User_502260

<p>Some of the off brand adapters can be difficult to use. I have one which seems OK. In the early 1970s Mamiya made an interesting adapter for its Auto XTL camera. It was called the P adapter and allowed the use of M42 lenses on the bayonet mount Auto XTL. In addition to allowing for correct infinity focus it allowed stop down metering as well as auto diaphragm operation. Mamiya kept the bar which pushes forward and presses against the aperture pin on the M42 lenses even though the bayonet mount lenses don't make use of it. This means that you can use any M42 lenses with a stop down pin even if there is not Auto/Manual switch. When I use M42 lenses with a Y/C or Minolta or Canon adapter, they must have an A/M switch or have pre-set or fully manual aperture mechanisms. </p>

<p>I bought a parts Pro S from an overseas seller. When it arrived, the mirror was broken. My guess is that the mirror broke in transit because the camera was not well padded on one side. The camera cost $12 and shipping was $28. The focusing screen is in perfect condition and worth more than $40 by itself. The bellows is fine and the revolving back adapter was included. It just needs seals. I bought a parts RB Pro which has not arrived yet. I am hoping I can have its mirror removed and installed in the Pro S. If it can't, I'm sure my repairman can find a spare mirror. </p>

<p>Do the Mamiya RB67 Pro and RB67 Pro S cameras use the same mirror? </p>

<p>A few years ago I was at a wedding where the photographer used a Canon 5DIII with on-camera flash. The 5DIII doesn't have the raw resolution of a D800 but was reckoned to have better high ISO performance. The photographer showed me his technique of bouncing the on-camera flash off of high ceilings and walls which were pretty far away. At the higher ISO settings this worked. I later saw the results and they were good. Years ago a person shooting a wedding with medium format film equipment would have used a far more powerful flash to get the same results. The combination of image stabilization and improved high ISO performance really improved image quality in difficult lighting situations. When you add improved AF the combination is even better. I like using my Pentax K-x at 800 especially with flash. Over 800 the results are still usable but then it will depend on how large a print you want to make. I still make large prints with medium format film equipment but if I needed to shoot at a high ISO I would get a newer DSLR.</p>

<p>I looked for one earlier this year and they are apparently still available. I have a High Voltage Pack for the Vivitar 292 and a Metz 403 which use this battery. The battery now comes with all kinds of warnings about how it can kill you. I don't remember thinking about that so many years ago. It's not like I was going to lick the terminals. I suppose it's like all of the warnings which come attached to ladders today. Did it really get more dangerous to use one than it used to be? I would love to find someone who could convert my Metz 403 for use with some other kind of battery. I don't know this for a fact but you could probably use AA lithium batteries in the regular AA battery holder of the Sunpak. It would give plenty of capacity, lighter weight and lower cost than a 510. I rigged up a Low Voltage power pack which was made for the Vivitar 283 to a 292. I used the regular LVC2 connecting cord and removed the NC2 battery from the 292. The two posts inside the battery chamber fit right into the flash end of the LVC2. The LVP2 battery pack takes four D cells. I used 4 amp NiCad cells (you can get Ds with much higher capacity now). The recycling time was not much improved but there was enough capacity to shoot all day. </p>

<p>It may take me some time to gather the documents. I got the information from a person who has seen the inside and outside of every Koni-Omega camera, lens and accessory. It's funny about the lens speed. My first lens was a 57mm f/1.4 for a 35mm camera I got in 1971. At that time I mostly shot Tri-X. Sometimes it was shot at 400 and developed in D-76. It might also have been pushed to 1250 and been developed on Ethol (ethol) in UFG. Anything slower than f/1.4 seemed slow. Over the years not that many really fast medium format lenses have been made. It's an old habit to think of a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 as slow. I have thought about a 50mm lens for my RB cameras but I think I'll wait to get a later RZ lens. An RZ is on its way to me. It is coming with an RB metered chimney finder and the motor winder. A 120 back is coming from someone else. For the time being I think I can use RB lenses on it by setting the speeds manually on the lenses. If it is much lighter than the RBs I might look for a left hand grip and try some hand held shooting with it. </p>

<p>Dan, we will have to split the difference on this one. It turns out that we were both half right. There were three versions of the wide angle lens for the Koni-Omega cameras. In the beginning a 58 and a 60 were marketed. These were identical six element designs which just had different names and markings. The different names/marked focal lengths had something to do with import duties in a neighboring country. Later there was an eight element 58 and the 60 marking was dropped altogether. I used a 58 years ago but I can''t tell you which one. It gave excellent results and that was for two reasons. The lens was very slow and easier to design for that reason and the film holding system kept the film very flat. When the film advance lever is pushed back toward the body the pressure plate is pressed against the film. For a person who started taking pictures when I did, the question of whether a particular Japanese lens is or is not a copy of an older German lens is not a very pressing one. I just want to know whether it gives good results. It could be that someone did test the six element 58/60 against the eight element 58 but you would have to take sample variation into account for it to be meaningful.<br> By the time the Koni-Omega line went out of production in 1982 Mamiya was marketing it. It's a miracle that any photo product survived being marketed by Berkey. At about this time the Bronica GS-1 system was introduced. Most of my 6X7 wide angle shooting is done with a 50/4.5 or 65/4 Zenzanon. These are somewhat more modern designs and presumably have better coating. I am now learning the Mamiya RB and RZ systems and I have a 65 for the RBs. It is older than the Zenzanons and I have not compared it with them. Based on the size prints I make I do not expect to see a big difference. Shading them from stray light and avoiding camera movement will make more of a difference than the brand name. It's always fun learning something new. The older I get the more I try not to be too sure of anything. </p>

<p>There was no 65mm lens made for the Koni-Omega system. The focal lengths were 58 (60), 90, 135 and 180. According to the information I have, the 58 and 60 are the exact same lens. There was some kind of Japanese regulation having to do with focal lengths and the lens was made also as a (marked) 60. The Koni-Omega (and Rapid-Omega) equipment can still be repaired. Greg Weber repairs them and has many parts on hand for repairs. I used these cameras in High School and we called the film backs "auto jam backs." Over time the mechanism for advancing the film can get gummed up. If someone forces the mechanism it will work but eventually the stop at the end of the lever's travel gets bent and that's when things start to jam. If the camera and back is serviced periodically and treated with some respect then jams are less common. Apart from the Koni-Omegas and Rapid Omegas I used so long ago I used mostly TLRs for medium format picture taking. In recent years prices for most medium format equipment have fallen so I now have some nice Mamiya and Bronica SLR outfits. For people who want a really oddball medium format system there is the Koni-Omegaflex TLR. Greg Weber works on those too but he probably doesn't see nearly as many of them as he does the Koni-Omegas/Rapid Omegas. Finding film cameras at low prices is not exceptional now but enjoying them and getting good results from them can be helped greatly by finding the right repair person. </p>

<p>According to the Canon Camera Museum website the SSC lens has nine elements and the New FD lens has ten.</p>

<p>The lens with the bubbles is a New FD. The example shown without the bubbles is an FD SSC. I also have an FD SSC and it has no bubbles. Could this be more common in New FD lenses?</p>

<p>I sometimes see the low battery indicator when I put new alkaline AAs into my K-x. From what I have seen the lithium AAs work best. They cost more but are lighter, last longer and recharge the built-in flash faster. I need to use the separate flash more.</p>

<p>For now your most obvious course of action would be to just scan your negatives. Leica tried something along these lines with the DMR back for the R9. People who have higher end DSLRs are using them with slide copiers of various types to digitize film images. You can also get a Micro 4/3 camera and use your Topcon lenses with an adapter. Some people have a lot of luck with that arrangement and some find focusing difficult. You need to experiment to see which lenses work well with the digital sensor. </p>

<p>What is it about those lenses that cause your mirror to stay up? Do they intrude too far into the mount or is there some kind of mirror foam/mirror shock absorber problem? I have a chrome Canon FTbN with some black paint loss on the front but it has been overhauled and works fine. The Nikkormat I use most often is a black FT2 with plenty of brassing. It has been overhauled once and had the meter movement adjusted a few years later. My Yashica 635 has some front impact damage and it isn't possible to mount a bayonet filter but otherwise it works well. </p>

<p>When I got my 635 one of the parts in the 35mm adapter kit was missing. I later found a complete 35mm adapter kit but by that time I was not as interested in using it. My Yashica TLR collection consists of an A, a 635 and a gray 44. The A is small and light and even with its three element lens can give you a very respectable 8X10 if you stop down a little. In High School and college I had a 124G. As I have written before, the 124G was not impressive mechanically. When the winding mechanism finally stopped working for the second time I got rid of it. The Minolta Autocord which replaced it was much better made but the Yashinon lens on the 124G was a gem. I sometimes shot portraits with it and enlarged to 8X10 from the center of the negative using a 50mm enlarging lens. The results were quite good. As film camera prices have dropped I have accumulated enough medium format SLRs to sink a ship so I do not use the TLRs nearly as often as I used to. When I was in school I loved getting the mounted 6X6 Ektachromes back from Kodak. If I could find a Yashica TLR made before the 124G and with a Yashinon I might be interested. I have a 135W back for my Mamiya ETR series SLRs but I have never succeeded in getting all of the exposures I should from a roll of film. I don't know if I am not using it correctly or if it isn't working properly. The image area with the 135W back is nominally 24X56mm. I recently had the revolving back adapter and 120 back for an RB67 Pro serviced but did not get to use it today. It has the non-metered chimney finder on it. I forgot that the image was reversed just like it was with the 124G. I have a prism finder for when I want to carry something really heavy and also the plain Waist Level finder. The finders are shared with a Pro S body. I am a little younder than Daniel. My picture taking started in 1971 when I was 14. I started out with a Konica Autoreflex T2 and did not have the Yashica until I was about 17. Whlle in High School I did have fun using the Koni-Omegas which were mostly for class pictures. Now I may be on medium format overload but I'm enjoying it. </p>

<p>If you really want to muddy up the waters with s fast standard lens you can find a 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor and use the Canon N adapter. It is optimized for wide open shooting and is still expensive when you can find one. </p>

<p>The SRT cameras have a kind of shock absorber for the mirror. I think the wire showing is part of that system and not what holds in the focusng screen. There are plenty of SRT cameras floating around for very little. The late model 201 I just got came in perfect condition. I just sent an XD11 to John Titterington and I hope to send him some SRTs soon too. </p>

<p>I have the 55/1.2 FL. It isn't as good at or near wide open as the 50/1.4 FLII or any of the 50/1.4 FD lenses. I recently had a first version 50/1.4 FL overhauled and will do some shooting with it soon. If you are shooting at a closer range and can close down you will find that thr 50/3.5 (FD SSC or New FD) is sharper than all of these. </p>

<p>Yesterday I got a Minolta SRT-201 with a 50/1.4 in the mail. The SRT-201 is the later model without the CLC marking and with a different looking rewind knob. The lens is the last 50/1.4 MD Rokkor-X, before the plain MD model. Everything is in good condition and for a whole $19.95 I also got a late model MD mount Vivitar 2X teleconverter. The meter is fine and the test roll of Walgreens 200 (Fuji) looks good. There are some minor spacing variations between the negatives but no overlapping so that's fine. This is the first SRT-201 of the later type I have added to my collection. It has the combination split image/microrpism focusing aid and its serial number is on the hot shoe rather than on the top of the body. The three earlier SRT-201s I have are all microprism-only types. My son's early model SRT-201 has the combination split image/microprism focusing aids. Did Minolta originally offer the (older) SRT-201 with either focusing screen type or did the split image/microprism type replace the plain microprism type? Did all of the later (non-CLC) SRT-201s have only the combination split image/microprism focusing aids? </p>

<p>When Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50 were used to enable someone to make larger prints from 35mm film, a lens as fast as f/1.2 and as long as 85mm was useful for low light use. As faster films were improved the low light capability of an 85/1.2 became less important. The emphasis then went to very shallow depth of field for photos taken at closer distances. In some ways this gave the effect, especially for portraits, of larger formats where lenses had longer focal lengths and more shallow depth of field. Selective focus can be a useful effect but it is not really suitable for every shot you take. I use 85mm and 105mm amd 135mm and even 200mm lenses for portraits but I do not use them all the time as close as they will focus and also wide open. If I did, very little of each photo would be in focus. There is little distance in focal length between an 85 and a 100. Your 100/2 New FD, if it is good condition, should give you all the quality and selective focus you can use. </p>

<p>Even with TTL metering, exposures can get so long that you wind up with reciprocity failure. If the subject lends itself to lighting with flash then you can use an outfit with TTL flash metering. For making calculations manually you can consult the Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. I have the complete Minolta Auto Bennows III system along with much of the TTL flash equipment and accessories. I use it with an X-700 body with either a grid or plain matte screen. Using a camera with a split image or microprism is difficult for the reasons mentioned. I also have the complete Konica Auto Bellows III and regular Bellows III systems, an Olympus Auto Bellows (no film strip holder), two Canon FL bellows sets and a few other pdd ones. </p>

<p>The 100/3.5 is the most common lens for the GS-1. I have three of them. Remember that the lens also has its own shutter assembly. It would probably cost less to buy another one in good condition than to repair the one you have. If the shutter in your lens seems to be functioning properly then it is at least possible to see if fungus can be removed. At this point there are probably more working PG lenses than there are working GS-1 bodies so proces for the PG lenses have been going down. In addition to the three 100s I have a 50, a 65, a 150, a 200 and a 250. </p>

<p>I shot a test roll of XP-2 Plus on Sunday with a new (to me) Bronica GS-1. The lens was one of my 100/3.5s, the back was one with a 220 6X7 insert which I removed and replaced with a 120 6X7 insert. The prints from all ten frames show a light leak near the lower left hand corner. In nine of the frames the affected area is small. In one it is larger. The affected area in each frame does not extend to the edge of the negative. The spacing between the frames is not perfectly even but it is never too wide or too narrow. When I look inside the back I see that there is no felt or foam sealing material. There is just a series of baffles. The only cause for the light leak I can think of is the space left when the dark slide is pulled out. Based on the angle of the sun in the shot with the more severe light leak I think the sun must have been shining right through that slit. I suppose the obvious test is to shoot another roll but with black tape covering the slit from the time the back is attached to the time the roll is fully wound through. Does this sound right? </p>

<p>I have seen examples of the 58/5.6 Hexanon (also sold as the 60/5.6 Omegon) for the Koni-Omega cameras adapted for view camera use. The Koni-Omegas kept the film very flat and the lenses are nice and sharp. </p>

<p>APX 100 is not particularly fine grained for a film of its speed. I did not like using it in 35mm size. Its qualities are better suited for medium format work. I must still have some in my freezer somewhere. The Fuji is a reasonably light and small camera. When I carry a Mamiya M645 1000S with a prism finder and the right hand power winder and a lens it feels much too heavy to only be a 645 camera. </p>

<p>This subject has come up many times. I will eventually get the 80-200/4L just to say I don't use it. I have the non-IF 200/2.8 and it is an excellent lens. The fact that a lens has internal focusing does not automaticaly make it better than a non-IF lens of the same focal length and speed. I have a 300/4.5 Minolta MD lens which is an IF model as well as an older 300/4.5 MC Rokkor X. Both are good lenses. The IF lens is much smaller and lighter but probably not as good with a teleconverter and not nearly as sturdy as the non-IF MC model. I admit that I prefer shooting with prime lenses as a general rule. Do I feel I am missing something when I use an 85/1.8 New FD or 100/2.8 FD SSC or 200/4 FD SSC or 200/2.8 non-IF New FD instead of an 80-200/4L? No I don't. I am still using FD lenses with film cameras and the extra speed of the 200/2.8 (either model) is very useful for hand held shooting. It makes focusing easier too. I can use older lenses on my Pentax K-x DSLR with both focus confirmation and the built-in IS. With an adapter I can mount a 200/3 Vivitar Series lens which is in M42 mount. I lose auto diaphragm operation but if I really need the speed I will be shooting wide open anyway. </p>