John Crowe

Okay, had to get a knife to release the pin to release the lens. Recocked lens no problem. Body would not crank, so I sacrificed the frame of film and used a screwdriver to re-cock body by turning mechanism in the mount. That is very tight! Did not look like mirror was all the way down but must have been, cause the viewfinder is correct. Next time sun comes out I will see if I can finish the roll of film.

Thank you Peter. It locked up again yesterday. Going to the basement now, in the dark, to remove the lens to see if that frees it up. Not many visible screws on this camera, where do I start taking it apart? I have done extensive research on Kowa but no repair instructions.

Thank-you Peter. I do have US calling so plan to call him once I get my first roll of film back. It will tell me where I am at. Went out today and shot a half roll, will finish it in the morning, and mail it in. It is certainly nice and wide! Similar view to my 17 TS-E held vertically. Having shot with it this morning in the real world, I am finding that I really don't want to shoot film for the sake of shooting film, and since it is similar to my 17, I doubt I will keep it. I would love to have known about, and owned, this Kowa Six and 35mm twenty years ago! I removed the finder screen from the Six and held it at the correct distance from my 17mm, and oh boy that is the image view I do want to create. I think the 17 covers more than the 67mm dia. circle Canon says. I am getting close to getting the 17 mounted to a shutter and 6x6 body, so that is now my primary focus. About 11mm equivalent without having to shift/stitch. It will take a few weeks to get this film back from the Kowa, but hopefully I will have something I can post. P.S. The Kowa did that ill fated thing where it jammed in mid wind this morning. Thankfully a good bang from the palm of my hand knocked it free. Before I had even put film in I must have triggered the shutter 50 times with no problem. Adding film must create tension to the mechanics somehow. Hoping it is not a major issue!

Yes, under full sun I could easily see screen! I know the 19 is even rarer, and already having a Nikon 8/2.8 for my 5DSR, I would love the 19 with its huge close to 56mm dia. image. Saw it today on Ross Yerxes video.

Hi Peter. I do know how rare it is and not certain that I will indeed keep it. Though it would make a nice "SWC" I have come across Ross' name many times in the past week. I will have to see what is involved in shipping it across the border for repair, as I am in Canada. I have been using a local repairman, but rather than risk that, I would likely sell it in as-is condition, since it would likely end up in the States anyway.

In 35 years of research I somehow completely missed this camera/lens combination. I forget how the Kowa caught my attention earlier this week, but within a few minutes I found this on kijiji, and after more exhaustive research, and realizing how rare this 35mm is, I bought it 2 days later. The glass and camera are absolutely flawless! The aperture works fully manually but does not re-tract on it's own like it is supposed to. I suspect it needs lubrication or perhaps one of the springs has weekened. If you know what the problem maybe let me know. In the meantime it is completely useable. For those 35 years I have often dreamed of the still expensive Hasselblad SWC with its 38mm Biogon, or a 500CM with 40/4, or a 6x9 with SA 47/5.6 These were the widest rectilinear lenses for 120 format that I knew of before settling on an affordable Mamiya C330 with a 55mm f3.5 lens for my wideangle passion. I added a 4x5 with SA 65/8, and used them for about ten years before selling them about ten years ago. So to discover this Kowa with rectilinear 35/4.5 was a wonderful surprise and since it was so cheap I just had to have it. It will complement the 6x6 camera that I am currently configuring for my Canon 17 TS-E. Hopefully in a month I can post some photos here to show the results from both. I don't expect the Kowa to be as good as a Biogon but if it even gets close to the Mamiya 55/3.5 I will be exstatic!

Canon FD 17mm f4 on Canon T-90 Digitized with a FD 50/3.5 Macro on 5DII. Have not completed my documentation of these scans. I would assume this is Kodachrome 25 that I have converted to black and white. High Park Toronto, Ontario Winter 1989. For where I live I like February posts to be of winter scenes.

Miner's Bay Ontario, Canada 10 images stitched using a Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L on a Canon 5DS R, February 2020.

Dwight, Ontario, Canada Six images focus stacked and stitched using a Canon 17mm f4 TS-E on a Canon 5DS R, foreground is in B&W, February 2020.

Horseshoe Lake, Ontario, Canada Six images used through focus stacking and stitching to create one image taken with a Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E on a Canon 5DS R.

Miner's Bay, Ontario, Canada Taken with a Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E on a Canon 5DS R.

While I have probably shot a few films in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, my go to film was Velvia 50 so that is the one I specifically remember. Beyond the increase in detail as the film gets larger, I found the depth of colour to be so much better again as the film got larger. As I got into the larger formats I often photographed at similar fields of view for each format to draw comparisons. So for me, the bigger the better! I recently bought 4 rolls of Velvia 50 in 120 format to experiment with. First rolls that I have bought in over 10 years! I have had very good success digitizing my transparencies and negatives using my digital camera, and looking forward to doing more. I will stay away from negative from now on, simply because it is so difficult to digitize. If you continue your research I believe you will find that the films themselves get thicker as you get larger and I think this may have resulted in my experience of the deeper/richer colours.

Koyaanisqatsi, Powagqatsi, and Nagoyqatsi. I have seen the first two on their original releases. Since the advent of digital photography/video I often think about trying to emulate the time lapse/sped up techniques that were showcased in these films. Techniques that may very well have been pioneered in these films.

Yes, generally the wider the aperture the more money Canon, and others, put into the glass to make it better than the "consumer" versions. When they would get really carried away they would use "L" glass.

Perhaps one day I will treat myself to a regular Aspherical. I loved my SSC. The rarity of the AL really make it the collector's item that it is, not any appreciable difference in IQ. A couple months ago 2 Asphericals out of Europe sold for a song on eBay. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

For me, Nikon needs to get a much better blend of resolution/fps/buffer. Somewhere between the D5 and D850. Unfortunately sports shooters typically are fixated more on speed and their customers do not require the ultimate in image quality.

Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L with a Canon EF 1.4x teleconverter on a Canon EOS 5DS R. I know, a bit of a Frankenstein's monster. Thin adapter does not allow focus to infinity but long enough until I do the EdMika adaptation.

I highly recommend the 5DS R, especially for landscape, architecture and macro. I actually use mine for sports too, which was not my intent, but the image quality is superior to the two 25MP crop bodies that I have been using.

This image is a good idea. The black and white is much more effective since there is so much blue overcast and because there is no particularly exciting colour in the subject. I found the angle of the wake to be odd, but that is what it is. I would lessen the over exposure of the wake, however, to make it blend more into the image, rather than stand out as it does. For me the ocean and sky needs to be in focus, which it does not appear to be. I am very curious to know if the ship was really built that way, in your unaltered image, and what lens/camera was used, to know if it made the distortion worst. If the ship was in fact built that way, why take out the shape? Perhaps I am missing something, as I only skimmed through the thread. If the colourized photo above is not the original scene, I would like to see the original shot.

The white is just too blown out for me, with too much flare affecting the bike. It may have looked better if the bike was in focus. Unfortunately the focus is a few feet beyond the bike. There are two alternative images I would have experimented with. The first is to not have the bike overlapping the background and have it aligned with the end of the bridge so it is completely surrounded in light. I know this makes the bike smaller in the image but it may be effective. The second would have been to take this photo from the other side with the perspective of the tunnel closing down to a much smaller "iris" creating much more depth to the image with the bike predominant in the foreground and more balanced light. This, I think, would be very dramatic. I think focus has to be at either extreme. Either just the bike is in focus, through use of a large aperture or tilt, or everything is in focus which is much more possible now with focus stacking techniques in Photoshop. I appreciate the time you took to centre the bike and the bridge in the frame and for keeping everything square. Not many people get this, and depending on the objects one is dealing with it is not always easy.

Coolcsan SF-210 Auto Slide Feeder for Coolscan 4000/5000. A complete setup is likely in the $1500 to $2000 range used! There are current alternatives depending on what sort of quality you want. There are the EPSON V flatbed scanners that can scan about 10 slides at a time, and the Canoscan 9000f as well. Then there are dedicated film scanners from Pacific Image and Plustek which have feeds as well. I scan using my DSLR, which is not for the faint of heart, so I will defer to others on the merits of all of these options. Check out B&H's Film Scanners Buying Guide for a start.

You did well to find a Sprintscan 120. I have looked from time to time and rarely see them. It should be very good, and easy. You seem to have the software/hardware required to run it so that is a big plus.

6x9 is the same ratio as 4x6. 120 film is 56mm wide. So to make things complicated 6x7 is actually 56mm x 67mm, 6x8 is 56mm x 77mm and 6x9 is 56mm x 84mm. 6x7 provides 10 frames on 120, 6x8 provides 9 frames on 120, and 6x9 provides 8 frames on 120. The typical print size for film back in the day was 8x10. So 6x4.5, 6x7, and 6x8 were closest in ratio to this so as to not to have to crop much of your original film. I guess Fuji came up with the 6x8 to provide slightly less enlargement to get to 8x10. 6x7 actually has to crop down to 5.4 x 6.7 to achieve the 8x10 print size and 6x8 is cropped down to 5.6 x 7, reducing slightly the amount of enlargement required.

I believe all the Fuji rangefinder lenses are exceptional. These were a very high end camera at the time and the lenses were tailored for one specific use. I have always been more interested in the GSW series with their 65mm lenses, but if you are thinking more about portraits then the 90 makes more sense. Heck, you could buy one of each! I believe both cameras came in 3 different versions/ages. Original, II, and III. Then of course there was the Fuji 617 with its 105mm lens. I have always coveted one of these, but they still hold their value.