|
Yeah thanks! That's really interesting info.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Anyone have a Rollei 35 LED? I finally put batteries in mine but I cant get an accurate exposure reading (I've only seen a red LED). I've checked it with a metering app on my own and the exposure should be correct. I put 4 LR44 batteries into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Anyone have a Rollei 35 LED? I finally put batteries in mine but I cant get an accurate exposure reading (I've only seen a red LED). I've checked it with a metering app on my own and the exposure should be correct. I have a Rollei 35SE so I'm assuming they work similarly, but generally these modern batteries won't have the same voltage as the old mercury ones and you're going to get a metering that underexposes. But if you're not getting green lights at all even in decent light then I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Whelp, I did it. I bought a Canon 7 off of ebay. Now I have to look around for good 50mm and 35mm lenses in LTM. I've been wanting to get a Leica m4 for a while, but hesistated because I didn't have the money to start. If i find good enough lenses I can get adapters if I ever ever get one. I also bought K400 to shoot with. It didn't come with many times for me to work with, but I'll probably develop it in HC-110 E for 9 mins like I do with everything else. Supposibly you can push it to ISO 1600, but I'll have to see how it likes to behave at 400 first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
I always thought the Canon P was right up there among the best looking cameras ever, along with the Nikon SP and Minolta CLE. Leicas are nice too I guess. The Canon 7 has a brighter viewfinder though, I bet, based on how much bigger its is (If that's how it works). Does the light meter work on your copy? I think cosina voightlander still makes LTM lenses that will fit your Canon. There were even a few relatively new special edition screw mount lenses made by Leica. Alternatively, there is a large and very cheap market for FSU LTM RF lenses, but from what I've casually read about them I would be worried about focus accuracy when adapting them to western LTM-spec cameras, as there was apparently some kind of difference in how they calibrated focus on the FSU RFs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
From what I remember they used the Contax backfocus distance instead of the Leica one. It's a pretty small difference. You could fix it by adding/removing a paper shim or two. Just put a piece of frosted tape across the film plane and lock it on B mode so you can check it.
ape fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
It was a coin flip between the 7 and P, when I get it i'll run it through it's paces. It should be in great shape, no marks, dust, or smutz on the finder. It's coming all the way from japan. I am such a weeb. I think it should be a brighter viewfinder, but i should expect it to be pretty accurate to focus because the two windows are farther apart than it would be for the P. I read that the FSU lenses were patterned after Zeiss Lenses, but I don't know THAT much about threadmount lenses to know if that's bullshit or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Understanding posted:It was a coin flip between the 7 and P, when I get it i'll run it through it's paces. It should be in great shape, no marks, dust, or smutz on the finder. It's coming all the way from japan. I am such a weeb. I think it should be a brighter viewfinder, but i should expect it to be pretty accurate to focus because the two windows are farther apart than it would be for the P. Just wanted to add that the windows being further apart or closer isn't a really an indicator of RF accuracy. The viewfinder magnification plays a very important role as well. As does contrast. It's actually quite simple. In case of the Canon P we have a life-size (1.0x) finder which means 41mm separation, so 41mm * 1.00 = 41mm EBL In case of the Canon 7 we have a 0.8x finder which is better for 35mm and 59mm separation, thus: 59mm * 0.8 = 47.2mm EBL Let's add the Leica M3 to the mix; why not: 69.2mm distance into 0.92x finder: 69.2mm * 0.92 = 63.7mm Another good point for the 7 is that it has illuminated framelines vs the albada ones of the P. The P also doesn't allow toggling of the famelines and shows them all at once. Both do have a virtually identical, and very reliable shutter though. It's almost always crinkled but it won't affect the operation at all. If you don't mind - Canon 7's with a dead selenium meter go for almost nothing and are an amazingly good deal for Leica screw-mount rangefinders. Seeing how someone mentioned the Nikon rangefinders upthread, I have to say that all Nikon rangefinders except for the S2 have pretty drat lovely RF spots and viewfinders in general. I have had an S2 and a S3, both serviced and I found them both inferior to even the lowly Canon P. The SP has a different super squinty peep-hole for 35mm and 28mm and is thus neigh-useless for wide-angle as well. I've mainly kept the S2 because it came free with the rare 25/4 "totally-not-a-topogon-copy-guys" lens on it and thus I get to use an external finder and not worry about focus anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
ape posted:From what I remember they used the Contax backfocus distance instead of the Leica one. It's a pretty small difference. You could fix it by adding/removing a paper shim or two. Just put a piece of frosted tape across the film plane and lock it on B mode so you can check it. I want to add that, while this is true this only fixes the focus issues on the end of the focus scale you chose. Since they use a different base focal length for 50mm (52.3mm Contax VS 51.6mm Leitz) it means you'll be off at either extreme end, even after re-shimming the lens unless you'd be able to change it's optical formula. I honestly don't know what that means for wide angles, which usually use two- or sometimes even a single curved focus cam. Edit: This matters less for the Jupiter-3 & 8 lenses, which are Sonnar copies, which all have a healthy amount focus shift anyway as you stop down. I guess the take-away here is that RF cameras aren't really meant for critical focus (use SLRs for that) but for being able to snap the focus into the "probably gonna be fine at f/8" range. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I think cosina voightlander still makes LTM lenses that will fit your Canon. Sorry to burst your bubble but they stopped making LTM lenses a couple of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Sorry to burst your bubble but they stopped making LTM lenses a couple of years ago. A trip to Map Camera or Lemon Camera in Tokyo these days will get you all the LTM lenses you could ever want for reasonably cheap. Not many here use them anymore, and the mirrorless adapted lens phase seems to have died down in Tokyo so inventory is high as of late. I own a number of them and a fleet of adapters, and while the online pricing below is a bit high, I think the most I paid for any one of them was around 20,000 yen ($200). Both places have online stores, though in Japanese: Map Camera: https://mapcamera.com/ (all Leica L lenses currently online) Lemon Camera (Camera no Naniwa group): http://cameranonaniwa.jp/ (all Leica L lenses currently online) Everything online is not everything in stock. Map offers at least a 30 day warranty (unless stated otherwise), Lemon does not. Map actually verifies the lenses are in good (or at least as-graded) condition, Lemon does not. Map is more expensive than Lemon for obvious reasons. Both places usually have a good selection of Voigtlander, Canon, and NIkon rangefinder lenses that never make it online. (All the margin money in the business is in used Leica, so all the attention goes there.) The yen is down big right now (15%), plus you can get out of paying sales tax (8%) with your passport at both places. Real question is, are you going to buy enough lenses to counteract the round trip airfare. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Map Camera was my go-to camera store when I lived there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Understanding posted:It was a coin flip between the 7 and P, when I get it i'll run it through it's paces. It should be in great shape, no marks, dust, or smutz on the finder. It's coming all the way from japan. I am such a weeb. I think it should be a brighter viewfinder, but i should expect it to be pretty accurate to focus because the two windows are farther apart than it would be for the P. Most of the good FSU lenses were based on CZJ designs and patents because after WWII, Jena where the Zeiss factory was located happened to be in East Germany (along with Dresden and the Pentacon and Exakta factories). So all those tools, engineers, patents and designs got shipped off to Krasnogorsk and Kyiv to be produced as various Mir, Helios and Jupiter designs. Most FSU M39 lenses however are pretty poor quality optically and mechanically for the most part, unlike M42 and MF lenses which are generally excellent. Industar was the main M39 brand and the commonly seen I-61 and I-50 kit lenses are lovely, poo poo lenses. Jupiters are better but they tend to be only available in longer focal lengths. Also the M39 thread on some FSU lenses isn't exactly the same as the LTM thread, early ones used a different thread pitch so I'd be wary about screwing on random Soviet lenses to an LTM body in case it damaged the threads. Soviet lens 'brands' mostly referred to the lens design rather than the factory where they were made. I have several lenses of the same type but which were made by different factories. Commonly seen brands are usually as follows (with some odd exceptions): - Helios lenses are Biotar copies, - Jupiter lenses are Sonnar copies - Industar (and I-61 lenses marked with the FED brand name) are Tessar copies - Tair lenses are also Sonnar derived for extremely long focal lengths - Mir lenses are derived from the Flektogon formula for wide-angle performance. Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Soviet lens 'brands' mostly referred to the lens design rather than the factory where they were made. I have several lenses of the same type but which were made by different factories. This seems relevant as a reference: http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/logos/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
I went down the rabbit hole and found a K-Rock review of the Industar 61. He's wrong about nearly everything (obviously), he points out (correctly) how badly the lens performs optically, how the focus is totally off, the significant barrel distortion and the vignetting at any large aperture but somehow still manages to conclude that it's better than a Leitz Elmar.  Also he states that his lens was made in the Arsenalna factory when it has a huge FED logo on the front ring and was therefore made in Kharkiv.Calibrated to Magnetic Wrong posted:An advantage of this Industar lens over LEICA is its very light weight: just 129.7g (4.575 oz.). It's made entirely of the space-age wonder metal, aluminum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
They're making a movie about the last lab to process Kodachrome in Kansas, starring Ed Harris and Elizabeth Olson http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1880399/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:They're making a movie about the last lab to process Kodachrome in Kansas, starring Ed Harris and Elizabeth Olson http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1880399/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 They better be shooting that on film. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Cyne posted:They better be shooting that on 16mm kodachrome movie film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Cyne posted:They better be shooting that on film. It's all being shot on an iPhone 7 with Google Cardboard  In thread related news, just received a Yashica Mat 124G purchased on eBay. So far it looks to be in decent shape... not great, but not broken like my last unfortunate eBay camera purchase. Guess I won't know until I shoot with it, hopefully there aren't terrible light leaks. Lens has a bit of internal oil so I may have to bring to a shop for cleaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Asking here on the off-chance that someone happens to know. I was looking at a Yashica Elektro X today (the SLR, not the rangefinder) and the shutter was behaving oddly. It's a Copal square shutter that's electrically controlled. I tested it and when I wound it on, the shutter cocked then immediately opened again. I assumed it was broken but later it occurred to me that it might need a charge to the controllers to stay closed. I know it only fires at max speed (1/1000) if there's no battery but maybe it needs a battery to even operate normally. Does anyone have one of these? Can they confirm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Anyone notice that Pakon F135 prices went through the roof lately? Did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
The online store that was selling refurbished units sold out and I guess at least a couple high-ish profile film shooters blogged about how amazing they were
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
*strokes Pakon affectionately*
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The online store that was selling refurbished units sold out and I guess at least a couple high-ish profile film shooters blogged about how amazing they were gently caress, I guess that is what I was looking at before. The non-plus was like $350 shipped, now prices are $200-300 more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
The original store selling Pakons online (AAA imaging in California) somehow stumbled upon a few pallets full of Pakon 135+ scanners, which were allegedly overstock from CVS phasing out film processing services. This is 2013. They sold the plus model for $250 usd until they were sold out. Then they got restocked with a mix of plus and non-plus models. They increased the prices but IIRC they were still around 250-399 depending on model. When that batch ran out then eBay started ratcheting up to 400 for a non-plus and 700 and up for a plus. Sometimes I'm tempted to sell mine I got from AAA @ $250, but there's really nothing you can replace it with that's as convenient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
On the subject of gadgets, I found this little thing today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZCOM9tfudc I saw it and immediately thought of combining it with a heated water tank for C41 developing. The Modern Sky fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
If you're in Toronto and want a free Fuji film processing lab: https://toronto.craigslist.ca/tor/zip/5921325072.html 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
E: ^^holy hell, any Toronto dorkroomers want to go pick this up and report back? Speaking of scanners, anyone have a guess as the what kind this person was using using here? (Parts of rest of their photostream are  ) Fantasia Urbana by Luna Grafick, on FlickrThey apparently shoot a Canon A-1, so it's not like they're getting the shots with Leica lenses or anything. The scans are just really nice. They even look like they carry about as much detail as my MF scans digitized with a Canon 5D2 + macro lens..  IMG_9786 by S M, on FlickrThe 35mm example was also taken on finer-grain film, but still. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
That thing probably requires liters and liters of chemicals to operate so unless you are going to open your own processing lab, you'd probably need to shoot dozens of rolls per week in order to not lose money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:E: ^^holy hell, any Toronto dorkroomers want to go pick this up and report back? I don't think this will even fit through the door to my condo BANME.sh posted:That thing probably requires liters and liters of chemicals to operate so unless you are going to open your own processing lab, you'd probably need to shoot dozens of rolls per week in order to not lose money. Also this. ... or I would be driving right now picking it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
I could pick it up, but then again what would I do with it
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Can I use it as a minifridge? a 500lb minifridge :/ bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
It's tempting. I used to run a photolab for a drug store, so I know the maintenance involved, but for the poo poo pay and lack of respect from management I could never do well. I have a 220v line, I'd only need to know a supplier of the chemestry. I think Kodak pulled out of wetlabs, moving on to that thermal ribbon stuff, which is kinda nice. Probably have to look into Fuji stuff. I'd have no idea what kind of overhead would be involved with getting chemestry service and a tech on call. At least that's what it was like when the network was in place about 10 years ago. I'd certainly learn REAL quick what kind of work is involved with keeping it going. A drive to Canada can't be that bad. I've been giving this some thought if you couldn't guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
you've given it enough thought to just go pick it upMightaswell posted:The original store selling Pakons online (AAA imaging in California) somehow stumbled upon a few pallets full of Pakon 135+ scanners, which were allegedly overstock from CVS phasing out film processing services. This is 2013. Thank you for this, it's always nice to get the back story
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Wish I could, unless I have an Econoline to drive there, it's not fitting in MY car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Can you take a U-Haul to Canada?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Yes. My brother just drove one from Vancouver to NYC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
 Jacob Riis, 2016 by spike mccue, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Is there anything special I need to do for scanning positive film? I am pretty comfortable with scanning negative film with my Epson. Use curves and levels, dust, and sharpen/etc in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Film thread, I'm film-illiterate. I really don't know how the magic of developing film works. I was recently gifted a really drat cool 8mm video camera, and inside is a magazine of 8mm film that I think has been exposed. I'm planning on taking it into my bathroom and peeking at it with a red light to see if that's the fact. I'd just send it off to be developed, but, well, it's K-11 process Kodachrome, and developing it as B&W will likely run me at least $50. Given that it's probably just someone's home movies from the small Ohio town the garage sale it came from was held, I don't think I want to spend that much. I came across this blog post about developing in Caffenol C-M. The directions are obviously for someone who's a little more well-versed in developing than I am: quote:Develop 3 min at 20 deg C There's also a recipe for the Caffenol C-M that seems followable for me. I don't, however, know what all the wash and fix steps entail -- what sort of chemicals / equipment do I need to wash & fix? How involved is it? There's always the idea of finding a local darkroom and asking if I can use it to do this sort of one-time thing. Is this a fool's errand? Or could I feasibly attempt to develop this film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:22
|
|