67II worth buying?

I am considering saving up money for a Pentax 67II. My main area of usage would be landscape and night shooting (attempts with star trails and Northern Lights etc). I would also like to print some of my images in A3 format. The main appeal to me is the more contemplative approach involved when shooting with these kinds of camera. At least this is my impression when reading about people who use medium format systems like the 67II (I have never even seen one in real life). I have read about many of the negative sides with the 67II: shutter shake, needs heavy tripod, expensive camera if in mint condition, expensive to develop film, expensive scanners for 6x7 format, etc. At the same time I have seen some wonderful images taken with the 67II.

As I mentioned above, I know that the contemplative approach would suit me fine. The question I need to find an answer to is: Does the 67II take images that are much better than my K20D.

What kind of price would I have to pay for a 67II in "like new"/mint condition?

I am grateful for all advice on this matter!

Bjørn

Have a look at this site, fabulous landscapes taken with a Pentax 67II. The results speak for themselves, on my opinion.

http://www.pbase.com/hwatt/image/68399140

The images on the site are indeed very sharp, well composed and beautiful. However, I think most of them look 'over processed', i.e. too much colour saturation and over-enhanced. I'm not sure why this would be; wonder if anyone else agrees with me?

Regards
David

Once you put your eye in a medium format you won't go back

For a complete 67II I would spend between 8 and 900£, Here a naked one in Ffordes for a good price to this one you need to add a viewfinder and a lens, the standard lens is the 105mm, it's easy to find good deals but some lenses are hard to find (eg.35mm or 45mm)

I suggest to consider also the 645 either MF or AF, lighter and with great glasses and you can also fit on the 645 the 67 lenses

Thank you for showing me this site. there are some stunning images there! I do agree with davidstorm that some of them do look slightly "over processed", I prefer landscapes that have a more "natural" tone. But the compositions and the motives are fabulous. It seems as if the Scottish Highlands are ALMOST as magnificent as the Norwegian mountainous areas

Grisha: I have also been looking at the 645 system, and this would probably also be a good choice for me. The problem is that I am intrigued with the "Arnold Schwazenegger of cameras" (as it is referred to here: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/AsahiPentax67.html).

The 67 is the most splendid medium format camera, with a sublime viewfinder that is breathtakingly sharp and bright, and of course quite enormous!

It handles like an overgrown 35mm film camera and is well suited to landscape photography and other field work. In the studio interchangeable backs were often preferred, but using 220 film with 20 shots per load is still not too bad.

Quality can be assured, but in many ways I would prefer the 645D these days. What I would say is that the jump in quality from 35mm to 645 film for me was not enough, but the jump from either to 6x7cm certainly would be. Don't forget a 67 plus lenses will be very heavy and bulky.

I think his images are fabulous. I think he uses Velvia, which has a reputation for heightened colour and contrast. Combined with all the detail captured on large format, and sharpened for the web, the results are eye-popping!

Thank you for your advice! The 645D must be a wonderful tool, but the price makes it only an utopian dream for a hobby photographer like myself. The 67II system, on the other hand, is within reach economically and makes sense for my intended use.

Pentaxophile: I have no experience with Velvia and medium format, but your explanation of the exposure characteristics of the Ian Cameron galleries makes sense.

I have also admired images taken with the 67II in two other galleries. The first one by forum member "mikeyscope", the second by Leping Zha. I have read some posts on the "other forum" where Leping Zha states that he uses exclusively the 67II.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30477065@N07/6199333802/in/photostream/


http://www.lepingzha.com/Mountainscapes/Mountainscapes-Gallery-One/506515_qdVQKf

Bjørn

Ian Cameron discusses his technique and answers some of the question raised earlier in this tread here:

http://www.transientlight.co.uk/page/about/

I got my 6x7 Mk II with a 135mm f4 SMC Takumar macro lens, several filters, Billingham Bag for £ 500, mint condition in about 1999 or 2000 from a bloke who got it from a photographer who couldn't pay his car repair bill and gave cameras instead -- there was a beaten up Mk I as well, a second Mk II in not such Mint condition and a Mamiya Universal camera . I sold the Billingham bag to a local Press staff photographer at my Camera Club auction for £34 so I got some money back -- I have some 6x7 Mk II samples in my 'Portfolio' and took it out just today for a run, loaded with 2005 dated Ilford Delta 400 film and various lenses.

It seems like you made a very good deal with your 67II. I have browsed parts of your portfolio, the images from Weald Country Park taken with the 67II are really nice

Thanks for looking at my portfolio -- I took out the 6x7 Mk II last week and have one worth uploading I think -- I used the 200mm f4 lens on outdated 2005 Ilford Delta 400 -- it was free 10 rolls from a studio photographer who came to my Club and asked " How mant people doing FILM ? " and of course, my hand shot up and he said he had a fridge full of film and wanted to clear it out for his beer so I went with my boy and he gave up about 80 rolls assorted 120 and 35mm fillum !

I'm joining this a little late, but I've got quite a lot of MF gear (Mamiya 6x6 & 6x4.5 and Bronica 6x6) and would offer the following advice:

1) When buying MF you need to consider what you want to shoot with it, primarily so you can decide how many lenses you'll want. There are very few zooms (and no 'affordable' ones), and lenses can be very expensive. Building a system is likely to be very expensive (there are few independent lens options). Pick your first lens focal length with care and plan what your next might be.

2) Everything is expensive, do your research and decide what you'll need, and how much it's likely to cost before you start.

3) Assume it'll cost you at least a pound per shot to get a negative/transparency (more for prints/scanning). Don't fret about this, the results are easily worth it when you get it right.

4) Be prepared to lug bulky/heavy kit about (including a decent tripod), especially if you're shooting the landscapes the 6x7ii is well suited to.

5) Be prepared to be blown away by the quality of a format 8x larger than APS-C. If you scan it at a reasonable resolution you'll get huge files.

I think every photographer should try shooting with larger formats, but the investment needed means you have to be really committed to justify the expense. Unless you're buying new kit, if you buy carefully you should get most of your money back if you decide to sell it on later.

If you like to take things slower, take your time and ask yourself 'Is pressing the shutter now really worth a pound?', your photography will become much more considered and careful.

I'd recommend trying to borrow/rent some gear before making a significant investment (not that I did which is why I've ended up with more than one system). I put too high a value on interchangeable backs and studio work when a 67 would have suited what I now want much better.

Hope this helps.

Thank you very much johnha for taking time to give me such valuable advice! At the end of February I in fact purchased a Pentax 67ii system with SMC 45mm, 105mm and 165mm lenses:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/67ii-33582

I have so far only shot two films, they have not been processed yet. But I have gotten some experience with handling, weight, manual focus, mirror lock-up and other characteristics of the 67ii. I love the simplicity and robust functionality of the camera, and off course the viewfinder

This is the main reason for me to wanting to venture into analogue medium format territory. I have been wanting my attempts with photography to be of a more contemplative nature. My occupation is within music and pedagogy, so my everyday life is often at high speed. Photography is a recreational activity for me, so doing it at a slow pace is a major goal. You can probably achieve a similar calm pace with digital equipment, but with the 67ii and 120 film you have no choice, you must take things slower I could possibly start a more philosophical discussion about speed/tempo and levels of noise in Western society today, but I will leave that for now

I plan to upgrade my tripod in the future and also buy a medium format scanner. The Epson V700/750 seem to give good (enough) results with 120 film and larger formats, so I believe I in due time will get an Epson. Should I end up with images that are really good (one never knows:!, I can go to a photo lab and get them drum scanned.

I am very excited with how my first films will turn out!

Bjørn

B

Hi Bjorn,

Looks like you've got some great kit there. My preference is for colour transparency film because they're big enough to view direcly on a lightbox (and because prints are expensive). I think they scan better than negatives too.

MF is great to slow down your photography, just be careful not to take too much kit out with you to the point where you get too tired to think about your photography. I've dragged a heavy bag on one shoulder, tripod on the other to the point where I'd just lost interest. Camera, one lens, tripod and film is all you sometimes need.

Getting used to the film handling is important, and unil you're confident, you may want to consider finding somewhere sheltered to change rolls.

And don't forget to share some of your shots.

John.

John.