|
Martytoof posted:How much was it? $65US delivered plus $13.35 of Canadian bullshit fees.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:11/97, it's branded as the official film of the olympic games.  If Rombous passes, obviously. I'm trying to get some ordered from my local lab but it's a toss-up if they'll be able to come through, and you can't have too much Kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
pwn posted:I'll offer (again,) this time to just straight-up buy it off you. Go for it... I wouldn't mind taking it but I don't want to hog all the Kodachrome. If anyone's good at retrieving leaders, there should be 20 shots left on this ancient roll of K25 that jammed in my XA last summer. I'll give you the roll if you finish it off, send it in to Dwaynes, and send me my half of it. (Processing is $10, I'll cover that if you get postage.) I can't guarantee how well it's going to come out though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 03:45
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Go for it... I wouldn't mind taking it but I don't want to hog all the Kodachrome. I'll do it. PM me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 03:54
|
|
|
There's been a lot of Olympus XA chat the last few pages... is the XA2 worth buying? (for about $40). I don't really like zone focussing or the slower lens, but someone might be able to talk me into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
The XA2 is pretty awesome, and is a great mate to the XA for when you don't want to bother with the rangefinder/aperture setting. $40 is too much for one, I wouldn't pay more than $25 (or $30 at max) with the A11 flash unit. I recently picked one up with flash for $15. edit: The Nikon L35AF is awesome too. It's insanely cheap (under $10 normally on eBay) and, along with being Nikon's first AF camera, gives a very characteristic look to its images. It's very much in the XA2/LC-A/Stylus Epic/other fun small cameras category. I always like to search flickr to find examples of what a camera or scanner can do. Radbot fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Aug 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
Just a head's up if anyone is interested. I just bought a V700 scanner so I am selling my V500. Works perfectly, has all the accessories. Shoot me a PM if you are interested and we can work something out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
pwn posted:I'll offer (again,) this time to just straight-up buy it off you. How much? Cause I'd love some of that 160NC if rhombus wants to trade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 08:51
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:How much? Cause I'd love some of that 160NC if rhombus wants to trade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 11:05
|
|
|
pwn posted:I'll just go buy you $50 of it, which is like 8 fresh rolls ($6.50 each,) if that's what you want. Can you not get it in your area? They have piles of it here. Also in VC, and 400 of NC and VC, and 120 format even (!). I don't know how much the 120 is, I'll have to call them later. I just got my first roll of Portra 400NC 220 back... man is that gorgeous stuff. I'd love to see how chromes would look at that size. Lab kinda screwed it up, though, the negatives had crumples and lines all over them like they got stretched in the developing rollers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 11:28
|
|
is go
|
Ack, it might be 220. I don't shoot medium format  Email me if you're interested, Reichstag. Still gecafe@gmail.com.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 11:40
|
|
|
pwn posted:Email me if you're interested, Reichstag. Still gecafe@gmail.com. Email sent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
ASMP's newsleffter had an interesting article on photographing negatives with a macro lens and an elaborate setup. The main draw is speed - but at what cost? They praise the system, but I still wonder about the drawbacks. Newsletter: http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/bulletins/2009/spring09.pdf the article name is something something 1/60th of a second or something. Will possibly edit this post and include more information when I get home. I want to do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 23:47
|
|
|
For you Kodachrome freaks out there, I see that photo-co still has it listed on their web site for $9.25CDN per roll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
Lens dilemma. My Leica M4-2 will be back from a CLA soon, and I am looking for a good 35mm lens to complement the 50mm Summitar I have currently. The obvious choice would be a Summicron, but looking at what else is out there. Cosina-Voigtlander offers some very good quality lenses for cheap, but I worry that they won't have much in the way of the personality you get from older Leica glass. The Jupiter-12 is always an option -- it does have a fair bit of character. Good price, too. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Lens dilemma. Well if you want character at a good price, I think it would be hard to beat the Jupiter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Lens dilemma. I have used a 35mm f/2 Zeiss and I currently have a 35mm f/1.2 Nokton. The Zeiss is pretty good, very sharp, small, but I wanted the speed of the Nokton. A used Zeiss will set you back about $600 and the Nokton is closer to a grand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I have used a 35mm f/2 Zeiss and I currently have a 35mm f/1.2 Nokton. The Zeiss is pretty good, very sharp, small, but I wanted the speed of the Nokton. A used Zeiss will set you back about $600 and the Nokton is closer to a grand. Wouldn't mind either, but aiming for $300 or under, speed not being a great concern. From what I can tell, it limits me to Summicrons, Summarons, CV or some Canon gear... (and the russians of course)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Wouldn't mind either, but aiming for $300 or under, speed not being a great concern. From what I can tell, it limits me to Summicrons, Summarons, CV or some Canon gear... (and the russians of course) Pretty much, yeah. You can get a 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar for $200 or a bit less on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Wouldn't mind either, but aiming for $300 or under, speed not being a great concern. From what I can tell, it limits me to Summicrons, Summarons, CV or some Canon gear... (and the russians of course) Russian stuff is such a terrible crapshoot. Where can you get a $300 summicron?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 04:05
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Lens dilemma. Try the canon 35mm ltm lenses, you can find them on ebay for about $200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
I've got a Bronica ETRSi headed my way (probably via freight), and while my tripod will handle the weight, I'm having trouble finding the proper anchor/ballast/weight that I can hang off the bottom of my tripod's center column. I could probably just use a coat hanger and a weight from the thrift store, but since I'll need to fly with it, I need it to not look like a bomb or weapon. Also, any other Bronica owners here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I've got a Bronica ETRSi headed my way (probably via freight), and while my tripod will handle the weight, I'm having trouble finding the proper anchor/ballast/weight that I can hang off the bottom of my tripod's center column. I could probably just use a coat hanger and a weight from the thrift store, but since I'll need to fly with it, I need it to not look like a bomb or weapon. A six pack of beer tied to the bottom of the center column works well. It's also great for portrait photography because it'll make any woman look way better. Really though, anything with some heft to it should work, even a water bottle or your camera bag or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 04:40
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I've got a Bronica ETRSi headed my way (probably via freight), and while my tripod will handle the weight, I'm having trouble finding the proper anchor/ballast/weight that I can hang off the bottom of my tripod's center column. I could probably just use a coat hanger and a weight from the thrift store, but since I'll need to fly with it, I need it to not look like a bomb or weapon. I'd like to pick up a Bronica SQ at some point, and probably will when I can justify the expense. As for the weight, I usually use my backpack. It's not super heavy, but it does the job. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'd like to pick up a Bronica SQ at some point, and probably will when I can justify the expense. As for the weight, I usually use either my backpack. It's not super heavy, but it does the job. Likewise. Except mine normally is super heavy, because I'm normally hiking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 14:04
|
|
|
I've found that I feel better out and about if my older cameras are in a pelican case, but they seem to be designed to inflict the human body with pain on the outside. My ETRSi is due at the house today, but I won't be back until Thursday, when I'll have a 40mm lens and a dozen rolls of Ilford waiting for us 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about 6x4.5? I've got a Mamiya C330 and I'm loving medium format so far, however I don't have a ton of cash. The Mamiya 645 series and the Bronica ETR(s,i) stuff is ridiculously cheap. I've heard a lot of people say that the quality gain from 6x4.5 isn't worth the weight and expensive/crappy metering/lack of zooms/etc, especially with modern high quality film. What do you guys think? I'd really like a Bronica SQ but finding one with a WLF is a chore, and then it ends up being expensive as hell. It's funny how WLFs are such a hot commodity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 17:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How do you guys feel about 6x4.5? I've got a Mamiya C330 and I'm loving medium format so far, however I don't have a ton of cash. The Mamiya 645 series and the Bronica ETR(s,i) stuff is ridiculously cheap. I've heard a lot of people say that the quality gain from 6x4.5 isn't worth the weight and expensive/crappy metering/lack of zooms/etc, especially with modern high quality film. What do you guys think? I am pursuing landscape photos through my Bronica, so zoom isn't an issue for me at all. All the durable cameras are metal, and all the affordable cameras are heavy The ETRSi has a decent meter from what I hear, but like any meter you have to get to know the one with the camera and understand its limitations. MF is bulky, and not very portable, but the stuff is pretty cheap compared to just about any other format.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
I have an SX-70 and love it, but really want to get into more "proper" Polaroid shooting. I assisted on a shoot once where we shot 4x5 polaroids of all the models and they were incredible. Is it possible/practical to use Polaroid backs on larger cameras, like 8x10 and 16x20, and if not, are there any standalone Polaroid cameras that are slightly more "upscale" than the SX-70?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Russian stuff is such a terrible crapshoot. Where can you get a $300 summicron? My mind wasn't working right -- I was thinking about the goggled Summarons and somehow got Summicrons into the mix. And while I agree russian lenses can be dicey, the J-12 seems like a fairly reliable one (owned a couple in the distant past and they were both pretty darn decent). Reichstag: I will take a look at the Canon options. The Canon RF lenses have always had a very good rep but I always equate them with 50mm and didn't think about 35mm offerings. Thanks! My M4-2 should be home in a couple of days -- unfortunately I am stuck in Belgium for another couple of weeks and have to slum it with a Canon DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
Has anyone tried buying from Ultrafine (https://www.ultrafineonline.com)? A few people in groups I frequent on flickr have, and they seem to be reputable. They've got some great deals, especially on outdated color pro film, in addition to really cheap black and white chemistry and paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 22:15
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I have an SX-70 and love it, but really want to get into more "proper" Polaroid shooting. I assisted on a shoot once where we shot 4x5 polaroids of all the models and they were incredible. Is it possible/practical to use Polaroid backs on larger cameras, like 8x10 and 16x20, and if not, are there any standalone Polaroid cameras that are slightly more "upscale" than the SX-70? I posted about it when I first got it, but lately I've been a little in love with my Polaroid Automatic 100. Its a Polaroid Land camera from the 60s and takes modern fuji peel-apart packfilms (FP100b/100c/3000b) that are avaible retail at generally reasonable(?) prices. The prints are 4.25"x3.25" so technically large format and the cameras are generally sort of old timey bellows affairs but also super cool and modernist looking (though there are also some big plastic uggos from the 70s). My Automatic 100 only allows you to control the aperture, the shutter is controlled by a photocell and an electro-magnet hooked into my little DIYed up 3xAAA battery pack, but I'm generally pretty happy with the results for daytime shooting. A recent sample I am sort of happy with:  Here's what it looks like: bellows out  folded up, unngh i wanna sex it  Click here for the full 1600x1068 image. But yeah, its a whole series of cameras that are still generally pretty affordable on the used market (mine was $15, perfect working condition and the case was in immaculate shape, from 1963) You can ivestigate more Polaroid Land models at camerapedia or check out The Land List
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How do you guys feel about 6x4.5? I've got a Mamiya C330 and I'm loving medium format so far, however I don't have a ton of cash. The Mamiya 645 series and the Bronica ETR(s,i) stuff is ridiculously cheap. I've heard a lot of people say that the quality gain from 6x4.5 isn't worth the weight and expensive/crappy metering/lack of zooms/etc, especially with modern high quality film. What do you guys think? 6x4.5 is not worth it. It's not big enough to justify the weight of the gear required. I had an ETRSi, and while a nice camera, was much more of a pain in the rear end to use than a regular 35mm SLR for landscape work. I would go big or go home. Get a 6x6 or better yet, find yourself a nice Pentax 67 or some sort of 6x9 camera. I'd love a Mamiya 7 myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 01:33
|
|
|
killabyte posted:6x4.5 is not worth it. It's not big enough to justify the weight of the gear required. I had an ETRSi, and while a nice camera, was much more of a pain in the rear end to use than a regular 35mm SLR for landscape work. I can understand the idea of "go big or go home" when it comes to negative sizes, but 600mm x 450mm is substantially larger than the 36mm x 18mm of 35mm film. That detail allows blah blah blah detail, blah landscape, etc. MF also carries a wider angle than 35mm does for the similar lens sizes. From my understanding a 40mm on the Bronica is the approximate equivalent of a 22mm on a 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I would go big or go home. Get a 6x6 or better yet, find yourself a nice Pentax 67 or some sort of 6x9 camera. I'd love a Mamiya 7 myself. The Mamiya 6 or those Fuji 6x9s appeal more to me, as I prefer the square or more boldly hotizontal compositons. 645 just seems geared more towards fashion and/or editorial stuff and vertical portraiture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 04:28
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I can understand the idea of "go big or go home" when it comes to negative sizes, but 600mm x 450mm is substantially larger than the 36mm x 18mm of 35mm film. That detail allows blah blah blah detail, blah landscape, etc. It's larger for sure, but the equipment for 6x6 is not much bigger if it is bigger at all. It just seems like a waste, and I have had 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and a 6x9 camera. I'd take any of the last 3 over a 6x4.5. You can always get a 6x6 and crop. The bronica gear is nice, and the lenses are nice, but I think you can do better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 04:37
|
|
|
 PAGING HPLHey, dude.. could you do a quick write up comparing your Canonet QL17 with your 35RC please? Thanks bro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 06:35
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:
Get a 35RC. The f/1.7 lens on the Canonet is kind of wasted because the meter only goes to 800 so you won't be doing any crazy low light stuff unless you shoot full manual. The 35RC is a far more useful camera because it is smaller, quieter and easier to use because of its better controls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 07:39
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I can understand the idea of "go big or go home" when it comes to negative sizes, but 600mm x 450mm is substantially larger than the 36mm x 18mm of 35mm film. That detail allows blah blah blah detail, blah landscape, etc. 645 is more like 54mmx45mm. It's about 3 times the surface area of 35mm film. The wider angle for focal lengths is totally irrelevant. You won't be readily sharing lenses between systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
TokenBrit posted:You won't be readily sharing lenses between systems. I hadn't planned on sharing lenses- I am way beyond hoping to save any money with this habit Can someone help me understand why ASA 800 35mm black & white film isn't more common? I see tons of 400, and 1600, but not so much 800.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 17:11
|
|