User_502260

<p>I tried that and it works. I'll have to try the 50/1.4 SMC Pentax again with fresh batteries. I don't know why that should matter bit it's worth a try. The batteries in the camera now haven't been there more than a few weeks. I picked up a roll shot with the ME Super over the weekend and the shots look fine. The 50/1.4 SMC Pentax seems fine with a KM, MX or K2. </p>

<p>I just took out an ME Super and put on a 50/1.4 SMC Pentax. The meter readings were erroneous. I kept getting a reading of 1/2000 regardless of the f/stop selected. First I thought it might be weak batteries but I changed them not too long ago. I took off the SMC Pentax lens and put on a 40/2.8 SMC-Pentax-M. Now the readings look right. Is there a problem using some of the older SMC Pentax lenses on an ME Super? I did not see this same problem when I used SMC Pentax lenses on a KM. </p>

<p>This is a version I have only seen pictures of but which I would like to add to my collection. The 1970-1973 period was a confusing one when it comes to Canon FD lenses. When the F-1 and FTb came out Canon did not have its full line of FD lenses ready yet. For some unknown reason there weren't any 200/4 FD lenses with the chrome front ring. The one you have is what was made instead. It's odd that Canon started its FD line with lenses which had chrome fronts which looked like those of the Zeiss lenses for the Contarex. In its least few years Zeiss changes the cosmetics of the lenses for the Contarex and soon after that, the Contarex gave way to the Contax SLRs made with Yashica. By 1973 Canon also gave up on the chrome front lenses. One of my chrome front FDs which I have mentioned before is a 24mm f/2.8 FD SSC with a mounting ring which is not spring loaded. My guess is that Canon was just using up old parts. The cosmetics of your 200 did not extend to any other FD lenses as far as I know.<br> How good is the lens? I have two 200/4 FD black front lenses (not marked SSC). They are acceptable if the sun is over your shoulder. If you are shooting against the sun they are terrible. The SSC model is a tremendous improvement. I find myself using the first version of the 200/2.8 New FD more often and a later New FD IF model is expected here later today but the 200/4 FD SSC is a very good lens in it own right. </p>

<p>Whether film will still be available in 20-30 years is anyone's guess. I suspect that b&w film will be around at least in some sizes longer than color film. Counting on an electronic camera to work for that long and for parts to remain available for it for that long is probably not realistic. If you gather together a bunch of Mamiya RB67 cameras and lenses, these should be repairable for a long time. Someone recently said that while new technology has made very high image quality available, the demand for very high quality images has never been lower. Why? Of all of the digital images recorded, only a very small percentage ever wind up being printed on paper. The rest are looked at on monitors which have fairly low resolution even if they are high end models. If someone is looking for very high resolution, there are fine art and scientific applications but shooting for maximum resolution at all times is not always practical. Even a 50MP Canon DSLR will only reach its maximum performance with certain lenses and at the wider apertures. Can you really do all of your shooting at f/4? For now if you need a limited number of high resolution images and don't want to spend too much, you can get an RB67 and use Ektar 100. If you need to make many high resolution images then film/processing/scanning costs can make using digital equipment a better choice. </p>

<p>I have at least one Airequipt projector which belonged to a friend of the family. That friend is no longer with us but I wouldn't mind having some extra trays for it. I am on the East Coast. Let me know what the shipping would be for 10 trays. </p>

<p>I have three full rolls (150 feet) and most of a fourth roll of TP. It has been frozen since it was first purchased, in date. Technidol is not the only suitable developer for continuous tone work with TP. I recently looked at a link to an old camera magazine test of some highly regarded lenses using various films and aiming for maximum resolution. The old 5069 High Contrast Copy showed higher resolution numbers than TP, which was relatively new then. I also have some Imakelink HQ and FS film lying around. These can be coaxed to produce continuous tone work under the right lighting Conditions. </p>

<p>I took a fresh battery out of another ETRS which I was testing with the Motor Winder-Ei. The AE-II finder works well. The new ETRS came without a crank but I have a few of those floating around. The ETR series cameras are awkward to use with a prism finder without the Speed Grip and equally awkward to use with a waist level finder with the Speed Grip. </p>

<p>This afternoon I decided to drop in on a local camera store. I looked at some 35mm stuff and then the owner brought out a Bronica. Which one? A pristine ETRS with a single latch 120 back w/darkslide, a Speed Grip, a 75/2.8 MC with a Hoya 58 UV filter and a working AE-II meter prism. For $150 it seemed too good to pass up. The only part I didn't already have is the AE-II. It's my first meter prism for the ETR series cameras. The camera has seen such little use that the rubber diamond pattern on the focusing ring is still sharp. After this coming weekend's expected snow I hope to test the new camera out. </p>

<p>I'm glad you're back. I was at the Second Sunday camera show in Wayne, NJ on the 13th. A fellow photo.netter recognized me and also mentioned your name. So far I haven't been tempted by any mirror lenses but I enjoy reading your posts about them. The closest I came to getting a mirror lens was years ago at 47th Street Photo in NY. The lens was a Sigma 600mm f/8. At that long focal length I wouldn't ask how sharp the lens is. I would ask how sharp it is compared to enlarging from anything shorter which I have. Somewhere I have a Vivitar focusing 2X which was made for the 450mm Series 1 mirror lens. It's in T mount and comes with an Allen wrench for adjusting the orientation of the lens. </p>

<p>The teleconverter must first be attached to the camera and then the lens can be attached to the teleconverter. When removing things, the lens must first be detached from the teleconverter and then the teleconverter can be detached from the camera. If you try to detach the teleconverter while it is still attached to the lens, you will jam things up. The manual for the teleconverter mentions this but most of these items are floating around now without manuals. I think the shutter and winding mechanisms must also be cocked.before any attaching or detaching. </p>

<p>Rick,<br> Thanks for the compliment and also for the fine photos. I found one small error. The 55/1.7 and later 50/1.7 Rokkors all have six elements in five groups. The eazypix website is a good reference for Minolta manual focus lenses. The Joseph D. Cooper and John C. Wolf books are also good references. Nikon marked its lenses for some years using a single letter designation for the total number of lens elements. Minolta made things more complicated by using letter designations for both the number of elements and the number of Groups. A lens marked FP has six elements (F is the sixth letter in English) and five groups (P for Penta / Pente in Greek). I once asked a person who happened to be a physicist why a lens maker might have stayed with a design with fewer elements if additional correction could be obtained with more elements. His answer was that before coatings were improved, the benefit of additional elements could be canceled out by lower light transmission and possibly more flare.<br> Nikon's early 50mm f/2 for the F mount was an S model with seven elements. It was redesigned and became the Nikkor H (Hexa or 6). in the 1975-1976 time frame Nikon added the letter C to some of its lenses. In that case the C signified multicoating or improved coating. More than ten years ago I was at a NY Mets baseball game in what was then called Shea Stadium in NY with a good friend. I was using an X-370 with a 50/1.7 MD, the last of the 50/1.7 manual focus Minolta lenses. My friend commented that Minolta was putting its efforts into the performance of the lens if not the outside packaging. The MD model dates back to 1981 when the economy in many places was not strong and companies were looking to save money wherever they could. As I have mentioned before, my favorite of the f/1.7s is the MC Rokkor-X [sold without the X designation in non-U.S. markets). It's the last one with a metal aperture ring. What lens did my friend use? In his college days when he took more pictures, he used Topcors.<br> By 1973 Minolta had also changed its standard f/1.4 from a 58mm model with six elements to a 50mm model with seven elements. In technical terms the 50 is a better lens but the 58 is appreciated for its more pleasing out of focus rendition. I have and use both. It is one of my goals for 2016 to finally post some photos. I am working on it. </p>

<p>Contact Greg Weber at 402-721-3873 or by e-mail at gweber@webercamera.com. He can definitely fix it.</p>

<p>This is the exact camera and lens set-up I started with in the fall of 1971. The lens version with the silver and black barrel and the EE lock pin was only made for a short time. By early 1972 the lens barrels were all black. I used the T2 all through High School and by the end of my first semester of college I had worn out the body and the lens. I traded both for a T3 with the new 50/1.4. Years later when I started collecting I added back many T and T2 versions. I first came to know Greg Weber in 1992. Since then he has overhauled many Konica cameras and lenses for me and has become a good friend. Last week I got a 100/2.8 (all black, all metal focusing ring) back from him. Winter is a slow time for my picture taking and it's cool but "cloudy bright" today. In a few days we'll be in the 70s (F) so the 100 will get some use.<br> The 57/1.4 was available back to 1965 with the Auto Reflex (Autorex in non-US markets) and its coating was improved by the time it was discontinued in late 1972 or early 1973. It is a six element lens. The 50/1.4 is a seven element lens. Is one better than the other? Greg prefers the 57. They are both very good. I must have taken more pictures with the 57 because it was my only lens for a while. By the time I had the 50 I had other focal lengths to choose from. Some time in the 1990s I had Greg remove the focusing screen from a black T2 body and replace it with a Nikon 'E' screen [grid type] from the FE. Part of the clip holding the screen is visible in the finder, giving it a jury-rigged look, but it works fine. It makes using slower lenses and doing macro work much easier. The T2 finder is not terribly bright but it is certainly fine with an f/1.4 lens. In 1984 I had a Nikon E screen transplanted into an FT-1 body. I still use that one too.<br> I did not find the T3 as well made as the T2. The T3 also had a film advance problem with non-Konica lenses. My collection includes many other brands and formats but I will always have a special feeling about a chrome T2 with the silver and black 57/1.4 with the EE lock pin. When I look at a print or a slide made early on with that T2 I see what a nice camera it was. Sometimes I have a dream that my original T2 is sitting at the bottom of a huge barrel in Greg's basement. Greg's dedication to Konicas has enabled those of us who appreciate them to keep enjoying them. </p>

<p>I recently bought bulk rolls of 46mm wide Ilford HP5+ through Ilford's ULF [ultra Large Format] program. I plan to spool it into 127 rolls with re-used spools and backing paper. </p>

<p>I haven't made up or used PC-TEA in a while. I used it only at 1:50 and only as a one-shot developer. I would be very surprised if it could be used effectively at 1:75 and even more surprised if it could be re-used at 1:75. The working solution at 1:50 is inexpensive enough. If you don't want to bother making up your own PC-TEA you can buy Kodak HC-110 and get similar results. </p>

<p>I ordered three packs yesterday but I don't know if the order will be filled. The item was listed as not being in stock. I bought five packs today and also one pack of the 3000 speed b&w film. The b&w film is $10 more than the color film so I will think about how much of it I want to get. I have two Polaroid 250 cameras and an AAA battery adapter. If my memory of this is correct, my mother bought her 250 in 1972 when the Grants chain in NY went out of business. The references I have seen show that the 250 was made from '67 - '69 so it must have been NOS. The cold clip and portrait attachment and flashbulb (cube) attachment bring back memories. I have been thinking about using the 250s for a while and did not think that Fuji might eventually discontinue the film. In the old days you would send a Polaroid print in and get reprints or enlargements. I suppose it's easier now. We can just scan the prints. Years from now people will look back and be surprised that the FP100C stayed in production as long as it did. I wonder whether it's possible for the Impossible Project to make a successor product? </p>

<p>In 1971 when I started High School.</p>

<p>Find a 120 back and get it serviced. 220 backs are a dime a dozen because very little film is made in that size. With what film costs today it doesn't make sense to fool around with it.</p>

<p>My 6X6 Bronica SLRS are SQ models. An SQ-A in good condition should not cost too much. Non-metered prism finders are plentiful and inexpensive. All lenses have built-in leaf shutters which are electronically governed. They synch with electronic flash at all speeds. The waist level finder makes for a lighter and more compact unit. If you do get a prism finder than by all means get a Speed Grip too. It makes the camera much more comfortable to use. The 80mm/2.8 S and PS lenses are both sharp. </p>

<p>Our weather here is different. The overnight low tomorrow morning will be -3F. I won't be outside taking any pictures then. Somewhere I have a lens marked Titar and not Titan. It's also a 135. In one month we go back to Daylight Savings Time. That's when I will start looking for the crocus and forsythia plants. My experience years ago with a Praktica Nova 1B turned me off from the brand. There seem to be a lot more Prakticas on eBay from Europe and England than from the U.S. Very nice pictures as usual. </p>

<p>The link doesn't seem to work but I sent Eric a camera a few days ago and I see the tracking information that he got it today. I hope I can read the article when the link is up and running again. My AOL e-mail is not working now either so I am not having a good internet day. </p>

<p>"I guess that you have to dance with whomever brought you to the prom, and if it's the X-700, take another spin." The X-700 is not my only Minolta and was certainly not my first Minolta. That was a Minolta 16 PS in 1970. I think you meant the XE and the XD, not the XE and the XG. The XG cameras had even more plastic and were more poorly made than the X-700. The X-700 has metal and plastic parts. The XE cameras are historically interesting because they were the first Minolta SLRs with mechanically governed shutters. My interest is as a user-collector. Based on this I can use and enjoy any camera I like. No Minolta SLRs, including the XE-7/XE-5, have the mechanical integrity of a Nikon F2 or a Canon F-1/n. I enjoy using the X-700 in the same way I enjoy using a Yashica FX-3 or Vivitar V4000/S. These aren't the absolute sturdiest models but I have enough of them so I can use them knowing that if they fail, I have other bodies to use the lenses on. I look at the X-700 not as a last ditch effort for Minolta but as a transitional model. Minolta must have known that once AF took hold, it would outsell and replace manual focusing models. A person who bought an X-700 in 1981 when it came out got a capable camera with the durability of other similar models. A person who bought an X-700 in 1985 just before the release of the Maxxum 7000 could well have felt that he/she bought an outdated model.<br> When the half-frame craze died down, Olympus needed something to sell while it was developing the OM-1. That model was the FTL. When the M42 era was winding down (or had mostly wound down) Asahi brought out the short lived Spotmatic F. Even the Pentax KM, KX and K2 models of 1975 weren't anything new when they appeared in 1975. Mamiya couldn't sell many of its interesting Auto XTL and Auto X1000 bayonet mount models and replaced them with the modified M42 mount SX series. These were transitional models before the unsuccessful NC1000/S and even less successful ZE models.<br> We can look at the 1945-1965 time period as the era of rangefinder and TLR cameras. The 1965-1985 time period was the era of manual focus 35mm SLR cameras. The 1985 to 2005 time period was the era of AF SLR 35mm cameras. From 2005 on we have the era of digital SLRs and non-SLRs. During each of these periods there were developments. Shutters went from being mechanically governed to being electronically governed. Exposure went from external meters to internal meters and from match needle to automatic and from stop down to full aperture. There were many interesting models made over the years and it is a matter of personal preference when someone decides to use one rather than another. If someone likes the Petri FT EE or the Ricoh Auto TLS EE or the Miranda DX-3, that's fine with me. Claiming they were the best made cameras wouldn't match up with any facts I know. I don't claim that the X-700 was the best camera ever made. I just say that I enjoy using it. </p>

<p>The later TC-X is also mechanical and uses one AAA battery just for the meter.</p>

<p>I don't think the XD-11 has a way of locking the reading while in Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority mode. It has factory interchangeable focusing screens (like the Canon A-1) rather than user interchangeable screens. As far as the finder is concerned, it's nice and bright and if I don't need a special screen for a particular subject, I like it. Horizontal cloth shutters are more durable than I gave them credit for when I started with a Konica Autoreflex T2 so many years ago. The downside is the slower flash synch speed (not counting the interesting Olympus OM4 system). Going from the vertical shutter in the XD-11 to the horizontal cloth shutter in the X-700 was a step backward in some ways. At some point Minolta figured out that its Maxxum line would have to go back to the more modern vertical shutter arrangement. An upgraded version of the XD-11 with a top shutter speed of 1/2000, silicon metering, TTL flash metering and user interchangeable focusing screens might have been a better alternative than the X-700 but Minolta already had the XK, which I think did not sell very well, and was working on the Maxxum 7000. Still, I find the X-700 very pleasant to use. I can still get them repaired and I have enough of them that I should be able to enjoy them for some time.</p>

<p>The photos are great. I have two Multi Function Backs and just added an IR-1 set. Yes, the X-700 doesn't work without batteries. I always carry spare MS-76 batteries and sometimes a spare X-700 body. My overhauled XD-11 is a chrome model. I think I prefer the X-700 to the XD-11. If I am really worried about battery power I can use one of my many SRT cameras. I have some X-9 cameras and I think they have brighter finders than the X-700. They also have a depth of field preview feature. The next Minolta I think I'll send out for an overhaul is a SRT Super. It's the same as my SRT 102s. I just love the Super name. I may have to find a Super Lentar or Super Paragon to go with it. Recently I added another X-570. That's also a nice camera and some people like it for using in manual metered mode. </p>