steve_hamley2

Sandy,

<p>

Save youself (or her) a lot of pain, just use special effects

filters or Photoshop, or pick up a Diana or a Holga. The biggest

obstacle for the M7 would be getting the lens-to-film distance

correct while not damaging the camera's electronic contacts or

rangefinder coupling. There also would be no way to focus because

the M7 lenses use helicoid focusing and view camera lenses use

bellows focusing. In addition, the viewfinder lines would likely not

show what the lens is seeing. If you did manage to make a

spacer/mount that would 1) not damage the camera, 2) be focused at

some single acceptable point, you'd likely have more money in an

almost unusable camera that just buying a Crown Graphic (about $200

for a decent user) and putting a roll film back on the Crown. 2-1/4

x 3-1/4 Crowns with roll film backs are common on e-bay for as

little as $150.

<p>

BTW, most of those old uncoated lenses, unless damaged, are

remarkably sharp for B&W, especially if sunlight doesn't hit the

front element.

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

Folks,

<p>

The guy on photo.net was going with a Canon 35mm. I wouldn't bet the trip I'd find 8X10 unless I knew in advance where to buy it and how much they had. You can find 35mm anywhere, but you won't find roll and sheet film very easily in France except in camera shops, just like here.

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

Bulent

<p>

The RRS plate is a B22, 55 USD. The Ebony SV45U has only one

mounting screw, either 3/8-16 or 1/4-20 with insert. The bottom

plate of the Ebony is mounted on top of the wood, so any plate wider

than the bottom plate is useless because it will not be in contact

with the camera. A RRS B-29 plate looks the same except longer (and

will be in contact with the bottom plate) and still uses the 3/8-16

screw. Both the B-22 and B-29 have the anti-twist lip.

<p>

I wouldn't mind having a bigger plate myself, but the RRS anti twist

lip works and I'd rather have the 3/8-16 screw securing it than a

larger plate with a 1/4-20. The Arca-Swiss universal plate with 1/4-

20 screw also has a large groove in the middle which doesn't contact

the camera bottom plate, and it will twist on the SV45U, I've tried

it. Two screws would be better, but it isn't going to happen.

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

Bulent,

<p>

I'm at work now but I have the RRS-recommended plate on the Ebony

SV45U. It is a rather small plate, but it does have a 3/8-16 screw

instead of the usual 1/4-20, which makes me at least feel a lot

better. Remember, the plate itself doesn't hold anything, the screw

does. I'll post the part number when I get home.

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

How about a Caltar II N (Rodenstock) f/5.6 for $449 new from Calumet?

<p>

http://www.calumetphoto.com/

<p>

I picked up a used one not too long ago in perfect condition.

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

Very, very extensive review here:

<p>

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Steve

Folks,

<p>

I just saw the thread, so I'm late. I do radiation protection for a

living, and have for about 27 years now. The radiation protection

field is based on the simple principle that no radiation exposure is

acceptable without a corresponding benefit. Here, this means

enjoying the benefits of a good lens.

<p>

The radiation levels associated with most lenses are relatively low

compared to other consumer products and activities people perform.

The human body has about 250,000 dpm of radioactivity, mostly from

naturally occurring potassium-40. If you're worried about lenses,

you should never, ever, consider flying since cosmic radiation

levels go up as a function of altitude (10 mrem or so per flight,

avg). Living in Denver for a year will expose you to many, many,

times the yearly dose than being around most lenses. Oh, and get rid

of those smoke detectors. Smoking adds 1-5 rem per year from

radioactive lead which is a decay product of uranium and is

concentrated by the plant. If you smoke, forget about lenses. The

average dose per year is about 360 mrem, from nature in general.

Fiestaware (the old orange stuff) was coated with uranium oxide and

vaseline glass was also colored with uranium. So is dental

porcelain (the uranium makes your dentures match your teeth under

all types of light). Exposures from lenses would be miniscule

compared to the sources above.

<p>

Thorium (and other rare earths like lanthanum) generally comes from

monazite sand deposits, so don't worry about lenses if you live in

Rio de Janerio, Kerala India, North Jacksonville Beach, or a large

portion of the southeastern US coastal plains. The White Mountains

in New England also have significant thorium so don't live there

either. The southwestern US has a lot of uranium, so forget living

there too. Not much left, is there?

<p>

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (and I assume the Brit's

corresponding rulemongers) places restrictions on radiation levels

from consumer products, and it used to be about 3-1/2 mrem per hour

which would very roughly translate to 10,000 dpm with a geiger

counter. The National Committee on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCRP) has a publication on radioactive consumer

products which is a nice read if you're interested. You should be

able to find it in most good libraries.

<p>

Don't think old lenses are less radioactive. The daughter products

are constantly replenished from the thorium parent, which has a half

life of billions of years. However, if you want some real

perspective, take your geiger counter through an antique shop and

check the glass and glazed ceramics!!