|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:it's the moby dick of lenses, for me. Can I have your stuff when you destroy yourself trying to find this lens? 
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I NEED THIS LENS BACK SO BADLY. it's the moby dick of lenses, for me. Reichstag posted:A Mamiya 645 1000s- the owner of the local pro-lab is lending it to me. It's a bit rusty in spots, the meter is dead, the focussing action is a bit stiff on the lenses, and the film crank has a tendency to fall off, but I'm excited to finally use a system camera, even if it isn't 6x6. I've been wondering whether to get a 45mm or 55mm for the m645 1000s. I'm looking into something wide but not so wide that it causes distortion (I guess something similar to 30mm-35mm on a 35mm/135 camera). If you get any nice shots with the 45mm, post some examples!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 08:32
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Hmmm, I see it on KEH.com I just bought a 645 myself on eBay, I was super keen for that f/1.9 lens, but could really only afford one of the standard kit f/2.8 lenses. Would you say it's worth the upgrade, eventually? And fuuuuck I was bidding on one of those 45mm ones like Reichstag has but didn't get it. There's some superb examples of what that (and the 35mm) can do if you search on Flickr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 08:47
|
|
|
I got a Yashica electro gsn locally on craigslist yesterday for $10. It came with the wide and tele converters and viewfinder piece. The shutter goes off, but I don't think the batteries are working. The lens looks alright, but it wobbles a little bit when you twist the rings. Have any of you used the instructions here http://www.yashica-guy.com/ ? Anything I should be really careful about before I open everything up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 15:10
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I got a Yashica electro gsn locally on craigslist yesterday for $10. It came with the wide and tele converters and viewfinder piece. The shutter goes off, but I don't think the batteries are working. The lens looks alright, but it wobbles a little bit when you twist the rings. Have any of you used the instructions here http://www.yashica-guy.com/ ? Anything I should be really careful about before I open everything up? I had no problems fixing mine. The things are built like tanks and all of the parts are immdiately apparent. Just be careful when you pull the metal lens ring off not to accidentally bend the metal contacts that are part of the Auto/B/Flash dial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 15:21
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:I've been wondering whether to get a 45mm or 55mm for the m645 1000s. I'm looking into something wide but not so wide that it causes distortion (I guess something similar to 30mm-35mm on a 35mm/135 camera). If you get any nice shots with the 45mm, post some examples! I have the 55mm f/2.8. I find that it's a good compromise between the 80 and the 45. A very good general purpose lens. There are times I wish it were wider, but overall it's not bad. It's the lens I use the most. You can get it fairly cheap too. I may end up getting a 45mm f/2.8 later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 15:23
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:
There are numerous 55 f/3.5s sitting on KEH right now, some as low as $165.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 16:30
|
|
|
killabyte posted:There are numerous 55 f/3.5s sitting on KEH right now, some as low as $165. Not the SMC versions which I think is what he wants... $339+ for those unfortunately. Still, considering what you get it's pretty good bang for the buck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
Mello Clello posted:I just bought a 645 myself on eBay, I was super keen for that f/1.9 lens, but could really only afford one of the standard kit f/2.8 lenses. Would you say it's worth the upgrade, eventually?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
Scored a Nikor 120 tank, a Nikor 35mm reel, some other kind of 35mm reel (all stainless), thermometer, 1000ml cup, squeegee, a Pentax P30n (aka P3n), a Pentax-A 50/2, a Pentax-M 135/3.5, and a Pentax 35/3.5, all for $55. Now I need a working digital camera to take pictures of it.  e: and a white Tamrac camera bag Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Aug 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
Argh. I'm borrowing a Yashica 124G for a few days and just managed to gently caress up half a roll of T-Max because the film advance is being finicky. Mopes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 00:33
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Argh. I'm borrowing a Yashica 124G for a few days and just managed to gently caress up half a roll of T-Max because the film advance is being finicky. Some of my best shots taken with my Yashica 635 have been double exposures because I picked the camera up and had forgotten to wind the film. So if they are double exposures take a second look and see if there's anything cool in there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 01:24
|
|
|
We found this sealed bottle of Ilfosol 3 in a university lab, batch number 46d033. Can't find an expiration date on it but I'm willing to risk a test roll since it's sealed and the product rolled out in 2008. Does anyone know if I can make the needed 1+9 solution on a per-need basis and keep the rest as concentrate, or should I just make the entire 5L jug right now and then dole out 400ml portions every time I develop?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 01:37
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:We found this sealed bottle of Ilfosol 3 in a university lab, batch number 46d033. Can't find an expiration date on it but I'm willing to risk a test roll since it's sealed and the product rolled out in 2008. Make it as needed and use it once-don't mix up the whole batch. If the stuff is still clear it should be fine. I just tried it myself and it seems like good stuff, it works fast, even at a 1:9. I'd try 1:14 but it's hard to accurately measure a 1:14 measure in a 240 ml cup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Make it as needed and use it once-don't mix up the whole batch. If the stuff is still clear it should be fine. I just tried it myself and it seems like good stuff, it works fast, even at a 1:9. I'd try 1:14 but it's hard to accurately measure a 1:14 measure in a 240 ml cup. Yeah I don't mind running it at 1:9 since I basically got it for free. I was going to drive to pick up some HC110 but now I think I'll just try this until it runs out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
So I finally got back my Portra. Dropped it off yesterday, picked it up today. I've shot a roll of 160NC back in March, 400NC some month or two after, and another 400NC last month. Scanning color is a tortuous bitch though... Anywho, don't have any examples yet; I'm just scanning for now. But it seems that under harsh light or under lots of shadow, the colors are VERY muted and washed out or has a blue/green hue to it (respective to the given situations). I probably won't use it again in such conditions, but MAN, when the lighting's just right, the colors are fantastic. Skin tones, I'd say, are incomparable. The film seems to be picky, but it could be just me (or my scanning).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:So I finally got back my Portra. Dropped it off yesterday, picked it up today. I've shot a roll of 160NC back in March, 400NC some month or two after, and another 400NC last month. Scanning color is a tortuous bitch though... Please do show us once you do--I'm looking to get some Portra for a project I'll be working on in summer (southern hemisphere) and I'd be very keen to see how it does in bright sunlight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:32
|
|
|
I got some serious GAS recently, so I've been acquiring some awesome new cameras. Nikon L35AF. Nikon's first autofocus camera... is a great 80s style point-and-shoot. Think Canon Autoboy/Prima. The lens is sharp, contrasty, and vignettes like crazy, which is kinda cool if you desire that effect. It's big, bulky, and sturdy, but it's plastic. I actually got two of these, one of the early revision where the ISO goes to 400, one where it goes to 1000. ~$10. Olympus XA2. This thing is FUN! Light, incredibly quiet, infinitely pocketable. Way cheaper than the XA, and although I haven't used one, I can't see how it could be much better. The XA2 is also much, much cheaper generally. The removable flash is way awesome. $25-30. Canon Sure Shot Classic 120. One of the posh point-and-shoots from the just-before-digital era. The thing is freaking beautiful, it's got a nice long 120mm lens, an SLR style scene selection dial (on a point and shoot!), and a SPOT METER (!!!). Plus I can print "THANK YOU" and "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" on the film! $10. Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom DLX. Another posh point-and-shoot that cost $2. Nothing too special, but it's weather proof and cheaper than a disposable camera with a very nice lens. And the ones especially near and dear to my heart... My corral of Yashica Electro 35s. I've got one early GT and two GSNs. My hot black GT is, unfortunately, suffering the pad of death issue and I can't get up the motivation to fix it because my other Electros are working. These things are awesome and have a decently high "hit rate" on eBay - you tend to end up with a working camera when you bid on the "found these in the attic" style listings more often than not. Nikon F4s. Picked this up locally. A bit beat up, this thing is a loving brick. but it's the "free love" Nikon - it'll hook up with your NAI, AI, AI-S, AF, AF-D.... it don't care baby. It'll even work with G lenses in program and shutter priority. Canon Canonet QL17 G-III. Working. Cheap. Pick one. It's been a bitch to get a working copy of this without paying over $100. I finally got one for ~$55 that had a battery check light stuck on but was in otherwise excellent condition. I opened it up, taped up the contacts, and it's good to go. I haven't shot a lot with this one yet, but I'm really excited to since I love rangefinders and this one's small enough to take around with me more often than my brick-sized Yashicas. Mamiya C330f TLR. Currently my only medium format camera, this one was a steal with a blue dot "black" lens that's produced excellent images so far. I love this thing, what a great way to get into 6x6. I've also got a Nikon N80, Minolta X570 (with six Rokkor-X primes), Minolta SRT-101, Leica IIc (non func), Minolta Hi-Matic 7s (non func), Nikon OneTouch 90s... and of course my D300 and D50 with that whole lens setup. I love film though. All that gear cost me less than $500 (digital stuff excluded). How can you beat that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 06:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I love film though. All that gear cost me less than $500 (digital stuff excluded). How can you beat that? Yeah, I picked up my Pentax ME for $29. Even before I put a roll of film in I loved how it looked. All this is pretty funny since as little as three weeks ago I thought the idea of me shooting film was ridiculous, and now I'm getting ready to develop my first roll and looking forward to taking both my K10D and ME out for a day of shooting. The one thing I love about having a K-mount digital and film camera is that I can just swap my 28mm from camera to camera as the need arises. So convenient! I did come down to earth a little when I saw that my local store wanted close to $10 for a 24exp roll of Tri-X 400. Good thing I can get them at Henry's a little cheaper. Now I'm locked and loaded with a roll of HP5+ that I'm dying to go out and shoot. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Aug 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:29
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Nikon F4s. Picked this up locally. A bit beat up, this thing is a loving brick. but it's the "free love" Nikon - it'll hook up with your NAI, AI, AI-S, AF, AF-D.... it don't care baby. It'll even work with G lenses in program and shutter priority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:47
|
|
|
I picked up a box full of cameras at a yard sale-Olympus OM1 and a Olympus IS1, one of the integrated SLRs that were kind of a supersized point and shoot. These came from the IS1-  I guess my fix worked-who needs a film door latch when an o-ring will do! Olympus OM1, Delta 100 and Ilfosol 3, 5 minutes developing time. Step lively now!  
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:49
|
|
|
pwn posted:Don't forget AF-S. It's compatible with lenses that Nikon wouldn't make until many years later because they used the same electrical contacts as those two oddball AF lenses for the AF version of the F3 years earlier. I love my slutty F4. :bigtran: Hah, yeah. Forgot about that. I hooked up an AF-S VR lens to it and, once I saw that I could autofocus with it, I got disappointed that VR wouldn't work... and then I realized that I was asking a ~25 year old camera to do VR and I felt better.  edit: Gnomad, those are some great finds, especially the OM. It's got a serious cult following, and for good reason. What's up with those images, though? They've got weird posterization type artifacts in them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Mamiya C330f TLR. Currently my only medium format camera, this one was a steal with a blue dot "black" lens that's produced excellent images so far. I love this thing, what a great way to get into 6x6. Mello Clello posted:Please do show us once you do--I'm looking to get some Portra for a project I'll be working on in summer (southern hemisphere) and I'd be very keen to see how it does in bright sunlight. Also, this is the blue/green hue I'm talking about :   Dunno why it came out like this. I'm just gonna guess underexposure. But then again, it could be my scanning, though I don't think this is the case. And I have no idea why but some of my shots (like the two above) come out with this vignette along the bottom edge. This happens randomly and I don't know why. Pressure plate on the film holder, maybe? ??? But some shots came out okay:  Exposed for the black, highlights completely blown. It was a really bright day. And:  This is probably the ONLY frame that I like of the 45 shots (1 160NC, 2 400NC). But even this shot doesn't quite satisfy me. So far, I'm having bad luck with the film but YMMV. I'm gonna give it another go and try overexposing my 35mm's meter reading by a 1/2 stop. Hopefully, I can get the tone that I'm looking for... and by then, I hope that I have a proper meter for the utmost accuracy.  e: IMO, all of my shots came out terribly. Better get used to exposing properly 'cause I have a roll of 800Z sitting there waiting to be used. krnhotwings fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Aug 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
And the one that got away...well, I sent it away. Gets me closer to that Leica I've been eyeing at the pawn shop for a while now This is the Canon AE1 Program I just boxed up and sent to it's new home. These were all taken with the 50mm f3.5 macro lens on a hike in the mountains of hatcher pass in southcentral Alaska.    Canon makes some mighty fine glass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 07:56
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Canon makes some mighty fine glass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 08:00
|
|
|
pwn posted:I've been seriously thinking about getting the FD system. Is FD glass cheap enough to do that casually? If the market in your area is like here, it is. Of course it all depends on what your standard of "casual" is-the Canon FD glass and cameras don't seem to have a lot of collector interest these days. One of the Starvation Army stores in A-Town has (or had) a AE1 with a couple of lenses for $65. And I found a Fl 135 for $10, didn't buy that one as I don't really use 135's much, it's that awkward focal length that's too long for portraits and too short for wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 08:27
|
|
|
Gnomad- What the hell is up with your scans? There's absolutely no detail in them, they look like they've been run through a photoshop 'art' filter, and then had five different sharpening filters run on them. :-/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 08:35
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Gnomad- What the hell is up with your scans? There's absolutely no detail in them, they look like they've been run through a photoshop 'art' filter, and then had five different sharpening filters run on them. :-/ Yeah, it looks like the watercolor filter! They're nice shots but something is messed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 08:54
|
|
|
Loooks like faaaaar too much noise reduction. There's nothing much wrong with film grain, embrace it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 11:12
|
|
|
The Canon Canonet QL-17 G-III is pretty hyped on the net, but after getting my first photos with it developed, I can see why. The camera takes amazing photos. There are definitely a lot of annoying things about Canonets, like having all the controls on the tiny lens (it'd be nice to have a shutter speed dial on the body), and having the meter only work in Auto mode, and the rangefinder patch is pretty weak in mine. But the photos just blow me away, the lens gives the most beautiful colours. My advice to anyone picking one up: definitely fix up the light seals, it's really easy to do. You can get a meter strip of the adhesive foamy stuff at your local hardware store for like $2. Also, I'd read that the meter handles modern 1.35V batteries pretty well but my pics were definitely a bit underexposed, so just dial down your ISO a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 12:23
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Gnomad- What the hell is up with your scans? There's absolutely no detail in them, they look like they've been run through a photoshop 'art' filter, and then had five different sharpening filters run on them. :-/ Dust & Scratches filter in PS is my guess. I started scanning my own negs this week and jesus christ, dust is my new worst enemy. Radbot posted:Olympus XA2. This thing is FUN! Light, incredibly quiet, infinitely pocketable. Way cheaper than the XA, and although I haven't used one, I can't see how it could be much better. The XA2 is also much, much cheaper generally. The removable flash is way awesome. $25-30. I've owned two XA's, the advantage is more manual control (rangefinder focusing, aperture priority shooting) and a faster f/2.8 lens. Worth it at $100 for a camera with all that you can fit in a pocket IMO, but the XA2 is a fantastic camera for the price as well. When one of them got some crap in the advance mechanism I asked the tech to modify the meter to read a stop fast while he had it taken apart, which gave it a more useful ASA rating of 50-1600. You could pick up a broken XA for around $20 and spend another $65 for the servicing/upgrade at Midstate Camera Repair to get the same thing. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Aug 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Gnomad- What the hell is up with your scans? There's absolutely no detail in them, they look like they've been run through a photoshop 'art' filter, and then had five different sharpening filters run on them. :-/ I'm not sure what the hell was going on with them. You should have seen the ones I deleted. Turning off the grain correction helped quite a bit. I may need to go third party on the scanning program And yes, dust. I don't remember this kind of dust when I was making wet prints. Admittedly that has been a decade or 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I'm not sure what the hell was going on with them. You should have seen the ones I deleted. Scanners show up dust much worse than enlargers, even condenser types. What scanner and software combo are you using?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 18:07
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I'm not sure what the hell was going on with them. You should have seen the ones I deleted. Turn off the "dust and scratches" and all the auto-correction filters on your scanning program...it does a terrible job and badly blurs "problem" areas. You can do a great job manually with Photoshop. Otherwise, try Vuescan or another program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Im getting an RZ67 this friday. Great deal but its got a 220 back. Ive read I can load it with 120 as the parts are exactly the same between the two backs other than the film its self. Can I buy 120 inserts and use them in the 220 housing or should I just buy a 120 back for the $60 it cost and a few inserts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:Turn off the "dust and scratches" and all the auto-correction filters on your scanning program...it does a terrible job and badly blurs "problem" areas. You can do a great job manually with Photoshop. You can get decent results with Epson's regular software, you just have to know which options to turn on and off. The key is to get the software to do as little work as possible and do most of the work in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Im getting an RZ67 this friday. Great deal but its got a 220 back. Ive read I can load it with 120 as the parts are exactly the same between the two backs other than the film its self. Can I buy 120 inserts and use them in the 220 housing or should I just buy a 120 back for the $60 it cost and a few inserts? I'm pretty sure you can't just load in 120 into a 220 back, or else 220 backs wouldn't be virtually free everywhere while 120 backs still cost a bit. I think it has to do with the film pressure plate, as my C330f will take either but you need to rotate the plate when you switch them. Pompous Rhombus posted:I've owned two XA's, the advantage is more manual control (rangefinder focusing, aperture priority shooting) and a faster f/2.8 lens. Worth it at $100 for a camera with all that you can fit in a pocket IMO, but the XA2 is a fantastic camera for the price as well. When one of them got some crap in the advance mechanism I asked the tech to modify the meter to read a stop fast while he had it taken apart, which gave it a more useful ASA rating of 50-1600. You could pick up a broken XA for around $20 and spend another $65 for the servicing/upgrade at Midstate Camera Repair to get the same thing. Yeah, the aperture priority is cool but there really isn't a big difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5. It probably is worth the price, they're just inflated big time from the hype right now. Once I get some extra cash maybe I'll make room for it, every who have one freaking loves it. trueblue posted:The Canon Canonet QL-17 G-III is pretty hyped on the net, but after getting my first photos with it developed, I can see why. The camera takes amazing photos. There are definitely a lot of annoying things about Canonets, like having all the controls on the tiny lens (it'd be nice to have a shutter speed dial on the body), and having the meter only work in Auto mode, and the rangefinder patch is pretty weak in mine. But the photos just blow me away, the lens gives the most beautiful colours. My advice to anyone picking one up: definitely fix up the light seals, it's really easy to do. You can get a meter strip of the adhesive foamy stuff at your local hardware store for like $2. Also, I'd read that the meter handles modern 1.35V batteries pretty well but my pics were definitely a bit underexposed, so just dial down your ISO a bit. I'd recommend getting one of the light strip kits on eBay as the thickness/cut of the foam makes a big difference and the little tools they give you are mighty handy. It costs ~$10, so a bit more, but the frustration/time saved is worth it IMO. Also, I thought modern batteries were 1.5V and the old mercury batteries were 1.35V? I agree about overexposing about a stop though when using new alkaline batteries. Has anyone tried using zinc-air hearing aid batteries in their older cameras? Did you just wedge them in there or did you make a shim of some sort? Apparently the discharge profile of zinc-air batteries is flatter, so meter reading is more consistent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 19:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm pretty sure you can't just load in 120 into a 220 back, or else 220 backs wouldn't be virtually free everywhere while 120 backs still cost a bit. I think it has to do with the film pressure plate, as my C330f will take either but you need to rotate the plate when you switch them. You are correct. The main difference between 120 and 220 other than the length of the film is that 220 lacks the paper backing other than at the start/end. This is so they could fit more film onto the same sized spools. Because of the lack of paper backing, 220 needs a slightly different pressure plate that pushes it a little closer to the lens. So yeah, 120 film in 220 back will lead to out of focus shots. (The lack of paper backing is also why you don't see any 220 cameras with the little red peep through window on the back.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 20:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Also, I thought modern batteries were 1.5V and the old mercury batteries were 1.35V? I agree about overexposing about a stop though when using new alkaline batteries. Has anyone tried using zinc-air hearing aid batteries in their older cameras? Did you just wedge them in there or did you make a shim of some sort? Apparently the discharge profile of zinc-air batteries is flatter, so meter reading is more consistent. You don't have to get the hearing aid ones though they are cheaper. Wein makes a ton of zinc-air replacements that are the same size as old mercury batteries. And yes, the discharge profile is flatter so you won't have to worry about your readings being more and more off the older the battery gets. (For things that don't draw much power like light meters you can often uncover only half of the air holes on the zinc-air batteries and get some extended life span too!) Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:You don't have to get the hearing aid ones though they are cheaper. Wein makes a ton of zinc-air replacements that are the same size as old mercury batteries. And yes, the discharge profile is flatter so you won't have to worry about your readings being more and more off the older the battery gets. I know the Wein are probably the best, but hearing aid batteries are much, much cheaper. I'd rather shim them then pay for a new Wein cell every month or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 20:31
|
|