|
I have one of these and it's a lot of fun. 
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Thinking of a film camera I can take on a kayak trip. There's a non-zero chance it might end up in the drink. Anyone have any experience with a Pentax 90WR? They seem fairly cheap on eBay and are marked water resistant which often means something different based on who said it. Obviously I don't expect one to keep my film dry if it spends any significant time underwater but what would my chances be if it just fell overboard or if I overturned or something like that? I'm guessing it's like a 50/50 unless someone tells me they're literally just good enough for splashes and will definitely leak if submerged for even a split second. I have a Pentax wr 90 that I have used in the pool on several occasions. I haven't actually submerged it, but it has taken a lot of full on splashes from people jumping in and the film stayed dry and it still works. You could probably pick one up for less than 10 bucks off ebay. It's a pretty tough camera and I'm betting it would stay dry if it was an in and out of the water mishap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
I've got some stuff to say about all that. First, JPN eBay. There are a lot of sellers who grade their poo poo by the following scale: 'As-is' - Broken 'Very Good' or 'A-B' (--, -, +, ++} - Probably somewhere around KEH BGN... And that's contemporary spotty KEH ratings, not the exceptionally conservative ratings of the old KEH. 'Excellent' or 'EX' (+, ++, +++) - Anywhere from BGN to EX. More plusses get you closer to true EX. 'Near Mint' Anywhere from EX+ to truly unused gear. I've bought a lot of 35mm and MF lenses and cameras from these sorts of sellers. Most of the higher ranking ones with big inventories will have good return policies. For cameras, usually if they say it functions properly, it does. Just be sure and read the descriptions. As with the grading, there's a formulaic language. This matters more for lenses. 'Some dust' is a lot of dust, maybe fungus patches and cleaning marks 'Tiny tiny dusts' is usually an acceptable level 'No haze' 'no fungus' & 'no scratch' mean just that, but note that the absence of these descriptors usually indicates the presence of those issues, unless it's rated Near Mint. It may just be because I'm insane, but i don't think I've never purchased an EX (with however many attendant plusses) wide angle film SLR lens from any Japanese eBay dealer and found it to be truly free of decentering or tilt. But my success rate dealing with local US camera shops has been just as bad. Cameras and longer lenses have been generally good, though, as long as I stick to non-vintage stuff (from the late 70s and newer, generally). If you do go with a JPN seller, check to see if they ship EMS. It's often faster for me than getting something shipped domestically. And don't be afraid to return. I think most of the big guys like Sunrise Camera hate me now because I've sent back so many 24-35mm lenses (and MF equivalents), but seriously, just be sure to test whatever you get as thoroughly and as soon as possible, and send it back if there's something wrong. They're always fast to reply and friendly when you send them photographic evidence of an issue. All that said, the best film stuff I've come across has been sold as an incomplete kit. That seems to be a sign that there was a photographer who used it not too far back on the ownership chain. For instance, I bought the WA film lens that I finally found to be OK was sold domestically by a dealer, but as part of a set. It was a GS-1 with one back, speed grip, strap, AE finder, and 50mm lens. But there was no WLF or film advance lever besides the one on the grip. It seems like it was probably used by someone as it was, and its various components hadn't been split up and gone bouncing around the market before arriving in my hands. Similar case with an RB67 and 90mm lens that I bought off CL. It came with WLF and grip, but no lens or body caps. Its 90mm lens is maybe the least flawed and most consistant optic I have for any film camera. It apparently had one owner, who took good care of it. As far as what kind of camera to get, the Mamiya RZ/RB, Bronica GS-1, and Pentax 6x7MLU/67 are all pretty good. The Pentax is probably the best mix of great lenses, good handling, and value for money.. if you can find a good one that's been well treated. RZ/B's are optically great (well, the newer lenses at least are fantastic) but very bulky. GS-1s are the lightest of the three, but their lenses are relatively slow and don't focus very close for an SLR. They are speedy and light, though, and have aperture-priority metered finders that cost much less than those for the Pentax 67ii. The Pentax kind of sits in the middle. Heaver, but manageable. Great lenses across the board, but the focal plane shutter can be a little shakier than the leaf shutters on the GS & RB. I think that only happens if the Pentax's shutter has been heavily used & abused and never CLA'd, though. And if you can afford it, and don't want to specialize in closeup portraits and macro, get a Mamiya 7. Forget the others and just do it. It has the best wide angle lenses - and the sharpest normal and short tele lenses - in the 6x7 world. Pentax has the widest apertures, though, and much better macro capability. There's also the Koni-Omega/Rapid Omega 6x7 rangefinder. It has some very highly rated, sharp lenses. Comparable to the Mamiya 7, but with worse coatings and color rendition, more variable and prone to issues, and just older and less reliable. Cheap, though. I'm always on the verge of buying one. ... And as far as water-resistant cameras, I've been planning on a summer kayak trip, and my short list right now is down to either a Nikon 35AW AF, which is sort of like a waterproof Olympus Stylus, or throw down the bucks on a Nikonos III or IV. I think the former is a good choice. The Nikonos is expensive* and maintenance intensive (gotta keep those gaskets lubed if you're actually using it underwater), but the IQ and [s]lens variety[/a] is pretty great.** * Not really ** All the cool ultrawides are for underwater use only. The 35 is amphibious. There's also a 28mm dry lens, but it's relatively expensive. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Thinking of a film camera I can take on a kayak trip. There's a non-zero chance it might end up in the drink. Anyone have any experience with a Pentax 90WR? They seem fairly cheap on eBay and are marked water resistant which often means something different based on who said it. Obviously I don't expect one to keep my film dry if it spends any significant time underwater but what would my chances be if it just fell overboard or if I overturned or something like that? I'm guessing it's like a 50/50 unless someone tells me they're literally just good enough for splashes and will definitely leak if submerged for even a split second. Get a Nikonos with the 35mm lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Loads of things that shouldnt get wet can survive being submerged. My car keys with the imobiliser chip survived being at the bottom of a deep river and has been good for the last 2 years. My friends iphone fell into a creek and was completely submerged while on and survived, it was only in the water a second though. My 600d has 0 weather sealing and survived being in heavy rain and then in a damp bag on the way to my car. Dont rely on it obviously but something with minimal electronics like an old film camera should be okay getting a little wet. Just remember to dry it before use and clean the poo poo out of the camera if it was in salt water (including a pool)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Stuff drat, thanks for taking the time to type that out. I really appreciate it. I was looking at ebay listings and it's spot on with what you are saying. I think I'll stick with finding a Pentax 67 in good condition with the 105 2.4, as it seems to be well liked and a good all around MF camera. I initially wanted a Mamiya 7, but it's pretty high priced and I'm not sure if I'm ready to sink that much in yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:drat, thanks for taking the time to type that out. I really appreciate it. I was looking at ebay listings and it's spot on with what you are saying. I think I'll stick with finding a Pentax 67 in good condition with the 105 2.4, as it seems to be well liked and a good all around MF camera. I initially wanted a Mamiya 7, but it's pretty high priced and I'm not sure if I'm ready to sink that much in yet. 75mm f4.5 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Shellman posted:75mm f4.5  Portra 6x7 (5 of 6) by Trevor Zuliani, on FlickrRats noticing a sick 75/4.5
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Nikonos Now that I look for it, a nikonos IV-A w/35mm lens doesn't seem to go for much more than the AWAF P&S, and is probably much better. Plus you learn how to scale focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Shellman posted:75mm f4.5 This is the correct answer. Seriously though I own two lenses - the 105mm and the 75mm f4.5 and the former sees very rare use. Maybe because I am highly antisocial and dislike all people and so I don't take portraits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
I'm going wild with my 6x7 camera. So far I've found Portra 400 to be, as you all say, the best color negative film. Portra 160 and Ektar, I like those somewhat as well. Ektar is more of a special purpose film, while Portra 160 is OK if it's absolutely too bright for Portra 400. (I don't have a 95mm ND filter for my giant wide angle lens). 400H wasn't really my thing. It was basically like Portra 400 but worse. So to round out the list, I picked up a roll of Rollei CN200. Browsing Flickr, it looks to me to be sort of like... a negative version of Ektachrome? Maybe? It seems to have a tendency toward saturated greens, but it's kind of hard to say from just looking at Flickr. I'm going to shoot & develop a roll myself obviously, but I'm curious if there are any opinions on it here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Shoot slide
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Getting back into film after a decade off. Found a nice rental darkroom and am ready to go. Only problem is that I sold off all but one of my film cameras (a criminally-underrated Konica T4) a decade ago to finance my first DLSR. Looking to add another camera so my wife and I can both shoot at the same time, and am struggling with whether I should re-buy one of the mostly-mechanical beasts I used to have (Nikon FE or Pentax ME), or get a more modern manual like a Pentax ZX-M. Definitely don't want to go full modern/auto (I could re-buy an N80 for a song), because I really love the time machine aspect of shooting and printing B&W. Do any of you use a modern-ish manual camera? Do they still retain the feel of an old camera that makes you do everything by hand? Is there anything but the ZX-M in that category? I'm mostly looking at it for modern batteries and a lack of 40 years of dust and gummed-up oil in the clockwork, but I still adore the tank-like feel of a Carter/Reagan era SLR. edit: I forgot about the nikon FM10, which I've already got a couple compatible lenses for, but I remember that having a reputation of being kind of a piece of crap (and not actually a nikon) and yet still is selling for $150. stealie72 fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
If you already have a bunch of Nikon lenses, just get an old FM2 or FM2n and be happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you already have a bunch of Nikon lenses, just get an old FM2 or FM2n and be happy. You're right, but I should have been a bit more clear. Everything I've got is AF, so compatible but sub-ideal. If I had several old manual nikon lenses, the choice would be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
I use AF and AF-d lenses on my F3 and FE all the time  Only options for modern-ish manual SLRs as far as I know are olympus om-4 and the nikon fm3a which are roughly 10-15 years old at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Is the Pentax 67 55-105 as baller as I think it would be for generic landscape lens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:I use AF and AF-d lenses on my F3 and FE all the time stealie72 fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Nikon is a poo poo show of compatibility. A lot of new bodies meter with AI/AI-s lenses. They don't need the rabbit ears to do this, they need the aperture index tab. The D7xxx series and up have it. The rabbit ears are for aperture indexing on super old film bodies like the plain old F that have a pin below the viewfinder on the front. In the reverse, you can meter with any of the AF-D and older lenses on old film bodies because they all have a manual aperture ring on them. It's just the lenses with a G (AF-S or not) that lack the aperture ring and require aperture control on the body. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Only options for modern-ish manual SLRs as far as I know are olympus om-4 and the nikon fm3a which are roughly 10-15 years old at this point. There's some Contax slrs that are modern, but still manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Buy a Pentax ME Super.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Buy a Pentax ME Super.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Buy a Pentax ME Super.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Buy a Pentax ME Super.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Buy my ME Super
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Been there done that, and I believe they're more expensive now than when I bought one in 1998! edit: So is film the new vinyl? Decent film camera prices all seem to be about 1.5-2x what they were 5 years ago. stealie72 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Yes. But if functionality and image quality are your main concerns, there are still some deals to be had. The aforementioned N80 is a good example. Minolta AF gear is still largely a steal, too. So is Canon EF film stuff. But generally anything truly 'retro' and more mechanical/manual will be more expensive than it was 10 years ago, especially if it has a reputation of being 'good' (even if it isn't in reality). That's the weird nature of the collectable market. Almost all of this poo poo is in worse condition than it was a decade ago, but the prices keep going up. Ostensibly it's because of the increasing scarsity of good condition vintage gear, but a rising tide lifts all boats, and even real junk grade poo poo gets marked up - and people pay for it. It seems like a lot of millennial film photography hobbyists (which I happen to be) care more about what it is than what it does when it comes to gear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Are ME supers cheap again? I'll probably pick one up soon. I miss my ME and wish I hadn't sold it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
I need to pick up a K-mount 1.4 again. I loved that lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:edit: So is film the new vinyl? Decent film camera prices all seem to be about 1.5-2x what they were 5 years ago. The way I think about it, the amount of artistic people hasn't really gone down with time, and in 2017 we're probably seeing a lot of kids discovering analog photography that never really had a chance to use it the first time around. All the stuff that's getting expensive is gear that is actually worth a drat. lovely cameras are still kind of cheap, but anything that's reputable or usable is now rediscovering a bit of purpose with a new generation and that's driving prices up. At least that's how I want to think about it since it means film will continue to be a viable medium  Although I am displeased with how expensive it is to shoot anything but bulk 35mm here in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Yeah, that's probably a good way to look at it. I mean, I'm specifically looking to pay more for an outdated camera in part because I love that experience, when an N80 body, which is superior in every logical way and that I have used to take thousands of pictures (a few of them were even good) can be had for roughly 5% what I paid for it new in ~2000. So I guess it's cool that people are rediscovering The Old Ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Although I am displeased with how expensive it is to shoot anything but bulk 35mm here in Canada. I've taken to making large orders from B&H. Even with shipping and exchange rate it comes out costing less than buying locally. $9.00 a roll for Ultramax in Canada... w-hat, its practically free in the USA. Photo Service in Montreal can sometimes beat B&H but just barely and only if I'm already there to pick up negs so the transport cost is already sunk. Amplis often has cheap Ilford or Kentmere films but just as often has them bizarrely overpriced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah I don't buy new film in Canada anymore, except B&W. I trawl kijiji for people selling barely-expired lots and snatch them up. I got a bunch of Velvia 50 120 for like $3/roll, only expired in 2014 and cold stored. I put up an ad looking for expired film and somebody gave me two boxes of Fuji 400H 120 for free, expired only in 2014 as well. Tomorrow I am picking up 3 boxes of Portra 400 in 4x5 for $60, expired 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
So what I'm reading is that you're the reason I can't find film in Canada 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I just had 2 new rolls of Fuji Natura 1600 show up today. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Just bought an old camera that has a new roll of konica brand color film that expired in 1986. Worth shooting/developing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I just had 2 new rolls of Fuji Natura 1600 show up today. I've shot Natura 1600 before. I have a roll of Superia 1600 sitting in the fridge right now. I wonder how the two compare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
natura is approximately a thousand times better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I took my Fotosnaiper out to see how it handled. It's a huge and heavy 300mm f/4.5 lens with a modified Zenit 12 that's attached to a rifle stock. It's... not easy to use. I just put some lovely Fuji 200 film in it and wandered around the street outside my apartment. 300mm is a bad length for street photography, let me tell you. Composing with a long lens in cramped locations is a challenge. I got a bunch of bad photos and didn't get shot by the police so I/m counting it as a win overall. fotosnaiper012.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  fotosnaiper031.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  fotosnaiper016.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
I'm.. not sure there is any scenario in today's world where I would be seen outside my apartment wielding one of those, so I applaud you on that front 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:53
|
|