". . . it is one of the cult classics. They are being snatched up left and right."
I thought writing this review would be a cinch. I lived it. But writing the review was much like the actual advent of this interesting and stable workhorse camera. That is, anti-climactic. I had a hard time actually pegging this guy. I long anticipated its arrival, I have used it sufficiently to know it well, and yet I still don't really know where to fit it. I like it. It does some jobs, if not most, very well.But if I had to hypothetically have done without any one camera that I have used professionally in my lifetime--this great little gigantic camera would probably be it. I'll try to help you understand why.
". . . writing the review was much like the actual advent of this interesting and stable workhorse camera. That is, anti-climactic."
But regardless of my own personal experiences and my conclusions, this camera has made an immovable case for itself in the minds and hearts of many users--to the extent that it is one of the cult classics. They are being snatched up left and right. They are actually very hard to find now, and command a good price as a collector.
I could could clean this one up--not that ti is actually dirty--but the large black lens housings in particular seem to collect all the little scratches into one big scratch-fest. It is all cosmetic, because you can barely damage one of these by dropping from one of those U-2 spy-planes I often cuss myself for not getting a photograph of when I was in the fifth grade thirty miles above the Arctic Circle in a BIA School in Kotzebue, Alaska.
Back in the day, as we say, in this case referring to the late fifties and early sixties, there seemed to be ths expectation among many photographers that any time now we are going to have a blown-up big brother to the 35mm camera design. Little thought was given or even know about the design and manufacture challenges such a camera would pose. We did know that a Hasselblad cost way more than many of us could afford, so it seemed reasonable to assume that a medium format camera made like those less-expensive 35mm cameras would not cost near as much and would function just fine.
Well, in 1969 it finally came to pass. Pentax, a fairly well-known and respected name in photography came out with our dream camera. It was in almost every regard an over-grown 35mm camera that took 120 film and made the so-called ideal format, 6cm x 7cm.
(You know, they told us in Miss Kanopka's 4th grade class back in 1962, I think, that we all had to learn the metric system, and quickly, because it would all switch over from the English System. That's also the year they introduced so-called new math. New math never flew.I don't even know what it was. And all that stuff about the metric system, was either a big fat lie, or grossly miscalculated. But poor little dumb me--expend all those brain cells actually learning the Metric System--probably because I had a hard crush on Miss Kanoka. So, for those who still don't know, 1 inch is approximately 2.546cm. Can you Metrics make the reverse conversion?)
"We did know that a Hasselblad cost way more than many of us could afford. . ."
The ideal format meant that it was ideal for making an 8x10 print, then so popular, without any cropping. This rationale is debatable, but it has its proponents even today.
Although the Pentax 6x7 Camera did create a lot of excitement, it was greatly difussed by quite a number of other medium format designs, mostly knock-offs or at least inspirational design children of the Hasselblad designs. And since weddings was one of the big driving forces behind the need in the market-place for such cameras, interchangeable backs were the order of the day.
If you were not around then, we had no such luxuries of computers and PhotoShop back in the stone-age. Creative photographer-marketers had used what they had to make double and triple exposure magic as it were yo enhance their competitive edge. This became the consumers' expectations and consequently it became the wedding photographers' need--to have interchangeable backs.
There were also the medium format range finder cameras in full evolution such as the Konica-Omega Rapid and the Mamiya 23 series of cameras. Also, by sandwiching negatives to provide a similar effect as a double-exposure, coupled with the capabilities of many TLR medium format cameras to double expose back-to-back images, creative outcomes were not so hard to do.
Any decent creative photographer of this vintage could use a 35mm camera to produce double exposures and a host of other camera magic which was faddish, but essential for time. But only some of these techniques could be replicated with the Pentax 67. Had this camera come out just a few year's earlier, it would undoubtedly have changed the course of photogrpahic history. As it were, it only made a mild impact, and generated only a mild demand.
The Pentax 67 was build on the same design principles and actual frame, although inflated, as was the famous Pentax Spotmatic 35mm cameras, which was one of the great landmark camera designs for several reasons. I'm nor saying that the Pentax 67 camera was a lousy camera, far from it, it was and is a great camera--but I am saying that for many photographers of this era--it was simply too little, too late.
"Had this camera come out just a few year's earlier, it would undoubtedly have changed the course of photogrpahic history."
After all , Hasselblad had been immortalized by all the press and advertising mileage as being "good enough for the moon astronauts", Bronica and Kowa among others had formidable medium format design options, Mamiya was rumored to be about to release what became known as the RB 67, newer better models of the "press cameras, seemed to be coming out almost monthly, four pr five Mamiya C-330's could be purchased for the same amount as one Pentax 67. And there were other things on the horizon. And this is all saying nothing of what was available behind the curtain in the East.
That the well-designed Pentax 67 was sold at all against such a back-drop, is a testament of its quality, uniqueness, and sheer toughness. The essentially same camera, with very few tweaks was still being manufactured and sold steadily twenty years later. In the ever-changing camera world, this is no small feat. So what makes this camera a contender in the aforesaid environment?
The camera has been referred to as the behemoth and the the Arnold Terminator (can't spell it) of cameras. The following link give a good overview of the history of the Pentax 67 if you want all the technical dope. For me, it suffices my needs to say that the camera is tough as nails. I won't say that it is indestructible, but when I have needed a really tough medium-format camera within an almost disposable price-range ($600---$1200 most recently over the Internet with a couple of lenses), offering excellent optics, lens interchangeability, fast on the draw, and easy to operate--this has often been my
choice.
Because of my incurable addiction to the advantages of medium-format over 35mm, the Pentax 67 has been my number one choice for adventure photography and wild-life photography. I have not often achieved the apex of my quintessential goals of my ideal photographer--established when I was but a teen and young adult--but I HAVE almost always tried to do so. This has necessarily injected me into virtually every crazy situation or cause on this planet.
So please understand that when I mention Adventure Photography--it is not said as a casual endeavor. That this camera could begin to stand up to the rigors that I expect out of a camera required to follow me around during portions of my life is not so much an endorsement as it is an admission. I never really liked the camera--for no good reason except that they were late to market.
As a field camera, if we digress to that as a particular kind of camera today,the Pentax can't be beat. Given the one big improvement since origination--namely the mirror lock-up system--the camera is also hard to beat for landscapes, and is at least usable professionally in the studio.
Although I have owned but one of these cameras, I heartily recommend it for those types of work that it was truly designed ot do. Though it is a big, relatively heavy camera, and understanding that I LIKE big heavy cameras, the handling of the Pentax 67 is easier than is many cameras. It is balanced well enough, and it can steadied easily enough. The 35mm-like design, with handles designed into each side, is fairly intuitive and feels good in ones hands. At least in mine.
As with all of my cameras, I feel a little twinge of emotion as I prepare to sell this camera system. And maybe, by sheer longevity of use, a little more with this one than some others.
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?AsahiPentax67.html~mainFrame
