duane_kucheran

Shade #12539 fits the E60 Noctilux and early 75 Summilux. Shade #12519 is for the early E58 Noctilux. I have one the latter that I don't need if you're interested.

Cheers,

Duane

Providing the forecast holds, you're in luck. We expect clear skies thru the weekend. We often get fog in the morning that stays till late in some locations.

At sunset and later looking west and southwest off Burnaby Mtn at Horizon's restaurant gives a great view of the city, the Strait of Georgia and the mountains on Vancouver Island. The colors are quite sublime.

About 4:30, about 1/2 hour before sunset looking east the Golden Ears and other peaks light up yellow. I can't remember if they are visible from the east side of Burnaby mountain but I believe they should be. Best to go a bit early and check for access. Note, traffic will be heavy so leave early.

Here's a link to the park's website: http://www.city.burnaby.bc.ca/cityhall/departments/departments_parks/prksrc_prksan/prksrc_prksan_brnbym.html

Mount Baker to the southeast in Washington state is also visible from the south and east side of Burnaby mtn for both sunset and sunrise.

On the north shore, Mt Seymour and Grouse Mountain (if memory serves ~2500 feet) can be reached by car and car & cable car respectively. I don't think the Ears are visible from these spots but most everything else mentioned above is. It's especially interesting when there's fog covering the lower mainland and just Burnaby Mtn & Mt Baker are sticking through.

Best wishes & good light

FWIW, I'll echo one of the responses above; in my opinion, most of the SSC FD lenses and especially the SC and zooms have less contrast and saturation. Lots of resolution, just understated contrast & maybe a bit of flare. Not surprising as they have more surfaces to scatter light. I think this tends to give these lenses a smoother and more pastel look compared to say the Zeiss, Nikon and Pentax lenses that some friends & I compared. Some of the newer FD zooms, such as the 80-200 f/4L or 28-85 f/4 are definitely snappier and make the 200 f/2.8 SSC or 50 f/1.8 SC seem kind of dull in comparison.

I also use Leica M and the images are a bit crisper than the FD's, especially when handheld. I attribute this to it being a rangefinder with a gentle shutter and no mirror or lens stopdown mechanism vibrating and twisting the camera when it goes off. The images are a bit snappier and it's probably due to Leica's designs being a bit simpler with fewer surfaces made possible by more expensive glass and mechanical construction.

For the most part FD & Leica M are similar in that the Bokeh (how smoothly the background is defocussed & softened) are similar. When you get the lighting just right with large apertures, the subject can just pop right off the background.

Cheers,

Hold the thermometer vertically with the reservoir down and tap it near the gaps with a plastic stirring rod. My big 'ole Kodak thermometer was set to right in a few minutes. I wouldn't try heating it but cooling may help.

Cheers,

Rebates have been used to help move slow selling items and it's a fairly equitable way to compensate the consumer.

It occured to me that the rebate system where the customer gets the refund directly helps the small shop out by minimizing its exprenses. The shop has already paid for the goods from the manufacturer and held the goods in inventory, which is a cost. By having the customer apply for the rebate, the shop gets its price (hopefully fair) and doesn't have to go through the hoops, wait for the refund and have to account for it all. If the shop is moving a small quantity of a manufacturer's product, the overhead of a rebate bites into the profit and the shop has to think twice about whether it's worth the trouble.

It's not as convenient for the customer, but heck, it's not really about us, is it?

Cheers,

It appears that Manfrotto/Bogen (M/B) have discontinued the square plate that works in any orientation. I've not seen any in local stores, the M/B catalog or on the 'net. It seems that none of the new plates are fully compatible either as they latch but limit the orientation.

However, I picked up a plate made of black plastic at a swap meet recently that's compatible with the M/B quick release. Problem is, I don't know who made it as there is no number or logo on it. You might try Slik or Cullman (or others) to see if their plates work. This one looked like a Cullman.

I also made up my own plate from a piece of lexan but it was a fiddly even with a milling machine.

Cheers,

I would go to Van-cam as a last resort. There shouldn't be any rocket science to replacing a top cover but I've heard from photo friends of dissatisfaction with Van-cam's work.

Brighouse Camera in Richmond used to be excellent. I don't know about today but at least I haven't heard anything bad about them.

Camtex is in Vancouver & should be good. I have no experience with them nor have I heard anything bad.

Unless Horst has or can get the part, he probably can't do much.

Cheers,

Duane

I've adapted lenses to the SL66 but they've all been 250 mm & up. It's very hard to retrofit wide angle lenses to the SL66 as the lens register distance is so great; 100+ mm. It might be possible if the lens & shutter could fit in the throat but it would probably foul the mirror.

Late in the lifetime of the SL66 (something like the mid-80's) a newer version of the 50 mm with floating elements was supposedly released. It was similar to the Hasselblad of the same vintage. I haven't seen one or even heard of any for sale so if it exists it's a rare one.

Best wishes in the coming year,

Cheers,

Duane

Not a bad idea. My background is electronics with experience in microelectronics packaging and I'll say that it almost never makes economic sense to take any sort of package apart to be reused; it's just easier and cheaper to start fresh.

The one downside I can think of is that while the intelligence (signals) are correlated and can be subtracted, noise is random and unfortunately additive so the low light situation would be compromised (~41% more) but not a whole lot. Shannon et al had a whole bunch to say about this. I suppose this step could be deferred to the photoshop phase though. Nevertheless, engineering is a series of compromises that can be made to actually work very well.

Cheers,

Had this same problem years ago and it was not the body. The 'help' is also displayed when the lens has difficulty stopping down. Try removing the lens and see if it makes a difference. BTW, if this is the case, it can often be replicated without wasting film by cycling the preview button.

A lens is easier to repair as most camera shops will still work on them. If it's a 50 f/1.8 it's cheaper to just get another one.

Let us know how it goes.

Cheers,

Duane

The reason why chips are flat is because the processes used to put microelectronics on them have been developed to work best on flat surfaces. The masks used to selectively expose and etch the surfaces are flat so they can be laid up almost in contact with the silicon chips during processing. I suppose it'd be possible to make masks & chips that are spherical but it'd be really out the ordinary & cost cubic dollars.

It's a little bit like the joke about why manhole covers are round - because manholes are round. AFAIK, the round shape is the only simple shape that doesn't allow a cover to fit thru itself.

As someone pointed out, a better solution would be to modify the sensor cell well angle to better accept the photons that don't come in at right angles to the surface, but this would be difficult. Microlenses are not perfect, but by offsetting the periperal lenses they could accept more light from the center axis. Maybe the peripheral cells could be made larger to the same effect but this could lead to greater noise.

Sigh. As an engineer I'm often unhappy with the universe and its limitations, but I try to work around them and take advantage of those weird effects that break in my favor. I'm continually surprised at how well well we've been able to crutch things and bend the rules.

Cheers,

Here's a site that compares east vs west Zeiss lenses:

http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/zeiss_west_east/zeiss_west_east.html

When I look at the MTFs I see that the newer, western lens (APO similar to Pentax lenses using ED glass) have higher contrast and higher resolution over the field. Based on this, the P6 lenses would produce pretty good images but that in the 10/10 situation the newer, advanced lenses would be better.

I've adapted a late MC Prakticar 500 f/5.6 to Rollei SL66. I think I got the infinity focus off just a bit because images of the moon are much softer than results from a Canon 300 f/4L or from similar lenses I've seen on the 'net. I've since machined a bit more off the lens but haven't confirmed results on film. In spite of that, the lens does do a good job and I'm pleased with the results for the price.

FWIW, Duane

I adapted two lenses for the SL66. The first was a barrel lens. For the lens bayonet I used a part of an extension ring and machined a tube that adapted the ring to the lens.

The second was a Practicar 500 mm lens. I had to machine a bayonet out of stainless steel. Due to the lens' dimensions I had to make some parts of the mount very thin, << 1mm.

Rollei did make some metal lens mounts or blank panels that could be machined to fit various lenses. I did find one once but the guy wanted over $200 for it. I'd recomend looking for a plastic body cap and modifying it to fit the lens. If you need a longer tube, try to get one of the SL66 extension tubes. If you have trouble locating a body cap, I think I have a couple local sources I can contact.

Cheers,

Reply to Joe Nash:

I have a BW-72B. I tried to access your Email address but it didn't work for me either. my Email is: duane dot kucheran at creo dot com

Cheers,

Peter's analogy is strained although there's a bit of a resonance for me. Of the cameras I own (Leica, Rollei, Canon & 4x5) the Leica is the most sensual. The Leica is a bit more fun just to play with and not use to take images. The others are more businesslike and to the point, maybe like a prostitute?

If you extend Peter's analogy the raison d'etre of sex is ostensibly procreation, much like a Leica's being image making. Pleasure is kind of a side benefit. If a child is the result I'll tell you that the right kind of spouse is very important for the raising part. I don't know if I'd want either of the two women mentioned above for that.

I don't find much difference in image visualization with rangefinder versus SLR versus view camera except when time is of the essence. For rapid fire stuff there's less visualization and more instinct and just luck.

FWIW, my bit of Sunday AM philosophy.

Cheers,

The 80-200 f/4L is the best & IMHO the only way to go for that range. At the short end there isn't a big difference, but at the long end the difference is astonishing. Prices now are very reasonable although I expect them to only go down. I believe this lens was the cheapest of the L series.

I also think the 28-85 f/4 is a better and more useful mid range zoom. I have it and the 35-105 f/3.5. The only problem with it and the 80-200 f/4L is that they are plastic and very fragile, often breaking off just ahead of the mount.

The 100-300 f/5.6L is better than either non L in that range. The big problem is that it doesn't have a tripod ring and thus it's really hard to get all the performance possible. There's just so much hanging off the front of the camera.

I have the 85-300 f/4.5 and prefer it because it has the ring. It was an expensive lens and is a fine performer although it doesn't have the contrast of the two lenses I recomend above.

Cheers,

PS. I have some NIB hoods for most of the above lenses that I'd like to sell. Drop me a note if you're interested.

Hello Philip,

My vote is for 1) for all of appropriate previously mentioned reasons.

Food for thought: call it the Canon FD + Rangefinder forum to give a place to those users. I'll have to admit though that many other rangefinder users go to the Leica forum.

By the way, thank you kindly for photo.net. I've learned much, hopefully contributed something useful & enjoyed the community immensely. I have pointed many people to it. Please keep up the good work.

Best wishes

Duane

I have one allegedly for an M4 that is a single piece of soft leather with a zipper on the top for access. It's not the two piece everready style. Its Leitz number is 14538. I don't know what year it is from.

Also at the camera show I picked the above one up from, the vendor had another M4 case of the two piece style. If memory serves, it had sharp corners.

Cheers,

Fixed focal length enlarging lenses would probably give the best results as they are designed for working at the conjugate distances needed for macro work.

I've seen some fine results from reversed C-mount video camera zoom lenses. A whole camera with lens are often available at garage sales for virtually nothing. I suggest that the longer focal lengths will give you a greater working distance.

One interesting lens is the Schneider Betavaron. This is a zoom lens that was designed as an enlarger lens for 35mm. I understand these things went for many, many hundreds in their day but with the decline of film they're available now for far less. A fellow at work set one up in a jig with a video camera for inspection of small parts. In essence it was a giant sized microscope that gave some amazing results.

Cheers,

My T90 did this about 10 years ago with a particular lens. Have you confirmed that it does it with other lenses? According to the repair manual the 'help' problem is related to the aperture stopdown mechanism rather than the shutter.

Cycling the DOF preview button also causes this situation & doesn't operate the shutter.

Cheers,

It works fine. It has two extra connections that are not used by any FD camera & flash other than the T90 & 300TL.

Cheers,

I'm not sure that the Leica filters, at least from the early 80's, are multicoated. The samples I have have a fairly strong brown reflection and are probably only single coated. This is mostly confirmed by various postings. I don't know if the newer Leicas are multicoated. The newest B+W MRC/Pro-lines have a very faint uncolored reflection, much fainter than the Leicas. I think these are about $40 and are great value.

The standard B+W filters can also come with Aluminum rings so if it comes in the original box it should be marked so. The standard B+Ws are also a bit bigger and deeper and I had trouble fitting one under the 24 Asph's hood. The MRC/Pro-line are bit smaller but still fit under the hood snugly. The Leicas are much smaller and so don't have clearance problems. They also have some nifty grip slots to get better purchase when turning them.

Cheers,

The 28-85 is fine lens & I prefer it over the 35-105 especially for range, versatility & contrast. I think that of the lenses I have, the primes have an edge over the zooms in terms of detail and contrast but there are some exceptions - I've always thought that the 50 f/1.8 was flat and not as snappy as the 50 f/1.4 and the above zooms. That being said, the zooms could very well be better than the primes in as Canon steadily improved the performance of their lenses, especially contrast.

One big warning with the 28-85 is that it is fragile. It's real easy to break it off just ahead of the mount. Replacement parts are hard to come by so be careful with it.

Cheers,

Duane

I lost mine on a hike once & was able to buy replacements at local camera stores. (Lens & shutter and Leo's in Vancouver BC). I'd bet that most pro stores would have them. B&H probably has them too as I bought a case for the L-328 from them recently.

Now, as it turned out, I never did use the Lumidisc & Lumigrid (reflected light filter) so if you really can't find one we might be able to work out a deal. They're unused & still in the original packaging.

Cheers,

Duane

Hello Dirk,

I have one of these in the new FD form. When I bought it a few years ago I brought along a macro ring to allow me to cycle the diaphragm a few times to see if there were any glitches. Good thing I did because the focus ring jammed up and I was able to get the lens for less than what he wanted for it. Or conversely, I didn't pay twice as much as I should have.

Now, it turned out that the ball bearing race that activates the diaphragm came unscrewed, let the ball bearings out and jammed the focus mechanism. It took me about two days to figure out how to take it all apart, clean, relube and reassemble it. I commented on this on this site and a former Canon camera tech said that this (and other problems) were common with these lenses and that I did well by getting mine to work again.

Anyway, you might be lucky and just have loose focussing ring and can tighten it up easily. The screws are under the rubber grip ring (diamond surface) which can be removed by stretching it gently over the metal ring with a slim blade. If the screws on this ring are not obviously loose, the ring itself comes out when the screws are removed. If there is play inside the mechanism then I think something is loose or broken inside and you'll have to take it in. My bet is that if you continue to use the lens, something more will come apart and make things worse.

Let us know how it goes,

Cheers,

Duane