hortensia_b.

I think there are several sources of error. First, obviously the pixel length and focal length are both approximations. But I think the larger problem is in the ratio of the eagle's real height to the image height.

 

Specifically, when one quotes a bald eagle as 3 feet tall, does that include the tail feather or is it just the body length? If it's just the body length, then the eagle height in the image is shorter than 360 pixels. The body length is about 1/10 by my eyeballing on the screen (it's between 1/7 to 1/14 of the height depending on whether I count the head and the tail).

 

So, an estimate is 3*63/(211*5.76/2816)=438 feet.

A 1/2.5 sensor has physical size of 5.76mm by 4.29mm. The image size is 2816 by 2112 pixels. So, a pixel has length 5.76/2816mm. The eagle image has a height of 360 pixels, so it has a physical height of 360*5.76/2816. The image plane is at 63mm from the optical center. The actual size of an eagle is assumed to be 2'. So, a reasonable ballpark estimate is that the eagle is 2*63/(360*5.76/2816)=171 feet away.

The top looks like it had been crudely repainted/touched up. Is it possible that a right-most digit of the serial number was painted over?

In both of my s2a bodies, the crank has to go wind-wind-...-wind-snap to come to a completely wound up state. What you described seems normal.

<i>Run an Arcos 100 B&W roll... ...it came back TOTALLY BLANC ! ...no photo data on edges, no edges, NOTHING! </i>

 

<p>

Who processed your roll of film? Is he/she someone that you know to be competent in processing b/w film?

The aperture blades do not close down when the lens is off the camera. They do stop down at the moment of exposure, as you suggested. When the lens is off camera, if you look at the rear of the lens, you should see a lever, which when moved clockwise should stop down the aperture blades.

There a good discussion of the differences between an S2 and an S2a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008idM">here</a>, around the middle of the page.

<p>

BTW, I'm skeptical that the last two digits indicate the year of manufacture.

I don't think the MX is any more "electronic" than the K1000, except for the viewfinder display (LED vs needle). The MX has a mechanical shutter, unlike the ME cousins.

 

The MX is smaller than the K1000, has a self-timer, and shows the chosen aperture through a peephole in the viewfinder.

<i>QUOTE: "the 17-55mm is pretty sharp wide open at all apertures" Doesn't wide open mean F2.8? I think you mean to say 'at the widest setting'.</i>

<p>

I think he meant to say "at all focal lengths" instead of apertures.

 

<p>

<i>QUOTE: "After f5.6 things take a turn for the worse. I was fairly impressed with the 17-55mm even stopped down" Why are you contradicting yourself? </i>

<p>

It's not totally contradictory if he meant that he's still impressed with the lens even if it loses sharpness after f/5.6.

The immediate-postwar <a href="http://www.exaktaphile.com/66/66.html">Exakta 66</a> is different from the <a href="http://www.thing-z.com/home2/photography/data/exakta66-1.htm">Exakta 66 m. III</a>. The latter does have a P6 mount.

<p>

If a lens is described specifically as an "Exakta mount"-lens, vs. a Kiev-mount or a Pentacon-mount, I wouldn't assume that it will fit a Kiev 60.

Go to "Custom Setting" menu, choose "Permitted" in "Using aperture ring". In manual mode, AE metering is on when you use the optical preview (by checking the DOF). (See p. 188 of the manual.)

 

h.

All of Randy's suggestions are correct and helpful, except for "<i>The thing that it is resting on is the slow speed shutter control.</i>"

<p>

The ring under the shutter speed dial is for setting the flash synch. You most certainly don't have to worry about it, assuming you're not using flash bulbs. Zorki-C has no slow speeds.

The problem is usually with the focusing screen, which sits on foam that could've deteriorated and compressed. Frank Marshman (camera wiz) fixes these. You may also check with Jimmy Koh (at Koh's camera).

The price is much too high.

 

Also, there is no TC3 model in the Konica SLR lineup. The T3, which is an earlier model, is a good one to have. The later TC-X model is not better than the TC.

Type in http://medfmt.8k.com/third in your browser to get to his third-party lens page. Then scroll down and actually click on the table list.

Looks just like an M42 lens that I have.

Their professional body was the LX. The hotshot multi-exposure-mode body in 1984 was the Super-Program (or Super-A).

"PS"==Pentax Screw==M42? Just a guess. Does the lens mount look like a screw mount?

Not towards the handle axis. Pull the tab away from the body. It controls a small pin that locks the winder handle to the body. Pull the tab and work the handle.

Tamron's dating of the 40th anniversary Bronica ETRSi to 1988 doesn't sound right. Bronica's first camera was introduced around 1959. It seems more plausible to me that the 40th anniversary model was produced around 97 or so, making the AEIII the logical finder.

It takes a 67mm filter.

If by <i>regular lenses</i> you mean the 135-format lenses you use with the MZ-6, the answer is no. You cannot use K-mount or M42-mount lenses with the Pentax 645 body.

Habib:

 

Buy and shoot with both a Yashica and a Holga. If the Yashica is not for you, sell it. Either way, your loss cannot be too much more than an extra couple of rolls of film plus processing.

 

Then, please, let us know which way you went.

 

HTH.

No charts, but I think they are: 40.5 (J8), 49 (J9), and 40.5 (J11).

I was under a different impression and now I'm getting curious about my lens. Can you take a look at

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3178414">this picture</a> and at

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3178417">another

one</a>? Mine does not have any receptacle at the lens' end for the

body to trip the aperture. The aperture blades move as the selector ring is turned.