|
dahkren posted:Someone in the camera equipment megathread suggested I ask my question in here. Didn't see this thread the other day or I would've! If you have money, a Nikon FM2 is great. It has everything you need (B-4000 shutter, massive range of F mount lenses, silicon meter using modern batteries, LED meter readout, really not much more), a couple perks (1/250 flash sync speed), and is only a missing mirror lockup away from being the perfect manual SLR. Of course, being so awesome means that you have to pay quite a bit for one. The FM2's direct ancestor (FM) and cousins (FE/FE2) are almost exactly the same (added aperture priority mode in the FE), and then you can also go slightly upmarket (F3/F4) or downmarket (Nikkormats) from here depending on budget. My current manual SLR is an OM-1, though, and you really can't go wrong with one of those.
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I picked up a Baldaxette medium format folding rangefinder 10 years ago, what a waste of time and money. There are so many things that can go wrong on an old folding camera that it's not even worth playing with them. In my case the mechanism that controlled the bellows went and then the shutter stopped firing. Sucks, because it would have been a neat camera to carry around. I don't think I ever even got one complete roll through it. My MF folder experience was slightly better. I got a Chinese folder in a Beijing junk shop before I really knew about choosing a used camera, so it turned out to be missing the lug that turns the film. My grandfather helped me rig together a replacement though, and it's worked fine since. Since it's only scale focus though, and my imagination for distances sucks, I don't have much use for it. I'd put it on SA-Mart if I knew there would be buyers...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2008 13:48
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I'm thinking about Buying a Bessa R3M w/ 50/2 lens. Any thoughts? I am interested in trying a rangefinder out. My requirements are that the camera have a light meter and be reasonably affordable. It should be just fine, though as time passes you may find yourself needing that meter less and less. Pompous Rhombus posted:Just curious, why an OM-1 over an OM-4? I'm thinking about buying one myself, I picked up a Oly 21mm f/2.0 on the (relatively) cheap to use with my 5D, and wanted to get an Olympus film body to play around with since they seem so well-liked. Was also thinking about the Oly 50mm f/1.2 to go with it a bit later on. Probably price. The 3 and 4 are much more expensive than the 1 and 2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 16:28
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Someone will have to explain to me these rangefinder metering comments I see around? I'd never buy an SLR without a meter so I don't quite understand why I would want a rangefinder without one. Some of us psychos would buy SLRs without meters, you see. Meters are always great to have, but I tend to think of one as more of a convenience and less of a necessity as I use classic cameras more and more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2008 04:56
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:So I'm gonna be hangin' with Tom Abrahamsson on Friday, anybody need some softreleases or anything? Oh my God I didn't know the Barnackwinder even existed and now I want one so bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2008 13:39
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:Ok why the gently caress are these winders so drat expensive, I would pay even 100 for a winder for my IIIf, but thats outrageous. He's explained his high prices before on RFF - just the cost of renting the production machinery by the hour is astronomical, and the low production amounts don't help either. Also he's the only game in town, that lucky bastard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2008 11:45
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:It sounded like such an old wives tale, drat. I do have an Olympus XA that would presumably be okay, (those stupid slow ASA settings would actually be useful for once) but I think more likely I'll just pitch it. My goal is to run through all this film by the end of the trip, I can use all the help I can get, heh. HIE is worth an absurd amount on eBay so if you don't shoot it, sell it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2008 13:01
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I wouldn't feel right selling something that's probably no good, and I threw it out yesterday anyways :-\ Which X-rays? If carry-on, anecdotally you may have a chance. If it was checked, then I guess you can wait it out like me - I let some Velvia go through and shot it anyways, and now I'm waiting on development with my fingers crossed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2008 15:23
|
|
|
The best kind of film is free film. A friend of mine just cleared out his fridge and gave it all to me, because he doesn't want to shoot expired stuff. And so here's the loot, expired between 1998 and 2002:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 17:28
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:The Feds and Zorkis can be really nice if you get a good one. The thing is, that "if" is a pretty big if. Unless you get both the body and lens checked by someone who really knows what they're doing, your chances of getting a dud are very high. Lens misalignment is pretty much an inevitable thing, though it's not impossible to fix on your own. I'd consider a Canon rangefinder for a little more. Look at stuff like: http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-7-Rangefi...09&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-IIF-Range...51&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-7-Leica-Screw-Mount-Rangefinder-Camera_W0QQitemZ270263512383QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270263512383&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-VL-Leica-Screw-Mount-Rangefinder-V-L_W0QQitemZ270263528144QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270263528144&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 The best user cameras from Canon are the 7s and the P, though neither seem to be selling on Ebay at the moment. No connection to any of the sellers linked, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2008 05:31
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I posted earlier in this thread asking whether the messed up prints I was getting were a result of my camera or the people at London Drugs. I got some more prints at a different place today and it definitely looks to me like I have a light leak: Light leaks forming over time are a given with many models of cameras. But they tend to be fixable at home - look up your model of camera and see if others have had any luck. Pompous Rhombus posted:What do you mean by dud? Ebay does suck, but I've noticed a number of sellers from Ukraine who seem to sell nothing but old Russian camera gear and have good feedback. Russian gear (well, any old camera gear) can have a variety of problems. Inaccurate shutter timings, bad frame spacing, lenses that don't focus right, and shutters that just don't feel like going every so often are all relatively common on Russian stuff though. Apparently a lot of the reports of Russian optical quality being worse than the German lenses they copied from stem from the testing of misaligned lenses - a properly adjusted Jupiter-8, for example, should be excellent. Canon rangefinders are definitely worth the price, IMO. Essentially you're getting a screw mount Bessa Rxx without the meter, or an M3 with a couple more features and worse build quality, depending on how you look at it. They completely blow away screw mount Leicas in terms of usability. Even after trying out bottom loading and finding it not as bad as I thought, it still makes reloading in the field really fiddly. Most people probably wouldn't be comfortable with the split RF/VF setup and the squinty 50mm finder either. Add knob wind/rewind and you get a camera which is pretty far removed from the modern conveniences you may be accustomed to. Meanwhile a Canon 7 has a meter (which probably doesn't work unless it's a 7s though), swing back loading, lever wind and crank rewind, and a big bright finder with selectable frames for 35, 50, and 85/100. The P and VI are just as competent, though with less fancy finders. Edit: Oh also as for screw mount Russian lenses, the J-8 works fine on every camera as long as it's adjusted for correct focus. The big rear elemented one is the J-12 35/2.8. Dad Hominem fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Aug 14, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2008 12:54
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'd heard that about the Russian lenses, and also read an article a while ago that they were or might have been built to a slightly different standard than their German counterparts. So you can have a lens that works fine on a Russian camera, but if you put it on a German one it's slightly out of alignment. Is there much truth to that? Potentially. It's related to how rangefinders work, and I don't completely understand the mechanics of it. The short of it (as far as I can tell, old people argue about this online all the time) is that Leica calibrated their rangefinders to be correct when focusing a 52.5mm lens, which is the length of all "50mm" Leica lenses. Zeiss used a true 50mm standard for their Contaxes, and it was the Contax machinery and experts that got captured by the Soviets. Since Soviet lenses are optically similar between Leica and Contax mounts, they're accurate only on Contaxes and Soviet bodies (expecting the true 50s) without shimming. tl;dr: It's best to get a lens that's known to be accurate or get it adjusted by someone who knows what they're doing after purchase.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2008 12:02
|
|
|
Celluloid posted:My main film camera lately is a Kodak35 rangefinder made in 1948. I usually rock the "sunny 16" on it and have found it likes to overexpose by about a stop. That wouldn't be the camera, that's either your eyes or just the sunny 16 rule being inaccurate (like it's supposed to be). Without any sort of autoexposure, it can't decide to overexpose. Also: oh, NOOOOOBODY uses 2x3 film anymore 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2008 08:06
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I found a interesting. It's a Zeiss Ikon Contina L. I've been looking for a rangefinder but while fumbling around with the camera, I noticed it didn't have a ghost image to focus with and the shutter was down. Yep, Continas aren't rangefinders, and the shutter should always be closed when not taking a picture. Otherwise light would get in and ruin the film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2008 19:56
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:My Zorki 4, a russian Leica IIIf(I think...) copy, with 50/3.5 collapsible lens. That's a Zorki 1 of some description (can't tell the letter designation from the picture), and it was a Leica II copy (IIIs have slow speeds). Just being picky 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
Just popping in to say that I developed my first roll of film today and it was awesome. It's also a lot easier than it seems so everyone should try it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 20:01
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Anyone own a Leica M and need an ltm adapter? I've got a voigtlander 50/75 one I don't need I could let go pretty cheap... To be honest $40 is a price I'm willing to pay for a J-8 on a forum, but I have a feeling neither of us would want to go to the trouble or the cost of shipping it to Hong Kong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2009 13:37
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Depends, what sort of trouble is involved? Me paying another $20 in shipping, if I'm not calculating wrong. How much would it cost to ship, actually? Also not having Paypal would've been a problem but I just found out a friend of mine can help me out in that department.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Can anyone tell what model camera this is? Pretty sure it's an M7, because I don't think the M6 reads DX coding. gib posted:Short answer is no, they're not worth it (especially new). They are, however, very nice. None of their competitors are solid-feeling (or heavy) and they have a certain M body cachet. They are extremely reliable since most of them are all-mechanical and well-made, but they do need periodic expensive service. Leica do make some incredible lenses for their rangefinders, but the prices on those are again a bit silly and you can use them just as well on a Bessa/Ikon/Hexar (Japanese made cameras with the same lens mount). By "periodic expensive service" you're referring to about $100-200 every ten years so it's not that bad. If you don't need the features (metering, AE, wide framelines) of the competition, there is no reason not to get a used Leica. Really I think it makes more sense to get a BGN M2 or M3 and pair it with Canon and Voigtlander lenses. Pretty much the same optical quality, but the body quality is that much better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2009 10:35
|
|
|
gib posted:Did Nikon even make any LTM cameras? No they didn't, but they did make LTM lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 08:09
|
|
|
dunno posted:Sounds like a decent price, the wallet raiding Lomographic Society is trying to sell them for $250 USD. (BTW, if you didn't get the hint already, I don't much like the Lomographic Society and their abuse of trend-making and general ignorance to sell cameras at horribly inflated prices) The other day I saw unofficial Holgas being sold at about half-price (in a generic factory box without any Lomography crap on it) and started grinning like an idiot. I suppose they're kinda like pirated clothes in that they come out of the factory when an enterprising manager decides to make a couple hundred extra in each batch. It really goes to show how much of a ripoff Lomography crap is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2009 13:40
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:How do you find out if a place uses a machine that makes a scan or wetprints? Because the few rolls of C41 I've taken in the last year (drop off booth development/CVS) have printed like garbage and like they were from over sharpened jpeg's Assume it's a scan unless you have proof otherwise - they're by far the most common these days.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Maybe you guys can help me out with rangefinders. I want something under in the $100-$200 range, easy to use, full manual, and pocket-able for everyday use. I can't seem to Google a good consensus and range finder forum doesn't really help me make decisions, though I am quite certain that I don't have to spend $1000 on a Leica. There is no pocketable rangefinder apart from the Olympus XA, IMO. Others can get very small, but you'd need a coat pocket at best for even something tiny like the 35RC. If you're still looking for small, there's a range of older folding rangefinders - the Kodak Retina series is probably the cream of the crop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2009 11:45
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thanks guys, I knew greater minds had tackled this before me. Knowing the limitations now, I still want to play with a rangefinder. Is the 35RC a good starter? Although I don't quite remember the exact specs, it should be. Just look online at reviews (cameraquest.com is great), and make sure it has the features you want - lens speed, AE or full manual, and so forth. They should all take great pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2009 15:24
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I'm seeing a lot of this recently from people who have never shot Kodachrome before. That makes sense, but in my case I have a single roll of Kodachrome available and I'm not sending it to the other side of the world just to have normal snapshots developed. I haven't figured out what to do with it even though I've held on to it for a year.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Quoting myself, sorry.... Oh, alright. I was about to suggest the 35/3.5 Summaron or Elmar, which both have the "character" to match your Summitar - I use a Summaron on my RD-1 and it bothers me to no end because I'm more of the omg sharp fred miranda type.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
caberham posted:I live in Hong Kong so KEH and other online stores is not a viable option for me. Prices are on average 75% of what the retails stores are offering. At least Hong Kong supposedly has a bunch of camera stores but the selection is a hit and miss. Sometimes I wish I had a Nikon system so I could buy old used lenses instead of looking at piles of FD. I paid 700HKD for an EOS 50 from a used store here, and then my friend got one for about half that on KEH. Is there anyone you know in the US that can help you pick one up? Alternatively, I'm pretty sure I've seen secondhand entry level AF SLRs like the Kiss on sale in places like Sham Shui Po (Apliu Street) and Tsim Sha Tsui (Champagne Court) for under 300, though quality may vary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 09:03
|
|
|
caberham posted:I always convert the currency to US dollars. So yes, a almost mint condition minolta 7s is being sold at $HKD 2220 or ~= $USD 310. Not sure if it's any special edition but does not look like it. Think I'm going to go for the canon EOS 3, EOS 5 (A2/A2E?) since range finders are not that compact. Yeah that's about par for the course in Hong Kong. Brick and mortar stores are a pretty bad idea here, as they pretty much all overcharge. What you want to do is hang around the used sections of dchome.net, dcfever.com, and hklfc.com until a decently priced SLR turns up, or take a gamble on something from the flea market on Sham Shui Po's Apliu Street. It'll take a lot longer but you'll save a ton. By the way if the labs you go to find it weird that anyone still shoots slides in this day and age you may want to go to a professional lab instead. Color Six on Stanley Street in Central is the most popular.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
Even though I'm just about the most unqualified person on earth, I run my dorm (yes you read that right, I'm pretty lucky) darkroom, and so I'm responsible for keeping equipment and materials on hand. We just ran out of developer (TMax) and I'm wondering if I could do better than just buying a new bottle. The focus would be on being beginner-friendly and convenient - as an example, I'm mentally slapping myself for buying new Kodafix instead of a non-hardening fixer so that wash time could be cut. It's pretty funny how our darkroom is state of the art in some ways and woefully underequipped in others. We have a nice Durst 4x5 enlarger but only a 50mm lens so we can't make prints from MF, a nice long sink but really tiny trays, a film dryer but we're not allowed to drill the wall to hang it up (ever tried holding up one of those at head height for an hour?), and so forth. Also could anyone quickly go over how print filters work? There's a box of Ilford Multigrade filters here and I haven't been able to detect any difference with or without them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 11:44
|
|
|
I guess I might as well go into my regular developing and printing process just so someone can help me catch mistakes in any part of the process. Film (normally HP5 but now that I'm out I may start bulk rolling whatever's cheap) goes into tank, pour in one-shot TMax (soon to be HC-110 I guess), soup for about 8 minutes while constantly forgetting to agitate, dump developer out, fill tank from tap and fully change water twice, fix with Kodafix for 10 minutes (do I need to agitate), dump that out and save it, run the tank under the tap for 20 minutes, attempt to shake a few drops of Photo-flo out of the bottle, shake up the tank, take out the film, hang it up. Then printing - paper is Ilford MGIV RC, developed for 1 minute (this is impossible to get exact) in Polymax T, stuck into water for a couple seconds, and then fixed for another minute in Kodafix. I have a feeling my inability to figure out filters is because my print dev times are crazy inconsistent (depending on whether I drop the tongs or not). Do I just reduce the enlarging time and then increase the developing time accordingly?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Its probably inconsistent exposure time. If you're not already doing so, try making a test strip - put a sheet of paper down and cover it up with a piece of cardboard. Then, turn on the enlarger lamp, and move the cardboard across the paper in ~3 second intervals (more or less, depending on lots of things - aperture, height of enlarger head, lamp, etc). Develop, pick which section looks best, and make another print using that exposure time. If you want higher contrast, you can try a higher-numbered filter (and vice-versa). Don't be afraid to waste paper, the results are definitely worth sacrificing a sheet or two to test exposure! I'm pretty sure my inconsistent printing isn't due to exposure time though - that's one variable I'm sure I have locked down. The enlarger is connected to a timer, and I do make test strips - but sometimes the results are wildly different even with the same time dialed in after testing. Are you guys sure that developing time is not a relevant variable? My other theory is that the level of developer isn't quite high enough in the tray, and the print isn't getting immersed. Edit: also our safelight is hosed up and it's essentially impossible to tell what's on the paper in the tray.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:I've never used an XA but I've looked through one once. The viewfinder is tiny, just like most rangefinder cameras. It's that way on purpose, though. RF cameras excel at wide angles. To get a corresponding sight picture you need a wide angle viewfinder. Which means small images. Thankfully RF cameras don't require you to get a super detailed view of anything in order to find your focus. The original Leica M3 and one or two Voigtlander models have a 1:1 viewfinder, but then you crop your picture when shooting with a wide lens. It's perfect for using a 50, though. Viewfinder size and viewfinder magnification are two different things. With something like an XA or screwmount Leica you see a lot more camera back than you do viewfinder peering through the thing. But that doesn't necessarily mean the finder is low magification - the rangefinder peephole on a screwmount Leica is a tiny, but very magnified image, while the 0.58x viewfinder on new Leica Ms is massive and will fill your vision (as any M would), but is greatly demagnified for wide angle use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 14:43
|
|