Couple of things about the 67II, according to info I have. Whether
this makes it worth more than the old 67 or 6X7 is largely a matter
of preference.
1. The new grip makes it much easier to handle/hold/use
(the old 67 had no grip)
2. A 60% brighter finder.
3. User-interchangeable focusing screens on the 67II
(Repair station interchangeable screens on the 67)
4. Eyepiece shutter built-in
5. Diopter correction built-in
6. Beefed up advance mechanism in 67II
7. Easier mirror lock up & TIME shutter speed control
(for Time exposures without draining batteries)
I have not used a 67/6x7, but I have carried the 67II into the field
and it is an absolute joy to use, like a huge improved K1000. All the
stuff about the larger negative Bill mentioned is true. I've been
tempted a number of times to find a medium format camera for portrait
work, even getting close to bartering for one not long ago.
Ideally, I believe I'd love the 67II and the old 200/4.
Doug
At 7:04 PM -06001/3/01, William Robb caused thus to appear:
>Hi Herbet:
> I am using the 6x7, primarily as a portrait tool. Other than
>ergonomics, the 67II offers exposure automation (aperture
>preferred), multi pattern meter ( the same as the MZ-5, you can
>choose centre weighted, spot or matrix metering) and TTL flash
>control. It also uses the rather overpriced CR123 lithioid
>batteries rather than the PX28 silver oxide battery. The 6x7
>(67) are pretty much oversized K1000s. Completely manual
>control, though the shutter is battery dependent.
> With the exposure automation comes a few other niceties,
>such as exposure compensation and memory lock. Pentax can
>customize the shutter speeds to give half stop increments
>instead of full stop, and they have added a self timer to the
>camera.
> So, do I think it is worth the extra (a lot extra) coin for
>it? Not for portraits for sure. The 6x7 is a pretty heavy
>camera. It doesn't lend itself to fast work. No motordrive
>option (I gave up on the small block Chevy motordrive I was
>developing), and a really long, heavy thumb advance makes this a
>camera for the thinking photographer. I don't see the metering
>improvements and exposure automation as being much justification
>for purchasing it.
> The sync speed for flash has not changed, it is still 1/30th
>second or slower, making it a pain to use with fill flash (the
>sync speed is why I went to the Metz 60).
> In the studio, the camera is a gem. It is easily handheld,
>the screen is easy to focus with (I don't know if they have
>improved the screen in the 67II), and very easy to operate. On a
>tripod it is even easier.
> The 6x7 negs are a joy to print. There is 4 times more
>negative than 35mm, and consequently, 4 times more available
>detail (and 4 times more need to use a diffuser!!!<G>). The
>larger format seems to handle fine tonal rendering much better
>than 35mm, which is another benefit from the larger format, as
>compared to 35mm.
>William Robb
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "herbet brasileiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:43 PM
>Subject: Pentax 67
>
>
>> Hey team,
>> Is there anybody on the list using Pentax 67 or 67II.
>> I'm considering going to medium format for portrait
>> photography. Any comments?
>> I've been listening that if you don't need TTL a 67
>> would be better than a 67II. What basically are the
>> differences between them?
>> thanks in advance,
>> Herbet.
>>
>
>
>
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>visit www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
--
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit www.pdml.net
and follow the directions.
