I can second that. The other day I took mine out when we went for a walk in the park. It was hanging around my neck on a strap and it was just fine. No tripod - just handheld with 160 iso film. It really is a joy to use - reminds me of my early days with an MX, but a lot nicer.
Bruce Dayton Tuesday, February 12, 2002, 5:28:37 AM, you wrote: AR> On Tuesday, February 12, 2002, at 12:37 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> I don't think I would get a Pentax 6x7 due to the weight, I can not >> realistically envisage myself lugging around something that big and >> heavy, >> and the tripod to match. AR> Not to be a pain, but the 6x7 has a completely undeserved bad rep as AR> being big, heavy, and overly tripod dependent. AR> An interesting comparison: one of our regulars is a Hasselblad guy, AR> though we don't hold that against him. He picked up one of the bodies AR> with the motor drive built into it, and brought it to the store the AR> other day to show me. Well, with the lens on it, it was heavier than my AR> 67 with lens. AR> My old Mamiya C33 twin lens was also heavier than my 67. AR> In terms of bulk, the Pentax 67 is not significantly bigger than Nikon's AR> digital offerings based on the F5 body. Yes, the mirror box is bigger, AR> but the camera is not much wider and not much deeper. It's not much AR> heavier, either. AR> As for a tripod, you really only need one in the same situations that AR> you need a tripod with your 35mm. You do need a fairly substantial AR> tripod, but no more than you'd need for a Hasselblad or a Nikon digital AR> SLR. AR> The Pentax 67 is only a monster when you compare it to Pentax's 35mm AR> line, which are among the smallest in the industry. The Pentax 67 is AR> positively petite when you compare it to Mamiya's RB and RZ 67s. AR> -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
