stephen_poe1

I've used a 300 f6.3 Komura. I thought it was good - a sharp lens that

seemed to work as well as the 300 f5.6 Symmar-s that the studio also

had but at 1/2 the weight and 1/3 the cost. If I found a good clean

sample of the 300 and I had the cash, I'd try it. Based on my

experience of the 300, I'd be inclined to give the 400 a try.

please excuse the fact that I type today without capitals -- I have an injured hand and using the shift key hurts...the Fuji is not really that heavy(being mostly plastic) but it is big. The lenses are slow compared to most 6x6 cameras - 5.6 makes for hard focussing in dim light and the view screen is dark. Aside from Mamiya porroprisms, I find this to be one of the hardest cameras to focus because of the dark, low contast screen. The camera has a slight flex to it -- I guess it is intended to bend ans spring back instead of breaking -- I prefer something more rigid. It has a lot of movement for an SLR but much less movement than a view camera or field camera --- NO movements on the rear standard. Its a lot more money than a few models of wood field camera...www.mwpex.com sells Tachihara 4x5 wood field cameras for around $600.00 --- i would consider that with a modern coated lens like the Nikkor 135 f5.6 for "outdoor shooters" before I would buy the Fuji. Woodfields are surprisingly light and durable and have much less to break/fail/get out of whack that the Fuji.<p>

perhaps I could offer you more to the point advice if you told us more about exactly what you wanted to shoot outdoors. If its landscape or architecture, I would pick a woodfield or a monorail or even a folding rollfilm camera. I like the compact 6x6 rollfilm SLRs or 35mm for other subjects.<p>

The Fuji makes for a good multipurpose in-studio camera -- it goes to macro with only a small inexpensive extension rail and would be excellent for shooting where only minimal perspective adjustments are needed. It doesn't offer more movements than a $300 crown graphic camera though, it is not really suitable for handheld use like a rollfilm SLR due to its ungainly shape. I think the designers actually tried to make it do TOO many things (a rollfilm viewcamera with SLR viewsystem and revolving back and macro, etc, etc, etc...) and as a result, they got an ungainly beast of a camera.

One solution might be to scan film and have it put on a CD. The CDs could be kept in another location if you are worried. When first I heard of this I scoffed at the complication and expense --- but now it seems to be getting cheaper and easier all the time.<p>

While probably not as good as an original print from the original negative, its better than nothing. Some prints from digital sources, like the Lightjet prints, are indistinguishable from c-41 prints if you have a good scan. I haven't had one made from my own files but have seen them; you really can't tell the difference.

This question seems to get asked every week or so.<p>

35mm lenses cannot generally be used on 2 1/4 bodies because they lack the necessary covering power and the lens to film plane distance is radically different. If there was some way for you to get a Nikon lens on a Kiev body it would produce an image that was dark around the edges and the lens would only focus at very close (macro) distances. There were some exceptions --- Exacta used to make a 135mm lens that could also be fitted to a Praktisix --- but that is now a collectors item and none are currently, to my knowledge, in production.<p>

I have no doubt the adapter you are thinking of will actually allow you to fit your Kiev lenses on your Nikon camera body --- not the other way round.<p>

Another possibility is that the enlarger is out of alignment. I am not familiar with you enlarger, but I use tiny carpenter's levels on my own enlarger. I check the easel, the lensboard and the negative stage and make sure the bubble is in the center for each one. My enlarger has screws where one can adjust the level of the platforms.<p>

Levelling my enlarger once solved exactly the problem you described.

A drop of nail polish will fill a pinhole in leather bellows. If you get nail polish the same color as the leather the repair is near invisible. Nail polish doesn't work for rips, splits or bigger holes.<p>

Expand the bellows to full extension. Dim the room lights and put a flashlight or penlight inside the camera. You should be able to see the holes as tiny points of light.<p>

Use a fine pointed brush to dab the nail polish right into the pinhole and it will fill it. You will know it is fixed when you can't see the light anymore. Do not collapse the bellows until polish is 100% dry; otherwise it will glue the pleats together, probably ruining your camera.<p>

Do NOT use this method on valuable collector cameras --- only users. If any of these cameras are valuable, leave them alone --- they are worth more with pinholes than with nail polish dabbed on.

Forget the fibre optics --- way too expensive, specialized and who knows? Maybe you decide to take some portraits sometime? Fibre optics won't help you there.<p>

Tungsten lights are cheaper than high power strobe but HOT. If you shoot plants, forget it. Flowers will wilt in 15 minutes or less under a big fresnel tungsten light.<p>

If you want to spend very little, use a scrim with daylight. You can buy a roll of roscoe diffusion material (or translucent white cloth), make a 4 foot square or so frame, fasten diffusion material onto the frame with staple gun, drag it outside into bright sunlight and prop it up like a lean-to over your macro subject. You'll need poles to hold it up, weights and lines to tie it down if its windy --- otherwise itl'll take off like a kite. The scrim between the sun and your subject will soften daylight. You can lay your subjects on white foamcore or similar material and use white foamore reflectors or even little mirror to direct more light at your subject. Use a PC cord to fill in with your shoemount flash as well if you have one. Realize that any shoe mount is not really going to do much but may allow you to pump some light into little areas.<p>

Your real problem is power. If you want to shoot 4x5 with any appreciable depth of field in macro you will need AT LEAST 800ws of stobe power or more to get any results. That means monolights, or, more likely, power packs and stobe heads and those are expensive. Then you can use grids, soft boxes, the whole nine yards.<p>

I would experiment more with the lens and see if you can get satisfactory results from it. I used to have a Rollie E3 and did not realize how good it was till I traded it in on another camera. Now I find myself wishing I had found some way to afford keeping it.<p>

I believe that the Rollies are all coated from sometime in the 1950s on.<p>

I have used uncoated and single coating lenses to very good effect. My own (unqualified) observation is that only lenses that have a lot of air to glass surfaces or a lot of elements really suffer greatly from lack of coatings. I have gotten good results from a Goerz lens that is probably almost 60 years old; it certainly had no coatings.<p>

Get a lens shade of some kind and try again.<p>

I have never had a lens repolished but have read that it never really works very well. Can anyone shed light on that?<p>

I say; keep the Rollie and try more photography, perhaps with different films and developers.

To choose between 500c and 500cm really depends upon the condition of the camera. The brighter screens are very nice; get the 500cm if you can afford it and can find one that is decent. On the other hand, if you are choosing between a 500c that is pristine and a 500cm that is beat to pieces, either hold out for a good 500cm or look at having a new screen put into the 500c. Unless your eyes are really good, the screen of the 500c is difficult to use in any situation other than bright light. My eyes are 20/20 but I found the screen of my 500c was too dim in most indoor situations.<p>

Avoid older Hasselblads that appear to have little chunks of rubber/foam flying around inside and resting on the mirror. Although they are easily cleaned out with a gentle air blower, they are an indication that the seals/foam padding inside the camera have started to rot away. Once they go, the camera will not focus properly. I just had mine replaced and a new screen put in --- it cost $400.00.<p>

The Wildi book is excellent but is probably more detail than you need.<p>

Take the camera to a local pro shop that sells Hasselblad and have them show you how to load/unload/unjam/use the camera. If you know the procedure, the camera will work flawlessly. If you don't, the camera will jam continously. I work as a freelancer for studios and use both my own Hasselblad and studio owned hasselblads. Their Hasses (newer, more expensive ones that are used by anyone and everyone) jam --- my hasse (30+ year old, well cared for I bought used) never does. I have the unjam tool in my case, but, honestly, have never needed to use it because I am very careful in mounting and unmounting lenses and extension tubes.<p>

Unjamming the camera is easy once you know how but you really need to be SHOWN. The unjam tool works great.<p>

No. As far as I understand it, this "advantage" you refer to is bigger film.<p>

One disadvantage is that f11 with an 50mm lens on 35mm is going to have a lot more apparent depth of field than f11 on a 80mm lens on 6x6 --- but you can use more powerful strobes or longer exposures to get to f16 or f22 on the 80mm lens and offset this disadvantage.<p>

Since you refer to "critters" I assume you photograph insects. My 35mm cameras are a lot more ergonomic and fast handling than my MF camera -- advantage if I were to be chasing some little bug I guess --- and have TTL flash metering and motor drive in the 35mm cameras. But the 6x6 has interchangeable backs, can use Polaroid. Two tremendous adantages for 6x6 system cameras.<p>

Why don't you rent a MF camera with Polaroid back and Macro lens and extension tube and try it out for a weekend?

I think you ought to consider sticking with 35mm for this type of photography.<p>

You can rent a Hasselblad or similar camera for a weekend and try it out -- I shoot sometimes musicians and performances and know that I need fast lenses on my SLR for focus and exposure by ambient light, long lenses when the performers and stage are far away and compact and easy to carry gear when trying to move through crowded nightclubs. MF is great because of the bigger negative, but the lenses and cameras tend to be slower and heavier, thus the SLR focus screens are dimmer, long lenses are much more expensive, slower or non existant and all the gear tends to be bigger, heavier and bulkier. Unless you have really powerful flash units, I don't know that the bigger neg is really going to pay off.<p>

I use MF SLRs and a rangefinder --- the 35mm cameras are reliable and easy. If I don't want to bring my whole kit, I can carry just a rangefinder with 50mm or 35mm lens and high speed film --- works great. I say try before you spend big $$$.

I would reccomend that you make sure that whatever you buy you can get it serviced in your area if you have a problem.<p>

I have used Hasselblad and am satisfied. For $2000.00 you can buy a good used camera body, 80mm lens (The C lenses are cheaper than the CF lenses and I have not been able to see a difference in results) a film back and a Polaroid back. <p>

The NPC Polaroid backs work fine and are a lot cheaper than the Hasselblad backs.<p>

For use with film there are the newer "A-12" film backs and the older "12" film backs The a-12s are easier and faster to load, but the 12s are cheaper and work great --- I prefer the 12 backs; they seem to be less likely to break down too (my guess---I am no engineer). Maybe if you buy 12 backs instead of a-12 backs you can afford two!<p>

The only other thing I reccomend is a lens shade.<p>

good luck<p>

Stefan

Look at <a href="http//:www.graflex.org">graflex.org</a> for info on graflex cameras.<p>

If you do this you will want one of the cameras with the "graflok" back to use roll film holders. You will also probably want a lens better than the 100mm (105mm?) Trioptar that most of these cameras come with. You are very limited in lens choice, though; these cameras have TINY lens boards that will not accommodate your bigger view camera lenses.<p>

I am currently considering doing a very similar thing. I figure I can make or buy lensboards to remount my LF lenses. A related question: If we can use the Mamiya roll film back on the smaller graphic cameras, can we use the Mamiya polaroid as well?

Don't base your decision on marketing hype.<p>

I have used Bronica, Hasselblad, Mamiyas and Rollieflex MF cameras. All are very capable instruments. The only major brand MF camera that I ever used that I really disliked was the RB 67 -- and my dislike was more from ergonomics and handling and the unreliability of a single RB 67 (i have not used a huge number of RBs and cannot make judgements on the RB camera as a whole) than anything else. RZ users I know tell me that Mamiya fixed all problems when they went from RB to RZ and I believe them.<p>

I bought Hasselblad because I thought of all the SLRs it handled best of all, had interchangeable film backs, full flash sync, mirror pre release and I could easily rent other lenses/backs/etc., in my area. The last factor is the most important --- even if I don't have a camera, I can rent one for $50.00.<p>

Truth be told, there is little or no difference between the film from my Hasselblad and the $400.00 used Rollieflex TLR I sold when I bought Hasselblad. The Zeiss lenses tend to cost A LOT more but they are not A LOT MORE better --- price may go up 100% but you do not get 100% enhanced performance. You can pay a lot more for marginal increases in performance which may or may not be important to you.<p>

If control of photographic quality is important to you, it is much more important to practice careful photography --- with any camera use steady tripod, mirror pre release and cable release, protect lens from flare, avoid using dirty lens or filter, careful attention to exposure, development, printing, etc. If you practice all that you will get technically better results than the sloppy photographer with the most expensive camera and lens.

If you are interested in this question, please read the posting at <a href="http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Own">http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Own,</a> where a photographer with very similar problems is asking for help and getting interesting suggestions.<p>

You might consider getting in touch with Bill Maxwell of Maxwell Precision Optics, PO Box 33146,

Decatur, GA 30033 (404)244 0095. He makes replacement screens or can modify your existing screen so that it is much brighter

and claims to be able to do so for just about any camera; the Rollie TLRs are on the list of cameras that he will modify. You can send your camera to him or he will send you a screen for

installation by your own repairman. I have just sent him one of my cameras (Hasse 500c with the usual dim, flat 500c image). If

you are interested, email me back and I will send you my review when I get the camera back.

There seem to be all sorts of compromises you have to make. As much as I hate to say I think you have the wrong camera (because changing them is sort of expensive), your complaints are very specific to your projects and your needs; from what I know, I don't think the camera you have answers your needs that well.<p>

I don't know much of anything about the Mamiya 7; I use 6x6 camera for all sorts of things and find it very useful --- interchangeable backs, Polaroid, etc. I have rented a Hasselblad SWC and used it for architecture; have always thought that such a camera would be fantastic for landscape.<p>

Linhof and similar cameras have movements and are availible in 4x5 or MF sizes. They pack up small but are very expensive.<p>

Never used one but have been tempted by the old American made Graphic cameras and I think, (but am not sure) that they can be used with rollfilm if you have the appropriate film back. Anyone know? Like a poor person's Linhof. More info at www.graflex.org.<p>

There is also the old Mamiya Universal cameras. Some versions of Mamiya have front end movements. One could shoot roll film, have a small range of movements and it packs up very small. They don't seem to be too expensive either.<p>

I have heard good reviews of the Rollie SL66. It has front lens tilt so you could get the foreground to infinity sharp with your 80mm lens. You could also have more than 1 film back for different films (I like this option VERY much).<p>

Maybe before you buy anything new, you can rent or borrow? From the large numbers of postings about the Mamiya you have, it seems to be a very popular camera so if you decide to sell it you should have no problem getting a decent price.<p>

Look at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000BYa<p>

There is an email address and a URL there that may help you. You can email Alex at Kalimex; he speaks english and has been generous with his in answering a couple Kiev technical questions for me even though, as of yet, I have not bought anything from Kalimex.

I recently sent a camera to Maxwell. His number is 404 244 0095 and he seems happy to answer any question.<p>

question 1) Don't know but Maxwell sent me some literature that claimed that his maxwell screen would have "little or no effect" on meter prisms. I don't own a meter prism so that didn't really matter to me.<p>

2)It would probably be best to have the same screen in both cameras for fewer variables. But Maxwell's a nice guy so you should buy from him... Seriously, if you can wait, I expect my camera back in a few days with new Maxwell screen and can give you my review.<p>

3)Yes.

Please visit my revised and rebuilt website at <a href="http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan">http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan</a>. I realized just two days ago that I had changed my email address almost a month ago and failed to update the site.<p>

My apologies for sloppy web-authorship.

<i>There's always the Diana for those who think the worse the technical quality of the lens the finer the image... I think I'll stick with Zeiss.</i><p>

Precisely my point. For about $800.00 I can buy a used 50f4C for my Hasse. A used 50f4 FLE will cost over $2,000.00. Without a doubt the newer lens is better --- but is it better enough that I should choose between a lens I maybe never can afford and one I maybe can?<p>

As a postscript, today I exchanged 2 older press style LF lenses for a 65 f8 Angulon I intend to use for architectural photos. My dealer (whom I feel I can trust) was delighted; he got two lenses, one of which was somewhat collectible, and I got a lens that will prove quite useful to me and was just gathering dust in his inventory. I could never have afforded the newer version of this lens; I hope to have a lensboard for it in a week or so and try it out. Otherwise, my dealer has promised that I can exchange the 65mm for a 90mm if I prefer.

Since you mention Ektachrome, I assume you will be using transparencies.<p>

My own limited xperience indicates that choice of scanner is more important than choice of film stock in this case. There seems to be a world of difference between low and high quality scans.<p>

Depending on where your scans end up, it may not matter. If the end result is goung to be a jpeg 3 inches wide at 72dpi on your web page then I would not worry too much about if you are scanning from asa 100 or 200.<p>

I would use the film that will give you the highest quality result in terms of photography. If the extra speed would help, go with the 100. If you want to have large scale cibas made from the same image in the future, go with iso 25.

I remember seeing such a meter that was like a little box you peered through with a calculator dial on the side. It worked as described in the posting about the Bucaneer camera above. I think it dated from the 1930s or so.<p>

The good thing about extinction meters is that they never need batteries and have no moving parts to wear out.<p>

The bad thing is that in a lot of situations where one really needs a meter (such as in dim or contrasty lighting situations) they won't really work that well.<p>

They make interesting collectibles, but for photography I think you would be better off using "The sunny 16 rule" or the little chart that comes in the Kodak box.

The cost was actually $387.00. Maybe this maintenence is more expensive on the 500c than the 500cm. I opted to have some lines engraved on the screen at extra charge.<p>

In my $400.00 price, I included the cost of shipping the camera to and from Georgia.<p>

Costs may vary; I went with Maxwell because his reputation is good and everyone who uses his screens swears by them. I found someone willing to sell me a USED Acute-Matte screen for $160.00 (I would still need foam replacement and installation) so the cost is very competitive.