|
HPL posted:Speaking of which, does anyone know where I can get an Olympus 1-14 focusing screen? I ordered one from KEH but there was a 1-10 screen in the case instead of a 1-14. KEH is weird like that: I was ordering a lens from them yesterday and I noticed the one in the picture was different than the description. I e-mailed a CSR figuring someone had gotten the data entry wrong but no, they apparently just use the closest stock photo they have. Sucks about the screen, are they going to at least refund you shipping for the screwup on their part? They've been okay-ish in the past for me, but I can see how they get a bum rap (check reseller-ratings).
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2009 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:KEH is weird like that: I was ordering a lens from them yesterday and I noticed the one in the picture was different than the description. I e-mailed a CSR figuring someone had gotten the data entry wrong but no, they apparently just use the closest stock photo they have. Sucks about the screen, are they going to at least refund you shipping for the screwup on their part? They've been okay-ish in the past for me, but I can see how they get a bum rap (check reseller-ratings). Their policy says they refund up to $10 for shipping, which still doesn't cover costs for me considering how much they charge to ship to Canada. I have zero use for the 1-10 screen and I doubt anyone else does either so I'll just mail it back as cheap as I can and get something instead of nothing. Fortunately, I've had nothing but good experiences with them other than this one item and it was only one item of many in a shipment so it wasn't like I paid a bazillion dollars just for shipping the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Speaking of the OM-2's I just scored one on ebay for $30. I'd really like a pancake for it, does anyone have a recommendation? I'm okay with adapting a different system if I keep infinity focus
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
w_hat posted:Speaking of the OM-2's I just scored one on ebay for $30. I'd really like a pancake for it, does anyone have a recommendation? I'm okay with adapting a different system if I keep infinity focus I have both the 50 1.8 and the 28 2.8 and they are both fairly compact as is. What makes Olympus lenses a tad bigger than other brands is the fact that they have the DOF button and lens release button on the lens rather than the body. I can tell you that the 28 is a very fast-focusing lens, almost rangefinder-like in its swing arc. If you absolutely must have a pancake lens, there's always the good old Pentax 40 f/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
w_hat posted:Speaking of the OM-2's I just scored one on ebay for $30. I'd really like a pancake for it, does anyone have a recommendation? I'm okay with adapting a different system if I keep infinity focus Zuiko lenses are generally pretty drat small to begin with. I've seen some really nice results from the 40mm f/2 pancake but I don't think it's particularly cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
Speaking of size, how can a tiny lens like the ones on TLRs produce any quality?  Other MF lenses are huge. I saw a Mamiya RB67 at my camera store, I know the Pentax 67s are huge too. Heck, it's smaller than my SLR lenses, about the size of a digital point and shoot. How can (do?) TLRs get away with producing decent quality images out of a tiny lens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Speaking of size, how can a tiny lens like the ones on TLRs produce any quality? TLRs have a much smaller distance between the lens and the film plane thanks to not having a mirror, its the same reason 35mm rangefinder lenses are generally smaller than SLR lenses. TLRs also generally have quite simple optics with a relatively long closest focusing distance and smaller largest apertures (compare 80/3.5 vs. 250/4.5). Mamiya TLRs can focus quite close, but only because they have bellows. dunno fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jul 31, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
dunno posted:TLRs have a much smaller distance between the lens and the film plane thanks to not having a mirror, its the same reason 35mm rangefinder lenses are generally smaller than SLR lenses. Err, much smaller distance than what? There's quite a fair amount of space between the lens and the film in most TLRs. TLRs generally (always?) focus like a bellows setup (even if there aren't ACTUAL bellows, focusing is still accomplished by racking the lens back/forth) which I suspect simplifies the design too. As for rangefinder lenses, part of the reason is they don't need auto diaphragm or any type of auto focus mechanisms. Also, they *need* to be kept small or get in the way of your viewfinder/rangefinder windows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 03:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Speaking of size, how can a tiny lens like the ones on TLRs produce any quality? Well to be fair you're pointing out some of the most unwieldy MF systems, those are pretty much studio cameras. You'd be surprised how much of a lens is made up of the barrel, focusing helical/auto diaphragm, and leaf shutter (if any). The lens cells themselves actually aren't as big as they appear; take a look at some large format lenses and you'll see what I mean. Just eyeballing my Jupiter-8 (50mm RF lens) and EF 50mm f/1.8, the diameter of the front elements is almost identical, but the body of the EF lens is almost twice as wide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Speaking of size, how can a tiny lens like the ones on TLRs produce any quality? Heh, big = quality. Have a look at Large Format lenses. In comparison to 35mm SLR lenses some of them are tiny and pathetic looking, especially in relation to their respective cameras. The resolution IS lower though, something like 80lp/mm typically vs 250lp/mm. Then again, there's a lot more than 9 times the film surface area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 07:36
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Err, much smaller distance than what? There's quite a fair amount of space between the lens and the film in most TLRs. TLRs generally (always?) focus like a bellows setup (even if there aren't ACTUAL bellows, focusing is still accomplished by racking the lens back/forth) which I suspect simplifies the design too. Well, in comparison to the RB67 mentioned, those things are true beasts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 11:03
|
|
|
dunno posted:Well, in comparison to the RB67 mentioned, those things are true beasts. That they are. I have an RB67 with the 250mm lens and it's a monster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2009 14:49
|
|
|
Looking at film scanners, I'm thinking of going with an Epson 4490 for $110 shipped (refurb) direct from Epson. The other one I was looking at was a Canon 8800f for around $170... my budget is $200 and having another $90 left over for film/etc is nice. It's just going to be for web stuff and prints 8x10 and under so I don't see any reason to go all out; for bigger prints I'd just send it off to a pro lab anyways. I may pick up one of those glass holders from betterscanning.com if wrangling 35mm negs proves too difficult. Any last minute advice/suggestions? Also got my order from Freestyle today, kinda cute how they give you a thank-you card with it. I botched my first attempt at extracting a leader so I may just have to go the hobby knife and changing bag route. The extraction tool came with instructions but  Aside from film and the aforementioned leader extractor, I have -Patterson tank with 35mm 2 reels -D76 Powder -Kodak Fixer Anything I'm missing? Going to use water as a stop bath. Also going to pick up a plastic syringe/graduated cylinder for measuring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2009 22:36
|
|
|
Thermometer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Thermometer? See, this is why I use Diafine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:See, this is why I use Diafine. I wish they sold Diafine in Canada. Freestyle charges like $20 shipping for a $25 minimum order, so that sucks too. Question: I'm going to start shooting 35mm along with the 120 that I already use. Is there a trick to opening film canisters or clipping the end of the film so it doesn't rewind all the way back into the canister? Edit: Aside from using generic canisters and using bulk film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:I wish they sold Diafine in Canada. Freestyle charges like $20 shipping for a $25 minimum order, so that sucks too. On the upside, once you get a gallon of A and a gallon of B mixed up you'll never need to buy developer again. I just use a bottle opener to open 35mm canisters. Works like a champ. Some cameras can be set to leave the leader out if you prefer, but I never had any problems just popping the cans open.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Thermometer? I'll have to recheck the chart but IIRC it's something like 68 (or otherwise really close to room temperature). Still, not a bad idea. CanuckBassist posted:I wish they sold Diafine in Canada. Freestyle charges like $20 shipping for a $25 minimum order, so that sucks too. That sucks, their US shipping charges are surprisingly reasonable. If you're talking about a manual-rewinding camera, just be careful as you're getting to the end of the roll. When you feel the tension drop stop rewinding and there should be a little leader left sticking out. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Aug 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard of not just popping the canister with a bottle opener. Any reason not to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
If you had one of those $15 film leader retrievers, I suppose. If you pop it with a can opener, can you re-use the canister?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
pwn posted:If you had one of those $15 film leader retrievers, I suppose. No, but why would you want to? If you're reloading just buy the proper canisters; if not, you just toss them. edit: scored a Leica MR meter for my M4-2. Not cheap but just had a CLA and was modifed to accept modern batteries. It's like having a pseudo shutter-priority camera now! Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Aug 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
I don't get why people just pry 35mm rolls open with their fingers? You can easliy bend them open by "unwrapping" from the felt slit...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 03:06
|
|
|
I found an interesting little rangefinder at a local pawnbrokers for $10, it's this camera here (not my photo). From what I can tell, the shutter timings are still accurate and the aperture blades move smoothly. The rangefinder itself isn't too bright but still usable in most cases. Everything seemed fine until today, I ran a roll of Kodak film through it to test it out and the 24-exposure roll was suddenly counting into the mid-30s. The film advance thumb lever had inconsistent tension, so I'm assuming that the teeth were slipping in the sockets a bit. The teeth aren't worn or anything so I'm not sure if it's the fault of the camera or my unskilled loading of it. I guess I'll find out everything tomorrow when I get the film developed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 14:55
|
|
|
A trick to increasing contrast on a rangefinder is to clip off a piece of clear color film (developed) and sticking over either the rangefinder or viewfinder window (whichever works best for you). It helps with weak RF patches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 15:53
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I found an interesting little rangefinder at a local pawnbrokers for $10, it's this camera here (not my photo). From what I can tell, the shutter timings are still accurate and the aperture blades move smoothly. The rangefinder itself isn't too bright but still usable in most cases. Everything seemed fine until today, I ran a roll of Kodak film through it to test it out and the 24-exposure roll was suddenly counting into the mid-30s. The film advance thumb lever had inconsistent tension, so I'm assuming that the teeth were slipping in the sockets a bit. The teeth aren't worn or anything so I'm not sure if it's the fault of the camera or my unskilled loading of it. I guess I'll find out everything tomorrow when I get the film developed. Yeah, that sounds like a classic case of mis-loaded film, sucks when that happens (though it could be a problem with the takeup spool as well).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
Yeah, always a good idea to pay attention to the rewind knob/lever when advancing film. That tells you pretty quickly if something's gone wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 16:01
|
|
|
pwn posted:If you had one of those $15 film leader retrievers, I suppose. Mine was $5, it's these two curved metal shims you stick in, then you pull one part of the way out, twist the thing counterclockwise until you hear some clicks or something, push it back in, and slowly draw the whole thing out. It wasn't working on my throwaway roll, not sure if that's the retriever's fault or mine. For the time being I'm just rewinding carefully and leaving a bit of leader hanging out like I mentioned a couple posts down, then making some scratches on the canister so I know I've shot it already. I went through all three of my 36exp rolls of  Clayton Bigsby posted:No, but why would you want to? If you're reloading just buy the proper canisters; if not, you just toss them. Was it cheaper than a Voigtlander VC meter? I'm probably going to wind up with one of those shoe-mount meters one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2009 16:05
|
|
|
Just got finished bulk loading my first roll of Tri-X. First few rolls took forever but the last ones went fast. I was able to get about 20 rolls out of the 100ft. It's really the way to go, I think. You can get a used Watson 100 loader for $12 on eBay and 25 empty cartridges is about $15, and the arista bulk rolls are pretty cheap, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
What's your technique for loading film on the reels? I've done 3-4 practice rolls of crap film and it seems like it's easiest if you leave it in the cannister, snip the leader and get it started in the light, and then wind it all on straight out of the cannister. I find it a lot harder to pop the top off and then load it from the bare reel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's your technique for loading film on the reels? I've done 3-4 practice rolls of crap film and it seems like it's easiest if you leave it in the cannister, snip the leader and get it started in the light, and then wind it all on straight out of the cannister. I find it a lot harder to pop the top off and then load it from the bare reel. The risk there is that you can scratch the film by moving it against the felt. I always pop off the top. You have to bow the film outward a little bit as you put it on the reel and move the reel not the film. Hold the reel in your left hand and the film in your right, slightly bowed, and then rotate the reel counterclockwise and it should go fine. Occasionally I stop and check to make sure the film is on the reel properly. I use a changing bag. I use these "tundra" reels that are metal (plastic reels are crap) and have two notches where you put the sprocket holes instead of the metal clips. They work great and I can load them faster than any other reel and they have no moving parts to break like a plastic reel does. They are about $20/pop though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Was it cheaper than a Voigtlander VC meter? I'm probably going to wind up with one of those shoe-mount meters one of these days. No, cost about the same as a new VC II. However, it was just serviced, calibrated, and converted to take modern batteries, so I think it was worth the premium. The neat part about the MR meters is that they mechanically couple to the shutter dial, so you end up with a pseudo shutter priority type setup. So they probably wouldn't work as shoe-mount meters on other cameras, certainly not as intended at least. When looking at the Voigtlanders, keep in mind that (unless I am on crack and just dreamed it) the original VC does *not* hold the meter reading so it's kind of hard to use. The VC II (and the MR meters) will hold the reading so you can look through the viewfinder, tap the meter button, then read and adjust your settings. The MR meters cover a field of view approximately equal to a 90mm lens so the 90mm framelines are quite handy for "spot" metering your subject. Not sure what the VC ones cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 03:37
|
|
|
What's the real advantage to bulk loading? At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I've heard that you generally save about $6 by loading a reel of 100 feet. Is there some advantage to mitigate the time and trouble and risk of loving up a canister of film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 04:39
|
|
|
Finally managed to secure a #0 shutter, in the form of a Ventura 69 (6x9 folder) with a Compur Rapid. It was one of the myriad "i don't kno much about camera looks like its in great condition" auctions but since I only paid $37 for it I don't mind the potential additional cost of a shutter CLA. From the pictures the thing really does look pretty good, so maybe it's even usable as-is. Clayton Bigsby posted:meter Ah, that's interesting... when you said pseudo-shutter priority I thought you were just talking about having a dedicated meter on the hotshoe, I didn't know there was one that actually couples to the camera. From what I remember the VC II meter is also 90mm coverage. The bidding on the one I'm watching is already up to $61, I may just go with a handheld one for around $100. As it is I've had pretty satisfactory results just using my DSLR as a meter, but it'd be nice to leave all the digital gear at home for a change. killabyte posted:The risk there is that you can scratch the film by moving it against the felt. I always pop off the top. You have to bow the film outward a little bit as you put it on the reel and move the reel not the film. Hold the reel in your left hand and the film in your right, slightly bowed, and then rotate the reel counterclockwise and it should go fine. Occasionally I stop and check to make sure the film is on the reel properly. I use a changing bag. My biggest problem seems to be keeping the spool straight and letting it rotate to feed out while winding one-handed. I really don't have a problem with getting it on the reel intitally, it's just keeping the film feeding in straight while I wind that gets me. I use my thumb around the perforations to kind of guide it in while I'm ratcheting it on to the spool, is that an okay technique? I'm always careful to avoid the image-containing part of the emulsion. edit: loaded two of them successfully direct from the cartridge with no problems, will try opening the cannister with the third roll since there's no leader sticking out anyways. Still have to mix up chemicals, is D-76 super picky about temperatures? Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 04:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What's the real advantage to bulk loading? At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I've heard that you generally save about $6 by loading a reel of 100 feet. Is there some advantage to mitigate the time and trouble and risk of loving up a canister of film? Couple of advantages...you can control the number of exposures on the roll, which can be handy, and this includes cramming more than 36 on the roll. Cost savings varies from very little to a lot, depending the film. Example: Efke 100 is $4 a roll at Freestyle. A 100ft reel is $42. Assuming you can get 20 rolls out of a 100ft (you can get more if you are careful), you are looking at almost $40 saved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 07:29
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:A trick to increasing contrast on a rangefinder is to clip off a piece of clear color film (developed) and sticking over either the rangefinder or viewfinder window (whichever works best for you). It helps with weak RF patches. Reichstag posted:Yeah, that sounds like a classic case of mis-loaded film, sucks when that happens (though it could be a problem with the takeup spool as well). Clayton Bigsby posted:Yeah, always a good idea to pay attention to the rewind knob/lever when advancing film. That tells you pretty quickly if something's gone wrong. Thanks for the tips guys! I got the roll back today, and yes about a third of the photos have another exposure on top of half of it, so the camera is obviously winding on the film a bit and then slipping -- is this possibly the camera's fault? I inspected the teeth and they seem fine. As for the frames that exposed correctly, I'm impressed with what my $10 rangefinder has done. Even though the vertical alignment of the rangefinder is slightly out, the actual focus seems to be really accurate. I'd post some of the photos here but it's just stuff around my house, my dog etc so pretty boring. Anyway my QL-17 arrived today and I just finished replacing the light seal foam, can't wait to put a roll through that 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 09:12
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Couple of advantages...you can control the number of exposures on the roll, which can be handy, and this includes cramming more than 36 on the roll. Yeah, the savings seem barely worth it for Arista Premium, but on the other hand I think I'll probably buy a bulk roll next; would like to experiment more with developing and it's more comforting to only have 12 exposures to potentially screw up rather than 36. Developed my first two rolls today, looks like there's a bit of residue on parts :-\ The shots were at a fairly dim restaurant at night so I pushed it two stops, developed in stock D-76 for 9.5 minutes although squinting at the negs maybe I should have done it a little more. (Got the instructions from Flickr although they match up with what I saw on the Kodak sheet.) Anyways I can't really tell how they turned out that well because CVS's scanner didn't want anything to do with my negs, and watching the chick handle them I've got a good idea where all the scratches come from on my C-41. Finally pushed me over the edge to buying my own scanner, went with an Epson V500 for about $30 more than the 4490 I was looking at originally. Apparently they're pretty much the same but with an LED lamp in the V500, which gives a more even and consistent light, and doesn't need to warm up. Not a huge deal but over time the time savings will be nice. I think I'm going to try HC-110 next; I misinterpreted the D-76 and didn't realize you needed to mix it up all at once. It's fine for now, but one of my goals is to put together a relatively small kit for developing on the road, and carrying around a gallon of D-76 stock would kind of cramp my style. I did some searching and came across this ridiculous 15 page debate between pedantic nerds (engineers) on APUG about being able to split up smaller amount of the powder for smaller batches: the consensus seems to be the powder isn't uniform and splitting it up would likely give you inconsistent results. Anyways, HC-110 looks better for my needs given that it's a concentrated syrup. Is there anything similar for fixer? trueblue posted:overlapping frames Cut out a mask for the film and VF and bam, now you have a half-frame camera! I was looking at Pen's, Demi's, and Microns on eBay and think I may just do that with an XA2 or something instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 23:15
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Is there anything similar for fixer? I use Kodafix. I keep 2L of it in a container and make a new batch when the old batch is exhausted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2009 23:46
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Ah, that's interesting... when you said pseudo-shutter priority I thought you were just talking about having a dedicated meter on the hotshoe, I didn't know there was one that actually couples to the camera. From what I remember the VC II meter is also 90mm coverage. The bidding on the one I'm watching is already up to $61, I may just go with a handheld one for around $100. As it is I've had pretty satisfactory results just using my DSLR as a meter, but it'd be nice to leave all the digital gear at home for a change. If you're going hand held, the Gossen Luna Pro meters are usually inexpensive and really good, but often require a mercury battery or adapter. The Sekonic L-208 is probably the best bang for the buck of the modern gear that doesn't cost a lot. $90-95 new, can mount to the hotshoe (but IMO is a little too big for that), accurate and easy to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
I've been hunting for a Gossen LunaPro but they seem to have jumped in price lately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:I use Kodafix. I keep 2L of it in a container and make a new batch when the old batch is exhausted. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer because I'm an impatient bastard. Shot three rolls of Portra 160NC this weekend. Can't wait to get them back to see how they compare to Reala 100. I also want to get some rolls of Portra 400NC for lower light shots. Ideally I'd like to get some Portra 800 too, but my usual source for affordable film doesn't carry it. Also, I am now 3-3 on photo-co orders so I'd say they're good to go. Prices are good, shipping is cheap, they're hard to beat if they stock what you're looking for. HPL fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Aug 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 05:17
|
|