Jump to content

bryaneberly

Members
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good
  1. As a young kid (mid 1990s) I tinkered around with a 110 camera before not giving a rip about photography until digital came out. After finding my dad's ancient Agfa Selecta in 2016, I decided to give it a go. What was the first film to roll through it? Fuji Velvia 50. Yeah, not exactly a smart choice for a novice film shooter. I don't have any exposures from that roll available at the moment, and some of the rolls from that first 5-pack are still in the freezer. Maybe I'll shoot them at some point. Right now, I'm enjoying a Nikon FE, Pentax ME Super, and Olympus OM-2n along with Ektachrome 100. May be a long time till the Velvia sees any more use.
  2. New Leica owner here. Recently found a Leica III with a Summitar 5cm f2 and Elmar 9cm f4. The body just arrived after a tune up by Youxin Ye. Thanks to his excellent work, the shutter almost purrs and the viewfinder is crystal clear. Looking forward to stretching it out on a nice afternoon. Need a 90mm finder that doesn't eat up my wallet. Until then, the 1.5x focusing adjuster will get me close enough.
  3. Never mind, found the problem. My external hard drive is out of space and was compressing the newest scans to try and save space. Lesson learned and more money will be spent.
  4. Has anyone here had experience with a Plustek 8200i and Vuescan? FYI, this is not about whether Plustek or Vuescan are better or worse than other scanners and scanning software. The problem I'm having is with the scans that Vuescan is saving to my files. Sometime yesterday, while I wasn't paying attention, Vuescan quit saving readable slide and negative scans. I was saving them as TIFs to extract as much RAW data as possible. The properly saved TIF files are 50MB. On the other hand, the improperly saved files are only 8 bytes and, when opened, display an "unsupported file format" message. It's almost as if the scan information is not making it to the file. Does anyone here know why this is happening? I've been over the scan output page at least two dozen times and nothing seems out of place. I was scanning at 48-bit RBG and 7200dpi. This hurts a bit because almost two days of scanning have been lost. Thank you to anyone with an idea of what's going on.
  5. Hello everybody, I am having trouble with the shutter speeds on a Minolta XK. When I first bought it, the mirror would always lock up. After buying fresh batteries, the AE meter began working. Also, the mirror quit locking up each time, but will still do so every several exposures. After somewhat fixing the mirror issue, I noticed that all shutter speeds were the same, around 1/125 for every setting from "bulb" to 1/1000. Wanting to find a solution, I removed the top right cover around the film advance and used a little bit of Ronsonol to try and clean the contacts on the shutter speed knob. Now, bulb setting works fine. However, all other shutter speeds sound like they're still in the 1/125 range. In addition, the mirror will still lock up every several exposures. Does anyone here have any experience with repairing these kinds of issues on the XK? It's a really nice looking camera, especially with the AE finder on top. I have some decent lenses to throw on it, so playing around with it would be fun.
  6. You’re a smart thinker. While it the problem is not the auto reset lever, you sent me looking in the right direction. The adapter sits just ever so slightly below the outer edge of the ME Super’s mount. That means that when the lens screws on, it is not quite able to seat itself directly on the adapter itself. That is likely preventing the lens’s from reaching infinity. So, removing the stop screw from the 35mm’s focus is a suitable go-around for it. Does anyone have a go around for the 105mm? I have not found a way to disassemble it. Also, is there anyone who might sell modified mounts for the ME Super? Would be nice to re-insert the focus stop screw on the 35mm. This Coronavirus thingy has given me the time to play around with my equipment. In the midst of all this, I also found time to readjust a Nikkor AI-s 28mm f2.8. It now focuses perfectly on my Nikon FE.
  7. I thought of some that, too, but the results were the same on multiple cameras. Since four of my m42 lenses already reach infinity focus with my ME Super, I assume the problem lays with the lenses themselves. I am not a fan of grinding down mounts. I am hardly able to find my way around the inside of a lens. I did find a temporary solution with the 35mm, simply taking out the stop end screw to allow a little extra focus fast the original stopping point. Being a fan of split-image focus, I never use the scale to determine focus anyway. As it turned out, the infinity focus was just barely off. You can see how far off in the photo. I have yet to determine a course with 105mm. There is very little information about it available with a google search. I do hope to find an answer, though. I hope to keep it as the small size is appealing.
  8. Good question. I've tested them on an ME Super and MX using the Pentax m42-K-mount adapter. Several lenses, including a Zeiss Jena 20mm f2.8. Primoplan 58mm f1.9. Takumar preset 135mm f3.5, and Takumar 200mm f5.6, focus to infinity when mounted to the cameras with the adapter. It's the two I've mentioned that are off a little and appear to need a small tweaking.
  9. Hello people of the forum. I have a couple of very nice Takumar's with small infinity focus problems. They are the Takumar 35mm f2.3 (that is f2.3, not f3.5) and the original preset Takumar 105mm f2.8. Both were tested on multiple camera bodies and fell slightly short of infinity focus every time. I slightly disassembled both but found that repairing the problem is not simple and may be well beyond my expertise. Does anyone here have any experience with these lenses and have advice to share? If not, does anyone know of any reputable lens repair locations? I would like to repair these instead of simply selling them off. The 35mm especially because it is in immaculate condition and has a wonderful vintage look. Thank you for any help that can be given. Bryan
  10. Ah, someone else in the area! I'm near Lancaster, also known as the better side of the Susquehanna :D
  11. I would agree on the size appeal. I like the smaller SLRs (Olympus OM2, Pentax MX and ME Super), which makes small lenses more appealing. However, I believe you may be speaking of the Takumar 35 f2/f3.5. I have the f2.3 version which isn’t, at least to me, small. The top 1/4 of the lens spreads to fit the top element, looking similar to the smokestack on an old wood-burning locomotive.
  12. Excellent, simple advice. I do plan to split a roll of film between them and see what I get.
  13. I have a question concerning these two lenses, but first will give some background: I have a habit of occasionally scouring antique shops/malls for older camera equipment. I do it mainly for the thrill of finding something rare, fun, and useful, yet priced low. Almost two months back I found a Takumar 35mm f2.3 - with case and original box - on a shelf for $18. An added bonus was the original (chrome) Takumar 135mm f3.5 for the same price. They were both in superb exterior and interior condition. I happily took them with me for use with my Pentax MX and ME Super and M42 adapter. Because winter is cold and construction job hours are long, I have yet to take them out for a "test drive." But spring in PA is finally here. Fast forward to this weekend. I found the following kit for $80: Fujica ST-801 Fujinon 55mm f1.8 Telesar 135mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.8 The body and lenses are all in excellent, working condition. The Zeiss 20mm is staying in my collection. I will be parting with the ST801, 55mm, and 135mm. This brings me to the dilemma of which 35mm: Takumar or Carl Zeiss Jena? I understand that the Takumar is not multi-coated, making finding a lens hood critical. Past that, the reviews I've found tend to give both lenses favorable grades. Physically, the Takumar has a physically vintage-looking charm to it. But, I cannot keep both and, therefore, must make a choice. So, my question is this: which lens is worth keeping based on optical performance? Does anyone have experience with both lenses? Maybe this should be posted this in the Pentax forum, but I am afraid of the Takumar police being unhelpful and only bashing the Zeiss :) Also, can we not turn this thread into a Carl Zeiss east vs. west? Those arguments have been long played out and are largely unuseful. Thank you to anyone with wisdom to share.
  14. Thank you. I appreciate the the suggestions you, and others, have provided. It's something this forum does well with. I found some mention online of a "Recommendations" forum on the site, but it appears to have been eliminated. Therefore, I will leave this review here since, after all, this topic began here (though this is the Olympus forum). After looking around online a bit, I found Steve at Camera Clinic USA. He agreed to take a look at the Rokkor and clean it for $75, including return shipping. Nine days after being sent, the lens was returned to me in immaculate condition. All fungus, haze, and 99% of the dust was eliminated. The lens exterior was also very clean and the glass was spotless. I consider it a true professional job. This all took place before Christmas. Also, to pair with the Rokkor, I found a Minolta XD-11 which worked, but badly needed a CLA. Garry's Camera Service (I know he has mixed reviews, but his prices are cheap, as is the value of the XD-11 body) did a wonderful job tuning up the shutter speeds, cleaning it, and changing the light seals. After replacing the old, shrinking leather skin with a new one from Aki Asahi, the body and lens combination looks fantastic, and I cannot wait to pop in a load of film an try it out.
×
×
  • Create New...