User_502260

<p>I am getting familiar with some of the Maxxum system. I have two 600si bodies and a number of lenses. Would it be safe to use an older Minolta 360PX flash with an FS-1100 adapter on a 600si? Would the TTL flash metering work properly? Would it be easier to just get a Minolta 5400 flash? </p>

<p>Rick, I like your photos regardless of what equipment you used. My modest Miranda collection includes Autosensorex EEs, Sensorex IIs and Sensomat REIIs. The Mirandas all seem to have their quirks but can be fun to use. When you show a set of photos which were all taken with the standard lens it is a reminder of just how much good work can be done with that focal length. </p>

<p>My first Konica TC was bought when it came out in 1976 and was used successfully for eleven years. At that point I traded it for a newer looking one. The T3 had a number of problems. The most serious one was the fact that it would not work properly with many third party Konica mount lenses. After advancing the film, the shutter would trip again as the advance lever was being returned to its resting place. I brought the camera to Berkey for repair a number of times and each time it was not repaired? Why? The problem was a design defect. A person who bought a Nikon camera might very well buy additional Nikkor lenses. A person who bought a Konica with a standard lens might later get a Vivitar or Soligor wide angle or telephoto. Not taking this into account was a mistake on Konica's part. The T2 did not suffer from this problem and was probably Konica's most reliable SLR. The later FS-1 had so many defects it nearly sunk the company's camera division. The next model, the FT-1, was much better. </p>

<p>I used UFG for a number of years on a regular basis and I still have some. It was mostly for shooting Tri-X at 1250. I read somewhere that an employee of the old Baumann's, which made Acufine, left the company and founded a new one called Ethol which sold a similar product called UFG and some other developers as well. It is my understanding that both Acufine and UFG were phenidone based developers. If you like the results with UFG you should try Acufine. Acufine is expensive but it is still available. Other developers which are based on phenidone or compounds similar to phenidone include Kodak X-Tol, Clayton F60, Ilford Microphen, Ilford DD-X, Edwal FG-7 and PC-TEA. Of these, FG-7 is no longer made (I'd like that formula) and PC-TEA is something you have to make up yourself. If you develop film on a regular basis then I would recommend the Clayton F60. It's in liquid form and gives results similar to those you would get with the Ilford Microphen and DD-X products. A quart is $9.99 from Freestyle. I used it mostly diluted 1:9. Clayton recommends 1:19 for pushing. I would pour it into two separate 16 oz. brown glass bottles to extend its working life. The brown or white plastic bottle it comes in is adequate for short term storage only. Freestyle also sells more than one phenidone based powder film developer for about $7.00 a gallon. Their msds sheets do not specifically name phenidone, perhaps because the quantity of the phenidone is such that the toxicity it causes is not very high. These are phenidone-hydroquinone developers and hydroquinone is certainly toxic. The msds sheets make it clear that these products are not beverages. If you want to do without the hydroquinone then you can use Kodak X-Tol or make up your own PC-TEA. The effect you are looking for with Tri-X is still available and with more than one developer. Incidentally, UFG does not really provide "ultra fine grain." If you really want finer grain, with some loss of sharpness and speed, undiluted Ilford Perceptol would work. The Tri-X of today is much better than the Tri-X I started with in 1971. Back then Tri-X in Microphen was a very grainy proposition. I also used it for pushing because phenidone based developers provide a little more speed than metol based developers. </p>

<p>The FX-3 Super 2000 came after the FX-3 and the FX-3 Super. I have one of these. From what I can tell it is less well made than the FX-3 or FX-3 Super. It has more plastic. The covering on the FX-3 Super 2000 is made of a different material than that of the FX-3 or FX-3 Super and may not need to be replaced. Mike mentions some interesting cameras. The Minolta X-700 and X-300 (X-370 in the U.S.) are known for having problems with failing capacitors. The capacitors are inexpensive and the repair is easy to get. Much has been written about these cameras. They have bright viewfinders and are light to carry. They do not have the sturdiest winding mechanisms but can work well with a little care. The OM-1 cameras have meter mechanisms which, I believe, can't be repaired if they malfunction. The remedy is to transplant parts from another camera. The Nikkormat FT-3 should be the most reliable pf the mechanical Nikkormats because it doesn't need the complicated indexing feature of the earlier models. It also takes the same MS-76 battery as the earlier FT-2 and not the 1.35 volt battery of the FT and FTN. An MX will normally need some service and its mechanical function can be expected to remain reliable longer than the electronics of its meter. The FE-2 is a beautiful camera with many features including interchangeable focusing screens. It is better made and more mechanically sturdy than the other cameras mentioned. It isn't up to the standard of a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 but it is still quite strong. </p>

<p>I have both of these cameras and I agree that it will be more fun finding lenses for the Minolta. The Minolta is considerably heavier than the Yashica. I just got a 303 back from John Titterington. It is beautifully overhauled and I hope to use it very soon. The Yashica is one of the later models which Cosina made for them. The main improvement of the FX-3 Super over the FX-3 is that the meter is activated by slight pressure on the shutter button rather than by pushing in a button from the back with your thumb. I have had three FX-3 cameras overhauled and reskinned. My FX-3 Super has not been overhauled yet. The Yashica FX-3/FX-7/FX-3 Super/FX-7 Super mostly (if not all) have deteriorating coverings. This is rarely the case with Minolta STR cameras. The SRT 303 shows you both the shutter speed and the aperture in the finder. The FX-3 Super shows neither of these. It only shows LEDs for correct exposure, overexposure and underexposure. The SRT 303 dates back to 1973. The FX-3 Super is, I think, from the 1983 time period. Either camera would benefit from an overhaul. The 303 was sold as the SRT Super in Japan and as the 102 in the U.S. so if you see a Super or 102 you would be getting the same camera. Only the later 303s are missing the mirror lock-up feature. If you can find one with mirror lock-up that would be preferable. <br> The 303 takes 1.35 volt batteries. When you have the camera overhauled you can have the voltage changed to 1.5 and just use 625A (alkaline) batteries. The FX-3 Super takes the widely available MS-76/A76/357 batteries. The 303 has a split image focusing aid surrounded by a microprism collar. The FX-3 Super has a 45 degree split image focusing aid surrounded by a microprism collar. Some people like the 45 degree split image ad some don't. With my FX-3s I find myself tilting the camera to focus on vertical lines. My Yashica/Contax mount Yashica ML lens collection goes from 28 to 200 and includes the 55/2.8 macro and some zooms. I did not succeed in finding a 35/2.8 M lens so I got a 35/2.8 Zeiss AEJ. The Zeiss lenses for the FX-3 in the most often used focal lengths are a good match for the better Minolta manual focus lenses. If you like the Zeiss lenses and can afford them then you can have some fun with them. I enjoy both systems (Yashica and Minolta) but my Minolta collection is much larger. </p>

<p>Not as far as I know. The eazypix.de website does not show a redesigned 28/2.5. I have the older MC Rokkor version and two examples of the later MC Rokkor with the rubber covered focusing ring. The U.S. versions are marked MC Rokkor-X. These all show some discoloration. I gave the early lens and one of the later ones the UV treatment and they are now both much less discolored than the remaining lens. If you are shooting b&w film or even color print film you will not have a problem other than a slightly dimmer finder. If you shoot color slide film then you will need a filter to offset the color of the lens. Later 28mm Rokkors and Celtics do not have this problem. The closest lenses in speed to the 28/2.5 are the 28/2.8s. The 28s after the f/2.5 have a different optical formula. Incidentally, the various 28/3.5s do not have a discoloration problem. If you want a 28/2.5 you can look for a Vivitar 28/2.5 Fixed Mount. It doesn't have a color problem, costs very little and performs well. </p>

<p>The diode goes off as soon as your finger comes off of the shutter button. This is normal and is done to save the batteries. I have also had a few misfires with the XD11. The shutter button is sensitive. I don't notice that the shutter is louder on Shutter Priority than in the other modes. The XD11 has a vertical shutter with metal blades. The X-700 has a horizontal shutter with cloth curtains. In most cases 35mm cameras with cloth shutters are quieter. Neither the XD11 nor the X-700 is particularly quiet. The XD11 has a bright finder and a standard screen which is usable with most focal lengths. The focusing screens are "factory interchangeable" but not easy to find. It has a higher flash synch speed and offers Shutter Priority operation as well as dedicated flash. The XD11 is known for having a very smooth film advance. The X-700 has a slower flash synch speed. It also has a bright finder and has user interchangeable focusing screens (with some difficulty) if you can find a screen. The X-700 offers both Program and Aperture Priority modes and uses TTL flash which is more advanced than regular dedicated flash. I have several XD11s, with one having been overhauled. I have many more X-700s, most of which have been overhauled. Which camera do I prefer? The X-700. This is due in part to the fact that I have one with a grid screen in it and one with a plain matte screen. These screens make using slower lenses like zooms and macro lenses easier to focus. If I ever come across a grid or plain matte screen for an XD11 I will have another one overhauled and get one of those screens installed. For now I use the X-700s much more often. I consider both very nice cameras. </p>

<p>I find the bokeh shown in the photos to be interesting but very distracting. I would not want that look in too many photos. </p>

<p>I recently got a link from a friend showing that Ken is retiring permanently from camera repair. I was very sorry to read it. Ken worked on a number of projects for me and is quite a craftsman. I will have to send him a note.</p>

<p>I recently got a Miranda Sensomat RE brochure. Based on its markings I think it's from 1970. It shows that the 50mm f/1.4 standard lens has eight elements. There must be one or two of these in my modest Miranda collection. I know there was a version of the 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar which also had eight elements. Were there any other f/1.4 standard lenses from this same period which also had eight elements?</p>

<p>There have been other threads on the slower 35mm Nikkors. In the middle of the run of the 35/2.8 AI the switch was made from the six element design of the earlier 'K' model to the five element design which would continue into the AIS model. The six element models are excellent. I have two of the 'K' models and an early AI. I also have a late AI. The five element lens is nothing special. Cosmetically the early and late 35/2.8 lenses are nearly identical but the serial numbers can be looked up. I am skeptical of lens tests which show field curvature in wide angles and telephotos. The tests are typically made using a chart of some kind and at very close distances. These lenses are not made to work as flat copy lenses at close distances but may work well at the distances they are intended for. This is certainly true of the 28/3.5 AI. If I want a 28 which is well corrected for close use I will take out my 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon and put it on a Konica body. The UC's only drawback is the issue of oil appearing on the aperture blades. If you need to shoot a flat surface close up and want as little field curvature as possible, use a 55/2.8 AIS. The results will be better than what you will get with any wide angle. I agree that the 35/2 Nikkors are very good when stopped down even a little. I have a 35/2 O and have thought about converting it to AI. My favorite fast 35s are the 35/2 Canon FD (all models), the 35/2 Konica Hexanon and the 35/1.8 Rokkor HH. The runner-ups include the 35/2 SMC Pentax-M and the Vivitar 35/1.9 Fixed Mount. </p>

<p>I have this sane lens, with a Nikon F mount adapter. You might look on eBay by searching Nikon Tamron. You are bound to turn up some old Adaptamatic lenses with the Nikon F adapter attached. This may be less costly than trying to find the adapter by itself. </p>

<p>Someone with a 3D printer should be able to find a suitable material and make the part for you. </p>

<p>I think you will like the 28/3.5 AI. I have two of these as well as three older 28/3.5 Nikkors. The AI is different from the earlier 28/3.5 models and has improved corner performance. I do not have any of the 28/2.8 Nikkors. The AIS model has CRC (Close Range Correction or "floating elements) and is supposed to provide better performance at its closest focusing distance. I don't know how much better it would be than the 28/3.5 AI or AIS at longer distances. If I need to get close I would rather use a 55/2.8 AIS. None of the 28s will be as good as the 55/2.8 in the close range. </p>

<p>I think you are confused about which 200 you are looking for. There was a 200mm f/3.5 Takumar (not an SMC Takumar) which was made between 1958 and 1965. It is a large and heavy pre-set lens with 18 aperture blades. Its closest focusing distance is 9 feet. When Asahi started making auto diaphragm lenses for the Spotmatics, it made the 200/4 Super Takumar. That lens was later made in Super-Multi-Coated-Takumar form and I think the first 200mm f/4 SMC Pentax (1975-1977) had the same optical design but with the then new K bayonet mount. I have various versions of the 200/3.5 Minolta Rokkor. I have never used them on a digital camera but they work very well on film. You can find a 200/3.5 MC Rokkor-X for a reasonable price. By the time of the MD lenses, the 200mm choices were an f/4 and a much more expensive f/2.8. The 200/3.5 MC Rokkor-X will have better coating and closer focusing than the old 200/3.5 Takumar pre-set. Between its 35mm M42 cameras, K mount cameras, 645 cameras and 6X7/67 cameras, Asahi's use of the words Pentax, Takumar, Bayonet, SMC and Super-Multi-Coated left a lot of room for confusion when you look at all of the different lenses it made. </p>

<p>I don't remember how many SRT 101 cameras I have or how many SRT cameras in general. There must be quite a few. The 35-70 MD is one of my favorite zooms. I have two of them. When I got my first one I tested it on an X-700 with ACROS developed in Fuji Microfine. I was impressed. The constant f/3.5 aperture makes the lens much more usable at the 70mm end and the close focusing is handy. Your photos are very good, as usual.</p>

<p>You could get an extension tube and remove the front lens mount.</p>

<p>Greg Weber might be interested in buying your lens. You can reach him at gweber@webercamera.com or at 402-721-3873. I have thought about adding the 400/4.5 Hexanon to my Konica collection. I have the later 400/5.6 UC Hexanon.</p>

<p>I like to go the other way with old film. I would use undiluted Ilford Microphen (a phenidone based developer like HC-110) and add 25% to the recommended time. You can always print through any additional fog. Sometimes a dense negative is easier to work with using projection printing than by scanning.</p>

<p>Years ago I did have push processing done for C-41 film. The Superia X-TRA 400 works well at box speed but only if you know what you are metering off of. Many outdoor sports shots contain enough sky in the frame to throw off the readings. If the light is relatively stable then meter off of some green grass which is in sunlight and just shoot according to that reading with exposure set on manual. The meter will show all kinds of erroneous readings when the sky gets into the frame but your negatives will have adequate exposure for good results. </p>

<p>This appears to be a light leak along the bottom of where the film is held. To test this you can load the film and then when the camera is closed, seal the edge with black electrician's tape. If the roll (at least after the first frame or two) shown no overexposed area then you will know where the leak is coming from. This is an old enough camera that foam was probably not used as a light seal material. Someone on this forum will be able to recommend a suitable material. </p>

<p>The cars are beauties and the camera is nice too. I see you have the older pointy prong 50/1.4. If you have enough light and can stop down a 50, I think you get a nicer perspective than you would using a wider lens. Our town's car show is next month. I am hoping for good weather.</p>

<p>I like the 65. I found that when I carried the usual 50/80/150 combination the 50 was a little too wide and the 150 didn't let me get closer unless I also carried an extension tube or close-up lens. My macro lens for the ETR series cameras is the older 100/4 and I also have the early Auto Bellows. The 50 is my widest lens for the SQ cameras. If I know I will need something wider I will use the GS-1 instead, with the 50/4.5. I have used the Teleconverter S a few times with a 150 to get closer and also used the combination with an extension tube. The faster 150/3.5 is easier to focus with this combination. The results were good if I stopped down a little but a strong tripod is needed for all that weight. </p>

<p>I got the 135/4 PS not too long ago and I like it. It also has closer focusing than the 150/3.5 S or 150/5 PS lenses. The 135 makes a nice two lens combo with the 65/4 PS. The 135 and 180 PS and PE lenses do not show up that often. I wonder how long they were in production. I have the 105/3.5 S and MC (E) lenses. They work well for portraits even if they re not quite as long as the typical portrait lenses for these formats. The 105 focal length did not make it to PE or PS form. I consider the 180mm focal length a little long for portraits in 6X45 or 6X6 formats so I will look for a 135 PE before I look for either 180. </p>