stephen_poe

On the older Nikormats like the FT2 (my first Nikon from 1976) that sad day eventually comes when the resistor disk in the exposure system fails. These have not been available since the last century and if the shutter is still accurate you simply have a non-metered Nikon. What I found that I really enjoyed was using a very nice Nikon F that had a completely failed meter. I was fortunate in finding a non-metered pentaprism and use the camera either with a hand held meter or just sunny 16. I have been quite happy stepping back to the pre-metered Nikon days - not that much different than shooting with a Leica M3. And being 80 I can still remember learning photography before cameras had meters. Still a pleasure using a Nikon F in it's original configuration. Cheers

At one time was fairly smitten with N90s Nikons - but discovered that the rubberized coating on the back turned sticky fairly quickly. Rest of the camera was fine, just the back. Turned out on the N90s the solution was simply to remove the sticky coating which left you with a nice shiny black plastic back. As I recall, I used both 91% ETOH and Coleman fuel which is actually naptha. And simple scrapers made from Popsicle sticks sharpened into a chisel-edge scraper and which did not scratch. Always a relief when I finished up and had a nice clean and not sticky back. Rest of the camera seemed fine, and so far no problems with my F100. Things like the use by Nikon of things like the short-lived rubber coatings make you wonder what they were thinking. When I loan one of my N90s cameras to one of my students they always come back pretty amazed at what a cool camera this is. I agree

My basic set of Mamiya lenses (65, 80, 135, 180) don't get left on the camera body if I am not using them for any length of time. Humidity is a villain I think, since fungus loves it. But I can't keep the house too dry or my guitars will crack and warp. Solution seems to keep the Mamiya lenses in a zip lock bags with a couple of desiccant packs. I grew up in coastal Florida and my dad was fungus phobic. He had cabinets with light bulbs inside that he kept all of his photo gear in.. Seemed to work pretty well, but these days zip lock and desiccant seems to be a simpler solution. Growing up is South Florida and working in tropical areas of Mexico teaches you a lot about preventing fungus. Like rust on tools, fungus never sleeps.

TLR's seem to have been part of my life. When I was a kid in the 1940's and 50's I always remember my mother being out and about with a Rollei. She made it clear that was the only camera for her. And BTW, I come by this photo stuff honestly - my parents met in a photography class back in the 1930's, and when looking for their first apartment after they were married the most important thing was a space for a darkroom. Back in the 1960's I was taking photography classes form John Colllier Jr. when he was teaching at SF State. Due to his influence I got my first TLR, a nice used Minolta Autocord. Cameras have come on gone over the years, but the core of my working collection has always been TLR's - Rolleis, Autocords, Yashica Mats, and various Mamiya 330 and 220 cameras. I think what influenced me to try the Mamiyas was seeing pictures Diane Arbus with her Mamiya. And I think the reason I have stuck with TLR's is that I enjoy using them - they just feel right and I like seeing what is going on. These days I mostly use a 220 F with a 135mm lens and the "L" grip- seems to be the most comfortable (and lightest) for portraits. I have my Nikon stuff for bugs and birds, but I think I get the most enjoyment working in medium format. Recently my grand daughter started doing film, and was very happy with the Yashica Mat I sent her. Nice to be passing this on to another generation. If you didn't grow up with it, TLR's take a little getting used to, but worth the effort. The nice thing about the Mamiya system is that it is not that expensive, and you can experiment to find the lens that works the best for you. That is how I got to the 135 - tried all of them, and that was just my happy place for the photography I do - and a good deal cheaper than a tele Rollei which is the only other 135. Can't really do that with any other TLR system. Cheers and stay well

The little Busch is a nice camera - about all you can compare it to is the Century Crown Graphic. In many ways the Busch is a nicer build, but the Century Crown does have a built-in Graflok back. To me a big plus which more more than offsets the fact that the Century Crown is made out of Mahoganite plastic. I had a Busch that I adapted a Mamiya Universal Press G back to which made a nice outfit. But given that the G backs are now going for about $150 it made a very expensive outfit. One thing that you can do with any of these 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 cameras with a Graflok back is use a Horseman revolving back. Makes it very easy to switch between the ground glass focusing screen and the roll film back. But bulky. Oh well, nothing is perfect. But will hang on to my two Century Crown Graphics for when I feel the need for a miniature field camera. Actually, my introduction to this format was a Horseman 980 that I got at an estate sale for very little $$ (they had no idea of it's value) - with 3 lenses and 2 horseman backs. The Horseman was really nice and got me into small field cameras. But I ended up selling it for a for fair price which allowed me to fund a variety of low budget projects. I think in the end the key to enjoying any of these small cameras is a Graflok or equivalent back (the Horseman has the functional equivalent) that makes it easy to switch between the ground glass and the roll film back. Cheers

Ok, part of the problem solved. Turns out (from the copy of the owners handbook I found) that the standard lens in the flip-up magnifier is a -1.5 diopter. So that can be solved since there are a couple of sources for flip-up magnifier lenses. Still working on the loose focusing. Thanks

For the last 20 years my favorite portrait out fit has been my Mamiya C330 with the 135mm lens. Just suits me fine in so many ways. My grand daughter has been getting seriously interested in film photography. Mostly she has been using a nice Yashica D TLR and the light meter app on her iPhone for an exposure meter. She has borrowed my C330 and agrees that the 135mm lens is great for portraits. Sooooo, after a bit of looking around I found a nice C220f with a very clean and accurate shutter 135. But it turns out there a couple of issues that I need to address before I turn it over to her. It has the type 2 WLF that lacks the sports finder. That is no problem, but it came with a +2 diopter magnifier which is very frustrating if you have "normal" vision. That is her, and at 79 I still have a great correction which lets me use the standard WLF magnifier. Am I right in thinking that the standard magnifier in this WLF was a -1.5? If so, I have found some and can replace the one in there. The standard diopter of this WLF seems to be a very obscure piece of information. Second thing is the C220f seems to have been hardly used, and when you focus there is a tendency for the front to creep back. I think it is a combination of the bellows wanting to spring back to its folded state, and the focusing being quite free. I have been letting the camera sit with the bellows extended (propped open with a small block of wood) and maybe this will help, but would still like to tighten up the focusing a bit. My goal is to have the camera free of frustrations when I turn it over to her. Don't want to discourage her. Thanks in advance for any help

While appreciating some of the better 6x6 folders, I still have quite a fondness for the simpler Zeiss folding cameras. Perhaps because that is what my photographer father gave me when I went off to college in 1957. It was a Zeiss Ikonta 523/16 with an f/3.5 Tessar and of the better Prontor shutters. No range finder so I had to master zone focusing as well as sunny 16. It did have double exposure prevention, but you still had to cock the shutter after you advanced the film, and check the little red window to get the frame properly centered. It did get me through college and is currently with my son. And still taking fine pictures. And I have in my collection 3 518/16 Nettars similar to the one I started out with 62 years ago. And after this time I still now and then go back to the folders that provided me with my first real education in photography - the Nettar and a little cardboard Kodak exposure dial, and teaching myself to estimate how far away things were. I have expanded my folder range to include a couple of Voigtlander Perkeo cameras which I find to be every bit as nice as the Ikonta and Nettar. You have to look around a bit to find one with a light-tight bellows and a clear lens. The older shutters often seem to be slow on the slow speeds, but when hand-holding I find that I rarely use speeds slower than 1/50. And cheat a bit in determining exposure by using one of the exposure meter apps on my phone. Using one of the good folders from the 50's gives me a chance to slow down and think about what I am doing. And now my grand daughter has become interested in using MF folders. She started with a Yashica D, but seems to have now realized the value of a camera that you can slip into your pocket. There is everything to recommend these cameras for getting back to fundamentals and doing some very enjoyable photography. Cheers

I used to do a lot of pinhole with camera bodies made out of things like oatmeal boxes. I liked the somewhat panorama effect that I got when the film followed the curve of the round box - the the exposure was more even since the pinhole was about the same distance from the edges and the center of the film. The sheet film holder was cardboard strips glued to the inside of the oatmeal box so that I could use a changing bag to insert the film. Taped the lid on, and had reinforced the bottom with a piece of wood with a threaded fitting so I could mount the camera on a tripod. Worked great, and now that my grand daughter is getting interested in pinhole I guess I need to make a couple of new ones.

I don't use my F and F2 that much any more, but sometimes I do feel the need to do some time travel and shoot some film. Back in the late 90's I was at a camera show out on the west coast and had a chance to buy a couple of plain pentaprisms in nice shape for $35 each. At that time there did not seem to be that much interest in the non-metered prisms - I guess everyone thought that the newer metered prisms and their mercury batteries were going to go on forever. Not. Anyway, I am really glad that I bought those plain pentaprisms - they are still in great shape and it is a pleasure to be out and about with my F using either sunny 16 of one of my light meters. In the case of the metered prisms it is not just the obsolete mercury batteries, but the issue of the resistor disk wearing out. If the metered prisms need any parts they are pretty much impossible to find. And I got to thinking that this may be a generational thing. I am 78, and got serious about photography long before built in meters. When I was in high school my dad gave my an Ikonta and one one of those old Kodak exposure dials (I think they were about 25 cents). Took me about a week to memorize the exposure values from the dial and that has been in my head ever since. I eventually got a Weston meter, but most of the time found that it was less trouble to just use the exposure dial (now in my head). And that sort of still holds true. I have better and more sensitive meters now (Pentax digital spot is one of my favorites), but is amazing how much you can do without a meter. A Nikon F with a plain pentaprism is a thing of beauty and a chance to get back to basics. Cheers