ed_lutz

Hi Lucas, The manual is pretty poor on this so I grabbed my OM-4 and tried it. Mine seems to act like yours does, it saves spot meter readings in auto mode but in manual mode the memory function doesn't work. I'd guess then that this is normal! :cool: Super nice cameras, enjoy!

I'm thinking this is a flash coverage issue. Looking at the specs on the TLA200 I see it covers from 28 - 90mm, and that's referring to coverage on a 35mm camera. Your shooting with a 45-85mm zoom on a 6x4.5 camera. That lens on that film size should give you an angle of view roughly equivalent to a 28-53mm lens on a 35mm camera. Should work, but your question about the flash units controls has me wondering where you have the flash set. I've never used a TLA200 but there is a good chance that the zoom control will work even when not on a Contax camera. You might be able to see this as you switch the selector. As Jochen said, flash units usually reshape their reflectors when you change the zoom settings. If you look at the flash lens as you change the setting switch you may be able to see movement inside the flash telling you that it is adjusting. You should be able to hear something happening too. That's a pretty low power flash and if not set wide enough I'd expect sharp vignetting. I've also noticed over the years that lower powered flash units tend to be a bit optimistic in their coverage claims. You may find that you need to have the flash set wider than you'd think would be needed.

<p>Ray, thank you for your calm, considered, response. It made me go back and reread the entire thread to see what you may have missed.</p> <p>I couldn’t find anything.</p> <p>Seems it was me. Overall upon rereading the whole thing, I have to say this thread is more pro film than digital, and not nearly as confrontational as my mind perceived it the first time through. Being the thoughtful introspective sort that I am I find this very interesting. The only real negative comments I could find were, as you mentioned, from Rodeo. I can only guess that he caught me in a bit of a mood and set me off.</p> <p>So a big apology to all, this wasn’t really the thread for me to vent in.</p> <p>My question at the end of my post however stands. Probably a discussion for a different thread, but I really do wonder what it is about photography that sets it apart from the other pictorial art forms and causes the divisive attitude I’ve seen in many other places.</p>

<p>Timely comment John...<br> I just finished refurbishing a nice old Carl Zeiss Jenna 80mm f2.8 in an Exakta mount. I don't know what kind of lubes the East Germans had available back then but so far every old Zeiss Jena lens I've acquired has been very tight and hard to focus. The lube gums up and gets hard. This 80mm was like it had been epoxied, it wouldn't turn at all no matter how hard I tried.<br> I put it in a coffee can and submerged it in white gas (Colman fuel, I think just naphtha) for a couple of days. That got it loosened up enough to take it apart and give it a good cleaning, but like an idiot I forgot to first remove the front name ring. The plastic is fine, but all the lettering was removed. A little time with some white hobby paint and a small brush and it will be as it should be.<br> Lovely lens now, I'm looking forward to putting it through its paces on my Varex.</p>

<p>This film vs digital stuff drives me nuts…<br> <br /> First off, full disclosure. I shoot mostly film when it matters. Pretty much exclusively. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid, most of the pictures of me from back in elementary school have me wearing a Kodak Starflash around my neck, and it was a new camera back then a long time ago. This means I’m pretty well set in my ways, plus that I have enough experience to make rational decisions about the ways I want to pursue. I’ve also spent some time making money with a camera. Weddings, portraiture, sports (mostly motor sports), selling landscape prints, etc. I had a nice computer career going though and never wanted to drop that to pursue photography full time, preferring to keep it a serious hobby.<br> <br /> That’s all just to let you know where I come from.<br> <br /> Like I said, I shoot film. However, I don’t mind people shooting digital. Most of my photographer friends used to shoot film but now prefer digital. A couple who are fine art photographers with plenty of large and medium format film experience have said that they miss some of the qualities of those formats, but they really just like the convenience of digital and are willing to put up with its limitations in exchange for not having to deal with films different limitations. That’s cool, they produce lovely photographs with their DSLR’s. Really lovely in fact, and from an artistic sense I consider them both to be better photographers than myself, and I try to learn from them whenever I can.<br> <br /> I personally prefer film for a number of reasons, reasons which really don’t matter at all as far as this discussion is concerned. What does matter is the pompous attitude that I hear from so many who want to proclaim that digital is “better”. Hmm… better… big word that. Really big in fact. Better, with no qualifiers, pretty much means just that. Better in all ways, no matter what, it’s just BETTER!<br> <br /> We’re talking art here people.<br> <br /> Who are any of us to proclaim to a fellow artist that our way is better, and they are less of an artist, and are wrong, because of the medium they choose to work in? Should Rembrandt have been told he was wrong, because pencils allowed higher resolution? I know a few painters and I’ve never heard a whiff of this kind of attitude from them. They each work in whatever medium they like and enjoy the work of fellow artists that choose to work in different mediums. I don’t think they’d ever dream of telling a fellow artist that they are wrong to choose the medium they use.<br> <br /> I don’t understand. What is it about photography that causes so many of its practitioners to need to run down the methods used by their fellow photographers? And what has caused so many to feel that all that matters in photography is cold hard resolution?<br> <br /> Marketing I’m sure plays a part. The camera manufacturers have touted pretty much nothing but resolution since digital cameras hit the stores, it’s the only way they can keep selling new cameras year after year.<br> <br /> Maybe its fear of being wrong? Or a blind attachment to new technology? I don’t know but whenever I read something with the “if it isn’t digital it’s wrong” attitude it just comes across as ignorant of what photography is, where it came from, and what it can be.<br> <br /> Shoot what and how, and in whatever medium and format you want. Create your art in your way, and do yourself a favor. Quit with the quasi religious proselytizing. It got old a long time ago.</p>

<p>A couple from my T-90 shot back in the mid 80's.</p> <p>But first, the story.</p> <p>I had this friend, who's girlfriend fancied herself a writer. She knew someone who put her in touch with someone, who told her she could write an article for a Hobie Cat sailing magazine. She asked me to take the pictures...</p> <p>We lived in the Los Angeles area, and the regatta she was going to write about was up at Lake Quinault, in Washington State. Bit of a drive. We left L.A. and drove straight through to Hood River Oregon where she wanted to interview some board sailors for another article she wanted to write. I shot pictures for that too. From Hood River we went on up to Lake Quinault and spent a few days "working". All this was on our dime. Gas, food, lodging, all of it.<br> Upon getting back home she never wrote anything, but the Hobie magazine took my pictures, and found one of the sailors who had sailed at the regatta to write something up. My shots were used on the contents page and a 2 page color spread with the article.<br> <br />Total pay, $64.00. I decided freelance magazine work wasn't going to make me rich.</p> <p>So anyhow, these are a couple of the shots I took in Hood River, OR. Wind surfers on the Columbia River. Somewhere around here I have some sailing pictures too, If I can find them I'll post some up.</p> <p>Both these were with my T-90 shooting Fuji transparency film. Both I think with my 400mm f4.5 S.S.C., although looking at the first one it could have been the Tamron 80-200mm f2.8 SP.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7061/27429794736_646ff3bcb3_c.jpg" alt="" width="616" height="800" /></p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7151/27464158785_5ef7b9d7a5_c.jpg" alt="" width="577" height="800" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Very nice shot Bill!</p>

<p>Thanks for your nice comments Ed, much appreciated.</p> <p>I always like train shots, I guess cause I really like trains. Here in Colorado we have a few nice excursion railroads like the Durango and Silverton line. I've ridden it a few times and have shot some pictures, none of which come to mind as sharable... Its always a challenge to get the lighting correct. All that deep deep flat black. Its something I want to work on more.</p>

<p>Got some more from the Reno Air Races</p> <p>The Thunderbird's are always exciting. And loud... they are always loud...</p> <p>Considering how low and close these guys were, I'm pretty sure I shot these with my Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8. With the T-90 of course, and on Fuji transparency film.<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1605/24945712863_c8a5de7c38_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1515/25453816752_64d6d583f2_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="519" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Rick and Jim, I can confirm that the internal reflections of both lenses are effectively identical.</p> <p>Michael, I'm thinking I agree with you. I like how the SSC looks and for whatever reason how it feels so I'll probably keep it and sell the chrome nose.</p> <p>Mark, once I do make up my mind for sure I'll drop you a PM.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I am currently shooting a comparison Dave, but was just curious about any technical differences between the two. I've shot with each of these in the past and haven't noticed any big differences. Maybe shooting both on a single roll, thus eliminating any development issues something will show up. That and time, I cant really think of any time I've used both in a short period of time. I've really never paid any attention to looking for any difference between these.<br> Jim, thanks for your thoughts on the coatings, that's something I was wondering about, if the chrome nose was maybe just SC. I'm curious to see how each renders color (the test roll is Ektar 100, in my T-90)<br> One thing I have noticed already. I cant pick a real reason, but I just seem to like the SSC more. Both lenses function flawlessly with wonderful focus action but for whatever reason I'm just liking the SSC version more than the chrome nose. Its not something I've noticed before but using the two back to back its a pretty strong feeling... I just cant decide why.</p>

<p>I've ended up with two 55mm f1.2 FD lenses. As I really don't need both I'm thinking of selling one to help fund the purchase of the 300mm f4 I want.<br> One lens is a S.S.C., and the other is a chrome nose breech mount with no coating reference on the front ring. Both are in fantastic condition. Is there any functional reason to keep one over the other?</p> <p>Thanks and here's the picture of both,</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7158/27416855441_0654bee4af_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="530" /></p>

<p>Nice Towhee Bill! It's good to see someone else enjoying the 400 4.5, its such a wonderful lens.</p>

<p>Agfa Memo on Pan F</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1463/24835016639_2b282fd6ac_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="491" /></p>

<p>First up, from Rocky Mountain National Park. Shot with my Franka Solida II on Delta 100</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1453/25175802466_e3db3466c5_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="797" /></p> <p>Another from the same roll at a local park. Franka Solida II and Delta 100.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1637/24906459510_efa42ecc76_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="800" /></p> <p>And the last, shot in Denver with my 35mm Agfa Memo from the late 30's. Shot on Ilford Pan F.<br> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1529/24907092030_a2fcb8724d_c.jpg" alt="" width="509" height="800" /></p> <p> </p>