walter_degroot

<p>with the miranda d f g sensorex<br> 50mm f/1.0 f1.8<br> there are two modules front and back.<br> sumply unscrew and ser asu=ide and gently clean the remaining mecahanical parts with swabs and a safe solvent<br> lighter fluid<br> us out doors it is very flamible.<br> alcohol does not workl.<br> even ehtyl alcohol or grain alcohol<br> vodka of gin.</p> <p>it must be repeated several times.<br> my 35mm and 135mm lenses require a smanner wrench.<br> noty the design of the 1.8 and 1.9 requires NO screws ro be removed<br> nothing to do with the focusing helix.<br> I hope the exazcta lens is as simple.<br> tou may nees a rubber sheet or thick rubber band to grip the element groups.<br> I cannot offer any guarantees if the lens construction is silkilar<br> but it is wirht a try.<br> a sealable plasyc bag and a shake /swich in alcohol<br> afterwards will remove some residue<br> and should not seep into the focusing helix<br> and a good shake and a air dring should finish to job if it can be done at all.</p> <p>different exacta lenses shou;d or may be construted fifferently.<br> I cleaned a 50mm f/1.8 miranda lens<br> and it required a secont procedure the following year.still ok though.<br> it is unfortunate that some repair persons will not touch certin brands<br> and charge large fees to do anything at all.</p> <p>I would appreciate any positive comments went to my personal email<br> wdegroot@ptd.net<br> I cannot seem to access photo net mail.<br> and my questions go unanswered.</p> <p>good luck.</p>

<p>afterrseveral tries<br> here is my problem<br> 1 could not post in several forums<br> but<br> I am simply trying to read and answer my personal messages<br> i did two<br> hit a keyin error<br> and cannot fimnd the proper place.<br> at this point I will bust post and not care where or when<br> I cannot see well very bad eyes and the<br> proper place is invisible to me.<br> tell m,e where to click to asnswer personal messages</p>

<p>a pentax branbd macro now should be moderatly prices as</p> <p>it is likelyu manual focus.<br> vivitar made a 50mm f/2,6 lens in k mount ( manual focus)<br> I own one AND LOOK FORWARD TO USING IT.<br> also I have a a compatible bellows.<br> and my 135mm f/2.8 short barrel lens is t mount.<br> if you cpoui;lf get a a leica 39mm to pentaxc<br> possibly a m39 to m 42 and a pentaxc m42 to k<br> mount you can use elsarging lenses/<br> 50mm enlarging lenses seem pricey.<br> but a longer focal length lens wotks bnetter on a bllows.</p> <p>macro zoom ;lemses are p[opulAR<br> AND WILL WORK AND COST ;LIYTY;ER<br> B buity the multi lem,ent desighm<br> 12-15 elements is not a plus.<br> a normal 50mmm lens is ((6 elements)<br> is better.<br> but the sim,pl;er the better/<br> even some f2.8 lens froan off-brand camera m,ay be better/</p>

<p>AT LEAST LOOK FOR THE LIGHTED CUTTER.<br> it clicked in place and had a blade that cut straight.</p> <p>the fil was held so the image area was not scratched.</p>

<p>back when I used to dupe slides.<br> went thry a few hundred feet of film<br> you might still find the spiratone cutter and heated press some where.<br> it maDE THINHS VERY EASY</p>

<p>chrome over brass souds like a typical process<br> and usually durable.<br> but when plating the prep work must have been faulty.<br> I workes at FPE asnd sel-rex and proper surface prep was vital.<br> Vivitar was not a manufacturer<br> they contracted out many items and someone slipped up/</p>

<p>according to the manuals on the excellent butkuis site<br> come m42 cameras metered at exposuire time and full aperture<br> with mose <br />ordinary" m42 lenses.</p> <p>I am not surre but some early m42 lenses may not accurately<br> linew upso the focus line is noiy at the top.<br> not sure<br> s</p>

<p>there was a site that described and offered a process to develop Kodachrome as B&W.<br> they also had details on dividing the rollei digibase kit<br> for c-41<br> all I can recall it the background was black and had white letterts/<br> however my w drive lost all files last fall<br> and so far I have been unable to restore it.<br> soeone out there may have a copy of this information/<br> it was specific and fairly exact/<br> this is the only remaing hope for those who syill have undeveloped kodachrome.</p> <p>I hope som,epone finmds that site for thjer c-41 info</p>

<p>there is no such thing as 120mm film.<br> it is 120 an aritrary kodak number<br> p ce a s e</p>

<p>i HAVE 4 EOS FILM BODIES and one eos lens<br> but an a-1 aei al1 at-1 and a t50 and two t 70's and a selection of lenses.<br> si I guess I qualify as an old ( i am that) fd mount guy.<br> I also have a tx adapter and 25mm and 28 mm f?/2.5 lenses</p> <p> </p>

<p>welcome to photo.net</p>

<p>things have chaned a lot in the last few yeaqrs.<br> there are several issues. I will mention a few in A GENERAL MANNER.<br> 8MM -ACTUALLU DOUIBLE 8-16MM STOCK THAT IT RUN TWICE THRU THE CAMERA AND SPLIT LENGTHWISE AFTER DEVELOPMENT.<br> fuji used to make single 8= already sp[lit.<br> double 8 differs from 16mm stock as the perforations are dfoubled.<br> years ago som,e reperforated and if not done correctly the p[rojected image jittered.<br> secons a typical movie cam,era has a shutter that is a disk wiuth a slot. at 16 fps<br> exposure is 1/30. meaning slow iso film must be iused.<br> iso 10-25. the slowest today is 50-100/<br> su[per 8" might be easier to deal with p[erfs are smaller.<br> 18 mm film may ne easier to deal; with <br> there is no reperf ever causing problem,s.<br> many better 16mm movie cameras accepted 100 foor rolls<br> and better 16 mm cameras had a variable shutter ( adjustable shuter_ so the film could be exposed with a shutter speed greater then 1/30<br> 160 or faster// remeber the shutter speed inmcvreases as the frames per second rate is increased/<br> so even many simple old 9mm movie caz,meras can shorted the ecxposure time<br> at 16 fps and 1/30 you het 3-4 minutes of movies/</p> <p>as you run ay 32 or 64 fps the exposure time is shorter allowing thge use of faster film<br> bnut the same 3-4 min of movies is in slow or very slow motion.</p> <p>next most movie fim has a black anti-hal;ation backling.<br> this is hard to remove. <br> the chemicals for e-6 slide film may or may not wotk properly withj m,ovie fiolm.<br> I thinmk negativ movie fil; that has an orage base is easier to deal with but must be profesional;l <br />printed" on anoyjr strip of fil before being projected/<br> I think tyhat this film, is closer to regular<br> film such as kodacolor or fujkicolor.<br> so overall is is not si,mple.</p> <p>you may wish to experiment with "short ends"<br> purcvhased from hollywood movie film dealers.<br> again I do not know exactly what <br> you want to do<br> help-- I can hardly see the keys.</p>

<p>when I found myself with asa 100 film AND OLD Cameas<br> i LOOKED on the massive developing chart and found "recipes" for developing<br> asa 100 film as asa /iso 50.<br> the csmera was a 1936 argus AF.<br> I was also given some asa/iso 100 127 film and have some old " minature" 16 exp 127 cameras..<br> I also have my wife's brownie hawkeye.<br> all will work better if the film is exposed at the lower speed/<br> as said rodinal is a very good choice.</p>

<p>although I bought a miranda d in 1961.<br> I realixed despite having a removable prim. it was a dead end desigh( it still is functional)<br> I was given a senorex in 1972.<br> buy I would have bought a canon ae-1 if I were buying a camera.<br> I did get a canon ae-1 25 years leter<br> and I like it.</p>

<p>I did not think I would read so many interesting comments.<br> I would like, if my vision improves, to modify my senorexes.<br> if I don't have to wreck one to do the conversion.<br> I do have more modern camewras that I can use.<br> I have an adapter so my older favorite YS lenses will work on K mounty cameras.<br> I do not really know if there will be compatible zinc-oxide cells.<br> I expect them to soon become unavailable.<br> I think many of us that love older cameras,<br> will find it harder and harder to use them.<br> I am constantly told " why are you</p> <p>still fooling with F I L M cameras.?"</p> <p> </p>

<p>I am quite familiar with the several types<br> of cells used for camera meters in older cameras.<br> I use hearing aid cells as they are inexpensive but fail after several months.<br> Most of my older cameras were designed to use the now banned mercury cell.<br> and like others in the past believed that the alkaline was a good replacement.<br> I learned it was wrong.<br> I know about wein cells ) but no camera stress here)<br> the gasoline is costlier then a used camera.<br> and I know about the shottky diode.<br> however<br> what is the problem using a 1.55v silver oxide cell to replace a 1.35v mercury cell<br> and adjusting the meter's asa /iso setting. <br> I have read many posts and none seem to talk about this.<br> my reason is simple?<br> as hearing aids get smaller the popular cell may no longer be sold.<br> we will eityh have to travel to a real ) almost extinct camera store.<br> of modify the older camera with a shottky diode.<br> I know I am not the only one with cameras designed to use the mercury 1.35v cell.<br> Yes it is harder to get film developed. or even buy it.</p>

<p>jeff aDLER knows his business.<br> I was originally lulled into a false believe fostered by the battery manufacturers that an alkalione cell worked properly. Possibly some using color print film only think so/</p> <p>the alkaline cell has a sloping discharge.<br> it starts at 1.55 volts and gradually declines so the meter setting varies a lot.<br> and rarely is correct.<br> all others have a stable voltage and then suddenly die<br> at the end of life about 2 years later.<br> the mercury cell, now banned because of small amounts of mercury.<br> the popular cfl bulbs cntain mecury but nobody sdeems to care._<br> the silver oxide cell stays at 1.5v and after two years dies quite suddenly/<br> the voltage is too high.<br> a shottky diode wited inside the camera ( in series) actrs to reduce this to a proper level.<br> some have used this methodf for a permanent wokarouind.<br> the hearing aide cell is 1.4v close enough to the mercury cell's 1.35v so the meter is correct.<br> there are a few newer cameraqs that use alkaline cells.<br> some older cameras (pentax and others)<br> use a bridge or balancvoing cirtcuit so they are less picky.<br> with these alkaline cells are sometimes used.</p> <p>the disadvantages of a hearing aid ( zinc-oxide) cell are two.<br> first it dries out. it may only last several months bepending on local humidity/</p> <p>anotret trick or work-arpoind is to pant over two hoes wit nail polish or crazy glue. a camera uses less power than hearing aid</p> <p>newer hearing aids may use a smaller call and the right sized cells may b in short supply.<br> do not buy too many thay can dry out even is the lable is not removede.</p> <p>generally ignore warnings about " insifficend air" and drilling holes in the battery cap/</p>

<p>THIS all takes me way back<br> My wife and I went on out honeymoon in june 1960<br> kodachome 10 and an argus c 3 from my brother.<br> and an untested movie camera with most of it;'s lens ( vewry fuzzy)<br> armed" with an argus c-3 from my brother and kodachome 10. and a movie camera with a partly missing lens.<br> I took photos and was content. No flash.<br> I later added a Fujica "classic IV" $14.05 at peerless.<br> and later added a weal ultrablizs mono jet ef. bad ni cads and a <br> slow recycle/<br> I bought mny irst enlarger. a federal 135 (@28.00_<br> and later a Miranda d. (slr) I gave away the argus to a student and someone bought the classic IV.<br> I still sort of miss them.<br> I now have all the little 35mm cameras ( non slr) that I could carryand more 35mm slr';s than I could ever lift.<br> ( including 7 mirsandas)<br> but I enjoyed simple photography.<br> 12 years later my rolfix went "spong" while I was tightening the cable release bracket and I junked it.<br> I am now alone my wife is dead and I am 79 and only my 53 year old son.<br> who says he can collect hunting rifles even if he does not limp thru the woods<br> If a semi blind old man like me cam still want cameras.</p> <p>I moved here in 1995 and left my basement darkroom behind.<br> still I manage to develop a few rolls of B&W.<br> Despite having problems reading thermometers and timers.<br> I hope to do more wet photography/<br> I really enjoyed it.<br> and I miss the old things and how I used them.<br> som,etimes newer equipment is not fun.</p>

<p>if you do now own a dslr, a canmera with an elecronic vieswinder such as a olympus c750 uz or the later spp series.<br> or a camera with a clear lcd could be used.</p> <p>some kind of copy stand would be needed.</p>

<p>the ear;y dayus of photography. some [prpcessed created a positive image one the "<br /> ,fi;lm," not sure. there was no electric lightsa to expose paer when making a print from a nagative. and emul;sion speeds were slow.<br> the Velox and azo comtact papers available in the 1950's were popssiblyu a speed of 3 or 4. a fast anmalrtging paper was several hundred.<br> so a larger format was nmecessary to<br> malke p[ositive prinmts/<br> I have a photo of m,y father a contrect printy frm, a 127 negative ( 1918. nd contect prints were common during even the 1950 s.<br> so ,old cam,eras needed a bellows as the focal length of the lens was 120 to 200 mm.<br> and a big box would be awkward to carry and use.<br> I do have a big box camera wth a film size close to 4 x 5 falling plate camera_<br> but I think these cameras were uncommon/<br> I asled several months ago about eye level non bellows 120 65 x 6 or 6 x 9 format cameras. I was told therte are very few.<br> so as development of cameras progressed, people just scaled down existing desigs.<br> and still made bellows cam,eras.<br> a qualityu bellows should hold up well. but a camera made to a price would use some kind of synthetic leatyhert backed bu cloth == like many mass produced cameras.</p> <p>remeber the argus a the kine exacta the early leicas and others used 35m,m film.<br> but most cameras , until the 1950's used largher film and a bellows to make the camera smaller and more portable.<br> there was a camerasradio. am attempt to make thje BOX more useful/<br> you could go to the beachj or the lake with your tunes and also take a few snaps.</p> <p>there is a produict " liquid electrical taps" in a can. it used to be sold by home depot.<br> it cam easilyh repair bellows.<br> . they may have used sunlight to expose contect prints.</p>

<p>I am 79, I used Pnatomic-x and<br> really did not appreciate<br> it fully until it was gone.<br> apparently even old rolls<br> are still usable.<br> it seems to take a long time<br> to deteriorate.<br> I see mentions that there is an<br> aeriel film of the same name. <br> I do not know how close it is<br> to the original.<br> also I heard that the N film in<br> Polaroid 55p/n was made by<br> Kodak and was really<br> Panatomic-x.<br> Modern Photography had a<br> comparison<br> and it is interesting to note<br> that Pan F by Ilford, an otherwise<br> fine film was far less sharp<br> then Kodak's Panatomic-x.<br> I also read that Ilford Pn - f <br> does not last and if not exposed<br> and developed deteriorates <br> fairly rapidly. Panatomic-x sms to<br> last a long time.<br> I have no confirmations of this.<br> only what others have published.<br> generally slower film are higher in contrast.<br> and do not act or behave like Panatomic-x.<br> I would be interested in hearing of a film similar to Panatomic-x.<br> it seems to have no equal.<br> but after all film and film cameras<br> in the eyes of the world obsolete.<br> A slim possibility is that now<br> kodak film is manufactered<br> new corporate ownership. that this comnpany may introducxe or re-introduce old products.<br> plus x and panatomic x among them.<br> if anyonme had had good comparable results from other slower films it would be ghood it they shared this.</p> <p>It is possible Adox might me the company to watch.</p>

<p>I actually vited and bought from essex camera service at three locations.<br> I read-sadly- about their problems.<br> and from what I saw in picures and text, I have the following thoughts.<br> the loss of water soaked classic cameras.<br> is beyond my ability to understand.<br> It is unlikely that any insurance would cover the value-- replacement valuse- of such cameras.<br> despite the high moral attitude of that management, it is unlikely they could recover from such a disastewr.</p> <p>I read thaty some employees were taking salvcagable cameras to other locations and trying to repair them. this indicates that the company may be operating under another name at a different location.<br> again. despite being very honest and moral. I do not think there is any way they could fix replace or return the many cameras destroyes in the flood.<br> but some of the employees may have the knowledge and experience to do so.</p> <p>I am remided of the current tv adf, " your new $40,000 car i t boned and the insurance co will pay only $37,00== before the first oil chamnge"<br> I would expect an insurance company might say " it is a 50 year old rolleiflex. peoplke do not use film cameras anymore. I will allow $15.00 for that old thing"</p> <p>corre3ct me if I am wrong.</p> <p>as far as most- but not all camera repair shops/.<br> I have Miranda s with sticky lens diaphrags. nobody will even look at tghem.</p> <p>I really wish you good luck</p>

<p>UXSUALLY OLDER SCANNERS ISED AN isa CARD ( LIKE THE OLD 386 3865 AND 486 SYSTEMS)<br> THIS TYPE OF CARD REFERRED TO AS AN " ISA PNP" CARD WAS NOT SUP[PORTED WITH OPERATING SYSTEMS PAST WINDOWS ME. of course with a Mac there are no isa slots and only pci slots.<br> It is unlikely7 the card would ever work on a Mac.<br> the newer adaptec pci scsi cards work in all cases and most likely will work and fit in a Mac.<br> there is a problem. the scsi connector on the old cards is a female db 25 like the printer port on an old pc.<br> the connector on the adaptec scsi card is smaller abouty 2 3/8"<br> inches lonhs with sharp edds.<br> it is a common scsi connestor. the connector on many of the flatberd scnners is like a larger version of the connector on a pc printer.<br> the scanner may have this or a db 25 or other connector.<br> it is possible, (this is what I did) go thru a big box of scsi cables and connect two together.<br> this let me use the adaptec card in a pc with an older scsnner- in this case a hp flatbed.</p> <p>If the driver you use had a section for a scsi driver is is ignored.<br> the adaptec cards have a bios and it provided the driver.<br> I believe it does not matter if you have a pc or a mac.<br> there are bios updates available on the aDAPTEC SITHE.<br> IT IS LIKELY YOU WILL NOT NEED TO USE THEM.<br> MODELS THAT SHOULD WOTK ARE THE 2930 2940 AND SIMILAR MODELS.<br> DO NOT GO OUT AND PAY BIG BUCKS FOR SUCH A CARD.<br> PURCHASE ONE OR SEVERAL ON EBAY.<br> if the boot up message does not appear ( it may be different on a Mac)<br> the card is bad. liklely you will need to do nothing with the card to set it up.<br> you can use the internal 50 pin connectors to run a scsi cd ( now mostly obsolete)<br> or a scsi hard drive.<br> there is a formatting / testing procedure for a hard drive in the bios of these cards.<br> I have seen 2940 casrd sold for $15.00 list price is close to $200.<br> but with sata drives now popular nobody is interested in scsi HD so cards sell for very little..<br> another advabntage. the card will operate the device much better and faster than the original pnp isa card.<br> good luck</p>

<p>thank you<br> still puzzled why I was nt able to use apug.<br> it was not them, it was ny pc problem. maybe my bad eyes?</p>

<p>THIS IS A BIT ODD BUT HERE GOES.<br> a while ago, I atried joining apug.<br> I was unable to suc essfully create a working log in.<br> but appare3ntl;y somehw I did.<br> I never tries again.<br> now I get a message in my email<br> stasting I have a private message.<br> I have no way to log on and access this message.<br> I looked for a place to send them a message.<br> but it requires a log in first.<br> could someone here who is a member leave a message to them and alert them to my problem.<br> remind them that I have limited vision and find it hard to navigate unfamiliar screens.<br> I would appreciate any help/.<br> It is not thjat I have any probles here,<br> I would like to read and possibly answer some different questions.<br> I am aminly interesteedd in older 50-s 60-s cameras. and I think the mail on the apug site is regar=ding that.</p>