j._gewirtz

My Panasonic DMC-GX85K locks up after 20-40 exposures when used on electronic shutter with my Olympus 17/1.8 lens. When this happens it is necessary to cycle the camera on/off or remove the battery to get the camera to resume functioning. The camera works perfectly with the Panasonic 12-32 lens it came with. I wrote about this problem previously in this thread: Panasonic DMC-GX85 Refuses to Fire Sometimes

 

I sent the camera and lens to Panasonic and then Olympus. Their service technicians were able to recreate the malfunction but both blamed the other company's product and suggested that there may be a marginal incompatibility between the camera body and lens. Is this explanation plausible? I found no reports of this issue in online searches even though it seems likely that many people use this camera and lens combination.

 

In any case I need to decide whether to live with the problem or perhaps throw good money after bad by replacing the camera body or lens. (I would use the Panasonic 20mm if it had faster autofocusing.) Any suggestions? Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. I will try your suggestion. I notice that when the problem I described is occurring none of the usual lines or grids or other indicators that I have the screen configured to display are actually displaying. So perhaps there is a software or hardware issue.

Hi All,

 

My GX85 eventually stops displaying autofocus boxes or making exposures when I am in the midst of taking a batch of pictures. I press the shutter button and nothing happens. Then I turn the camera off/on and this resolves the problem until the next time. I use live view exclusively and mostly an Olympus 17/1.8 lens. Shutter is configured for half-press and either mechanical/electronic or electronic actuation only. I changed the settings to allow exposure without locked focus but doing this made no difference. I think this problem occurs most frequently in low light but it could be that that's because I take most of my pictures in low light.

 

I can't tell if the camera is faulty or if I simply need to change a setting somewhere. Does anyone have any ideas as to what may be going on?

 

Thanks.

HC110 at 65°F for reduced fog. What ISO/EI was the film exposed at?

 

Probably 3200.

A friend of mine has a roll of 35mm Tmax 3200 that was exposed perhaps 20 years ago. Can anyone suggest a developer and developing time that would be most likely to yield usable negatives in this situation? I realize that this film doesn't hold up well over time if undeveloped, but we have nothing to lose. Thanks.

<p>Thanks, Dick.</p>

 

<p>I have a new EOS-M and 22mm lens, firmware v. 2.0.2, always configured for auto-white balance. Occasionally the WB of the camera's LCD goes out of whack and both live-view and images replayed from the camera's memory card display with a bluish or reddish cast and sometimes too dark. Changing the camera's WB setting has no effect. The problem always goes away eventually, usually if I turn off the camera but sometimes only after I remove the battery. (This problem only affects image display on the LCD; the actual saved image files, both RAW and JPEG, are fine.)<br>

A Canon rep told me that based on my description there is definitely something wrong with the camera. If that's the case I can return it to B&H. However, before I do anything I want to find out if this is a known problem with the EOS-M. Has anyone else experienced these issues?</p>

 

<p>Good advice above. Agree on the Anhinga Trail, though the animals are more dispersed at the current high water levels than they are during the drier winter. Shark Valley may actually be pretty good for wildlife if you are willing to walk and stay off the tram, or you can rent a bike. The light will be best at Shark Valley in the morning while the Anhinga Trail is good at any time. Unless it's windy the mosquitoes and biting flies will make your visit unbearable if you don't protect yourself. I suggest long pants and sleeves, a hat and 100% deet applied to exposed skin, particularly around sunrise and sunset. If you take these precautions, summer can be a good time to visit the Everglades because it's relatively uncrowded.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks to all for the many thoughtful replies. It sounds like a good approach would be to start by using the 17-40 for a while and seeing if I like the results.</p>

 

<p>I'm currently using the 24-105 @24mm on a 5D2 for landscapes. Stopped down with tripod, MLU, self-timer/remote and careful focusing, IQ is adequate for my purposes (stock, large prints). However, I prefer to go a bit wider (20/21) and if possible sharper across the frame.</p>

<p>If cost were no concern I would get the Zeiss 21 or perhaps the Cannon 16-35.</p>

<p>The Samyang 14 looks good but it's too wide. If they come out with a 21 that might be my best alternative but who knows if it will happen.</p>

<p>My question is whether the Canon 17-40 or 20/2.8, or some non-Canon lens on an adapter, stopped down, would give up much in across-the-frame sharpness relative to the Zeiss. I can pay up for the Zeiss or the 16-35 but I prefer a cheaper alternative if it gives decent corner sharpness at around 20/21mm when stopped down.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Peter.</p>

 

<p>Peter, nice site. What software are you running it on?</p>

 

A couple of years ago I scanned some old 35mm nitrate B&W negatives and then foolishly put the negative strips

into Print File pages. I stored these Print Files in a loose-leaf binder together with other 35mm Print Files

containing old (1940s/1950s) acetate B&W negatives, modern (1970s to recent) B&W negatives, and one sheet of C-41

negatives from 1994.

 

Today I happened to open the loose-leaf binder and found that the nitrate negatives have self-destructed. They

have bubbled and cracked in their file sleeves, most of the emulsion is gone and what's left is stained brown.

There is a strong vinegar-like odor and many powdery, light-colored deposits both inside and outside of the Print

File sleeves. Some of the non-nitrate negatives are damaged as well, with faded emulsion in the areas that were

closest to the nitrate negatives. (The worst-off of these are the 1940s/1950s acetate negatives that were stored

immediately next to the nitrate negatives, but the modern B&W and C-41 negatives have some damage as well.)

 

I assume that nothing can be done for the nitrate negatives. However, I would appreciate any suggestions on how

to minimize further deterioration of the other negatives. Should I simply rewash the modern B&W and C-41 films,

or is special chemical treatment necessary to stabilize them? Can I treat the old acetate B&W films in the same

way as the modern B&W films, or do the old films require special handling?

 

Thanks for any assistance.