michael_devoue

I do not have experience with Rodinal- there is a signifigant

handling charge here to Alaska because it has to come off the ground

or something equally stupid. I too, was looking for a high acutance

developer, and Photog's Formulary out of Missoula, Montanta, USA

makes a dev. I'm happy with, FX-2. Very happy with the crisp results.

Good gradation too. I'm not sure about shipment, although I don't

think it should be a problem.

I'll second the photo runner- I use it whenever I need complete

mobility. It'll easily hold a body and 2-3 lenses WITH plenty of

extra room- wallet, etc. Lowepro designs their bags with acivity in

mind- their backpack harnesses are great! I'll never use the

backpack, but that's just me- probably plenty others in this forum as

well.

<p>

If the photo runner is too bulky, I would recommend the Zing <I>

(dist. here in USA by Tiffen)</I> Accessory bag. Hangs around your

neck or over the shoulder and has a strap that goes around you as

well. camera stays on your chest, and doesn't swing around or shift

around like some bags can.

<p>

Hope this helps.

I shoot B+W exclusively because:

a) No corrections necessary. Yellow 12's on all lenses all the time.

b) Higher fidelity- 1 emulsion layer vs. a few for color. Sharper.

c) Wider dynamic range;

d) I have complete control, thus only myself to blame.

<p>

There are plenty of reasons to shoot color, but personal

gratification is my only goal, and B+W is my only way.

I run SS tanks and reels. I notice that too vigorous a bang will make

lots of bubbles. A light but abrupt tap is usually all that's needed.

I'm only doing 35mm, but I would suspect the same would be true for

120.

This is pretty ridiculous, but I couldn't resist.

<p>

Anything is possible, but why would nikon do this? Leica seems

concerned with retaining the heritage and feel of their classic

models (respectable), while Nikon is busy whoring themselves out to

average joe because he thinks that it is the superior camera. Nikon

was getting close, but lost ground (IMO) chasing the AF Dragon.

<p>

So I'm sure Leicas would continue to sell in the numbers they do- has

Contax' G and G2 or the Hexar or the Voights dented Leica's appeal?

No. There is no "competitive" camera.

<p>

But, if nikon could build a machine that could compete, it certainly

would have to be better. I doubt that could happen. Honda's NSX-T

smashed Ferrari's sales in the early 90's, so I could be wrong. (NSX-

T vs. Boxster- hmmmm, that's a hard one, Dexter)

Jeff- alot of the ME and super are having a transport problems. One

of the more common problems I see with this model. Unfortunate, yes,

but I'm not surprised. Not too hard a problem to solve though, if you

love the camera.

Pentax made the ME and ME super which feature aperture priority along

with the LX, much like Nikon's FE(2), and F3. I am not too hot about

the ME and ME super, control layout is sad compared with the nikons.

It's not my only complaint, but a shutter speed dial (rather than

buttons + LCD) is better for the beginner, IMO. I would toss my

pennies for the MV- I don't think it features a manual exposure mode,

but is cheap. I often recommend Canon T-50's (very similiar to MV)

for customers shopping for pre-teen and pre-pre-teen recipients,

because the all-manuals (K-1000, FM) are easier to goof up exposure-

wise.

Pentax made a MX which was very light, manual exp. mechanical shutter

that is very similiar to a nikon FM in operation, right down to the

collar lock on the shutter button, with a full system of motors, etc.

introduced in 1976. I used one in high school and it worked great

until I dropped it. Very light duty like an OM, and I'm not real fond

of the lack of robust-ness that I am used to i.e. Nikon F-series. The

LX was introduced 1980, and was a very competent competitor to the

canon f-1 (later introduced), and the Nikon F-3. Very expensive, IMO,

about $600-650 for an LX in good shape.

<p>

We are talking about an 8-year old, however. Is he really going to

miss the exposure information in the viewfinder if he were to use a

k1000? picture quality is identical, of course, and the K1000 is

going to withstand more abuse than the MX or the LX. These are my

observations working in a repair facility. The K1000 is a great

camera. There are quite a few out there still firing after 20 years.

plenty of parts too.

No supply problems all the way up here in alaska- I pretty much get

what I want, all locally. FX-2 is the only chem I sourced out-of-

state. Diafine, Ilfotec, microphen, all kinds of stuff I've never

used even! Wait, should I be doing this? No, I take that all back.

There is nothing here. What's happening to it all, blah blah, I can't

find any super-rx developer, blah, blah, where has all the fixer gone?

I couldn't agree more.

<p>

I use two different developers- Ilfosol-S and PF FX-2. I fooled

around with different combinations before settling on Neopan @400-800

in the FX-2, and Ilfosol-S with Delta 100 for the slower work. I am

not quite satified with the Delta/Ilfosol (although quite good), and

in my total of 36exp. on Plus-X (6 years ago), I recall good results

from d-76. I priced out Plus-X, but figured i'd give FP4+ a try and

got 20 rolls to test. Pete, I'm glad you mentioned D-76- I keep some

as a "back-up" if needed.

<p>

My point is I did a little searching, but I try to search as little

as possible. I agree that expending energy making progress with known

combinations and refining your results is the point. Sharing your

results with others is just plain good "karma".

If I remember correctly, Eugene Richards was using a Canon F-1 (old

style) system for this book. Pop photo had an artice featuring

selected work from this book, as well as an interview.

As a Nikon user, my feelings on the F100 are not very good. The first

F- series without a rewind knob? Less than 100% viewfinder coverage?

Charge more for the lame vertical release accessory? Spare me.

<p>

As for that F100- Ebay that mother- Every Joe that holds one loves it-

Forgot about the rangefinder, though. One roll of film and you'll

know. Bracket focus(take notes) and double-check if unsure.

Look- there is really one way to do this- and it requires a good shop.

<p>

1) Most shops should be able to run through the shutter speeds while

you wait, and "good shops" would mean they would have a kyoritsu

tester which has a probe placed at the film plane that measures

speeds in the center, but on the opening and closing side of the

shutter. With three measurements you can tell if the side-to-side

variation is ok- if my readings are 1.2, 1.0 and .8 for 1/1000th

sec., then yes it runs 1/1000th, but has a half-stop difference from

one end of the frame to the next.

<p>

2) Flange parallax should be checked with a dial guage- this measures

change in lensmount/film rails distance around the lensmount- a dial

that jumps and dives has a warped mount(you can't always see it),

whereas a rock-steady needle indicates perfect.

<p>

3) Meter where applicable, and varies to taste.

<p>

Diaphragm accuracy can be off as well, so I think it best that those

be separately checked and adjusted. Shutter runs 180th vs. 250th and

diapragm is 4 vs 3.5, won't show on film, but is way out.

<p>

There usually isn't that much error in diaphragms, though.

<p>

Drop the camera off for the shop's and your sake- 24 hours is

sufficient. Don't rush a Thourough checkout. Bring cookies, even.

I don't know why Leica would introduce an AE M. My F3 (forgive me

please) has this, but I never use it, nor can I see the need. DX? I

shoot such few emulsions I don't think I'll forget to set EI.

This "M7", if ever born, better run through all it's speeds

mechanically a la FM3A, or I suspect there will be many unhappy Leica

users. My 2 cents.

I haven't used the leica equivalents, but here's my two cents-

<p>

The EF 50/1.8 II seemed much better than the AF 50/1.8 Nikkor- in

resolution, yes, but had "signature" I favored over the Nikkor. The

85/1.8's (Canon and Nikon, AF) were on par with each other.

<p>

I feel that Canon does have excellent primes to work with the EOS

bodies, But (used) Nikon offers the same level of performance

optically, at a much more enticing price. EOS primes are hard to find

compared to the nikkor glass. Expensive when you do find them. This

forum, however, is probably not concerned with $ when considering

photo equipment.

Yes, XP-2 is a favored film by many, esp. for the "lack" of grain,

but this characteristic of no "grain" and using dye cloud particles

leads to a loss of acutance- the appearance of sharpness. Might not

be exaclty what you want, after all, in photography you gain nothing

until you give up something. Sharpness was what I was looking for, so

I steered clear of c-41 black and white, along with that T-max Film

and Developer- Wasn't my idea of progress.

If I remember correctly, the Ilford films have a slightly thinner

base.

<p>

These are very similiar films (Plus-x and FP4+; Tri-x and HP-5), I

wouldn't spend a whole lot of time testing back and forth. Sticking

to a Film/Dev combo will yield more progress IMO.

<p>

If you plan on standardizing a single B+W film and use it exclusively

for monochrome, all four are a very good choice. I might toss in a

vote for Neopan 400- appears a tad sharper than the TRix and HP5+.

<p>

Neopan 400 in Photographer's Formulary Developer FX-2 is my standard.

Very happy, too, might I add.

I got snowshoes and spiked feet for my manfrotto 3021BPRO. I will now

type the L-word so that this post has something to do with leica-

LEICA. There, ya happy?

Minolta's 5.2 MP Dimage 7 and 3.3MP Dimage 5 allow manual focus as

well. In actual use it is (IMO) worthless. Digital displays do not

lend themselves well to this task, IMO.

I haven't seen it myself, but pentax makes a 5x-11x zoom loupe- might

be worth looking into.

Alfie- part of my whole point was that you do not need a darkroom to

process yourself. A dark bathroom is enough to load the film onto the

reels, or for that matter, a changing bag designed for large format

film holders would suffice. Every other step can be carried out in

daylight. If I have running water, I am processing my own black and

white. I wasn't sh***ing you when I said you could do it! I enjoy

your enthusiasm, and I think if scanning is your goal, you might skip

the darkroom altogether in the future, and scan the negatives you

could be processing. Think of the $ per image- cheeeeep!! Quality-

done right (is easy)it is better than what you're used to.