chuck_mathis

David,

 

Is the image a scan of the negative or the print? It looks more like a printing issue to me. The only way I can figure the camera would be an issue would be if the lens mount has been seriously whacked but then you would see the right side fuzziness in the viewfinder - I think. I've used some seriously abused Fs, F2s and ELs and haven't seen anything like that.

Alex, you have just asked a dangerous question that can open a flood gate of opinions.

 

Based on cameras I have used I recommend a Nikkormat EL, Olympus OM-1 or 2, or a Pentax Spotmatic. All of these are getting a bit long in the tooth but were top drawer way back when and still function very well if found in good condition. I currently have two ELs and an ELW that, while a bit homely, work great. They are a bit heavy and do not have all the bells and whistles of more modern cameras but I have as many photos on the wall shot with them as with my Nikon F or Leicaflex SL.

 

There are a lot of cameras out there made by excellent manufacturers that I have never used or in some cases even seen and everybody has a favorite.

Terry,

 

I know just enough about the use and feeding of a DSLR to qualify as a complete idiot but I do have a lot of experience with handheld incident meters and film cameras.

 

When you say "I'd meter the room, shoot the shot, and it would come out too dark" are you using the DSLR to make the exposure or the RB?

 

Is the 'film' speed set the same for both the meter and the DSLR?

 

Is this speed the same as the film loaded in the RB?

 

The incident meter is set up to read light falling on the dome and it doesn't matter to the meter if the subject is black velvet in the shade or a mirror in full sun. The meter in the DSLR is reading reflected light which will vary by color and texture of the subject.

If you are metering a lot of light falling on a dark subject the incident meter will not compensate the way the DSLR meter would.

 

When you meter with an incident meter the most useful tool is your feet - get as close to your subject as you can or hold the meter so that the light falls on the dome in roughly the same angle and intensity as your subject.

 

Using a normal lens at a normal distance won't affect the exposure significantly but as you focus closer with an RB67 you have to take into account the bellows extension - I haven't handled an RB for years but I believe there is a scale on one side that shows exposure compensation.

 

If you've been using the DSLR to check the meter my recomendation is to stop, put the DSLR away, load some film into the RB, and shoot away. Until you are fully comfortable with the meter and camera combo bracket each exposure up and down a stop or two (keep notes) until you find out what works. There are a lot of variables with film and processing and an old dog camera like the RB (a very useful old dog).

 

Chuck

William, you and I maight tie an ugly F throwdown. I don't have any tape on mine but the brassing is about equal to yours - I might have the advantage though with the big honkin' dent in the prism.

 

I 'worked my way through college' with a trio of Fs - the oldest a '64 and the newest a '70. Two of them came with FTn finders and the third with a plain prism. When I graduated I got a wild hair to be a 'serious photographer' and traded the Fs in for a 4x5 view camera - graduating from college does not make you smart. It took a while but I came back around to the F a few years ago - a black '71 with a plain prism, lots of brassand dents. I love the old, clunky, heavy, homely thing.

I have been using the Sekonic L398 Studio Deluxe since about 1980. After 25 years of rugged use and neglect, I replaced my first one with a newer one last year. Despite the old-school selenium cell technology I have found it to be one of the easiest to use and versatile meters I have used. The Gossen Luna-Pros I have also owned provide a better low light capability but require batteries, are a bit larger, don't have the swivel head of the Sekonic, and seem more prone to breakage.

 

There are cheaper non-battery meters out there but the L-398 was designed for professional use and still is an excellent tool.

I don't know the correct answer on your Sonnar 50/1.8 but my old Leicafles SL 50/2 Summicron was set up to use Series IV filters (IIRC) that were held in place using a threaded ring like you describe. The ring had an IV stamped in the side. The 50/2 Sonnar that came on my Contax IIa many years ago did not use the ring.

 

That is a nice, nice IIIa you have there.

 

Chuck

Nice one Ace. Yours shows more brass but mine has a bigger dent in the prism. Nothing

is as attractive as an ugly F.

First, what camera are you using the 85 f1.8 on? What film if not using digital? What lighting conditions?

 

I had a Nikkor 85 f1.8 (I believe it was an H) that I used on my F. The depth of field at anything between 1.8 and 4 was very limited. I made a series of family portraits using this lens and Ilford Pan-F under some fairly subdued but bright lighting conditions with the lens wide open. Despite the limited depth of field every line, pore and blemish were painfully sharp in 8X10 prints. Back then I had never heard of bokeh but the out of focus areas were very smooth partly due to fairly tight framing, partly due to the lack of highlights in the background and mostly due to the distance between the subject and background (more than 30 feet). I have not used the 85 f1.4 or 200 f2. Currently I have an old 105 f2.5 that is real nice but does not have the limited depth of field of the 85 f1.8.

 

As far as the 85 f1.8 (or any 35mm) compared to 6X6 or 6x7 it really depends on technique. Someone with really good technique and processes with the right film and good lighting (and luck) can do better with a 35mm than a haphazard opertaor with a medium format camera. All things being equal a really good medium format shooter will get better quality than a good 35mm shooter but the difference will not be much in an A4 size.

I've had one of these since the early 80's. It is butt simple and sturdy as all get out. It's not as quick or flashy as newer tripods and is way heavier than most but there is no plastic to break. $80 is a good price - I'd pay that for mine if I didn't have it.

I've got a fairly new one purchased about two years ago. The shutter speed selection is

some what limited but usable and the lens is a little better than fair compared to the

Nikkor wide angles I use for 'normal' stuff. For $250 it's an interestingly useful toy.

I have a very recent Horizon 202. The lens transport in the 202s is supposed to be quieter

and smoother. The 202 lens transport is quite loud and the sharpness is a little better

than fair compared to the other wide angles I routinely use ( Mamiya TLR 65mm, and 20

and 24 mm Nikkors). There is also a thin vertical strip at the far right side of the negative

that is out of focus - very easy to crop but annoying. Gripes aside I do enjoy using it and

the images are unique enough to make it worth the $200+ I paid for it. If I had a less

limited budget I'd hunt down a Widelux F8, Noblex 135, Hasselblad X-Pan, or ?.

Gilbert,

 

As much as I hate to give up on any camera I'd return this one to the seller or at least argue for a major refund. While $100 isn't much for a working camera with lens any repair is likely to exceed that. The EL2 had a fairly short production life that ended quite some time ago so parts are a bit rare as are good service techs that can work on them.

The EL is an Everyready Bunnay of a tank that can be a little confusing.

 

1) Using the mirror-up lever just above the lens release lock the mirror up. There is a

trap door on the bottom of the mirror box for the battery compartment. The battery

orientation is printed on the bottom of the door. I bought one non-functioning camera

that had a brand spankin' new battery installed backward. It is one of my workhorses still.

 

2) I'm not a big fan of poking the mirror with your fingers but I just checked my parts EL

and the mirror drops back down. The meter and shutter are controlled electronically on

the EL but the mirror should move freely. This could be a problem.

 

3) The shutter will not trip unless the wind lever is pulled out a touch to activate the

meter. Even if the battery is dead or there's no battery in it it will still work this way.

 

Before you give up on it try checking the mirror action when you trip the shutter. If it

works correctly just use it till it quits in another 19 or 20 years.

Fixed it! I loosened the set screw and removed the wind knob. There are two washers in

the assembly - one flat and the other with a collar - but no gasket. I cleaned everything

up, reassembled it and tightened the wind knob to the point I couldn't turn it then backed

off just a touch. Once the set screw was tight I shot a test roll to confirm the leak is gone.

 

The light leak was apparently due to the wind knob being loose on the shaft allowing the

whole assembly to wobble.

My Zorki 3M has a semi consistent light leak - consistent in that it affects

every roll but inconsistent in that it doesn't affect every frame. The streaks

run the full width of the film from edge to edge. I spent some time last night

checking the shutter curtains (they're fine) and body of the camera (damn that

thing is solid). The only potential issue I see is that the winding knob

wobbles and appears to have a bit more gap than it should. Has anyone

experienced this problem? Better yet has anyone fixed it? Any suggestions?

I don't believe that Rodinal is going to be the best developer for this situation. If it's allyou have increase the development time 50% per stop and hope for the best. I normally shoot FP-4 at 200 and process in Microphen 1:1. I don't think an additional stop is going to be too much of a problem in Microphen. After processing a couple of rolls in Diafine I think 250 is just about right on for FP-4 but Diafine doesn't give any additional push. It did handle the volcanic rocks in the New Mexico sun nicely though.

Actually Ronald I did use 1/4" but laminated two pieces for extra strength. Using a router

table I thinned the edges to fit, used a block plane to chamfer one edge and used forstner

bits in my drill press to bore the lens mount hole and recess for to collar.

 

The 1/8" model aircraft plywood would be a better choice since you don't have to fiddle

with thinning the edges and it generally has fewer voids than the junk you get at Home

Depot or Lowes.

I've been lurking here for a couple of years waiting for a question I can answer! I traded into a Nue-Vue II way back in '83. I don't know that anyone other than Newton Photo Products has ever made boards specifically for the Nue-Vue. The metal boards are 4" x 4" - the same size as lensboard used on the Besler 23 and 45 series enlargers. I've also made my own using 1/4" birch plywood for this camera and my Burke and James 5x7.

I'll second both the Olympus Stylus and Canon GIII QL17. My third favorite because it is just a bit bigger and heavier is a Zorki 3M - but I also have to carry a meter so it's a bit more serious.

It's junk. Send it to me for disposal.

 

Seriously, if it fits into your needs have it repaired, get a lens and hang on to it. Only you can decide if you really need it and can use it. If you need funds for another purchase dump it since it will cost more to keep and use it.

FP-4+ @200 and HP-5+ @800 in Microphen 1+1 (for both 35mm and 120, 4X5 requires a lower speed adjustment).

 

I've had flirtations with other films and developers but these two films in Microphen are my fall backs. In addition to my favorites, my current film stash consists of some Agfa APX 100, Efke 25 and 50, Ilford SFX and Delta 3200. My current developer collection consists of Calbe A29 (or is that 49?), Diafine, HC-110, PMK, Clayton F76 and Formulary WD2D+.

I've had good success using an EI of 12 in both 35mm and 120.

I'll concur with the big and heavy relative to newer cameras. Over the past 20+ years I have used 6 ELs and never had an electrical failure but I just may be lucky. Most of these had some frighteningly huge dents in them that didn't have any effect on their function. Of the 5 I've owned one was sold because I got tired of it, one actually wore out and the remaining 3 are still in use. As far as comfortable they are okay but I like my old F which a lot of people can not stand. The EL can use E and AI lenses without the IC prongs but only in the stop down mode which is a little ackward to use. As backup to an FM2N the 'newer' Nikon EL2 would be a better choice but an FM2 or FM3 would be better as they are more like the FM2N.

A few years ago I bought an EL that was sold as a parts camera for next to nothing. It

arrived not looking any worse than my other users so I checked it out. Everything seemed

to work perfectly except the meter - battery check didn't light up. Locked the mirror up

and opened the battery compartment to find that the battery was installed backward.

Swapped the battery end for end and have been using it ever since.

Lex, Joseph,

 

Both you guys mentioned adding borax. How much and what does it do?