Rollei B35 or 35

[dawn_c1]

<p>And here's another. They look much better in the flesh, my scanner isn't too good.</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Hey Dawn- the photos look plenty sharp. Does Snappy Snaps offer scanning at additional cost? If so you could have CD scans of all the negatives for convenient uploading. Most labs usually scan anyway and make prints from digital files so likely they'd just be making a CD copy of the scans they used to print your pictures.<br>

As for uploading if you resize your photos so the maximum dimension is 700 then they will be displayed with your post rather than appearing as a link.<br>

Anyway, congrats on your first film. I'm looking forward to seeing more.</p>

 

[dawn_c1]

<p>Thanks Mike, I'll do that next time. To be honest I wasn't expecting much from my first roll, I wasn't even sure the camera was working so just had the prints done. I'm heading out tomorrow with a friend, armed with rolls of film, so I'll just get them processed and put on a cd, no prints. Do you think there's a processing difference between somewhere like Snappy Snaps and a more professional outfit? I understand the prints are cheap but if the processing is the same I might go back to them, apart from for the black and white stuff.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>A professional lab could scan at a higher resolution, but would cost a lot more. Here in the states I use CVS for developing my color negative film and let them scan to CD. I never get prints. For black & white I develop in my darkroom using Kodak's HC110 developer. I scan them with an Epson V600. When you get ready to try black & white developing you can get reels and tanks cheap (or even free) because many people have abandoned them for digital. </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Your scanner is fine, Dawn. Your scan just needs proper adjustment. There are plenty of tutorials on the web about this. Negs <em>always</em> scan better than prints which is why it's a good idea to have the lab do it. If you size your images to 700 pixels on the long axis, they will show up here in-line. Enjoy your new Rollei!</p><div></div>

[dawn_c1]

<p>Thanks Louis, did you edit that in photoshop? I didn't do anything with it after scanning as I'm not really going to use it, but it's nice to see what can be done with a bit of adjustment. </p>

<p>I shot another 2 rolls of film on the Rollei yesterday, basically testing what it can do in low light etc. I'll get them scanned this time so if there are any decent ones I'll upload them.</p>

<p>I actually just bought a Canonet ql17, couldn't resist at the price:) I like how it can take care of the exposure for me if I want, or I can do it manually, a nice compliment to the Rollei I think. One question - battery, does the Weincell MR675 need an adaptor/ASA compensation?</p>

[dawn_c1]

<p>I googled and sorted the battery question - a Weincell MRB625 will do the trick apparently.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Yes, histogram adjusted in PS, but most image editors will work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I actually just bought a Canonet ql17</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now yer talking. A camera you can focus with precision. I have a few Rollei's but they sit on the shelf. I'm not a fan of guess-a-focus. They do hold their value well and have a big fan base. The above recommend for the Konica Auto S2 is a good one <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00QTnF">HERE.</a> Works in auto and full manual. One of the best lenses made.<br>

For super compact, I am not a fan of the Oly XA's though they are popular. I like my very small( but not too small) Ricoh 500G <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00XSFF">HERE.</a> It also works in manual or auto. </p>

<p>I hope you will post some of your results. </p>

<p> </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Good job researching the Canonet, Dawn. The Weincell voltage is the same as the mercury cell that it replaces. To save some money when it comes time to replace the Weincell, gently tap the opposing sides of the metal ring around the cell until it slips off. Then buy a multipack of size 675 hearing aid batteries (they are zinc air like the Weincell). Slip the ring over the 675 cell and you have a 625 at less cost. Voltage is 1.4 instead of 1.35 but not enough to make a difference. I use them in all my gear that requires 625 cells.</p>

[dawn_c1]

Nice tip Mike, I'll totally do that.

 

Lovely pictures Louis. I did look at the Konica s2 but it was a bit big and heavy for me. The Ricoh is a definite maybe if for

some crazy reason I don't get on with the Canonet though.

 

Probably a dumb question but can I use my radio triggers and Canon 480ex flash with the Canonet? If yes, how does it

work? With my digital I put the flash in manual and just play about until I get it right. Can't do that with film obviously so I

guess I need to learn how to use lighting properly rather than just winging it :)

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I don't think the Canon 480ex will be compatible with the Canonet. FWIW, I generally don't do flash photography with my viewfinder and rangefinder cameras; I just use them for available light. One useful feature, though, with these cameras is that their leaf shutters will sync with flash at any shutter speed. One of the medium sized shoe mount Sunpak or Vivitar flashes might be a good fit for the Canonet. I use a Sunpak 144D on my Canonet and Olympus 35RC, but for my Konica Auto S2 I use a really old Sunpak 311 because it has a pc cord and the Konica doesn't have a hot shoe. Bottom line: leaf shutter rangefinder cameras can deliver awesome fill-flash photos in daylight.</p>

[dawn_c1]

<p>I thought it'd be something like that Mike, I'll pick up a small one, they look pretty cheap. As long as they have auto, right?</p>

<p>The Canonet doesn't come with a lens cap. Not a big deal, I can get a filter for it but if you have your Canonet there, what size would a push on cap be? I know the filter size is 48mm so I'm guessing around 50mm maybe.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The push on cap is 48mm on inside but larger on outside. What I've done with mine, though, is I use a 48 to 49 step up ring (I leave it attached to camera) so I can use readily available 49mm filters and lens caps. The 48mm size is hard to find where I live and even at most online stores. You can still get 49mm accessories new so I prefer the step up ring.</p>

[dawn_c1]

<p>So the next couple of rolls didn't come out too well, partly my error and partly a random mark on all the photographs. On the first roll it starts in the corner but by the second it's moved right across the image. I've added a picture, it's the thing that looks like a wire hanging down along the top.</p>

<p>Any thoughts what this could be? I've checked the lens and can't see anything that wasn't there when I took the first roll of film. You'll also notice the terrible quality of the scan. Snappy Snaps, I won't be using them again.</p><div></div>

[dawn_c1]

<p>And here it is a few frames later, even further down.</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If it were in the lens the mark would not be in focus. Either it is a fiber across the film gate or a processing error in the lab. The next time the camera is unloaded lift up the hinged pressure plate and see if there is any loose fiber. The way that it shifted position between photos is consistent with a loose fiber (like a thread or piece of hair).<br>

If the film gate is clear look at the negatives. If the line is missing from the negatives then the lab needs to clean the scanner. Hope this helps.</p>

[dawn_c1]

<p>That does help, thanks Mike. It's on the negatives too but definitely not in the camera, as I checked it before loading the film. There are dust marks on a lot of the images too so I think it must be Snappy Snaps. I've spoken to them and going to return for a refund, it's just a good job the pictures weren't much good as they've totally ruined them. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Yes, it sounds like the lab scratched your negatives. If you should happen to have an important image, though, you can open it in Photoshop or similar program and "clone out" the scratch or any dust spots, although it will be time consuming.</p>

[dawn_c1]

<p>Yeah, they're not worth it, only two pictures I want to keep really (below).</p><div></div>

[dawn_c1]

<p>You can really see the dust on this one.</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

Excellent sharpness and color.

[dawn_c1]

<p>Thanks Mike :)</p>

<p>Quick question about flash - has anyone used the Cobra Auto 210 flash? It's pretty cheap and tilts for bounce, so thinking of getting it for my Canonet.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Not familiar with that one. Maybe sold under different name in the USU.

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>the next couple of rolls didn't come out too well, partly my error</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee, I don't know Dawn. A bit of quick (a bit too quick) touch up to remove the scratch and a little color juice to the scan and I'd say you did darn good!</p><div></div>

[dawn_c1]

<p>Ah, thanks Louis and thanks for editing out that mark, it's nice to see it can be fixed with a little work/patience. I don't usually photograph city/landscapes so this was a real 'hit and hope'.</p>

<p>I went with a Miranda 400-CB flash for my Canonet but can't find the guide number anywhere. Google has nothing so I'm guessing I just follow the settings guide on the back. However, if any of you know what the number is then give me a shout, it might may things a little easier for this amateur-who-hasn't-used-flash-outside-of-ttl-on-a-dslr :D</p>