|
breathstealer posted:Oops missed this. It's full auto exposure I think, you can't even shift the program. You can dink around with the ISO setting to compensate for exposure, but that's about it.
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:HK, not so much, although the stuff from mainland China that's made it over there probably wouldn't be outrageous. Lucky and Shanghai are the two Chinese brands of film I know, they're cheap and fun for playing around with, although now that I'm back in the US I normally pay the extra to shoot Acros.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm thinking about trying to pick up a cheap tlr when I swing through Beijing on my way home in 3 weeks. I wouldn't have a ton of time to shop around, how far is this Wukesong camera market from the Lido area? That's out towards the airport/798 Art District, right? If you can get to the subway, just take that out to Wukesong station (line 1, west of Tiananmen Square) and walk north for 15 minutes or so. Look for Mudan or one of the other off-brands, sellers seemed to want more for Seagulls, but you should still be able to stay under $30 without too much trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:You jerk. The local photo store wants two hundred dollars for Seagulls. (okay maybe they're the jerks) I'll be going on a business trip to China later this year, mainland too. I think Hangzhou, Shenzhen, and maybe other place in the mainland. I'll keep an eye out for some poo poo to bring back for dorkroom goons.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:HK, not so much, although the stuff from mainland China that's made it over there probably wouldn't be outrageous. Lucky and Shanghai are the two Chinese brands of film I know, they're cheap and fun for playing around with, although now that I'm back in the US I normally pay the extra to shoot Acros. I figured that was the case. Why do you have to be so expensively special Hong Kong. Too bad. Maybe I'll ask her to bring me some Lucky film, I've always been curious.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Still hunting for a cheap 35mm camera to take into the third world next year. drat hipsters driving prices up. Currently bidding on a ricoh auto 35 which sounds fascinating. Looks quite insane too.  Very sci fi. I've googled a bunch on it and all i know is that it's got a rangefinder mechanism and a selenium meter, which is all the better since i want to take this into africa next year and i don't really want to know about fiddly lithium batteries or mercury ones that don't exist anymore. I don't suppose any of the wise goons out there might be able to tell me more about it?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:Still hunting for a cheap 35mm camera to take into the third world next year. drat hipsters driving prices up. Currently bidding on a ricoh auto 35 which sounds fascinating. Looks quite insane too. Wow, that's a pretty stylish camera. Though I hate to tell you that a selenium meter in a 60's Honestly I wouldn't worry about having to use batteries too much. Most camera batteries are small and light, so carrying a few with you shouldn't be an issue. If they are only needed for the light meter and no other functions then they will last for months. On top of that, anywhere that sells film is more than likely to sell batteries as well. So the question becomes, how big is your budget for buying a camera? MediumWellDone fucked around with this message at 08:39 on May 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
I'm trying to spend under $50NZD (a bit less than $40USD) It's not a hard limit, but it's just thati'm preparing to work in tanzania or zambia next year as a medical student and i just want to be able to bring a camera that won't make me very sad if something happens to it. If i was going to I'd prefer something with a rangefinder and shooting manual because hey, if i go film i figure i might as well go all out and get some nostalgic fun. For some reason locally there's a ridiculous amount of demand for classic cameras, and i've seen a himatic 7s which according to the internet has no collector value go for like 150 NZD. So i'm trawling thrift stores and bottom feeding the local auction sites. Also, as an aside, I'm kinda debating brining my current camera (I own a relatively cheap (in photography money) low end DSLR, but for a student it still isn't that cheap.)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
I just looked NZ Ebay, ouch! I'd almost suggest stretching your budget and picking up an old Russian RF camera like a Zorki or FED. Then go pretend you are an old timey reporter in Africa  But that might not be for you. I'll leave this to someone with a better idea about what you should do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:I'm trying to spend under $50NZD (a bit less than $40USD) Just get insurance on it (renter's or homeowners will often do the trick) and get/bring a nicer camera.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
I finally got fed up and tried the sharpied-scotch-tape viewfinder patch trick on my XA. What a crazy difference - one of my two complaints about the camera (the other being the iso 800 limit - I'll have to look into that ISO 800 to 1600 bump mod) is now fixed and I can ALWAYS find focus now. I highly recommend everyone do this, as it takes zero effort and cuts your focusing time by 5-20 seconds easily every time. (fixed - SA's link parser can't handle the underscore) link = http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html Cannister fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
That's an awesome idea. My XA RF window is fogged to hell, I just zone focus when it isn't really bright. I'll give it a whirl. Your link is bad FYI.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
I really want to clean out the rangefinder in my XA like I've done with a bunch if other rangefinders with good results, but I looked up the instructions and all I can say is: "gently caress it". I'll live with a slightly foggy view.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Just get insurance on it (renter's or homeowners will often do the trick) and get/bring a nicer camera. That's probably the best advice. Thanks for that pompous.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
I picked up an Olympus XA at Goodwill this afternoon for $.99. The camera back's rusty around the edges and the light seals aren't much longer for this world, but I'm hoping that it'll last for a roll with new batteries. What I came here to ask is, will the film advance wheel turn if there are no batteries in the camera?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
fygar posted:I picked up an Olympus XA at Goodwill this afternoon for $.99. The camera back's rusty around the edges and the light seals aren't much longer for this world, but I'm hoping that it'll last for a roll with new batteries. What I came here to ask is, will the film advance wheel turn if there are no batteries in the camera?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:That disintegrating foam will stick to your film and ruin it, if it's not so gummed up that you can't advance the film at all. Oh gently caress me is that where all the dust spots on my test roll came from? I just assumed the minilab monkeys trashed my film and loaded it back up with some nice 160VC.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
fygar posted:I picked up an Olympus XA at Goodwill this afternoon for $.99. The camera back's rusty around the edges and the light seals aren't much longer for this world, but I'm hoping that it'll last for a roll with new batteries. What I came here to ask is, will the film advance wheel turn if there are no batteries in the camera? The XA only uses the battery to meter and operate the shutter - the film advance wheel should turn just fine until you get to a new frame - I think that's done mechanically - but then I don't think there's a way to advance to the next frame until you take a photo (which requires batteries). I think.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
Right. XA is entirely useless without batteries.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 14:29
|
|
is go
|
On the up-side, the foam seals in the XA are super easy to replace with one of the kits on eBay.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Hey guys, this thread made me want to try my hand at photography so I've been scouring ebay for anything. I ended up getting a Yashica Electro 35MC for $11. I got it recently, and it has a bit of battery corrosion and doesn't do anything when I put batteries in. I opened the bottom of it and found that the wire for the negative connection had been disconnected from the corrosion so I'm trying to get it reconnected... The thing is, I'm poking the wire to a battery while having the positive side touching and nothing really happens when I do this, so I'm wondering if it's worth the effort of soldering it together... I think the green square on the top is supposed to light up when I fire the shutter as a battery check, but it doesn't... Anyone have any advice?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
A broken camera is worthless, and you didn't invest much into it. You will probably be fine if you just open the bottom plate and resolder the wire. You might want to see if you can find a repair manual to help you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
been shooting a lot with the Konica Big Mini and the Konica Auto S3. They're both very solid cameras, and they're both Konicas, but they're very different.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Anyone want to sell a Canon QL 17 (or 19)? Thought I had found one locally on craigslist but guy stopped responding  .
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Picked up a little Canonet 28 from a salvation army on a road trip, when I got back home and put some film in it got some surprisingly good results for such a cheap little camera Canonet 28 by Chickenfetus, on Flickr  01290015 by Chickenfetus, on Flickr  01290006 by Chickenfetus, on Flickr  01290012 by Chickenfetus, on Flickr e: I decided on a whim to look it up on eBay. I guess I got it for super cheap its almost perfect condition, works beautifully, put a new battery into it and the whole thing only cost me around $20, hah. Gordon Bombay fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 09:03
|
|
|
Took a few photos with some 8yr expired film I found laying around on my new XA2 here are some, you can see the rest on my flickr. All of these are without detachable flash. _ by xsnackpack, on Flickr  _ by xsnackpack, on Flickr  _ by xsnackpack, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
MediumWellDone posted:Wow, that's a pretty stylish camera. Though I hate to tell you that a selenium meter in a 60's I'm happy to tell you that (anecdotally), you are wrong.  Yashica Minister III 1963 Scanned from prints (oops). I adjusted levels to match the prints, nothing else:    I've only run three films through this camera, but I put a lot of thought into exposure for every shot and I hit the exposure about 80% of the time. I wish it shot faster than 1/500. ed: I hate the focal length, by the way - 45mm. asteroceras fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jun 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
asteroceras posted:I'm happy to tell you that (anecdotally), you are wrong. Now that is a classy camera you have there. Glad to see you are getting good use out of it. Though from this, it does sound like you need to compensate the light metre reading to get desired exposure? asteroceras posted:I've only run three films through this camera, but I put a lot of thought into exposure for every shot and I hit the exposure about 80% of the time. On a camera like yours, that has manual controls, it isn't too much of an issue; Learn to compensate (as it sounds like you are doing) or buy a hand-held meter. That Ricoh he was looking at was auto exposure only. Sure, he could have dicked around with the ISO setting, but it may have only gotten him so far. I have nothing against old cameras, it just helps to be aware of the issues you may face when using them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
MediumWellDone posted:Though from this, it does sound like you need to compensate the light metre reading to get desired exposure? I don't mean the meter reading is inaccurate, if anything, it seems very accurate; I mean that I have to think about where to aim the camera to take a meter reading, then how much to alter exposure time (and aperture in bright scenes) to get the balance of lighting that I want from the actual scene. Having used digital cameras with live view screens for over a decade (haven't used film at all since 2002), and without a spot meter, I really need to think about exposure and I can't just bracket and edit the RAWs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
asteroceras posted:I don't mean the meter reading is inaccurate, if anything, it seems very accurate; I mean that I have to think about where to aim the camera to take a meter reading, then how much to alter exposure time (and aperture in bright scenes) to get the balance of lighting that I want from the actual scene.  I think I'm going to enjoy this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
asteroceras posted:I don't mean the meter reading is inaccurate, if anything, it seems very accurate Okay, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Picked up a Ricoh 500 ME for $20 from a flea market today. I could only find one ME on ebay and it was going for ~$116 (and wasnt the black model) so I'm pretty pleased. It's a compact range finder with a light meter and a 40mm 2.8 lens. ME stands for "multiple exposure". There's actually a multiple exposure button on the camera. I'm running a couple rolls through it today and tonight (bought some 800 speed film to play with) I'm excited to see what comes out. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
 I think this is the same as your ME. I've been neglecting mine, still on the first roll. Picked it up for 10 dollars without light seal and the meter isnt working. I really like it though nice and compact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Which of the cameras in the OP (or other similarly nice recommendations) don't require a battery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Any camera that is legitimately a 'point and shoot' will require a battery to work since they have an automatic metering process that requires a battery. The good new is that they are almost always watch batteries (or a single AA or AAA) and tend to last forever. If you want a camera that doesn't require a battery you'll have to move up to a full SLR or down to a toy camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Any camera that is legitimately a 'point and shoot' will require a battery to work since they have an automatic metering process that requires a battery. The good new is that they are almost always watch batteries (or a single AA or AAA) and tend to last forever. If you want a camera that doesn't require a battery you'll have to move up to a full SLR or down to a toy camera. Well, that's pretty inaccurate... Besides the selenium-metered options (as this thread encompasses rangefinders), many P&S have a set shutter speed. Not that I have any specific ones to recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
FLX posted:Which of the cameras in the OP (or other similarly nice recommendations) don't require a battery? Maybe a Holga 35mm? Not a great camera by any means, but it's cheap and would suit your needs on a sunny day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
FLX posted:Which of the cameras in the OP (or other similarly nice recommendations) don't require a battery? I guess I would would have to suggest the Olympus XA1. selenium meter, 35mm f4 not the best point and shoot but the only one I can think of without a battery. http://www.diaxa.com/xa1.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
FLX posted:Which of the cameras in the OP (or other similarly nice recommendations) don't require a battery? The Rollie 35 is completely manual, so no batteries are required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
A couple from the new camera. "How many hipsters have taken a picture there before?" by spikespikespike, on Flickr  _31_0767.jpg by spikespikespike, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 01:49
|
|