I have been using a Pentax 67 since December, and shot a couple hundred rolls through it. I was finding the system very slow compared to 35mm, and it seemed speed was integral to my shooting style. I have returned all variable to where they were before I switched formats, and I have had maybe 10 shoots since so doing. I am still finding my photographs of last summer to be OBJECTIVELY much better, and others have said the same.

I love the quality I get with 67, but I am thinking of switching back to 35mm. How long did it take you to get used to the switch? I can't seem to capture people the way I used to, when I was carefree and had 3 times the film and a motordrive and speed.

I'm not whining. I'm not going to jump the gun, either. But if someone said to me "I'm thinking of switching back from MF to 35mm", I'd think to myself, and probably say, "You are nuts, and here's why: big image quality, detail, 'professionalism'".

A Nikon F4s (or even a couple of FM2n's with MD12's) with a 50mm and 80-200 seems professional to me, Technical Pan has great detail as long as I stick to 11x14 (35mm), and I don't do large prints often. However, I would not be able to crop as aggressively as I have become accustomed to lately...which means I'd have to become a better photographer (always the hardest part, eh?).

I wish I could afford 2 systems, but I can't yet (I still don't make any moey at this...but who cares?).

Would I be crazy to switch back to 35mm. I think yes, but something just isn't sitting well, as if I am staying MF merely for dogmatic and theoretical reasons.

Obviously, no one can really answer this but me, but here am I anyways...

shawn

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000

Answers

Shawn, I think you worry way too much about equipment issues. You should just work with things until you get comfortable, or if you don't get comfortable, get rid of them and try something else.

Check out my friend's website at http://www.firstworld.net/~sordido/portraiture.html. He works with cameras that are taped together. His lighting is hot lamps in thrift store lamps that he disassembles. When I first saw how he worked, I couldn't believe it, but it helped remind me that equipment is the least important part of taking great photographs. (The website doesn't have his really good stuff, another friend put it together quickly with stuff that was lying around.)

Use cameras that are comfortable for you to work with. Then stop thinking about them.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 09, 2000.

I think you're absolutely right Jeff. But I'm just trying to get comfortable now...I really thought a bigger negative was the next, natural progression. Or I'll complain about lights...well, now I've had big negatives and plenty of light for half a year, and all I can think is--I'm NOT happy--I'm not free (as hippie as that sounds...). I didn't realize how happy I was with my little Contax and available/tungsten light. Unless I get some serious gremlins whispering to me in my sleep, I think I should...revert.

Thanks Jeff.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000.

Electric guitar or acoustic? Mountain bike or road bike? Laptop or desktop? MF or 35? The answer, you need both. Don't try to do with one what the other is good at.... it sounds like you need a different approach to preparing your subjects for having MF pointed at them; you have to expect a different reaction, like, oh oh, I have to pose, this better be good..., have you ever used both in a session, for different moods or movements?

I live in Boston, went to the Weston extravaganza at the MFA there... They recreated his darkroom- an L shaped table. the wet side was three trays over a long tin sink, the dry side was a contact frame with a bare bulb hanging by its wire over it. There was a basic little egg-timer thing... if Weston needed less light per exposure, he raised the bulb using a clothespin on the wire. In the corner of the L however was a lab scale and all the dry powders for his pryo mixes, and his personally scrawled notes on the chemistry of a given session... When I get the the more equipment blues, I reach for my Weston books... Get your subject into a good mode for the format, then look at the light, look at the light, look at the light.

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), May 09, 2000.

Perhaps your shooting style is more suited to one of the new autofocus 645 cameras. You still have big negatives (compared to 35mm) but gain AF (if you want it) and automatic film advance. Your 67 system might make a good downpayment on a Pentax 645n or other brand camera. Or perhaps skip the AF and get a manual focus Pentax 645 camera.

-- Greg Erker (erker@sask.trlabs.ca), May 09, 2000.

Shawn,

You need something with a polaroid back for what you want to do, and that means MF/LF. Consider the frequency and nature of lighting questions you've asked. I think you wouldn't even be thinking of switching if you could easily stick a pola back on that P67. That, I believe, is the next logical progression.

Good luck.

-- Tommy Zablan (lensman49@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

How about digital? Shoot as much as you want. See it immediately, and only keep the best. A D1 is only $5000 and you'll save the $3000 difference over a good traditional body in film costs alone fairly quickly if you shoot a lot.

I use 35 almost all the time - mainly because of the expense of scanning medium format from my RB67. But I find that I shoot different types of shots with each system, so I would also ask if you have really explored all the possibilities of the Pentax - or if you've just been trying to use it like a big 35. The pictures of yours that I've seen seem quite suited to medium (or even large) format. Have you been profligate with film (and more recently relying on cropping) as a crutch?

(I almost never crop by the way. In fact, I've had to force myself to open up my framing to allow for scanning and later editorial cropping. And I only shoot lots of frames in quick succession when my model is in action herself. However, one place I find the extra film of 35mm always helpful is in relaxing an uptight model. The inexperienced ones at least become extremely self-conscious when you stop shooting. I guess the real answer is several MF cameras and several assistants to keep them loaded!)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 09, 2000.

I can't answer your question for you, but I can tell you that your ideas about "professionalism" seem a bit muddled. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Professional is as professional does." The equipment you use is unimportant as long as it gets the job done. The amount of grain in the print doesn't matter as long as the image works. You're attaching too much importance to what are essentially secondary issues.

I also think you overestimate how much you have to spend to have a very capable 35mm system. If you have the skills to effectively use old, manual cameras, there are plenty of bargains out there.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), May 10, 2000.

Shawn, get an IMAX movie camera. Big negs and lots of 'em.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), May 10, 2000.

The pictures of yours that I've seen seem quite suited to medium (or even large) format

Thanks everyone. Hmmm, I've never thought of it like that. It's funny you say that because all the pics I have on the web are 35mm, and the MF negs I've been getting, well, I am so unhappy with them (for objective reasons), that I would never post them. More oppositional thinking I guess--shoot 35mm and get pics "suited to medium (or even large) format"; shoot MF and get pics suited for the crapper.

Maybe an FM2n and an old 4x5 is the answer. I can prob'ly pic up both for my MF gear and a little cash. I have everything else for once (lighting, meter, etc.).

This is purely theoretical crap I'm about to say, but: maybe an in- between format, which represents a form of balance I never achieve, is useless to me. Maybe the two extremes, smallest and (almost) largest formats would make me happier.

Tommy--that's great advice, but I'm leary on spending any more money on a system which I've come to think is against me (my own psychology of course).

I'm gonna sit on it till Saturday.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

I still think you'd be much happier with a smaller medium format cam. If I were you, I'd try to make the p67 pay for a handier replacement.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Shawn,

MF is the right tool for the job. I personally do not think that the P67 is the right MF system [I've had direct experience] because of its limitations for syncro sun work, etc.

35mm will yield different results than MF, just as LF is different than either of those. Format dictates technique. The point is, each has strong/weak points. To shoot fashion [live, moving people] with studio lighting [non TTL flash] in difficult mixed lighting conditions, add being "tricky" [your personal style] with any kind of dynamic energy captured in the final image, and the answer is MF.

Now, your choice of systems was probably the result of the P67's low $$$ allure, but now you are growing past it's abilities, and finding its limitations, you need more capability for this kind of work. I'm with the "get a different MF" group. Bite the bullet and do it right. If you bail on MF and go back to 35mm, I'll guarantee that the first time [and every time there after] you nail a shot and look at it on the light box, you'll have a nagging little voice in your head that is saying "I wish this was on 120"......

At a minimum get a second P67 body with a Polaroid back, at least then you can see what the hell you are doing. It is worth the investment in time and energy to become a proficient MF shooter, there are very few people who have the dedication to do so, because its too hard [insert whining voice here].

Gooooooooood day!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), May 10, 2000.

Why not spend only $300.00 or so for a bare bones 35mm camera system? I'll leave choice of name brand up to you - hint - you don't need motordrive, you don't need autofocus, you don't need auto exposure. On the one hand you say you want the system that "seems professional to me" on the other hand you sayI still don't make any money at this...but who cares? Obviously, you do. Why do you want to "seem professional" when you aren't? Remember this: the only people who care about what brand of camera you use are other photographers and who wants to bother trying to impress them? I have NEVER heard an art director or photo buyer ask "Did a Hasselblad take this picture? It looks too sharp to be Bronica..." or other such nonsense.

If you want good cameras for cheap, look at Nikkormats, look at Pentax manual focus, look at Yashica manual focus, look at Minolta. If you have friends in photo, get the same body as them and try swapping lenses so you can try before you buy. Forget high price 80-200 f2.8 zooms until you DO start making money at this. Maybe try for a 50mm and an 80mm or 100mm - all primes. Substitute a crappy variable aperture zoom at your own peril. In a few years, if you DO start making money at this, you can buy that expensive F4. In the meantime, buy a used Minolta SRT and write "F4" on it with majic marker and say "wheep-wheep-wheep" as you advance film with your thumb.

As fas as trading in your 6x7 camera AGAIN for sometning else goes, well, if you have an interest in doing people photography professionally than you NEED to be working on your portfolio. Pentax 6x7 is not a camera I am familiar with but I don't think that WHICH camera makes much difference -- again, only other photographers are going to ask which camera took which pictures. But if you want to show potential clients nice prints and big transparencies (no body looks at 35mm unless you make them) you shouldcontinue to work with some sort of medium format camera. Any trade to another system is going to represent a big $$$ loss. In your place I would have probably gone for an interchangeable back camera so I could use a Polaroid back .... but switching now means a big $$$ loss. Unless you can find someone to take the P67 off your hands at a more than fair price I'd make do with what you have.

Obviously, no one can really answer this but me, but here am I anyways...

Okay but you got my opinion anyway

-- a dale (adale66@excite.com), May 10, 2000.

For clarification, when I said(no body looks at 35mm unless you make them) I should have said "no body looks at 35mm TRANSPARENCIES unless you make them."

-- idiot (adale66@excite.com), May 10, 2000.

I am still finding my photographs of last summer to be OBJECTIVELY much better, and others have said the same.

I missed this the first time through.

There's no such thing. Your photographs are never "objectively" better. The only better (or worse, for that matter), is "subjective."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 10, 2000.

Re : talk me into or out of this...

One of the interesting nuggets in Weston's "Daybooks" is how he describes the freedom of using a Graflex SLR (2 1/2 x 3 1/4) at 1/10s handheld for portraits on Tina compared to his battered and warped 8x10 on a stand. However, at the time, Weston was beginning to truly develop his own aesthetic. I don't think, Shawn, that your disappointment with your results has anything to do with your equipment. Rather than falling into the trap of revolving equipment, and losing money as a result, calm down, try to arrange an informal shoot with some friend(s) that you don't need to pay for, stick to lighting/film/developers that you are comfortable with (i.e. try not to stretch the technical boundaries every time you press the shutter), relax, and press the shutter only when the moment seems right. Don't press it unless you are sure - you will know when it comes together, and it won't if you force it. One great image is worth much more than several rolls of mediocrity. Look at the work of some of the great photographers of people - e.g Edward Weston. You are not going to emulate him today or tomorrow - you may do over a period of time - but you never will if you don't allow yourself to forget your equipment and concentrate on understanding the balance between responding to what you see, and influencing its appearance on film. I am beginning to be able to do this with a 4x5 camera - in itself the camera is not important, but it did serve to get me out of the marketing hype associated with 35mm/MF, develop technical skills, and concentrate on seeing the final print that I wanted appear on the groundglass. Stick with your equipment, forget it, until you get the aesthetic side on heat and your confidence building.

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), May 11, 2000.

Great responses guys, thanks.

Jeff--you're right of course, but I was jusr being brief cuz I was a work. By objective, I really just meant "even other people think my work from last summer is better". Sorry for the language faux-pax.

"I don't think, Shawn, that your disappointment with your results has anything to do with your equipment. ". This is really true. I am starting to 'see' a lot more, I mean when I look at a photograph I appreciate things more and more as time goes on; I guess I just have to realize how long it takes to get what "I" see in my mind's eye lining up with how the camera/negative/print 'sees'.

I know it took a hell of a lot longer than a few years for me to be able to get what I hear through to my fingers/the guitar/amp/other instruments/recording...and maybe that's part of the point for me.

If I had half a brain I'd just go out and buy something I know I'm comfortable with, something I've owned before (an F3 or a Contax S2 maybe), so I can get on with the Vision part again.. The idea of wasting the summer's shots getting used to something which might or might not help...well--I just want to take good pictures, in whatever format.

Thanks for your help all.

shawn

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

What exactly is the problem? If you want more frames use 220 film in the pentax then you will have 20 compared to 36. Adding a cheap 35mm body with a motordrive is as simple as adding an n70 or an elan for relatively little and adding something like a 28-105.

I'm sure you are just feeling growing pains, happens to everyone when you try different formats, you try to shoot like you did in the old format and it does not work. Perhaps before you were just machine gunning the film and getting lucky at times with images and now it takes a bit more time and thought to push the button?

What exactly is the problem in the images you have been getting lately?

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), May 11, 2000.

They're very static and stiff. As 'medium format' as my images may seem, I shoot 'in between moments' with 35mm, and I learned early on that I can't do that with MF. It takes too long to lift the camera and focus, for one (it is heavy...and I only weigh about 120 pounds...and the focus ring on both my lenses--I have to crank them way over with my whole arm most of the time, as opposed to a tiny flick of my wrist with Contax and Nikon).

And I'm also, it seems, simply uncomfortable, which is showing up on film. I spend a lot more time trying to work the camera than working the atmosphere and mood and composition. For example, I shoot a session in 3-4 hours now, and take about 100 pictures; as opposed to 1.5-2 hours and 500 frames with 35mm (which was normal for me). And even on a frame for frame basis, I got more good pictures with 35mm, many more.

Sometimes I feel like a sportshooter who's shooting portraits, and I'm so intrinsically hyper that slowing down gives me the feeling that my head is gonna pop off. Anyways, a digression I guess...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

I just went for lunch. And bought another F3.

Hope it helps.

Ugh. Well if nothing else, I feel a little better (get to re- acquaint myself with an old friend...)...and who knows, with tech pan, the 55mm micro I bought (80-200 too) I may not notice the difference at 11x14...anyways...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

alright shawn -- I don't want to hear you bitching any more about any supposed "poverty" either -- now go and use that camera...

-- alan (adale6@excite.com), May 11, 2000.

okey dokey. best advice yet.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

And I've been wanting to try a P67. If you decide to sell it (and I have any money at the time), let me know.

By the way, you normally shoot 15 rolls of 35mm in only 2 hours? I only shot 11 rolls in about 4 hours of shooting at the wedding I did last weekend - and that was using two cameras simultaneously (b/w and color). The last big shoot I did (two models over two days, with both location and studio work), I only shot 10. How many shots do you take of a "pose" (a setup, an idea, whatever) in order to get a good one? And of the poses you do during a shoot how many give you a positive result? I know that photographers like Sante D'Orazio will shoot up to 2000 frames in a day, but I'm assuming that they are trying out lots of different ideas (and have the available manpower to make it happen). I expect that they also have a lot of good shots at the end of a shoot - even though only a handful will ever be selected for publication.

When I first started, I found myself clicking the shutter like Austin Powers - and hoping that that the end result would be ok. I slowed down a bit and now only shoot when I know I'm real close to a decent shot. (Though when I see it, I will shoot up to 1/2 a dozen or so in quick succession. And, as I mentioned before, I will keep shooting - slowly - even when I know that it's not very good in order to keep the model from getting too self-conscious.)

I know that everyone works differently, but you might want to aim for a happy median between the two extremes.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 11, 2000.

Hope it works out for you shawn, btw what lenses are you using for the pentax that you could not focus so quickly?

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), May 11, 2000.

On reading more of your explanations, I do have some advice for you: PRACTICE USING YOUR DAMN CAMERAS!! They don't need to have film in them and you don't need a model to practice focusing and advancing the film. Shift focus to various items around the room until you can do it smoothly and quickly. Do this every day, several times a day! If the camera's too heavy for you to handle comfortably, start lifting weights (a camera with big lens makes a pretty good dumbbell and you get used to its balance in your hand).

Also, if you're twisting your whole arm around when focusing, you need to refine your focusing technique. For manual-focus lenses that have 180 degrees (or more) between minimum dist. and infinity, you should be rolling the barrel between your thumb and finger(s) (along with a twisting motion of your wrist) to do most of the turning. Just gripping the barrel and turning your arm is horribly inefficient (not to mention kind of funny looking). Additionally, you should have the approximate focus set before you even lift the camera to your eye. With practice, it's easy to estimate close distances (< 15 ft) to within a foot.

I also don't understand how people can go through so much film in so short a time, but I realize some people just work that way. I'll shoot about 200 to 250 exposures during 7 or 8 hrs of wedding coverage, and only about 30 to 50 during a 90-minute portrait session. My photos got a lot better when I started shooting more slowly.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), May 12, 2000.

Shawn,

I like the first reply from Jeff Spirer regarding his friends work using taped together cameras and household lights. I came across the following web site (http://www.pdn-pix.com/legends8) for Rodney Smith. He is a very highly paid fashion photographer who shoots everything with one Leica M4 and a 50mm lens and Tri-X! His shots are very elegant and impressive. (And never a Polariod.) I keep telling myself that vision is everything and equipment simply a tool.

Einstein is claimed to have said "The best design is the simplest one that works." I think this goes for equipment too.

I also like the work of National Geo. photog David Allen Harvey. A few years back he did a very extensive double story on Vietnam. It was half the entire issue (in number of pages). He shot the whole thing with two Leica M6s and three lenses (28, 35, 50). Very minimalistic. (Compared to James Stanfield who takes a small truck load of equipment.)

Since I am on a very limited budget (read hobbyist) my battered Nikon FE and 55 mm Micro Nikkor will give me photos every bit as sharp as any other 35mm system. The only reason I may be forced to upgrade is my eyesight is deteriorating to the point where I'm missing the focus now on a noticable percentage of my photos. Autofocus may become essential. Even then, I don't need the leading edge camera. A used 8008S or N90 would work just as well for portraits as an F100 at half the price.

Look at your motives for equipment choices. Mine are always wandering to the wrong reasons (wanting to be in with the in crowd, just plain selfish materialism etc.) Then use whaterver produces the most pleasing prints. In the end, the print is all that matters.

-- Jay Johnson (jay_johnson@deneb.com), May 12, 2000.

I remember reading an interview with a British "glamour" (Playboy- type) photographer. Same kind of story, one camera (Nikon something) and one lens (300mm). Didn't ever use anything else.

I find that the best equipment for me is the equipment that gets out of the way the fastest. Changing gear makes that impossible. I bought a Konica Hexar a few years ago. Different handling from anything I was using (manual rangefinders), took at least a year before I got to where the results were what I wanted.

By the way, my friend with taped-together cameras does profesional work with it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 12, 2000.

huh.

--

that nutty alan dale!

(adale66@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Every camera system has it's pros and cons. The Pentax 67II is everything I thought it would be, large transparencies and negatives, handles like a large 35mm body, choice of using 120 or 220 film, and a couple of leaf shutter lenses that will allow a flash sync of up to 1/500. On the downside, a bit slower than motor driven 35mm bodies, flash sync of 1/30 on focal plane lenses, 90% viewing screen, and a dedicated body is recommended for Polaroid back. If you want something faster, you might want to look at the Contax 645, Mamiya 645Pro or AF 645, or go back to 35mm. You can expect a slower process as you go to a larger format, but the larger images are well worth the trade off. Tony

-- Tony Clark (tcphoto@earthlink.net), May 12, 2000.

here's a different approach to looking at it...

So now you've got a rapier (f3 )and a broad sword (pentax 67)...

Slowness is a virtue. If you've seen "Mask Of Zorro", remember when the "old" Zorro was teaching the "new" Zorro sword play? He was actually coaching the "new" guy (Banderas) to approach and attack slower, more deliberately, and more precisely. The point of this is to maintain presence of mind and not to lose balance.

There was also the concept of the "training circle" in that movie ("the world does not exist outside the circle...and as you progress..the circle gets smaller and smaller towards your goal"), which actually means minimalism and the systematic mastery of your tools and immediate environment first, then slowly expanding your mastery while at the same time narrowing your focus and concentration.

I use those examples from the movie above since they are an easily accessible reference point, but the concepts ring true for most martial arts (not just fencing) and most endeavors as well. The same principles are taught in Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do which is used as meditative reading by handgunners, businessmen, and even some photographers if I remember correctly.

What I'm trying to say is Balance, Presence Of Mind, Deliberate Precision, and Mastery of your tools and techniques are the things that remain constantly important...regardless of your tools and even the particlar endeavor you're in.

Many 35mm shooters I know remind me of the untrained "new" Zorro in the movie, who was swinging wildly and uncontrollably fast (and making many potentially fatal mistakes); they shoot anything and everything at 5 fps (taking their cameras auto focus, metering, and motor drive to the limits) without any coherent thought whatsoever as to why they are doing it...sort of like accelerating a car from 0-60 mph for the fun of it. See, I've gotten the same line from some of these people, calling it their "style". This isn't the smartest way to go...rather dumb atcually (speaking of them). Bruce Lee coined a term for what some people called "style"...Classical Mess, characterized by a lot of useless and flowery movements.

I would recommend giving some serious thought to your approach and less on the tools (which are important only if you've got a good approach). Pay less attention to the number of frames you shoot in a given session, and look at only the frames that matter (those you would show as part of your portfolio). I seriously doubt the P67 would be too slow or difficult to handle for the kind of shots you think are "objetively" better.

...BTW, I also think a broadsword or sabre is a much more elegant and effective weapon (both in looks and in technique) than a rapier (with all those rapid pin prick thrusts)...which kinda explains why I think MF is still your best bet.

-- Tommy Zablan (lensman49@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

Wax on.....

Wax off....

Wax on.....

Wax off....

Wax on.....

Wax off....

It's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.....

To yearn for tomorrow is to deny today....

The journey of 1000 miles begins with one step....

35mm is for the weak and you're a panty-waste for giving up so easily ....

That is all....

-- Robert Anderson (rapfoto@uswest.net), May 13, 2000.

35mm is for the weak and you're a panty-waste for giving up so easily .... ...maybe, but I really just gave up on a camera. I know I'm going to get frustrated with the detail/sharpness of 35mm occasionally, but nothing is stopping me from buying a more manageable MF system sometime, something like a Rollei TLR maybe. I just want to ensure I don't waste the summer trying to manhandle a camera--the last six months have been too frustrating, like i've gone backwards to go forwards, but because i'm not used to the gears i'm really stuck in neutral.

I work well with the F3, I know because this is the second one I've owned. I want to take pictures, not study photography, this summer, if that makes any sense...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2000.

To whom it may concern:

It's 'pantywaist'-

n : a timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive [syn: sissy, pansy, milksop, Milquetoast]

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), May 18, 2000.

Thanks Chsir, I never could spell write! I'll go reed from the "tribby" dicksunary naow.

-- Robert Anderson (rapfoto@uswest.net), May 18, 2000.

Shawn, one thing to try:

There are lighter MF cameras than the Pentax, though not many 6x7 cameras. If you're kinda-sorta mostly comfortable with it, consider a monopod. If you're mostly an eye-level shooter--not changing view height frequently--that'll offload the weight off of your arms, and let you concentrate on your subject and the piddly bits of exposure and focus.

Years and years ago, I shot weddings with a mixed format set: one 35mm SLR and one MF TLR. The TLR used a waistlevel finder, and was either strapped snugly to my check, where I'd aim using 'body english', or lived on a monopod.

You'd think it'd be slower than no support, but I found it easier and therefore more convenient; give it a try. (It also works for 35mm...)

-- Kevin Connery (connery@keradwc.com), May 26, 2000.

Well, 2 shoots with the F3, only 5 rolls per shoot (?), and a large number of the pics are way better. But still nothing near my vision. Guess it's only very barely an equipment thing. But I am much more comfortable, so that means something.

-- shawnie gotta get some creatine (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), May 26, 2000.

Shawn, I Know What You Are Going Through 35 Or Med Format,And Now I Just Jumped Up To 4X5!! I Think It's All In What You Need It For. I Was A News Chaser And I Had To Use A 35mm For The Speed, But Think Of All Them Old Cat's (WEJEE) That Had To Use 4X5 Press Cams Slowwwwwwww!! Load The Film Put In The Flash Bulb Set The Focus Or Just Guss It. WOW! And Thay Were News Guy's, The 35mm Camera Had To Be Like The Second Coming Of Christ To Them,But At A Price Small Neg's Less Sharpness On And On! The Point Is If The Pentax Is To Heavy Get A Mamiya 645 M Or 1000 The 1000 Will Fire At 1/1000sec And Are A Lot Lighter Than The Pentax,Some What Cheeper Too. Check The Auctions> EBAY.com Lots Of Stuff To Choos Frome. By The Way How Old Are You? We Were All Young Once And All Have Went Out Of Our Minds With This. Hone Your Skills And Eye And Know What You Want To Photograph. Here Is On Good Thing About 35mm You Can Buy A 100ft Roll Of Bulk B&W Film And Roll Your Own! Se Ya DUDE.

-- Pete Lucchini (plucchini@qwest.net), April 09, 2002.