jonathan_stark

Like any product of the FSU, quality can vary more sample to sample than is normal for western products. My particular sample is a good one and (heretic that I am) I actually prefer shooting it to my 35mm Summaron. Keep in mind the J-12 has a huge, protruding rear element. It's not a lens you want to move from body to body a lot, you don't want to bang up that rear element. Make sure you the one you get comes with its matching rear lens cap, this is a very deep cap, and nearly impossible to buy by itself.

There was a question behind my question, which I should make clear. I'd been wondering to what degree simple cameras like a Brownie Flash Hawkeye, which was presumably optimized for Verichrome Pan (ASA 125?) in bright sun would have been considered compatible with the color print film of the day. Would print film latitude cover all sins? Did Kodak and others market slightly higher grade cameras with a few adjustments as specially for color?

 

We had a Brownie Hawkeye in the early 1960's which the family considered, rightly or wrongly, as a "black and white" camera. Mom & Dad bought Verichrome Pan exclusively for it. Around 1967-68, we got an Instamatic 134 which had an "electric eye" and presumably some sort of automatic exposure adjustment, and that was deemed to be "for color."

 

I'm curious whether there was something to my parents' film choices, or whether it was mainly ignorance of photographic processes (and susceptability to Kodak marketing?) Thanks, Jonathan

Hey, team,

I've been Googling but can't find the answer quickly. What Kodak

brand color print film would have been available in 620 size in the

early 1960's, and what would its ASA rating have been? I assume it

would have been some version of Kodacolor, but I'm not able to get a

clear picture of the evolution and specs of the various emulsions

sold that way.

TIA, Jonathan

Yes, the first picture has what I think of as the look of that lens. I bought a Spotmatic with a 55/1.8 Super Takumar in 1970 and have been using it ever since. I think I prefer it to its 50/1.4 "big brother".

Steenbergen did not design the Exakta, Karl Nüchterlein did. Steenbergen founded and owned Ihagee, the company that produced the Exakta. Nüchterlein was a design engineer at Ihagee in the 1930's, i.e. an employee of Steenbergen's.

You might want to inquire if <a href="http://pentaxs.com/index.html">Erick Hendrickson</a> will fix an LX. His website doesn't specifically mention LX's, but it might be worth asking. He's a noted Pentax repair specialist.

A screw will always cost....... sometimes you pay for years and years!

I think Barry Toogood has the world's biggest <a href="http://www.tlr-cameras.com/index.htm">TLR site</a>, and it's a blast! Specifically check out his <a href="http://www.tlr-cameras.com/Japanese/index.html">page</a> on the obscure Japanese TLR's.

Eugene,

 

Jochen is correct in his post, but omitted one critical detail: the Mamiya 528 is a leaf shutter SLR. Any 40-year old leaf shutter SLR is to be avoided as a practical user camera, although they make interesting collectibles for occasional use. Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest web site provides <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/slr35use.htm">valuable advice</a> on acquiring a used SLR for practical use, I strongly recommend you check this out.

Shot #2, tulips in a bucket, is special. Wonderful light. I would have framed it a little to the left, but that's just wisdom of hindsight, I love the shot nonetheless. (BTW, "special" is very high praise in Stark-ese, it's not a compliment I give often.)

Take out the space after the question mark and the link will work.

 

I dunno, I think it's kinda gaudy. Functional is beautiful to me, and all that glitz is not functional.

Anthony, I'm confused. The first time you tried to post this, your message read "Canon digital for all you sceptics. Taken last Tuesday." Sceptics of WHAT? That a digital can take family snapshots? I've never been sceptical about that - I've got a Pentax digicam that's taken thousands. Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but what's your point?

Jochen, A couple of thoughts. If it's an f2.0 lens, it's probably a Xenon (6 element Planar-type lens) not a Xenar. I have several post-war Retinas with Xenons and they are quite sharp and contrasty. (I assume the camera you're considering is a post-war Type 011 or Type 014.) I would put Xenons in the same league as the contemporary Leica Summitars (though not modern Summicrons, etc.)

 

The Achilles heel of Retinas is the winding and cocking mechanism. Assuming the one in the store hasn't been abused, and you treat it gently, it should be OK. But Retina's don't have the nearly unstoppable mechanism of a Leica - they weren't built to the same price either. Russian FED's and Zorki's are a hit-or-miss matter. Good ones are quite useable, poor ones are.... well, poor. You never know what you're going to get with a FED or Zorki. Retinas are more consistent.

 

The rangefinders on my Retinas are pretty good for wide open and up close. Assuming the one in the shop hasn't been dropped or tinkered with, you should expect good results. Can you get the shop to make the deal on approval? Give you time to shoot a roll before you finalize the deal? Good luck.

It's a 40.5 mm filter thread. You can get accessories lots of places, one is <a href="http://www.fedka.com/catalog">Fedkas store</a>, check under Accessories which is at the top of the link list at the upper left.

BTW, there's a really helpful trail map of the place available from the headquarters building, which is at the uphill end of the park, off Rt 487. In October, there was no way to get this map if you started at the downhill end. It's better than the downloadable map you get from the web site.

"Now, I don't think $4000 for a precision mechanical device, for whatever purpose, is unreasonable, ...."

 

Perfectly reasonable. I just don't have it. Barring a lottery win or an unknown rich uncle, I won't ever have it. I'm the gainfully employed, film-loving, serious amateur to whom Leica should be selling something. But they have nothing for my budget that I want. I wish Leica no ill, but to me and others in my boat, they have become commercially irrelevant. I'm surprised Leica and all their apologists cannot see this simple fact.

Crank it towards the front of the camera until it stops (advances the film.) Crank it towards the back of the camera until it stops (cocks the shutter.) On the back crank, it will stop in the exact position so you can fold up the crank handle.

 

In the classic language of the Automat manual: "The simple rule then reads: If the crank can be turned, it must be turned - once in each direction until it stops, until it locks!" (Actually it turns several times to get to the first frame, and once thereafter.) Or go <a href=" http://www.butkus.org/chinon/">here</a> and download the 3.5F manual - give the guy a couple bucks donation when you're there, he does a huge public service to the photo community.

Sure, Frank, no problem. When I last checked, an M body and 3 lenses (not the fastest lenses) was running $7,200 list. I can chip in maybe $1,000 without incurring the wrath of the Marital Unit. No doubt you'll be sending me a check for balance from the Granovski family accounts......

 

(actually the Marital Unit is eyeing a $10,000 motorcyle for herself, so she's in a poor bargaining position just now re: my indulgences!)

Spent a couple of days there at the end of October. IIRC the ravines are oriented roughly north-south. Daylight was not reaching the bottom except for a few hours at mid-day. Take sturdy footwear with non-slip soles, the "trail" is a bit steep and slippery in spots (you'll see what I mean...) If you're far in at the end of the day, start your walk-out an hour before local sunset, it's surprising how dark it gets and how quickly in those ravines. The falls come in all shapes and sizes, there's a super-abundance of subject matter to shoot.

I think I figured out where I saw the article about the prototype Retina Reflex successor, it was called the Retinaflex. The content isn't on the web site any more, but I've e-mailed the site owners, so maybe they can help me. If I learn anything definitive, I'll post a new thread in this forum.

Somewhere or other, can't put my finger on it, I read or heard that Kodak Stuttgart had a prototype Retina Reflex replacement, with a focal plane shutter, other up to date features, etc. It was canned, maybe on orders from Kodak Rochester, and the Instamatic Reflex was developed and marketed instead. Wish I could find that reference.

One of the references is a footnote at the bottom of <a href="http://www.shmgo-zwolle.nl/spotmatic/cameras.htm">this page</a> on Peter Jonkman's Spotmatic website.

John Smullen - you hit the nail on the head re: German companies, change, and leaf-shutter reflexes. Agfa, Kodak Stuttgart, Voigtlander, Zeiss-Ikon, and Braun put their eggs in the leaf-shutter reflex basket in the late 1950's. None of these companies was in the fine camera business much after 1970 (I think Kodak stretched the Instamatic Reflex out to '73, but that was it.) Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc. all "got it" in the late 1950's, and have survived much longer as a result. Admittedly Nikon and Minolta played around with leaf-shutter reflexes in the early 60's, but only as a side-line.

John - beware. That "advance the lever very slowly" behavior is what my Reflex was doing shortly before it packed it up altogether. Most of the time the mirror wouldn't "catch" at the down position at the end of the stroke, but if I advanced very slowly and gave it an extra little "jiggle" at the end, it would catch. Shortly after, the whole advance / winding mechanism packed it up altogther. There is a part in these things called a 'cocking rack' that's prone to stripping. While replacing the cocking rack in a folding Retina is something an amateur might contemplate, working on a Retina Reflex is best left to pros. They are considered among the most difficult of all cameras to fix.

 

I'm just hardheaded enough (and have just enough spare cash - not a good thing!) that I'm thinking about paying $$$ to have mine fixed, just for the satisfaction of not being licked by an inanimate object. How dumb is that? (.....never mind, it's a rhetorical question!)

Hi, John! I'll probably get jumped on by other forum members, but I'm a bit biased against these cameras. Beguiling nuisances they are, with a high probability of being nothing but very pretty paperweights! Check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bfyg">this thread</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BfFu">this one</a> for more details. Apparently the only viable repair person left is in New Zealand.

 

The engineers had a field day designing these, and it seems ingenuity got the upper hand on common sense. Keith South has an informative write-up of the complexities of the firing sequence, and a cut-away photo of the guts of the beast at his <a href=" http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/RetinaR3.html ">Living Image Camera Museum</a> web site.