charles_hohenstein

<p>What is the model number of the camera, and does it take Instax Wide film?</p>

<p>Interesting that Canon will be putting IS on the 24mm and 28mm wide angle lenses, but not on the 24-70mm L zoom.</p>

<p>I would just buy a roll of expired color 220 film—whatever is cheapest—and take it from there. </p>

<p>I wish that we could ban them here.</p>

<p>Based on my personal experience with Greg Weber, I would recommend him. He's the expert on Koni-Omegas.</p>

<p>I agree; they're both good, and very different. </p>

<p>Beautiful work.</p>

<p>Metol is the ingredient in developers to which people sometimes develop a sensitivity, and Xtol doesn't have any of that. Maybe it's the phenidone which is bothering you?</p>

<p>Obviously you want a fast lens. I think the Mamiya 645 cameras have an 80mm/f1.9 and might be within your price range. Contax also has a fast 80mm lens, but the Contax is way out of your price range. Fast lenses for medium format are few and far between, unless you consider f2.8 to be fast.</p>

<p>If I had a pristine X-570 I would definitely send it to Garry's for a CLA. His prices are very reasonable and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a simple capacitor fix.</p>

<p>I agree that retouching is being overdone. Photoshop exerts a powerful temptation to over-manipulate photographs. </p>

<p>Craig, if the film you want is available in 220, by all means use it, unless you enjoy changing rolls of film twice as often. I don't. Unfortunately, the last black and white film available in 220 was just discontinued, but there are still good color options.</p>

<p>A Koni-Omega definitely meets the needs for excellent optics, ruggedness and economy. I would contact Greg Weber and ask whether he can service one with lubricants which will not bind at low temperatures. It's not a light camera, but I don't think you're going to find a camera which meets all of the specifications you set forth. Sorry.</p>

<p>I read somewhere that the 100mm/f4 is supposed to be a little sharper than this lens, but, judging by the pictures, the 100mm/f3.5 is also excellent or even just as good. Has anyone compared the two lenses directly?</p>

<p>Message sent.</p>

<p>I've signed the petition and hope that it will do some good. Many people never knew what TXP was, and those who knew what it was often preferred TX. TXP was a specialty film. TX in 220 makes much more sense, and I hope that Kodak will give it a try.</p>

<p>I'm surprised that no one has suggested the Koni-Omega/Rapid-Omega rangefinder 6x7 cameras. They are inexpensive and rugged, and the lenses are quite good. You might possibly need a CLA on the back. If your budget is only $500, you should really have a look.</p>

<p>Is there really anything to distinguish the KL lenses from the earlier ones, except for the extra ring and perhaps better coatings? Were any of the lenses tweaked as far as optical design is concerned for the KL series? Otherwise, I see little point is preferring the newer lenses.</p>

<p>I just hope that the Ektar 100 sheet film doesn't crowd any of the Portra films out of the market. I much prefer the latter, although these days I am looking for a Fuji replacement.</p>

<p>If grain and high contrast are what you want, develop a fast film, such as Delta 3200, in a grainy developer, such as Rodinal, and develop for longer than the recommended time.</p>

<p>I would rather have one of the existing black and white films in 220 than any new color film.</p>

<p>It sounds as if you are asking for hunches, since none of us is privy to the secret decisions of the management of the film companies. On that basis, my hunch is that Kodak will eliminate most or all of their remaining slide films. I think that Fuji has a stronger commitment in that area. I'm not sure that Kodak will continue to make all the present color negative films, either, but I don't have a clue as to which one they might discontinue first. Kodak has eliminated TXP in 120 and 220, and I doubt that it can continue much longer in sheet film alone, although a lot of large format shooters would be sorry to see it go. Then there's Plus-X. It's already been eliminated in sheet film, and apparently it doesn't sell as well as Tri-X, which is a pity. Don't be too surprised if they axe that too. But my hunches are no better than anyone else's. One thing is for sure—the film companies won't admit that a film is being discontinued until the stock is almost gone. I wish that they would treat their customers better and give them more advance notice, so that people could plan on financing the purchase of a large stock of the film and a freezer if necessary.</p>

<p>I think that the second-hand information that Kodak is looking at getting rid of Plus-X is probably correct. Certainly they have already dropped it in sheet film sizes. My own personal opinion is that Kodak would rather that everyone use the Tmax films and color negative film. I don't think that Kodak slide film will be around for very much longer. A company that can't deal with niche markets and small-scale production is doomed to failure in a declining film market. I think there are other companies more worthy of our support. In any case, it's my money, and my favorite format that they dropped, and I'm not going to be spending my money on Kodak products. The rest of you can do as you please.</p>

<p>But what manufacturer ever made negative carriers in 6x8? I guess I could use the 6x9 carrier, or else use the 4x5 glass carrier and use paper to surround the negative.</p>

<p>Plus-X has already been dropped in sheet film sizes, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kodak had already decided to axe it in roll film. They always wait until supplies are nearly depleted before they make an announcement, and in the meantime they will say that a film is current with a straight face. The only thing we can trust about Kodak is that they can't cope with small-scale production; they scrapped their equipment and invested in equipment which requires either large product runs or none. They refuse to replace the equipment, so small-scale production is dead. Frankly, I've had it with Kodak and their inept management. Ilford is a company which cares more about photography and deserves our business.</p>