Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
Dan Scott wrote: Was there a film transport problem with some of the early 6x7s? I've been considering the Koni and Mamiya press cameras as an alternative to a 6x7 because I thought I'd read that the older ones were iffy. The film transport mechanism is the weak spot on the first twenty years or so of 6x7s. That being said, I wouldn't call it iffy. They were used and frequently abused by pros through all those years. I've put close to 1000 rolls of film through my 6x7 without even a hint of a problem. Even the frame spacing is perfect. By the way, any camera with 6x7 graphic on the upper front is the early type. The much more recent version, which purportedly has an improved transport mechanism, is designated 67. And of course the newest version is the 67II. The very early 6x7 lacks mirror lock up, but the 6x7 series camers with mlu are quite nice and frequently affordable. Mine has only some minor cosmetic flaws and came complete with a prism. I paid $202.11 on ebay at about this time last year. Paul
Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
xr i think - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:54 PM Subject: Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7 Dan Scott wrote: Was there a film transport problem with some of the early 6x7s? I've been considering the Koni and Mamiya press cameras as an alternative to a 6x7 because I thought I'd read that the older ones were iffy. The film transport mechanism is the weak spot on the first twenty years or so of 6x7s. That being said, I wouldn't call it iffy. They were used and frequently abused by pros through all those years. I've put close to 1000 rolls of film through my 6x7 without even a hint of a problem. Even the frame spacing is perfect. By the way, any camera with 6x7 graphic on the upper front is the early type. The much more recent version, which purportedly has an improved transport mechanism, is designated 67. And of course the newest version is the 67II. The very early 6x7 lacks mirror lock up, but the 6x7 series camers with mlu are quite nice and frequently affordable. Mine has only some minor cosmetic flaws and came complete with a prism. I paid $202.11 on ebay at about this time last year. Paul
Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
Thanks Albano. A question: even with the vibration the shots come out better than a good 35mm with no vibration problems? How much better? Dan Scott On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:37 AM, Albano Garcia wrote: Hi, Dan Yes, film transport is an issue in old 6x7s. I own an old nonMLU body, and the film transport is a bit weared out. It leaves a lot of space between frames, sometimes cutting frame number 10 by half. Cosmetically it's like new, not a simple mark. And yes, I miss the MLU because I would like to use it always I can (in tripod, non moving subject). But since I mostly use it for handheld portraits, it's not that bad. I think it's worth it if you find it really cheap (as I did). If you really like the beast, you can buy another body (more modern, a 67 if possible) and use the earlier as a backup. That's what I would like to do, if I had money. but first I want more lenses... Somebody has a 55mm for 200 usd? :-) Regards Albano
Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
The vibration issue is supposedly with low shutters speeds (from 1/30 to 1 second), and specially combined with long lenses (wich I never plan to own or use). To be honest, Dan, I still have to use the camera in very good conditions. I shot few rolls, and all in not the best conditions (almost-wideopen or wideopen, fairly good speeds, or flash indoors with horrible lighting setup). I want to take some shots with good light, a respectable speed and f stop (ie 1/250 at f8) to start making my own conclusions. By now, I'm satisfied with the results (an example is http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1097688), but I want to use it more before making my own conclusions. I think the DOf is a real defying issue in 6x7 (very scarce), and people saying the 105mm sucks wide open, I think they are seeing images that basically have zero dof. The quality beats 35mm, no doubt. The pic I showed you, in a 8x10 is absolutely grainless, and I think it can go 16x20 without problems. MF kicks 35mm ass when you go bigger than 8x12. There, 35mm must be perfect to keep reasonable, while MF, even not perfectly shot can keep very well up to huge enlargements. As I said, I need to use it more to make conclusions, and to be honest I enjoy using my Rolleiflex a lot, and the fact it weights the half, costs the sixth part, has leaf shutter and no mirror slap, makes me want to use the TLR more than La Gorda (the fat girl). I think it fits my style more (shooting handheld in the streets of a increasingly hardcore city). I keep the 6x7 because I like it, and want it to use it when the situation is more controlled. Also I want to make some paid jobs, and no matter how good photographer you are, you can't appear in a session with a 50 years old TLR. The 6x7 gives you credibility and confidence to the client IMHO. I would like to have at least one more lens, a wide angle to broaden the possibilities of use (and dof). I feel limited with the 105mm. End of rambling. Regards Albano --- Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Albano. A question: even with the vibration the shots come out better than a good 35mm with no vibration problems? How much better? Dan Scott On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:37 AM, Albano Garcia wrote: Hi, Dan Yes, film transport is an issue in old 6x7s. I own an old nonMLU body, and the film transport is a bit weared out. It leaves a lot of space between frames, sometimes cutting frame number 10 by half. Cosmetically it's like new, not a simple mark. And yes, I miss the MLU because I would like to use it always I can (in tripod, non moving subject). But since I mostly use it for handheld portraits, it's not that bad. I think it's worth it if you find it really cheap (as I did). If you really like the beast, you can buy another body (more modern, a 67 if possible) and use the earlier as a backup. That's what I would like to do, if I had money. but first I want more lenses... Somebody has a 55mm for 200 usd? :-) Regards Albano = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
No, Dave, I haven't missed the mirror lockup, and I've done a few macro shots on the tripod. Maybe it's more crucial with really long lenses, but with the big neg, you can shoot with 400-speed film and still get grainless 8x10s, along with higher shutter speeds. You can easily use the camera handheld at 1/250 sec. When most people speak against the non-MLU 6x7, I think the consideration is its age, not whether or not it has that feature. My camera seems to be of '72-'74 vintage, but not heavily used. Because of its age, the shop only gave me a 30-day warranty, and the meter became sticky in the first week. The shop (Broad Street Camera, here in Victoria) fixed it quickly with no argument, and I haven't had a problem since. There are some real beater 6x7s out there, and Pentax Canada no longer repairs the early ones. Having said all that, if you want a 6x7 and you're on a budget, the early models do a fine job, if you find one in top shape. Also, whether it has a meter prism is not that crucial, as the full-area averaging metering is not that great by modern standards, so I often use a hand-held meter anyway. I mostly use the meter when using extension tubes. Are you considering joining the Brotherhood? Pat White
Re: 6x7 MLU - was: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
Hey, speaking of MLU on 6x7's, does anyone know if they have a version of the thumbnail flick MLU like some of the old Pentax mechanical 35mm bodies have? I'm not sure if they were actually ~designed~ that way, but my MX and Spotmatics are certainly capable of it, although I've never actually used it for shooting. Just curious. tanx, frank Pat White wrote: No, Dave, I haven't missed the mirror lockup, and I've done a few macro shots on the tripod. Maybe it's more crucial with really long lenses, but with the big neg, you can shoot with 400-speed film and still get grainless 8x10s, along with higher shutter speeds. You can easily use the camera handheld at 1/250 sec snip -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x7 MLU - was: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
What on earth is the 'thumbnail flick' MLU Frank? Cheers Shaun frank theriault wrote: Hey, speaking of MLU on 6x7's, does anyone know if they have a version of the thumbnail flick MLU like some of the old Pentax mechanical 35mm bodies have? I'm not sure if they were actually ~designed~ that way, but my MX and Spotmatics are certainly capable of it, although I've never actually used it for shooting. Just curious. tanx, frank Pat White wrote: No, Dave, I haven't missed the mirror lockup, and I've done a few macro shots on the tripod. Maybe it's more crucial with really long lenses, but with the big neg, you can shoot with 400-speed film and still get grainless 8x10s, along with higher shutter speeds. You can easily use the camera handheld at 1/250 sec snip -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: 6x7 MLU - was: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
Hi, Shaun, Gently flick the shutter release with a fingernail, so that it depresses about 1/2 way and immediately comes back up. The mirror goes up, and stays there. The shutter does not fire. Then, depress the release fully, the shutter fires, and the mirror goes down. I'm not that good at it, and sometimes accidentally fire off the shutter when I do it, but more often than not it works. The reason that I've never used it to actually take a photo is: 1) I've never had a reason to, 2) Fear of wasting film if I accidentally fire the shutter whilst trying to only lock up the mirror, and, 3) I've heard somewhere that this isn't a really good thing to do to the shutter mechanism (although I've also heard the contrary, from people on this list that have said that they've been doing it for over 20 years with the same body, with no ill effects - but I'm still cautious g). ciao, frank Shaun Canning wrote: What on earth is the 'thumbnail flick' MLU Frank? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x7 MLU - was: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
Howdy Frank, Now I understand...thanks. I can't see how it would be too harmful if you did it occasionally. However, it couldn't be a good thing in bodies that were not designed to have the springs/mechanisms holding the mirror up on purpose. If it is by 'slight of hand' so too speak, I could see some damage to the mirror assembly sooner or later if it was used constantly. Maybe I am paranoid too? Cheers Shaun frank theriault wrote: Hi, Shaun, Gently flick the shutter release with a fingernail, so that it depresses about 1/2 way and immediately comes back up. The mirror goes up, and stays there. The shutter does not fire. Then, depress the release fully, the shutter fires, and the mirror goes down. I'm not that good at it, and sometimes accidentally fire off the shutter when I do it, but more often than not it works. The reason that I've never used it to actually take a photo is: 1) I've never had a reason to, 2) Fear of wasting film if I accidentally fire the shutter whilst trying to only lock up the mirror, and, 3) I've heard somewhere that this isn't a really good thing to do to the shutter mechanism (although I've also heard the contrary, from people on this list that have said that they've been doing it for over 20 years with the same body, with no ill effects - but I'm still cautious g). ciao, frank Shaun Canning wrote: What on earth is the 'thumbnail flick' MLU Frank? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: 6x7 MLU - was: Pat White in American Photo/6x7
On 3 Dec 2002 at 18:47, frank theriault wrote: Hey, speaking of MLU on 6x7's, does anyone know if they have a version of the thumbnail flick MLU like some of the old Pentax mechanical 35mm bodies have? I'm not sure if they were actually ~designed~ that way, but my MX and Spotmatics are certainly capable of it, although I've never actually used it for shooting. Nope, it's an electronic shutter, the MX and Spotty are mechanical releases. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
