|
caberham posted:Suggestions welcome, my max budget is $200 for a premium point and shoot. $250 if I can be thoroughly convinced. Does it need to be pocketable, or just not obtrusive? The XA is great (and should only set you back about $100 from a knowledeable seller, less if they don't know what it is), but you can also venture into rangefinders for about that much money. A Contax G1 + 45mm f/2 is only around $250-300ish, IIRC.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Does it need to be pocketable, or just not obtrusive? The XA is great (and should only set you back about $100 from a knowledeable seller, less if they don't know what it is), but you can also venture into rangefinders for about that much money. A Contax G1 + 45mm f/2 is only around $250-300ish, IIRC. The Olympus Stylus Epic is even more pocketable than the XA and it has AF and a flash. It's also splashproof and is about the same price as the XA. The downside is that you'll go bonkers if you like to take photos without flash because you have to disable the flash every time you turn the camera on if you're shooting in lower light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Olympus Stylus Epic is even more pocketable than the XA and it has AF and a flash. It's also splashproof and is about the same price as the XA. The downside is that you'll go bonkers if you like to take photos without flash because you have to disable the flash every time you turn the camera on if you're shooting in lower light. caberham posted:I really love my flea market EOS 500N + 17-40. But I probably do need to get a better replacement or at least a replacement with a silent red dot AF focus. Instead of a film SLR, goons at the Point and shoot thread recommend a film point and shoot. A ricoh GR-1s costs arouynd 360-500 in my town but there were a few Olympus XA, X4A and plentiful of canonnet "something". I'm really curious about premium film point and shoots but according to research even the famous Leica minilux is prone to brick due to the shutter error code Yup, the Stylus Epic is a great camera. I wish they would firmware patch them to have the flash off by default and add a better program, since it shoots wide open until it hits 1/1000, then stops down to a max of f/11. If you get one, they are accurate enough for slide film, but be aware of what the program is doing. There's also a spot meter mode. The XA has a slightly older/worse lens (still great) but you get full manual control which is nothing to sneeze at. The RF patch tends to wash out a bit in daylight, if you get one be sure the patch image is strong. You will also need real silver-oxide batteries and not alkalines for it. It's the smallest rangefinder ever made, to my knowledge. I've never used a Contax G-series RF, but the lenses are Zeiss so they're probably awesome. A bit more of a theft target, bigger (normal) sized, but autofocus. PM McMadCow and ask him about them, I know he has one. If you want a normal-sized camera you will give no gently caress about, a Zorki 4K and a Jupiter-12 should set you back somewhere around $100, and the J-12 is an excellent copy of the excellent Zeiss Biogon made on looted Zeiss equipment. You'd need a light meter too, though. On that note, what is the best option for a low-end pocket or shoe-mounted meter? The Voigtlander VC II looks badly built for $200, the Digisix has interface issues, the Sekonic L-208 is not very durable. I might spring for a L-308, but $200 is more than I would prefer to spend. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Dec 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 20:05
|
|
Hopefully I can find something which will last! Or a more affordable GR-1s. The hyperfocal function sounds amazing! Suggestions welcome, my max budget is $200 for a premium point and shoot. $250 if I can be thoroughly convinced.
|
Paul MaudDib posted:On that note, what is the best option for a low-end pocket or shoe-mounted meter? The Voigtlander VC II looks badly built for $200, the Digisix has interface issues, the Sekonic L-208 is not very durable. I might spring for a L-308, but $200 is more than I would prefer to spend. I have the L-208. It's durable enough if you're using it to get a general reading and then keeping it in your pocket or bag until the light changes again. You can get it for around $100 all in on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:On that note, what is the best option for a low-end pocket or shoe-mounted meter? The Voigtlander VC II looks badly built for $200, the Digisix has interface issues, the Sekonic L-208 is not very durable. I might spring for a L-308, but $200 is more than I would prefer to spend. I wanted a VCII for the longest time, but eventually I came around and realized how overpriced it is for what you get. After using a DSLR as a meter for my meterless film cameras for a few years, I finally caved and bought a sweet Pentax Spotmeter V for $75 on eBay and never looked back. It's not tiny, but you can stuff it in your back pocket grip-first and let the meter part poke out. It's a really nifty tool, and I wish I'd picked one up when I was first learning photography.  If I'm shooting 35mm (especially B&W) I tend to do what HPL does, take one or two readings and then put the meter away unless the lighting changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I realize that $200 is getting to the range of spotmeters. $75 is a really good price, from what I've seen they tend to go for around $250. I do occasional readings too for my meterless medium format and 35mm cameras. I also remeter moving from open areas to shade, is there a rule of thumb like a shadowed area is 3 stops darker or something? e: Also you can use a DSLR as a meter too
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Does it need to be pocketable, or just not obtrusive? The XA is great (and should only set you back about $100 from a knowledeable seller, less if they don't know what it is), but you can also venture into rangefinders for about that much money. A Contax G1 + 45mm f/2 is only around $250-300ish, IIRC. The XA *is* a rangefinder. None of the subsequent versions were though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
I have a Sekonic L-158 that works great for confirming my sunny-16 estimates. Very small, weighs almost nothing, no battery needed, and I've seen them sell for under $20 on ebay. The L-188 is a slightly updated version, and is also very inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
I could also get my Luna Pro SBC repaired. I got it in a lot of stuff and forgot about it because it's broken. It seems to read way off when you take the incident dome off. When it's on, it seems to give a correct reading when you use it to meter reflected light. I'm wondering if some amateur repairman 'fixed' it at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, I realize that $200 is getting to the range of spotmeters. $75 is a really good price, from what I've seen they tend to go for around $250. I do occasional readings too for my meterless medium format and 35mm cameras. I also remeter moving from open areas to shade, is there a rule of thumb like a shadowed area is 3 stops darker or something? The analog ones like mine go for less, $75 was an okay price (the battery door of mine is really chewed up and has a hole gouged in it, still works fine though). The batteries died and had to be replaced, but I didn't have to mess around with any of that zinc-air cell bullshit. I HATE CARS posted:The XA *is* a rangefinder. None of the subsequent versions were though. Sorry, I meant interchangeable-lens rangefinders. I've owned 3 XA's (great cameras but not the most reliable things in the world, in my experience).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
KEH.com is my go-to for lightmeters. I recently snagged a Soligor Digital Spot for under a hundred dollars. The battery check doesn't work but it was in perfect condition otherwise. It's not small but I always carry a bag anyway. I want a Sekonic 358 and a Pentax digital spot but really can't justify spending that much on meters. I tend to spot meter the sky and base all my other exposures on that being 4ish stops brighter than middle gray. I remeter when the light changes or there isn't enough sky n the photo to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I've never used a Contax G-series RF, but the lenses are Zeiss so they're probably awesome. A bit more of a theft target, bigger (normal) sized, but autofocus. PM McMadCow and ask him about them, I know he has one. Figured I might as well put in my 2 cents here. I'd definitely recommend the G camera, but it's not really as budget-minded as a lot of the other small camera options being thrown around. I wouldn't really call it "normal" sized, because it's smaller than any SLR. Slightly more chunky than an XA though, and there's the lenses on the front, too. The G2 is slightly wider than the G1. Both versions also have manual focus override, but it's easiest to just use AF because of how fast it is. Build quality and operation are second to none, and yeah, the Zeiss glass is amazingly sharp. I found some screamin deals and got the G1 body and all 4 standard lenses for a bit uner $1000. Remember that to make use of the 21 and 35mm lenses a G1 body needs to be factory moddified to the "green sticker" spec.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
Woot No more lovely Indian spanner wrench that slips and broken Home Depot mini screw driver set! Also got a sweet oversize Printfile archival album with slipcase, time to migrate everything from "stacked in a cardboard box next to my desk".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Awesome! It's ridiculous how many uses you can find for a pointy spanner wrench. Good haul!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Santa brought me an Olympus XA to serve as a purse camera. It looks pretty much unused but I can't wait to run a roll of film through it, as I'm not sure about the light seals. It's perfect for what I wanted it for: a small, unobtrusive film camera that I can take places where I wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't take a (D)SLR. First trip for it in January: Somaliland! If I get a chance to shoot anywhere near as much as I'd like, I'll make a trip report thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Rixatrix posted:Santa brought me an Olympus XA to serve as a purse camera. It looks pretty much unused but I can't wait to run a roll of film through it, as I'm not sure about the light seals. It's perfect for what I wanted it for: a small, unobtrusive film camera that I can take places where I wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't take a (D)SLR. First trip for it in January: Somaliland! If I get a chance to shoot anywhere near as much as I'd like, I'll make a trip report thread. I had a dream last night that I had an XA for some reason, I probably shouldn't read the forums before I go to bed. How is the viewfinder in it? For a general film question for everyone: what do you think has the best viewfinder? I've only used a Hasselblad, d40, 5d and and n80 and the Hassy just looks ridiculous. Is there anything crisp and huge like that in an SLR?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I had a dream last night that I had an XA for some reason, I probably shouldn't read the forums before I go to bed. How is the viewfinder in it? Yeah, the Leica R8/9 have a massive, bright viewfinder. From what I understand, so did the original Leicaflex SL2. Also the Nikon F6. Still though, the best 35mm SLR in the world will still pale in comparison to a med format camera with a prism. I've never used an XA but I've looked through one once. The viewfinder is tiny, just like most rangefinder cameras. It's that way on purpose, though. RF cameras excel at wide angles. To get a corresponding sight picture you need a wide angle viewfinder. Which means small images. Thankfully RF cameras don't require you to get a super detailed view of anything in order to find your focus. The original Leica M3 and one or two Voigtlander models have a 1:1 viewfinder, but then you crop your picture when shooting with a wide lens. It's perfect for using a 50, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I've never used an XA but I've looked through one once. The viewfinder is tiny, just like most rangefinder cameras. It's that way on purpose, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 09:54
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I've never used an XA but I've looked through one once. The viewfinder is tiny, just like most rangefinder cameras. It's that way on purpose, though. RF cameras excel at wide angles. To get a corresponding sight picture you need a wide angle viewfinder. Which means small images. Thankfully RF cameras don't require you to get a super detailed view of anything in order to find your focus. The original Leica M3 and one or two Voigtlander models have a 1:1 viewfinder, but then you crop your picture when shooting with a wide lens. It's perfect for using a 50, though. Viewfinder size and viewfinder magnification are two different things. With something like an XA or screwmount Leica you see a lot more camera back than you do viewfinder peering through the thing. But that doesn't necessarily mean the finder is low magification - the rangefinder peephole on a screwmount Leica is a tiny, but very magnified image, while the 0.58x viewfinder on new Leica Ms is massive and will fill your vision (as any M would), but is greatly demagnified for wide angle use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:Viewfinder size and viewfinder magnification are two different things. With something like an XA or screwmount Leica you see a lot more camera back than you do viewfinder peering through the thing. But that doesn't necessarily mean the finder is low magification - the rangefinder peephole on a screwmount Leica is a tiny, but very magnified image, while the 0.58x viewfinder on new Leica Ms is massive and will fill your vision (as any M would), but is greatly demagnified for wide angle use. Right, sorry. Should have been more clear there. Leica's Ms will definitely fill your field of view while most other rangefinders will have a smaller image size regardless of magnification. One benefit to the Contax G1/2 is that the lenses are coupled to the magnification on the viewfinder so that it zooms in and out to match the focal length of the lens you attach. It eliminates the need for frame lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'm looking for a quality film point and shoot because to keep things simple and have some sort of autofocus. I did try to play with my friend's Mechanical Pratika M42/ Helios 35/2.8 and it is very fun but I would like to have a more "discrete" camera than a SLR/Rangefinder. I do look forward to the day when I can get my hands on a R3A and a Voightlander 35 1.4 but that pet project will have to wait until I technically and creatively get better. So something with autofocus, inbuilt lightmeter and pocketable would be fantastic. More manual control like Aperture priority is gravy but I think I'm gravitating towards the olympus XA. If I had more money, I would definitely get a Ricoh GR-1s. What's most important is sharp glass! TLDR: I want a fixed focal length film point and shoot with very sharp glass. Suggestions welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
caberham posted:TLDR: I want a fixed focal length film point and shoot with very sharp glass. Suggestions welcome. Look to Japan for your answer - http://kenshukan.net/john/archives/2009/12/30/travel-photography-by-photographica/     
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
Hmm. Just got done developing my Tri-X 400. The one step that I'm not sure if I messed up is the amount of time I had the fixer in the tank, because the clip test was supposed to take about 3 minutes to show transparency, it took me 6.5-7 mins. I was going to double the time, as the instructions suggested on page 1, but then I got nervous midway through and dumped it out at 10 mins. Could there be any potential problems with putting the fixer in too long? What happens if you don't go long enough? The negatives look... interesting. I forgot I used that roll for a lot of night photography so a lot of the frames look completely blank except for some darkness in the center which was my subject. A few of the negatives also look like they have a few blotchy spots, not sure what that's from. I was stupid and didn't use a test roll, so if I messed anything up it was on a good roll.  Edit: Oh poo poo, I just realized I forgot to dilute the fixer 1:3  What is the repercussion of that?
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Whatever fix you used probably still has a lot of life left in it. That would be my guess at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 12:56
|
|
|
What do you guys recommend for a film scanner that scans 35mm and 120 and won't destroy my budget ($500 or under)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:What do you guys recommend for a film scanner that scans 35mm and 120 and won't destroy my budget ($500 or under)? An Epson V500 will only run you about $100-125 after shipping, and is quite decent. For $500 you might be able to get something nicer though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:An Epson V500 will only run you about $100-125 after shipping, and is quite decent. For $500 you might be able to get something nicer though. I've used both and the V700/750 is just so, so much better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Rednik posted:I've used both and the V700/750 is just so, so much better. Me too, but I don't think the V750 is worth the extra money for the vast majority of people, unless you're shooting 4x5 and up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
How big do you guys usually print your 35mm film photos? I do my digital and medium format prints within 13x19 but when trying to go that big with 35mm film it doesn't really work out. It's probably due to my scanning procedure/quality of film but there has to be a limit at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
The limit of film is pretty much just the limit of what you scanned it at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Would be curious if anyone knew the answer to this:Mannequin posted:I just realized I forgot to dilute the fixer 1:3 I was using Kodafix and forgot to mix in the water, so I used a fully concentrated solution. Will that affect the development in any way? I imagine it might only affect the time it takes for the fixer to work, (making it longer), but won't actually affect the outcome as long as my times were accurate? That's my guess. It's hard to tell just from looking at the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Would be curious if anyone knew the answer to this:
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Would be curious if anyone knew the answer to this: Forgetting to dilute the solution means the solution was stronger, not weaker, so it should have worked better/faster. You might want to do the permawash twice to be sure, and make sure you wash the hell out of the negatives. The reason this is important is that residual fixer will tend to stain the negative over time, and you just exposed the negative to an extra-strong solution of fixer. As long as it doesn't stain or cause obvious defects in your negatives it'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Supposedly overfixing can destroy fine details in the highlights. If your negs were high contrast to begin with then you probably don't have much to worry about. No idea why your clip test took so long though, that's weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
Kodachrome: mailed. Now onto the mystery roll of Technical Pan that I found in my kitchen. ISO25 film should last longer than higher speed stuff at room temperature, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Kodachrome: mailed. Now onto the mystery roll of Technical Pan that I found in my kitchen. ISO25 film should last longer than higher speed stuff at room temperature, right? Yes. ISO 25 film lasts a hilariously long time. Fiannaiocht posted:How big do you guys usually print your 35mm film photos? I do my digital and medium format prints within 13x19 but when trying to go that big with 35mm film it doesn't really work out. It's probably due to my scanning procedure/quality of film but there has to be a limit at some point. I don't usually go past 8x12 or 11x14 with 35mm darkroom prints before seeing an annoying loss of quality, but I have seen some enormous prints made from 35mm. Some guy at the annual sidewalk art sale was selling a huge print of sand dunes, probably four feet tall, blown up from 35mm Tri-X... and it looked great. Those kind of huge enlargements seem to work best with either really slow films or intentionally grainy subjects. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Dec 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 03:16
|
|
is go
|
I notice when my negatives are drying some of the water droplets leave a mark on the surface. Does that happen to any of you when you are developing? If so, what do you use to get it off? Q-Tip with some water?
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I notice when my negatives are drying some of the water droplets leave a mark on the surface. Does that happen to any of you when you are developing? If so, what do you use to get it off? Q-Tip with some water? Are you using a wetting agent like Photo-Flo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
No, tap water filtered through one of those PUR filters. Guess I should get some photo-flo...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:No, tap water filtered through one of those PUR filters. Guess I should get some photo-flo... Definitely helps, plus one bottle will last you years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2010 05:22
|
|