|
General Gingersnap posted:A local store has a used rollei 35 for $100, I am think of buying it, though what I really want is a XA2. Does anyone have experience with both? To make a long story short the XA2 is a point and shoot and the Rollei 35 is not. IQ-wise, the Triotar versions of the Rollei 35 are probably a bit softer than the XA2 wide open (flickr example), but equal when stopped down (landscape mode). The Tessar versions are probably a bit better than the XA2 (also a Tessar, I believe, but probably not as high quality). The Sonnar versions are great even wide open (but it's probably not a Sonnar at $100). The Rollei 35 is built like a brick shithouse and will give you more creative control. You get full manual control of shutter and aperture, and scale focusing instead of zone-focus. It will also probably be more repairable if it breaks. It's kind of a clumsy camera and using a flash is a pain. The meter does not work well in the dark. Disclosure: I have a Rollei 35 that I haven't put a roll through yet, because my XA (not XA2) has a rangefinder, is easier to carry, and I trust the meter more. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 16, 2011 |
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
RizieN posted:I have no idea what that means... No, some cameras have an extra ring where you can set the guide number of the flash. That allows the camera to choose an aperture based on the distance you focus at. I need to give flash photography a shot sometime. I just detest the tendency of flash to give specular highlights and over-bright foregrounds. I realize this is because I suck at it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Dreadite posted:Yeah, that is a pretty retarded question, now that I read it again. I was only going for something so specific because this whole thread seems to be filled with the merits of the XA-2, various speed films in it, and the use of the A11 side flash. It shouldn't "glow" as that's likely bloom caused by a lovely anti-halation layer or a flare-prone lens. Overexposure will cause really high contrast - when you're out of the film's designed range, the film will tend to expose completely or not at all, and you end up (hopefully) stretching the middle tones out or (probably) with a very limited range. If you want grain in a 400 speed film go buy Tri-X or HP5, they will have plenty of it. Or, get a crappy 100 speed film like Foma (or maybe Efke?) and shoot your lens close to wide open (I don't know the XA2 program, you're on your own). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:Scored this guy on the free section of craigslist I have a Lynx 14e, I love the camera but I hate how quickly the zinc-air cells go bad and the lack of click-stops in the aperture ring. Does the 5000E have the battery on the back next to the viewfinder? If so, be sure to check the rangefinder still works. Sometimes the corrosion leaked around and it can do various bad things to the rangefinder.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
I think the Lynxes should go for $30-50 if they're working. They're quite a bit more reliable than the GSNs in my opinion. GSNs are prone to timing pad failures (the "clunk of death") and repairing them is a pain, whereas the Lynx have higher-end all-mechanical Copal shutters. If you really want something unique, check out the Lynx 14/14E. It's one of a very few fixed-lens f/1.4 rangefinders ever made and they run about $100. It, and I would guess the Lynx 1000, do use 625 batteries so invest in a pack of 675 hearing aid batteries and a roll of tinfoil.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 13:43
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:You'll notice I posted the drop-in replacement no-tinfoil required solution further up this very page. I am perfectly aware of the existence of Wein Cells, thanks. You can either pay $9 for two disposable Wein cells (or $18 at my local camera store), or $2.24 for a pack of six hearing aid batteries and adapt them. The cheapest way to do that is a wad of tinfoil, but you can get a washer or o-ring for it too. A Wein cell is just a 675 with an adapter, anyway (but good luck getting the adapter onto another battery, I can't do it). Also in my experience zinc-air cells like Wein or 675s last between a month and three and I have had no luck re-sealing them. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
If you feel brave, maybe you could try popping it open. I'd bet the capacitor is the culprit, but I'd guess a replacement might be $5-10 after shipping and there's no guarantees. There's an article on capacitor reforming here, or you could just try charging and firing the flash (it might fire without a full charge) a few times. I think the XA flashes just use two pins, my guess is if you short them it'll fire.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
It would help if you'd scan and post a sample, but yeah, it does sound like a shutter issue. Bad seals would manifest as blown-out areas at the top and bottom of the film. If you're concerned, you could try electrical tape over the seams in the door. Unfortunately, a stuck shutter is actually worse, seals are a wear item and easy to replace.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
You should probably shoot negative film through it, as negative has a wider exposure latitude than slide. See if you can find a roll of Kodak 400UC or Portra 400/800. Anyway, thanks guys, now I have to keep my eyes open for a Vivitar UW&S and a Vivitar 2011whatever.  At least they're cheap enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
A broken camera is worthless, and you didn't invest much into it. You will probably be fine if you just open the bottom plate and resolder the wire. You might want to see if you can find a repair manual to help you.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Is the Stylus Epic 115 DLX decent at all? I accidentally won it with a $1 bid and now get to pay $12 in shipping. Not really. The zoom models are probably better than [random brand]'s zoom models but they don't hold a candle to the fixed lens models.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Keep your eye out for the Schneider-Kreuznach S-Xenar version. The lenses are identical to the Tessar version but collectors find them less desirable, so they tend to go for a bit less. Wow, now that's pompous. Schneider is simply one of the best manufacturers out there, on par with Rollei or Zeiss. Unit variation is going to be much higher than per-manufacturer variation. If they're really cheaper, that's just giving away money. I have a Rollei 35S. The meter is averaging, and overall not a whole lot better than Sunny-16. The camera is scale-focus, un-ergonomic, and generally a pain to use. But when you nail focus (or stop down) and hold the camera steady, the images are great, I'd say on par with the best lenses out there. I think you really need to get to 1/125 for the lenses to really shine, below that, I seem to shake too much for them to really deliver their best (they are still excellent). I expect the Tessars/Xenars would be 95% as good at a much better price.  e: KEH has a EX S-Xenar for $189 and a Sonnar for $199, so they're not a whole lot cheaper there. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Sep 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
tuddy posted:contax t2 ektar 100 Ektar is pretty funky and I wouldn't really recommend it for cameras that have poor control of exposure. It's kind of like slide film in that it has limited exposure latitude. It gets really funny casts after about a stop mis-exposure either way. Blues turn cyan, reds become fire-engine red, everything else turns a bit more earthy (brown/red). Epson Scan's auto exposure also messes up on the blue channel highlights, so I have to manually correct all the skies unless I want them to be yellow. It's cool if you want a low-fi look or if you can get the exposure right consistently. I think it looks great along with an old Ikonta viewfinder-folder with a triplet lens I have. If you want serious-business 100 speed film buy Reala, it's way more consistent. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Oct 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
tuddy posted:its also a saturation issue, if you look at the picture of the sheep its very saturated, while the pig and cow photos are way more neutral. I liked ektar with the leica mini 3 i was shooting with, because that tended to saturate photos as is. But i guess its just not the right film for the "look" im going for with my contax. Ektar is pretty saturated to start off with and gets more saturated when you overexpose it. Reala is designed to replicate the colors you see - it's pretty saturated, sort of like a warmer Provia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
tys posted:In small town North Dakota for a week so I decided to check out the local pawn shop for any camera gems, anyone have any experience with any of these cameras? The Hi-Matic F has no exposure controls, but neither do any of the others. The battery is also hard to find. On the other hand it's probably the nicest out of those three, it's actually a decent lens and the exposures are pretty good. The other two are your basic point and shoots. I wouldn't pay more than $10-20 for any of them even if they can demo them working. Hi-Matic F warning: you need to look at the shutter blades when you test-fire the shutter. If, for example, there are no batteries in it, it will click like it's firing, but it's not. It used mercury batteries, but you can get zinc air cells to make it work. Because of the way the battery compartment is made, you probably won't be able to make the usual "wad-of-tinfoil adapter plus 675 battery" solution work. I have a Hi-Matic F sitting in a drawer but have never gotten around to getting the right batteries. I tried the tinfoil solution, I'm pretty sure I saw it fire the blades once but it wouldn't stay put in the compartment. It's sort of semi-tested. I'm trying to clean up some of my crap, so if you want it, you can have it for $5 plus actual fees/shipping. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
scottch posted:I know this isn't strictly P&S, but someone is selling a Voigtlander Vitessa L with the ULTRON lens for $180. Problem is the rangefinder is busted in some way. Feasible to get this fixed somewhere? Probably. Maybe. Depends on how it's broken. If the RF is just misaligned, you might be able to do it yourself, or it'll cost you $100 to get a professional to fix it. If it's got broken parts (somehow), you could be screwed unless you have a parts camera, manage to dig up 50s era parts, or pay someone to make a replacement for you. That doesn't sound like that great a price considering it's got a broken RF. Yeah, the Ultron is the top of the line lens, but consider the fact that you're probably going to drop minimum another $100 into it (in time or cash). Is it worth $300? I think that's about what they go for anyway, and there's no risk of a parts catastrophe. Personally I'd try to talk him down to $100 territory considering. If it's no problem to fix, he could do it himself and sell it for full price anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
scottch posted:That's what I had feared. The guy is selling a whole pile of stuff, but only has so much posted. He also had a Polaroid SprintScan 35 that I was going to pick up with a rangefinder, but it's not the 4000DPI one I thought it was, so doubtful it'll be that decent. I actually like my SprintScan 45 Ultra. It may or may not have comparable optics to the SS 35, but it actually hits its resolution specs fairly well (2500 dpi), whereas my Epson V500 is probably doing more like 1500 DPI than its specced 3200. The downside is, you need a SCSI card or SCSI->USB converter. The only SCSI card I know of that has Windows Vista/7 drivers is the Adaptec AHA-2940. The converters are about $100-150 a pop. If you manage to get SCSI working, you are treated to the joy that is VueScan. There's also no infrared cleaning. Some of the later dedicated film scanners are pretty good, but don't spend more than $50 on one unless it's something high-end. If you talk to him any more and wouldn't mind playing telephone, I'd be curious what model of Lynx and what "minature rollei" he's got and what he's asking for them. My AIM's in my profile, or my email is godemperor dot dune at gmail.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:What do y'all think of this? $150 for the lot: Nope. lovely deal. The aux lenses will have pretty poor quality, the flash is probably nothing special. Value of the lenses is probably $5, the flash is probably another $5, the bag another $5 (assuming you want them). The camera itself is worth maybe $35 if it's working properly, but there are parts that tend to fail (google "yashica gsn pad of death") so it's always a bit of a crapshoot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Rules: you must post photos of you with camera and photos taken with camera. It is a challenge! Thank you! Dame Nannypea e: I'm curious if the selenium cell is still good. You may have gotten lucky and it's been kept in a case.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
The Minolta has higher contrast/saturation but that could just be a result of a more accurate exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think the yeshica t3 only goes down to 64, what would effect would that have using a 50 film? Do it, slides own. You haven't really seen your work until you've seen it on a lightbox.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ah okay, does the Yashica T3 have manual controls that allow that? Yes, it's called the ISO knob. To underexpose ISO50 film by 1/3 stop you turn it to ISO 64.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:I was able to score a Nikon L35 yesterday and it looks like everything work appropriately as far as I can tell, this is my first entry into some kind of film camera. From the manual it say that the ASA/ISO settings go from 400-500-640 to 1000 which seems pretty awkward because it skips 800 and doesn't even go up to 1600. The manual also mentioned that ISO 1600 film could be used set at 1000, but wouldn't that over-expose the film? or is there little consequence to this. 1000 is 2/3 stop overexposure for 1600 film, it will be completely unnoticeable except maybe a slight increase in saturation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Can't wait to tote it around D.C. this weekend. If I've never really shot film before should I be bracketing to make sure I get usable exposures? Up to you. Negative film is pretty forgiving, the meter's not the best but it's acceptable. Since there's no rangefinder, I recommend bracketing focus too if possible, particularly when you're at f/2.8 to f/5.6. Make sure you take the lens cap off, and get a good grip to minimize the movements you introduce. Also make sure the rewind lever is fully down or your film won't advance properly 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
The Lynx 14e forever wrecked the GSN for me. No pad of death, fast f/1.4 lens, all-mechanical shutter, super heavy construction. The GSN isn't really much smaller anyway. But technically these are all rangefinders, not point and shoots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
dukeku posted:The problem with Wein Cells is that they're draining when you're not using them. If you're going to not use your camera/meter/whatever for more than a few days, it's in your best interest to reapply the stickers that came with the battery to stop the drain. Buy 675-size hearing aid batteries and make your own adapter, Wein cells are stupidly expensive for what they are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Don't be so hasty to condemn all the Yashica rangefinders. The Lynx/Minister series have mechanical shutters and own. They're by no means perfect, but the older ones are well built and repairable, and the lenses are decent. They also have a pretty unique option, the Lynx 14. It's got a leaf-shuttered 50/1.4 and it's built like a tank for shake dissipation. Like most of the early-ish ones it's got manual control of the meter/shutter so while the meter only goes to ISO800 you can just set whatever you want. I have an XA whose meter reads a stop fast, and I usually use that instead. They aren't quite as cheap as the GSNs, but they're still a decent value (see also: Konica Auto S2). You're supposedly able to replace the POD from the top, I think. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Have the chance to get the Pentax Zoom 70 for about €20, is it worth it? No, there are only one or two zoom P+S that are worth anything at all and they have names like Rollei and Leica.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
MediumWellDone posted:Some people cry over not having a full frame DSLR, others lament their lack of Leica. Recently I can't forget the Fuji Tiara II I accindently destroyed about a year ago. I love my FE, but tomorrow I'm getting back in the P&S game. Once upon a time I had a Olympus Stylus Epic. I sold it for a great price to fund some film and because it wasn't aperture priority. I miss that little camera 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I think there is a waterproof Minolta 110 camera if you're a masochist. Yeah, the Minolta Weathermatic 110. The 35mm is similar.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Leica actually just came out with a monochrome M9. There's no Bayer filter so it can't interpolate color. Or you can just stick a viewing filter over your lens and punch the ISO to max.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Doesn't it technically refer to having corrections or coatings to account for different wavelengths of light refracting slightly differently? It doesn't matter. (most) Black and white film is sensitive to the whole spectrum of light and all the wavelengths still need to be focused right. There are some lenses that are supposedly "better for black and white" because they are single coated instead of multicoated. About the only basis for that claim is that single coating produces slightly lower contrast, which may offset the generally higher-contrast nature of a lot of B+W films. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:Also I really don't like how this entire thread has basically turned into the "Go on ebay and buy the first ten epics you see because it's THE BESSSSSSST" but the zooms are poop so stop buying them regardless of how cheap they may be at your Goodwill and just get the non-zoom model. The Stylus Epic has the undisputed king of lenses in this category though, especially given its price. The only things that rival it are Yashica T series, some of the luxury Ricohs, and the Rollei 35, all of which are quite a bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
frogbs posted:I just found this Minox 35 GT at an antique shop for $5. Did I get a good deal? Seems to meter fine and the shutter still fires! Then yes! They're cute little cameras, but the electronics tend to crap out. If it works, they're pretty good for a tiny scale-focus camera. Nice find.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
boydx posted:These came from my first roll through my newly acquired Olympus Mju 1. Shot on some cheap Agfa 200 film. Theoretically, the Stylus and Epics are terrible cameras because you can't manually control the aperture and the program is lame (wide open until the shutter maxes out). In reality, the lens is so awesome even wide open that it just doesn't matter. Nice pictures! QPZIL's are nice as well - go somewhere interesting? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Australia, we were only federated in 1901. Before then we were a bunch of lawless colonies. Consider a Yashica GSN. There aren't as many superfast AE cameras out there. At f/2.8, there's the Olympus XA, and the wide lens and piezo shutter buy you the ability to shoot a bit slower.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Anyone seen/used on of these bad boys before? (Voigtlander Vito C Compact) I don't know that particular model but I'd bet money that it's a Minox rebadge or clone. If it performs like the Minox it's a real cute little camera that will produce high-quality results. I also think some of Voigtlander's other Vito viewfinder/rangefinder cameras are real cute.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I just found a Yashica T4 Zoom for cheap at a flea market, is there a big difference between it and the regular T4? I'm wondering if it is worth keeping or if I should try reselling it to get something nicer. It's probably better than your average point and shoot but it won't be anywhere near as good as something with a fast prime lens (the reason people buy high end P+S). I would check to see what you can get out of it first.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Agfa made a lot of really quality stuff, they're generally underappreciated. The one killer issue is whatever grease they used, which the ages have turned into a gooey green cement. They can be cleaned with some elbow grease, use a hairdryer to warm it up a bit. A few models also use extinct cartridges, such as Agfa Rapid. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
The rangefinder on the XA sucks anyway, and it's also prone to fading. Zone focusing is how you'll use it for everything except closeups (which is the one place it's really needed anyway). It goes from 3m to infinity within a tiny amount of travel due to the wide angle lens. 35mm is pretty wide, it's not really necessary to worry about precise focus anyway. Note there's a snapshot setting in red on the focus and aperture. For such a small camera the ergonomics are really amazing. I think it's one of the easiest small cameras to operate. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 00:02
|
|