|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-28-2017, 08:05 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-20-2017, 07:38 PM
|
| |
I'll have to learn that manœuvre. It does not come naturally to me; somehow my instinct if I can't turn the dial simply by fingertip is to lower the whole camera and get well under it for fear that doing the two-finger move at eye height will torque the camera out of my left hand and onto the ground. Yes, it sounds paranoid, but I know my limitations as concerns clumsiness. I'll get there...
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-19-2017, 07:58 PM
|
| |
Thanks for everyone's observations about the MX shutter speed dial. I'm glad to know this is not my particular example misbehaving. I wonder if this is something where the camera could be sent to Eric for him to put it intentionally just a bit out of spec toward looseness. I'm not sure that's feasible (as I don't know how this shutter speed dial works), but if it is, the idea might be revolting to him anyway!
--Dave
---------- Post added 03-19-2017 at 11:01 PM ----------
Louis Meluso has all the cameras ever, and frequently posts those size comparisons on this site and at photo.net. He has photographed each camera in front of essentially a graph paper background so the images can be scaled the same and sizes are truly comparable. Brilliant stuff!
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-19-2017, 10:29 AM
|
| |
So, the lady and I have some travel coming up soon. As I've mentioned in some posts, she is new to film but recently commandeered the Minolta SRT 102 that I was having an extended dalliance with in the last couple of years. (Not wanting to discourage her foray into film by grabbing the camera back, I got an XE for myself.) While I dig the SRT, it is admittedly a big hunk of metal; this was part of its appeal to me, but she would feel the weight of it, and the lenses are bulky in the bag. So I finally got perhaps the most talked-about camera here, the MX, for her. The size is remarkable, even though I essentially already had a camera with the same chassis, an unreliable copy of the ME Super.
Comparison is with the "same" lenses (28/3.5). The third comparison exaggerates the height difference a bit as it is looking somewhat downwards, not dead on. If James is watching out there, he'll recognize the Pentax 28 -- thank you, it is beautiful!
Question for other MX users out there: When gripping the camera to shoot, can you move your index finger tip off the shutter and turn the shutter speed dial with just that fingertip? On my copy, I cannot readily. I have to take my palm off the grip and strongly grab the shutter speed dial with finger and thumb to turn it. I'm trying to figure out whether that's normal.
--Dave
MX vs SRT by Argenticien, on Flickr
MX vs SRT Side by Argenticien, on Flickr
MX vs SRT Front by Argenticien, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-22-2016, 10:21 PM
|
| |
A friend lent me this a few weeks back. I've shot one roll so far, which led to finding a pretty major light leak. I now have to figure out whether it does that to the owner as well, or whether I've buggered up something with his camera. :eek: If I can get it sorted, it looks like one could do some serious work with this lens. (I was easily examining pores in a portrait I did on this roll ... but only the 1/8 of the face that wasn't obliterated by the light leak.)
By the way, this camera is fexxxing huge.
—Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-06-2016, 05:16 AM
|
| |
Lou, I work 10 minutes from Biggs so it's a little too easy to go there. That's where I get color processing done, and I peek into the used case every time I'm there. I do know about the graveyard in the back hallway, and bought a couple of secondhand filters there this week since I absent-mindedly left a filter wallet on a cathedral pew in Barcelona the week before. (I realized this 10 minutes later and went back for it, but I'm sure a passing opportunist non-photographer probably found it, thought it was a wallet wallet, and made off with it, so it was gone by then. They were surely disappointed to find 67mm and 82mm yellow filters, not 50 and 100 euro notes!)
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-03-2016, 06:43 PM
|
| |
EJM, what model is that Bronica? S2? S2A? Your kit looks a lot like mine. I just got back from lugging the body, the 50/3.5, and 75 around Spain for 10 days, and am about ready to find some lighter medium-format kit! Although I love this thing, it gets heavy (especially with that outrageous 50) after a full day about town with it. I didn't even bring my eye-level finder (due to its additional weight) and regretted it as there were a few cases where I was standing at chest- or neck-level fences and rails, and wished I could have shot from eye level.
The camera did result in a funny situation when it caught the attention of Madrid's Policia Municipal whilst I walked around a city park. This was pretty quickly straightened out with the help of my Spanish-speaking fiancée; the police were more curious than suspicious. When we told them we were headed onward to Barcelona soon, they warned of us the pickpockets and other petty crime there. I demonstrated swinging the Bronica (on neck strap) as a weapon, much to their entertainment.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-15-2016, 05:22 PM
|
| |
Oooooooh shiny! Did you find that as new-old-stock today and just now open it from the original packaging like a forty-year-old time capsule?!
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-15-2016, 07:04 AM
|
| |
Very interesting, Colton; these similarities are awfully fishy. The Beautyflex indeed has the advance lock button in the film wind knob. Meanwhile: I thought I had read somewhere online that the Biokor was a Tessar forumula, but if so, I can no longer find wherever that was. So I tried doing the "count the light reflections" test, with the shutter held open on Bulb setting, to figure out whether the Biokor is a triplet or four elements. I could only readily see three reflections, but read this fascinating piece from the eminent Rick Oleson: that fourth reflection can be hard to find. In fact when I tried the same on my Rolleiflex with Planar, I saw four, when there should be, I think, five. (It's a 2.8E, so Planars hadn't gone to six yet if I've got that right.) Now I don't know what to think!
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-14-2016, 07:59 AM
|
| |
Funny thing and complicated story ... so, the Rolleiflex came from my now-ex-wife's family. Upon the divorce, her father very kindly said I should keep it, since I'm the only one among anyone they know who would actually use it. Fast forward a couple of years ... I have a girlfriend and she is now getting into film photography because of me (!!!). She wanted to try a TLR, but was both afraid of the Rolleiflex (for fear of breaking/misusing it, as it is somewhat valuable) and I think she also didn't like its origin much. :) So I was forming an idea to get her a TLR of her own -- a knockabout, affordable one, maybe a Ricohflex or Yashica. Now the funny part: Last summer, in a Victoria's Secret catalog that came in our mail, she saw a Beautyflex used as a prop in a picture -- being held by one of the busty babes in naughty knickers. She immediately said she wanted one of those cameras, because of its name! (As she likes to be a bit glamorous.) I didn't like the rationale much, but if it meant she would have a TLR that she was really keen on, that worked for me. After trawling eBay for a few months, I found a suitable one, and in fact I like it well enough that I invested in a CLA for it. (It arrived with all shutter speed settings yielding the same speed, about 1/60; now they all run properly.) I'm in it about US$200 altogether now, so yes I realize that with patience I could have had a Rolleicord for less; these are the things we do for our significant others.
Yes, as Wardflex at least (for US retailer Montgomery Ward) and I'm not sure what else. I have not found an instruction book for exactly this model of Beautyflex, but have found one for a Wardflex that appears to be precisely it (other than the nameplate).
Colton, the viewing lens is indeed a Tri-Lausar. This is among the worst lens names ever ... my immediate mental association with it is "three-time loser." It's right up there with Steinheil's Cassar (think: "broken" based on French) or the Lentar (think: "Slow"). And it gets worse: the shutter is a Rectus. They were probably thinking as in "rectilinear" or something, but I'm not sure it has that association. Yes, I have a Tri-Lausar above my Rectus. Beautyflexen alternatively came with "Synchro-MX" shutters (sounds rather generic) or Copal (now there's one we all know).
The taking lens is a Biokor, which I've read is a Tessar-like formula. It's actually good. (First pic from first pre-CLA test roll here: https://flic.kr/p/DBUYP2). The camera has an auto-advance system, more basic than the Rolleiflex's but serviceable. For a first-time TLR user, I thought it would simplify things to avoid futzing with a red window system.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-11-2016, 07:59 PM
|
| |
(Pardon the cross-post, those of you who read RFF.)
Four TLRs by Argenticien, on Flickr
Mamiya C330 Professional S + Mamiya-Sekor 135mm f/4.5; MiNT InstantFlex (+ fixed MiNT 61mm f/5.6); Beautyflex Super D (+ fixed Biokor 80mm f/3.5); Rolleiflex 2.8E (+ fixed Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8). The MiNT is new, full stop; and the Beautyflex is new to me.
Photographed with the Sony a7 + adapted MC Rokkor-PF 58 mm f/1.4. Lit with a dim reading lamp; 30sec exposure at ISO 400.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-22-2015, 06:35 PM
|
| |
Cuthbert, for some reason, I had the impression that those Fujica SLRs were large, like Pentax K size or bigger, not nearly as small as Pentax MX/ME/etc., although I've never owned one. Is that true? I suppose at the time Fuji were producing Gx690xx rangefinder clown cameras simultaneously, so even a very large 35mm SLR would seem tiny and they might get careless and non-Maitani-like about trying to shrink it further... :lol:
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-12-2015, 06:23 PM
|
| |
(Insert Darth Vader breathing sounds below!)
In all seriousness, great pr0n of a great camera.
--Dave
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-24-2014, 05:53 AM
|
| |
Thank Colton. (Yes I've been away from this thread for a month and just caught up.) I have noted the same with my S2; its focusing screen is a bit dim, prone to reflections and glare, and does not pop crisply from out of focus to in focus. If a Hassy improves on that, hmmm.... I do also remember from the one time I held a Hassy in a store, its film advance was so smooth that it made the Bronica's winding feel like working a meat grinder, by comparison. But right now I'm not flush with funds so this is an academic comparison anyway!
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-24-2014, 07:26 PM
|
| |
Colton, congrats on the Swede. Let us know how you get on with it: do you find it better than your beloved Bronnie(s), and if so, is it that much better as to justify the cost differential?
--Dave |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-23-2014, 08:00 PM
|
| |
My dad has an old saying full of technical terminology: "Don't futz with it!" I'd say that has to apply here; isn't this a $900 lens? If you destroy a 55/1.8 Tak by tinkering with insufficient instructions, no great loss; there are 800,000 other ones for $20 or whatever. But I wouldn't risk diving into the 15mm unless I knew exactly what I was doing.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-10-2014, 07:10 PM
|
| |
You've almost got it right. See this post from 22 May 2013, and a few that came after it. He was incensed at the the then-latest change in Flickr's terms of service, and basically stopped using it. At that the time, he made an attempt to do it in such a way that his existing pictures would stay visible in his vast trail of previous posts. But the images are now apparently gone. It is a huge loss to PF as he was among the most talented photographers here. Sure there may have been one or two too many cargo ships and Japanese dancers (although I didn't mind), but some of his work up in the forests of Japan (stone tablets etc.) was brilliant.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-20-2014, 05:58 PM
|
| |
^ Hmmm this looks much like a Japan Camera Hunter 'In Your Bag' picture, except it's not got the bag. Also if you submitted it you might get some good-natured ribbing from Bellamy or his readers for using lomography film.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-20-2014, 05:49 PM
|
| |
Agreed, nice article. This may inspire me to get my ZX-5 off the shelf. It was my workhorse camera from new (1997) until about 2000; then I shot almost nothing for a few years; then I found digital (P&S initially). When I went back to film in 2007, I went to rangefinders, medium format, and 1960s-1970s SLRs, and have never shot another role in the ZX-5. Time to change that and adapt some Takumars onto it.
I agree Panorama mode is silly. This was a fad in the 1990s and maybe presaged the multiple frame sizes of APS film. I tried it on my ZX-5, but since it masks one 36x24 frame to about 36x10, which is then enlarged about 10x to make a print, it results in grainy prints reminiscent of 110 film pictures. I suspect if you brought a roll of film with these masked panos to a photofinisher today, they might not know what to do with it, and you'd get normal 15x10 cm prints with the top and bottom showing black masking. If I ever get the urge to try pano again (doubtful), I'll get a 35mm adapter for a MF camera to make proper 60x24 frames.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-09-2014, 11:30 AM
|
| |
Brilliant! I paid similar for my ME Super but with a 50/2.0 that is complete sh!te. Some say that lens is rubbish generally; some say it's reasonably good so mine must be a bad example, but either way I want to get a 1.7 and be done with the question.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-22-2014, 03:44 AM
|
| |
Concur! This was the first camera I ever bought new for myself (vs. handed down from parents), my first Pentax, and my first autofocus SLR. I really liked it for quite awhile. I still have it, although I now never use it, favoring instead all the more classic heavy metal gear that I've subsequently acquired. I got the ZX-5 for its simple faux-manual controls, which appealed to me over the tiny black plastic buttons of other cameras at the time. These controls are actually electronic, not analog dials, but as long as they work the same way, it's a win.
Mine does indeed have the problem that aurele describes, where the flash, um, needs Viagra. Best way to keep yours intact is don't use the stupid thing; attach a real flash.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-21-2014, 04:02 AM
|
| |
There was much discussion of this in the Takumar Club thread and maybe elsewhere, perhaps 4 or 5 years ago. I forget which terms you would need to Google to find it. Anyway I observe the same behavior with most Takumar lenses on my K20D. Av mode will underexpose by perhaps 2.5 stops when the lens is wide open, gradually reducing to a smaller underexposure (0.5 to 1 stops) when the lens is is at perhaps f/8 or f/11. In M mode, the metering is usually close to correct. (I have done no taping, painting, or other hacks to try to trick the camera's electrical contacts, and am using an original Pentax M42-K adapter.)
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-29-2014, 10:49 AM
|
| |
Right, and I thought that would not matter anymore since he has put a test roll through it already. But on second thought, good point. Can't "test" the shutter also means can't "exercise" the shutter. If EJMzagsfan happens to be one of those collectors with too many cameras and too little time to actually go out and shoot films in them often, he should exercise the mechanical-shuttered ones occasionally in between rolls to avoid them seizing up. On the S2, that would be impossible without a dark slide. (Solution is to load up and shoot, but time doesn't always permit.)
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-28-2014, 04:08 AM
|
| |
@dcshooter: If you mean that you can't remove the film back without a dark slide, that's correct. Lots of interlocks on this camera!
@EJMzagsfan: You don't need a dark slide until you get a second film back, at which point you need two dark slides total. but any back you buy should come with one at least. Koh's used to be the place for S2/S2A; then Jimmy Koh retired from repair, but may still have parts. KEH might sometimes have dark slides; they file the S2A under "Miscellaneous Medium Format" (not any Bronica category of its own) so you'd need to look here for dark slides--none there at the moment.
--Dave |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-27-2014, 03:56 AM
|
| |
ARGGHHH, yes like that. Stop that! :)
Yes sometime I'll get one. But it won't happen soon since I'm off on a Minolta bender at the moment.
--Dave |
