[Swift1]

It's Kodacolor VR 400 Plus, though I've never heard of that and I don't think that Kodak sell it as a Kodak product any more.

Well, whatever it is, it seems to work great in my PROD-20'S
I just ordered 9 more rolls of it.

Minolta PROD-20'S
Lomography Color 400
Epson V500

[usn ret]

Canon F-1N AE, FDn 50 mm f1,4, Portra 160, shot at f8.0 aperture priority.

Guess the car!

My guess:: Lamborghini Superlleggara

TFFTR

[Jonathan Mac]

Some non-bonsai shots from the botanic garden


Fuji 400H Pentax ME Super by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


Fuji 400H Pentax ME Super by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


Fuji 400H Pentax ME Super by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr

[Cuthbert]

My guess:: Lamborghini Superlleggara

TFFTR

Mmm no, we are talking about a vintage car with some class, something that Lamborghini after the Diablo is seriously missing.

In the meantime that you guys are trying to guess the car I post a pic from the last roll taken with my LX, M 50mm f1.4, Pentax cloudy filter and Portra 160:



Is this perhaps the best Pentax setup one can get? I'm lusting for a small ME Super, but perhaps it's redundant.

[UgurUgurlu]

Canon Eos 300
Tudorcolor xlx 200

[usn ret]

Canon F-1N AE, FDn 50 mm f1,4, Portra 160, shot at f8.0 aperture priority.

Guess the car!

Ferrari 1965 212/166 Touring Burchetta Superleggera

1965 Ferrari 212/166 MM Touring Barchetta Superleggera Recreation | The Ponder Collection 2007 | RM Sotheby's


I could not let it go. I discovered the Superleggera has been used on several vehicles including a Ducatti MC and a Mini.


A great challenge. thanks for posting........ Cliff

[Cuthbert]

Ferrari 1965 212/166 Touring Burchetta Superleggera

1965 Ferrari 212/166 MM Touring Barchetta Superleggera Recreation | The Ponder Collection 2007 | RM Sotheby's


I could not let it go. I discovered the Superleggera has been used on several vehicles including a Ducatti MC and a Mini.


A great challenge. thanks for posting........ Cliff

No...BUT you are getting close.

As a matter of fact the bodywork is indeed from Touring of Milan, and it's made of duraluminium panels ("superleggera" or superlight), nevertheless the car is not a Ferrari but one of their competitors of that era.

...oh if you like the competition and the picture you can also vote a thumb up, Mr. Technical Officer!

In the meantime perhaps you guys are up for another LX shot:



This one came out very sharp.

---

Last edited by Cuthbert; 04-23-2015 at 12:58 AM.

[cooltouch]

Mmm no, we are talking about a vintage car with some class, something that Lamborghini after the Diablo is seriously missing.

Well, I googled the term and discovered that "Superleggera" is actually a body construction technology and not a particular body style from a single manufacturer. Wikipedia states:

Superleggera (translation: "super light") is an automobile coachwork construction technology developed by Felice Bianchi Anderloni of Italian coachbuilder Carrozzeria Touring. The company was located just north of Milan, near Alfa Romeo, Italian Citroën, and the former Isotta-Fraschini plant. The first superleggera bodyworks were naturally made for these companies.

My guess? An Aston Martin, probably a DB-5.

In the meantime that you guys are trying to guess the car I post a pic from the last roll taken with my LX, M 50mm f1.4, Pentax cloudy filter and Portra 160:



Is this perhaps the best Pentax setup one can get? I'm lusting for a small ME Super, but perhaps it's redundant.

For 35mm film photography, my answer is an unqualified yes with regard to the LX.

I don't know what your requirements are with regard to what you would consider to be "best." Do you feel you need a motor drive? Different metering patterns? How about interchangeable focusing screens? If so, these will pare down your choices some. I found this page, where the author has pared down Pentax's manual focus cameras down to a 10 Best list. Notable by their absence are the KX and K2, so obviously his opinions are biased toward more recent Pentax SLRs.

The "Best" Pentax Cameras

But if you're after a backup for your LX, to me the best choice would be the MX, followed closely by the KX. The MX is smaller and lighter than the LX, while the KX is bigger and heavier. The MX accepts a motor drive or a winder and interchangeable focusing screens. The KX doesn't.

[Cuthbert]

Well, I googled the term and discovered that "Superleggera" is actually a body construction technology and not a particular body style from a single manufacturer. Wikipedia states:

Superleggera (translation: "super light") is an automobile coachwork construction technology developed by Felice Bianchi Anderloni of Italian coachbuilder Carrozzeria Touring. The company was located just north of Milan, near Alfa Romeo, Italian Citroën, and the former Isotta-Fraschini plant. The first superleggera bodyworks were naturally made for these companies.

My guess? An Aston Martin, probably a DB-5.

....and the winner is...our local FD expert!



There is some kind of justice that you guessed the car I've taken the pic with my new old F-1N AE.

Other shots this pin up:





And yes it's correct, Touring used a patented process to build very light bodywork made of what at that time was called "duraluminium" (age hardened alluminium, aeronautical grade, with an high percentage of copper, hence the wings on their badge), and the result was very thin but strong enough for everyday use.

And you won...I don't know, do you want the hard copies of these shots?

For 35mm film photography, my answer is an unqualified yes with regard to the LX.

I don't know what your requirements are with regard to what you would consider to be "best." Do you feel you need a motor drive? Different metering patterns? How about interchangeable focusing screens? If so, these will pare down your choices some. I found this page, where the author has pared down Pentax's manual focus cameras down to a 10 Best list. Notable by their absence are the KX and K2, so obviously his opinions are biased toward more recent Pentax SLRs.

The "Best" Pentax Cameras

But if you're after a backup for your LX, to me the best choice would be the MX, followed closely by the KX. The MX is smaller and lighter than the LX, while the KX is bigger and heavier. The MX accepts a motor drive or a winder and interchangeable focusing screens. The KX doesn't.

Cooltouch the problem is..that already have ALL these cameras! Besides the fact that I greatly prefer the K2DMD/K2 to the MX and KX (it also feels more "high quality" than the LX when I handle it) the last in the list appeared to be the ME Super, possibly black.

On the other side I can spend my cash in something more different like a T90 or a Eos 1 (today they sell for dirty cheap)...bah! I'm conflicted, the ME Super is a nice small camera, probably better than the A-1.

[cooltouch]

Oh, such a problem you have! Heh. I guess if I were in your shoes, since you mentioned the EOS 1, I'd probably get a 1v, which just about any film EOS user will tell you is the absolute best camera that Canon ever made. I've never even held one. But it must be good when you have such unconditional praise for it. Just last week I started a thread over at photo.net, asking which film EOS camera they would buy. I was asking this because I was trying to decide between an EOS 3 and a 7NE (30V overseas), but most of the responses I got were squarely for the 1v, and those folks praised that camera. So, if you want the best EOS, get a 1v, not a 1 or a 1n. The T90 is a great camera, but as you say, they sell for cheap, so you can just add one to your FD collection. That's what I did.

As for your preference for the K2, I know what you're talking about. My K2 just has a different feel to it than my other K cameras do. And I imaging a K2DMD would feel even better. You know, build quality was probably a bit better in the 70s than the 80s, and that might be what you're experiencing with the K2DMD vs. the LX. One thing I recall about the LX that kinda looked cheap, I thought -- the shutter speed dial looks plastic and it has raised -- embossed -- numbers for the shutter speeds. I've always thought that this would be a point of excessive wear because of the embossing -- first the paint would go and then the numbers would wear down, and the result would be an ugly looking dial. Now, I dunno if this ever happens with the LX, I'm just going by what I recall about the one I owned briefly about 25 years ago. But I still don't understand the reason for Pentax using a dial like that. I mean nobody else that I can think of has ever used a dial like that. But everything else about the LX I found to be very high quality. Mine had the winder, which was a very nice addition, and gave it even more class, I thought. But I was in love with the way I could meter an extremely dim scene and the exposure would come out right on the money. It was a very impressive camera and I guess I was able to overlook the odd dial.

As for my prize, eh -- send me original size jpgs of the DB-5. I won't do anything commercial with them, they'll go into my personal collection. You can probably attach them in a PM? That is quite a classy looking car. Do you know who owns it? Have you gotten to drive it, or at least gotten a ride in it, and if so, how was the experience?

[Cuthbert]

ging a K2DMD would feel even better. You know, build quality was probably a bit better in the 70s than the 80s, and that might be what you're experiencing with the K2DMD vs. the LX. One thing I recall about the LX that kinda looked cheap, I thought -- the shutter speed dial looks plastic and it has raised --

ever happens with the LX, I'm just going by what I recall about the one I owned briefly about 25 years ago. But I still don't understand the reason for Pentax using a dial like that. I mean nobody else that I can think of has ever used a dial like that. But everything else about the LX I found to be very high quality. Mine had the winder, which was a very nice addition, and gave it even more class, I thought. But I was in love with the way I could meter an extremely dim scene and the exposure would come out right on the money. It was a very impressive camera and I guess I was able to overlook the odd dial.

oking dial. Now, I dunno if this ever happens with the LX, I'm just going by what I recall about the one I owned briefly about 25 years ago. But I still don't understand the reason for Pentax using a dial like that. I mean nobody else that I can think of has ever used a dial like that. But everything else about the LX I found to be very high quality. Mine had the winder, which was a very nice addition, and gave it even more class, I thought. But I was in love with the way I could meter an extremely dim scene and the exposure would come out right on the money. It was a very impressive camera and I guess I was able to overlook the odd dial.

dial. Now, I dunno if this ever happens with the LX, I'm just going by what I recall about the one I owned briefly about 25 years ago. But I still don't understand the reason for Pentax using a dial like that. I mean nobody else that I can think of has ever used a dial like that. But everything else about the LX I found to be very high quality. Mine had the winder, which was a very nice addition, and gave it even more class, I thought. But I was in love with the way I could meter an extremely dim scene and the exposure would come out right on the money. It was a very impressive camera and I guess I was able to overlook the odd dial.

with the way I could meter an extremely dim scene and the exposure would come out right on the money. It was a very impressive camera and I guess I was able to overlook the odd dial.

As for my prize, eh -- send me original size jpgs of the DB-5. I won't do anything commercial with them, they'll go into my personal collection. You can probably attach them in a PM? That is quite a classy looking car. Do you know who owns it? Have you gotten to drive it, or at least gotten a ride in it, and if so, how was the experience?

Ah ah ah! This is becoming the gear p0rn thread for Canons! We would be needing a nice Canon board like this one with all the good people it would be great...however for the LX, yes the dial is plastic as well as other components of that camera, I assume they did that to make it lighter, no cheaper. It was the same time they introduced the M lenses for the same reason and when you carry a LX with an M50mm f1.4 you immediately feel the difference in comparison with an F-1 with FD 50mm f1.4, the LX is as small as a Nikon FM but as capable as the big F3.

But still, we are in the pic thread, so let's see other film pics. The same day I found this nice E type:



III series, V12:



Nice conditions, isn't it?



Then I got close and saw THIS:

[UgurUgurlu]

Canon Eos 300
Tamron 70-200
Kodak Portra 160

[cooltouch]

Heh, that note in the window made me laugh. Here in the US we have a saying about Jags. You can't own one, you have to own two, so you can drive one, while the other one is in the shop! But that was the old Jag and not the new one.

At close to the top of my dream list for cars is a '74 E-type red convertible with the V12 engine. That coupe almost makes it. But I've never really cared all that much for the coupes.

I used to own a Jensen Healey and a very rare Jensen GT (they made 512 of them, as I recall). They were both very fun cars to drive and the upkeep wasn't too bad. Here's the only photo I have handy of either one, the GT:

Canon F-1n, Vivitar S1 28-90, Kodachrome 64


As for Canon, over at Photo.net there's the Canon FD board, but it's not very active except for folks posting images. Which isn't bad, I guess. I don't know of any other Canon FD forum, though.

[stevebrot]

Heh, that note in the window made me laugh. Here in the US we have a saying about Jags. You can't own one, you have to own two, so you can drive one, while the other one is in the shop! But that was the old Jag and not the new one.

At close to the top of my dream list for cars is a '74 E-type red convertible with the V12 engine. That coupe almost makes it. But I've never really cared all that much for the coupes.

I used to own a Jensen Healey and a very rare Jensen GT (they made 512 of them, as I recall). They were both very fun cars to drive and the upkeep wasn't too bad. Here's the only photo I have handy of either one, the GT:

Canon F-1n, Vivitar S1 28-90, Kodachrome 64


As for Canon, over at Photo.net there's the Canon FD board, but it's not very active except for folks posting images. Which isn't bad, I guess. I don't know of any other Canon FD forum, though.

I came close to buying a Jensen a couple of times and wish I had of


Steve

[gofour3]

A couple from UBC. (67 & 55/4 shooting Provia 400x)





Phil.