mfophotos

<p>For those of you within driving distance (though we currently have registrants from Vancouver,BC and from NC), the Film Photography Project (FPP) is teaming up with the Ann Arbor Area Crappy Camera Club for a one-day photowalk in Ann Arbor, MI. For this one day, the Argus Museum will be open on a Saturday, and it will be a fun day and evening with other film-camera users from all over. Registration is free, and you'll get a goody bag of film and other treats from the Film Photography Project folks. Pre-registration will assure you of all the goodies. You can register with Leslie at <strong>imaginethat@ameritech.net</strong>. There is more on our website at <strong>a2crappycameras.org</strong>. These FPP walks are always lively, and there will be film users with lots of varying interests. <br> Mark</p>

<p>To chime in a bit. For years I used Kodak Tri-X, among other B&W films, but more recently have been using Ilford HP-5+. I like the results much better than what I get with recently-manufactured Tri-X. It also lies flat in the film holders on my Epson V700.<br> As for Kodachrome -- all chrome films were originally designed for projection. That's why they are called slide films. Eventually, they became associated with pro-level photography and were the standard used in the publishing industry, etc. Digital killed chrome films for all the right reasons in the professional realm. Having said that, seeing a medium format or 4x5 transparency is a wonderful thing. There is really no way that anyone is going to invest any money in a way to develop Kodachrome. It's dead. It was great in its day, but like I say, when you are late to the party, don't complain that the beer is gone. <br> However--- if you want to shoot some E-6 emulsions, check out the Film Photography Project. They sell a variety of films, and one that is a real hoot to play with is the color IR film. </p>

<p>It all depends on how the film was stored. At the minimum, I would rate the ISO at 50-75, since it is a decade old. It is (was) an excellent film -- I shot hundreds of slides with it at one time.</p>

<p>Looks like an Agfa Karat 35.</p>

<p>I second the comment about an M body. My M2 is a delight to use. I never fell in love with the LTM bodies.</p>

<p>There is a large group of photographers that are tuned into the Film Photography Project Podcast. The FPP folks are ALL about film, and the podcasts are a lot of fun and informative. Not only do they have links to places to send your film for developing, FPP also sells some very interesting boutique films - one of my favorites being Smena FN-64 (fresh, not old stuff).<br> Mail order -- I highly recommend Blue Moon camera and Machine in Portland, OR and TheDarkroom.com in San Clemente, CA. Both do excellent work. Blue Moon will develop and sleeve my film (C-41) in the standard 7 x 5 frame pages that I use for $6/roll. I scan them myself with an Epson V700 scanner. </p>

<p>I have shot with 828 a few times. I did shoot some Kodachrome 25 in a Pony 828 in 1975..I still have the slides. Then, about 6 years ago, I came into some 828 Verichrome Pan. It worked pretty well.<br /><a href=" title="Burton Tower by Mark O'Brien, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4002/4162601489_a90357dea5_m.jpg" width="145" height="240" alt="Burton Tower"></a><br /> Some cameras may make us want to use them for no other reason than the experience, or because they are too damn cool to be ignored. The Bantam Special would fall into the category of the latter. In my own experience, very few of the cheaper Kodaks are worth the effort. I know some people that were crying over Kodachrome being cancelled before they got a chance to use it, and my stock answer is always "If you are late to the party, don't complain that the beer is gone." <br /> As far as using any Bantam now, most attempts I know of involve using 35mm film and covering over the film window. 35mm is the actual width, but obviously 8 expsoures is not much. It certainly involves less work than slitting 120. The simple folding bantams were not much more than folding box cameras, right up there with a lot of the dreck that Kodak made over so many years.</p>

<p>I picked up a like-new K100D Super for less than $100, and I really can't complain. It does fine with manual lenses, including M42. The 18-55 DA lens is also pretty darn good. It may only be 6MP, but is still capable of making nice 8x12 prints.</p>

<p>Nice review and fun images, there J.D. I had an FX-3 some time ago ( http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2009/10/praktica-makes-perfect.html ) and sold it a few years later. Apart from the waist-level viewfinder, it was a pretty decent SLR and worked quite well.</p>

<p>I have images in galleries that were shot with a D90, so it;s not the camera that needs updating. Without knowing what you shoot, It's hard to give you any more input, but based on what I have seen, upgrades are best done on lenses, tripods, lighting, and technique.</p>

<p>I'll second the N65 suggestion. A body goes for less than $20, and if your friend wants "Program" mode, it certainly has it. A 28-80 AFD lens will be fine, or a 50mm 1.8 AF lens would make for a lightweight and easy to use AF SLR. </p>

<p>I once owned a G1 with the 45mm lens, and at the time, I don't feel I fully appreciated the camera. The AF was slow, for sure, and in a dim room, it really hunted. I can't complain about the image quality or the ability to shoot a series of bracketed exposures. Having said all that, I never really warmed up to the camera, and sold it long ago. </p>

<p>O'Neal Lake, after the dam was removed. Emmet Co., Michigan. Leica M2, 35mm 1.4 Summilux, Kodak Hawkeye Color Surveillance film, ISO 400. </p> <p><a title="O'Neal Lake I by Mark O'Brien, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7554/15551658100_34b7fe6e21_c.jpg" alt="O'Neal Lake I" width="800" height="472" /></a></p>

<p>I purchased a nice all-black F2S for much less than your quoted repair price from KEH. It works perfectly.</p>

<p>I was wondering about the Rectus shutter... </p>