stuart_pratt

You can also try your local Facebook Marketplace. I keep an eye on this and have had some reasonable hits for a CZ Flektogon 35mm f2.5 for £30, and more recently a CZ Sonnar 135mm, 50mm Tessar and F2.4 35mm Flektogon all for £35. The Flek turned out to have fungus, but I sold it on ebay fro £55, and fixed up the other two lenses. Charity shops in the UK can be good. I price things for one of our local shops and have been advised to price for what I would think is a bargain. Had a fully working Spotmatic, accurate meter, 50mm f1.4 in great condition a week or so ago, with a 135 Super Tak in mint condition. £50? I would have bought it myself, but I've already got one. Nothing quite beats the buzz of getting some new camera kit for a song!

You might, but nobody else will. I 'upgraded' my D7000 to a D700 a couple of years ago, because I'd always wanted one for the granite-like build and I'm not disappointed. Apart from a reduction in resolution (16MP down to a meagre 12) I cant see any difference in my pictures. Of course the jump to a D750 would be a greater leap, and in the 'upwards' direction so I'm sure there would be improvements in all sorts of areas. Are you going to notice them? Maybe the increased dynamic range and better low light performance in the more extreme images, but other improvements I suspect would be minor. If as you say, you are quite happy with the D7000, I'd stick with it, and then, when it dies in a few years time, buy yourself the D750. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, buy glass! Read a review for the D7000 from the time it was released. It was the best DX camera Nikon had ever released and the image quality was phenomenal. It still is if you don't compare it with something newer.

The top one is Not Very Good Bond.

I have decided just to press the shutter less. I print maybe 3 or 4 pictures from any given roll meaning most of what I shoot is dross, and I knew it was dross before I pressed the shutter. Be more discerning. Maybe some of you have better hit rates.

I do 5 x 4 occasionally and I've modified a Paterson tank, with two strips of LEGO running vertically down the inside of the tank, and 180 degrees apart, that a sheet of 5x4 sits in, in a 'sprung' position. It doesn't hold them very securely, but with gentle agitation, I've not had any come out. I'm careful not to have the emulsion side face the side of the tank as it tends to stick to it sometimes, but so far, so good. I'm sure you could do a similar mod with a bit of thought for smaller formats. Of course, you still need the dark place in which to load it.

I’m not familiar with the Hassleblad system (sadly) but might there be a light seal issue on the body side of the camera where the back locates. When you wind on, it pulls the back very slightly off the body, and light leaks in at those two spots. It just leaks when you wind on is my feeling, and just in two discrete places, which is why you get parallel lines. That doesn’t explain your wierd bubble artefact though. Had a similar issue with an RB67.

Brilliant, thanks. I’ve had a chance to play with it a bit more now and can see that change in aperture gradually as you focus from infinity all the way to 18 cm. The 2.4 would be nice I’m sure but this will do for 30 quid.

I recently bought one of these for not much money and it’s in great condition but I’ve noticed it only opens up to f/4 when focussed at the closest distance. Is this normal? Seems odd to me.

Thanks Alan for that comprehensive reply. It was that bit I’ve re-posted that was missing from my understanding, and now it all makes sense!

You know when you ask a question with some trepidation that you won’t look like a complete idiot?.... I’ve been reading up on the multi-coating of lenses, just out of curiosity really, as I’ve often wondered about the physics of it, but never got round to educating myself. There are various web sites that describe, in layman’s terms, what the basic principle is. You have light, entering a lens and at glass/air or glass/glass interfaces, some of it (a few percent) gets reflected. If you coat the lens with something a quarter the light wavelength in thickness, there are then two reflections, one at the glass surface beneath the coating, and one at the coating surface. As the reflection at the glass surface travels half a wavelength further than the one at the coating surface (a quarter wavelength more in and a quarter more out), there is destructive interference as the light exits, and they cancel out. Hence ‘no reflection’. Well, something like that anyway. I understand why the reflection is not desirable for elements within the lens, as you don’t want stray light pinging around in all directions fogging your image. But if the light is cancelled after it is reflected, what use is it on the outside front element of a lens? That few percent of light wasn’t going to make it through an un-coated lens, and it doesn’t make it past when it’s coated either, it gets cancelled after being reflected? At least that’s how I understand it. How is that increasing the amount of light entering the lens? . That got me thinking maybe it isn’t on the front elements, but then plenty of single lens spectacles have multi-coating on the front surface. Is that just to make me look pretty? No doubt there is some fundamental of Physics or the technical details of multi-coating I’m missing here, and maybe someone can educate me further? Thanks

From the edge markings and cuts in the sprocket holes, I think the two images are from the same section of the negs. I agree though, the second one looks close to normal to me, especially if you consider the paper underneath, presumably white, is a bit grey in the image. Support it side on in some new fixer with only half of it submerged and then see if the two halves look any different.

Father Christmas is bringing me a new Sekonic L208. I have a Weston Master 2, which is bang on, but you need the eyes of a 5 year-old to be able to read the damn thing. I can't even read it with my readers on! I was out on a walk with some friends recently and had this issue, upon which my pal, laughing uncontrollably at the visual breakdown caused by advancing years, said 'Give it here, I'll read it'. I gave it him, and he said, 'Blimey, I can't read it either'! Upon which I got my smart phone, took a picture of the dial, and zoomed in on the picture to read it! (should have just used the light meter phone app).

Understand, thanks for the extra input. I'll have a play!

Thanks for posting this. Can you expand a bit on the rectangles that show a uniform grey? The same grey? And which rectangles exactly. Possibly I’m being a bit slow here but it’s not obvious to me Thanks

Maybe a Taku Mar? (Sorry, it’s been a long day)

The sound of the whirring of a fan, and the occasional expletive 'SH*T, that's HOT' when you touch the projector above the bulb! (at least on mine!)

The Konica Pop perhaps?

A good big’un always beats a good little’un as they say. I suppose there are advantages of having an ascending number scale for your cameras – we assume that the next model will be improved (sometimes not a good assumption) and that ‘bigger is better’. In this case that the ‘Super’ version was an improvement. Nikons choice of having the Pro spec models as the single digit bodies, when the consumer ones had 3 or 4 digits always puzzled me slightly (D3 vs. D3000 etc.), but I guess those more discerning photographers looking for a Pro spec body would know what they were looking for, whereas the consumer might be swayed by the assumption that bigger is better. It’s the same with lenses. I spent some time trying to convince a friend, new to digital photography, that, yes, the cheap 28-300 lens had more reach than the 28-70, but that he might not be able to keep the thing still at the long end, it would be optically inferior and it let in a quarter the light than the longer zoom. Convinced I had swayed him to the shorter range lens, he ignored that and bought the 28-300. ‘But it’s 300 isn’t it’!

For the 9th, that was. No idea about camera or film. Probably Contax RTS2, probably Planarr f1.4, probably ilford delta 100.

They named it after the focal length of the viewing lens???? It’s looks pretty robust though?

For the 5th. Unusual street name. Leicaflex SL, 50mm, Kentmere 100, 2 bath.

Some of you may find this interesting. I certainly did: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58733514

Some interesting views here. I guess my initial post was designed to gauge a view on how useful an idea Sunny 16 might be to novices, the kids that are getting on to the new film ‘revolution’. It’s so often out there on the Internet as advice; ‘just use Sunny16’ used in a very loose sense, often with little or no explanation about what it is or how it should be used, possibly delivered by people who don’t know themselves. I’m sure, as these posts attest, most of us who come to PN often are experienced enough to understand that it is a rule of thumb, and that you take it with a pinch of salt, but also that understanding it is often helpful. Most of us don’t use it as a substitute for metering, but knowing it can be useful. I’ve done it myself with old film cameras to assess whether the meter is accurate or not - point it at a bright blue sky and get a 125th at f4 and you’ve probably got a dud. I’m sure it’s possible as others have suggested, especially given films latitude, to get so good at guessing the exposure that a meter is not entirely necessary, and I’ve fist-pumped the air myself a few times when I’ve guessed correct! But most, if not all of us still use a meter and would probably advocate anyone learning still use one, perhaps with the separate advise to read about and understand the Sunny 16 rule.