User_502260

<p>I will take the other side of this argument. I have an overhauled XE-5 and many X-700s. The X-700 is lighter and has a brighter finder. The X-700 has interchangeable focusing screens. Minolta did not promote this feature and the different screens are nearly impossible to find but my favorite X-700 has a grid screen in it. The X-700 has an easy way to lock the meter reading when shooting in Aperture Priority mode. The X-700 uses silicon meter cells which respond much more quickly than CdS cells. The X-700 has TTL flash metering. This is especially handy for macro work. The X-700 works with a winder or a motor drive. The top shutter speed of the X-700 is the same 1/1000 as that of the XE cameras. What advantages do the XE cameras have? They have vertical metal shutters so they synch with flash at the higher 1/90 shutter speed. The XE-7 also has an eyepiece shutter. <br> I accept the criticism that the capacitors used in the X-700 were of unnecessarily low quality and that the winding mechanism is not as robust as those in an Canon F-1/n or Nikon F2. Minolta did not compete much in the professional market and had the XK for that. Some like the XK and some don't. I don't have an XK and don't consider it as durable as a Canon F-1/n or Nikon F2. My answer to the reliability and construction issues of the X-700 is that they are easy to get repaired and don't cost much. I also like the general feel of my XE-5 even if I find myself switching to manual settings because I can't lock the reading in Aperture Priority mode but I think the X-700 has many more modern features and is capable of excellent work. Nikon FE/FE2 cameras seem to have held up better than the Minolta XE models and are generally mode sturdy than the X-700 but are heavier than the X-700. The FE/FE2 cameras also have easier to change focusing screens than the X-700. </p>

<p>It will probably be less expensive to just buy another 7S. I have a special feeling about the 7S because I photographed my son's first steps with one. He is now 6'3". </p>

<p>The Konica Auto Reflex does not have TTL metering. The metering cell is on the outside of the body. This can still work well. You just have to get an idea of what the cell is reading. The very early Auto Reflex cameras had a slightly different mount but very few of those are around. The rest of the Auto Reflex cameras will accept all lenses in Konica AR mount. These are plentiful. I like using an Auto Reflex with the 28mm f/1.8 UC Hexanon as a standard lens. The 28 UC is quite a good lens but is expensive and is often found with oil on its aperture blades. There was a half frame conversion kit made for the Konica FT-1 Motor. With the conversion the camera is called the Pro Half. The Pro Half has more modern metering and the built-in motor (winder). An advantage of the Konicas is that you can get adapters for using other lenses. Konica made adapters for using Exakta, Nikon, M42 (Praktica) and Konica F mount lenses with correct infinity focus. With one adapter or another you can use T mount lenses, Tamron Adaptamatic, Adaptall and Adaptall lenses, Vivitar T4 and TX lenses, Sigma and Spiratone YS lenses and Soligor's proprietary interchangeable mount system. Konica also made an interesting series of half frame RF cameras called "eye." The lettering is highly stylized and looks like cyc. </p>

<p>Paul,<br> You list a PS lens. PS lenses are for the SQ series cameras, not the ETR series ones. You have to make pretty large prints to see the differences between the older and newer lenses. The 105/3.5 E and S lenses were left out when the PE and PS lenses were introduced. The 150/3.5 S was replaced by the slower 150/4 PS. I prefer the older faster lens. Some lenses were not made in the older style. I like my 135/4 PS for the SQ cameras because it has closer focusing than either of the 150 lenses for the SQ cameras. I have cameras and lenses in the ETR, SQ and GS-1 series. Some of the lenses I don't have but am still interested in are the 40, 60 and 135 PE lenses and the 110 PS and PG lenses. For now I have some fill-in lenses for Mamiya cameras to cover some of these focal lengths. I have a 35/3.5 for the M645 cameras, a 70/2.8 LS lens for the M645 cameras and some 127s for the RB67 cameras. If you are going to use an ETR series camera with a prism finder then by all means get the Speed Grip too. It makes holding the camera much more comfortable and doesn't cost very much. </p>

<p>I have many Nikkormats and Nikomats, all mechanical. Changing the ASA on an FTN is a nail breaking experience. As I have mentioned before, my favorite of the mechanical models is the FT2. Changing the ASA is much easier, the battery is a plain MS-76 and it works equally well with pre-AI, AI and AIS lenses. Nikkormats, like other cameras, have their weak points. The meter needle can get jumpy. The foam seals can wear out. The aperture indexing mechanism can get stiff or jam. My repairman prefers the FT3 because it doesn't have the indexing mechanism of the earlier models. It has the more reliable and easier to use spring loaded auto indexing system which Minolta already had on the SRT 101 in 1966 but which didn't appear in a Nikon SLR until 1977. If I do not need the higher flash synch speed of a Nikkormat I usually prefer a Canon FTbN. The Canon has a quieter shutter and an easier to use mirror lock-up.<br> A Nikkormat in good condition is a pleasant camera to use and is capable of fine results, as Tony's photos show. I still do not have an FS but one day one will come along at a good price. I have enjoyed using my Nikkors on various Nikon bodies but more on a Nikkormat FT2 than on any other. </p>

<p>I have really enjoyed using the Pentax cameras overhauled for me by Eric Hendrickson. Now I need to decide which camera to send him next.</p>

<p>I really enjoyed seeing the photos in this forum during 2015 and I hope they are archived. I wanted to contribute photos in 2015 but too many things got in the way. One of my goals for 2016 is to get a scanner and contribute classic manual camera photos if this is set up again. Happy New Year. </p>

<p>When there are no good photos to go by I always e-mail the seller to find out whether the correct screen is in the box. What usually happens is that someone buys an additional focusing screen, puts the original one in the box of the new one and installs the new screen. Years later that original screen is sold in the wrong box. </p>

<p>I am looking at my 135/4 Super-Multi-Coated MACRO-TAKUMAR. It does not focus down to 1:2. By itself it goes to 1:3.5. I agree that the slow flash synch speed of the Pentax 6X7 makes using it with flash for macro work difficult. If I need to use flash with a medium format macro lens I can use my 100/4 Zenzanon on an ETR or ERTS. The leaf shutter in the lens will synch with flash up to 1/500. A Mamiya RB67 with the 140 macro will do the same up to 1/400. </p>

<p>I like the effect. It reminds me of when I shot 2475 and 2484.</p>

<p>This issue is common with Mamiya M645 prism finders. They can be repaired. KEH and eBay would be the first two places to look. The Bronica ETR series prism finders are made differently and I have never seen the problem in one of them. A waist level can be awkward for vertical framing when used with a camera which has a rectangular format. I use the waist level finders with these cameras mostly for copy work. I like the waist level finder with my Bronica SQ series cameras. The Mamiya RB67/RZ67 cameras have the revolving back so as long as I pay attention to the lines on the focusing screen, using a waist level finder is fine. </p>

<p>You can try Ilford Microphen 1:5. It works well with some slow speed copy type films.</p>

<p>I have read that some people have used Pentax MX or LX focusing screens in Olympus OM/1/2/3/4 cameras. Do the Olympus screens work in a Pentax MX or LX? </p>

<p>I tried using a Pentax SG-20 focusing screen [LX grid type] in an MX. From what I know the LX and MX screens are the same size. Using an MX screen in an LX or an LX screen in an MX means that the exposure has to be adjusted because the LX screens are 2/3 of a stop brighter. What lens did I try with the SG-20 screen in the MX? A 50/4 SMC Pentax-M. The finder looked very dark overall with the central portion looking marginally brighter. Is there some other difference between the LX and the MX focusing screens that I am not aware of? I put an SE screen (MX plain matte) in another MX body without seeing the same problem. The plain MX microprism screen works reasonably well even with a slow f/4 macro lens but in the 1:1 range the center would black out. For now I will either replace the SG-20 screen in my second overhauled with the SE screen or I will get the third MX body overhauled too and just leave in the SE screen when I want to get very close. </p>

<p>Vivitar made a 300/5.5 for the T4 interchangeable mount system and a 300/5.6 for the TX interchangeable mount system. The T4 model has a tripod mounting collar. The TX model does not. Both of these were made by Tokina and have 37 as their first two serial number digits. There was a Fixed Mount 300/5.6 which is, I believe, the same as the TX model and also made by Tokina. I have this lens in Minolta mount. These three lenses are capable of good results if stopped down a little. The problem is that they are difficult to focus with the standard combination split image/microprism screens. If I use them with a camera that has a plain matte or grid type screen then focusing is much easier and the center does not black out. I will repeat the often heard saying that the sharpest lens is a good tripod. This is especially true with a 300mm lens. There were undoubtedly older pre-set 300mm Vivitars but these would be very old and are not often seen. </p>

<p>I tried again with another spare MX body and the SE screen. The directions for changing the screens are terrible. I found it easier to release the tab with my fingernail than with the tool. I still had to shake the camera gently to release the frame/screen. I then used the tool to grip the tab on the screen. The SE screen has the odd octagonal shape in the center resting on a point. The shape almost looks like it was hand drawn. I put on a 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-M. The MX with the SE screen does not look quite as good to my eye as an Minolta X-700 or Canon F-1 with a similar screen but it's OK. I was looking through one of the Carl Shipman books on Pentax cameras and I see that the LX also requires screen changes through the lens mount. I don't think I will ever like that system but it works more easily on a camera like the Nikon N90S. Other cameras I have which use this system include the Nikon N8008S, Nikon N2020, Nikon FE & FE2, Olympus OM2S and OM2N and Mamiya NC1000S. </p>

<p>I just shot a roll with one of my KX bodies. This morning I tried to remove the standard focusing screen from an MX to replace it with an SG-20 LX screen. I only got as far as putting a few scratches on the standard screen. I decided to send a second MX to Eric Hendrickson along with the SG-20 screen. When it comes back I will have a nicely working MX but with the SG-20 screen, which I will leave in it. I find a grid screen much easier to use for macro work. It's nice to have the ability to change screens but it's much easier to do with a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2. Even the Canon AE-1 Program is easier to change screens in than the MX. </p>

<p>Oops. Make that RZ67 cameras.</p>

<p>Hi John-Paul,<br> So far the only lens I have for the Pentax 6X7 cameras is an old 135/4 Macro. I will use it for close-up work with an adapter on my Mamiya M645 cameras because I don't have any Pentax 6X7 cameras yet. My 6X7 shooting is all done with Bronica GS-1, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RX67 cameras. Each company has slightly different focal lengths. My two wide angles for the Bronicas are a 65/4 and a 50/4.5. The general rule is that if you cut the 6X7 focal length in half you get the equivalent 35mm focal length. The difference is that the 6X7 format is closer to a square than the 35mm format. The 65 is a good walking around lens, similar to a 35 on 35mm. The 50 is pretty wide so it's not for every subject. For the Mamiya I have a 65 RB lens. I might eventually get a 50 RZ lens if I think it's better than any of the RB 50s. The 80mm wide angle for the Bronica GS-1 must be rare. I have boon looking on eBay for one for a long time but with no luck. Most Pentax 6X7 lenses seem very reasonably priced. They have no shutters (except for the LS models) and were simpler to make. Let us know which lens you finally get and how you like it. </p>

<p>I have one MX which works perfectly and which was overhauled by Eric Hendrickson. I think I have another three which haven't visited him yet. When I got my first MX I got an SE (MX plain matte) focusing screen and later added an SG-20 (LX grid which also fits the MX). So far I haven't used either screen. I think I will have anothet MX overhauled and just leave the grid screen in. I know I will have to make an adjustment to the exposure when using the SG-20 because the LX screens are slightly brighter than the MX ones. Apart from the interchangeable screens and motor/winder capability the MX works like a smaller and lighter KM. Some people like to get an eBay bargain on a camera body and hope for the best. If you want to enjoy using the camera spend a little more and get it overhauled. You will have more confidence when using it and get better results. </p>

<p>I don't have my Yashica in front of me but I think it's a 44 and not a 44A. If that's the case then I only need to have the first number lined up and the crank will take care of the spacing for the rest of the roll. Some people have used a copier to make backing paper and have taped two sections together. For that you would need the correct kind of paper which would be opaque and which would have the correct approximate thickness. </p>

<p>The Ilford ULF film order I placed earlier this year arrived today from Freestyle. My order consisted of two 50 foot rolls of 46mm wide HP-5+ for use in a camera which takes 127 film. The boxes do not show an expiration date but a batch number is shown. Now I need to find my Yashica 44 and get it limbered up. I have some 127 spools and backing paper but I might experiment with cutting down some 120 backing paper too.</p>

<p>I have one of these 300s as well as four 300/4.5 Minolta lenses. One is a late MD IF model which is light and easier to carry. One is an MC Rokkor. One is an MC Rokkor-X. The last one is the same as the MC Rokkor-X and has the rubber covered focusing ring but is not marked with the X. It must be a non-US version. I have probably used the f/4.5 MD IF lens the most but all seem good. The f/5.6 model is only good for hand held use on sunny days and with at least 200 speed film. </p>

<p>I have used it with my Bronica GS-1s. I agree with Don that is seems to look better when shot at 200. It has some latitude but can look flat if underexposed. </p>

<p>Greg Weber might know something about this. You can contact him through webercamera.com. </p>