mjferron

I picked up a 2nd Canonet G3 QL in superb condition. Even has new light seals.

All for $60 Not bad. My question is battery position. I use 675 hearing aid

batteries and now I can't seem to get them to work. Does the + face the front

or back of the camera? I don't see any indicators on the camera's battery

chamber. I use foil to take up the slck but when I get the meter working it

works backward. Reverse the battery and the meter doesnt work at all. I had my

first camera working fine using these batteries before so i don't know what I'm

doing wrong.

 

Thanks,

Mike

Michael Harris said

 

"I haven't got control of the DOF of the Nikon 50 1.4 on my Panasonic yet but I will :)

 

And Patrick Dempsey says

 

"Good luck on that f/1.4, without the benefit of a bright viewfinder, they are rediculous to focus!

 

My question gentlemen is what about the focus indicator dot in the viewfinder? Does it still function as well when using the adaptor? That would help some.

Well I just bought a fotodiax adapter on ebay. I blame you folks for this. :0 Thank you for the replies.

 

Mike

Actually I don't care so much about the IS but metering would be nice. And.. BTW those lenses are exotic for me. LOL

Do these adapters allow metering and maintain IS on my 510? I know it's stop

down manually and all but my mind is thinking major $$ savings here. Hmm my 75-

150e becomes a high quality 150-300 3.5 telephoto. My 50 f2 becomes a portrait

lens. The possibilities are endless. Someone encourage me. :)

I use a 675 hearing aid battery in mine along with a small ball of foil to hold it tight. I've found I needed to set the cameras ISO at 200 to equal the 100 ISO reading my other meters give for the same light. Not a biggie really.

They look good. What did you rate the film at Stan?

Aggitation was constant for the 1st 30 seconds and 10 seconds on the top of each minute.

 

"The 'new' Tmax400 was tested by John Sexton and he came up with E.I. 250 in D-76 1:1, seven minutes, 68 F. Maybe there will be better results with even lower E.I."

 

I'm surprised at the short devlopment time for the new tmax 400 at 250 but if John Sexton says so it's good enough for me.

Larry and John thanks for the compliments. Rothelle that's a fine shot.

So I decide to try shooting a roll of Tri-x 400 @100 and processing it in D76 1-

1 for 7.5 minutes. I heard it work s well. Problem is I accidently installed

Tmax 400 into my Nikon FE and shot it @100. I'm thinking disaster but since it

was an experiment I decided to have fun and develop the film as described

above. (BTW the temp was 67f). I was expecting a mess but was quite shocked how

well things came out. Shadows were open as expected and highlights were in

check for the most part. What shocked me was the lack of grain. I mean like

none. Pretty much as clean as Tmax 100. And that's scanned which often in my

experience exaggerates the grain. Oh and the glow. This roll glowed for me.

Would love to hear of anyone else's similar experience. Please see example

photo. One of the better of the bunch.<div></div>

Thanks for the repies folks. I don't use a flash with the camera but wanted to be sure the lever position wasn't important. I think on a Yashicamat if it's not on x when used with the self timer you can cause problems. Wanted to make sure I didn't have any with the cord.

Are there any precautions when using 1/500 or bulb like cocking the shutter

first? Also can there be a bad position for the flash lever? Mine is set on M

right now. I know some old cameras need to be set to X to avoid problems.

 

Many thanks,

Mike

I've shot many waterfalls @ ISO 200 with great results. F16 and a polarizer or ND grad or straight ND will get your times down. Overcast conditions with lower light levels are best for moving water anyway.<div></div>

I'm sure Nikon will sell about 5X the D300's compared to the D3. The improved image quality will probably be visable only in large prints. All this keeping up with the Digital Jones's just makes me want to shoot my FE more and more. $400 gets you a nice looking body and 3-4 quality primes. LOL. It's a never ending hole. Two years from now everyone will be tossing their D3's for the new D4.

For the record B&H still has the 645N in stock and lists the 67 as out of stock.

If you want F16 for decent DOF you are going to need a true ISO 400 more often than not. You get in the shadows and that shutter speed drops in a hurry. I've shot HP5 at 500 with fine results.

Why would you need exposure compensation in manual? use a meter, shoot and bracket if you deem it necessary.

For me Tmax 100. shoot at 80 and develop in D76 1-1 68 degrees for 9 minutes. Even in 35mm grain is not an issue and it's about as sharp as it gets.

Why not? It's about as sharp as it gets and affordable too. Might be a bit long for full body shots though.

I've been very pleased with Tmax 100 shot at ISO 80 and developed in D76 1-1 @ 68 degrees (20 c) for 9 minutes. Give it a try.

Thanks Lynn. Actually I scanned a few more frames from the same roll and didn't have the same level of grain as i did in the attachment. Obviously exposure, light, processing, etc are all coming into play here. I'll give the ISO 200/ D76 1.1 a try on the next roll. Thank you.

Thanks to the legitimate replies here. As far as the dumb digital reply well I have a fine digital camera but enjoy shooting old classic cameras and film. My question had nothing to do with digital and everything to do with what i did wrong. My scans were made on a Minolta scan dual 4. Not the best but a decent scanner and I'm pretty good with it. I also print in the darkroom but first do a test scan to check exposure, sharpness etc. Results with other film/developer combos have yielded better results.

 

Mike

Yes distilled water. I thought that was good?

This is a crop of the original but the grain looks bad even on a 6x9 print.<div></div>

And more grain. Yikes. Just tried out a new (old) Canonet and shot some tri-X

4oo @ 320. I developed it in D76 1-1 and 68 degrees for 10 minutes. Exposures

were ok but the grain on the scanned image was outrageous. Much worse than the

Tmax 400 and HP5 films I've used before. I read somewhere that Tri-x was

slightly less grainy than Tmax 400 but not in my book. What is it i did wrong

and what do I do to make it right?

 

Thanks,

Mike