|
Fiannaiocht posted:I'm looking to get a little compact rangefinder that I can carry around in my jacket for under $200. I've been trying to look for a Canonet G-III QL17 but it seems like major camera websites like BH, Keh, etc don't have them or any of the other cheaper rangefinders. I also don't want to resort to ebay as this is an older camera and I don't really trust the source. Are these cameras cheap because they're so old and aren't really the deal they seem to be? Is there any reputable place that I can get a compact rangefinder? I'm going to throw out the budget-busting alternative and suggest a Gontax G-1. http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Contax_G I bought mine a couple of weeks ago and I'm seriously falling in love with this camera. With some searching around, you can get a body and lens for about I realize that's twice your budget, but there are a lot of benefits to be had for the price. First of all, none of the cameras mentioned aside from the Leica III have interchangeable lenses. And the Carl Zeiss glass made for the Contax is far superior to anything in Leica screwmount. In fact, it competes neck-and-neck with Leica M Glass. There is a 16, 21, 28, 35, 45 and 90 available, and the viewfinder automatically zooms to the correct viewing angle. So you can start with a body and one lens, and have upgrade options later. Second, and very importantly, G bodies are all much newer than anything else mentioned. They'll have good functioning electronics and seals, and they'll use modern batteries! And they'll take abuse better than anything else mentioned as well. It's made of titanium, for crying out loud. And finally, it doesn't look like the serious piece of kit that it is. Out of the street people think I'm a tourist because I have what looks like a tiny little P&S. It can run in aperture priority or full manual, auto- or manual focus. You can shoot one-handed and blend in. Ok, so I realize it's a long shot suggesting it, but it's an incredible bang for the buck. It's such a baller camera and I've been swooning over mine ever since I put it in my hands. The picture for the second time in this thread just for the awesomeness. .JPG)
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 5, 2010 |
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:It seems like the XA is going to have to be the one since it satisfies my needs better than the other rangefinders. I'm looking for something small that I can use in similar situations to my SLR with a kind of minimalist operation philosophy. I'm pretty much looking to duplicate my DSLR/S90 combo with film. If I think of the XA as a point and shoot that actually has a good lens in it I can accept how it looks. The only problems I have with it is the lens isn't as fast as my SLR and the auto-exposure is going to be annoying in the winter. Maybe instead of looking for another camera I should be looking for a different kind of camera bag. The XA isn't a point-and-shoot, it has rangefinder focus and aperture control. The Stylus Epic is a point and shoot with a good lens. Pompous Rhombus posted:If you send it to an Oly technician, you can get the XA's meter recalibrated to underexpose by a stop, which unlocks ISO 1600 film. (You can always get ISO 25 back with the backlight compensator if you really want it.) On this note: Pentax has Eric Hendrickson, Yashica has Mark Hama, is there a good Olympus tech everyone likes to use?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The XA isn't a point-and-shoot, it has rangefinder focus and aperture control. The Stylus Epic is a point and shoot with a good lens. There is but he's kind of expensive. Midstate Camera in Connecticut has a part-time guy who specializes in Olympus, I think it was $40 to fix the shutter/redo the meter on mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The XA isn't a point-and-shoot, it has rangefinder focus and aperture control. The Stylus Epic is a point and shoot with a good lens. It's point-and-shooty enough. Set the aperture to f/8 or f/11, focus to a general point and go to town. That's pretty much how the XA2 rolls. The downside of the Stylus Epic is that sometimes it will focus on the background instead of the subject but you won't know because there's no indication of any sort. Other than that it's a fantastic camera for carrying around because it's small and has a lens cover/power switch like the XA so you don't even need a case if you're carrying it your pocket. Plus it's water resistant too which helps. If you're on a budget, the original Stylus is almost the same except that it has an f/3.5 lens instead of an f/2.8. You can find those for $10 or so. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you send it to an Oly technician, you can get the XA's meter recalibrated to underexpose by a stop, which unlocks ISO 1600 film. (You can always get ISO 25 back with the backlight compensator if you really want it.) Oh hell yes! I didn't do enough research before grabbing one and was disappointed I couldn't get 1600. Can the meter be hosed with enough to get up to 3200? I would be ok with an xa that did 100 - 3200. or 32? with the 1.5 compensator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's point-and-shooty enough. Set the aperture to f/8 or f/11, focus to a general point and go to town. That's pretty much how the XA2 rolls. I actually have a Olympus mju:Panorama that I've been waiting to try out. Same 35/3.5 lens as the original Stylus but with the option of panoramic shooting too. There's clearly a line between the XA and the Stylus, though. One is a really high quality tiny camera that you can fully control, the other is a really high quality point and shoot that you can't. I had an Epic, nice camera but it shoots wide open all the time until the shutter speed maxes out. If they had made it with aperture control, it would have been a cult classic (moreso than it already is).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I actually have a Olympus mju:Panorama that I've been waiting to try out. Same 35/3.5 lens as the original Stylus but with the option of panoramic shooting too. Don't bother with the panorama. All it does is mask the top and bottom of the frame. It's not like the true panorama cameras that take a frame twice as long as a regular 35mm frame. If you want more control, get a Contax T2 or a Ricoh GR1s like I mentioned earlier. The downside being that they're bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. I wouldn't say that you can fully control the XA because you have no control over shutter speeds independent of aperture and the meter is somewhat limited since it's just a plain old photocell above the lens and there's no exposure compensation aside from the +1.5 one on the bottom. I find I get sharper photos with the Stylus Epic versus the XA because the AF system, when it locks on to what you want it to, is a lot more accurate than the rangefinder on the XA which is kind of small and slow to work with compared to a regular-sized rangefinder. There also isn't much in the way of swing arc on the rangefinder lever so that also makes it a little harder to be precise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
So I tried getting my film into a developing tank for the first time today. Sitting there having to explain how I unspooled and double knotted my entire roll while my hands were getting sweaty in the changing bag was the most humbling experience I've had in a long, long time. Tell me it gets easier.  How fast can you guys do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Tell me it gets easier. Very fast. I've learned not to dillydally or my roommate will come in and switch on the light! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Oh hell yes! I didn't do enough research before grabbing one and was disappointed I couldn't get 1600. I asked and he said he could only do it a stop either way, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Tell me it gets easier. Do you have Paterson or AP reels? AP reels are super easy to load.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I asked and he said he could only do it a stop either way, unfortunately. Thats slightly less exciting news, but I will take the extra stop. Now I just have to find someone that can do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Tell me it gets easier. It gets easier. Use a sacrifice roll and practice outside the bag. I have the world's smallest changing bag so it gets like a sauna if I'm not in and out in 4 or 5 minutes. I'm not the fastest guy, but I can do it relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
Also, get a Hewes reel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Also, get a Hewes reel. I will second that. the 35 reels are money. Less so for the 120. Go buy that. http://freestylephoto.biz/94321-Hewes-Student-Film-Processing-Kit
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I will second that. the 35 reels are money. Less so for the 120. Not only is the attachment system (much) better on a Hewes, the metal is almost twice as thick, meaning it will warp less over time. Tweaked reels are more the cause of screwups than the way the film is attached.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
I'd sell these for $70 & $80 + shipping... I have NO IDEA why I have two of them. One was my dad's, but somehow a second one magically appeared at my parents' house one day. I must have accidentally taken it once upon a time from somewhere, confusing it with mine. They both work perfectly. The one on the left is clean on front, but the flash has a crack in the front. The back of the main unit has a bunch of scratches in the enamel. The right one is in much better aesthetic condition (no scratches), however someone at some point in its history filled in the white lettering in front with blue, and the XA logo on top with red. The colouring has faded a bit, but is still there. It also still has its manual behind it. The flash is fine. I also have a Stylu,s and an IS-1 which is basically an automatic 35mm super-zoom. The IS-1 has a couple of macro attachments. My dad was a bit of an Olympus fanboy. I still use the OM-2 occasionally, and all the primes with my E-P1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I'd sell these for $70 & $80 + shipping...  When did these become high fashion? Growing up my family had one and it was the designated junky camera to take on trips as backup. It was taken out of commission by a massive wave years ago but I still have it. Maybe I should try and fix it.Edit: If anyone with one can confirm a few things; does it need the battery to fire (I'm guessing yes? The shutter button looks fully electric). I pulled mine out and the advance and shutter are both stuck (this was the problem that emerged after getting soaked). I plan to pull it apart and start poking around, but it would be nice to know if I can test things without the battery in there. TheLastManStanding fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Oct 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:
It was the same way for my family. The XA fell out of favour mostly because it doesn't have autofocus, doesn't have a built-in flash and probably worst of all (at that time), it doesn't have a zoom lens. If you look at the wave of cameras that followed the XA's era, it was almost all autofocus cameras with slow zoom lenses. It's not that anything was horribly wrong with it, it's that people got swept up in all the new gadgetry. The XA became cool again when people started going bonkers over old rangefinders and realized that the XA is a nice rangefinder with a decent lens in a tiny package.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Edit: If anyone with one can confirm a few things; does it need the battery to fire (I'm guessing yes? The shutter button looks fully electric). I pulled mine out and the advance and shutter are both stuck (this was the problem that emerged after getting soaked). I plan to pull it apart and start poking around, but it would be nice to know if I can test things without the battery in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:gently caress youuuu! ... So this week, in the process of clearing out stuff from my mum's house (she's moving and selling it now that dad's gone,) I've been given several odd rolls of film that have been exposed at some indeterminate point in the past.  They're both C-41. I know there's more of the goofy 110 things yet to be unearthed; I've seen them knocking about as long as I can remember. Is there any chance the latent images on these things is still there? If I had to guess I'd say the 110 stuff is from the 80s, when my parents were even poorer and just never had money to develop. The Polaroid one, no idea, I've never known them to have a 35mm camera during my life. Might be my sister's, which would put it around 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:So I tried getting my film into a developing tank for the first time today. Sitting there having to explain how I unspooled and double knotted my entire roll while my hands were getting sweaty in the changing bag was the most humbling experience I've had in a long, long time. If you are using a plastic paterson reel and you find it jams, run it under hot water for a while before you spool the film on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
I've got some old films (some dating back to 1981) but I have no idea if they've been exposed or not. There are no creases in the bit of film that sticks out. Is there any way to tell if they've been exposed? If not, would they be worth using, or are they pretty much useless by this stage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 14:30
|
|
|
So I picked up all the home developer stuff from the front page's Amazon link. Opening up the plastic reel to 120 mode is a serious stress-inducer. Thought the plastic reel was going to snap before I ever got a roll onto it. Luckily the first opening seemed to have been the worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Just received my Kodachrome slides today. First time I've ever shot in sunny situations with this film.   
The Gooniest Goon fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Oct 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
Zombotron posted:Just received my Kodachrome slides today. First time I've ever shot in sunny situations with this film. Oh drat that's fine. Mmmm Kodachrome makes everything look like it's coated in butterscotch or something. P.S. I really like the first one, very serene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
Look what I found on the local classifieds: Yashica Electro 35 GSN by downtown_man, on Flickr Joining the Yashica club!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
downtown_man posted:Look what I found on the local classifieds: I just got one myself and I love it. Very sharp lens on that sucker and the light meter does a nice job for being as old as it is. You're going to run into some trouble with the battery but you can easily work around it. The viewfinder is big and bright and it's very easy to focus with. You're going to love it.    
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Zombotron posted:Just received my Kodachrome slides today. First time I've ever shot in sunny situations with this film. Hey look, its Frank Ney. Preserved in bronze and now in kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I just got one myself and I love it. Very sharp lens on that sucker and the light meter does a nice job for being as old as it is. You're going to run into some trouble with the battery but you can easily work around it. The viewfinder is big and bright and it's very easy to focus with. You're going to love it. It seems like there is something funky with the far right side of the 3rd image. Is that a window or a double exposure or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
killabyte posted:It seems like there is something funky with the far right side of the 3rd image. Is that a window or a double exposure or something? Double exposure. I did not cock the winder far enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
Thought I'd try out pushing Tmax 400 out to 6400 on the weekend, didn't quite work out the way I'd like. The light meter I have doesn't do low light very well so the shots were very underexposed, only a couple came out okay. And I did a stand process in Rodinal for 2hrs in 1:125, with a swirl every 30mins. Under the Tay by mr_student, on Flickr (cross posted with SAD)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Noobus Interruptus! I have never done any kind of work with film before (aside from learning how to develop in an old photography class and playing with disposable cameras as a kid) but something possessed me to pick up an EOS 3000 (for $12 plus $9 s/h) and a five pack of Fujifilm Superia X-tra 400 Speed Film. What am I in for? Is there anything I can do to get some bang for my (small) buck?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 12:35
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Thought I'd try out pushing Tmax 400 out to 6400 on the weekend, didn't quite work out the way I'd like. The light meter I have doesn't do low light very well so the shots were very underexposed, only a couple came out okay. And I did a stand process in Rodinal for 2hrs in 1:125, with a swirl every 30mins. Tmax 400 pushes like poo poo after EI 1600 (I don't even like it that fast).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Tmax 400 pushes like poo poo after EI 1600 (I don't even like it that fast). What b&w films would you suggest for versatility? And more importantly pushability?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
Just came through Dublin airport who refused to hand check my 3200 film, and said it was going through the X-Ray or staying in Eire. Annoying. Is it still good though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 14:28
|
|
|
Spedman posted:What b&w films would you suggest for versatility? And more importantly pushability? Non T grained films. Tri-X and HP5 are the standard big push film stocks. I used to shoot a ton of T Max 3200 until I tried Tri-X at 3200 and 6400. Tri-X @ 6400  Tri-X @ 3200 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Non T grained films. Tri-X and HP5 are the standard big push film stocks. I used to shoot a ton of T Max 3200 until I tried Tri-X at 3200 and 6400. I would disagree somewhat. Ilford Delta 400 is a T-grain film and it pushes well to 3200 and in fact has replaced HP5 as my low light film of choice. I haven't tried 6400 yet, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't compare well to Tri-X or HP5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:
drat what did you develop in?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
downtown_man posted:Look what I found on the local classifieds: If you are located where your flickr says you are located and got it off kijiji, drat you for snagging that before I could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 19:41
|
|