Not exactly sure what you mean by trouble, but there haven't been any issues with functional things like fitment, scratches, film flatness, or accurate framing using the viewfinder mask. I use the eTone adapter kit, purchased on eBay.
The adapter does make loading/unloading a bit of a chore. The kit comes with a 35mm cartridge with a small bit of film left in it to use as a take up spool. I taped some more film to that in order for it to function as an initial take-up leader so I wouldn't waste film.
To load, you have to tape the fresh film leader to the take-up leader, retract the take-up leader into the cartridge of fresh film and then install both cartridges into the camera with the adapters. The cartridge adapters will create drag when the film is advanced if they are pushed onto the cartridge too tightly.
Unloading has to be done in a changing bag or darkroom. Open the back of the camera and remove both cartridges then rewind the film back into the cartridge manually using one of the cartridge adapters and finally, detach the taped leader.
On the Pentax 67, the film advance lever will not return to flush unless it travels its full length. Invariably when using the 35mm adapter kit the roll ends with the lever sticking out, making it more susceptible to damage. Not a big deal, just something that requires a little extra attention.
It didn't come with any instructions, but you have to use the 220 settings on your camera so you get enough frames on the counter and so the pressure plate is set to the right distance (since 35mm has no backing paper).
I get around 18 frames per 36 exposure roll....Show more →
Awesome explanation, thanks!
I'm mainly thinking of "trouble-free" in the sense that everything runs smoothly despite being a bit of a faff to work with, but it sounds like a well thought-out setup. I grabbed one of the eTone kits just now, and this is just the nudge I needed to finally make a decision on a 45 or one of the 55's.
I'm mainly thinking of "trouble-free" in the sense that everything runs smoothly despite being a bit of a faff to work with, but it sounds like a well thought-out setup. I grabbed one of the eTone kits just now, and this is just the nudge I needed to finally make a decision on a 45 or one of the 55's.
Cool, also if you have a meter prism, the meter will be off because of the viewfinder mask.
For a while I had both the 45mm and the latest 55mm (SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4), but ended up just keeping the 45mm. I realized when I wanted wide, I usually wanted as wide as possible. The 55mm was a little sharper, but a lot bigger/heavier and I also got hard vignetting on it when I stacked filters, e.g. red filter and polarizer. I sold it and bought the 75mm Shift instead, which I highly recommend, in spite of its mammoth size and fiddly operation.
OregonSun wrote:
Cool, also if you have a meter prism, the meter will be off because of the viewfinder mask.
For a while I had both the 45mm and the latest 55mm (SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4), but ended up just keeping the 45mm. I realized when I wanted wide, I usually wanted as wide as possible. The 55mm was a little sharper, but a lot bigger/heavier and I also got hard vignetting on it when I stacked filters, e.g. red filter and polarizer. I sold it and bought the 75mm Shift instead, which I highly recommend, in spite of its mammoth size and fiddly operation. ...Show more →
Ah, great point on the meter. I'll probably go with the 45 for the same reason; if going wide, might as well go with the wider of the two. I thought I'd build out more of a system for the 67 when I got into it, but the 105 turned out to be such a good fit that I haven't yet felt particularly motivated to expand. The 45 with the pano kit is very compelling, and in any case I should probably pick up a few other lenses as long as they're still reasonably priced.
OffTrail wrote:
Ah, great point on the meter. I'll probably go with the 45 for the same reason; if going wide, might as well go with the wider of the two. I thought I'd build out more of a system for the 67 when I got into it, but the 105 turned out to be such a good fit that I haven't yet felt particularly motivated to expand. The 45 with the pano kit is very compelling, and in any case I should probably pick up a few other lenses as long as they're still reasonably priced.
I still struggle a bit with the Leica viewfinder and wearing glasses. Hard to see the 28mm framelines. Also, I have not yet shot something that makes me go "wow" this one I could not have taken with a Pentax and the 28mm F2. Not yet willing to give up though...
Ferry | Leica M4P | Kodak Ultramax rated at Iso 640 and developed at Iso 800 | Valoi Easy35
Out of curiosity, how do you usually meter Portra 800? The exposure looks spot on in that photo. For me, when I get it just right, it's gorgeous, but when it's slightly under, it's super muddy. I have been leaning much more toward overexposing, especially on my Pentax.
skylight1b wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you usually meter Portra 800? The exposure looks spot on in that photo. For me, when I get it just right, it's gorgeous, but when it's slightly under, it's super muddy. I have been leaning much more toward overexposing, especially on my Pentax.
Unless I just need more shutter speed, I never actually shoot Portra 800 at 800. I treat it like a 400-speed film most often, and sometimes even 200 if I've got the light and I want more contrast and saturation. You're right that it can go muddy fast if you don't meter for shadows at 800, so baking in more exposure is good insurance as long as you've got enough light.
The picture under the steps would've been 400, and here's an example that I know I rated for 200. You can see the kind of saturation that you get at 200 in the sky.
OffTrail wrote:
Unless I just need more shutter speed, I never actually shoot Portra 800 at 800. I treat it like a 400-speed film most often, and sometimes even 200 if I've got the light and I want more contrast and saturation. You're right that it can go muddy fast if you don't meter for shadows at 800, so baking in more exposure is good insurance as long as you've got enough light.
The picture under the steps would've been 400, and here's an example that I know I rated for 200. You can see the kind of saturation that you get at 200 in the sky.
Continuing with is 800 speed film 400? This is Flic Film Aurora 800 and I used a ND2 filter to reduce the speed one stop and exposed it at 400. I haven't tried it at 800 but I still have a couple of rolls.
Cute Couple, Ashland, Oregon
M4-2, Zeiss 28 2.8 Biogon, ND2 filter, Flic Aurora 800 lab processed, camera scanned and converted with Negative Lab Pro
Is the Charles W. Morgan still docked there? I remember touring it when I was about twelve. There was a list of the crew from the 19th century and the tallest member was 5'8.
madNbad wrote:
Is the Charles W. Morgan still docked there? I remember touring it when I was about twelve. There was a list of the crew from the 19th century and the tallest member was 5'8.
If it is we didn't see it. We didn't venture far from the main street of shopping and eating so it could well be there.
