mark_hahn

<p>The first Kievs actually were Contax cameras.</p>

<p>I had a Kiev sitting on my self for more than 10 years, I never got past a couple frame shutter test (it was slow). I love my FED-1 (when it works) and my Leica IIIc... much more elegant and enjoyable cameras for me to use. Sold my Kiev last year. The Kiev is a pretty camera IMO, but it doesn't feel so nice in my hand as the small rounded Barnack-style cameras.</p>

<p>I'm also a fan of the FED-2 and Leningrad-7 meter! :)</p>

<p>I just bought the Unicolor C41 kit to do at home. People say it is no problem, especially with C41 b&w film... more expensive the Rodinal though.</p>

<p>I'm really sure I can handle two different exposure settings. :)</p>

<p>I shoot my Leica with full manual settings all the time with no meter... I rarely get a bad exposure.</p>

<p>I thought the Canon 100 USM macro was kind of harsh. I tried 3 Tokinas and they all had an issue with not getting flat field focus across the frame... too bad, otherwise the lens was very pleasing to me. From other's examples, I think the Tamron 90 is the one to buy in this length. For a cropped camera I think the little EF 50CM is the star... about half the price of what you are looking at now. I sold the 100 and kept the 50. Now I use a TS-E 90, sometimes with tubes or TC... but that is certainly not a budget lens. Seriously, get the 50CM</p>

<p>I can't say I ever get any really great images from any of my crappy cameras, but they somehow excite me more than my Canon's and Leica's... :)</p>

<p>Let's see... in the last week I have purchased a Holga 120 GN, a Lubitel 2 (mint!), a Bilora Bella and Bella 66!!! Wow... too much fun for one month!</p>

<p>...oh... and sorry, but crappy digital might be fun, but it doesn't have the charm of manual film cameras...</p>

<p>Lubitels can be good too... as a Brilliant copy. :)</p>

<p>(I just picked up a mint Lubitel-2 at the camera show this weekend... only $20!)</p>

<p>>>A Voightlander Brillant is a nice camera....</p>

<p>ok, I don't shoot much color film... but when I go travelling I like just plain old Kodak Gold 200, moderate speed for almost anything, moderately fine grained, nice saturated colors (work well for Utah red rocks etc.), works well with all cheap developing I've gotten... and you can buy it almost anywhere in large cheap 3-5 packs.</p>

<p>yeah, yeah, Velvia and Kodachrome are nice, but ISO 50 and 64? what a pain... plus the lack of latitude...</p>

<p>If you need more speed, Kodak High Def is really nice for ISO 400. Reala is nice as well, but just garden variety Superia is fine too.</p>

<p>>>What kind of details would you like?</p>

<p>Like how you did it? :)</p>

<p>well... it looks cool and all, but how about some details????</p>

<p>Box cameras are horrible to use because of the crappy little viewfinders. Folding camera with an optical or sports finder are much better to shoot and usually have better lenses and speeds. I like my Franka Rolfix and Ansco Speedex.<br>

I personally like the look of the Holga with the glass lens, better contrast and center sharpness than the plastic lens and blurrier corners... pleasing to my eye... that would be my vote to start with.<br>

An Agfa Click or Clack is another old idea.<br>

Something about the reissue Diannas that I don't like... it's really just me. It's a crappy camera copied from an old crappy camera... produced just to make money. I think I'd feel like a sucker buying one.<br>

Don't get a Holga with the flash or the crappy color things... they are just gimicks. If you find you need a flash for your Holga, better to put one on the hotshoe... and a $10 Vivitar bounce will give you pleasing flash images instead of a crappy thing right over your lens.<br>

I don't think cheap plastic 35's have the same charm as medium format crappy cameras.</p>

<p>Crappy cameras can be fun and rewarding (well... kind of)... just do it!</p>

<p>selecting between sunny and cloudy is hardly an imposition on the Holga experience... it just nets you some better tonality when you go to print... and with XP-2 Super or some other fast film, f8 & ~1/100th is way way over-exposed... so the dreadful muddy prints I'd get would take away most of my enjoyment... I'm not trying to get a cheap Hasselblad out of it or anything!</p>

<p>:)<br>

>>Who cares? It is a Holge You zone focus you point you shoot ... You then use photo shop to help.. if you over expose... and I get more over than under... LOL the main point is to just shoot and enjoy.</p>

<p>PS For $29 delivered to my door, 120 GN was probably "over-priced," but hardly a "sin." :)</p>

<p>thanks all! I was just curious if I was just unlucky or what. If they went through all the effort to add a bulb setting and tripod mount, but didn't include the specified apertures, why bother?</p>

<p>anyway, I've modded a few Holgas before, so I'm looking forward to doing it again. :)</p>

<p>I just haven't decided whether to make the added aperture f16 or f22.</p>

<p>For the record, focusing and minor exposure control make the cameras more usable, otherwise I'd just shoot a Hawkeye or something.</p>

<p>Back when I was a kid I got a Diana F... then in art school I was issued another... I'm not willing to pay the going rate for another. I got suckered into the Holga GN because I saw too many images that I actually liked... damnit! Toy cameras really aren't my style...</p>

<p>Just took delivery of a Holga 120 GN today. Was impressed by the generally better workmanship over my older basic Holgas... foam cushioning for the film chamber, the latches all seem to work well out of the box, everything tight... then I flipped the aperture to Sunny and see that once again, there is no second aperture stop in the damn thing. Why can't they just add that little peice????<br>

Anyway, wondering if anyone has ever gotten a Holga with an actual second apeture installed from the factory?<br>

I guess it's really nice that they install the little pallet thing to make it so easy to add your own secondary aperture, but cummon!<br>

Excited to try out the glass lens, but damn, I'm sick of screwing with things before I can actually use them!</p>

<p>Minolta QT... loaded with BW400CN... don't know why I've gone back to 16mm in the present, but having a blast with the little thing! :)</p>

<p>nice photos with a nice feel... I'll have to get around to shooting my clack.</p>

<p>wow! really like the pink one! :)<br>

If you have more, I'd swap out the dials for black only ones though... the colored ones class a little too much formy tastes (hahaha!)... pink and black go well together.</p>

<p>I have a wonderful IIIc and a few lenses... don't use it that much, for similar needs as your's I find that my Kodak Retina IIa is much more user friendly. Combined RF and VF, easier loading, advance lever instead of knob, takes normal film with no modification and is as small as the Leica with a Elmar, but has a great 50/2 lens... the only thing that you lose is the 1/1000th top shutter speed...</p>

<p>don't get me wrong, I love my IIIc, but I shoot my Retina much more...</p>

<p>the photos have charm... in spite of the frog... :)</p>

<p>The original C/V Heliar *is* a collapsable lens.</p>

<p>I don't know which Leica lens is sharpest because I don't own any of them. :)</p>

<p>Any of the Minox 35's are wonderful. superb optics, smaller than a disposable... a real joy to use.<br>

Next would be an Olympus XA.<br>

The Contax T is larger and heavier, but nice.<br>

Then you get into the Olympus Stylus Epic and Yashica T4 (in the side by side comparison *I* chose the Stylus).</p>

<p>yup, me too... shoot photos first, but will go to test charts to compare lenses sometimes. it can be hard to decide if a lens looks really soft because of lack of contrast sometimes, so the charts can help... as a last resort.</p>

<p>I agree that it would be a Leica IIIc... always has been for me, even when they weren't *that* classic yet.<br>

I love my Retina IIa and use it much more than my Leica IIIc, but it doesn't fit as the "Quintessential classic camera" for me.<br>

A Rolleiflex would be a serious contender (even though I don't own one)... as would a Speed Graphic and Nikon F...<br>

(I'm ignoring the lessor known, wonderful collectors pieces that I love to drowl over, because I feel to be quintessential it has to be somewhat common/popular in its time)</p>

<p>I don't have anything to add to the comparisons or anything... but looking through the G's crappy VF made me cancel my intended purchase... didn't take 11 years. (I know the lenses are good and that you can take great photos with the G... I just didn't feel like I had to...)</p>

<p>yes, I've seen that, but most I've seen for sale do not have the "2/50" mark that I have seen. Where is it? How did Kodak reference the 4 different models? A guy on ebay read the box for his "Type B" and it wasn't for a IIa. Am I looking for a "Type A" or "Type C" perhaps?</p>

<p>thanks.</p>