor me is critical and i prefer only 2:3 1:1 1:2)
b) you shoot b&w or colour? if colour - do you have a place to process E-6
c) do you have a good scanner?

+1 on needing a good film scanner. I had Pentax 67 and 645 film cameras. I have a Polaroid 120 Sprintscan film scanner (4000 dpi). It does a magnificant job scanning medium format film. Polaroid is out of business, and my scanner became an orphan, until I discovered Vuescan. This software runs under Win 7, 64 bit, and the output is better than I ever got before, plus a friendly user interface. A bonus is it also runs my HP flat bed scanner with great results. Disclosure: I have absolutly no connection with Vuescan, but it is refreshing to buy software that delivers what it advertises---one of the best software investments I have ever made.
Dave

[ixania2]

... And where else do you get lifelong upgrades for free? (vuescan)

[Dave Gurtcheff]

... And where else do you get lifelong upgrades for free? (vuescan)

I didn't know that! 
Thanks
Dave

[Kirk Gittings]

You are going to have to get really good scans to notice any appreciable difference from your 5DII with primes. For example. if you were going to try and scan on an Epson 750 pro you would likely not see any advantage. My experience comes from using Hassleblad and their best lenses and scanning on the Epson. Comparing Epson scans with good 5DII files>I sold the Hassy. You will need at least a dedicated MF scanner like a Nikon 9000.

[JV]

Same experience here when comparing Epson V700 scans of a Hasselblad 503CW with the images of a P30+ digital back.  The image quality of the P30+ is so much better.  I have never had images scanned with a drum scanner so I can't comment on that.

[ctz]

I'm so acustomed to P45+ files (God, a 5 years old DB).
When I randomly see some of my older 4X5 drum scanned slide files I freak out.
They're so much poorer, in my opinion (from a technical point of view, I mean).

Maybe I was worst at focusing, maybe I didn't use the best prepress suppliers at that time, but the digital back files are a lot cleaner and sharper.
Don't even talk about about messing with exposure, DR or something.

IMO

[KevinA]

I'm so acustomed to P45+ files (God, a 5 years old DB).
When I randomly see some of my older 4X5 drum scanned slide files I freak out.
They're so much poorer, in my opinion (from a technical point of view, I mean).

Maybe I was worst at focusing, maybe I didn't use the best prepress suppliers at that time, but the digital back files are a lot cleaner and sharper.
Don't even talk about about messing with exposure, DR or something.

IMO

Digital is sharper no question. I don't have a MF digital so my comparisons between digital and film are Canon digital.
For edge sharpness digital clearly wins, for colour depth and DR I think film like Portra wins by a mile. As I said earlier a 48 bit scan to dng gives you a huge choice of how you want the image to look. I would gladly swop all my Canon files for MF film 48 bit scans. I scan on a Nikon Coolscan.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com

[Kirk Gittings]

I see you have my last book listed on your site-all of those images were shot on film-most 4x5. Thanks so much for that.

While I agree with your last statement in theory (if you were drum scanning the film-scanned MF film vs. Canon)-the practicality of it with someone like me who has two busy careers photography careers going simultaneously, art and commercial, would be daunting time wise and also much more expensive than shooting digitally (including the cost of digital equipment). I've owned Nikon scanners and wasn't that impressed compared to drum scans. So I have gone over to shooting all my commercial work digitally and don't regret film one tiny bit. Better product, better workflow, more profitable (by far).

[KevinA]

I see you have my last book listed on your site-all of those images were shot on film-most 4x5. Thanks so much for that.

While I agree with your last statement in theory (if you were drum scanning the film-scanned MF film vs. Canon)-the practicality of it with someone like me who has two busy careers photography careers going simultaneously, art and commercial, would be daunting time wise and also much more expensive than shooting digitally (including the cost of digital equipment). I've owned Nikon scanners and wasn't that impressed compared to drum scans. So I have gone over to shooting all my commercial work digitally and don't regret film one tiny bit. Better product, better workflow, more profitable (by far).

Hi Kirk,
I am an admirer of your LF work.
I too have a commercial side to keep going. But for me and shooting for pleasure Film wins hands down, in particular portra. I just ran my Canon side by side with a Rolleiflex, shooting under and over exposed. The Canon just about managed 2 stops either side of "normal", Portra was still holding detail in the highlights at 6 over.
I had a drum scanner until about a year or so ago, a real struggle with colour negative and mounting in oil drove me crazy. Scanning on the Nikon at 48 bit to a dng file gives so much scope with final output, I have always thought the Nikon gave a softer looking scan on screen, much the same as non condenser enlarger against a condenser one gave a softer look.
I would happily swap all my Canon files for MF film scans.
 The yard stick everything gets measured with these days is resolution, more so than the ability to capture the light. The fashion is to turn to HDR and for me it does not work, I don't see it extending any dynamic range, it just picks the toe and shoulder up and dumps them somewhere amongst the mid tones. Result alien landscapes that look not unlike CGI, film will give that range naturally with all the tones in the correct order. Seriously Kirk, I think if you tried a few rolls and scanned to a dng file and looked at what that file was capable of you would have to shoot film for your Art.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for the kind words Kevin,
FWIW I have shot and scanned many thousand color negatives both 4x5 and 2 1/4 from my Hassleblad (and have taught scanning workshops and university classes on scanning). I own and still use a high end Creo flatbed and use a friends drum scanner and Imacon. Before going digital I spent many years only shooting color negs and scanning them for all my clients. Digital wins hands down. If you are not getting natural results from HDR (really I'm talking exposure blending-not tone mapping HDR) you need to work on it some more and look at current tools like LR/Enfuse. All the leading architectural photographers I know here and abroad (and I personally know some of the top in the world) are shooting digital and doing exposure blending (in addition of course to lighting spaces ans structures too). It is a superior workflow and product. I am far more productive, profitable and deliver a more targeted product in a timely fashion to my clients with digital. Plus I am more creative. There is no penalty in terms of film costs etc. for just trying something. I don't fear "running out" of pixels on a remote shoot like I did film. I don't have to have a case of Polaroids FedExed to my hotel room because I might run low towards the end of a long shoot. The years I spent scanning film for clients was a miserable time (I oftentimes do 50 images for a client), because of the endless hours running to the lab, scanning, removing dust etc.etc. etc.

As per my personal b&w work? Its mostly 4x5 film. I like the process and there are rarely tight deadlines.

The yard stick everything gets measured with these days is resolution, more so than the ability to capture the light.

As far as I know the yardstick has always been vision.......no?