EDIT: At the insistence of my manager and colleagues, I will list some reasons.
- It’s too heavy.
- It’s too loud.
- It’s not pretty.
- The lenses are amazing, but not worth the sacrifice you have to make to be able to shoot them.
- They’re very unreliable.
One reply on “Should you buy a Pentax 67?”
I used to carry around a Pentax 6×7 (well the newer 67II, which is pretty much just as heavy) and a bunch of lenses in a backpack while hiking the hot Southwest deserts: the 45mm, 75mm, 105mm, 135mm macro, 300mm plus extension tubes. All that, and a big old heavy duty aluminum tripod. Usually two or more litres of water as well. Too heavy, you say? Bah!
The lenses were great, easily comparable if not better than equivalent Hasselblad lenses.
Yes the camera is “loud” and has a ton of mirror shock, so make sure you get a body with mirror lockup. I sure won’t disagree there.
Lots of old film cameras are horribly ugly, so I don’t get that complaint!
Mine was reliable, but then the newer 67II was built a lot better, also with ball-bearings in the film advance mechanism, which was a point of failure on the old bodies. Still… it’s a classic, so why not try one if the price is right, if you want to get into shooting 6×7 film?
And, the Pentax 67 is still one of the lightest ways of getting a non-rangefinder 6×7 format camera. Try lugging around a Mamiya RZ67 or worse, an RB67! Okay, I will admit to one other drawback on the Pentax: no interchangeable film magazines. Then again, trying buying an extra 120 back for a Hasselblad these days… it’s near impossible!
And all this is coming from Beau’s digital department manager, so there! Harumph.
Comments are closed.