marck mcgill

Dear fellows, I usually keep my gear in foam padded suitcases, and I

started to make the pads from scratch and keep my stuff in hardware

suitcases since my Mamiya retailer asked me 400 Euro for one of those

Mamiya custom cases two months ago - cases in which I could never fit

my gear properly, by the way.

 

Well, as a damper, this home made grey foam padding works great, but

the aesthetics suck to say the least. The problem is cutting those

holes in the foam. I use cutters or other blades, but of course the

foam pad is so thick that it's a PITA and the results are so-so.

Useless to say, no way to cut "round" holes to fit lenses vertically -

just squares, or triangles when I'm in the mood.

 

Who is making his own foam pads here? Is there any better or even

specific way to cut foam?

<i>"Jochen, I'm always on Single actually. I understood that multi was only for multi-exposure ?!? I must admit that I don't understand what you mean ;)"</i><br><br>Say you're on single and you begin to depress the shutter release SLIGHTLY, but then you change your mind and you don't take the picture for one reason or another. Well, there's a specific point in which the multiple exposure prevention system is already triggered, the film advance lever is already released, BUT the shutter has not been fired yet since you didn't depress the shutter button all the way down. <br><br>If you forget that you didn't take the picture and you wind up the film, you will loose a frame. If you remember, instead, the only way to use the "lost frame" is to set the knob on multi and press the shutter button again, or eventually to operate the shutter directly from the lens' shutter lever.<br><br>The sensitivity to this problem is much camera and lens dependent, since it's due to gear tolerances and camera to lens coupling. Jochen eventually had some bad experiences and prefers to run the risk of a double exposure rather than missed frames. My camera seem to be much less prone to this loss of gear synch, so I'm always on "single".

Forgot about the cost: IMHO it would be much cheaper to have them repaired, expecially the 55mm which is pretty rare. Repair should be in the 80 Euro range for each lens, or so it was last time I had mine cleaned. Moreover, consider that you will have a perfectly working, clean and checked pair of lens after the repair, that will last many years if well kept in a fresh, dry place. If you buy another, you'll have chances to run into this problem again almost immediately!

The shutter blades can get glued together on the long run, and need to be disassembled and cleaned. That is due to sticky oily spots on the blades, and is preminently caused by overheating (lenses left in the car on a sunny day, for example). You should be able to see those brownish/blackish spots on the blades. This is quite normal on aged lenses, and the good new is that they will be like new again after a professional cleaning.

 

It's true that the shutter is in the lens in the C330. However, remember that a blind is pulled down towards the film when the "lock-unlock" knob is operated. Since you said you saw the shutter blades stuck, that is likely to be the problem, but check if the blind operates as supposed as well.

I can't see how you could derive such information from that compatibility table - or is it something you personally verified, instead?

 

Here is where you really want to get cautious and ask to the guys of the official Mamiya Forum. From previous discussions, we've found out that the design was definitely changed at one point: to say one thing, the light trap of the early model was repleaced by cheapy foam seals in the later ones. Don't know in detail how much attention has been paid to compatibility, since usually the revolving adapter comes up an dies together with the camera, and few people made experiments.

Hot damn!!! Did the design patent expired, perhaps? I can't even figure how to use this new camera as a "phone"...

Agree with the above, plus I would say that you would agitate it TOO MUCH in that way. Unless you'd turn the machine on and off on some ratio, but then again you would miss the purpose to automate and standardize the procedure...

You mean - WITHOUT a flash installed on the hot shoe???

AAAARRRGGH!!! The only one I never owned or for which I couldn't find a picture!!! You got me, man! ;-)

 

*writing on notebook* leave deductions on production series alone

<i>Mark, I don't think the ability to focus past infinity has anything to do with the filter. Mine focuses past infinity with or without the filter</i><br><br>Now that you say that, you may be totally right. Mine was just an assumption based on the fact that the focusing capability of lenses with rear filters removed VARY. I just THOUGHT that the past-infinite focusing was convenient, I don't even claim that they did that feature <i>intentionally</i>, for one reason! :-)

You can calm down, Jason, you just misunderstood the point, went totally off topic and cut out a pretty poor figure.

 

Now if you can re-read my sentence in peace and find out that I was only pointing to which was the biggest portion of the market, not which pictures were better of which road was to be followed (those being just my subjective thoughts), you'd make me some justice. You may like it or not, but fine art photographers made and make a negligible percentage in producer's profits, so they are almost not even taken in account, whichever their choice was, is or will be: digital or analog.

 

Then yes, I think that wet photography was much more expressive than today's, and the more I see these over-edited colour-manipulated highlights-burned awfully-midtoned "images" of the "new technology", the less I like them. But that was not the point being discussed here. The point was another - it was the ILFORD brand.

 

That said, still anyone's free to say what it's more beautiful for him, since that's personal taste. Did you see an albumine-printing exhibition of the 10's-20's lately, for example? So you took a look at the midtones compression... What about the low lights - did you see those details? Yes, astonishing, you're right. One even forgets that those could be achieved, once upon a time. Ah yeah, and don't even tell me about the highlights - I know, I know :-)

 

That's my PERSONAL taste, that I'm not imposing over anyone. I'm just happy when I meet someone who share my thoughts.

 

After all you're in the winner technology bandwagon which IS being imposed to those who still would like to have photographic papers available - you should be happy and smiling, and pitying the old stuff's fanatics with simpathy and a sense of compassion. I wonder why - instead - you're as harsh as if you had a guilty conscience... May be that you liked your black and white photographs much more than your digital images?

 

With friendship - Marck.

Yup, all Nikkormats were made with mirror lock up, even the later models as far as I know. Jean Baptiste, I guess that an "E" series would fit: from the FT3 on, they were fully AutoIndexing compatible (from what I recall), and it would fit on an older model as well if you accept that the meter won't work correctly since they have no prong. Or so I guess.

 

Thus, no problem with this "Sigma", I would say.

 

Thanks Greg, nice to talk about the Nikkormats and the great days of 35mm again :-)

Yep, the barrel will remain opened. There'll be a thin rectangular slot on one side, near the aperture ring (it recalls an ATM's machine slot for your credit card :-)

 

As said above, I'd be very cautious in purchasing one that misses the standard UV filter. My unit can focus PAST infinity to override an eventual loss of the filter, but I don't know if this feature is common and I guess that the optical rendition would be compromised anyway.

<i><b>Lee Shively</b> , aug 24, 2004; 01:28 p.m.

I hope the company survives. HP5 and Pan F are virtually all I shoot and MG Warmtone is my favorite paper. It's one more reason for me to continue to detest digital and all it has brought to photography.</i><br><br>Agree. Nice to meet someone to still have eyes to tell a photograph from a picture. (*handshake*)<br><br>

 

<i><b>Kevin Dean</b> , aug 24, 2004; 05:50 p.m.

I can't understand you people blaming Digital for the demise of film, it has nothing to do with digital, it has a lot to do with the dis-loyalty of film users who have turned there backs on film, in the same way that many turned their backs on large format when 35mm came along. Film should survive, maybe not in all flavours, and maybe not your favourites, but realy you are to blame for not shooting enough!</i><br><br>It's not so easy, I would say. The people who jumped on the "let's go digital" bandwagon are mainly of two kinds:<br><br>

 

1) folks with no clue with fine art - I mean the casual shooters - for whom the quality of film has never been an issue since they have always used crappy fixed-focus cameras, and who of course like the convenience of digital photoCRAPhy.<br><br>

 

2) professionals who had enough of spending entire gloomy days in darkrooms breathing acids and dealing with dust to print quality pictures for people who wouldn't tell a fine art photograph from a newspaper illustration.<br><br>

 

Well, if I really pity the 1s, I don't approve but still understand the point of the 2s (and would probably do the same if I had the misfortune of having photography as a work). I have always been loyal to film and will always be, but the BIG market - sorry to say - was in the hands of 1 and 2. No way I will use as much film in my entire life as a wedding (*groan*) shooter professional would in one single year of work.<br><br>

 

Film will survive for sure, there's no doubt, and I figure that it will have a BIG bounce back within 5-10 years when people will have had enough of D and will have a total recall for black and white. Just consider that - NOW - Super8 film is having a moment of great popularity. Me, I never quit shooting Double8mm, which is still available. Please note that both these formats should be died and buried by YEARS, overwhelmed by the videotape. Today's tendency, instead, is to think that the way in which videotape looks sucks.<br><br>

 

Thus, the question is not "if" it will survive. The question is "which brand"? There are few dark years to pass ahead, then - whichever will be the brand to survive - it will automatically find itself to be the leader of the market. Kodak will sure give up - those guys never had any love for their products. Ilford always seemed to be on pole position, and I think it still is. This is probably just a capitalist strategy: they're renaming a company, making compartments, I'm sure they will avoid a lot of taxes by doing so, and they will be back on the market as usual. I'm quite positive about them.

You can definitely have a good 30x40 print from a 6x7 negative, that's for sure - granted that 4x5 will always be better of course. Didn't get what you mean with "dust factor".

 

Specifically, I wouldn't say that the RB is the most convenient choice for night shots. You can certainly use it for that purpose, but the fact that it offers only a "T" and not a "B" mode is quite annoying. You can use a hat or whatever else to darken the lens before closing the shutter, though, not a big deal. It's just not very convenient.

 

The price seems fine to me if the camera is in good conditions. Don't wanna go to deep here though, since prices in Europe are on a different range.

Jeez! Why things like this never happen to me??? :'-(

Sorting them into albums is a must, methinks. Something handy is more likely to be kept in good order in a library or museum than loose prints and a bunch of negs (of an unknown photographer like me, I mean). I'm sorting both my negatives and prints in albums, whatever will be their end. I'm trying to be scientific and write all I can remember even of my first shots: year, place, materials... That will be of great interest in the far future, I guess. The papers we are using right now will probably be discontinued sooner or later, and people will like to see how the pictures we took back "now" looked.

 

Not that I hope that my prints will not make it directly to the city dump, but who knows? I'm sure treasuring the shots that my father took in the 70s, maybe someone will do the same with mines. Plus, he was an actor in his youth, and I really see that the pictures made at his shows - even though he's still not an "old" man - are turning into a piece of history and development of my hometown. I'm right now taking care of sorting them on empty "vintage" albums (that I purchase at yard sales) right now. Not even to mention the earliest pictures of my family - the first ones date back to the 19th century.

 

Agree with Cibachromes, I have made many during the years (I'm actually still using Ilfochrome Classic) and I bet they will last much longer than any of the slides from which they were made. I'm sure that some Mr. Knowitall will disagree in the next post as usual, but I am truly persuaded that the silver-dye-bleach method has no rivals, and I will probably quit color printing as soon as it will be discontinued. My only worry is with the plastic base. Plastic tends to get fragile on the long run. Even though my first Cibachrome is still in perfect shape, I wonder what will happen on the long run. Paper may turn yellowish, but has proven to be more stable than plastic, I guess.

You should really test the shutters, at least. If they all work fine and don't need any repair, this is the cheapest Linhof set I've seen in all my life. Suspiciously cheap, I would say.

Oh, I see, you want pure yellow. What about aerograph spraying the print with yellow china ink? I did it one time and worked pretty well. Since you're working with fiber base, you may even experiment with a "toning" bath instead of spraying: try increasing concentrations of ink over water.

You sure know that there are many photographic papers with a yellow or even brownish fiber base and various textures and surfaces available on the market. Why, specifically, you don't want to use one of those?

Huh, sorry Paul, I didn't notice you were not the first poster of the thread. Make believe I had a "delete" button for the above post.

Paul, do you have some specific idiosyncrasy for shooting a test film with this - I'm sure - perfectly working lens BEFORE going for a repair work like that?

However, my humble experience tell me that a scratch in the front lens is nominally undetectable in the final print. I've used scratched lenses many times in the years and the pictures were just perfect. No flares or whatsoever. It makes sense if you think about how infinitesimal is the area of the scratch compared to the area of the whole front lens - that's what counts, in the end. I would just buy the lens and use it, if the price is good.

Hi Eddie, something similar has been recently discussed here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00986P

 

As far as I remember, the 50mm won hands off the 65mm for versatility considerations. I personally own the "C" model and never tried the non-C. I like that lens a lot and yes, it compares quite to what you get with a 24mm, which is a cool feature in mid format.

 

My guess is that the non-C is quite as good if used with a hood, and I would buy it with no problems if it was a good deal. Mid-format lenses of brands who care about quality - and Mamiya is historically well known to be among those - are always good, there's not the mess you can find in 35mm gears. As someone else recently said, your best lens is your tripod, in mid format!

Funny how it has already turned into a pro/versus D70 thread, notwithstanding my prologue... ;-)

 

Lex, you got me wrong. The main point is that I (as many others, I guess) basically enjoy the forums at the office, during lunch or whatever. Let's say during "spare time". Well, I'm sure not a dwell of information for anyone, but I think that few times I really placed the right answer in the right place - as many times someone else did with one of my inquiries - and it's been a true pleasure. Without even mentioning how much I learned by lurking.

 

Well, recently I very seldom jump onto the Nikon board, because I already know that all of the chat will be about digi or autofocus, and unfortunately the time to go through the threads is always limited. Moreover, many digi users seem to be beginners in both photography and forums (I guess that digi's convenience rises a lot of interest in people who abandoned or never used film cameras), which adds more difficulty in skipping things due to lack of clarity in the thread's titles. But I see your point, and knew from the beginning that changing things is always a pain, expecially in a Forum with such an impressive number of members.

 

In reagard to what JB Queru wrote, maybe a manual / autofocus split was more in my thoughts. That's where I noticed the big change back then, started seeing tons (actually: grams ;-) of plastic, cheaply barreled lenses and - personally - lost any interest in following the history of the brand any further. What about at least splitting the cathegories in which the topics are archived? Today almost everything fits into the "Nikon SLRs" cathegory.