|
alkanphel posted:I played with a P67 once, I managed to short out all the batteries I put into the prism within seconds. That was pretty dumb of me. That sounds like the problem right there. You don't put the batteries into the prism.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Ganked from the old thread, the various backs that come on LF cameras:quote:One other complexity of large format is the back. The standard Graphic back was initially intended only to hold film holders - you focus on the panel, slide in the holder, and shoot. However, accessories like Polaroid backs and rollfilm (120) holders eventually came out and these typically cannot fit behind the ground glass. These need a removable panel, which is called the Graflok (or International-) type back. These can be distinguished by the sliding latches at top and bottom. This is a real nice feature but not strictly necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Is the Hasselblad V-series mount physically the same as the earlier 1000F/1600F mount? Kinda sounds like it from this. Someone has started making reproductions of the Kilfitt WEHE adapter that goes to a Hasselblad F bayonet mount for a reasonable price, so I'm gonna give my Macro-Kilar a shot. I'm pretty confused on the mounts for these. I was under the strong impression that both the Hasselblad 1000F and the V-series used a bayonet mount and that the Kiev 88 was a direct copy. But this says it has a screw mount similar to the original Hasselblad mount. But this guide says you should be able to mount Hasselblad F lenses on a Kiev 88, and this adapter claiming 1000F compatibility sure looks like it accepts a bayonet mount to me. This is what I've got. I think I can use any random adapter for Hasselblad mount, and I should also be able to use it on a Kiev 88, correct? 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
A heads-up about Alpenhause Camera/Steven Icanberry. I sent him an email that amounted to "can you fit a Super Angulon 90mm f/8 in your cameras", since he can apparently fit something as large as a 150mm plasmat type. The answer is no but he apparently considers asking him anything at all to be the equivalent of agreeing to purchase a camera. He wouldn't take the hint and since I told him that I wasn't interested at present he's become increasingly hostile. Every couple weeks I get a random email that's something like "you're a jerkoff". Apparently the guy is something of a weirdo. He's had quite a a few complaints about him in the past on other forums (including some for non-delivery - and he insists on only being paid by money order and other non-returnable forms of payment), and he's pretty good at manipulating people to take down complaints about him. He basically seems to provoke a fight which gets the moderators flooded with reports until they lock the thread. LFF has a "no commentary" policy on seller advisories (literally nothing but the exact communications that occurred between you and the seller) and he's apparently rules-lawyered this to get the complaints taken down after he pitches his fit. I guess his handiwork is probably fine but I would have serious reservations about transacting with him at this point. It's not the end of the world to set him on my blocklist, but I guess I should have taken the whole crazy "don't email me if you're not going to buy a camera" rant on his website a little more seriously. 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
I would guess that the most likely format is 3.25x4.25 sheet film. Nitrocellulose negatives aren't super dangerous unless you're storing a pile of them in one place but you probably do want to be careful how you store them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Quarter-plate film would be approximately that size (3-1/4" x 4-1/4"). I think sheet film was out of popular usage by '39, but quarter-plate would have been the most common size by far. I couldn't look at the pictures on my phone. I think the film might be bowing upwards a bit. Hard to tell. The notch is a good point (although I have no idea if film of that vintage was notched). 118 rollfilm is a reasonable guess too. As for scanning it, the ghetto way would be to take an evenly illuminated white backdrop and snap a picture of it with a camera with a macro lens (cellphone if you don't have one). Do it as straight-on as possible so that the entire thing is in focus. Then you invert the colors and play with the luminosity curve. Like so.  The next step up would be putting them in a flatbed. But you'd need something like a V700 to get that much bed size, and I don't know whether the standard holder fits 3x4. In theory you should be able to go crosswise on a 4x5 holder though. I don't see much value to putting it on a better scanner or getting it done commercially or whatever. The negative is probably from either a box camera or a low-end folding camera and there won't be much resolution there. As mentioned the intention at the time was for you to contact print the negatives, they weren't designed for tons of enlargement. They might be OK if they came out of a higher-end camera with a Rapid Rectilinear, Cooke Triplet, or a Tessar, but those were high-end cameras than most people could have afforded. Just from looking at the negative I don't see *tons* of resolution there but it's hard to tell from a random cellphone snap. I guess I don't really have a comment on nitrocellulose negatives, I've never handled them before, but maybe like a lockbox or other metal container that's well away from anything flammable. Be very careful around flames, when nitrocellulose goes it goes like crazy. Your negatives will be gone in probably 5 seconds and IIRC it gives off toxic fumes as it burns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Ot1W-yiaE
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:And that's after he already said that he can't mount the lens you wanted? Was he expecting to talk you into something else? New message from Steven Icanberry/Alpenhause!  quote:You know what? You have got to be one of the most Jacked-Of S.O.B.'s Cock Sucking loving Piles of poo poo Too loving Cheap to answer a loving message!! Go Jack Someone else The gently caress Off!! Fillthy Shitbag!!! gently caress YOU!!! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:pentaxs.com Eric Hendrickson, aka "The Pentax Whisperer"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:The lower speeds on my Mat 124G suddenly started sticking, as in the shutter doesn't shut again after the exposure time elapsed. Really no, get it professionally cleaned. Mark Hama is the Yashica Whisperer. Maybe have an aftermarket focus screen swapped in while you do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
SFP is kickstarting a 5x7 version of their tank. $97 for one tank, $177 for two.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Also if you are looking for a smaller-bodied MF camera but you aren't specifically stuck on a TLR, check out folding rangefinders like the Super Ikonta or the Moskva (which was the Soviet copy of the Super Ikonta). They are fairly cheap these days but the Ikontas were well made (not so much the Moskvas) so they are probably still working. Maybe you'll need to cover up worn seams on the bellows with some liquid latex but that's likely to be all that's wrong with them. I really like my GS645 but my first one had a weird shutter problem (it would trip when closing the shutter, and then become "desynced" and refuse to wind back up properly). KEH had a terrible time trying to get parts and eventually just offered me a different unit. The original bellows were known to develop pinholes pretty badly too. I realize that's not a glowing endorsement, but now that I have one that works it's really nice, and you can't beat a multicoated Planar type lens with a CdS light meter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Every time someone posts something from a Pentax 6x7 I really want one. I got the chance to hold one today and wow it's big, I knew it was big but gently caress is it hella big. Kind of tempered that want a little bit. hey baby, it's not about the size, it's about how you handle it.  but seriously it's by far one of the best buys in medium format value, it's a crazy good system whose quality is really only equalled by hasselblad, mamiya RZ/RB, and Mamiya 7 and it destroys all those systems in overall versatility and price. If I could keep one camera system forever it might be Nikon F but it also might be Pentax 6x7, it's that good and the quality of the lenses and the negative size owns. If you want "a 35mm SLR but bigger and better" then this is your camera. I do recommend you buy the wood handle grip though, I think it helps the handling immensely. OTHERS DISAGREE HOWEVER (but don't worry they're wrong, buy the grip) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
also if you think the P67 is big, then wait until you see a Fuji G690/GW690/etc in person. I saw one a couple years ago and goddamn "gulliver's leica" is no joke, that thing is like a foot wide and like 8" deep edit: I love my Fuji gear though so don't think I'm hating double edit: p67 with some common size references:  as someone who now owns a Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar: man I wish I hadn't sold that Yashica D, but I was poor and in college and needed to buy more cameras. I don't regret selling that carpet though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Every time someone posts something from a Pentax 6x7 I really want one. I got the chance to hold one today and wow it's big, I knew it was big but gently caress is it hella big. Kind of tempered that want a little bit. seriously though it's not supposed to feel good when you suddenly realize what you're missing. the p67 is a top-shelf professional camera that you can be shooting right now for $500 with a lens. You can't even buy a Hasselblad kit for half that price anymore. gently caress, you can't even shoot a Mamiya 645 with an 80/1.9 for that nowadays. literally all of my film camera gear has appreciated +100% in the last 6 years. It probably won't happen again, but I have faith in my MF gear and most of all my P67 gear based on quality. I've sampled pretty much everything that is out there and the P67 is on the top shelf. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Sure you can http://www.ebay.com/itm/HASSELBLAD-500-EL-M-BLACK-WITH-9V-BATTERY-ADAPTER-/201759905363?hash=item2ef9d3d653:g:Ff8AAOSw44BYDtM7 That's a body, no lens, how much does the kit cost?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:$85 Viewfinder http://www.ebay.com/itm/HASSELBLAD-...EQAAOSwMgdXx1t2 That's not a viewfinder, that's a 150mm lens. I guess it's OK if you want a 100mm-equivalent lens tho.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:The P67 is a really unergonomic camera, ironically it's worse with the grip since that's the side you're focusing/adjusting shutter speed with so you can never really use it. The base of the camera is full of square edges and it's heavy obviously. The eye-level prisms on the 67 are super heavy because glass etc. Pro tip: they obviously didn't give you a giant wooden handgrip so you could jerk off with that hand instead of holding the weight of the 10 pound camera it's attached to. On a 35mm camera you hold with your left (or right: personal choice), focus with your left (edit: really you can also focus with your right index on most lenses), and shoot with your right. On the P67 it's too big to do that, so you hold the camera with the grip on your left, and both focus and shoot with your right. If you learned to focus 35mm SLRs with your right, well, you are poo poo out of luck, you get to relearn that. There are focus rings that attach to the lenses that help you to reach with your right hand if you have tiny baby hands or don't want to reach off the shutter. All medium format SLRs are heavy as gently caress, that just goes with the territory. It's a matter of degrees but the P67 is vastly better for handheld shooting than, say, the Mamiya 6x7 SLRs. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:If the shutter speed adjustment was on the right I'd agree but you have to take your hand off the grip to adjust this on the left side. I basically shoot with a tripod no matter what anyways. Yeah, the trick is you just shoot "shutter priority". You set it to something reasonable for your lens (bearing in mind that things can get funky below 1/60th), and you carry it around like that. Then when you see a shot you just zero the meter using the aperture, or if your scene isn't at neutral grey overall (for an averaging meter) you tweak the exposure comp or just aim the meter a little above or below neutral. If you have a second to frame your shot/etc you can also just take your hand off the shutter release and dial in whatever shutter speed adjustment you need. It's really not like reaching over for a second to tweak the dial is a big deal in comparison to being able to effortlessly hold a 10 pound camera. That's always how it works: you can either be Henri Cartier-Bresson and compensate your exposure with your print, or you can get the good exposure and settle for it taking maybe 1/4 second to set up. Welcome to manual SLRs. If you don't like it, buy a P67ii and an AE pentaprism, that way you can blame autoexposure when your negatives don't turn out like you imagined they would. edit: Also as someone with big hands, the shutter speed adjustment is actually within reach of my left hand even when it's on the grip, I just shift weight to my right hand for a sec and lean my thumb over a bit. I really think you may just have tiny trump hands. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:8x10s Not gonna lie, I love this shot from the last thread, perfect tribute to this video: 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Eh I use the aperture for ~creative control~ of the image. Like I said a tripod solves all these issues. I do love the camera and I'm not complaining about it. I wear the largest stocked size gloves at my work so I don't think it's a hand size thing. I'll usually frame and set aperture depending on what DoF I want, then dial in the shutter speed. If you can't look at a scene and have some conceptual idea of what aperture you might like to shoot that scene at, maybe you aren't ready to shoot medium format yet. Full disclosure: it's a buck a frame, developed cost. Also, if a half stop either way on the aperture would kill your ~creative control~, and you are unable to adapt to this with your technical expertise on how to work a camera: you need a shutter priority camera, and also to not be shooting medium format yet. The P67 is not any more complex than a K1000. That's the 35mm comparison: it's a big K1000 that shoots 6x7 negatives, and that's a camera that literally every photo student has shot for the last 40 years. But not everyone is cracked up to shoot a K1000, even as simple as that is. Some people need program modes to do everything for them. But you're not going to fool anyone in this thread by pretending a K1000 is some complex monster. It's got a meter built in, that makes it easier than 95% of the medium format cameras on the market. (double extra pro-tip: learn sunny-16 and you can predict the exposures you're going to take even without picking up a meter, and then you have a free second to tweak the shutter speed dial, because it's literally just "that's a shady area under a tree", "that's a beach", etc) Again, I don't want to encourage anyone to not do medium format, it's easy, literally as easy as 35mm, that's the point here. Go ahead and buy The Big K1000 (tm), or a TLR, or whatever. "It's Easy Enough Your Conservative Dad Figured It Out 50 Years Ago". And he didn't even have the Internet to help. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Not really sure what you're talking about? Nobody is saying it's hard to use. All I'm saying is that I agree with the popular opinion that the handle isn't that great. Then maybe don't make a bunch of excuses about how the P67 doesn't give you ~creative control~, as you put it? It's an SLR camera, if you can't control it that's your problem. Handle or no. It's a camera that pros have been using for longer than you've been alive. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Pentax 67 handle sucks rear end, it'd be nice if they made one with a shutter release on it. "Shutter priority" is a lovely way to shoot. signed, with love, someone who has no idea what shutter speed or aperture they might want to shoot apparently
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
akadajet posted:i love my pentax 67 the P.E.N.T.A.X. 67 thread: I love my camera, that ain't oil (you use graphite you filthy plebs) ryangs posted:A Pentax 6x7 seems more in keeping with my current all-manual tradition. I would want a 55mm lens to feel equivalent to 28mm in 35, right? You more or less divide the focal length by 2 to get an equivalent 35mm focal length, so that's the closest option, but it's still not a totally perfect comparison because the 6x7 format is more square than the 35mm format. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Most folders except the Ikontas have some problems with standard rigidity/straightness, and pretty much all of them have some issues with vacuum from opening the camera pulling the film out of the film plane, right? I'm looking at the Konica Pearl line.Sauer posted:If you have a decent smart phone use it as a light meter. My favorite light meter is the Olympus XA. It even comes with a miniature rangefinder camera inside.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:State Theatre, Kosice. Moskva 5, 6x9. Fomapan 200. You should wet print that one. It's super sharp and with split-filter printing you could control your tonality super precisely. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
sildargod posted:Our wedding season is starting to pick up a little and I'd like to get a medium format setup to complement my kit. One of the few downsides to the P67 is the lack of backs. You can't switch mid-roll and you can't insta-reload by popping on a fresh back, so when shooting a wedding you will have to be very aware of your film and how many shots you have left. Everyone used cameras with backs to shoot weddings, and the handful of people who used a P67 almost certainly would have had two complete bodies for the same reason (and an assistant to load them). You say "complement" your kit, which is fine, just do consider the practicalities of wedding photography. Also if you are shooting anywhere that needs flash you are in the wrong system, you want a leaf-shutter camera like a Hasselblad, Bronica GS-1, or Koni-Omega.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Anyone here used the Pentax 67 75/2.8 AL? I pretty much expect that it does what it says on the tin, like most of that series. Sharp and fast with maybe some additional distortion. Conceptually that would be a good single-lens kit, a little wider than the 90 and probably sharper wide open. It's just expensive as all hell.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:I've got some 120 Rollei IR 400 film and went to shoot it yesterday in my pinhole cam but couldnt find a solid answer on the filter factor of my R72 filter... some say 5 others say 16? I would guess 16 ~= 2^5, i.e one is measured in Exposure Factor and one is measured in Stops Compensated. 2^5 actually equals 32 though, 16 may be reciprocity compensation for some generic film stock. It would not surprise me if Rollei IR had similar reciprocity to Tri-X after taking into account its significantly lower IR ISO than visible ISO (IIRC at IR you shoot at ISO 25 or so). Both are traditional-grain films iirc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Nov 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:^What would you say is the all-in cost of getting the equipment and enough supplies to dev 5-10 rolls?
I recommend mixing all chemicals with distilled water just so there's no issues with hard water/etc. Washing can be done with tap water, and if you get into it a column washer and a rotary base are really nice to have. Chemicals do go bad over time once they're mixed or exposed to air (one of the nice things about Rodinal is that it's a 1-shot - you dump it when you're done). You should dispose of the fixer properly when it's exhausted (try a local camera store). You can save a bit on the tank/reels by buying used, but make sure you get the kind of film reels with wide flanges to help keep the film from buckling.. The narrow-flange kind are a pain in the rear end. Some people prefer the metal tanks/reels, it's just different. Good:  Bad:  (they're so small you can hardly see them, but the flanges are at the 7:00 position, just little triangular nubs) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'd also like to note that the Arista Premium reels are compatible with Paterson tanks and cores, so you can get both reels that don't suck and a tank that develops more than one roll of 120. I have something similar to the Arista tanks and it's never been an issue, even with fast developers.  Another nice thing about Rodinal is that if you use it highly dilute (eg 1:100) then since your dev times are 1h+ the fill/drain times don't really matter. Also, with the really big tanks, a lot of people fill the tank and then just dunk the column and put the lid on, rather than pouring to fill it, simply because pour times get excessive. Wild EEPROM posted:Yeah never buy the standard 2x35 Patterson tank always buy the bigger one. Yeah, if you are doing MF or LF then you want a 3x35. Otherwise you are doing 1x120 at a time, which sucks for doing large batches, and you can't fit Mod54 reels at all. Not strictly necessary for getting started though, and the official Paterson stuff is pretty expensive iirc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
girl pants posted:Does anybody here use really cheap toy medium format cameras (e.g. Holga, Diana)? What are the results like? results are typically poor for the given format, that's why they call them "toy cameras". You'd be doing well to get 35mm quality out of a 6x4.5 toy camera... but that's not why you buy them. I always had fun with a Ikonta 521/16 with a f/3.5 Novar Anistigmat (fast triplet) and something like Ektar that responds poorly to mis-exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
girl pants posted:I wouldn't want to spend more than like... Maybe $3-500. Closer to $300 if possible. Yeah, you're well into entry-level interchangeable-lens systems or midrange fixed-lens cameras at that point. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mamiya-M645-Kit-with-Prism-Finder-80MM-F2-8-C-120-Film-Insert-EC/273118322047 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Yashica-Mat-124-G-Twinlens-Camera-2-1-4-film-camera-Excellent-Cond/173237483560 https://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-Minolta-AUTOCORD-TLR-Camera-w-Rokkor-75mm-f3-5-from-Japan262137/132549748870 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Super-Ikonta-532-16-6X6-camera-with-80mm-f-2-8-Tessar-EXC/263564827795 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fuji-Fujica-GW690-Professional-90mm-f-3-5-Counter-159-from-JAPAN-T109-Exc/292498080453 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Koni-Omega-Rapid-M-with-Konica-Hexanon-90MM-F3-5-Lens-in-GWO/312090418774 Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Rot posted:- it's comically huge and a bit awkward to handle but I'll get used to it This. It's often hard to get a sense of scale online, but "comically huge" is the only way to describe it. It's 7.75"x4.75"x4.75... the body is roughly the size of a small cutting board. It's hilarious in person. Random image off the internet: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Old lenses really make you appreciate multi-coating. I never even worry about flaring on my Pentax stuff unless I'm doing something totally idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
I often see people that have front filters on expensive LF lenses to protect them, but I never see anyone using rear filters. Is there an optical reason that using filters on both ends would hurt something? Is it angle of projection? If so, would a step-up ring help fix that? Or is it just that the front is exposed while the rear rides inside the body (on press cameras at least)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:What do you guys use for negative storage? there are 8x10-ish pages with 4 negatives per page, which is easier if you shoot other formats too, since 8x10 is a standard size for negative pages (due to it being easy to contact print, 4 per page) eg https://www.printfile.com/45-4hb-pol_100.aspx and https://smile.amazon.com/Beseler-Archival-Safe-T-3-Ring-Binder/dp/B003YM0N3A or https://smile.amazon.com/Vue-All-Archival-Safe-T-Binder-Rings-Black/dp/B0009E6LFA Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:consider why a thumbprint on the back of your lens is significantly worse for image quality than a thumbprint on the front ok but why is a thumbprint/scratch/etc on a filter on the rear of the lens worse than a thumbprint on the back element itself. It's a bit closer to the film plane but it's a problem either way and if it happens wouldn't it be better to happen to a (replaceable) filter than an expensive lens? another dumb question: do (non-telephoto) lenses vary enough in true focal length (nodal length) to make rangefinder cams inaccurate unless matched to the specific lens formula, or does it not really matter unless it's really off (eg a telephoto lens)? I have a nice top-rangefinder Crown Graphic and a small selection of cams (I have ebay watchlists out but they are HARD to come by) but I'm not sure how delicate the focus is when using the rangefinder. Is a plasmat going to have the same focus curve as a tessar and so on? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
We're dancing around the issue. Is dispersion (diffraction?) from a rear filter that bad then? even with a high-grade coated glass filter like say a B+W or heliopan? Let's say it's meticulously clean. Or otherwise what is the specific optical problem from introducing another glass flat? OK so it's not sufficient to just adjust the rear stop distance, for maximum accuracy you'd have to grind a new cam? drat, that's a loving pain, and a potential market niche if someone could fill it with precision die-cut steel parts for various lenses. I knew about grinding your own cams, I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. what about planars? I have always dreamed of loving around with one of the late-model 135mm planars. Planars are also mainly my curiosity from the filter thing... with a $1700 lens I would feel bad scratching it up. Same with a nice triple telephoto setup. I mean, it's probably accurate enough for the most part for rangefinder shooting, right? Especially on wider lenses like a 135 or a 90mm? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
ansel autisms posted:are you exposing the rear element of your lenses to the sand constantly? is this an intellectual curiosity or a functional one? mostly intellectual curiosity, the "if I bought a nice lens set what would be the best way to protect it so it didn't get trashed" thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 04:54
|
|