User_502260

<p>Some years ago I wrote a piece on the two touch version in CameraShopper. It was supposed to have the title 99 Cents + Postage bit wound up with the title 99 Cents Postage. My point was that the lens cost only 99 cents and the postage was a lot more. In any case, I found the older two touch lens very good. The one I tested was in Minolta MD mount. One problem with many slower lenses and slower zoom lenses in particular is that they are very difficult to focus. The split image and microprism focusing aids tend to black out and the user tends to try to focus using some other part of the screen. In these cases I prefer a plain matte or grid type screen so the center doesn't black out. I also have the later one touch 75-205. It also seems good but I have not tested it against the earlier model. One thing which confuses me about these lenses, both types, is that Vivitar sold a dedicated 2X teleconverter for the 75-205 but I'm not sure which model it was intended for. </p>

<p>Cross posting or posting the same question on two different forums is discouraged.</p>

<p>The problem with a non-working meter is often the wire which connects the battery chamber to the meter itself. No matter how good the camera looks on the outside, the wire you can't see can be bad. There are plenty of Canon F-1 and F-1n cameras floating around so if the CdS cells are bad it should be possible to get some from a donor body. </p>

<p>You will have better luck looking under reverse T adapter rather than inverse T-mount. I have these for most mounts. They can come in handy. </p>

<p>It should be easier to get a battery for the 7SII.</p>

<p>Film choices were not quite so limited. Agfa b&w films had poor distribution in the U.S. but they were possible to get. I used 2475, also known as Recording Film. It's actual sensitivity was more than twice that of Tri-X. I shot it at 1250 but also pushed it in various developers. It was grainy but had better shadow detail than pushed Tri-X. My best results pushing Tri-X came from rating it at 1250 and developing it in undiluted ethol UFG. In those days I replenished my UFG. There was also 2484 but that film had to be bulk loaded. I liked it. If I could get an image with my 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon without using a flash I tried it, no matter how low the light level.</p>

<p>I have the Vivitar version of the 17/3.5 Tokina in Konica mount and more recently I got a version marked Soligor in Canon FD mount.</p>

<p>In the past few days several items arrived from eBay sellers. There is always some doubt about what the items will look like and how that will compare with the auction page photos and descriptions. A 35/2.8 SMC Pentax-M is as described. The glass is fine as is the focusing. The aperture blades are slow, as described. I have one of these already and have used it with several bodies. It goes well with the compact MX. Somewhere I have the 35/2 M lens. I will have to try the 35/2.8 on my K-x DSLR too. The next item is one I had high hopes for. It's a 40/2.5 Vivitar "pancake" in Pentax K mount. It arrived with oil on the blades, not at described but otherwise OK. I handled it a little and now the focusing ring will only turn in the .6 to .8 meter range. I will have this one overhauled. It can join my two 45/2.8 GN Nikkors and many 40/1.8 Konica Hexanons in the pancake/semi-pancake category. Next is a 35-70 f/3.5 Vivitar in Canon FD mount. The front ring turns when the lens is focused and this does not bother me. I have used this lens in other mounts and it is a decent performer. It is stlightly stiff when zoomed to the 70 end but seems to have been described properly. There is a similarly sized Vivitar 35-70 which goes from f/2.8 to f/3.8 made by the same company (28XXX..)which is also good. The standard RB67 focusing screen looks clean, as described, and will eventually be used in another fixed-up RB67 body. On the same day two Pentax cameras arrived. The SP1000 came with a 55/2 SMC Takumar. I don't know whether this was the lens originally sold with the camera. The SP500 Operating Manual shows that camera came with the older 55/2 Super Takumar. The SP1000 also came with a Mamiya accessory shoe which sort of fits. The SP500 manual also came with an interesting insert. It shows that Spotmatics could be purchased with four different focusing screens. The charge for the screen switch was $25 and for $40 a mirror lock-up feature could be added. I don't know if I have ever seen a Spotmatic with either modification. The second Spotmatic is an SP500, which came with a 55/2 Super Takumar and an original leather case. The Spotmatics I am still missing are the ES, originally sold only in Japan, the ESII and the motorized models. I don't know whether I will want these later or not. The mechanical models can be repaired more easily and finding parts to repair a motorized model must be difficult. <br> The last two interesting items are an 18/3.2 Spiratone lens and a Nikon MD-12. They were both accurately described but for different reasons. The Spiratone lens is a Sigma-made YS model with a Minolta mount adapter. I think the adapter was put on incorrectly because the diaphragm will not stop down. That will be a project. It will be interesting to see how the 18/3.2 compares with the 17/3.5 Tokina which I have in Minolta mount. The MD-12 seems to work perfectly. I put it on an FE body which either has no battery or has a dead one. The MD-12 powers the meter too. I forgot how nice the FE's finder is. It has an E screen in it and correct focus snaps in and out beautifully. Recently the Nikon mount body I have been using most is a black Nikkormat FT2. I think I learn something new every time a new (old) item arrives. The history of these items is now a combination of printed references, online sources and just what people remember about them. </p>

<p>John-Paul Palescandolo had both an 85/1.9 and the later 85/1.8. He considered the later f/1.8 lens to be better.</p>

<p>Many people find they can't quite get a speed of 100 from ACROS. Some of this has to do with the developer being used. Pulling or reducing developing time will only give you flat negatives which will be hard to print. I have used Fuji Microfine and had good luck shooting ACROS at 100 but I don't know where Microfine is sold outside of Japan. The japanexposures website might still sell it. </p>

<p>I have both Bronica ETR series cameras and Mamiya M645 (1st series) cameras. The ETR with a Speed Grip is more comfortable for hand held use than the Mamiyas. I am right handed and the left hand grip for the M645 is not very comfortable for me. I have mostly used a 1000S with the right hand motor winder. This is a heavy combination and the speed of the film advance is not very great. If you plan to use the camera with a tripod then grips are not an issue. If I know I will be using a tripod I'd rather use an RB67 and just get the larger negative. I have the 70/2.8 leaf shutter lens for the Mamiyas but I rarely use it with flash. I just like it as a slightly wide standard lens. For macro work there are differences between the two systems. I have the early bellows for the ETR cameras as well as extension tubes and the 100/4 macro lens. Adapting non-Bronica lenses to an ETR is not practical. I recently got a 135/4 Takumar (Pentax 6X7) in very nice condition for about $50. I intend to get an adapter to use it on the Mamiya cameras. I will not have auto diaphragm operation but with the adapter I should get about 1:2.5. By adding some Mamiya extension tubes I will be able to get closer. I don't always use the 1/1000 top shutter speed on the 1000S but I have used it when shooting with a 300 hand held so it does have a purpose. </p>

<p>I have 6X4.5, 6X6 and 6X7 Bronicas. If I know I want to make a large rectangular print I will use a GS-1. I can also use a RB67 or RZ67. The 6X6 cameras were popular for wedding photography because the user never had to tilt left or right. I knew a photographer who shot weddings with an RB67. He used a prism finder and a large handlemount flash with a separate battery pack. He also happened to be a weightlifter so that helped. For a rectangular print the degree of enlargement will be the same whether you use 6X4.5 or crop from 6X6 but 6X7 will give you more area to work with. I have a 135W back for the ETR series cameras. </p>

<p>The FS-1 is pleasant enough to use when it works but with the exception of the last run, they were not very reliable. I'm sure someone had a Rambler American which worked well too. The funny thing is that I had an FS-1 which didn't look very good bit worked well. In a trade involving other items I got rid of that FS-1 and got a better looking one which did not work so well. Whether it's worth having old SLR cameras fixed is a matter of what each person is looking for. I recently took a Pentax KM and a Pentax MX on vacation. Both cameras were overhauled by Eric Hendrickson and work well. Today I picked up eight rolls of processed film. The results were fine so I think the money I spent on getting the cameras overhauled was well worth it. Fresh film and quality processing are not cheap so I would rather use a camera I know is working properly. I don't remember a Konica TC-3 so I am guessing you are waiting for a T3 or a T3N or a TX or a TC-X. </p>

<p>The expert on fixing Konicas is Greg Weber. He can be reached at 402-721-3873 or at gweber@webercamera.com. The FS-1 may be the worst model Konica ever made. At some point near the end of its production run some parts which were later to be included in the FT-1 were put in the FS-1. Greg would be able to tell you whether you have one of these. I have many Konicas but only one FS-1. To quote some questionable eBay sellers "It worked the last time I used it." Greg has all of the parts and equipment needed to repair FT-1s. I don't know if anyone can fix an FS-1 with bad electronics without taking parts out of another FS-1. Not too long ago I found an FC-1 in excellent working condition for very little. If you don't mind advancing the film manually or using the accessory winder, an FC-1 can be very pleasant to use. My only complaint is that there is no way to lock your reading so I wind up using it mostly with manual settings. The FC-1 has that odd battery tray which holds four LR44 or MS-76 or A76 batteries. The batteries last a long time but if they leak or swell up it might take major surgery to remove them. </p>

<p>Oops again! Make that should. The keyboard on this laptop is terrible.</p>

<p>Oops. Make that trolley museum. I don't always like the 40mm focal length. I have a number of 40/1.8 Konica Hexanons and they are nice and sharp. I have some 45/2 Rokkors which are close to 40. I think the rest of my 40s are on fixed lens RF cameras. I shold also mention my two 45/2.8 GN Nikkors. On this trip I have been using the K mount cameras and lenses I mentioned. The 35/2.8 SMC Pentax M is also small, light and sharp. In most cases (the Rollei 35 cameras excepted) I prefer a 35 to a 40. I have a 35/2 SMC Pentax-M but I took the f/2.8 model for the smaller size and lighter weight. Today I gave the MX a rest and used the KM with Ektar 100 and the Vivitar V4000S with Fuji 400 Superia XTra. </p>

<p>There was an 80/2.8 which was sold with the SQ-B and that lens, I think, did not have the feature you are looking for. If I know I will need to do a lot of long exposures I will probably take out one of my Mamiya RB67 cameras. </p>

<p>I shot earlier today with a Pentax MX at the trolly museum in Kennebunkport. On this trip I brought five of the small M lenses: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/4 Macro, 100/4 Macro, 80-200/4.5 (1st version). I also brought a Pentax KM with a 55/2 SMC Pentax and a Vivitar V4000S with the 35-70/3.5-4.8 kit lens. The Vivitar was for when I wanted 1/2000 as a top speed. The KM had 400 speed film for shooting inside the car barns and the MX had 200 speed film. I left the smaller 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-M lens at home but the MX with the 50/1.7 M is a small high quality package. Eric Hendrickson overhauled the MX for me and if you find one, a trip to Eric will make it good as new.</p>

<p>Greg Weber has all of the parts and equipment to repair FT-1s. He's at 402-721-3873 or gweber@webercamera.com. By now many if not most FT-1s you will see on eBay, for $20 or any other price, are not in good working order. A correctly repaired one can last a long time. My first FT-1 is from 1984 and worked well for about 20 years. It needed a new top plate then. A few years later it needed more work and was completely overhauled. It's been fine since then. I bought a second FT-1 in about 1988 and a year or so ago I one from an eBay seller which Greg also overhauled. </p>

<p>The timing of this question is good. I recently bought an SRT Super from an eBay seller. I have some SRT 102 bodies already but this one has the Super word on it, came with a very nice 50/1.4 MC and had a reasonable price. The 50/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses. While looking over the SRT Super I locked up the mirror and held the camera up to a light. The result? Two holes in the shutter. These aren't pinholes either. What might have happened? A previous owner probably left the camera on its back, in the sun and with the mirror up. I thought about this because a few months ago I picked up a Canon Pellix QL. Before the Canon F-1, the Canon SLRs all had horizontally running cloth shutters. The exceptions were the Pellix and later Pellix QL. Cloth shutters in cameras with a pellicle mirror would be in constant danger of getting damaged by the sun. Canon solved the problem by using a horizontally running metal shutter. I am tempted to try the paint method but will probably have the camera completely overhauled and get the shutter curtains replaced in the process. </p>

<p>There is a lever which switches between a single shot per frame and multiple exposures per frame. If there is no film in the back then the lever will have to be set for multiple exposures to allow you to cycle the camera. The camera must be cycled forward (cocked) for the next exposure in order for the lens to be attached properly. </p>

<p>There were 55/1.8 Takumars (M42) but I don't remember any 50/1.8 Takumars in that mount.</p>

<p>We were in college during the same years. I was at Boston University and shot for the Daily Free Press, the course evaluation guide called Recourse, a dorm yearbook and of course for myself. My start in picture taking was four years earlier in 1971. As I have mentioned before I used a Konica Autoreflex but I also occasionally used my father's Konica Auto S1.6. </p>

<p>Gordon, that's an interesting website. I forgot that the A/M switch is supposed to stay at A when the SMC lens is attached to a Spotmatic F. I put a roll of film into the Spotmatic F and shot with it yesterday. I notice that the red focus distance mark on the 55/2 SMC lens attached to my Spotmatic F does not rest at top dead center when mounted to the camera. I think that the diaphragm actuator plate in the camera is wide for a good reason. Various M42 lenses mount in slightly different ways so that when they are fully attached, their focus distance marks rest at different places in relation to top dead center. This may also mean, depending on the lens, that the aperture pin sits at a slightly different place. I shot the last few frames on the roll with a 35/2.8 Mamiya SX lens using stop down metering. Now I need to dig out my 55/1.8 and 50/1.4 SMC lenses. </p>

<p>AOC was preparing for full aperture metering before the Spotmatic F. In 1971 the Spotmatic II was already being sold with lenses marked Super-Multi-Coated-Takumar. These lenses had the coupling lever as well as the pin but did not yet have the rubber covering on the focusing ring as the lenses marked SMC Takumar did. The Electro Spotmatic (ES) was actually AOC's first screw mount (M42) camera with full aperture metering. When the Spotmatic II came out I was using a Konica Autoreflex T2 with the 57/1.4 silver and black lens with the EE lock pin. A classmate who was also in the camera club had the Spotmatic II. </p>