|
ExecuDork posted:Are you sure it's tarnish on the metal, and not a shiny surface (electroplated on maybe?) that's rubbing off? It looks like some black paint / enamel has come off of the upper parts on the front, maybe whatever scratched off that paint also scratched off some of the chrome / nickel / whatever on other parts of the body. Well, some of it has definitely rubbed off. But the lens is what looks like tarnish--  There's also just some general crud that I was able to get off, and now the whole front plate of the camera is clean. I may have pretended to be a revolutionary spy at one point in the day. Spedman Thank you for posting that, now I'm crazy excited. tsc fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jan 2, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
To enhance your excitedness, the Tessar is a really good lens, for medium format. People fight for Zeiss Tessars when they're mounted on Rolleis and such. Sounds like a nice shooter camera to me. Yeah, there are better lenses on 35mm, but shoot it at f/5.6 and you'll get good results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Finally got HC-110 in the mail, and made the most of what was left of my hangover and developed my first rolls of film in 6 months: Something that helps me is to fold the first inch or so film back so that the curl is less intense; this makes it a lot easier to put onto the reel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
tsc posted:Well, some of it has definitely rubbed off. But the lens is what looks like tarnish--
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
My grandfather gave me a Canonet for Christmas. It was his, and I have no idea when it's from. It took me 30 minutes and two youtube videos to figure out how to open it. I also have an A2e, but I don't really shoot any film. I want to do that this year. Which of the two do you think would be "better" to shoot with? The only lenses I have are 35L, 85 1.8 and 24-105L. I'm not even sure if they'll go on the Canonet. edit: Apparently the lens does not come off. Ha. milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
dunkman posted:My grandfather gave me a Canonet for Christmas. It was his, and I have no idea when it's from. Canonets are range finders, so if you've not used one before it would be fun to run a few rolls through it. Which Canonet do you have? The QL 17 is highly regarded, but I've not used one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Some of you may remember i bought some expired rolls of Agfapan 100 a few pages ago and i'd like to share how it turned out. The film expired in 1989 (~23 years ago). I shot it at nominal iso (100) and developed as normal in HC-110 Dilution B, 300ml for 7 minutes. Scratches are due to my rough handling of the negatives. I did no post on these (other than invert negative) to show colour of the film base and quality of the film tones. Daytime:  At Night:  To me the film looks fine, and i'll shoot the rest of it without any exposure or development compensation as well. I really like this film and i found out macodirect.de still has a ton of old stock for cheap. I don't think i'll be buying "new" slow film for a while
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Canonets are range finders, so if you've not used one before it would be fun to run a few rolls through it. Which Canonet do you have? The QL 17 is highly regarded, but I've not used one. I left it at home, but I think it's from the early 70s. It definitely doesn't have any red on it. I'll play around with it when I get home and see all the details. I think I have some film for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
NihilismNow, Thanks for the update! I've got a few rolls of similar-aged B&W film of various makes and speeds sitting in my 'fridge, it's good to hear it's probably OK.dunkman posted:My grandfather gave me a Canonet for Christmas. It was his
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
 I bought a Nikon F for the hell of it. After watching a documentary on the making of it, I have a new appreciation for this beautiful machine. And hey, everybody needs an all-mechanical backup camera! edit --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKyR9Z_ZUsU --- that's the documentary I mentioned. It's only 20 minutes total or so, but it's really interesting if you're at all interested in the history of Nikon or the history of 35mm SLRs. Also, I looked up the serial number and it was produced in Feb/Mar 1969, which is cool 
Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
So, as a mission over the holidays, I picked up my dad's old camera, a Pentax MX and a 3-pack of Kodak MAX 400 film and after figuring out how to spool the drat thing, I've taken some photos, which will no doubt be hilariously poorly exposed since the batteries for the exposure meter are dead. Now, I'm guessing they're a pair of 1.5V batteries, but there's very little information on them except 'sl44sw' or something and my local Source has a giant wall of batteries of all sorts of shapes and sizes. Would I be silly to try to find one the same size or is there more specific batteries I need. I'm okay with the full manual everything else, but I need my metering  EDIT: I also bought my dad an LX5 and I have a D7000, but I looove how the Pentax feels and sounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
The good news is that you have soooo much latitude with film that even if you did hilariously botch the exposure, you'll probably still be able to recover a shocking amount of detail in each shot. Assuming you have a scanner and the negatives. Don't just hand the lab your roll and ask for jpegs back and call it a day
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Assuming you have a scanner and the negatives. Don't just hand the lab your roll and ask for jpegs back and call it a day I didn't want to create a huge timesink for myself, but here I am.p.s. pentaprism focusing
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Well as long as you hang onto the negatives you can always fix them yourself later  A "decent" film scanner shouldn't be a lot of money on craigslist. Hell, even something like my Epson Perfection 3200 -- not an amazing scanner, but for flickr photos it's perfectly good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
The MX is an awesome camera, enjoy it. It's probably the second-best body Pentax ever produced (behind the ludicrously expensive LX). That screen is amazing, it's bright, HUGE, and has a split prism and a really coarse microprism field. Pentax glass is also great, what did you get, maybe a Pentax-M 50/2? I think several of Pentax's wides are better than Nikon, but Nikon made better telephoto lenses. And Pentax's SMC coating is amazing too. If I remember the battery is just a SR44 (silver) or LR44 (alkaline) battery. Buy a bunch from China and go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
One time I shot a roll and realized at the end that I had the meter set one stop slow. I loaded another roll, set it to the proper setting and continued shooting. I re-shot some things I had just shot at the end of the last roll. Once I got the film developed and scanned, I honestly couldn't tell which was which.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The MX is an awesome camera, enjoy it. It's probably the second-best body Pentax ever produced (behind the ludicrously expensive LX). That screen is amazing, it's bright, HUGE, and has a split prism and a really coarse microprism field. Pentax glass is also great, what did you get, maybe a Pentax-M 50/2? I think several of Pentax's wides are better than Nikon, but Nikon made better telephoto lenses. And Pentax's SMC coating is amazing too. Also, I have a 50 1.4 attached to it, which is plenty nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
I now own three cameras from that era (early-to-mid 1980's) that all run on those same batteries. My father gave me his old camera while I was home for christmas, too, a Konica FC-1 with three lenses and two flashes that he bought new in 1984. Unlike your MX, the FC-1 won't do jack without batteries; it needs four.  Konica FC-1 by Execudork, on Flickr  Konica case and strap by Execudork, on Flickr I bought a pack of 10 SR44 batteries* from an ebay seller in California a few months ago, for less than $1/battery. My local shop was selling Kodak-brand SR44 batteries for about $5 a piece, and one I bought was a dud. * They might actually be LR44 - I can't tell from looking at them if they're SR (silver) or LR44 (alkaline) - they say "AG 13" on them, so I'm leaning towards SR44. Martytoof posted:Well as long as you hang onto the negatives you can always fix them yourself later Also, the MX is an excellent camera and I want one. My ME Super usually wears a 50mm f/1.4 it came with and the combo (big, bright viewfinder + fast normal lens) is great to shoot through. Sounds like you've got the same lens. EDIT: The Konica is a bit weird. The light meter talks to me via a set of red LEDs down the side of the viewfinder, like my other 80's SLRs. But, instead of indicating a suggested shutter speed, it indicates a suggested aperture for the selected shutter speed. And the shutter release doesn't have two stops (first for light meter, second to release), it has only one, and I just have to push extra-hard (the button doesn't move) to fire it. This will take some getting used to. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
357 and SR44 batteries are two names for the same thing. Sometimes LR44 is used interchangeably too, so it's important to look at the chemistry. You can buy cheap alkaline batteries on eBay or from DealExtreme, but silver oxides are better and usually more expensive. SO batteries can support more current, have a more stable voltage, and last longer (which is the only relevant thing unless your camera specifies SR44 batteries). I mostly use alkaline. The 50/1.4s are also great. Pentax set the standard for fast 50s, their design has stayed basically the same since the Super Takumar. It probably will be useably sharp wide open in the center in bad conditions, but you should stop down to f/2.8 for solid results. That's pretty much par for the course, it's more for focusing than shooting and even modern 50/1.4s aren't really that much better. That's a really nice setup for getting started, I'm a big fan of the 50mm lens for general purpose shooting and the MX handles great. Go blow through some film, and consider trying to get a roll of Kodak BW400CN or (better) Ilford XP2+ as these can be put through color chemistry
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
Jesus, I scanned the thread quickly and for a second I thought this was gold plated 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Jesus, I scanned the thread quickly and for a second I thought this was gold plated Ha! LightRoom's "auto" white-balance function cranked up the temperature on this JPG from my point-and-shoot, the curtain backdrop is actually blue, not the weird grey/purple but I just went with it because the of the way the flashes caught the burst of light from my P&S. Also, I was walking around town with my ME Super wearing the Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8 (that I bought from a goon and I love to bits), and contemplating the gold-plated version of that lens and its companion, the Viv S1 70-210mm. You can sometimes find the set of gaudy lenses on ebay for about $1000, they come in a velvet-lined box and they really are ridiculously tacky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Miko posted:EDIT: I also bought my dad an LX5 and I have a D7000, but I looove how the Pentax feels and sounds. This is the same reason I like using my Pentax ME. It's just so pleasant to take pictures with compared to a crop dslr. Such a satisfying click when you take a shot. Can't wait to finish this roll of Tri-x so that I can get it developed (where I have no idea yet).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
I'd use my Pentax ME if I could find a cheap 50 1.8 for it. I've got a terrible 20-something 2.8 that I loathe, and a 70-200 f/4 that is just way too big and heavy to carry anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'd use my Pentax ME if I could find a cheap 50 1.8 for it. I've got a terrible 20-something 2.8 that I loathe, and a 70-200 f/4 that is just way too big and heavy to carry anywhere. You should be able to get a dirt cheap 50mm f/1.7 SMC-m lens for it, compact and built like a rock. I've got the f/1.7 and f/1.4 for my MEsuper, and I must say I like the f/1.7 better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Yeah, you'd think so but the stores around me are bone dry. I could probably get one off Keh but I have this thing about being able to see and touch the lens I'm about to shell out any amount of money for
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
It's KEH, man. BGN means it was someone's treasured baby. There's always the 50/2, it's not sexy but it'll still beat the pants off any sub-pro-grade zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Just got a bunch of film back  645 1000s - 160VC    Ikonta 521/16 - HP5 Plus    Olympus Pen D3 - Neopan 400    As a bonus of how amazing film is, this shot was completely black on film, yet still scanned okay. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Those are some drat fine shots.Martytoof posted:Yeah, you'd think so but the stores around me are bone dry. I could probably get one off Keh but I have this thing about being able to see and touch the lens I'm about to shell out any amount of money for Buying a camera for the lens it's wearing works well if the lens you're after is a kit zoom or normal. I see 50/1.7 go all the time stuck to ME, MX, K1000, etc. Autofocus versions (either F- or FA-) are often stuck on things like MZ- and PZ-series cameras, packaged for $100 or so. Those autofocus lenses sell alone for close to $200 but somebody cleaning out uncle Joe's closet doesn't usually know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:One time I shot a roll and realized at the end that I had the meter set one stop slow. I loaded another roll, set it to the proper setting and continued shooting. I re-shot some things I had just shot at the end of the last roll. Once I got the film developed and scanned, I honestly couldn't tell which was which. Not a particularly great photo, but I underexposed this by 4 stops and developed normally and still got detail, took some work on the computer though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
The Pentax ME Super is a damned fine camera and you'll find few cameras that operate as smoothly for the price. The ME Super SE is even better because it has the 45 degree rangefinder patch so it'll work on both horizontal and vertical lines. Personally, I'm an Olympus guy when it comes to film SLRs because of the features, but every time I pick up a Pentax camera, I curse the stars that Yoshihisa Maitani wasn't a Pentax employee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
If you're looking for a 50mm 1.7 here's a broken ME with one attached for real cheap, and not much time left on the auction. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-ME-Super-w-SMC-Pentax-M-f-1-7-Lens-/250962037882?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3a6e80cc7a#ht_500wt_1361 If I didn't have a 50mm 1.4 and 2 already I'd probably bid for it myself, but I already have so much unused pentax glass. e. Why does the 40mm have to cost so much.
Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Just got a bunch of film back
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Technically they were 1 to 2 minutes, but they took quite a bit longer as I kept covering up the lens whenever I heard a car coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:This is really good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The 50/1.4s are also great. Pentax set the standard for fast 50s, their design has stayed basically the same since the Super Takumar. It probably will be useably sharp wide open in the center in bad conditions, but you should stop down to f/2.8 for solid results. That's pretty much par for the course, it's more for focusing than shooting and even modern 50/1.4s aren't really that much better. That's a really nice setup for getting started, I'm a big fan of the 50mm lens for general purpose shooting and the MX handles great. Go blow through some film, and consider trying to get a roll of Kodak BW400CN or (better) Ilford XP2+ as these can be put through color chemistry  What does that last part mean in reference to black and white films? I just got the Kodak MAX cause they were like $15 for 3 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Miko posted:Ah, I feel like I've had a hidden gem in my house for a while now Right, that's color negative film. The developing chemistry is called C-41 or CN process. B+W film normally uses a different process, but there are special films that work in C-41 chemistry so you can drop them off at Walmart or whatever. Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2+ both are C-41 process. BW400CN apparently has a bit of a funky cast to the base (the plastic of the film), and XP2+ can be straight up enlarged later if you ever choose to do that. People seem to be more satisfied with XP2+, but it's a bit harder to find.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Miko posted:I just got the Kodak MAX cause they were like $15 for 3 rolls. Is that literally the only thing it says on the box and the canister? Are you sure it's not Kodak T-Max film?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Is that literally the only thing it says on the box and the canister? Are you sure it's not Kodak T-Max film?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
yo to any aussies here, are there any good places to get film/processing chems, either in Sydney or online. in other news €150 worth of MF film went missing from my luggage going from Berlin -> Sydney
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
unixbeard posted:yo to any aussies here, are there any good places to get film/processing chems, either in Sydney or online. B&W: foto riesel in Kent st have a limited selection (Illford only from memory, but they may have more) Blanco Negro in Alexandria (never used them though) Vanbar in Camperdown (and at the end of my street  ) (the best selection)All are overpriced compared to B&H, Maco etc but for smaller orders it's not worth the shipping cost. Colour: Bend over and pay the "Australia tax" because you have to order from US or Europe. Nothing at all locally. I believe CRKennedy of sigma price matching fame have a monopoly on chem distribution in Aus and they only import limited B&W selection. BN also import chemicals, but obviously they only do B&W edit: for film, the savings when importing from Maco more than cover shipping costs. Way cheaper to import. Although lofico and blanco negro may have something that is nearly competitive and means supporting a local film only company. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 11:16
|
|
