alan_woolnough

Hello Niklas,

This sounds very strange. I dont know if your 645 super functions the same way as my 645j, but on my camera, when the prism is attatched, its important that the dial on the body, is turned to the bullseye position, or you can get different shutter speeds to the one you set on the prism. Its possible that this got knocked to one of the settings on either side [happens quite often to me], which has resulted in the frames 5-15 being either overexposed or under exposed. I always double check the position of the bullseye, each time i take the camera out of my rucksack/camera bag. If you were using slide film, i guess this would be the most likely cause, especially if your shutter speed setting on your prism was 1/125 for example, and the shutter speed on the camera dial was at 1/500 or on the B setting, by accident.

The only other thing i can think of is, the roll film holder needs adjusting, or the film was slipping. Its also possible the shutter blind is a bit sticky, due to the temperature.

Hello Chris,

One of my lenses, has been constantly attacked by fungus, over the last few years, probably due to the damp climate when i lived in Scotland. Ive used surgical spirit to remove the fungus, once a year. This seems to kill the spores effectively, without harming lens coatings. I never allow the spirit to get in the lens seals, so this could be why it returns approximately every year, as there are probably spores lurking in areas that the spirit never reaches. Ive gone about eighteen months, this time, with no sign of of it returning, so im keeping my fingers crossed.

Ive heard about the light treatment method before, and i have tried that, from time to time, but as i get fungus on my workshop window panes, quite often, i dont think this method is likely to do much.

I think this problem just boils down to bad luck, as i have only had this problem with one of my lenses, but if you live in a climate which is prone to this type of thing, its worth checking your lenses regulary.

All the best

Douglas,

I think your Takumar may be an older version than my SMC model. Having said that, i dont see any reason why a K mount adapter would not work, as there are no electronic connections in these lenses. If it is the same basic design as the SMC, with the rotatable rear section, then you can have mounts easily made for different brands of camera, and even medium format. Sure is cheaper than buying a 500 f4.5 made specifically for medium format.

all the best

Thanks for that Mark,

Ive just been looking at your site, and have found it very, very interesting, especially as you have used the same lens as i use[there cant be many of us around]. Ive visited some of the areas you have, although ive never been to the well known Farne Islands. It looks to be a similar place to the Isle of May, on the east coast of Scotland.

Your Dartford warblers brought back some memories for me, as i spotted two of them on scrubland bordering the Thames, near Woolwich, the day before i moved to Scotland, some twelve years ago.

From what ive seen on your site, ive been convinced, to take the plunge, and fork out the cash.

Thanks for replying, and putting me on to your site.

Thanks for that Dan,

Ive been searching the net about Pentax tcs, for my particular lens, and it seems that they are available. I agree a bigger image is often desirable, but i was put off them years ago, when i experimented with an old Soligar 1.4. I used it on an old Tokina 600 f8, and had to use a fast film, so i guess its time to try again, as things have improved.

Thanks agin

Hello chaps,

Since discovering Photo Net, and frequently tuning in to this forum,

it is very noticable that teleconverters are now very frequently used

by many modern nature/bird photographers. Things have certainly

changed from 20-30 years ago, when tcs were generally considered to

be a bad move. In those days, most serious amateurs would often

prefer to crop the image, if required, in the darkroom, as this would

often give a better final result. These were the days when F8 was the

norm for long focus lenses, and f5.6 was considered fast. Using one

of these lenses , with tc attached, at the resulting f11+, was not

the best route for reasonable images, and the fast film in those days

was pretty dire, in my opinion. The choice between long focal

lengths, or relatively fast apertures was a big debate in those days,

and most of the serious amateurs that i knew, prefered to keep

the "wide" aperture, and use a slow film, rather than have the extra

reach using a tc, and use a faster film. I have stayed with this line

of thought most of my photographic life, until i discovered this

forum. I am now beginning to think i ought to revise my thinking, as

f5.6 is no longer considered fast for 300/400/500 lenses, and

attatching a 1.5 tc, to a 500 f4.5 lens [ which i own], and with the

improvements to film and with digital technology now playing a big

part, i think this may now be a sensible purchase for me.

Although 500mm has always been enough for my usual hide situations, a

tc may be useful to me, for this reason: Normally, when sitting in my

hide, if a bird lands at a slightly longer distance away than i would

like, i usually take a shot and then wait and hope it will come a bit

closer, so i can get a decent size image. If that happens, then i

usually bin the first shot. This usually works fine, but if the bird

that lands is a specie that i havent photographed before, and it

doesnt come any closer, i have the awkward choice of keeping a small

image of a different bird, or binning it. In this situation i usually

end up binning it. Twenty years ago, my first choice, in this

situation, would have been not to consider a tc, and use the slowest

film i could, and enlarge, but as todays 100/200asa film is probably

as good as some of the old 50/64 asa film, i think the time might

have arrived, for me to get my very thin wallet out.

As my 500 f4.5, is an old design, non flourite lens, i would be

interested in knowing if a tc is a good option with these older

lenses, even though they can suffer from abberations {rarely

noticable in most situations, in my experience]. I believe Pentax

make a "matched converter" for my particular lens, but it may be

difficult to track one down. Assuming i can not get one of these,

would a third party tc be worth a look. If not, then it may be better

to stay as i am.

I would be interested in modern opinions about using tcs, on older

lenses, and whether speed is more important to you, than increasing

your focal length.

Sorry for the long boring posting, and happy new year all.

Hi Jan,

Well, ive been using an almost obsolete 500 f4.5 manual focus lens for many years now, and ive probably lost a few shots by manually focusing, but probably not as many as people might think. As bird photography requires me to get quite close, even with a long lens, this means that i am only turning the focusing ring small amounts, as opposed to having to focus from infinity to closest focus, in quick time.

I think ive probably lost more shots by never having owned a power drive for my cameras, or a camera with built-in winder, and have had to rely on timing to get the shot, and hope the bird stays around long enough for a second or third shot.

Whether 500mm is long enough probably depends on the type of birds you intend photographing, and how close you can get, and whether there are any local restrictions regarding erecting a hide/blind.

In the areas ive always lived, ive found 500mm to be the most suitable focal length for my situation, and sometimes ive used my lens on a mamiya 645, if the situation allows. This gives me a similar angle of view to a 300-350mm lens. I have found F4.5 a big advantage over some of my previous slower lenses. Not only does the brighter viewfinder help in low light conditions, but i can use faster shutter speeds or slower film. Although many fast/long teles can be a bit soft at the edges, wide open, i havent found it to be a huge drawback with bird photography at close range, as depth of field is so small, and the subject is usually towards the centre.

Although i dont use Canon gear, im sure the lens you mention will give you superb results, if those crafty little feathery things give you half a chance.

Best of luck

Hi Ralphie,

I guess it depends on what you hope to achieve, by giving freebies to various organisations.

Ive often given away images [not the originals], with no strings attached. Ive never expected any payment from this, but it has worked to my advantage in other ways.

During my time in London, and when living in Scotland, i would often be granted permmision to photograph in areas where the general public would not be allowed, by giving various wildlife trusts etc, a few images free of charge. Word soon gets around that you are a responsable chap, and this can lead on to many things. I even managed to get permmision to photograph on marshland, owned by the Ministry of Defence, for a few years.

So, for me it has definately been worth giving away a few images, from time to time.

All the best

Hello Charles,

Ive been using Ilford roll film for years, and have noticed that some rolls are wound looser than others. However this has never seemed to have caused any problems, so far. I have found that the actual spools can vary, in design. I have a box full of old spools, and the slots on some of them have a small wedge shape inside, to help grip the film. Some have no wedge, and are just straightforward slots. In the past, i have noticed a slight slipping, when using these, although fortunately, this has just caused a slight difference of gap between frames. Since discovering this, i only use the ones with the wedge, as my take up spool, just in case.

Hello Jan,

Im in the UK, so i guess you get the same species of buzzard as here. We have the common buzzard, and sometimes get rough legged buzzards. They are often seen gliding in circles overhead, looking for dead rabbits, which is their main diet, in the UK. However they will eat worms, frogs & beetles on occasion. I have seen a buzzard following a tractor, which was ploughing the land, and eating the worms etc, which were brought to the surface. Although ive never photographed our buzzards, i would guess that baiting with a dead rabbit, would pay dividends, as many farmers have used this method to poison them {which i believe is illegal}. But, for photographic purposes, this is probably the easiest way. Personally, i think our buzzards make better images, if taken in flight, as they are quite drab, when seen on the ground. Ive never been great at "birds in flight" shots, but these birds are relatively slow, when soaring, and often fly very close, if you sit very still.

Best of luck

Hi Diego,

Yes, it sounds like fungus. I had many old slides/negs, that were attacked. Unfortunately, the emulsion may be damaged beyond use. If thats the case, then you have nothing to lose if you experiment. I managed to salvage a large number of mine by using surgical spirit, and allowing to dry, and finally washing the dried spirit off. If your slides are in cardboard mounts, then you will need to throw the mounts away. The same thing will apply if you stored your slides in a cardboard box. If they were plastic mounted, then the mounts will also need to be treated, or better still, throw them away also.

Sorry i cant be much help, but it may be worth checking the archives.

Hi Doug,

I tend to use an 81a, 90% of the time in the UK, as it takes the slight blueness away from distant views, and is also useful for our often cloudy conditions, and views with areas of shade. I guess the type of film you use, may be a factor, as it may be slight overkill with some of the modern saturated ones, for regular use. I tend to use less saturated films, and my main telephoto lens has a cool colour balance, so i find it more useful than a skylight or uv filter.

Hi Fred,

I agree, this can be very difficult, especially if you want to get that important highlight, in the birds eye, as well as getting the focus spot on. A lot may depend on how sensitive your shutter button is. I used to depress the button as far as i could, without triggering the shutter, until the critical moment. Luckily, some birds move slower than others, and many may pose quite still, for a second or two, which improves your chances. Birds like herons, may stand still for long periods, which is very handy.

The longer your lens, and the closer you are, makes camera handling and focusing at speed more critical, as im sure you know, and over the years, ive lost a good number of shots due to the exact problem you mention, but it does get better with practice, and with gaining knowledge of the behavier of the bird that you are photographing, combined with the quirks of your camera gear. Example below:

I use 645 format now, but a few years ago, i used a pentax me super, with a winder, and a pentax lx, also with winder. Both reacted slightly different when using the winders, and i would often use them for different species. When i released the shutter on the lx, it would fire, and then wind on to the next frame, which was great for most birds. However, the ME super, when used with the winder, would have a slight delay after pushing the shutter button, whilst the film was transported into place, and the slight noise this made, would often make a very busy bird stop & look up for a fraction of a second. This would often allow me time to get the shot. Of course, this was only of use if i was very close to the bird and in earshot.

I stopped doing birds in flight years ago, as i was never skilled enough to get a high return. In those days, autofocus of any quality was not available, but i did get a few good shots, when panning across, although birds flying towards me, or away, gave me enormous problems.

Anyway, keep practicing, and im sure you will get there.

Hello Mark,

I dont know if you want a 500mm lens for a particular reason, or just for occasional use, but there is another option, coming from the opposite direction. I own a Pentax SMC 500mm f4.5, which is a 35mm format lens. A few years ago, i had it adapted to fit a Mamiya 645. Because this lens has a removable rear section, it is a simple job to have an adapter made, which allows infinity focus, and no vignetting. I believe there were adapters available, some years ago, for Pentax 67 use. If these are not available today, it should be easy to get one made. My one cost about £75

Although this lens is an old design with manual diaphram, it gives great results, for its price. I think they cost about £2400 new, but they often come on the second hand market for £500-£900

About eight or ten years ago, i read a report on this lens which said that it was a competent performer in 35mm format, and excellent for medium format use. My lens is a bit soft at 4.5, but at 5.6 onwards, it compares very favourably with my more modern Mamiya lenses from edge to edge, at the sizes i occasionaly enlarge to {20x16}

Anyway, its just a thought

Hi Paul,

Ive always found the microprism difficult to use, but find split image, to be useful for wide angle and standard lenses, when focusing up to infinity. For landscape stuff, most of my shots are focused at, or near infinity, or hyperfocal, and sometimes think that some screens can be distracting, but it doesnt concern me too much. I do own a 500mm lens, for wildlife, and had a plain screen inserted in my pentax lx, because, at close distances, the image pops into focus. However, on the occasions when ive used it for long range use, on my mamiya, i find the split image focusing very useful, as my eyes are not as young as they were.

All the best

Hello again Gene,

Yes, it appears that different units, of the same model, focus in slightly different places. Im hoping my one does not focus too high above the glass, as it will make scanning of prints tricky. Unfortunately i have a few favourite prints, but the negs have been lost, over the years.

Hopefully, someone may have some suggestions for your problem, which will also be useful to me.

Hi Richard,

Ive never owned Bell & Howell lenses, but they were quite common, in the UK, a number of years ago. I may be wrong, but i think they used to make lenses for the movie industry. Ive certainly seen projector lenses with Bell & Howell on them. Their camera lenses often appeared in magazine articles, in the sixties/seventies, along with tokina/tamron/sun/kiron etc, so i guess they are of similar quality to those.

All the best

Hi Gene,

There is an interesting article, regarding the 2450, and sharpness problems, and possible solutions.

Ive recently bought a 2450, for my 645 stuff, but am waiting for my computer system to be sorted out, before i use it.

have a look at http://www.normankoren.com/tutorials/epson_flatbeds.html

Hello David,

I have similar views to you, on this subject, and it "seems" we may be in a minority. I only shoot for myself, but i think if i did it as a profession, then i would have have to consider what the general public prefered. I live in a touristy area, and it is noticable how people head straight for the highly saturated postcards/chocolate boxes/pictures etc.

Ive spent most of my life doing landscape/wildlife as a hobby, and will try to reproduce things, as they appear to me, at that moment. It often means waiting around for a light which will give me a suitable result, rather than using a film or filter to enhance flat lighting. Ive used epp 100, for many years, for landscape shots, which, after experimenting with a number of films at that time, i found most suitable for my taste. Ive never used velvia type films, but i have seen many superb images from that film.

During my period, living in Scotland, i found using an 81a to be enough to tone down the blueness in distant views, for some of the year. However, in late summer, when the heather is at its colourful peak, even an 81a, would warm the scene too much, and i think a film like velvia, would give a far to unrealistic result for my taste.

For wildlife, i am just as strict with myself, with choice of film for getting results as near as possible to realistic, however i will now contradict myself, as i often use black & white.

Generaly speaking, im always attracted to saturated, punchy images {like the above mentioned tourists}, and find many of them stunning, but for my own personal view of the world, i will continue with my preference, as i think nature has plenty of colour of its own. Its just a case of being in the right place, at the right time, in the right light.

All the best

Hi Joel,

It sounds like you get similar temperatures to Scotland, where i lived, for about ten years. Its certainly harder for photographers to keep warm {stopping/starting} than walkers, although we probably wear similar gear. Ive always used layers, and find the most important layer, is the one closest to the skin. I use a Paramo micro fibre shirt, which dries very quick, followed by a thin fleece, which i swap for a thick fleece, if im standing around for periods of time. My top layer is a three layer goretex jacket, with wired hood. Under my trousers, i wear thermals. In Scotland, the air is very damp, so jeans are a BIG NO NO. Because the daylight hours are quite short in winter, day trips are not ideal, if i wanted to venture far into the hills, so i would usually camp for a night or two. Here again, photographers get a raw deal, compared to walkers, as we have to carry our camera gear, as well as the usual camping/survival gear. This extra weight takes it toll very quickly, on long treks in cold weather. In these situations i follow some simple rules to keep warm. 1, i drink, before i get thirsty, 2, i eat, before i get hungry, 3, i rest, before i get tired. I was given this advice, by a member of the Scottish mountain rescue team near where i lived, during a conversation about hyperthemia, and ive found it useful.

all the best

Unfortunately Glen, i think your best option is to get them cleaned profesionally, and sooner rather than later, before it spreads too much. I guess you could try your suggestion, but are you willing to risk your expensive lenses, if it hasnt been successfully used before. I also think the sunlight method, may only be a temporary solution, as the light probably would only kill the fungus, that it can reach ie: not in any cavities where there may be spores lurking. Its always possible that you may get some sort of warrenty, if you have it repaired by a professional, so if it returns again, you may be covered, but i may be wrong with that.

Hope you get it sorted

Hi glen,

I never suffered from fungus, on any of my lenses, until i moved to Scotland, with its often damp climate. The strangest thing, was that i only got fungus on my pentax tele lens, but not on any of my mamiya lenses. Unfortunately fungus often appears on the rear of lens elements, or in places that cant be easily reached and treated. I was fortunate that the complete front lens assembly, on my pentax, is easily removable, and able to be cleaned by me. Its quite likely that your lenses will need to be cleaned profesionaly.

I was advised by a local chemist, when i first noticed fungus, that surgical spirit would kill the fungus, and was quite safe regarding lens coatings. Ive found that it does work, but is only a temporary solution, as i still have to treat the lens to this treatment, every six months or so, if i notice it reappearing. I always take extreme care that any fluid does not touch the extreme edges of the lens, in case it damages any mounting seals etc, and this could explain why i get a reoccurence of the problem every so often, as there may be fungus spores in the areas around the lens seals.

Ive looked up this problem many times, in the archives, and it appears we are not alone. As mentioned above, sunlight appears to work for some, and other methods work for others. Hopefully you will get some advice, which is more helpful than mine, as it will be useful for me aswell.

best of luck

Hi Andrew,

Over the years, ive used a few meters, mainly incident, and rarely have they given identical readings to each other. IMO, providing a meter gives CONSISTANT readings, then consistant results can be had. ie: if meter A, gives readings half a stop under meter B, and half a stop over meter C, then providing the user knows that, he or she can use it with confidence. John makes the important point, its your exposures that count, not always the actual meter reading.

all the best

Hi Louis,

Ive used incident metering, for most of my life, but ive met large numbers of photographers over the years, who swear by their Pentax spots, and of course, other brands. I dont think you will go far wrong if you fork out the £££s for a good quality model from a top manufacturer. The question is will a cheaper brand be suitable for your requirements. You usually get what you pay for, but providing it gives CONSISTANT readings, you will get consistant results, providing you use it accurately and have the knowledge to interprete the readings. This also applies with your current incident metering. If you are thinking of getting a new spot meter, because you are not getting consistant results at this moment, with the incident method, it may just be that you need to stick at it, a little bit longer, you will get there in the end.

Although a lot of people have trouble with incident metering in landscape situations, when first starting with them {myself included}, it soon becomes second nature. Many users, like myself had difficulty in the beginning, in situations where the light may be different in the area where they are standing, compared to where the camera is pointed, and although this is a problem at first, most experienced users of incident meters that i know, find it becomes more of a help, than a hinderence, if they stick with it. I think a lot of new users to incident metering, give up on it, before giving it a real try, and i can understand that entirely, as todays built in camera meters, and modern hand held meters have far more options available, than when i started out.

I apologise if you are experienced with your current meter, and need a spot meter for a specific reason.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, as you get older, your mind can sometimes wander.

Hi Mark,

I cant really add any more, as the answers given will have answered your question.

An excellent point has been made about pre-visualation. Ive found this to be the most useful single thing, when judging exposure, especially with incident metering, but also reflective. It will also serve you well if using filters, for black & white work.

Ellis, also makes a point about the different use of dome positioning, and how important it is to experiment with this, to get the results that you require. Everyone will have their own views on this, and many will get their exposures spot on, having used different techniques with the incident meter.

Ive sometimes found that too much information at once, can be a bad thing, and that personal experimentation is the best way to go, for me. I was in your situation, many moons ago, and found that incident meters suited me, with the type of stuff i was interested in. Had i persisted with reflective metering, i would obviously have been as comfortable with that method as well. If your finding your current method is giving you the results you require, you may find that incident metering is not a vital addition to your gear.

all the best