|
sensy v2.0 posted:Actually I'd quite like a Rollei 35S if I could find one cheap. I like how it's completely manual (as far as I understand it) and that you can use it without any batteries. Are there any other ones like that I could look for? If you're patient, I've seen 35S's go for as low as $120-130, although closer to $200 is the norm. The cheaper ones seem kind of random, they were in working order and looked no different than the ones that went for $200. An Olympus XA or XA2, or Lomo LC-A are good, pocketable cameras with 35mm lenses. The Lomo's are a bit overpriced at around $100, you can grab an Olympus XA for the same cost, which has a nice 35mm f/2.8 lens, rangefinder, as well as aperture priority shooting. (The LC-A also has a 35mm f/2.8 lens and Av shooting, but is scale-focus only and I think ISO tops out at 400). The XA2 has a slower f/3.5 lens, no Av mode or rangefinder, but only costs like $10. I had my XA modified to meter a stop fast so I could use 1600 film, which made it a pretty formidable little shooter. I liked it but eventually decided to sell it to fund my R3a.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Have you tried Kodak Portra? The NC version is pretty laid back. Awesome, that's exactly what I was looking for. And they even have 120 versions. Most of the film I've found locally is all about vivid colors. I only found the Agfa by accident, and now that of course is gone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:48
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Awesome, that's exactly what I was looking for. And they even have 120 versions. Most of the film I've found locally is all about vivid colors. I only found the Agfa by accident, and now that of course is gone. Yeah, Agfa had some great films. I still have a roll of Portrait in the freezer together with lots and lots of Ultra 50. You'll like Portra NC, same "look" to it as the Agfa stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:53
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:Actually I'd quite like a Rollei 35S if I could find one cheap. I like how it's completely manual (as far as I understand it) and that you can use it without any batteries. Are there any other ones like that I could look for? Anything that's either full mechanical or has full manual controls. Many of the better compact rangefinders like the Canonet and 35RC have manual controls so if worst comes to worst, you can run without batteries. Like I said before, I prefer the 35RC because it has better controls and it displays the aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder. Be careful of buying rangefinders without manual controls because if the light meter ever conks out, the camera is as good as dead, regardless of battery situation. There are also lots of SLRs out there like the K1000, MX, Spotmatic and OM-1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
HPL posted:Anything that's either full mechanical or has full manual controls. Many of the better compact rangefinders like the Canonet and 35RC have manual controls so if worst comes to worst, you can run without batteries. Like I said before, I prefer the 35RC because it has better controls and it displays the aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
Hooray! My Canon AE-1 came in the mail today. My old one's shutter stopped opening past 1/30th for some odd reason, and no amount of shaking, poking, prodding, and battery replacing seemed to fix it. The guy at the local camera dungeon wanted 150 to repair, but I got a new body on eBay for 30. Dirty as hell, but otherwise seems to function great. Going to put an expired roll of Kodak Gold through it that I swiped from work to see what it can do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 18:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:Anything that's either full mechanical or has full manual controls. Many of the better compact rangefinders like the Canonet and 35RC have manual controls so if worst comes to worst, you can run without batteries. Couldn't it be manually controlled, but still battery operated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Couldn't it be manually controlled, but still battery operated? Of course, but the catch with rangefinders is that almost all of them turn off the light meter when you run them in manual mode so although there may be a light meter, you won't know if you're over or underexposing unless you flip it back into automatic exposure mode to check your settings. That's the nice thing about SLRs. A lot of them still have the light meter working in manual mode so you'll know if you're in the ballpark or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 19:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:Of course, but the catch with rangefinders is that almost all of them turn off the light meter when you run them in manual mode so although there may be a light meter, you won't know if you're over or underexposing unless you flip it back into automatic exposure mode to check your settings. Sorry, I meant electronically controlled shutters, I don't know if any rangefinders with manual controls use them, but if he was looking for something that worked without batteries that would be an important distinction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 19:20
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Sorry, I meant electronically controlled shutters, I don't know if any rangefinders with manual controls use them, but if he was looking for something that worked without batteries that would be an important distinction. The whole "well it works without batteries" thing is a bit  to me but the Bessa R2M/R3M both have that feature (no Av mode though).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 19:57
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The whole "well it works without batteries" thing is a bit I know. The battery thing is silly in this day and age considering the batteries last a year or so and replacement SR44 batteries are less than a dollar a piece.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
Not only that, but people whine about carrying spares when they can fit ten years' worth into a smaller space than a single film canister.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 21:44
|
|
|
When you're living on the cheap in some third world country, not having to worry about batteries is pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
notlodar posted:When you're living on the cheap in some third world country, not having to worry about batteries is pretty sweet. You'll spend tons more on film and developing than you ever would on coin batteries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
HPL posted: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. Oh come on now, the Canonet QL-17 G-III is nowhere near as big as an SLR. It also tends to go for a lot less on eBay than the 35RC as it was far more common, and some would argue it's more reliable as 35RCs are known for oil migration on the shutter/aperture assembly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Oh come on now, the Canonet QL-17 G-III is nowhere near as big as an SLR. It also tends to go for a lot less on eBay than the 35RC as it was far more common, and some would argue it's more reliable as 35RCs are known for oil migration on the shutter/aperture assembly. I actually have a QL17 GIII, a 35RC and a number of 35mm SLRs so I think I'm reasonably qualified to make statements regarding all three. How about you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
The SLRs I've personally handled (and thus, ~*QuAlIfIeD*~ to speak of) have varied greatly in size, is there some sort of "standard" size and weight class that separates SLRs from RFs, and the Canonet unquestionably breaches that barrier? Or is this comparing a "kinda big" RF with a "kinda small" SLR? I ask since I haven't handled the RFs in question and so I'm not qualified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 07:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:I actually have a QL17 GIII, a 35RC and a number of 35mm SLRs so I think I'm reasonably qualified to make statements regarding all three. How about you? I own a QL17, five different SLR systems with lenses, and I've handled a 35RC before (in addition to owning multiple Yashica Electro models, Olympus XA and XA2, etc.) So yeah, if you want to get confrontational about it for some odd reason, I do know what I'm talking about. I can post a pic of my Canonet next to my Minolta X-570, Nikon N80, Nikon N65, Nikon F4s, and Canon AE-1, whichever you'd prefer. The 35RC is a great camera, there's no doubt, but I love my RFs and the Olympus XA and the Canonet QL17 G-III are my favorites. My Canonet is smaller than any of these systems. Granted, it's not a LOT smaller than the AE-1 or the X-570, but it is smaller. Radbot fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Sep 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 08:00
|
|
|
HPL posted:You'll spend tons more on film and developing than you ever would on coin batteries. Even when they last a year, I don't want to worry about my camera dying and forgetting my spare batteries in my hotel room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 09:26
|
|
|
Gaffer tape a spare to your camera, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 11:13
|
|
|
My 1n takes huge batteries 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
Has anyone used the Arista premium development tank? http://www.freestylephoto.biz/5041-Arista-Premium-Double-Reel-Developing-Tank-with-two-reels I've got a Paterson, but it keeps leaking when I invert it and I want something less messy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
Radbot posted:My Canonet is smaller than any of these systems. Granted, it's not a LOT smaller than the AE-1 or the X-570, but it is smaller. It's maybe smaller by a smidge, depth wise but otherwise largely the same in most other dimensions compared to Pentax and Olympus cameras. I just haven't been impressed by the Canonet when using it and viewing the results. The size and weight of the lens pretty much ruins any advantage over an SLR with a 50mm lens. Given that you're losing the advantage in almost every department by going with a rangefinder over an SLR and gaining a few headaches like weird batteries, I think that rangefinders are overhyped unless you're talking about the upper crust of rangefinders like Leicas or truly small and quiet rangefinders like the XA and 35RC. Point being that anyone that thinks that something like a GSN or Canonet is going to disappear in a coat pocket like magic compared to an MX or OM-2 may be disappointed. And yes, the Arista Premium tank is fine. I use one all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
Had to order my paterson tank from calumet online after walking for miles to there shop and discovering they basically dont sell anything there apart from £1500+ lenses. Tried to order my chemicals from them aswell but got a phone call saying the delivery was going to be £22 for a bottle of fixer because it needed to be transported in a specialy equipped health and safety van.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 16:26
|
|
|
My SLRs are cursed. The Nikon FG that I was given to replace my old Centon (whose meter went all screwy) has also failed electronically. Very irritating. In other news my Kiev 4 turned up. The timer doesn't work but otherwise it seems to be running perfectly and I have a cable release anyway if I want to do something without touching the camera. That and the vinyl being kind of nasty is about all that is wrong with it. Will take it down to the local flea market tomorrow and see if I can't take some interesting shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 16:57
|
|
|
Carbocation posted:Has anyone used the Arista premium development tank? I wasn't aware that AP stood for Arista Premium, but I use this tank. I've had the odd leak here and there but it's usually from me not tightening the lid enough. I typically try to towel off the tank between chemicals just so I can be sure that it's chemical leaking and not some water that was there from my stop bath. Overall I think the shape of the lid on the Paterson tanks looks like it makes it easier to pour chemicals since it looks to be more funnel shaped. I haven't looked at one up close though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Overall I think the shape of the lid on the Paterson tanks looks like it makes it easier to pour chemicals since it looks to be more funnel shaped. I haven't looked at one up close though. The Paterson tank design is indeed easier to pour liquids into, but the lid can be a bit finicky if you're not careful. I'd get the AP tank just because it's a lot cheaper. The Paterson also has the advantage of using a bit less fluid per reel than the AP tank, but not a heck of a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
caberham posted: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. Yeah that's about par for the course in Hong Kong. Brick and mortar stores are a pretty bad idea here, as they pretty much all overcharge. What you want to do is hang around the used sections of dchome.net, dcfever.com, and hklfc.com until a decently priced SLR turns up, or take a gamble on something from the flea market on Sham Shui Po's Apliu Street. It'll take a lot longer but you'll save a ton. By the way if the labs you go to find it weird that anyone still shoots slides in this day and age you may want to go to a professional lab instead. Color Six on Stanley Street in Central is the most popular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:Yeah that's about par for the course in Hong Kong. Brick and mortar stores are a pretty bad idea here, as they pretty much all overcharge. Thank you so much! Just started to use colour 6.omeone found a minolta 7s for cheap and hopefully I will too! Will scour the flea markets for a camera. Or just get a cheaper 650QD. Man I just wish KEH has more international affiliates or more diverse warehouses so they can rule the internet shopping land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 21:41
|
|
|
caberham posted:Man I just wish KEH has more international affiliates or more diverse warehouses so they can rule the internet shopping land. As a tip to Canadians, if you aren't in a rush when ordering from KEH, get the cheaper Purolator option. Yes, it will take a month to get to you, but it will be far, far cheaper because KEH will quote you a price, but UPS (the normal delivery method), while fast as a house on fire, will ding you a ton of extra fees on top of that, whereas Purolator doesn't so much. To further illustrate the rangefinder vs SLR thing, I snapped a couple of quick and dirty comparison photos:  Bottom row, left to right: Olympus 35RC, Canonet QL17, Pentax MX + 50mm, Olympus OM-2SP + 28mm, Yashica GSN Top: Comedy option Mamiya 645 Pro + 150mm  Top row: Canonet, Pentax MX Middle row: 35RC, OM-2SP Bottom: GSN So you do save a wee tiny bit of space, but not a heck of a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 00:44
|
|
|
Nice collection. A lot of people forget how small the classic film SLRs could be, and how big rangefinders actually are. Everyone pictures the Leica M as a 'small' camera when the thing (my *LEICA*) is a bit bigger than my OM2. Heavy, too. And for some reason everyone posts pictures of theirs looking all sexy with a naked lens when in reality you add a decent hood too, and the thing is anything but compact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:... I think that rangefinders are overhyped unless you're talking about the upper crust of rangefinders like Leicas or truly small and quiet rangefinders like the XA and 35RC. I'd agree wholeheartedly on both counts. Rangefinders are overhyped. I shoot a fair amount with the Canonet since it is a teensiy bit smaller and (most importantly), if I'm going out for a reason other than specifically taking pictures I'm not going to bring a huge zoom or lots of different lenses, so the Canonet is a good choice. It's a well made, well built camera that I could lose or damage without it ruining my month. You and Clayton Bigsby are definitely both right though. It's easy to get caught up in little boutique or rare rangefinders when classic SLRs are drat small on their own right. One could make an argument that, once a camera is too big for the pocket and is going to be carried around the shoulder, size doesn't matter as much as quality and thus the Canonet is a poor choice (being bigger than pocket-sized and not capable of producing the same results as an SLR). I just love the little thing though. I'd think that most people who still shoot 35mm are into great, old equipment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Nice collection. It's only a mere sampling of the collection. Don't tell my girlfriend!  Radbot, you're dead on about the pocket thing. It really is an "in for a dime, in for a dollar" thing up to a point when you're walking around with a potato-masher flash, a 400mm lens and a big chiropractor bill. I like the compact film SLRs because they're small, cheap, tough, full of features and they can be at least as fast to use as a rangefinder. If you get an automatic metering camera like the ME Super or OM-2 and pair it up with a wide angle lens like a 28mm prime and set it to f/8, you can hit and run like nobody's business. Shoot from the hip, shoot behind your back, over your head, whatever. What I'd love to have is something like a 35RC with a 28mm lens. That would be the poo poo for street photography.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
Are there any places that still have Kodachrome, or am I going to have to get it from eBay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
If you in the uk boots has it, which i was astonished at considering there basically a chain chemist, it was £13 a roll though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 17:52
|
|
|
Pyruvate posted:Are there any places that still have Kodachrome, or am I going to have to get it from eBay? Good luck, and enjoy it if you can get it. It's pretty sweet film. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Yeah I figured I should at least try and shoot a couple rolls before I can't anymore forever. I found a couple "Kodachrome Slides" boxes in an antique store and got eaxcited, but there weren't any slides in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
Pyruvate posted:Are there any places that still have Kodachrome, or am I going to have to get it from eBay? For what it's worth, it's not impossible to find in Sweden. Normal (converted) price is $25-30, though (but that includes development).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 19:34
|
|
|
Snaily posted:For what it's worth, it's not impossible to find in Sweden. Normal (converted) price is $25-30, though (but that includes development). I found some on a UK site a while back (probably gone) but Dwayne's has said they do NOT accept European mailers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2009 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I found some on a UK site a while back (probably gone) but Dwayne's has said they do NOT accept European mailers. Do you have a quote for this? That would be an immensely lovely thing for them to do. I looked around on their site, but couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2009 06:59
|
|