[Kiwi645hauler]

First of all, I envy you.

Second, I have so far used Lomo's standard (no-funky-colour) 100, 400 and 800 ASA and found it performs as well as any other colour print film, and also their B&W Earl Grey and Lady Grey (both of which I've home-developed as if they were the T-max of the same speed, which I'm told they are, with OK results). I was thinking of trying some of their ultra-slow 6 ASA tungsten film, but I would need the mother of all tungsten-daylight converter filters (I think I have one, actually; must check) and it would probably bring it down to 3 or 2 or something even more horrible. That will be one for my S1a when it comes back from its CLA/refurb; calculate the Sunny 16 exposures and tape them to the back of the camera... (Let's see; f/16 at 1/4, say, is f/11 at 1/8; f/8 at 1/15; f/5.6 at 1/30; f/4 at 1/60; f/2.8 at 1/125, f/2.0 at 1/250. So... usable wide open on a bright sunny day. Now take another TWO stops off for the dense orange filter I will need, and we're talking f/2.0 at 1/60; on a sunny day, the 55/2.0 kit lens will only just work hand-held.).

The Lomo color rolls are pretty darn sweet,
This is the Lomo 100 from my 6x6 camera it scans up real nice. I have some images somewhere from the Tiger 110 color film, and im waiting on the 110 X-Pro/Peacock E-6 slide film to come back from the lab.

[LesDMess]

My browser is telling me that your link is broken. This might or might not be my work firewall, but you may want to look into it anyway.

There was an extra "http://" in the beginning. Here is the corrected version link -> Opemus_als_scanner - elvinshoot - fotografie van Elvin Haak

[pathdoc]

The Lomo color rolls are pretty darn sweet,

So is that Mustang.

I must admit to a soft spot for the Spitfire, but there's no doubt that the Mustang with the same basic engine has the edge in every respect. The two-stage 60-series (and subsequent) Merlin rescued the P-51 from oblivion and made it one of the greatest fighters of WW2, but it was almost inevitable that they come together since North American had designed the aircraft to a British requirement in the first place. Only the late-model Spits with the 2000hp Griffon ever beat it in straight-line speed, and even then the Mustang ruled at low level and the P-51H outstripped them all. (Then again, the Spitfire design was five years older at a time when five years made a lot of difference.)

[Cuthbert]

The Lomo color rolls are pretty darn sweet, Attachment 320399
This is the Lomo 100 from my 6x6 camera it scans up real nice. I have some images somewhere from the Tiger 110 color film, and im waiting on the 110 X-Pro/Peacock E-6 slide film to come back from the lab.

Looks familiar:



I took this with my LX.

[stevebrot]

What is it with everyone in this forum? Do you all have mitts the size of Chewbacca's? Every time I see pics of people holding up their Spotties or K-series bodies, the size of them relative to the hand makes them appear almost MX-sized to me!!

Perhaps not Chewbacca-sized, but many of us do seem to have large hands. Here is a selfie with my not-very-petite Mamiya 1000 DTL...



I suppose I could do one with my Olympus XA


Steve

[Cuthbert]

So is that Mustang.

I must admit to a soft spot for the Spitfire, but there's no doubt that the Mustang with the same basic engine has the edge in every respect. The two-stage 60-series (and subsequent) Merlin rescued the P-51 from oblivion and made it one of the greatest fighters of WW2, but it was almost inevitable that they come together since North American had designed the aircraft to a British requirement in the first place. Only the late-model Spits with the 2000hp Griffon ever beat it in straight-line speed, and even then the Mustang ruled at low level and the P-51H outstripped them all. (Then again, the Spitfire design was five years older at a time when five years made a lot of difference.)

I personally think there was little difference between a Spitfire XVI and a 51D, besides the fact that one was designed as a short range interceptor and the other as an escort fighter.

The best low altitude fighter of WWII anyway was this guy:



Probably the best performed piston propelled fighter was this guy:



(the way it took altitude after take off was almost jet like, I was impressed)

Also this one, while not the best one in circulation was the backbone of the Allies until 1943 and deserves respect:



All pics taken with my LX and the A35-210mm, unfortunately I don't have a Pentax 300mm...

What is it with everyone in this forum? Do you all have mitts the size of Chewbacca's? Every time I see pics of people holding up their Spotties or K-series bodies, the size of them relative to the hand makes them appear almost MX-sized to me!!

C'mon let's the be serious! My hands are normal, even on the short side:

[cooltouch]

So is that Mustang.

I must admit to a soft spot for the Spitfire, but there's no doubt that the Mustang with the same basic engine has the edge in every respect. The two-stage 60-series (and subsequent) Merlin rescued the P-51 from oblivion and made it one of the greatest fighters of WW2, but it was almost inevitable that they come together since North American had designed the aircraft to a British requirement in the first place. Only the late-model Spits with the 2000hp Griffon ever beat it in straight-line speed, and even then the Mustang ruled at low level and the P-51H outstripped them all. (Then again, the Spitfire design was five years older at a time when five years made a lot of difference.)

Much has been said and written about the P-51's wing -- its "laminar flow airfoil" which was supposedly responsible for its superior performance (the amazing Merlin power plant notwithstanding). Here's a quite technical article on the topic. Its conclusion is the laminar flow wing was only partly responsible for the P-51's performance, and that, to a much greater degree, its clean lines were the real reason. Can't argue that. Here it is, over 70 years later and I think it is still one of the prettiest airplanes that has ever flown.

ABL

The P-51 photo below was taken way back in 1984 with a Canon A-1 and a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 varifocal zoom -- still one of the best wide to short tele zooms ever. Film was Kodachrome 64.

Steve, with claws like that, you should play piano! I don't think of myself as having large hands, but whenever I try on gloves, I have to get XL and sometimes even XXL to fit my hands. Probably because my hands are on the pudgy side, though. Pardon the Canon.

To me, KX-sized cameras feel just about right. I first started shooting with cameras that were a bit smaller -- A-series Canons -- but within a year or so, I'd bought a Canon FTb, which is basically the same size as the KX. And ever since, this larger format has been my preference. Canon F-1, Nikon F2, Pentax KX/KM/K2. Even with motor drives attached, as with the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 -- even Pentax LX, which is more compact, but still has a fair amount of heft with the LX Winder attached -- I don't really mind the additional bulk or weight.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by cooltouch; 08-02-2016 at 05:43 PM.

[arnold]

The P-51 photo below was taken way back in 1984 with a Canon A-1 and a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 varifocal zoom -- still one of the best wide to short tele zooms ever. Film was Kodachrome 64.

Wow, a classic picture. Lovely.

[cooltouch]

Thanks. It's one of my all time favorites. I have a "twin" of sorts, that goes with it like bookends. It was a shot of an F4U Corsair that I took within minutes of the shot of the P-51. Can't resist sharing.

[arnold]

Thanks. It's one of my all time favorites. I have a "twin" of sorts, that goes with it like bookends. It was a shot of an F4U Corsair that I took within minutes of the shot of the P-51. Can't resist sharing.

Very nice. Wonder how it would look if you lightened the shadows a bit.

[Cuthbert]

Much has been said and written about the P-51's wing -- its "laminar flow airfoil" which was supposedly responsible for its superior performance (the amazing Merlin power plant notwithstanding). Here's a quite technical article on the topic. Its conclusion is the laminar flow wing was only partly responsible for the P-51's performance, and that, to a much greater degree, its clean lines were the real reason. Can't argue that. Here it is, over 70 years later and I think it is still one of the prettiest airplanes that has ever flown.

Mechanical engineer mode on:

The laminar flow airfoil is an aerodynamic profile where the maximum thickness is moved backward in order to try to get as much laminar flow as possible on the wing:



This didn't ensure a superior performance in comparison for instance to a Spitfire with the same powerplant, but much better fuel economy especially at cruise speed.That, along with the big 240 lt tank positioned behind the pilot gave the plane a much better combat range that allowed the fighter to escort the bombers in Germany or Japan, before the arrival of the P51B the USAAF used the Spitfire, the P47 and the P38, the first two didn't have the range to escort the B17s after the German frontier and that was the reason of the heavy losses of the 8th Air Force in 1943. The P38 had range but it was plagued by turbochargers problems in the European winter time (it made its name on the Pacific theatre). At that time the P40 was already deemed surpassed by the German fighters of the Luftwaffe and the P39 had a bad reputation plus very poor performance at high altitude.

That was in a nutshell, the reason why the P51 was a game changer.

However, I also found this pic of a Spit IX with the markings of the 303th Polish Squadron (I think):

[Kiwi645hauler]

Here is an Oldie out of my collection too.. Taken with a Minolta Riva AF35 compact... 1994 Warbirds over Wanaka and Mark Hanna exiting The Alpine Fighter Collections then new Mk XIV spitfire, this is the aircraft that nearly 2 years Tim Wallis had his accident in and nearly claimed his life

[pathdoc]

Oh absolutely the Mustang had a cleaner airframe - the entirety of the lines everywhere contributed to its performance. I have seen graphs for high-altitude fighter variants of the Spitfire which argue for up to 420mph at full throttle height - sort of nipping at the Mustang's heels - with extra possibly to be gained by fine polishing, but IIRC the cannon barrels were worth 7mph in their own right and the blisters over the outer (seldom used) cannon positions and the feed mechanisms brought their own penalty... and there wasn't enough room in the Spitfire wing for six fifties.

But anyway, back to cameras now.

[Cuthbert]

Oh absolutely the Mustang had a cleaner airframe - the entirety of the lines everywhere contributed to its performance.

Including the kangaroo radiator cowling on the belly?

[pathdoc]

Including the kangaroo radiator cowling on the belly?

Remember that that radiator assembly is dumping a lot of heat, and heat = energy. There are ways to arrange the radiator design such that the exhaust gives more thrust than the protrusion costs in drag. At the very least, good design in this department can lead to a situation where the thrust/drag balance for the protrusion comes close to break-even, and IIRC the Spitfire wing radiator is also in this category.