kristian_heitkamp

I also bought a Jupiter-9 within the first weeks of the war. I had it on my wishlist for years and thought it is a good opportunity to help someone in a miserable situation. it took some time, but finally arrived.

I had the same problem with my Nikonos IV. what worked for me, was replacing with brand new batteries and cleaning the contacts inside the camera and in the cover with an erasure. i also cleaned the cover‘s thread and it’s counterpart, using my fingernails. The batteries‘ minus is connected through the thread.

I've acquired a Nikonos I with a UW-Nikkor 15 2.8 old version. The kit was described as functional and nice condition. But the camera's shutter does not work properly and the lens has two cracks in its depth of field window glass. Since the lens is the old version that does not fit on the Nikonos IV and V but due to its retro-focus design is supposed to be superior to the new version. So I am not sure if I should keep it in order to get it repaired or send it back for refund. What do you think? Is it still possible to repair them? Does anybody knows a place that is able to repair it? Could I get custom made round shaped glass and repair it myself? I am living in Germany btw. Is it worth the trouble? I made a short video of the set: Thank you for your advice.

I own a Canon L1 and a P. Yesterday my 7 arrived and I don’t have my first roll through it but am sure that it is the winner against the other two. Of course the P and L1 look awesome, especially their rewind cranks are just too cool. And the P‘s 100% viewfinder magnification is a dream. But the focusing spot at the P is too dimm for my taste, I am already loving the 7 over the P. And build quality wise I don‘t see a difference among the three. As others said before, the cold shoe will hardly be missed on the 7. If I want to attach a viewfinder for ultra wide lenses I could even take a zorki 1 as a second body, because I will hardly need the rangefinder of it anyway. I bought the 7 for it‘s viewfinder, so I am not complaining about it‘s missing ability to add an external one.

I own an A1 for some years, I’ve bought it together with an MA motor drive because I wanted the portrait mode grip and second release button together with the aperture priority. When it started to drain the batteries when I did not switch it off within a day, I tried to get another one, which had the EE EEEE error. Also both A1s have broken battery doors. To be fair, I must say that the first A was a bit beaten up, the brass coating came out underneath the black paint, but on the other side this to me is a sign that the camera did not hum up through missing use. So now I got an New F1 together with the power winder, so again I got aperture priority and the vertical grip. Of course the f1 is much better build and even though mine saw heavy use (even the paint on the lever is off) everything feels accurate and works fine. One big advantage is that the Power winder only uses 4 AA batteries so it is much lighter than the A1 with MA motor drive and it’s 12 AA batteries (of course only 2 frames per second but I never shoot in continuous mode). One big disadvantage of the F1 is, that if you are shooting in aperture priority mode you can not illuminate the match needle in the finder. Since I am shooting a lot indoors and at night I am thinking of installing a little led light on top of the viewfinder which shines on the light window which illuminates the match needle of the finder. Anyway I believe that you will hardly find a more rugged 35 mm camera than the New F1 and I am sure that it will still work and be serviceable in the next 40 years.

<p>Both no crop, no close up. <a href="/bboard/"http:/wp.ki-online.net/rolleiflex-35-f-xenotar-tlr-portraet/">Rolleiflex 3.5 F Xenotar</a>:<br /> <a title="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/14707918700_f2fa6566ff_b.jpg" alt="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" width="993" height="1024" /></a><br /> <a title="2014-06-20 Stefan S." href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14480423851_c0516775ba_b.jpg" alt="2014-06-20 Stefan S." width="1002" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>Rolleiflex 3.5 E Xenotar, rolleinar 1 close up, no crop:<br> <a title="Ole in may 2009" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5098/5439574647_ca5db239b8_b.jpg" alt="Ole in may 2009" width="1024" height="1018" /></a><br> The image is slightly out of focus, I should have even got a bit closer, as you can see, the focus is in the hair, which is a bit in front of the eyes.<br> Another one without a close up, this was shot on a Rolleiflex 3,5 F Xenotar:<br> <a title="christoph march 2011" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6478962661_5c884e02a7_b.jpg" alt="christoph march 2011" width="1004" height="1024" /></a><br> Both were not cropped.</p>

<p>To me it seems as the new F2 mainly changed from flourescend light to LED. The optical resolution stayed the same.<br> There is a scanner review of the F1 on the german site <br> http://www.filmscanner.info/MicrotekArtixScanF1.html<br> Which states the scanner only about 2000 dpi versus its optical 4800 dpi.</p> <p>But what I think one should consider is, that following the nyquist shannon sampling theorem the scanning resolution needs to be double of the resolving resolution. That means, that by chance it might happen that the scan lines perfectly match the pattern of the scanned object – than you would receive a scan pairing the otpical resolution. But most of the time the details in the scanned image do not pair the scan lines and therefore the scanning resolution will be smaller. </p> <p>Nyquist and Shannon pointed out that this resolution will go down to just the half of the scanners optical resolution.</p> <p>Also you have to mind that the resolution tests are made with the USAF Testchart, which means that a person has to decide weather she/he is able to see a difference between two lines or not. Since this relies only on the personal and subjective view of a reviewer one should question these result either.<br> Even the same person would judge the same test scan differently if he repeats the test a certain time later. Reason for this can be, how fit he feels on the certain moment (daytime) but also if the reviewer has prejudices against a certain trademark etc.<br> To make this test relieable it should be repeated with a larger amount of people, where the average result should be taken. Also the recipients should not know which scanner is to be tested.<br> Here I have written an explanation about the nyquist shannon sampling theorem (sorry – it is in german only – but the pictures might speak for themselfs):<br> http://wp.ki-online.net/das-nyquist-shannon-abtasttheorem-und-seine-relevanz-fuer-das-scannen-und-die-wiedergabe-von-bildern/<br> But wikipedia has it in english (but much more scientiphic): <br> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem</p>

<p>I know that this is an old thread but I just wanted to add the information that there is indeed a company that develops a new film for these holders:</p> <p>http://new55project.blogspot.de</p>