mwmcbroom

I have a Westen Master II that was included with an old Kodak Pony 35 camera I bought recently. The Pony 35 is early 50s Kodak tech. Never really paid much attention to the Westen until yesterday, when I took it outside and played around with it some. I was surprised to find that it was within about a stop of being correct. Not bad, considering the meter must be almost 70 years old. A well-made piece of kit, built to last. I also own a Zeiss Super Ikonta BX (6x6 film camera). The BX is a B with a selenium meter. This camera's meter deflects the needle somewhat, but that's about it. No big deal, I've always used handheld meters with my Super Ikontas anyway.

I bought my first Sigma 600mm mirror in 1984 (see the simultaneous thread Mirror Lenses You've Known and Loved) and grew to love it. Below are a few photos I took with it back in the 80s. Most of the images were shot on Kodachrome 64, maybe one or two on Fujichrome 100. Offshore drilling rig. Canon A-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64 The four-master Windjammer and sailboat offshore in Waikiki, taken from my hotel room. Canon FTb with mirror up, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64 SCCA racing at Willow Springs Raceway, California. Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100. Note minimal donuts. Blue Angels A4 Skyhawk, Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Fujichrome 100 http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/blueangels_a4_at_rest_2b.jpg Airshow officials standing in front of a Hawker Sea Fury. Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64. Note donuts on OOF wing hilights. http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/airshowscene1.jpg Lastly, an image I shot handheld with the big Sigma. I know I chopped off part of the airplane, but I've kept the image all these years just to show that, yes, you can use the Sigma freehanded if you follow good technique, and of course if you're shooting at a high enough shutter speed. In this case, I got lucky. I figure my shutter speed was probably 1/500. This is a Kodachrome 64 slide and I routinely used to set the ASA dial for 80, cuz the slight underexposure improved saturation. I'm figuring I got away with another half-stop of underexposure with this shot just because of the bright subject matter. The sky wasn't that dark. B-17 Flying Fortress Sentimental Journey Canon F-1, Sigma 600mm f/8, Kodachrome 64 http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/film/850185_b17_ff_sigma_600_1.jpg A common trait of mirror lenses is what many people refer to as "vignetting," but I see it as just the opposite. I see it as a hot spot in the center of the image. The hot spots are only evident against an evenly lit background. If you look at the above racing shot, you can't detect a hot spot. But in the shot of the B-17, it is dramatically evident.

Okay, first, please be aware that the later, "New" FD lenses, aka nFD, have barrels, aperture rings, and mount bits, that are often made from a composite material, so trying to remove the black probably won't work. But since you mention specifically FL and FD lenses, I'm gonna assume you're probably talking primarily about the breechlock versions. These are all metal and glass construction. Personally, I'd leave the lens alone, but if you feel so inclined you should realize you're gonna have a fair amount of work ahead of you. I've seen some Vivitar lenses stripped down to bare aluminum, and I must admit that the appearance is striking, so there is that. As for removing the paint, you need to realize it's baked-on enamel, so you'll probably have to use something pretty aggressive like paint stripper. And plan on doing multiple applications. To get the last bit of paint off will probably involve using a wire brush or wheel and/or sandpaper. There may be some portions of lenses that are anodized -- something to look for. Once the lens is bare, and you want to repaint it, well there's any number of paints you can go with that'll work. But if you want something as durable as you went to all the trouble of removing, you'll be looking at having to bake on the new paint. Which of course means you'll have to completely strip the lenses down to bare metal, removing all glass, plastic, aperture mechanisms, etc. Now, I don't happen to know if there's a special enamel intended for baking, or if any good enamel will work. I would just try using a good enamel first and see how baking it turns out. Then go from there. Try doing a search on YouTube -- never know what you'll find there.

I agree with the others' remarks. You made no mention of the ISO of the film you were using or the ASA setting on the camera, nor did you mention whether you checked that the Exposure Compensation dial was zeroed. You also didn't mention the specific lighting conditions you were shooting your camera under. All this stuff matters. I've been using the Canon A-1 on and off since 1983 and I have found it to be a surprisingly reliable camera. I doubt many folks would have thought that the camera would have survived for over 40 years (it debutted in 1978), but many examples are still going strong, all these years later. My experience with the A-1's meter has been either it works accurately or it doesn't work at all. And of all the A-1s I've owned (probably over 20), I've owned only one with a dead meter. So, double check the points raised and then get back to us, please.

My Canon F-1n with its complete suite of accessories.

Unless restricting one's collection to mechanical Nikkormats only, I think The EL must also be included. And if the EL is included, then it seems to me that the Nikon EL2 must also be included. Personally I think the EL and EL2 are jewels and are historically important, since they are the obvious ancestors to the FE -- in terms of features, at least, if not design and weight -- which I consider to be one of Nikon's all-time great cameras.

Dennis, I have found the same thing to be true with the Tamron mirror. Its contrast -- especially for a mirror -- is excellent. Woodrim, thanks for your posts. They're always welcome and what you wrote reminded me of some of my own experiences. In my opening post, I mentioned rather briefly the first mirror lens I bought. Probably back in 1984, I bought a Sigma 600mm f/8. I'm sure that my the motivating factors for my buying it were: 1) it was 100mm more than everyone else's and 2) it was cheaper than Canon. I was little more than a neophyte back then, having just recently bought my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb. Previously I'd been shooting with a Canon AE-1 and A-1 and was getting bored by all the electronics and aggravated by the inconvenience of manual shooting. So the FTb and the Sigma mirror frequently got paired. I clearly recall how unimpressed I was with the first slides I got back when using that lens. They were blurry mostly. I concluded that I'd bought a piece of junk. But then something made me decide to work harder at extracting good photos from that lens. The first thing I did was to buy a big, stout tripod. What was mostly annoying about using the FTb -- or the two A-series Canons, for that matter -- was that dark circle I had to contend with in the viewfinder. And since the focusing aids were gone, I felt I needed a supplemental aid. So I bought a Canon Magnifier "S" ("S" came with an adapter for the square viewfinder window). This helped a lot with my being able to nail focus. And suddenly my images began to improve. I paid attention to shutter speeds, using the FTb's mirror lock up when possible, and the images began to improve even further. Then a couple of additional things helped. I had Canon install a plain matte screen in my A-1 and I bought an old F-1 and bought a plain matte screen for it. Having the plain matte screen in the A-1 helped a lot, especially when I was able to shoot at high shutter speeds. But having the old F-1, with its mirror lock up and matte screen -- well, that finally put me over the top. Finally, I was able to conclude that the Sigma mirror I had bought was actually a very sharp lens. I regret selling it several years later when I switched systems, albeit temporarily, to Nikon. I've since learned that there is some variability in image quality with the Sigma 600 mirrors. About five years ago, I bought a late model one in Canon EOS mount, and was very disappointed in its optical quality. It probably wouldn't be too bad, but it produces a pronounced double image. Then a couple years ago, I bought a very early Sigma 600, and this one is on par in terms of sharpness with my Tamron 55BB, which is a very sharp mirror. So I finally got a good Sigma again. Most recently, I bought another Tamron 55BB -- mostly just because I found it being sold for way too cheap of a price, so I had to rescue it. It is optically equivalent to the one I already own. What will I do with two? I dunno. I'll probably sell one. Or maybe trade for something interesting. And so it goes.

I did some searching on this topic, mostly because when I owned an A-1 back in the 80s, I sent it in to Canon to have the screen changed to a plain matte screen. I was a bit surprised, after a fair amount of time spent searching, not being able to find a reference to the screens Canon offered for the A-1. I finally decided, however, that the screens offered were probably not a whole lot different than those offered for the AE-1 Program, which as you probably know are user interchangeable. Here's a link I found at Mir: The Canon AE-1 Program - Other Issues Note that there are no screens for the AE-1P that have that large circle. I don't know what to make of it, and I can't think of a good reason for it. It is too large to indicate a metering area. I've finally come to the conclusion that it is probably just a variant of the normal screen.

I don't know what I can possibly add to the previous 122 comments, other than to mention my preferences Nikon. I've always liked the FE. It's a comfortable camera -- just the right size and weight, feels good in my hand. And I've always been a fan of match-needle metering, which is why I prefer it over the FM/FM2/FM2n. I've only recently acquired an FE2 and I like it just as much as my FE, except for one caveat -- I own a few non-AI lenses and these cannot be mounted to an FE2 without running the risk of crushing the AI metering tab. The FE (and FM) have tabs that can be pivoted up and out of the way. The FE2/FM2/FM2n do not. I don't know about the FM3a. I've never had occasion to use one. About focusing screens, I got used to plain matte screens over 35 years ago when I used to shoot with a Canon F-1. I had a few slow lenses in my kit, so I got quite comfortable using the plain screens. So much so, that with every camera that I own that has interchangeable screens, I have found plain matte screens for them and installed them. Including both my FE and FE2.

Have you tried using a cable release? Just curious if its the tactile contact of the switch or if it might be mechanical (cable release) that is causing the issue. I suspect, however, it might be something as simple as dirty contacts.

If you're interested in achieving almost microscope-like magnification, here's a fairly simple trick you can employ. Scrounge around for a D-mount lens, the sort that were used on the old double-8 movie cameras back in the 40s and 50s, the shorter focal length the better. For example, I have a 1/2" Wollensak that I use for this. I'm gonna attach this D-mount lens to a macro lens, although it doesn't strictly have to be a macro lens. In my case, I'm using a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro. It takes a 49mm lens cap. Scrounge up a spare cap that fits your lens and then drill a hole in the center of the cap that matches the diameter of your D-mount lens. In my case, it needed a 1/2" drill bit. Then reverse the lens and glue it into place on the lens cap. I used clear epoxy, but whatever is gonna work for you is fine. Mount this lens and cap to the front of your lens. You're not going to focus with this small lens, you'll focus with your regular lens. Just set the D-mount lens to infinity. You might also play around a bit with the aperture on the D-mount lens. I usually just leave mine set to wide open, but if you stop it down some this might improve its performance. Focus on your subject and fire away. You're gonna find that you have to get extremely close to your subject before it will come into focus. I have some photos I can show of the results, but I can't get to them at the moment. When I can, I'll show you. But here's a brief description of the results. Using an APS-C digital, this lens's coverage completely filled the frame. Sharpness was excellent in the center of the image, but it fell off quite a bit to "acceptable" by the edges and corners. I've never calculated the magnification, but it is immense.

I found this little gem recently at a yard sale. Paid $5 for it. Slow speeds are sticky, but for that price, I reckon I can afford a CLA.

It's worth mentioning that you get a significant amount of magnification also when using WA lenses reversed. Even a 35mm will give you a decent level of magnification. Plus, when reversed, they tend to have a flatter field, which can be useful for macro work. Calculating the magnification is not simple, but can be approximated by the formula 1/f = 1/d + 1/s where f is the focal length of the lens, d is the object distance between object and the lens, and s is the distance of the image between the lens and the sensor or film plane. An easier way to determine the exact magnification ratio is to take a picture of a ruler and then measure the image on the film plane as compared to the measurement of the ruler. For determining the magnification with a sensor, the image the sensor produces must be measured in your preferred image editing software. Another popular technique -- one that is used by the famous outdoor/wildlife photographer John Shaw -- is to use two lenses, one reversed in front of another. Typically, two focal lengths are used, with the shorter mounted reversed onto the longer. It is easy to calculate the level of magnification. Divide the longer focal length by the shorter focal length. The resulting number is to magnification ratio. For example, let's say the lens mounted to the camera is 100mm, and the lens reverse-mounted onto the 100mm is 50mm. Divide 100 by 50 and you get 2. That's your magnification ratio. So as you can quickly see, the use of a wide angle reversed can provide a significant amount of magnification. Let's say we reverse mount a 24mm onto the 100mm. Now we have a magnification ratio of 4.17, which is quite a lot.

The Nikon FE remains one of my favorites. I have a few pre-AI lenses, so the metering tab that pivots up out of the way so they can be mounted is a plus for me. The FE2 (and FM2 and FA) lacks this feature -- it uses just a plain plastic concentric ring with the tab molded into it. Try mounting a Pre-AI lens on an FE2 and you risk breaking off the metering tab. And even though its larger and much heavier, the F4 is one of my favorites also for this very reason. I find its AF capabilities to be rather abysmal though, especially when trying to shoot moving subjects. I also own a Nikon EL2 (second version of the Nikkormat EL), which seems to be the direct predecessor to the FE. Great camera -- bigger and heavier than the FE, but a very solid feeling camera. And of course, there's the F3. Love it or hate it, it's a solid good camera and has proved its worth in a pro environment many times over. Svelte and relatively light weight, it was Nikon's big departure in a pro camera because of its battery dependence. The Minolta X570 is a better choice than the X700 because the meter on the X570 is fully coupled in manual mode. It is not on the X700. Yes, you're giving up the Program mode with the X-570, but it still has Aperture priority which is usually more than enough automation for most folks. The MD-11 is another great choice -- probably Minolta's finest 35mm SLR in terms of build quality. Most any Canon EOS has a fully coupled meter in manual mode, even the basic Rebels. So it's a matter of choosing whatever other features and/or capabilities you want. The only FD Canon that has a fully coupled meter and at least one auto exposure mode is the New F-1 with the AE FN finder. No other FD Canon with an auto exposure mode has a fully coupled meter -- not even the T90. A glaring oversight, I've always felt. I'm not familiar enough with Pentax's AF offerings to say what they offer, but when it comes to their manual focus cameras, there are more than one. However, my favorite Pentax with an auto mode and fully coupled meter is, by far, the LX. It was Pentax's pro-level camera, equivalent to the Nikon F3 and the Canon New F-1. One of my favorite things about the LX is its ability to meter off the film plane. This capability makes long exposures in low light conditions a very useful reality.

On the topic of affordable 6x9's, my personal goal was a clean, late model Zeiss Super Ikonta C with the coated lens and Synchro Compur shutter. But these cameras tend to be quite pricey when one can find one, so I did like many other folks have done, and went the Russian route. I bought a Moskva 5, which is sort of a modern looking update of the Super Ikonta C design. It is somewhat crude in construction, but everything works as it should. Most importantly though, it does take very nice pics. The lens in that old camera is no slouch. It's coated, labeled "H-24 f/3.5 10.5cm." Anyway, the old Moskva is a good shooter, and well worth the money spent.