mark_hahn

I think you just have to bend the leather of the case over the wind knob on those... the case is probably stiff with age.

I just shot some 5 year expired TX 120 and it looked like crap! :(

it's the old kodak flash connector, there is a straight adaptor that will fit on. They go for about $20 delivered when you can find them (try ebay). There is a big custom flash cord place that will do it too, but it will be more money that way (forget who they are, but google will find it fast).

An Olympus ECR is a very nice RF that typically goes for ~$10 off ebay... good lens and auto exposure (only). I like mine... even better than my 35RC. For a 50mm lens, look at Retina's (~$50), wonderful gems with good lenses.

I think the Retina IIa is rather wonderful... ~$50. and nice 50/2 lens.

I have a Kenko Pro 1.4 TC and I can't really see any reduction in IQ when I use it... but 2X and 3X TC's are suppose to be much worse though. Who's 3X is it?

I made a sound card shutter tester and it works (google it). a more straightforward method that I have used is just to shoot 5 bracketed frames with a known good camera and a single frame from each test camera and compare the negatives.

Cliff, where are you getting this information? As John says, there is apparently documentation to support that both lenses are Tessar designs (that's why I asked in the first place)... that said, has anyone seen any or have any experience with the non-Super lens? (Though just for the shutter I think I want to wait for a deal on the Super anyway).

 

thanks!

what is the difference between the Special and non-Special lenses on the Monitor? Are they very different or are

they just differently marked? I couldn't find anything definite from google. Anyone shoot both and have comments?

Anyone liking the camera much? How well does the 120 conversion work (losing the film roller, any scratching etc.?)

 

thanks!

my 35/2 and 50/1.8 are both sharper than my 24-70L (though the 24-70L was more lovely in other ways). The corners from my cheap little 135SF were sharper than my 70-200/4L @f4 and 135mm and even with a Kenko Pro 1.4, the SF was sharper than the zoom in the corners at 190mm (the 70-200/4L was also lovely though)...

 

bottomline is that I like small light weight primes so I've sold the zooms.

I used Kodak Tourist for a while with just using fabric paint to fix the 1000's of pin holes along the corners... give it a try, 6x9 is great!

 

Actually he caught a bucket full of tadpoles this day! :)

 

I can't remember if it was shot at f5.6 or f8, it was getting dark. Judging by the water it must have been shot at 1/50th though...

<img src="http://markhahnphotography.com/temp/franka_rolfix.jpg">

 

<p> The camera. I'm pretty sure the red triangle means it has a light monocoating...<br>

 

Says "Made in Germany US-Zone"

<p>

Wow! Thanks all! (I was quite happy with this one myself! :)

 

First roll and obviously the camera is out of adjustment and front focusing (easy fix), but I got lucky with this photo and my son fell right in at the edge of DOF. The print looks great... even to all the digi-geeks I showed it to...

 

From Wikipedia, it looks like mine may also be from 1951.

 

RE: TMX/Rodinal, I just followed the instructions on the back of the Rodinal bottle... 60 sec. constant (gentle) aggitation followed by 5 sec aggitation twice a minute. Unlike many others, I've never had a single problem with TMX and any developer... but it may be that I'm not afraid to aggitate my films, people used to reducing aggitation with other films to reduce grain seem to be the ones with the most problems... I just followed the directions back when it was a new film and never knew it was problematic for others. Rodinal isn't my favorite developer, but I bought a bottle 10 years ago... so whenever my other stuff is outdated I just use the Rodinal. My current favorite is ZonalPro GammaPlus. I personally like TMX quite a bit. For a while I went to Delta because it was cheaper, but Ilford raised their prices so I've gone back to TMX. I haven't tried TMY II yet.

 

The Rolfix is a decent 6x9 pocket camera... much smaller than my Moskva-5... but not so good. I like the 6x9 format a lot.

well, finally got around to putting some film through my new to me Franka Rolfix... a couple of the first 8 photos had

some charm I think:

 

<img src="http://markhahnphotography.com/temp/andrius_net_web.jpg">

 

[TMX, Rodinal]

I would also consider how you are going to print/process the images. If traditional darkroom, great, even the 645 will give you much *better* results than 35mm, but if you are like many of us who have let the cobwebs take over our darkrooms and now scan their film... you have to factor that part in. Dedicated 35mm scanners do a much better job with 35mm negs than a flatbed will do with a 645 neg (I have Nikon Coolscan V and Epson 4990)... by 6x6 or 6x9 or better yet 4x5" the flatbed kicks 35mm's butt, but for 127 or 645 I get better results from the 35mm's.

I use it for macro shots... never did an actual side by side to see how much vibration reduction I get though...

If McCain takes the White house and we get thrown into full fledged depression... no one will be buying cameras on ebay... then when he dies next year and Palin takes office there will be laws passed restricting photographers from taking any images that include nudity or anti-Christian content.

 

:)

 

>>What's McCain and Palin have to do with a Nikon on Ebay?

Summicron-R 50 & Elmarit-R 135

I often trust my guesses more than incident readings from my TTL meters... I don't agree that meters are needed for good consistant negatives... meters get tricked all the time and you then have to guess the EV correction... so often you might as well have just guessed from the start. Yes, get comfortable with one ISO and you can do very well. Shooting high latitude films help... and with anything C41 just err on the side of over exposure and you will do great. I hate fumbling with handheld meters when shooting classic cameras like my IIIc, so I don't... and uncoupled meters often take more time than just guessing.

I find that when I reach a somewhat similar point in my photography that it comes down to having a small capable camera with me at all times and not forcing myself to shoot much at all... I've been alternating between my Minox GL and Olympus XA... both of which are smaller than your Rollei and faster to use, and the XA has a proper RF.

sounds good to me! if the Elmar as easy to work on as the FED and Industar clones you may be able to just clean it up yourself. good luck!

I think this was a nice cheap way in with some style:

 

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/argus_a_p.html

 

have fun!!

FWIW, when I have tried pinholes on my DSLRs the results kind of all sucked... can't explain it, but striking a sensor seems different than film...

here was page from years ago:

 

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/pinhole_concepts.html

 

here are some photos:

 

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/minox_format_pinhole_photographs.html

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/goodbye_conn.html

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/a_couple_more_minox_ph.html

 

they were taken with this tiny little camera:

 

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/minox_format_pinhole.html

 

hmmm... I think I have to play around with some of my pinhole camera again!

 

:)

since a bridge circuit would have been so easy to design into any of the classic cameras... we should be more pissed off at the camera makers!

 

Probably, with so much crap out there, the little button cells in cameras didn't add too much to pollution, but it was also easier to just make a more blanket ban than try to realistically exempt this and that... and again, long before the ban went into effect pretty much every camera, meter etc. was designed to take other batteries... we should be pissed at the classic cameras designers for being so darn lazy.