|
gently caress I cannot wait to get my ISE and stick some B&W in it.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Us cool kids have µ[mju:]-II's 
Spedman fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
Yashica T-series for life 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
As a Fujifilm user, I have Klasse. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. I've got a Canonet QL17 GIII on its way to me, picked it up for $40.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Did you get that mercury battery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
The Canonet is a fun little camera, especially at that price. I went through two and both of them had issues with inconsistent frame spacing that sometimes caused the frames to overlap so I ended up not keeping one. Hopefully you don't run into issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Did you get that mercury battery? The auction said "fresh new battery"... even if it's an alkaline battery and it overexposes/underexposes it'll be fun to play around with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. How fancy do you want? A Lynx 5000E or 14E or a Konica Auto S2 will do fine as a normal lens and the Olympus XA packs a good 35mm f/2.8 wide angle into something you can throw in your coat pocket (at the cost of having a terrible viewfinder if you don't just scale focus it, which is easy to do given the lens). If you're OK with scale focus there's also the Rollei 35S and the Nikonos-V (35mm f/2.5 and the ever-unpopular 80mm f/4). The Nikonos and Rollei are the most expensive of the lot at something like $150. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. If you really just want to dabble in rangefinders and want to get in really cheap, a 70's compact, fixed-lens, rangefinder would probably fit the bill pretty well. Take a look at this webpage for a good summary list: http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm I really liked the Canonet even though I had some issues with it; the lens was really fast at f/1.7, the viewfinder was probably the best out of the 70s RFs that I was able to try out (mostly Yashica ones) and the camera was compact as hell. I personally still use a Olympus 35rc sometimes when I get in the mood for shooting an RF camera. Or you could just buy a bunch of M-mount stuff and be done with it.  e: I should mention, unless you are buying from a reputable seller (like KEH) that can vouch for the condition of the camera or get really lucky, chances are these old RFs are going to need some work since most of them seem to get pulled out of the attic somewhere then get thrown on eBay or craigslist. mes fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How fancy do you want? A Lynx 5000E or 14E or a Konica Auto S2 will do fine as a normal lens and the Olympus XA packs a good 35mm f/2.8 wide angle into something you can throw in your coat pocket (at the cost of having a terrible viewfinder if you don't just scale focus it, which is easy to do given the lens). If you're OK with scale focus there's also the Rollei 35S and the Nikonos-V (35mm f/2.5 and the ever-unpopular 80mm f/4). The Nikonos and Rollei are the most expensive of the lot at something like $150. I do like the Rollei 35! I'll look around for one. I'd say no to the XA, I have a P&S Stylus Epic that I want to replace with an auto focus rangefinder, but those are more expensive obviously. Mest0r posted:If you really just want to dabble in rangefinders and want to get in really cheap, a 70's compact, fixed-lens, rangefinder would probably fit the bill pretty well. Take a look at this webpage for a good summary list: That's a great site! So many options!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
Are those pushed in any way or is that the natural grain of the film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 10:18
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. You've just got to be a bit patient, those $1500 ones don't really sell. RFF is a good place to buy one, although when I peace'd out of there about two years ago the forum itself was primarily a gear-pig hangout. I got banned for like a month because I called Ken Rockwell a turd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
PolishPandaBear posted:Are those pushed in any way or is that the natural grain of the film? Acros gets more grainy when you underexpose it, which I assume my camera was doing. I also boosted the contrast a bit on all of them, which may or may not accentuate the grain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
I've never flown with film before, but I'm planning to take my Diana along with me on a trip, along with some 400 film. I've read some things that say to label it "high speed" so they'll hand check it, but is that necessary? If I don't do that, am I safer to put it with my checked bag or with my carry-on, or does it make a difference? vvv Thanks! jackpot fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
Don't put any film in your checked bag, the scanners they use for those are very high powered. The carry-on scanners are relatively harmless, I wouldn't worry about it for 400 film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:The auction said "fresh new battery"... even if it's an alkaline battery and it overexposes/underexposes it'll be fun to play around with. I have one and it's done pretty well so far, even with the alkaline battery. The meter certainly hasn't messed up any shots for me yet, and is definitely good enough for day-to-day snapshots. You can always adjust the ISO to compensate for your current battery state if it's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. I started out with bargain basement priced Former Soviet Union rangefinders then moved up to old Canon RFs and it's a lot of fun. Most of the ones that I've been able to pick up at a good price were un-metered which may be a dealbreaker for some, but they often have some wonderful lenses attached to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah, carry on scanners are generally designed to be fine for everything up to ISO1600, higher than that I'd probably ask them to hand scan but for 400 you should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500. I'm still lusting after a Contax G1, but in all honesty I am so incredibly happy with my old $100 Zorki 6 that I bought from fedka.com -- it's really fun to use, looks pretty nice, is relatively quiet. It won't last forever since it has a cloth shutter (and indeed Fedka replaced my first Zorki 6 when the shutter literally tore 5 minutes after it arrived in the mail), but for the time being I'm having a lot of fun with it. I really want to try one of the Canon RFs. They look like a great compromise of cost while still being of great quality. Of course my end goal is some sort of Leica, but that's a while off yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
I had a Canon 7 for awhile, it was pretty nice. Viewfinder was big, had selectable framelines, could accurately focus non-Soviet LTM lenses. The meter on mine worked, but it's selenium so it may be hard to find one that is still accurate. They're cheap too, mine was $150.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Speaking of cheap rangefinders, what's a good price on an original Bessa R? Is it worth the step up to one of the more recent Bessas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Zombietoof posted:I'm still lusting after a Contax G1, but in all honesty I am so incredibly happy with my old $100 Zorki 6 that I bought from fedka.com -- it's really fun to use, looks pretty nice, is relatively quiet. It won't last forever since it has a cloth shutter (and indeed Fedka replaced my first Zorki 6 when the shutter literally tore 5 minutes after it arrived in the mail), but for the time being I'm having a lot of fun with it. Or you could buy a fixed-lens camera with a leaf shutter instead, and never have to worry about your shutter mysteriously tearing or whatever? Basically my argument is: 1. Only fanatics shoot long lenses on RFs 2. There is a fixed-lens RF to fill any need except long lenses and superwides 3. Fixed-lens RFs are cheap and often better than the cheaply available interchangeable-lens RFs It's no Pentax K35/3.5, but I'd put my XA up against a Jupiter-12 any day, and the same for a Lynx 5000E, 14E or GSN against a Jupiter-8. That way you will get cameras with viewfinders that actually reflect the lens you're using vs the whole external viewfinder or guesstimating schtick. And even the XA's frequently-weak viewfinder is better than the viewfinder on my old Fed-5B was. Any of those cameras are sub-$100, probably cheaper than a lens for a Soviet RF, and the XA is physically about the same size as a Jupiter-12. Plus you can keep a different kind of film in each camera for flexibility! It's one thing to talk about getting a Bessa R or something, but I just can't see dropping big money on a Soviet RF anymore. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
So uh, what do you do when because you're an idiot + muscle memory, you flip the advance lever, and as a result you now have an empty canister and all the film seems to have wound itself onto the advance reel? Because I'm an idiot and that happened. Am I just kinda hosed? Possibly relevant: it's c-41, and even if it wasn't, I don't have the equipment to develop film myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Zenostein posted:So uh, what do you do when because you're an idiot + muscle memory, you flip the advance lever, and as a result you now have an empty canister and all the film seems to have wound itself onto the advance reel? If you're friends with your local camera shop maybe they could stick it in a changing bag and fish it out for you, alternatively you can try to do it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I figured I'd have to go to the lab and ask them nicely if they could help. But I somehow figured that the machine they use for developing relied on having a canister. Can't hurt to ask, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
What do you guys do when the manufacturer's developing instructions differ "substantially" from massive dev chart's? My Kentmere 400 box says Ilfosol3 1+9 solution at EI400 should be done at 4 1/2 minutes. Massive dev chart recommends 6 1/2 minutes. That's not a HUGE difference, but they are two minutes apart which isn't inconsequential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Zombietoof posted:What do you guys do when the manufacturer's developing instructions differ "substantially" from massive dev chart's? First up I think you should look at dev times as a percent change. That's almost a 50% increase, which is substantial. I would do a Google search on APUG.org or RangeFinderForum and see what you can dig up. Secondly, given the two times, the Dev Chart is *sometimes* more accurate because it reflects community wisdom. For example, the box time for Tri-X in HC-110 is notoriously short. Other times it's just hosed up or reflects old version of an emulsion. It's easier to scan overdeveloped film than to recover details that aren't there, I'd say do 6 1/2 minutes personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Yeah, too true. I'm going to ask a few people on APUG that I know shoot Kent 400. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Lately I've become a big fan of filmdev.org for finding development times. Granted, I say that and then go check for your combination, and I don't find it. I found Ilfosol3 + Kentmere 100 though: http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=ilfosol+kentmere It's great because it shows examples of how the film+dev+time+etc combination LOOKS as opposed to just arbitrarily giving you a number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Someone over at APUG mentioned that since Ilford basically makes Kentmere AND Ilfosol that I should respect their times. That's a pretty good point and I'll probably use their times as a yardstick. I'll be in a better position to guess what 4 1/2 minutes will look like after I see the 6 1/2 minute results. I'm actually going to hold off developing until tomorrow so I can pick up some proper stop and hypo. I've just been using water for the stop and jet-dry for the wetting agent with decent results, but I'd like to transition to proper chems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
There's no reason to use stop bath with film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Ah well, hypo then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Zombietoof posted:Zorki 6 that I bought from fedka.com -- it's really fun to use, looks pretty nice, is relatively quiet. It won't last forever since it has a cloth shutter (and indeed Fedka replaced my first Zorki 6 when the shutter literally tore 5 minutes after it arrived in the mail), but for the time being I'm having a lot of fun with it. I saw your post and it clicked! I have a Zorki 4 with Jupiter 50/2 that I completely forgot I had! I just dug it up and it seems to be clicking and whirring. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:There's no reason to use stop bath with film. I've stopped using stop with film and have had nothing bad happen. I usually fill the tank with water and agitated just a bit twice and then move on to the fix. I bought real photo flo though. At the rate I'm using it the bottle should last for ever so $13 isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Someone over at APUG mentioned... They love getting mad at people for not using virgin spring water when film processing too, so much good info there, so many grumpy old nerds with beards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Spedman posted:They love getting mad at people for not using virgin spring water when film processing too, so much good info there, so many grumpy old nerds with beards. Yeah, I sort of figured what sort of people frequent that forum when they got mad at someone for asking a question about scanning a negative on a ~~~COMPUTER~~~~ instead of printing it in a darkroom or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
I spent a few hours putting my backlog of negatives in printfile sleeves tonight. This is about 2 years worth of 120  In case it's hard to tell in the photo, that's about 3 inches thick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 09:32
|
|
