John Farrell

My first camera was an Agfa Isomat Rapid - back in 1969. I used to reload cassettes, and never had a problem with the film jamming.

Amateur Photographer, would be one, for equipment.

And it has a red dot, Rick.

The Canonet in the photograph above has a mechanical shutter - I have the chrome version of the same camera - the battery powers only the meter.

Zombie threads that lack pages 2 and 3 are doubly annoying.....or is that due to a page formatting change?

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/johnf_04/Monochrome/IMG_0367.jpg Corner of Hope and Stafford Streets, Dunedin New Zealand 1973. Zenit 3m, Helios 50mm.

<p>Rick - the lens on the IIc is interchangeable, but the process of using the alternative front elements is an exercise in masochism - transferring the distance measurement to the correct scale on the lens, and lining up the shot with the accessory viewfinder.....I've played with the interchangeable lenses on mine, but never used them with film. Add to this the procedure for taking close ups, using the special rangefinder, and you can see why SLRs became popular.</p>

<p>Malwarebytes blocks that site as malicious, Dave.</p>

<p>Rick, it should be reasonably straightforward to open the top of the camera, and remove the prism and focusing screen. That way you avoid the complicated shutter innards.</p>

<p>This would have been produced after Carl Zeiss Jena lost the right to use the "Zeiss" brand, and presumably lens brands (Biometar)<br> <a href="https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/int/history/company-history/20-years-of-reunification/background-story.html">https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/int/history/company-history/20-years-of-reunification/background-story.html</a></p>

<p>People often have unrealistic ideas about the value of old cameras. Beware of pricing according to the asking price on online auctions - I've seen cameras with unrealistic values relisted continuously for months, with no interest. It's worth remembering that a camera can be rare, but unwanted. I think we will see, too, when the new edition of McKeowns arrives, that most film cameras have dropped in value since the mid 2000s. </p>

<p>Back in 2010, I bought one of these at an auction:<br /><img src="http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/johnf_04/Photonet/002s.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /><br /> This is classed as a rare camera, but the one here is missing the cover over the light meter, and the flash socket is broken. I resold it for not much more than the small sum I paid for it.</p>

<p>I have a Diax IIb, with the Xenar lens. It cost me NZ$30 in 2008. (That's around US$22).</p>

<p>My old (2002) copy of McKeowns values it at $60 - $80 with that lens.</p>

<p>That looks like reticulation - caused by thermal shock to the emulsion, when its soft.<br /> <a href="https://www.ephotozine.com/article/create-reticulation-when-film-processing-4639">https://www.ephotozine.com/article/create-reticulation-when-film-processing-4639</a></p>

<p>Tony - Mordor is the place. Ask for the "Dark Lord".</p>

<p>Sheet film? Roll film? 35mm? Colour or monochrome? Developing monochrome 35mm and 120 rollfilm is something that can be done at home, quite economically. You don't need a darkroom, just somewhere dark to load your developing tank. I use a changing bag when I load 35mm film into my tank - the rest of the process happens in my laundry.<br /> Some enterprising people process c41 colour at home.</p> <p>For colour film, I use a local professional camera shop. You need to check in the place where you live, to see if any of these survive.</p>

<p>Whatever is in the viewfinder won't affect photographs. Older cameras often have dirt in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Arthur - I'm also in New Zealand. I bought 10 rolls of Kentmere 100 from B&H last year, and even with the postage, the price per roll was quite economical.</p>

<p>Ray - I used 5 monochrome and 3 colour films in 2016 - about 20% of the photographs I took.</p>

<p>When I had a darkroom, I regularly enlarged prints to 8" x 10", from negatives from a wide variety of cameras. There was no lack of sharpness at that size, caused by the lens. More recently, I have a 9.5" x 15" print made from a image taken on a Canon 60D, using a Canon 55mm - 250mm kit zoom. There is no lack of sharpness with that, either.</p>

<p>Do you want to test lenses or take photographs?</p>

<p>https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=PGXK2l6zq5oC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=Pentax+K2+DMD+new+price&source=bl&ots=YonFnXglVW&sig=2dHklST5bjHn24jMxB3y4hJ3OS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-wKT41vzQAhUHtpQKHf0bDM84ChDoAQhCMAc#v=onepage&q=Pentax%20K2%20DMD%20new%20price&f=false </p> <p>In the above link to Popular Photography, July 1981, Cambridge Camera Exchange has that Pentax for US$349, body only.</p>

<p>At the bottom of the page, is a "Contact us" link. If you select that, then select "abuse", you can alert the staff to the spam - I post a link to an example when I do this. I have notified them of the spam in the classifieds.</p>

<p>I used to shoot slides with a Zenit 3m, and a hand held meter. They turned out fine.</p>