|
Just found someone selling an FM2 with an Osawa 28mm f/2.8 and Vivitar 70-210mm f/4.5 for $75 locally. Holy poo poo. Seems like someone who took one photo class, hated it, and wants to get rid of it ASAP. I think I found my purchase. Thanks again (honestly) for all the help with this. Y'all have given me a load of information to look up on my own time and a much more solid start than I would've had alone. I'll be sure to get some posts up once I get a body and start shooting. Otherwise, I'm already looking forward to getting the $40 Cinevate F->EOS adapter from B&H to test these out on video as well. The pussy-sized focusing rings on modern lenses drive me nuts, so if I can mount even one metal-barrel lens, I'll be happy. ...I'll freak out over home developing later. But I totally appreciate the help, goons 
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It and the FM2 are pretty much the best MF SLRs Nikon ever made. I also like the FA, but I think the case is that Nikon didn't really make a bad camera between 1965 and 1985.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Osawa 28mm f/2.8 I have one of those, the focus ring goes the other way but all the marking are bright colors and (most importantly) it was half the price of the Nikon Series E.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I have a Tokina 28mm f/2.8 that also has the focus ring go the opposite way. I hate it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Vivitar 70-210mm f/4.5 I have the f/3.5 MD version of that lens, it's amazing. Edit: MC? whatever penneydude fucked around with this message at 21:50 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I have one of those, the focus ring goes the other way but all the marking are bright colors and (most importantly) it was half the price of the Nikon Series E. I have an Osawa 135mm f/2.8. It's pretty awesome in just about every way.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Turns out it was an FM10, passed on the body, but picked up the lenses together for $40. I swear this girl must've hated her photo class and been dying to get rid of it. Still on the hunt for an FM2, though. Reading up on the no-battery-bullshit has me drooling over the thought of a nearly all-mechanical body. And goddamn I've been wanting a 28 for a while. gently caress paying canon $400+ for a prime I'll actually use.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
In this day and age when you can get button batteries for dirt cheap, there's really not a lot of push behind the argument in favor of all-mechanical cameras other than personal preference. The only time I've had problems with battery cameras is with the Olympus OM-2SP because it has a nasty tendency to instantly kill batteries dead from time to time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
While that is true (^^), there was a perfectly good XG-1(n) sitting in my parent's kitchen for nearly 2 decades because a) the battery was dead; and b) my dad thought the bayonet mount was broken. [Far too much for two 375 batteries later], I had a camera that was way better than my decade-old Oly 400D. I really, really want to have disposable cash so I can buy an SRT. This is largely based on meters that only work in Av mode. Why Minolta thought that was sensible is beyond my ken.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
I laugh every time I read "needs batteries" as a negative feature when people are comparing cameras. My F3 takes two button batteries. I bought a spare set took them out of the package and sandwiched them in gaffer tape, it is trivial to carry in my bag or pocket.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I laugh every time I read "needs batteries" as a negative feature when people are comparing cameras. My F3 takes two button batteries. I bought a spare set took them out of the package and sandwiched them in gaffer tape, it is trivial to carry in my bag or pocket. Yeah, it's a bit blown out of proportion- especially in older cameras. I used my R4 for YEARS without ever running down a battery. I pretty much replaced it when I figured it was getting old. I keep enough batteries in my gear bag to drain every piece of equipment I carry, 2 times over. EDIT- spelling McMadCow fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Maybe people are concerned about getting a camera fixed later? I would imagine and all mechanical camera would be easier to repair than one with electronics? Push come to shove you can get a part machined for a mechanical camera whereas you probably won't be able to construct a replacement circuit board. I know nothing about camera repair, this is speculation.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
For me, batteries are one more thing to forget. Even if I do have spares, there's a good chance they're at home in a drawer, in a different bag, in the car, whatever. I don't care if a camera uses batteries to power the meter, but I do consider it to be a negative if the camera is useless without one.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:For me, batteries are one more thing to forget. Even if I do have spares, there's a good chance they're at home in a drawer, in a different bag, in the car, whatever. I don't care if a camera uses batteries to power the meter, but I do consider it to be a negative if the camera is useless without one. I have never had a film camera run out of battery - it just takes so long that I barely think about it. I get an extra, put it in my photo bag when i first get batteries, and then forget about it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I have never had a film camera run out of battery - it just takes so long that I barely think about it. I get an extra, put it in my photo bag when i first get batteries, and then forget about it There's a few problems with this blanket statement. Some camera meters really suck down batteries - my P67 will flatten a battery in under 24 hours of use. Others are slower but it can still add up if the meter is inadvertently left on. For example, the K1000/Spotmatic F meter is always operating unless the lens cap is on. It's not a feature that matters, though, keep a few spares around and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's a few problems with this blanket statement. Some camera meters really suck down batteries - my P67 will flatten a battery in under 24 hours of use. Others are slower but it can still add up if the meter is inadvertently left on. For example, the K1000/Spotmatic F meter is always operating unless the lens cap is on. It's not a feature that matters, though, keep a few spares around and you'll be fine. I mostly stick to film cameras without batteries, but my 6x7 with meter prism has been using the same battery for about a year with no problems
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Okay, before everyone else shits over the battery issue, I was just saying the concept of a nearly all-mechanical body was what seemed so appealing. Random backstory but: My mom used to work for Kodak in the 70's and she still had her old AE-1 laying around the basement. I found it sometime last year right around when I first got my 60D, so I thought "oh hell yes, I can use this too!" -- But I couldn't. The batteries left in it had leaked acid all over the contacts and no amount of cleaning was getting it working again. Hell, I even opened the body up at one point and the mirror was covered in this foreign goo from what I can only imagine was the padding meant to protect it. tl;dr I was just trying to avoid another case of disappointment over wear & tear. And before anyone goes thinking I'm a kid with his first camera -- I'm 22, my folks just live upstate while I'm at school downtown, so I tend to manage a visit every couple of weeks or so. At this point though, screw it, I'll probably just grab an old FG for $20 and at least start using these lenses before I spend more time/money/effort hunting for an FM2. I know they're relatively common around here, I'll see what I can do. I'd just rather be shooting than getting back into gear lust; that can wait.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
A lot of battery-operated cameras will fall back to a default shutter speed if the batteries die so at least you can shoot shutter-priority with manual metering at 1/125 or 1/60 or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
This battery conversation inspired my F3's batteries to die. No warning, shot a picture then it just wouldn't go again. Hope it didn't screw with the shutter speeds as the batteries were dying.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I could get some film reels with the large guide flanges? I see a few kits with them, but no one seems to be selling individual large-flange reels, only short flange reels or kits. I only have like two or three of the good ones. The short flange ones (just a 1/4" nub) work OK as long as everything is absolutely bone dry. The film kinks and buckles out of the track, 35mm is usually OK but 120 is so wide that the unsupported middle starts to crease. I've had that happen about three times now and am going to make an effort to get the small flange reels out of my kit. JaundiceDave posted:I mostly stick to film cameras without batteries, but my 6x7 with meter prism has been using the same battery for about a year with no problems I'm forgetful and sometimes forget to switch the meter off. It pulls something stupid like 25ma, it'll flatten a battery pretty drat quick. The camera itself pulls nothing and should be good for thousands of exposures.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Arista Premium reels from Freestyle should do you.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Does anyone know where I could get some film reels with the large guide flanges? I see a few kits with them, but no one seems to be selling individual large-flange reels, only short flange reels or kits. I use these exclusively now. $8.99 at Freestyle.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I use these exclusively now. $8.99 at Freestyle. That's them, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I use these exclusively now. $8.99 at Freestyle. Those are also fine for AP/Paterson tanks, right? Life's too short to gently caress around with my crappy small-flange reels...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Those are also fine for AP/Paterson tanks, right? Yes, as far as I've seen all plastic tanks of that style interchange reels. If it looks like it should work, it will. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Those are also fine for AP/Paterson tanks, right? Yep! I use them interchangeably in my AP 2-reel tank and my Paterson 3-reel tank. Even the agitators are compatible between the AP and Paterson tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
A few years back i saved some nifty looking old cameras from being thrown out, among these was a Mamiya ZE with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens.  Mamiya ZE by frobbe, on Flickr here's a few pictures i've taken with it, these are the one's i'm the most satisfied with.  Dad at work by frobbe, on Flickr  Portrait by frobbe, on Flickr  Well in the old town by frobbe, on Flickr i've had these critiqued by the IRC crew, and they're some of my first shots ever taken with a fancy camera, before this all i've used are P&S and my cell phone. manual focus and aperture is hard! i also got a  Olympus IS 3000 Quartzdate by frobbe, on Flickr which takes really nice pictures, but it feels like cheating with the autofocus.  Town Fair by frobbe, on Flickr right now i'm being infatuated with a Pentax ME i got at market, i took it out for a spin, using an expired roll of Fuji Provia 200 (expired in 2006, kept in unknown conditions since) and the only fantastic shot out of 24 was this one:  Pentax ME by frobbe, on Flickr which came out allright, considering i got it scanned at the photo store. i won't be using their scanner again though, as this one is from the same roll of film.  Pentax ME by frobbe, on Flickr and it looks pretty hilariously bad, expired film and my bad skills not withstanding. i've now loaded my pentax with a roll of HP5+ 400 which i aim to develop at home, i've acquired a paterson universal tank and just need measuring instruments and chemicals. so far it's been fun, although i still have loads to learn. i've also got some ancient Diana cameras and an Agfa isolette, i've talked about those in the medium format thread.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:right now i'm being infatuated with a Pentax ME i got at market, Welcome to the Awesomest Camera Ever Club.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Welcome to the Awesomest Camera Ever Club. even better, PK mount lenses fit on my mamiya as well! whether that's intended or not i don't care.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
I can't figure out why my latest roll of B&W I developed came out clear  I did the same development routine that has worked fine for me several times before (soaked the film for a minute, developed it in HC110 1+49 for 8 minutes with 30s agitation to start and 10s/min after, soaked in water to stop, fixed for 5 minutes, and then rinsed for a while).The frames are completely clear, but the frame numbers on the edge are present. There's a pinch in the film by the last frame, and then a blotch of developed area by there, and the frame numbers are a bit blurred - I think this might be either: - The room I put the film in the tank might not have been completely light tight, and I had a pain putting this roll of 120 on the reel so it took a while. - When I unloaded the film, the end uncurled a bit and I had to hastily reconnect it, which might cause the development at the end and squeezing the roll could have caused exposure at the frame edges.  I tested my camera (Bronica SQ-AI) with no back, and the shutter appears to fire fine at different speeds still, so in theory the film should have gotten exposed. I don't think I could have loaded the film backwards because of the whole winding until the arrow shows up, right? But blank film with frame numbers present means no exposure happened for any of the pictures, as far as I can tell... edit: upon further review, I think I was just an idiot and loaded my film backwards. We'll find out with my next roll. Man_of_Teflon fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:even better, PK mount lenses fit on my mamiya as well! whether that's intended or not i don't care.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
You don't have to force anything to make the PK lenses fit? How about the other way around, Mamiya Z-mount on a Pentax PK body? I've looked around for options for using the Mamiya Z system stuff on other cameras but the only thing i've found was a tamron adaptall to mamiya Z adapter.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:You don't have to force anything to make the PK lenses fit? How about the other way around, Mamiya Z-mount on a Pentax PK body? i tried fitting my mamiya 50mm to my pentax, that one was a no go. the manual for my mamiya ZE says nothing about being able to take PK mount, but it does mention an alternate fitting for a.. C mount i think. either way if i slide the lens on that way, it sits nice and snug, but not locked into place and it's all manual.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:i tried fitting my mamiya 50mm to my pentax, that one was a no go. the manual for my mamiya ZE says nothing about being able to take PK mount, but it does mention an alternate fitting for a.. C mount i think. either way if i slide the lens on that way, it sits nice and snug, but not locked into place and it's all manual. Like most new lens mounts of that period there was a M42 converter available to use M42 on a Z body. They are pretty rare now though. Being all manual on a Mamiya Z is quite a downside, since the only manual speed on the Z is 1/90.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
How are E100G and Provia 100F for skintones?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:How are E100G and Provia 100F for skintones? Not bad to pretty good, depending on the light. Looks to me like E100G does better in the shade. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=68222134@N00&q=e100g http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=68222134%40N00&q=provia&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=e100g+portrait&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=provia+portrait&m=text
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Picked up one of these today. The shutter release button isn't tripping, but it works when you push the release on the shutter. I just need to bend the arm down a bit I think. Cute little thing, split RF and VF windows, f/3.5 Rodenstock triplet lens.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
That looks deliciously awkward 8)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:How are E100G and Provia 100F for skintones? I think they're both pretty comparable in terms of skin tone rendering, but Ektachrome is now discontinued so it will be a little harder to find. Provia 100 is great in the studio or great, in general, in good light. Both are good films. I think Povia eeks out a little better than E100, but I find that 400X tends to underexpose a little and 100f is better in the light (or studio). I've always been happy with this picture (shot with 100f) because I was shooting into the sun but got a good exposure, and was really happy with his skin tones in particular.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
So someone mentioned doing pushing with Rodinal 1:100 for 1.5h. I have a batch of mixed exposure film (some 400, some 1600) that I didn't label and now it's mixed up. Rodinal 1:100 for 1h is usually a pretty good mystery-film recipe, I'm wondering if the 400 would still be usable at that level of development. For added  I'm pretty sure I also exposed a roll of Acros at 400 (possibly forgot to change the ISO) and mixed that one up with a roll at 100 too, so I'm thinking I may give that a shot there too.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:52
|
|