|
HPL posted:Just processed a test roll from the Olympus 35RC. Good lord, this camera is fantastic. Dead-on exposure, nice and sharp lens, you can run it as low as 1/15 handheld and I got 39 photos on a roll of 36 without trying. All the hype about this camera is for real. Like I said earlier, if it went to 1600, it would be just about perfect. What can you compare it to? That's one of the few awesome little rangefinders I don't have (I've got the QL-17 G-III Canonet, the Yashica Electro 35 GT/GSN, the Olympus XA and XA2, etc). The 35RC sounds awesome but they're kinda rare, and I heard that they get oil on the shutter blades or something so it's rare to get a working one from a "found this in my dad's basement" auction. Have you found this to be true? Argh, I'm so jealous. I love that little 35RC. Why don't they make cameras like that anymore? edit: Just picked up an Olympus XA, tested, with a return policy, on eBay for $35 shipped (buy it now)! That's insane, I guess I was just the first person to spot it. Radbot fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Aug 16, 2009 |
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
HPL posted:Just processed a test roll from the Olympus 35RC. Good lord, this camera is fantastic. Dead-on exposure, nice and sharp lens, you can run it as low as 1/15 handheld and I got 39 photos on a roll of 36 without trying. All the hype about this camera is for real. Like I said earlier, if it went to 1600, it would be just about perfect. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 07:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What can you compare it to? That's one of the few awesome little rangefinders I don't have (I've got the QL-17 G-III Canonet, the Yashica Electro 35 GT/GSN, the Olympus XA and XA2, etc). The 35RC sounds awesome but they're kinda rare, and I heard that they get oil on the shutter blades or something so it's rare to get a working one from a "found this in my dad's basement" auction. Have you found this to be true? I've got a Canonet QL17 and an Electro GSN among others. The 35RC is slick as goose poop. To me, the GSN is highly overrated. It's incredibly bulky, loud for a rangefinder and I'm just not a fan of how it operates. Given the insane prices that people will pay for a GSN, the 35RC is far better value for the money because you get more in a more compact yet easier to use package. Honestly, the 35RC review is one of the few times that Ken Rockwell really hit the nail on the head. The XA should be good too. It's everything the 35RC is minus the manual exposure controls and hot shoe. The Olympus lineage for good, compact cameras seems to be 35RC->XA->Stylus Epic. I got my 35RC from http://www.ucso.com. It's run by some old German fellow. You have to pay with money orders or EFT because he's not really down with newfangled technology, but that's no biggie. Shoot him a message if you're looking for a 35RC. He may have one or two in his inventory that aren't on the web site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 08:45
|
|
|
Just after reading the last few posts, a 35 RC popped up on the local Craigslist. I hate you guys. What's the value of these 35RCs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 09:30
|
|
|
pwn posted:I remembered reading Rockwell rave about the 35RC a few months back and wondering if it was really all that. The "Get 40 exposures from a 36 roll" part was especially appealing. Thanks for the report, I might pick one up for fun. Jesus christ, guys, think for yourselves. Does it have the specs you want? Is it within your pricerange? If not, why the hell do you want it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 09:58
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Jesus christ, guys, think for yourselves. Does it have the specs you want? Is it within your pricerange?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 10:11
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Jesus christ, guys, think for yourselves. Does it have the specs you want? Is it within your pricerange? If not, why the hell do you want it? There's a lot more that goes into a camera than specs, you know. Ken Rockwell is as smart as, well, a rock, but there is real value to having someone try out a camera and seeing how it performs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 17:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Jesus christ, guys, think for yourselves. Does it have the specs you want? Is it within your pricerange? If not, why the hell do you want it? It's a feature-packed tiny rangefinder under $100. What more do you want? Radbot posted:HPL, how much did you pay for it? I'm seeing some wildly different prices for the 35RC on eBay. I paid $60, but it's in great condition and I bought it from a place that specializes in old cameras so I knew I wouldn't be getting a lemon. It's a nice camera, but honestly, don't pay more for it than you want to. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Aug 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
HPL, how much did you pay for it? I'm seeing some wildly different prices for the 35RC on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
So ruined a bunch of negitives last night. Cant seem to figute out what was wrong. So to move on I will say that both rolls are now "Fine Art" and proceed to dump all my mixed chemicals and start again. There must be some contamination some where that ruined them. Also they are all scratched to hell and back, i guess it must have happened in the changing bag. Over all I am very  about this. I think some of the best photos ive taken this year were on those two rolls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 05:23
|
|
|
Can you describe the problems?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 05:34
|
|
|
And a scan might be helpful, even if they look awful we might be able to figure out what went wrong by looking at the actual negs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
Sure, though after looking at them more and reading more and talking to #C im pretty sure it was not enough time in fixer. Due to being some what new at this and a typeo on my part I only fixed them for 2min.             
Sadi fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
Well, over the weekend I made a run down to Boulder and picked up an MD 28mm f/2.8 and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5 for my Minolta X-700 for $85, and the person I bought it from threw in an SRT-200 with a 45mm MD lens for free! Everything is in perfect condition, that was a seriously good deal. I also got my first roll from the X-700 processed and drat does that camera rock...guess I need to test out the SRT-200 now too. Not sure what I'm going to do with 2 cameras, but the lenses are interchangeable between them, so maybe I'll dedicate one as a black and white camera and do color with the other one and pretend I'm from 1980's National Geographic. Edit: There was also a polarizing filter on the 45mm that will fit the 28mm and a 50mm that came with the X-700 - Score! penneydude fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Aug 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the X-700 is a real gem. I have an X-570 (very similar, aperture priority only) and it pairs up with all six of my Rokkor primes. I love the MD/MC mount stuff, it's so cheap and it's got world class image quality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 16:06
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Not sure what I'm going to do with 2 cameras, but the lenses are interchangeable between them, so maybe I'll dedicate one as a black and white camera and do color with the other one and pretend I'm from 1980's National Geographic. Usually what I do is have one body with slower film and one body with faster film so I've got my bases covered for varying light conditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, the X-700 is a real gem. I have an X-570 (very similar, aperture priority only) and it pairs up with all six of my Rokkor primes. I love the MD/MC mount stuff, it's so cheap and it's got world class image quality. I used aperture priority almost exclusively on the roll I shot just to make sure the meter still works well and yeah, i was really impressed with how well it did, especially for a ~25 year old camera. How does it do with really long exposure times on aperture priority? I'd imagine it starts getting kind of goofy past 1 second but I haven't tried it yet. HPL posted:Usually what I do is have one body with slower film and one body with faster film so I've got my bases covered for varying light conditions. That's probably a better idea. Do you have any recommendations for faster speed films? I've been using Ektar 100 and I'm really liking it (except skin tones, which tend to be a bit on the red side for me). The well-reviewed fast films all seem to be black and white (Tri-X, Delta, HP5+), which isn't a huge problem, but I haven't gotten into developing my own black and white film yet and labs around here seem to be charging too much for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
penneydude posted:That's probably a better idea. Do you have any recommendations for faster speed films? I've been using Ektar 100 and I'm really liking it (except skin tones, which tend to be a bit on the red side for me). The well-reviewed fast films all seem to be black and white (Tri-X, Delta, HP5+), which isn't a huge problem, but I haven't gotten into developing my own black and white film yet and labs around here seem to be charging too much for it. The fastest colour film I've ever used was store-brand Fuji Superia 800 because it's cheap. Picture quality isn't that great, but that'll happen with any faster film. Black and white is the way to go for really fast stuff like 1600 or 3200 because anything above 800 for colour is expensive in that you either have to buy pricey 1600 film or buy 800 and pay extra at a pro lab to have it push developed. With black and white, you buy 400 film and crank it. I have tried Ilford Delta 3200 and found that the results weren't any better than pushed 400 film. For a dual-camera setup, I'll usually have 100 or 200 film in one body and 1600 in the other. Sadi posted:Sure, though after looking at them more and reading more and talking to #C im pretty sure it was not enough time in fixer. Due to being some what new at this and a typeo on my part I only fixed them for 2min. You can re-fix film after the fact. Also, always do a clip test with the fixer to make sure that you're fixing long enough because stuff happens. And then double the fixing time to make sure so if the piece of film goes clear after 2 minutes, fix for 4 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:18
|
|
|
HPL posted:then double the fixing time
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
Has anyone done any autochromes (I think thats what its called)? Where you take 3 black and white shots, each with a red, green, or blue filter, and then combine them into a color picture? I'd like to give it a try. Any info would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Has anyone done any autochromes (I think thats what its called)? Where you take 3 black and white shots, each with a red, green, or blue filter, and then combine them into a color picture? I'd like to give it a try. Any info would be appreciated. I imagine it'd be annoying to swap filters without moving the camera. Those old autochromes are pretty badass, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:52
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I imagine it'd be annoying to swap filters without moving the camera. Those old autochromes are pretty badass, though. I suppose the easiest way to do it would be to get one of those Lomo cameras with multiple lenses and then put colour filters over each lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
Snaily posted:Those old autochromes are pretty badass, though. Man, people used to look so much more interesting back in the day 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:I suppose the easiest way to do it would be to get one of those Lomo cameras with multiple lenses and then put colour filters over each lens. Or build a turret for gel filters, perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Getting the three images to register correctly shouldn't be a big deal. Use a sturdy support, cable release and motor wind if you can (if not, just be gentle.) Using a drop-in filter system, or handhold a resin filter over the lens for each exposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
I have to share something slightly... suspicious. A dude here in Sweden is selling a bunch of Nikon MF gear on our local craigslist-knockoff: 20/2.8 28/2.8 50/1.2 105/2.8 Macro 180/2.8 - all of it F/AIs. He wants the equivalent of $1100 (This is actually a better deal than it sounds. The SEK has strengthened recently.) and by his own admission these lenses cost over 6k new. It's a pretty clear-cut scammer, but if I had a car I'd drive down to his hometown and check them just on the off chance that he's for real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 19:17
|
|
|
Canadian film goons. Henry's seems to carry Arista Premium 400, which is the rebranded Tri-x 400. It's $4.29 per 24-exp roll, but if you pick it up at a store with your student ID discount, it's only $4.36 tax included. Not a bad deal for individual rolls. I thought Arista was a freestyle exclusive. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Getting the three images to register correctly shouldn't be a big deal. Use a sturdy support, cable release and motor wind if you can (if not, just be gentle.) Using a drop-in filter system, or handhold a resin filter over the lens for each exposure. Yeah I was planning on handholding the filters over the lens. What kind of filters should I get though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:I thought Arista was a freestyle exclusive. I'm pretty sure it is but Henry's is probably distributing it in Canada for them since Freestyle charges an arm and a leg for shipping to Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I have to share something slightly... suspicious. A dude here in Sweden is selling a bunch of Nikon MF gear on our local craigslist-knockoff: Scammer or stolen, most likely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 23:04
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Scanning!! I use the same scanner and can usually manage results i am a lot happier with, even for 35mm. My only problem is usually a bit of film curl and the resulting blur , but tonally things come out a lot nicer. I scan using the supplied photoshop plugin, 16-bit, because i found going to 8 in photoshop had a lot better shadow detail than setting 8-bit in the scanning software, and all of the correction/etc. options off. Occasionally if I have a really underexposed negative I fiddle with the scanner's exposure +/- 15% or so, but thats it. Mine came with photoshop elements, would should work as a decent host for their TWAIN plugin, did yours? I'd give it a try,...
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 00:41
|
|
|
dunno posted:I use the same scanner and can usually manage results i am a lot happier with, even for 35mm. My only problem is usually a bit of film curl and the resulting blur , but tonally things come out a lot nicer. Can we see some of your work scanned with the 8800f? I'd like to have an excuse to get this scanner, but I've been scared to get it based on what I've seen in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
I won't hugely advocate buying it (the 8800f) unless you get a good deal. I found mine on sale at a big box store for $200, and that was the least I was going to be able to pay for a film scanner (that isn't SCSI) without stalking craigslist for a month. I think you can probably get higher quality scans from an epson v500 or 49-whatever, but I liked that it would do 10/12 35mm frames or 3 6x6 in a go. Anyways, here are a couple of 35mm scans with reasonable tonal range: HP5 @ ISO 1000 in HC-110 (blame the developer for the grain)  Some rebranded fuji superia 200  I scan at 2400 dpi these days but for sharp results i usually have to downscale to a megapixel or two (from 7 or so), I usually output from hpotoshop as a high quality JPEG because I have no interest in having to store thousands of 16/48-bit tiffs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
I think those look drat good, especially for web quality sharing. I haven't seen anything better with the v500. That actually makes me want to get one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
Every photo in this gallery was scanned on an Epson V500. There's some 35mm colour, some 35mm black and white and some 120 colour, so you'll see how it all looks: http://mikechow.smugmug.com/gallery/9286575_NDtuR#620520319_uP9XW
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
 Developed my third roll (second batch) of film. Came out similar to the first two: I was shooting mostly in a dimly-lit restaurant and those photos were all heinously underexposed, the other ones were fine (the ones visible in this photo). I didn't mess with the exposure compensation or ISO in between, did I do something wrong developing or could my camera's meter be at fault? I was pushing Tri-X to 1600, I developed in stock D-76 for 9.5 minutes at 68 degrees on the first one (admittedly was a hot day, probably should have given it another minute or so) and the same for like 12-13 minutes on the second batch, which didn't seem to make a difference. Honestly the exposure values I was getting made sense so I'm assuming the problem lies in my developing. Oh, and going through my closet tonight I found a bag full of old prints and negatives. I had a lab lose a number of rolls I gave them to scan two years ago year and some of the ones I found I'd chalked up to that ill-fated venture. It was like Christmas  Radbot posted:Can we see some of your work scanned with the 8800f? I'd like to have an excuse to get this scanner, but I've been scared to get it based on what I've seen in this thread. The general consensus I've found on flatbeds that double as negative scanners is that they do a decent job with 120, 35mm is satisfactory for web res and printing up to 8x10" or so, which is fine for me. You can pick up the 8800F on eBay for $170ish shipped, the V500 is around $150ish or so (I saw a used one for $135 and jumped on it). Epson also has refurbs of the 4490, which is the V500's predecessor and basically the same scanner but without the LED lamp (so you have to wait for it to warm up) for $110 shipped. For the price point I'm quite happy with the V500. The V700 can do 4x5, which I might think of upgrading to if I ever get in to LF. Edit: I picked up 4 rolls of Kodachrome today, suggestions on how to make the most of it? Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Aug 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:31
|
|
|
HPL posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 04:40
|
|
|
I think after a little over a year of use, my Diafine has finally hit its stride, just loving the tones I've gotten over the past few rolls. Unfortunately, I'm running real low on on solution A, so I gotta replenish soon. Tri-x at EI640, Diafine 4+4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Scammer or stolen, most likely. He actually wanted to meet up in person for the transaction. I like to think that someone is getting a great deal, rather than that someone will get held up at knifepoint when they get there. Me, I can't afford to be scammed. I just sent my relative to KEH, and have no money left.  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. Hasselblad 500C/M, Zeiss 50/4 T*, A12 back, waistlevel finder, light meter knob, rapid winder crank (not pictured) e: Reichstag posted:I'm running real low on on solution A Snaily fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Aug 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think after a little over a year of use, my Diafine has finally hit its stride, just loving the tones I've gotten over the past few rolls. Unfortunately, I'm running real low on on solution A, so I gotta replenish soon. Pardon me, but is that a stick coming out of that dog's butt?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 08:46
|
|
