john_shaeffer

To follow up, I checked ebay and think I see the film you are considering buying. The Super G film may be Fuji's film before they came out with their 4th layer technology that is now in the modern equivalent Fuji Press film. Just my personal opinion, the newer film is better than the older stuff you are considering buying. As I said in my earlier post, I am not always convinced that newer is better (ie. the MX-II film I mentioned), but with the Fuji 800 film, I think newer is better.

 

Fuji 800 Press and Superia (both CZ) may be the cheapest, most effective films on the market to handle just about any of your photo taking needs. For general snap shots up to 8x10 you can't go wrong. I'm not saying the current Fuji 800 is the greatest or the best, but for general snapshots its works well for sun, low light, macro, etc. It generally runs about $3 a roll for 36 exp. at B&H and Filmclub on ebay when they are offering it. You might be able to get it cheaper at Target or Walmart when it is on sale in the Superia version.

K mount lenses will fit the camera, but I think you have to manually focus any lens on this camera.

 

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/xr-x3pf/xr-x3pf-splash.htm

Get a Zorki 6 and use the money you save on the camera to pay for lenses. The Zorki 6 has a hinged back so it is easy to load. It has a rapid advance lever. It has the take up spool built into the camera, so you aren't going to lose it. It's rangefinder is probably the best of any of the Leica copies, similar to the rangefinder on the Kiev Contax copies. It is much easier to use than the Keiv since it doesn't weigh a ton. It also has a diopter built just to the side of the rewind knob that allows you to adjust the viewfinder easily to you eyesight, and thus makes glasses unnecessary. It is also much easier to rewind than most Russian copies, as the rewind button is separate and not built around the shutter release, which eventually leads to problems with other Russian cameras.

 

In terms of use it is like using a Japanese 60's or 70's rangefinder (without a built in meter), with the bonus of taking just about any LTM lens.

 

I know it ain't a Leica, but you won't have to worry about damaging it or it getting stolen. They run $20-$40 and there are usually a few decent ones on ebay at any given time.

Andrew says: "If I am correct in seeing that these cameras have a fixed-focus, f/5.6 fixed aperture lens, then that's a terrible shame.

 

A 50 year old Minox B has an f/3.5 lens and adjustable focus. One HELL of a lot more workable. What's Minox thinking these days?"

 

Now that is really ironic--the Kodak KE-60 and most likely the one time use "digital" that Steve's wife used also have a fixed f5.6 lens. Of course the Kodak one timer isn't really digital, but scans can be made of the negatives, just like with any other film camera.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I love my Minox 35MB and truth to tell it probably has a sharper lens than the KE-60. But for your average 4x6 snapshot prints, it is not always apparent that the MB is "better" than the KE-60 (plus the KE-60 has an adequate flash built onto the camera and the distance from the lens helps eliminate red eye).

 

I think Minox deserves Steve's wrath for packaging these cameras at highly inflated prices, when they skimp on the functionality. But as always, we as consumers must always beware. In the long run, Minox/Leica will be hurt by their marketing hijinks.

Wally:

 

Getting what you pay for is true but only to a certain point. My experience is there is a wide variety of prices for wildly unpredictible processing. I can pay the following for processing the same 36 exposure roll:

 

Qualex grocery store style processing directly at the processing plant:

about $4

 

Qualex processing when I leave the film at the grocery store or drug store: about $8-9 (same exact processing as above)

 

Walmart non one hour processing: about $6.

 

Kodak mailers for Perfext Touch processing at Fairlawn, NJ: about $9 if you buy them from B&H, half that or less if you get them on ebay.

 

You can pay a lot more for A&I mailers or processing at camera stores--heck, even at Motophoto you'll pay a lot more. Is Motophoto better because you pay more? Is Ritz better because you pay more? Probably not, in my opinion.

 

I don't think you can blame someone for going where the prices are lower, because I don't think paying a higher price always guarantees quality processing. Digital has meant the demise of many film processors and has caused the dumbing down of the remainder. Witness Mystic being bought and basically closed down by District/Clark (although they still operate as Mystic in name to try to take advantage of the higher margin). It is kind of a vicious cycle that drives even more people toward digital, as film processing becomes more inconsistent. Maybe that's what the big companies really want, at the end of the day. Hey along with those digitals, ya need printers and better computers and batteries, etc, etc.

Thanks for the replies--I guess we are all going digital, whether we want to or not :).

I've used Walmart.com for reprints of jpegs from digital cameras and they have done a great job. On the other hand, the local Walmart (Fuji) non-one hour developing of film and resulting prints was disappointing. I mean not like I was expecting much, but at about $6 a roll it is more than I have been paying.

 

With Kodak's mailer service (Qualex, Fairlawn, NJ)switching over to Perfect Touch, the last chance for low cost accurate color processing may have been lost, at least from the several rolls I have gotten back since they made the switch. I didn't pay B&H prices for the mailers, but got them on ebay for less.

 

I live near District Photo/Clark in Beltsville, MD. They do the Qualex processing for most of the DC area stores. I've sworn to myself I wouldn't go back there, to their Snapshops outlet, but as things stand now, everything has pretty much been dumbed down to that. You either send you film to A&I, or go to Ritz and expect to pay $12 a roll for 36 exposure developing and prints, or hold your breath and take your non important stuff to District for $3.99. Certainly for the film burning, day to day shots, it is a no brainer.

 

Gee, I'm starting to like the Polaroid Spectra cameras that I'm playing around with lately, more and more :).

OK--my cheap processing travels took me to my neighborhood Walmart

(Maryland City, MD) store where I dropped the C41 film for processing

by their regular service (not 1 hour service).

When last I commented, I had just been subjected to Kodak "Perfect

Touch" from Fairlawn NJ which rendered bizarre colors on my prints

and left them generally not sharp.

 

I got the prints back from Walmart. They are generally sharper than

Kodak's and the colors of primary subjects are more accurate (what

wouldn't be?--Imperfect Touch rendered some folks on fire). I used

mostly Fuji Press 800, with some Konica 400 and 100 consumer film.

Some of the prints from a couple of rolls seemed washed out, with

absolutely no sky. I mean, it was like someone substituted white for

the sky. When the sky did show on other rolls, the colors were washed

out. This is with different cameras, mind you. So do I just get my

crayons out for the sky, or what?

 

By the way, before you tell me that Fuji Press will not render an

accurate sky color, I have used the film a lot in all conditions and

know that it will. Kodak processing before P Touch was capable of

this and I have broken down and spent more for A&I mailers, when I've

had something meaningful.

 

I am assuming that places like Ritz (Fuji) have their film processed

at the same place as Walmart for non-one hour service, so do I try

one hour service or what?

So what is involved in replacing the corroded battery wire? I think my S2 has the same problem, although the shutter seems to work well.

 

I also have an Auto S that looks like it came off the production line. The meter on that one works well. In fact there are two settings for the meter, one for regular light and one for low light. Unfortunately, the highest ISA/ASA setting on the S is 200, if you want to use the meter on the camera.

 

The lenses on the S2 and the S remind me of the Planar lens that came standard on the Rolleiflex SLRs a few years later. Pretty sharp at f8 and wider. The Konicas are good for handheld pics in low light.

Interesting comment about edgy prints--almost like a layered look--I think this has something to do with Perfect Touch being digital printing.

 

Yes I agree, the colors were indeed out of this world and had no consistency whatsoever! I used Konica and Fuji Press 800, primarily. Konica can tend to be pink, but not like this. Fuji Press usually renders accurate color until Imperfect Touch, that is.

 

The only prints that came back OK were made from Gold 100. I guess they couldn't totally screw up a sharp film to begin with. I've got a few mailers left, so that is all I'll be sending them.

You didn't say slides or C41 film.

 

For slides, I'd say to get Fuji mailers. For C41 negatives and prints I'd say A&I (you can get the mailers from B&H Photo). They do slides, also, but for more than Fuji. As I said in an earlier thread, I've used Kodak mailers for a long time for C41 negative film, but now that they have converted over to their Perfect (HA!) Touch processing, (at least at Fairlawn, NJ mailing center) I can't recommend them anymore. The last two batches I got back from there were perfectly awful.

 

You can use National Geographic's Lab in Washington DC as a mail order processor, but it is more expensive than A&I. That's where I take my important stuff, but I live in the DC area.

Mike:

The Icarex line was carried on in the Rollei 35 SLR line. The Rollei SL35 started out as a thread mount and then became a bayonet mount shortly after. The rollei SL35M and 35ME were enhanced versions of the last camera in the Icarex line, the SL706.

 

Unlike the S that the original poster was asking about, the newer Rolleis had open aperture metering and are nicer to use. Most of these cameras were made in Singapore and Rollei farmed out a lot of the lens making for them to different contractors, Mamiya being the largest. In fact the screw mount M42 SX lenses that won a bit of praise for Mamiya were all also made for the Rolleiflex SLR lineup and are know as Rolleinars.

 

The Rollei SLRs are relatively heavy cameras and were priced much higher than the Japanese competition at the time--so they never caught on. These days the cameras don't tend to be too expensive, but outside of the standard lenses, which are the only Singapore made lenses, most of the other focal lengths tend to be pretty pricey. The Planar 50mm normal lens is really an excellent performer. The only thing I don't like about the SL35M that I have is that the shutter doesn't like cold weather, which may indicate a need for a CLA.

Do you have a lens already?--try that first before you invest any more money--you'll probably figure out what you need on your own.

Sigma filtermatic f2.8. Four filters built into a wide angle--great lens, not light, though, like a VC 25mm for example.

How about K-mount? The Ricoh XR-7 is a very underrated camera that has the multiple exposure capability. You should be able to get a working one for less than $100. There are also similar XR cameras like the XR-P that may run a bit more.

 

Here is the online manual for the XR-7 that explains how the multiple exposure function works:

 

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/xr-7/xr-7.htm#MULTIPLE EXPOSURE

Rick:

Thanks for the test. I think I read somewhere that the Rikenon K mount standard lens was judged to be one of the sharpest in an 80's lens test. The Industar and later Biotar certainly did well here.

 

Ricoh offers some of the best values in older cameras. The XR line of SLRs are a good alternative to the Pentax line and the glass ain't bad either, as we see here. Their older P&S cameras, like the FF-1 (Minox 35 copy), FF-90 and R-1 are unheralded values. Guess if you make cameras for Sears, you don't score in the snob appeal category, though :).

I use Kodak (Qualex), Fairlawn, NJ processing a lot because I get the mailers cheap. There is inconsistency in processing, but I don't think they have gone over to Perfect Touch digital processing there. I have notice the stacked on appearance of photos done when Perfect Touch processing is chosen, when I have taken film to drug stores and chosen Kodak processing (not one hour on site processing).

This is especially evident in any macro photos I've had processed through Perfect Touch.

 

I'm in the DC area and would take anything that matters to the National Geographic Lab for processing. You can use them for mail order, too:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/labs/

 

My experience with other mail order processors, including the much praised A&I, is that they aren't that great to justify the higher cost, compared to Kodak.

Richard:

I have the Industar standard lens that I got with a Fed camera. Don't like the camera much, but am impressed with the lens--so I wondered about getting a Jupiter standard focal lens, so I could compare. I understand that quality control was an issue with Russian lenses, from reading here. So if anybody knows of a good dealer or has one sitting around gathering dust, let me know. I am not a non-profit, but work for one, so am used to asking for hand outs :).

Mystic is now owned by Clark/District Photo, and has been for about a year. That would explain why their processing sucks and why you are getting off brand film instead of the house Agfa film that they used to sell when they were owned by the Swiss company that sold them down the river to Clark. If you look at the Neighbor to Neighbor comments on Mystic in film processing you'll get the full story.

The real Mystic Color Lab (not the Clark in name only Mystic) is

coming back:

Here is the article from The Day, a New London, Ct. newspaper that

was printed on August 25. The grand opening on the business was

August 29:

 

Staff Of Former Photo Lab Confident In

Developing New Company

 

By JOE WOJTAS

Day Staff Columnist

Published on 8/25/2003

 

Mystic � During the dark days of last winter, just after a Swiss

conglomerate closed the Mystic Color Lab and put 120 people out of

work, color lab President Edward McCabe gathered with some of his

fellow employees.

 

�We said, �Do you think we could do this all over again?' � McCabe

recalled.

 

It took five months. But on Friday, McCabe and seven other color lab

employees will open ABC PhotoLab in the Mystic Packer Building on

Roosevelt Avenue.

 

While the new photo finishing company will start small, McCabe and

the others in the locally owned firm see it growing.

 

�I'd like to see it get to the size Mystic Color Lab was,� McCabe

said Sunday. �We had 120 people and I'd feel good if I could employ

120 people in this community again.�

 

The sudden closing of the color lab closing surprised McCabe and his

employees, who praised him for his six years of running the company.

The color lab was also known for its strong support of the community

and ABC PhotoLab continued that tradition with its support of the

Mystic Outdoor Art Festival this month.

 

McCabe said that last March he and fellow color lab officials Janet

Grant, D. Bruce Tetlow and Donna Criscoulo began developing a

business plan.

 

�We said, �Suppose we went local and got wholesale accounts.' We ran

the numbers and it looked pretty good. We then convinced ourselves

that we could make a go of it at that point,� McCabe said.

 

The group then began to look for funding and investors but had some

trouble with the slumping economy. Early last month, McCabe said five

Mystic residents, whom he said do not wish to be identified, agreed

to provide the financial backing for the business. More recently the

southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region has extended a line of

credit to ABC PhotoLab.

 

The company name is meant to recall the former ABC Film Company that

was the original parent company of the Mystic Color Lab, founded by

Stanley Popiel in 1969. It was then sold to a Swiss company in 1989,

and it closed last winter.

 

Unlike Mystic Color Lab, which is primarily a mail order business,

McCabe said ABC would handle local film processing orders as well as

larger photo orders for businesses.

 

�We're not starting out in the mail order arena,� McCabe said.

 

He said the business would use the latest production equipment to

service both digital and traditional film orders. This may give the

company an advantage as more and more people use digital cameras.

Customers will even be able to e-mail images to be printed as well as

drop off film at the Packer building.

 

�We're designing it for the digital age. We're going in with the

latest equipment,� he said.

 

Gary Silk of Westerly, who worked 14 years as the color lab's

production manager, will hold the same position at ABC. He

said, �Virtually anything the customer can get to us we'll be able to

print it.�

 

�I'm really excited about this,� he said. �As a business it has a

pretty good chance. We have people who have been doing this a long

time,� he said. �This is good news for us, and good news for the

community. We're hoping the community will come back.�

 

The businesses Web site is www.ABCPhotoLab.com

I would have liked to link you to the page at the newspaper website,

but the article expired and you had to get a password to access it.

You have to fill in a lot of personal info to do this although it is

free. I'll keep an eye on further developments now that I am signed

up.

 

I tried the web site but it wouldn't come up this morning. I

certainly wish them well, but I suppose this will be a real challenge

for them. If they were willing to accept mail order film, I'd

certainly send it there without hesitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've used all of the different consumer films including HQ 200.

 

I find myself either using Kodak Gold 100 film or 400/800 speed film from various manufacturers.

 

Gold 100 is probably the most predicable consumer film, with true color and fine grain. If I need to bump up to a faster film, I go with 400 or 800 speed--200 doesn't help much and no consumer film, including Reala which is more expensive than Gold 100, is a better buy.

 

I have been surprised with Agfa Vista 800. It has many of the characteristics of Gold 100, with three extra stops. It is just not that easy to find on the cheap!

You can still buy the film--you may have to call around in SF to find out if anyone will still process the film. More details on buying and processing 126 film at:

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/

Gold Max 800 and Max 800 are two different films. B&H listed the film I bought as Max 800 and sent me the Gold Max 800 instead. Being relatively new at photography and not having read a lot of film reviews, I didn't know the difference until I used a few rolls, and started researching the films.

 

What I am saying is B&H, at least in this instance, was deceptive in their advertising. If I hadn't used other film in my camera and known that it worked OK, I would have thought that there was something wrong with the camera.

 

I suppose someone at B&H were laughing because he dumped some of that crap film on an unsuspecting user. So that is why there is no guarantee if you buy your film at B&H you are going to get good film.

 

That is also why I would not recommend that the original poster shop there. There are plenty of jerks out there, and they are not only on ebay. B&H obviously knew about the poor performance of that film, since I think their business is the photographic business. The fact that B&H continued to sell it (and advertise it as something else) is not good for them, IMHO.

I don't think B&H is a good place to buy film. Their shipping costs are outrageous. Their non USA film tends to be bad, especially the Kodak versions from Australia. The USA film prices are no better than any chain store, and then you've got to add that shipping. You are better off buying film on ebay in quantity. You can get mailers on ebay much cheaper than from B&H. The only mailers I'd buy from B&H are the A&I ones, for times when you want to be absolutely certain of a careful job on your pics.

 

I've still got some Kodak Gold Max 800 in the fridge--I'll send it to you for free if you want to see how bad film purchased from B&H can be. I've also got some Kodak 200 film that they sold me that is still in date, if you prefer that junk :). I've bought store close out film on ebay (and who knows what that has been exposed to) that is much better and loads cheaper!

Mitsubishi film is a great low budget film in any speed. It is repackaged Konica film--you can buy it cheap here:

 

http://www.filmart.com/cgi-bin/filmart/item_list/cat92/Mitsubishi_Color_Film.html

 

I also like Kodak Gold 100, also know as Kodak Bright Sun. It is the best print film that Kodak makes (or made, if they have discontinued it, like they did their professional 100 speed films).

Start taking Vitamin B-1 (Thiamine Hydrochloride) at 100 mg. a day. The mosquitos will not both you then, but can't be sure about the others.