flavio_egoavil

Just send it to service. Many cameras with vertical shutters suffer from any kind of debris (often rotten foam) getting inside the mechanism making it stuck. Instead of hitting your camera, send it to a technician for a full stripdown including a thorough cleaning of the shutter. The T90 deserves it.

My friend, Luka, in Slovenia, is specialized on repairing New F-1 and F-1 cameras. He is specialized and I can vouch that he does the best service one could do to the New F-1 cameras. You can contact him via Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lzfotomehanika/

Hi, I'm a camera tech (and photographer in a past life). I've owned many Mamiya RB67 pro-S bodies and also Pentax 6x7 (and 67) bodies, plus have serviced them. Since people new to photography might have some questions on them, perhaps considering buying one of them, ask me anything if I can be of support.

Do as large format shooters do. They know how to use the minimum amount of shots. Here a 120 roll is slightly cheaper than a 135 roll, so the cost per roll is similar. The only difference, of course, is the amount of frames per roll. But there are some people that shoot 135 and feel 36 frames per roll is too much...

Can't be a "stripped down" version. The IIa/IIIa has more features like more shutter speeds, flash sync, non-rotating shutter dial. Can't be "cheapened" because the quality of the chrome finishes and materials are way better on the post-war cameras. Source: I own pre-war and post-war contaxes. As a camera technician who has worked on the insides of these cameras, the IIa/IIIa is a much better mechanism, and the camera as a whole is simpler to disassemble. The II/III shutter was more ingenious and had the advantage of having no fading at all due to design, but the design on the IIa/IIIa is a sound design with regards to reliability. It just happens that people don't give these cameras the proper service, or that there are very BAD camera technicians out there that simply don't know how to care for a post-war contax.

I've seen the bokeh (out of focus highlights) of the f1.5 (postwar) and they're not good to me. They have strong chromatic aberrations. The f2.0 lens (postwar) is better corrected in my view. Of course, it's slower.

Software professional here. I wish you the best of luck with the migration. I've been a member here for 21 years (since 2001). The old software was slow but it was very useful. This current software, I never liked. I hated it so much, I basically stopped frequenting photo.net. So the migration is GREAT news. @mjensen Funny enough, Photo.net founder is Phillip Greenspun, known in software circles because of Greenspun's tenth rule of programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp." It was thanks to this aphorism, that I finally learnt Common Lisp, a language that now I know quite well. And this was the single most important thing i've done in my 25+ years of programming, besides being named on a software patent. So thanks Phillip!!

Agree!

The FE is the better camera unless you want to believe, as sheep in the flock, that it is less reliable "because it is electronic". Both the FM and the FE have some reliability problems that are more mechanical in nature. But they won't happen if the camera receives proper periodic manteinance. If the FE was working 100% i would pick that one. So, go for the FM if this is what you can get fully working. I love my FE.

Returning here after many years. I'm glad to see the excellent taste of the people around here, I agree with everybody's list, although I don't have any love lost for Olympus SLRs (i love their compact cameras though). Other than that, I agree. This would be my top 5, in no order: - Canon New F1 The last evolution of the tough, all-metal manual focus camera. The F3, a competitor, is sadly flawed in many aspects. The New F-1 is the bridge between later plastic-clad all-electronic pro cameras and the prior all-mechanical cameras. The Canon New F-1 is a hybrid camera, an all-metal solid tank which is entirely mechanical in operation from 2000 down to 1/90 (plus B), while uses electronic control for the rest of the speeds and even manages to give aperture priority, shutter priority and variable meter patterns. An excellent viewfinder system, with awesome clarity and brightness, makes it a complete package. - Nikon F2S or Nikon F2AS (your choice) Probably the best all-mechanical 35mm SLR camera ever made, Nikon's highest achievement. - Zeiss Contax II, and Contax IIa, and IIIa The first truly professional 35mm rangefinder, the choice of pros like Robert Capa for going to the war -- leicas were then for amateurs. The first that had the combination of bayonet mount, combined rangefinder/viewfinder, and an extremely precise rangefinder that couldn't be knocked out of alignment. Zeiss lenses, all the way from the 1930s to the 1960s, were the best available for rangefinders. In the guise of "Kiev" cameras the Contax II/III design was useful to be produced even until the mid 1980s. In the 50's, Zeiss Ikon released their flagship Contax IIa and IIIa, more or less the same design but more compact, much better built, much better finished, more precise and more reliable. They also released some of their finest lenses for this system. - Nikon SP Nikon created their finest rangefinder combining Contax mount and almost the same shutter as in the subsequent Nikon F. That is, a bulletproof shutter. With a very advanced viewfinder that even had the provision for 28mm FOV. Perhaps their finest camera and the used prices reflect that. But then... - Leica M3 But then Leica released the M3, a camera technologically even more advanced than the Nikon SP and the Contax IIIa. This was a milestone -- because then. Nikon directed all their efforts to the SLR system (the rest is history) and Zeiss also abandoned the Contax and focused on the Contarex system. - Zeiss Contarex Bullseye Probably best built, over-engineered 35mm SLR camera and lenses. A triumph of build quality (and optical quality) over... cost and even common sense. This system had probably the best performing lenses of their time. Honorable mentions Canon F-1 Pentax Spotmatic F Pentax ESII Pentax ME Super Pentax MX Pentax LX Leicaflex series Minolta XK Minolta XE / Leica R3 Minolta SRT series Letiz / Minolta CL Olympus Trip 35 Olympus 35RC Minox 35 series Nikon EL2 You are quite a legend here and I love reading your posts in the last years.

<p><em>"I think today the highest resolution digital projector is 4K (a bit more than 8MP) and please correct me if I am wrong about this. The 35mm slide has a little bit more resolution than that but really not much more"</em></p> <p>Much more. You can extract good 24MP or even more from a really good fine-grained positive (think Provia 100F), if you have a really good scanner. This rules out all flat-bed scanners, by the way. We're talking dedicated film scanners, preferrably Fuji Frontier machines or (even better) drum scanners or the Hasselblad thing.</p>

<p>Wayne, the 100/2.8 is very light and the 200/4.0 is very light as well (new FD versions). <br> Both are perfect optically, so you may prefer to carry those two instead of a zoom.<br> Most canon tele zooms are good, on the other hand. </p>

<p>PS: </p> <p>And version 1.0 is one of the best photo websites on the entire internet.</p>

<p>Wednesday, 08/31/2016, will signal the temporary death of photo.net.<br> <br> At least the forums. The classic website has one of the best forums of all the internet, and the software is very good, if albeit slow. Better than the forums at flickr, for example. <br> <br> But the "version 2.0" forums were so bad, they had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. <br> <br> Please don't go "version 2.0" again. In any case, try "version 3.0" and remember: <strong>Form is never more worthy than substance. Photo net "version 1.0" has so much substance, that the form poses no problem.</strong></p>

<p>PS: Also,</p> <p>THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS, many thanks to returning to the original website.</p>

<p>I'm a software engineer with over 10 years experience in web application development. </p> <p>The old (Classic) photo.net is a slow website but the forums are great in functionality and appearance. And moreover, the huge catalog of great knowledge accumulated over the last 15+ years. It worked very well.</p> <p>I beg, i plead to the Photo.net owners to please NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER<br> NEVER</p> <p>NEVER return to that horrible "version 2.0" website. At least not the forums. It was terrible, the worst forum i have ever used in my entire life. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I love my F-1s and my two New F-1 cameras, but i would not consider attaching a motor drive in them. If i want a heavy camera i'd rather use my Mamiya RB67!!</p>

<p>I can't think why the camera would be at fault. The FD lenses don't need much force to close down the iris. I'm starting to suspect that the lenses could be at fault. Better try with other lenses as well. The Canon New F1 is a tank.</p>

<p>Update to my previous post. </p> <p>Last week i worked on troubleshooting my own Canon EF. It is indeed more difficult to service than other SLR cameras but not impossible at all. As for the flex circuit on it, i thought it was going to be a problem but the service manual shows you don't need to remove the flex circuit to do repairs on it since the pentaprism can be removed together with the flex circuit as a block, so it stays untouched.</p> <p>The difficult part on the EF is perhaps that it has a rather elaborate cord (string) system of pulleys and planetary gears for moving the galvanometer on par with the shutter speed selected, but once you sit and examine the mechanism work it makes perfect sense; it is not esoteric. Then it also has OTHER string and pulley, which is for transferring the selected shutter speed to the actual Copal shutter control mechanism, which is located in front of the camera. In this way, the shutter dial can be on top of the camera (the Nikkormats use the same shutter and the shutter dial is around the lens mount to avoid this problem.)<br> <br />Only delicate point on the EF is the IC for amplifiing the photometer, it's a Toshiba IC (perhaps you can still buy it online) and it is extremely sensitive to static charges (as many IC are), so proceed with caution by discharging your hands and body from any static charge. Or do it in an humid place.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Janne,</p> <p>You need to dissasemble the camera and check the on-off and battery check contacts. In particular the on-off contact has a working distance in the OFF position, if it gets too close it might cause battery drain. </p> <p>Hi Michael,</p> <p>No need for special batteries on the Canon EF. The way the circuit is implemented, the voltage differences or the discharge will not have an effect in metering. </p> <p> </p>

<p>If you want something light, look for the 70-150/4.5 lens. This is a useful range of focal length, believe it or not.</p> <p> </p>

<p>If glass changed then the optical formula of the FD 55/1.2 Asph surely had to be recomputed, even if the basic design is the same.<br> I have read (and makes total sense) that the early FD 55/1.2 asphericals had their aspherical element ground by HAND while the Canon engineers were completing their automated, electronically controlled aspheric polishing machines (an industry first in camera lens companies). I would bet that once they had the machines running, they had to revise the design as well.</p> <p>I fully trust what those Canon engineers did, so i wouldn't worry about versions.<br> <br> </p>

<p>Don't worry about exotic batteries. Use #675 hearing aid (zinc air) batteries with a (do it yourself) spacer to keep them centered and then close the battery cover. Works just fine on my F-1 and FT, and it gives the EXACT voltage needed so no need to mess with recalibrating the meter.</p>

<p><em>"JDM, thank you! Good view to the subject. Structure is quite far the same. Glass development has made it possible to make the lenses thinner? K."</em><br> I dare to say there were no significant advances in optical glass (as applied to camera lenses) in the last 35 years.<br> What was different is more application of aspheric lenses -- glass molded, resin molded, hybrid, etc.<br> I also don't think coatings have improved a dramatic lot compared to 1973 and Pentax's SMC coatings or Fuji EBC coatings. And, on primes with about 5 optical groups or less, even single coating does a good job, so why care about coatings...<br> What has changed is the state of the art in lens design --- more knowledge leads to better designs. On the other hand those EF lenses need to have quick focusing so the<strong> focus helicoid tolerances are looser, the moving mass has to be smaller</strong>, and this will impact on the compromises and constraints needed for the lens design.</p>

<p>The answer will be pretty lengthy, but here is a quick comparison of some 1st gen (1987-or so) EF lenses verus their FD counterparts:<br> 50/1.8 -- the EF version has one more group, same number of elements. <br> 24/2.8 -- the FD version has a floating system and is unit focusing, while the EF version has a rear focusing system which (hopefully) also performs close distance compensation. Also, the front element of the EF version is bigger.<br> 85/1.8 -- the EF version is all new, and uses the rear focusing system. The FD version is unit focusing.<br> 28/2.8 -- the FD version had, if i remember correctly, 6 elements and had exxxxcellent performance. The EF version is innovative, it uses an aspheric element to bring down the element count to 5, but I've yet to know about its performance.<br> 50/1.4 -- the FDn version is renowned for sharpness while the EF version does not have the same reputation. So there must be some difference inside, although the diagram is the same.<br> 35/2.0 EF is very different, and way smaller, than the FDn 35/2.0 lens. The EF version seems simplified, however the performance is very good as well.<br> EF 50/1.2L is totally different to the previous FD 50/1.2L.</p>