Search results for 'back focus' - page 1959
67 repairs
Yup, we use (b/f)sq'd B = Bellows F = Focal Length And just in case you don't know, when focussing for macro, don't use the standard hyperfocal focussing, apparently you need to focus half way not a third into the subject. I have no reason for this, but it works on 4x5 film. We were taught t...
Posted by Philip Taylor on 11/11/2006 - 12:40
67 repairs
Of course metering throught the TTL would be easiest however if you have the earliest extention tubes the ttl doesnt work for some reason, think the older ones do not tell the ttl what aperture the lens its on. The hyperfocal focusing is because focus increases the further away you go. Therefore ...
Posted by Ofutter on 22/11/2006 - 11:59
The new 645NII medium format bodied digital...
There have been interchangable backs on cameras since the film era. I'd imagine that the upgrade on the 645II Digital would be similar. If you look at the photos of the back of the pre-production model there seem to be latches in just the right place for the unit that includes the back LCD screen ...
Posted by Ammonyte on 23/11/2006 - 20:07
Does anyone know the answer to - 75mm Shift Vs bellows...
Answer: no, unless you want it close up. By adding bellows or extension tubes you are making the camera/lens combination myopic (short sighted). As soon as you add any gap between the focal point of the lens and the film plane you won't be able to focus to infinity. Matt
Posted by MattMatic on 28/11/2006 - 09:28
Low cost 67 bodies = the chance to make alterations perhaps?
With the market for our beloved 67 bodies falling in value in recent times, has anyone attempted to look at ways to modify their camera body? The cost of making any mistakes are now more bearable perhaps? If anyone has/would like to, what mod would you do/have done? For example - is it possib...
Posted by VelviaPete on 28/11/2006 - 09:27
Low cost 67 bodies = the chance to make alterations perhaps?
I think you'd run into problems with focusing (if the film was further back, it wouldn't be on the same plane as the viewfinder screen) and composition, as the viewfinder would only show part of the image. Dan
Posted by Daniel Bridge on 28/11/2006 - 17:54
Low cost 67 bodies = the chance to make alterations perhaps?
Hi Dan, You do have a few points there - it's perhaps a better route for me to mount a Copal shuttered w/a lens on a 6x12 back...align it & focus it using 'spacers' between it and the film plane. Then a few rolls of film to test should arrive at a viewfinder. None of which, sadly, would invol...
Posted by VelviaPete on 29/11/2006 - 11:22
Low cost 67 bodies = the chance to make alterations perhaps?
A few years back there was an incredibly talented Chinese landscape photographer,..unfortunately I can't remember his name but he hit the 'photonet' forums like a bolt of lightening! He used the '67' to fantastic effect and I read a very interesting item about his method of aquiring several 45mm...
Posted by viewfinder on 08/12/2006 - 14:21
Who needs 5x4...???
Going back to the original point posted of why do we need 5x4, the reason is simple...... for big prints! At the size you are showing us your landscape pics you really cannot differentiate between film formats, especially when they have been scanned. At that size scanning a 35mm and 5x4 they both...
Posted by Ofutter on 09/04/2007 - 11:51
Who needs 5x4...???
Going back to the original point posted of why do we need 5x4, the reason is simple...... for big prints! At the size you are showing us your landscape pics you really cannot differentiate between film formats, especially when they have been scanned. At that size scanning a 35mm and 5x4 they both...
Posted by George Lazarette on 09/04/2007 - 14:11
Who needs 5x4...???
Going back to the original point posted of why do we need 5x4, the reason is simple...... for big prints! You are quite correct of course, the main reason to choose 5x4 is print size and definiton. I'm also in agreement with John and George as well in that it all has to relative to the viewing dista...
Posted by spirit_of_will on 09/04/2007 - 20:43
New 67 website
Were you shooting RAW? And if so, with what converter? G Never shoot anything else! They were processed in ACR. The problem is dynamic range; if you back off exposure enough not to blow the highlights in the flowing water (and being white, all three channels clip more or less together), the shad...
Posted by TravellingLight on 03/02/2007 - 00:37
New 67 website
I chose the 67 system so that magazines were more likely to publish travel features and use 2 page spreads as well as smaller images. Although the differences in resolution between 35mm film (and most digital cameras) and medium format may not be noticable on the web it is for larger prints. I a...
Posted by travel67 on 11/02/2007 - 09:49
What short tele?
OK. for the 645n, I have the FA45/2.8 and am not really a 75mm man, so what to go for next? The 135 LS, the 150/3.5 or the 150/2.8 I don't mind a bit of manual focus, and image quality is important. I must confess that I'm leaning a bit towards the AF150/2.8, and then setting my next goals at ...
Posted by Magnus W on 06/02/2007 - 01:44
What short tele?
Hi Magnus, I have both the manual focus 150/3.5 and 120 Macro - I find both to be excellent, the 150 is much more compact and easy to use handheld. The macro is a serious chunk of glass and would require a tripod for all shots in my opinion. I've not done any critical testing but they are both sh...
Posted by spirit_of_will on 06/02/2007 - 16:19
More London shots 645nII
You're dead right about the balance - I do quite a bit of this type of shooting at dusk and at this time of year the time when you have the balance between sky and artificial lighting just right is quite short, probably only a matter of 15-25 mins. Some of the other dusk shots on my site were taken ...
Posted by spirit_of_will on 13/02/2007 - 20:33
pentax 67 extension tubes
who can give good advice on the extension tubes and metering for my 67 ? do i simply change to manual on the main lens, then switch back to auto before snapping?
Posted by jimmy on 16/02/2007 - 18:45
Any hope of a pentax 6x7- 67 - 67ii digital back??
I have been doing some commercial work where the client has specified they needed it all to be shot digital. As I generally shoot on a Pentax 6x7 and 5x4 it meant hiring a whole kit in order to do so. I hired the phase one back with the V system, allowing it to go onto the back of the older 500 se...
Posted by Ofutter on 09/04/2007 - 12:06
Any hope of a pentax 6x7- 67 - 67ii digital back??
It all comes down to economics. There is a cost to doing this, and much of the cost is up-front (design, planning, tooling), and marketing. Then there's the sensor itself. Actually assembling the thing would be relatively simple and cheap. So, to recover all the up-front and necessary marketin...
Posted by George Lazarette on 09/04/2007 - 14:22
Any hope of a pentax 6x7- 67 - 67ii digital back??
Cost would be the main concern if you had to produce a sensor only for the 67, however sensors are being constantly made and upgraded, the 3 main manufacturers being Phase One, Leaf and Imacon which currently only make sensors for Hasselblads and 5x4 cameras. I am hoping it will be eventually pos...
Posted by Ofutter on 09/04/2007 - 22:47
