PatrickMP

<P>I've recently been put in a situation where I need a very, quiet camera. My SLR's are

too loud, and doing research in the 35mm world I have found that rangefinders are

probably my best bet for something quiet, that will still use 35mm film.

<P>Whenever I hear "Rangefinder" I think of "Leica". And then I realize I'm not as rich as

I'd like to be, so a Leica is totally out of the question. And then I found out about the

Voiglander cameras, mostly on <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com">Camera

Quest</A>.

<P>I've sat down, and made a list of what I <em>need</em> in an RF system:

<ul>

<li>TTL Metering

<li>A fast "wide" (either 35, 28, or 24, preferably 28 or 24)

<li>A fast mid-tele (85, maybe 100, preferably 85mm though)

</ul>

<p>"Fast" is a relative term to a lot of people, but I'd like to break the f/2.0 mark. My

current setup is an 85/1.4 and 28/2.8 which is very much lacking on the wide end due to

the speed of the 28mm. Flash isn't really an option, and I'm already at a 400 speed film;

I'd like not to have to go up a notch in speed.

<p>So, where does this leave me? Within my range in terms of bodies are the Bessa R and

Bessa T, but of which seem to TTL. However, I'm at a loss as to all of the lenses that are

out there. The Bessa T takes the Leica T-Mount, and Bessa M takes the Leica Screwmount.

But then I look over lens nomeclature for Leica-ish lenses, and come up against names like

"Ultron", "Nokton", "Heliar", etc. I'm not used to the naming, coming from the 35mm SLR

world where things are usually FocalLength/Speed [add any number of abbreviated

symbols here], such as 85/1.4 A* for my Pentax, or 35/1.4 L USM for a Canon, etc.

<p>So, can anyone point out a "Rangefinder for dummies" link, or give any suggestions?

<p>Thanks,<br>-Patrick

<p>WOW! Thanks for all the replies. I have a question for those of you using the Magnum

AW though. The Lowepro site lists a Magnum MF AW, is that the one that you are all

using? I have the Magnum AW already, and when I did a test fit it was barely enough for a

body (with lens, prism and back attached) with anything extra; you have to fit the camera

in lengthwise.

<P><em>Wow, that's a lot of heavy gear to carry on your shoulders. I would recommend

a rolling case.</em><br>

Well,I don't plan on carrying it many places. I prefer bags to hard cases in general

(personal preference), and being able to take my Magnum onto a plane was a godsend

(although I had to convince them to let me when it wouldn't fit in the little "your bag must

fit in this box" stations at Canadian airports).

<p>I considered a backpack at one point, and I might still get one for my 35mm gear

(expanding to AF, I'll need another bag just for that; my manual focus stuff is a set in

itself, and contains a lot of macro work accessories, so I can't justify selling it. Sigh.) If the

RB could fit in my existing Magnum AW it'd convenient, as I could pick up the backpack

and be done with it.

<p><em>Are you planning on adding any more equipment down the road?</em><br>

The only additional item I want is the third lens, which I don't have yet. Between an

(ultra-)wide, normal, and 180mm tele, I think I'll be set for most situations.

<p>The hunt continues! Thanks again for all of your recommendations.

<p>Well, my medium format RB has just grown again. Unfortunately, the camera bag I

was previously using (Lowepro Elite AW) can no longer hold

everything.

<P>Can anyone make any good recommendations for camera bags? I've been impressed

with the Lowepro (using a Magnum AW for my 35mm gear as well), but haven't searched

for a bag in quite some time. I need one that can hold my entire "planned" system, which

includes two bodies, three lenses, 3 backs, polaroid, Lee filter system, and an extension

tube. Of course, holding some film in there would be nice too! :)

<p>Thanks in advance for any pointers.<br>-Patrick

<p>I started shooting with a Mamiya C220 TLR. I <em>loved</em> that camera, and

only sold it (for parts) because it started to malfunction (too many rough nights in the

studio I'm afraid).

<p>Keep in mind that for MF there are three "major" formats: 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7 (all

centimeters). I would strongly recommend not going 6x4.5, because based on what else

is out there, you are really cutting yourself short (6x4.5 is the smallest MF negative on 120

film out there that I know of, so you aren't taking full advantage of the MF format). Some

people like the 6x6, some hate it, but you'd have to shoot with it to be sure. I moved on

to a Mamiya RB, but after shooting with it for a while realized I love the square more than

the rectangle.

<p>Someone mentioned that TLR's don't have motor winders, non-metering prisms, etc.,

but MF

shooters tend do more stuff "by hand". If you need fast metering prisms, motor drives,

etc., 35mm is still the way to go. That said, the TLR is a great way to start, and dirt cheap.

Mamiya C220/C330 TLR's (base model C220/C330, and I think there are also S and F

bodies) offer great performance, and importantly, interchangeable lenses. The C330 can

also change backs. If you want to go the SLR route (many people don't like the TLR), I

would recommend an RB over the 6x4.5 brethren (Mamiya 1000S, Pentax 645, Bronica

ETR, etc.). Dirt cheap, great system, great glass, and very expandible. There is also the

Bronica SQ (SQ-Ai, SQ-B?) which is 6x6, also a worthwhile camera, but I haven't had much

experience with them.

<p>And for the ultimate SLR, there is the Pentax 6x7. While I haven't used one, my entire

35mm system is Pentax and their glass is <em>excellent</em>. People swear by the

6x7. No interchangable backs, but from what I've heard, for the price of a Hasselblad back

you can buy a second Pentax 6x7 body. If you do a lot of slow work, be on the lookout for

models that have MLU (mirror lockup), as they have bad mirror slap (again, this is heresay

as I've never used one).

<p>If you do your own darkroom work, and your enlarger can't handle MF, get one that

goes to at least 6x7; this will allow you to print all the major MF formats without issue.

<p>Good luck!<br>Patrick

<p>Is this a structured organization? If so, they might already have people in place to

deal with such situations. Try to find anybody along the lines of PR (public relations), or

the closest thing to. When I was trying to do photography on the property of a major

corporation, they were more than happy to let me shoot away, provided I signed the

necessary legal documents. A lot of organizations (at least in Ontario, Canada) use

opportunities such as this to fulfill their "community contributions". A lot of corporations

(legally) have to contribute X dollars or resources back to the community in which they

work; having someone use them as a subject not only gives back to the community, but

they get free publicity in the process!

<p>In my experience you can't just show up and say that you want to shoot them. You

have to have a clear plan of what you want to shoot, why, when, and for how long. The

more information you can provide them, the better.

<p>Having your portfolio helps, but isn't necessary. Prior to shooting the people I had

asked permission of had never seen <em>any</em> of my work.

<p>Cheers,<br>Patrick

<p>Hello all.

<p>I recently came upon two boxes full of what I <em>think</em> are 620 negatives.

Never having seen 620 negatives before, I'm guessing they are, based on their age and

other relatives telling me they used (Kodak) box cameras back then. (Useless assumption

I'm sure). Anyways. The negatives are 70mm wide, and about 10cm long.

<p>The negatives were originally stored in paper envelopes which are showing their age,

so I'm transfering all of them, and I plan on making some contact sheets of everything

before selectively printing them. Because of the odd size, I ordered some PrintFile 70mm

archival sleeves. However, due to the length of the negative I can only fit three negatives

per page! With two boxes full, I am quickly running low on the 100-pack of pages I

already purchased.

<p>Does anyone know of any other method for storing these?

<p>Thanks,<br>

Patrick

<p>I've just started to recalibrate my entire workflow, using Delta 100 for my slow stuff.

I'm currently still deciding on which "fast" film I would like to standardize on, but it's

looking like either Delta 400, 3200, or pushed HP5+. By recalibrating, I mean the entire

zone system approach from start to finish. Of course, to do this I also have to decide on a

developer..

<p>I used to be a die-hard XTol fantatic, but I'm now trying DD-X because I prefer

a liquid developer (I loved Rodinol a long time ago, but haven't used it since I tried it with

HP5+ a long time ago and my negatives went sour IMHO); XTol is only available in 5L

batches, which is a pain to work with in my own darkroom when mixing it into the 5L

liquid form. From most reports I've read,

DD-X is the "Ilford version of XTol". To top it off, Ilford recommends DD-X as the best

developer for Delta 100 in terms of sharpness and grain, in a liquid form. In Canada, it's

kind of hard to come by, but I finally found a shop that seems to have at least two bottles

at a decent price all the time. Of course, if after all my testing I'm not happy with the

results, I'll have to find something else. But for now, DD-X is currently on my wet bench.

<p>I haven't tried Ilfosol S, sorry. The only other developers I have tried from Ilford have

been HC (thick as goo) and a powder based developer, Bromorphen maybe? It was a long

time ago.

<p><em>the problem will be that you've got 6lbs of camera plus a couple for the head at

the end of a lever. you may need a counterweight. In addition, the forw/back tilt clutch will

have the camera weight on it. You'll need to be careful making adjustments. </em>

<p>Any suggestions for a counterweight? Simple sandbag? Is there a type of support that

could extend from the horizontal bar to a tripod leg? (I've seen such a thing on Luminous

Landscapes in the Pentax 67 w/ "Big lens" review; I wonder if it could work in my

application).

<p><em>They make geared heads, but I think you're talking around $300us</em>

<p>Yeah, I was looking at the gear heads, but quickly looked away when I saw the price.

lol

<p>I do a lot of tabletop photography, where I use a horizontal extension mounted to the

top

of my Manfrotto 028 legs. Currently I am using the basic 029 standard head.

<p>The 029 is originally from my 35mm setup, so I'd like to get a head only for the 028

(too

inconvenient to keep switching the head off between tripods). The 029 suits the 35mm

setup just fine, so I'd like to get a heavier head for the RB.

<p>Given my shooting style (mostly verticle shots looking straight down), can someone

recommend a good head? Are there non-Manfrotto heads that fit on Manfrotto legs?

<p>Thanks,<br>Patrick

<p>The only way to get a portfolio together, is to start with a single image.

<p>Many of the problems with portfolios I see, is that there is no cohesion. There is no

underlying theme that ties everything together. More often than not, people slap together

what they consider are their personal favorites and/or best photographs, not realizing that

there is nothing common between any of those photos (other than the fact that they are

personal favorites). My entrance portoflio to school was like that, and looking back I don't

see how they accepted me. (In retrospect, all portfolios were like that ("bad") back then. I

had one professor at another school say that they refused to take "good" portfolios

because they wanted "raw" people to work with; those who already have a routine are, on

the average, less receptive to change in their own workflow).

<p>Don't worry about what others think. Regardless, you will always, always find people

who don't like your work. People rant and rave about Ansel Adams. While I consider his

work technically good, it does absolutely nothing for me. You will

never be able to make everyone happy.

<p>Much of what people said here is true: be true to <em>yourself</em>. Have

confidence and <em>pride</em> in your own work. Without that, people will see right

through you.

<p>I have been trying to recreate my darkroom process flow after being out of it for quite

a while, and part of this includes standardizing everything from start to finish.

<p>I have a question on agitation though.

<p>I have two Patterson tanks, a big one (3x35mm) and a small one (2x35mm) which I

use for developing both 35mm and 120. When I do an inversion, I wait for all of the liquid

to completely flow to the other side of the tank. Of course, with the larger tank, this takes

longer. Thus, if I am inverting for "10 seconds every minute", I may get 1 more revolution

with the small tank than the large one, due to the volume.

<p>So, when people agitate, do they do so for number of inversions (4 inversions per

minute, 6 inversions per minute, 10 inversions first minute, 1 inversion every thirty

seconds after, etc. etc. etc.), or for time (10 seconds/minute, 60 seconds first minute, 5

seconds every minute there after, etc.).?

<p>I'm assuming that the one revolution difference b/t small and large tanks would have

an effect; over the course of 13 minutes that's an extra 13 inversions at the very least!

<p>(Of course, I could standardize different methods for both small and large thanks, but

I'd prefer not to go that route.

<p><i>My SuperA worked fine with SCA flashes on TTL.</i>

<p>Which SCA adapter and flash were/are you using? I'm talking specifically about the

SCA-372.

<p>As far as I can remember, I've been having problems with my Super Program and Metz

40MZ-2 flash.

<p>If I try to take a photo with the flash attached, the lightning bolt appears in the

viewfinder, as is expected. According to the manual, if successful flash is achieved, the

lightning bolt should flash. Performing several tests in low-light to be sure the flash goes

off, I've never seen the flashing lightning bolt!

<p>As well, <a href="http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/A/super.html">Boris'</a>

site says that the Super Program flash sync, while listed as 1/125, is really more like 1/90.

<p>I just checked the Metz site, and according to the site the 40MZ-2 with SCA372

adapter only works in "Manual and Automatic" modes with the Super Program, even

though the camera supports TTL and the flash has a TTL mode; I could have sworn at one

point I read that the Super Program w/ Metz had full TTL support.

<p>Anyone else in this situation? Could it be my flash, my camera, or both? (Probably

not the camera as the results are consistent between both of my Super Program bodies). If

not, can anyone recommend a TTL capable flash for the Super Program?

<p>Tks,<br>

Patrick

<P>Hello group.

<P>I checked out the Digital Truth site, and tried searching the

forums here with no luck. I've accidentally shot a roll of HP5+

(35mm) @ 500 instead of 400. Does anyone have any recommendations for

times, in either X-Tol (1:1) or DD-X (1:9)?

<P>Thanks,<BR>

Patrick

I'm trying to standardize my setup after years of playing around with

lots of different films in lots of different formats. For 6x7 and 6x6

I've been using nothing but FP4+ in XTol, and have been very happy

with the results (prints up to 16x20, normally only up to 11x14). Of

course, MF is always in my home studio setup, so I can use a nice big

tripod, stop down to f/22 and sit there for 8" exposures. :)

For 35mm however, I'm still at a crossroads.

As all of my MF work has been done in XTol I'd like to stick with it

for my 35mm work as well. I'm looking for recommendations on *two* films:

- A daily film 400 speed film, which can be pushed to an 800 if needed

in a tight situation

- A low-light situation film, something around the 800-1200 (or

higher) range.

I've had good experiences with Delta 400 and HP5+ in general, but I've

never had the opportunity to shoot with Delta 3200. I did some

searching, but a lot of it revolved around "use this film in this

developer", etc. While inspring, as I said: at this point, I'm

sticking with XTol (until Kodak phases it out completely, in which

case I'll have to start looking for other stuff).

Moving on. For a 400 speed film, what would people recommend: HP5+ or

Delta 400? I"ve heard mixed reviews of Delta 400 being pushed, but a

lot of positive feedback for HP5+ pushed. Why push? I like to carry

a camera around with me everywhere; but sometimes I need to push the

only roll I have. I'd like to cover my bases for that situation.

Now, for a high-speed film. Sometimes I *know* I'll need an HS film.

What can people recommend here? Delta 3200 pulled to 1200/1000?

HP5+ pushed two stops? Delta 400 pushed two stops?

(Why all Ilford? I remember trying Tmax 3200 (and 400) a long time

ago, and I didn't like it. The Kodak line of films IMHO doesn't suit

me, while I've always been happy with Ilford.)

Thanks!

-Patrick

Hello listers.

I'm starting to do some landscape/architectural photography. I used

to do this with a 4x5 in school, but have since "downgraded" to MF

with an RB67 because I prefer the smaller (roll) negative.

Unfortunately, my RB doesn't have the tilt and shift mechanism of my

LF system.

I'd like to shoot some basic stuff in MF, but I'm not sure what is

available to me. Off the top of my head (and looking through ancient

catalogs), my options are:

- tilt/shift lens for the RB

- LF field camera with a MF back, and appropriate lens

- MF field camera (do such things exist?)

What do other people who shoot architectural w/ MF do? Any suggestions?

Tks,

Patrick

Yes, I've heard that you shouldn't use Rodinol with HP5+, but for the time being with limited funds and resources I've been using what I have at hand.

However, I thought that film fogging was an uneven blotching of the film, this seems more uniform.

-p

It's been quite some time since I developed film, and I've decided to

try and process the ever-growing pile of rolls.

I just developed three rolls of 35mm HP5+ in Rodinol @ 1:50 for 11

minutes, as per Ilfords HP5+ datasheet (and contrary to Agfa's

datasheet which gives a 15 minute time; FWIW I'm using a diffusion

enlarger). Two of the rolls were from at least 3 years ago, and the

negatives came out extremely heavy. The third roll, shot last week,

came out incredibly thin!

Could letting the film sit for over three years cause such an effect?

Cheers.

-Patrick

Thanks for the tips. However, a repair at this point (I checked

Mamiya's website, and they cite a $187 charge) would be a little

cost prohibitive, but I may have to resort to it as a last option.

If worse comes to worse, I was planning on upgrading to a C330 body

sometime, and this might be the right time.

However, if anyone else has any other suggestions, please do tell!

Thanks,

patrick.

I've had this camera for about three years now, and up until today it

has worked flawlessly.

The last time I used it was about a month ago, and it has been in its

bag since then. I took it out today though, and noticed that I could

not advance the film past the current frame. (This was frame 5).

Thinking it was the film, I removed it by placing the camera in MULTI,

cocking the shutter, releasing it and holding, and winding the film

off. I then tried a new roll.

This next roll loaded properly up to frame one. I took a picture, and

tried to advance again (camera in SINGLE mode of course), but it still

wouldn't go!

Since the camera has worked fine for the past two+ years, I'm thinking

that it might have been jostled more than it is accostomed to since

I've stopped using it. (It was in my car on a trip, so it might have

bounced a little too mcuh).

I've ensured that the back was closed properly in both corners, but

that still didn't work.

Any ideas? I'm not too sure, but doesn't the C220 prohibit film

advance if the camera is in MULTI mode? If this is the case, could my

camera be stuck in MULTI? (E.g., the switch is broken on the

inside)? That's the only thing I could think of right now.

Any suggestsion would be great. In the event of repair, does anybody

know a decent place in the GTA (Toronto) that can handle C220's

without costing me an arm and a leg?

Thanks!

-patrick