|
SquallStrife posted:That looks to me like the shutter was open for too long... You can see the trails. I've investigated further and it appears that sometimes the shutter stays open for seconds at a time and sometimes it doesn't shut at all until you advance the film. Although there are times where it fires off normally. Not the best purchase and now my dad has just found his Minolta X-500, so I'll be playing with this in the future.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
beastathon posted:I've investigated further and it appears that sometimes the shutter stays open for seconds at a time and sometimes it doesn't shut at all until you advance the film. Although there are times where it fires off normally. Dorkroom, you were... right.. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 16:24
|
|
|
beastathon posted:I've investigated further and it appears that sometimes the shutter stays open for seconds at a time and sometimes it doesn't shut at all until you advance the film. Although there are times where it fires off normally. The Minolta X series is pro click (shutterclick heh heh). I love my X-570, it's got great ergonomics, it's small and light, and it takes great lenses that are a dime a dozen nowadays. The only thing that may compete (insane value-wise) are the Canon T series cameras with FD lenses, but the T series look so, so bad.  Good 80s!  Bad 80s!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
I'm looking for some 120 black and white film to shoot (TLRs or a 6x7). I would prefer 400-ish speed. Currently I'm looking at Fomapan (Arista.Edu) 400, Neopan 1600 pulled to 800-ish, Kodak 400TX, and Ilford HP5+. Laying the 400TX and the HP5+ to the side for a moment, because they're about 25% more expensive than the others, does anyone have good experiences with either Fomapan 400 or Neopan 1600@EI800? If you could, give developer and time. I kind of like the film noir look of Neopan 1600, but I'm worried the contrast will get out of control. I'm leaning toward it but I don't know what developers work well with it or anything. The Fomapan is very cheap, but it's not very well-known. e: I guess the HP5+ isn't that much more expensive. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Radbot posted:
This is my exact 35mm setup right now. This entire setup + that 50mm 1.8 that's on it will cost you about $160 at most, and that it was one hell of a great 50mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:This is my exact 35mm setup right now. This entire setup + that 50mm 1.8 that's on it will cost you about $160 at most, and that it was one hell of a great 50mm. Not to one-up you, but for $120 total I scored a Minolta X-700, a Minolta SRT-101, a 28mm f/2.4, 45mm f/2 (two of these actually, my mom had one lying around), 50mm f/1.7, and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5, in addition to a few UV filters, lens caps, and a polarizing filter. Everything is in perfect condition, save for a couple minor paint scratches, and both cameras take awesome pictures. I still say Minolta stuff wins in the value department, but of course it still depends on the kind of deal you can get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 23:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'm looking for some 120 black and white film to shoot (TLRs or a 6x7). I would prefer 400-ish speed. Currently I'm looking at Fomapan (Arista.Edu) 400, Neopan 1600 pulled to 800-ish, Kodak 400TX, and Ilford HP5+. Laying the 400TX and the HP5+ to the side for a moment, because they're about 25% more expensive than the others, does anyone have good experiences with either Fomapan 400 or Neopan 1600@EI800? If you could, give developer and time. Fomapan is good poo poo. It's got a great old school look to it, and it's very inexpensive. I shoot it in 35mm, but I hear there's a nasty curl to it in 120 that can be a real bitch if you plan to scan it. If you refuse to go with Tri-X, try Fuji Neopan 400 ($3.09 a roll at Freestyle) as a good compromise between Tri-X and Foma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 02:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Fomapan is good poo poo. It's got a great old school look to it, and it's very inexpensive. I shoot it in 35mm, but I hear there's a nasty curl to it in 120 that can be a real bitch if you plan to scan it. If you refuse to go with Tri-X, try Fuji Neopan 400 ($3.09 a roll at Freestyle) as a good compromise between Tri-X and Foma. Whats wrong with tri-x? Ive been shooting it since I got into MF and I love the look so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 02:43
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Whats wrong with tri-x? Ive been shooting it since I got into MF and I love the look so far. Tri-X rules, he just doesn't want to use it because it's more expensive (about $1.40 or so more per roll versus Arista's generic Fomapan).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
I wish they would make Arista Premium 400 in 120.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:I wish they would make Arista Premium 400 in 120. Same. I was pretty bummed when I realized they didn't 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The only thing that may compete (insane value-wise) are the Canon T series cameras with FD lenses, but the T series look so, so bad. Yep, T's are a bit ugly. Get an A-1 if you can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_A-1  http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Rokas-Photo-And-Video__Canon+A-1+camera
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 06:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Dorkroom, you were... right.. I was impulsive! Never again! Also, are there any Perth (Australia) goons who know where to get film negatives developed for cheap? It cost me $8 at a local Kodak shop and they didn't look like they handled them too well. I read that K-mart does them for ~$2-3?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 10:02
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:Yep, T's are a bit ugly. seeing A1s make me cry. That was the one I used in high school. they are built like tanks and the ergonomics are fantastic, I loved pulling the film advance lever. It was my dads and we had a 24mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 for it, and it all got stolen when someone broke into our restaurant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 14:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Same. I was pretty bummed when I realized they didn't Thirded really. Didn't they say they'd consider it if there was enough demand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 14:44
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:seeing A1s make me cry. That was the one I used in high school. they are built like tanks and the ergonomics are fantastic, I loved pulling the film advance lever. Been shooting with mine for a couple of days and love it up to now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 16:21
|
|
|
When I ask the photo store people whether they develop velvia or kodachrome (only knowing a little bit about slides) I get weird looks and reactions from people saying "that stuff is slides, it's expensive man..." Besides developing difficulties, I can put those 35mm into any 35mm camera and shoot as normal right? How do you guys find a good condition EOS 650QD for 50 bucks? It seems to be pretty neat but feels too much like a modern SLR. However I think I might go with a range finder instead but am not too familiar with them. The storekeeper was very informative and suggested a Minolta 7s for $310. I think it's a fixed lens of 45mm 1.8 It looks like a fun carry around camera but I want to go for a wider 35mm RF. From the forum suggestions, should I aim for a Bessa R3a? I mostly want a more discrete camera which can take a beating for traveling, landscapes and the occasional snaps shots. I would probably even bring this out during light rain or sheltered rainier situations where as I was previously ultra worried about lens mould and water getting to my DSLR. I'm still a newbie about RFs, and I don't think I can find the Russian ones. If the camera is not too expensive and allows changing lens that would be great. Metering would be a bonus but I guess most people here use other tools for metering? Thanks for the help guys 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:23
|
|
|
caberham posted:How do you guys find a good condition EOS 650QD for 50 bucks? It seems to be pretty neat but feels too much like a modern SLR. However I think I might go with a range finder instead but am not too familiar with them. If you already have Canon EF lenses, the 650QD is fine. You should also look for more advanced EOS film cameras like the A2E or 3. If you want a compact film camera, try a smaller SLR like a Pentax ME Super or something. When you pair it up with a small prime like a 50mm f/2 or 28mm f/2.8, it's roughly the same size as a rangefinder anyway. The only time rangefinders really have a size advantage is with the compact ones like the Olympus 35RC. If you get a 70's/80's vintage SLR, you'll also have the benefit of a camera that takes normal, readily available batteries and a much better light meter in addition to cheaper lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
HPL posted:
Compared my Canon A1 to my fed 3 the other day and the canon is slighly smaller, which suprised me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
caberham posted:When I ask the photo store people whether they develop velvia or kodachrome (only knowing a little bit about slides) I get weird looks and reactions from people saying "that stuff is slides, it's expensive man..." Besides developing difficulties, I can put those 35mm into any 35mm camera and shoot as normal right? Kodachrome can only be developed at Dwayne's (in Kansas) through mail-order processing. Anyone that develops Kodachrome is doing it through them. You can put whatever film in the camera and shoot it, but slide film has less exposure latitude than either print or B&W (it's more prone to blowing out the highlights or killing shadow detail if you don't get the exposure right). I personally almost never shoot slide film, most times when I do I'm cross-processing anyways. The R3a is a solid all-around RF, but wide isn't its strongest suit. Because of the high magnification viewfinder the widest frameline you get is 40mm, you can roughly extrapolate 35mm from the area outside the 40mm although it's not as exact. The R2a is pretty much identical but has a lower magnification finder (with the 35mm frameline). The R4a/R4m is designed around widenangles, although it's less common and generally costs more than either. Generally anything 28mm or wider you'll be using an external viewfinder with: if the lens is RF-coupled you focus through the camera's viewfinder and then switch to the accessory to compose. With really wide angle lenses like the 15mm you can scale focus pretty easily. It depends on your budget really: the Bessas are very nice but once you get beyond a couple of the Russian lenses there aren't a lot of screaming bargains (<$200) as far as lenses. Something like an old Canon FD or Minolta mount (stuff that can't easily be adapted to a DSLR) SLR has a lot more options on a more limited budget. For EF-mount, my R3a + 50mm f/2 isn't radically smaller than my Rebel Ti with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 (biggest difference is depth). The R3a is still less obtrusive and easier to focus in low-light, but it's still worth considering. Another thing to consider is a fixed lens RF. The Canonet Q17 has gained popularity in the last few years, a working one on eBay should cost $45-75 if you're moderately patient. It's got a decent meter (not a lovely selenium one) and 40mm f/1.7 lens. Yaschica Electro's also came with fixed lenses, although they seem roughly the size/weight of a small SLR. Both of these use a leaf shutter, which only has a max speed of 1/500s (which can suck if you've got ASA 400 film on a sunny day and want to shoot wide-open) but are quieter than even a Leica. Edit: there's also the Contax G system that a lot of film-era travel photogs swear by. It's basically an autofocus interchangeable-lens rangefinder system. The lenses are all supposed to be quite good, and given that only two cameras were made for it (the G1 and G2) and they can't be readily adapter to other cameras prices are pretty reasonable. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 20:56
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Compared my Canon A1 to my fed 3 the other day and the canon is slighly smaller, which suprised me. I know. Me too. You think that rangefinders have this big size advantage, but then you look at some of them like the Yashica GSN and they're huge, especially the ones with the sub-f/2.8 lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
caberham posted:When I ask the photo store people whether they develop velvia or kodachrome (only knowing a little bit about slides) I get weird looks and reactions from people saying "that stuff is slides, it's expensive man..." Besides developing difficulties, I can put those 35mm into any 35mm camera and shoot as normal right? I'm sorry, a Minolta 7s for $310? What currency is this in? I paid $10 for one at a flea market. EDIT: fixing the quote killabyte fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 04:00
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I'm sorry, a Minolta 7s for $310? What currency is this in? I paid $10 for one at a flea market. I was all "WTF I didn't say that!" and I realize that you meant to quote his post. I missed that part, $310 for a 7s is basically an outright scam unless it's some kind of obscure collectible version. edit: oh, moon dollars. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 04:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I was all "WTF I didn't say that!" and I realize that you meant to quote his post. I missed that part, $310 for a 7s is basically an outright scam unless it's some kind of obscure collectible version. Whoops, yeah, meant to quote the other post. Edit: and I see he is in Hong Kong from his profile so I am guessing $310 is about right. killabyte fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
I want to get an Olympus OM-1. Anything I should be wary of while shopping for these things? I hear it's all mechanical, are the shutter speeds going to be accurate on a 35 year old camera?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I want to get an Olympus OM-1. Anything I should be wary of while shopping for these things? I hear it's all mechanical, are the shutter speeds going to be accurate on a 35 year old camera? I think the OM-1 was designed to take mercury batteries, which aren't so common anymore. You can get an adapter that lets you use a hearing aid battery: http://cgi.ebay.com/Interslice-Tri-...#ht_2511wt_1165 Check the light seals- they're probably crumbling or sticky if they haven't been replaced. You can get a kit from that same seller--it's pretty straightforward if you have steady hands. The OM system is nice. The camera bodies are generally smaller than counterparts from Nikon and Canon and the optics are great. Can't say much about the accuracy of a 35 year old OM-1, as I have an OM-10. The OM-10 has a sticky shutter issue (caused by a shutter design that is specific to the camera, so it shouldn't be an issue on your OM-1).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I want to get an Olympus OM-1. Anything I should be wary of while shopping for these things? I hear it's all mechanical, are the shutter speeds going to be accurate on a 35 year old camera? Why an OM-1, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
I have a couple of OM-2SPs. They take great photos and they have one of the best light meters I've seen in an old-school film SLR. The OM-1 does seem to take a different battery. Seems like the OM-10 takes normal batteries though as does anything later than that like the OM-2 and up. If you want an all-mechanical camera that takes easy-to-find batteries, try the Pentax MX. It uses SR44/LR44 batteries which can be found for cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:17
|
|
|
Since developing 120-film was so easy but the camera is sort of big to carry around everywhere, I'm gonna try to find a decent sub $100 35mm rangefinder. What should I avoid and what should I be looking for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:23
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:Since developing 120-film was so easy but the camera is sort of big to carry around everywhere, I'm gonna try to find a decent sub $100 35mm rangefinder. What should I avoid and what should I be looking for? What kind of photography do you plan on doing with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why an OM-1, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:What kind of photography do you plan on doing with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:43
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:Pretty much everything since I want something I can have with me all of the time. Mostly people I guess, and I probably want a somewhat large aperture. I know nothing about 35mm, but I love the quiet shutter on my Rolleicord and would like something like that, only smaller. Seriously, the Olympus 35RC is the only compact rangefinder I have been happy with in any sort of way. Everything else sub-$100 is either too bulky, too limited in features or too noisy (seriously, rangefinders can have really loud shutters too). The one drawback of the 35RC is that it needs 1.3v batteries, which means either fudging something up or using Wein batteries which work like a charm. Other than that and the fact that it only goes up to ISO800, it's one hell of a camera and probably the best in its class. If you want really good features, you're going to have to take a step up to the big leagues in rangefinder land like a Leica or Nikon SP or Voigtlander or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
I always convert the currency to US dollars. So yes, a almost mint condition minolta 7s is being sold at $HKD 2220 or ~= $USD 310. Not sure if it's any special edition but does not look like it. Think I'm going to go for the canon EOS 3, EOS 5 (A2/A2E?) since range finders are not that compact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
HPL posted:Seriously, the Olympus 35RC is the only compact rangefinder I have been happy with in any sort of way. Everything else sub-$100 is either too bulky, too limited in features or too noisy (seriously, rangefinders can have really loud shutters too). The one drawback of the 35RC is that it needs 1.3v batteries, which means either fudging something up or using Wein batteries which work like a charm. Other than that and the fact that it only goes up to ISO800, it's one hell of a camera and probably the best in its class. What's wrong with the Canonet? I looked at the Olympus but f/2.8 and ISO 800 are a bit too slow for me. I'd probably buy a Rollei 35S and just scale focus at that point. Those things are crazy-small.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 14:57
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I want to get an Olympus OM-1. Anything I should be wary of while shopping for these things? I hear it's all mechanical, are the shutter speeds going to be accurate on a 35 year old camera? I would plan on a CLA if you're buying one. Or buy one that's been CLA'd already (like my OM2, which is for sale for the right price). John Hermansson is the go to guy for these, https://www.zuiko.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's wrong with the Canonet? I looked at the Olympus but f/2.8 and ISO 800 are a bit too slow for me. I'd probably buy a Rollei 35S and just scale focus at that point. Those things are crazy-small. The Canonet has a (relatively) loud shutter, doesn't have nearly as good controls as the 35RC and is almost as large and heavy as an SLR. While the 800 limitation sucks, keep in mind that just about all rangefinders of that vintage max out at around 400 or 800. You can go to crazy low speeds with a rangefinder, like 1/15 handheld if you've got a steady hand. HPL fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:40
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a film that's similar to Agfa Portrait? I used to run that through my TLR's and always liked the toned down realistic colors. Unfortunately the Kodak and Fuji film I've used in my 35mm SLR always comes out oversaturated and it'd be nice to use that camera for something other than black and white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:47
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's wrong with the Canonet? I looked at the Olympus but f/2.8 and ISO 800 are a bit too slow for me. I'd probably buy a Rollei 35S and just scale focus at that point. Those things are crazy-small.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Does anyone know of a film that's similar to Agfa Portrait? I used to run that through my TLR's and always liked the toned down realistic colors. Unfortunately the Kodak and Fuji film I've used in my 35mm SLR always comes out oversaturated and it'd be nice to use that camera for something other than black and white. Have you tried Kodak Portra? The NC version is pretty laid back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:19
|
|