User_502260

<p>I still have enough old Rodinal to make a swimming pool full of working solution. I'll have to test some of it.</p>

<p>There is a place in NJ that looks like that. I think it's Jockey Hollow in Morristown.</p>

<p>I have four SQ-As and an SQ-AM. I have heard that some people had problems with the electronics of the smaller ETRSi and I don't need any of the additional SQ-Ai features for now. The SQ-A is not too awkward to hand hold with a waist level finder but with a prism finder a Speed Grip is a big help. The plain prism finders (no meter) go for very little and are usually found in good working order. The metered prisms may or may not work properly. It's funny that the waist level finders cost more than the plain prism finders. This was certainly not the case when they were new. The waist level finder is handy for two things. The first is copy work. The second is when you want the lightest outfit to carry. An SQ-A with an 80/2.8, 120 back and waist level finder is not too bad for carrying on a hike or long walk. You have to get used to the reversed image. If you have used a TLR with a waist level finder then you know what that's like. What about a chimney finder? A chimney finder is really like an overgrown waist level finder. I was reminded of this when I recently used a Mamiya RZ67 with an RB67 chimney finder. The image is still reversed. There is still a lot of life left in the SQ series cameras. Shutter speeds are electronically controlled and should stay accurate. Some testing will show whether your backs, inserts and dark slides are all working properly. </p>

<p>I use a 50/1.7 SMC Pentax F on my K-x with very good results. The AF is a little noisy but I can live with that. I'm surprised by how much the lens goes for now. </p>

<p>Once stitching software became available it was possible to combine images for a much wider field of view than you could get with a single lens. If the difference between a 13 and a 14 is that important, just shoot more than one image and combine them using the best software available. </p>

<p>I thought I just had to find a black 201 and I'd have them all. Now that I know there was also a 201 with mirror lock-up I want that one too. Was there also a black 201 with mirror lock-up? Years ago I wrote a piece for CameraShopper on getting every version of something. My example was the 28/3.5 Konica Hexanon. Just when I thought I had them all, Greg Weber lent me two more versions I had never seen. There is some luck in finding a particular 201 variant because the sellers don't all know what to look for and you can't see all of the differences from their photos.</p>

<p>I have a PD-S finder which works nicely. The silicon meter cells seem to have aged better than the CdS ones. All of the finders for this series can come "unglued" inside but I understand that they can be serviced and at some point I will get this done for one of my plain prism finders. I have never seen the same kind of interior separation in any of the Bronica ETR/SQ/GS-1 prism finders. My only metered prism finder I have for a Bronica SLR is the AE finder for the GS-1. It works well. From what I remember, it also has a silicon cell. </p>

<p>Two major changes took place during the '75 - '77 production run of the 201 CLC version. The locking depth of field preview button was apparently changed to a non-locking type and the focusing screen changed from plain microprism to split image surrounded by a microprism collar. As far as I know all of the later ('77 - '81) non-CLC 201s had the non-locking button and the combination split image/microprism focusing aid. It is difficult to know at what serial number a change was made because most sellers do not mention the changes in their descriptions of the cameras. </p>

<p>I have Bronica and Mamiya SLRs. The Bronicas have the nice Speed Grip which makes shooting hand held a lot more comfortable. My 645 Bronicas are a J, two M645s and a 1000S. I mostly use the 1000S with the right hand motor winder and a PD-S prism finder. It can get heavy if you are out for very long. Lenses are very reasonable for both 6X4.5 systems. All of the Bronica lenses have leaf shutters ans will synch with flash at all speeds. With the Mamiyas you need one of the special leaf shutter lenses. I actually prefer the 70/2.8 leaf shutter Mamiya lens to the 80/2.8 models. The slightly shorter focal length helps in tight spots. I also have 35, 45 and 55 lenses if I need to go wider. Recently I have been putting together a system of Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 cameras and lenses. They are heavier to carry or shoot hand held but are inexpensive and give beautiful results. </p>

<p>Yesterday another Minolta SRT 201 arrived to fill out my collection. I have both CLC and later non-CLC models. All of the ones I had before yesterday had non-locking depth of field preview buttons. This one is a chrome CLC model with the plain microprism focusing aid. The Serial Number is 1352022. To my surprise it has a locking depth of field preview button. My guess is that there were left over parts for the SRT 101 or some other SRT model with the locking button and that they were used up in the early production of the 201. Has anyone else seen an SRT 201 with the locking button? </p>

<p>I read Mike's film v digital comparisons. Any time you are comparing the two in a final print you have differences to take into account. When you scan a piece of film, even with the best equipment and techniques, you are getting a second generation image. You can try to digitally sharpen it and you can get great control over color and contrast but it will never have the same look or quality as a projection print. A projection print is already a second generation image but it is the type with the least degradation of the original image. It is understandable that comparisons are made the way they are because digital printing is more available, less expensive and offers more image editing options. If I shoot an image with a digital camera at very high resolution, make a large print, photograph the print with a film camera and then print the resulting slide or negative, I will get a third generation image which would not be comparable to the print I could make directly from an original digital file. In High School I saw large original Ansel Adams b&w prints at the Metropolitan in NY. At the time I was mostly using 35mm Tri-X so the Ansel Adams prints looked remarkably good. It is not practical to view a 4'X6' print at the same distance as a 4"X6" postcard size print. At correct, normal and practical viewing distances a person's eye will not be able to distinguish between the quality of a 24X36mm digital large print and one made from medium format film. The DSLR will be able to shoot action much more easily and the medium format film camera will not be able to operate at an ISO of 250,000 but there is still plenty of life left in medium format film and medium format film and equipment is still capable of very high quality results. </p>

<p>There are many early electronic SLRs floating around in various states of disrepair. Models like the Konica FS-1, Nikkormat EL, Canon AE-1 and Minolta XG series cameras have not aged well. The FE was a second generation electronic model for Nikon and has held up much better. I have three of them - two chrome bodies and a black one. If I need a higher shutter speed I will use an FE2. I have a Minolta XE-5 out for an overhaul now and I hope I will enjoy using it when it comes back. I might use the FE cameras more often but when you can get an N90S in excellent condition for $25, it's tempting to use that instead. </p>

<p>Mike, A person using a Mamiya 1000TL would probably have had a 55/1.4 if a Mamiya lens was being used. Somewhere I have a slide of former Attorney General John Mitchell. I shot it from a TV in 1973 during the Watergate hearings. I read what John said about time and it makes me think of the folk song Passing Through , which I heard last week. </p>

<p>I have an 85/1.8 New FD, an older 85/1.8 FL and a number of 100/2.8 FD lenses. I rarely use either 85 wide open for portraits and I use a 100/2.8 more often. My AE-1 Program has a plain matte focusing screen in it now. Whether you get an 85/1.8 or a 100/2 you might find that a plain matte or grid type focusing screen is nicer to use than the standard screen for portraits. You can frame the subject first and then focus on the eyes without having to work around the split image or microprism focusing aids.</p>

<p>I must have two dozen mechanical Nikkormats and Nikomats. The only one I don't have is an FS. The collection includes three FT3s. I use pre-AI, AI and AIS lenses so I actually prefer the FT2. I don't have to flip back the AI tab when using pre-AI lenses. I can live with the back and forth twisting for indexing. The FT2 takes the same non-mercury battery and has the same easy-to-change ASA setting. When a camera like the N90S sells for $25 in good condition, an FT3 gets less use. A few years ago FT3s sold for a lot more than FT2s or FTNs. Now prices have moderated. </p>

<p>I'm not making any kind of statement about which kind of focusing is better. My 200/2.8 New FD is also the first type. I have a number of lenses, Canon and others, which have internal focusing. Some are better damped than others. It is possible to do good work with with either type. </p>

<p>If there is sufficient demand then new lenses will be developed which will solve this problem. This is what happened with smaller format digital cameras. </p>

<p>Rear focusing is one of the ways in which internal focusing is accomplished. Helical focusing is not mentioned specifically because it is assumed that any manual focus lens which does not have internal focusing uses a helicoid. Canon seems to have made few if any external changes to its manual focus lenses within each lens family. In 1968 Canon changed the 50/1.4 FL from six elements to seven and moved the A/M switch to the back. These were obvious changes. Another example is the 28/2.8 FD SC. The early model is heavier and has an aperture lock at the rear. The second version has the same optical formula and dimensions but is lighter and has no aperture lock at the rear. Most of the new FD lenses, made from 1979 on, stayed the same until they were discontinued. The 200/2.8 is an exception because of the two models we have been talking about. What New FD lenses look the same to me for their entire production runs? The 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/3.5 etc. I don't think you will find any more versions of the 200/2.8 than the ones you already know about. I have never seen one with the U.S. NAVY marking. It could be that there is an EP marking on some of them but that doesn't change the formula or performance. </p>

<p>There are many threads on this subject and you can also consult the Canon Camera Museum website. The three basic types are the FD SSC (breech lock), the 200/2.8 New FD (helical focusing) and the 200/2.8 New FD which has internal focusing. The FD SSC and helical focusing 200/2.8 New FD are supposed to be the same optically and just different mechanically. Some people think the internal focusing New FD lens is better, some think the helical focusing New FD is better and some people think they are equally good. There was no 200/2.8 FL. The two 200mm FL lenses were an f/3.5 and an f/4.5. There was no 200/2.8 FD before the SSC model that I am aware of. Are you looking to take pictures with one of these lenses or to collect them? </p>

<p>I have the RZ Winder II which is now attached to an RZ body. Will this eBay item, 321560523518, work properly with it? It should arrive soon but I don't know if it's the right power supply. It will be used in the U.S. </p>

<p>My walking has been for a day at a time. I would leave the 135 and 80-200 and replace them with a 200/2.8 and either a 100 (or thereabouts) macro or a 100/2.8. If I decided on a non-macro 100 then I would switch the 50/1.8 for a 50/3. macro. If you are not going to use a tripod for macro work then a 50 macro will be used for for close-up and near macro work and will work well for both. For hand held work an adequate shutter speed is important and especially so with a telephoto. That's why I like a 200/2.8 rather than an 80-200/4. I would consider carrying a 2X rather than a 1.4X because the 200/2.8 turns into a still manageable 400/5.6. The highest shutter speed on the AE-1 is 1/1000. If I could stand the weight I would swirch the AE-1 for an F-1 (any F-1) just to get a higher top speed. Even with all of this stuff I would probably start out with a 50 macro on the camera and I would probably use that lens more than any of the others. </p>

<p>I have most of my negatives going back more than forty years and I have negatives from departed relatives and family friends which go back many more years. It is much less likely that digital records will survive into the future than it is that film or prints will survive. Even a good RA-4 print will not last nearly as long as a fiber based b&w print but I have seen information on CDs and DVDs and in inkjet prints disappear in a very short time. This is after we were assured that they would last for many years. I don't see the benefit of destroying a negative even for some artistic purpose. It is a record of an image which can last a very long time even without complicated storage methods. The fact that the negative for a print still exists and that equally good copies can be made from it in the future does not detract from the value of the print. Just think of all of the paper stocks which have been discontinued over the years. Even if you keep the negative you are not guaranteed to be able to make the exact same print again. </p>

<p>Bronica made a PE 135 for the ETR cameras and a PS 135 for the SQ cameras. They have a good reputation and are offered at still high prices. I don't have either of them. I do have a 105 non-macro for each camera type and I like them. They were both discontinued when the later P lenses appeared. The closest thing I have is a 127/3.8 for the Mamiya RBs. </p>

<p>Over the weekend a 120 back for my RZ67 arrived. I was looking forward to shooting some test film. My lenses are all RB types and the finder which came with the RZ is an RB CdS chimney type. I loaded a roll of Portra 400, went outside and shot all ten frames. When I got back to my desk I was looking for the dark slide so I could remove the back. The dark slide was in the back. I had advanced the film through all ten frames but I had not exposed any of it. My guess is that the interlock which prevents the shutter from firing when the dark slide is in will only work with an RZ lens. I may try to rewind the unexposed roll back onto another spool at some point but I put in a new roll and this time I made sure to remove the dark slide before shooting. The spacing was OK and there were no light leaks or scratches. When you have been using an RB Pro or Pro S there is some novelty to seeing the film winding knob turn and hearing the film winding through when the camera is cocked. The 90/3.8 C worked well and having the 6X7 frame lines adjust automatically when the back is revolved is a nice touch. I did the shooting without a battery in the RZ and just shot by sunny 16. When I get an RZ lens I will be able to test the RZ's electronics but as a mechanical camera it's fine. Having the film advance when cocking the camera is a bigger convenience than having electronically governed shutter speeds, at least for now. One of my Bronica SQ-A backs has the wrong dark slide. The dark slide still needs to be in for the back to come off but the shutter will fire while it's in. </p>

<p>Most people are not doing available light photography with medium format equipment - at least not hand held. A 180mm lens will have less depth of field at the same aperture as a 150. If the 180 and the 150 are framing the subject the same way then the 150 will have to be closer to the subject. In a portrait situation where both lenses are being used wide open with the 150 at f/2.8 and the 180 at f/4.5 both should be able to blur the background sufficiently. You will then have to ask yourself whether you are looking for sharp eyeball tips with everything else out of focus - some people love that look - or whether you will need to stop down at least a little to get more of the subject in focus. If you don't like the RB's waist level finder then just get a prism finder. They go for very little today. My last comment has to do with the focal length used for a portrait with a 6X7 camera. Until earlier this year my longest lens was a 150/4 Zenzanon for the GS-1. Now I have both a 200 and a 250 for the GS-1 and two 180s for the RB cameras. Portraits can be done with a 150 in the 6X7 format but I think it's a little short. </p>