david_barts2

Pacific Bleeding Heart (Dicentra formosa). Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC.

<p>Explorer's Gentian (Gentiana calycosa), taken about a month ago.</p><div></div>

<p>I suppose if someone got a quick glimpse from afar, a lower-case alpha could look like a lower-case c and x set as a monogram.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt there is a camera store in North America that has both these cameras in stock today to try.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't know about the Pentax K-5, but Glazer's Camera in Seattle both had an OM-D on display to try out and models back in the stockroom to sell when I went in to inquire about one earlier this month.</p>

<p>I have the OM-D E-M5 and it works great for what I use it for (mainly landscapes and macros). It's the first interchangeable-lens digital camera I've owned (I've avoided DSLRs because they're even heavier and bulkier than film SLRs, which is a big minus because I like to take my camera along on hikes).<br>

I find the vintage style pleasing, but more important than that is a good collection of controls you can dedicate to given functions -- you never have to puts around with menus to change the aperture or the shutter speed.<br>

Micro four-thirds is a standard; you can mix and match bodies and lenses. I have the Panasonic/Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro and 25mm f/1.4 normal lenses and they work on the OM-D just fine.<br>

Both the EVF and the "focus by wire" lenses seemed a little wonky when I first used them; they're just different enough from traditional manual focus and optical viewfinders that you can always tell. But, they're also good enough to get excellent results with, and I've really grown fond of having the ability to zoom in and magnify a chosen part of the scene for more accurate focusing.<br>

My OM-D says "Made in China" on the bottom label. I presume they all are. Build quality seems excellent.</p>

<p>Western Columbine, Aquilegia formosa</p><div></div>

<p>I recently purchased an OM-D and it's a great camera. Size and weight kept me from getting a DSLR (I like to take cameras on hikes of 5+ miles). When I first got the OM-D I was always noticing how small it was each time I used it. It's great to be able to ditch all that weight and still have extremely capable equipment with you.<br>

My main qualm before buying it was whether or not an EVF would be good enough for precise manual focusing. After trying out the OM-D, I decided it would be, and I was right. It's different from an OVF (sometimes not as good, sometimes better). What's really nice about the OM-D is that you can use the touchscreen to choose to magnify a part of the view for manual focusing. I know I'll miss this feature when I use an OVF next.</p>

<p>Along bodies of water, there is often fog, sometimes quite dense, on autumn mornings. The water is still warm from summer, but the longer nights allow the air to cool considerably. The result is much like a steaming mug of coffee on a cold day.</p>

<p>Paintbrush, probably <em>Castilleja hispida</em> or <em>Castilleja miniata.</em></p><div></div>

<p>EVF's used to be decidedly inferior to OVF's. No longer.<br>

They still can't do everything as well as an OVF can, but they've advanced to the point where they're more "different" than "inferior". There's also things that EVF's do which OVF's can't, such as show a bright view of a dim scene and magnify a chosen part of the view for easier focusing.<br>

I have the OM-D E-M5 and its EVF is completely usable for manual focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>… assuming it's all in fair condition …</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the rub, of course. Absent being able to thoroughly inspect them, there's no idea how recently they've been used and under what conditions they've been stored.</p>

<p>The touch screen on the OM-D E-M5 is capacative and it's worked fine for me so far. I wouldn't call it the "primary input" for that camera, though. More one of several means of input.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your part of India with us again.<br>

Regarding the kerosene subsidies, I presume one of the main reasons for doing that is stopping (often illegal) cutting of firewood, correct?</p>

<p>I found one body-only for $999 at Glazer's here in Seattle a few weeks ago. I was floored: I had gone in to ask how long the backorder wait for one would be, and walked out the door with one.</p>

<p>�There's a store called Rare Medium in Seattle that specializes in old Polaroid equipment, and the one time I stopped by I noticed they had an old Polaroid roll film camera (forget the model) which had been converted to take pack film. Store's contact info is on their web site: http://raremediumseattle.com/ . I would guess someone there would know who converted the camera they had for sale.</p>

<p>Items are taken.</p>

<p>I have a collection of brochures and manuals for the Minolta X700. The camera was stolen long ago, I ran across these the other day while sorting through possessions after a move and thought perhaps someone here might be interested in them. First person to express an interest an item and willing to pay postage from Seattle can have it.<br>

Items include:</p>

<ul>

<li>User's manual for Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 VMC zoom lens</li>

<li>User's manual for Minolta Auto Electroflash 280PX</li>

<li>Minolta Standard Lens Guide Book (seems to be for all Minolta's 50mm MD lenses from f/1.2 to f/2)</li>

<li>User's manual for Vivitar Macro-Focusing Teleconverter (this one has some staining on the front cover)</li>

<li>Minolta X-700 sales brochure</li>

</ul>

<p><img src="http://blackcap.name/images/minolta_flash.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /><br>

<img src="http://blackcap.name/images/vivitar_mft.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="640" /><br>

<img src="http://blackcap.name/images/vivitar_zoom.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="640" /><br>

<img src="http://blackcap.name/images/standard_lens_guide.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /><br>

<img src="http://blackcap.name/images/x700_brochure.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="640" /><br>

<img src="http://blackcap.name/images/x700_brochure_open.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If it's on at infinity, and off at close distances, the length of the rangefinder arm needs to be adjusted. I know a IIIf has the roller on an eccentric to make this possible, I don't know if the IIIc does. (I know on the IIIa the only way is to bend the arm!) It takes quite a few jigs and measuring devices to fully calibrate the focus on a Leica.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a IIIf RDST that has this exact same problem, and I had pretty much come to the conclusion that this is what needed doing to correct the issue. It sounds like a touchy enough thing to do that I'm best off sending it to a repair shop. (And then it will need to have the adjustment screw I tweaked un-tweaked, because before I tweaked it the RF was off by approximately the same amount no matter the focus distance, which together with the post-adjustment behavior implies the problem was 100% in the length of the arm being correct in the first place.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just pray that Ilford (Harman) and Fujifilm don't throw up their hands…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt Ilford will exit the film market any time soon. Film is poised to become a niche market, and niche manufacturers like Ilford already have experience in making a profit while manufacturing film in smaller batches.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>IMHO a Leica camera deserves to be used, CLA'd if needed and stored in a glass case waiting for the next road trip,hike or outing. The only cameras in my collection that are relegated to the showcase of non use are subminis, and some older cameras that require film no longer easily available.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>I tend to agree; however, if one is looking to purchase a Leica to use, it pays to avoid the sort of thing that the collectors would pay top dollar for. A few minor dings and the price goes way down; best to pay that lower price up front then to pay "shelf queen" prices when you buy and only get a "user" price when you sell it after christening it with dings and wear marks yourself.</p>

 

 

<p>Cleaning will doubtless help, but if it has a single-element lens you'll never get tack-sharp pictures out of the thing.</p>

<p>Contratulations! A friend has offered to long-term lend his enlarger to me, he having no place for such a thing. Alas, I also have no place for such a thing in my present cramped circumstances. Maybe someday...</p>

<p>Maybe there's a Hofbrau House in Westford, MA...</p>

<p>It is indeed hilarious how the overlapped frames start right after the shot of the Hofbrau House.</p>

<p>I don't think comparing 4/3 or m4/3 to obsolete film sizes is really a valid comparison. With, say, APS film, if you chose an APS camera you were choosing to be restricted to a smaller choice in emulsions and more expensive processing, and your ability to use the camera at all depended on continued availability of APS film. Such issues do not matter if a camera does not use film in the first place.<br>

Regarding the 4:3 aspect ratio in general, it predates digital by many years. It is the same aspect ratio produced by medium format 6x4.5 cameras. More choice in aspect ratios is IMO a good thing.</p>