astral

Steve, You need counselling ..... and for that matter so do I. Nowadays I ask myself:

 

"Do I really NEED this xyz?"

 

"Will I really ever USE this xyz?"

 

"Can I AFFORD this xyz?"

 

"Do I really WANT this xyz?"

 

"Could I spend my money in a BETTER way?" This is my killer question.

 

On this basis, my last three camera fairs resulted in no purchases - as a reward for being "good" a nominal 20 pounds goes into my real wish list account - namely a long holiday in a super photographic location.

 

If I actually genuinely NEED an xyz, abc or whatever I buy it (sensible price, of course) and use it: I can always get more money, but will never get more time.

Try:

 

Euro Photographic Services, Tel: 0116 2674247, 150 Harrowgate Dv, Birstall, Leicester LE4 3GP.

 

Ed Trzoska(?spelling) - no website. Specialises in older Zeiss cameras, etc.

 

I know nothing about Dave Ash - only that there are no visible contact details on his website. A bit dumb at best ....

Anthony - I hope this helps:

 

High contrast can increase 'apparent' sharpness, but is not necessarily directly linked to actual sharpness. Low contrast does not invariably lead to greater sharpness, and greater sharpness does not necessarily mean lower contrast. I believe that Erwin Puts has written on this topic, particularly from the Leica perspective, and asserts that the conventional wisdom which directly linked contrast and sharpness is generally invalid.

 

Clearly, when aiming a particular lens at a particular market, manufacturers must always consider whether the design should have high real sharpness (capable of high degree of enlargement), or high

apparent sharpness (looks 'snappy' at smaller enlargements), etc. Such 'compromises' seem to be common on some cheaper and simpler lenses, particularly in compact fixed lens cameras, but appear to be uncommon in premium branded slr lenses, etc.

 

Super-wide angles, long telephotos and zooms characteristically involve more contrast/sharpness trade-offs than 'normal' focal length lenses. For example: my Tokina SL 17mm is apparently less sharp and actually less contrasty than my Fujinon EBC 19mm: the Fujinon is far crisper and snappy due in part to better lens coatings, but in reality the differences in resolution between the lenses is fairly small - the optical formulas, I believe, are pretty similar. The Fujinon is a super lens, the Tokina is OK.

 

My experience of the 55/1.8 Takumar has always been that it is a high class design of its era, genuinely providing high resolution and very good contrast: it isn't a 'fudged' design.

Ask yourself honestly: do you need a Leica - or do you just desire one?

 

As others have suggested - If you are likely to want to use 35mm or 90mm lenses you may find an M3 to be less satisfactory than an M2 for the viewfinder framelines. If you are going to use a 28mm much of the time, then the M2 and M3 both need an acessory viewfinder which can be a pain. In comparison, the M6TTL (0,58 v/finder) shows the 28/35/50/75/90 .. etc, framelines.

 

I have an M2 and M6TTL. I like the M2 with 35/2.8 Summaron best - pick it up set exposure below eye-level and pre-focus, and just shoot with it.

 

With the M6TTL & 35/2 Summicron, it's all fumble for me: switch on, set s/s dial, meter using a narrow aperture ring, fiddle focus to find the rangefinder patch ... and just wish I was holding my Nikon FE2 with proper meter (needle) display, big aperture ring and 'guaranteed' focussing .... Oh, I'll get used to it, but I always reach for the M2 first!

The ubiquitous Canon A620, A80, and D70 ...

The Stetson Hat, Bowler Hat and the Cloth Cap. And for 4x4 drivers green wellies (gum-boots). Definitive personal statements ...

Roger's photograph is published weekly on the back page of Amateur Photographer (UK). For those of you who may not have seen it, it shows a bushy-bearded Gandalf-ish (not Gandolfi-ish) sort of guy with a monocle. I think a Rolleiflex, Retina and/or Voigtlander Vito B, Spotmatic, or Brownie box camera could fit the bill and enhance Roger's inherent iconic looks nicely! And of course the iconic Billingham bag.

Steve - if you need some genuine and relevant help with your actual question mail me ..... I have satifactorily been using a Nikon MF and AF system with good interchangeability. Cheers, Alan

Alternatively - have you checked that the batteries are seating correctly? A jolt could slightly compress the terminal springs and cause an open circuit. The 401 isn't a particularly robust camera in my experience, and a jolt could cause a poor contact under the display panel where are control/command board is located - probably quite uneconomic to repair. If you choose to replace the camera please don't buy another 401! The F801 (N8008) is a far better camera and nowadays they are really cheap - or far, far better a F80/N80.

 

A better "napsack" seems to be called for, too.

 

Cheers, Alan

Sorry not a clue, the safest option therefore is scrap the camera, trash the bag, sell the vehicle ;-)

An automotive matt black that I use is matt enough and black enough for almost all camera applications - so much so that I cannot actually tell a resprayed from an original hood, etc. After spraying (metal hoods only) a little 'baking' under the grill hardens the paint nicely. It's that simple!

Nice one Allen!

 

Any more information on using beer? I'd love to do a beerograph! I know I am a bit light sensitive after a few beers.

 

If you know enough about the basic chemistry and/or are willing to experiment, then all sorts of opportunities open up with household items ..... rather than bought-in emulsions, etc as Nina asked.

I use foam from an old (thin) mouse mat, steel rule and scalpel etc. For those areas where I need a thick pad (eg around film indicator windows, etc) the loop part of black self-adhesive Velcro works well. I use double-sided adhesive tape sparingly.

 

I have done around 10 cameras, including the mirror damping strips. 20 minute job.

If you want to make a negative film the options are pretty limited, if you want to make your own photographic paper there are some fun ways.

 

As a starter, have a look at the links below which describe the cyanotype/gum bichromate process, etc. While some of the materials are "readily available" they are not usually found in grocers' shops or "under the kitchen sink". There are other non-silver, chemical processes - Google: Calotype, Cyanotype, for example, or browse Wikipedia for history of photography.

 

I am trying to recall a fun process that used some plant extracts ... not likely to be of use unless you have the right plants, and I'm sure some are toxic.

 

A key limitation is that many "early" or "alternative" methods involved materials that are nowadays considered risky, and they give fuzzy, low contrast (but appealing) images that fade quite quickly.

 

http://www.gumphoto.co.uk/

 

http://www.siouxsan.com/

 

http://www.siouxsan.com/glossary.html#gum

JD - Are you a geologist?

 

Agreed, superb terrain! I camped backcountry off some dirt road (?Bullfrog - my maps are at work) with Bryce to the west, Staircase to the east, top end of Grand Canyon just visible to the south - all mine for 8 hours. Superb sunset, fabulous sunrise. So the sounds at 2am were dinosaurs then? Gee, I didn't realise they came out at night!

Jonathan

 

Here's a small but great website. There are some nice photos of classic 35mm rf cameras, but also many superb photos taken with the actual cameras. The text is in Japanese. There are on-page cross-links and external links to a few other sites, so click away! The Classic Camera link is worth a look.

 

http://www.wa.commufa.jp/~xylocopa/cc/menu.html

 

(It is difficult to Google)

 

I'll need to fire up an old off-line PC to get all my past favourites/bookmarks, then check them before posting.

I wish I knew! But ...

 

I do feel that there is a difference - albeit indefinable - between a "photograph" in which a significant vestige of the original source image remains recognisable, and "graphic art" which uses bits of photographic and other images, plus visual effects (eg scans or extreme manipulation) to create a highly derivative or synthesised picture.

 

For example, some of Graham Heywood's "creative" pictures (link below) are presented as "photographs" and are seen in photographic exhibitions (and win photographic awards/accolades) across the UK.

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.heywood1/Main%20Index.htm

 

Personally I feel many such "creations" are far too derivative, and manipulated, to ever be called "photographs". For me they are purely "graphic art" and have absolutely no connection or relevance to photography as I know it ... frankly, I struggle to see some even as being "art".

Hi David

 

Just for comparison, the newer Discoveries are pretty decent on-road, comfortable in the front, but not great in the back. Their strengths are in their combined on/off-road capability (diff. lock, low ratio, etc), and fuel economy. Cruising '95 300TDi gives at least 32mpg (GB gallon) on a reasonable run (35mpg on a 550mile non-stop run from Austria to N. Belgium) and at worst 28mpg when commuting. The family Corolla is 42/32mpg in comparison. As for "snowy/cold" the traction is good, the heating is 'adequate'.

 

Hello Roger, I just mailed some extra info (re:Ronse) to you at your registered member's email address.

 

Cheers all, Alan

Yes, that's a nice website - but there's some rather tasteless use of coloured bellows at times!

 

I have many more favourite classic camera links if anyone wants them? These cover m.f. folders and some nice sites covering 35mm fixed lens rangefinders. If there's interest I could post them as a new topic.

 

Alan

I like the photo, Mark - Yes, keep it, use it, enjoy it.

 

I have a couple of Super Baldaxes: one with a Baldinar has pretty average performance; one with a Rodenstock Trinar and one with a Radionar. These two are both quite acceptable performers from f8 onwards. For me the main advantage, other than pocketability, is that for candids no-one seems bothered by fuddy-duddy with a silly old camera ... you surely can't be taking pictures of them? As ever, pics are sharper if I use a tripod at the slower speeds - and I find a hood is most desirable. 40.5mm filters & hoods are easy to find.

 

There's a nice website featuring info on Baldas (and other folders) plus some comparative photos at: http://www.certo6.com/index.html

 

Alan

Ilse, let's keep it a secret! ;-)

 

I guess you are quite familiar with the district? For a Land Rover driver Ronse has the advantage of being a small, easy to navigate town. Unlike Kortrijk which is, however, a nicer town by far with photogenic parts, but it has a horrible one-way system and no through traffic. Don't tell anyone about Oudenaarde!

 

But at Markt just S of Kortrijk there's a monthly(?) Boerensmarkt (farmers' market). This is a good place to stock up on fresh fruit and eat organic strawberries, boerenworst(?) ie hot-dogs and drink 'Hoegy' etc all day ...... Only four weeks to go, I'm hungry already.

 

Cheers, Alan

Craig -

 

You may be right, but it also seems most likely that the practical/engineering problems in the lens design may be an overriding factor in diaphragm positioning. The actual position of the diapragm is an interesting one since it affects many aspects the final image. For example, Geoffrey Crawley suggested recently (Amateur Photographer (UK) article, sometime in the last few months I think) that it is the placement of the diaphragm which is primarily responsible for the curvature of field issues in lenses/images. I was a bit surprised by this and must re-read it as it seems rather counter-intuitive, like much in optics, physics and life generally.

 

Certainly the position of the diaphragm in modern, compared to older, Elmar 50mm lenses seems to be a significant factor in the many improvements seen in the current Elmar. However, I only have the old 50/28 Elmar and cannot make a direct comparison. I think Erwin Puts covers this issue on his website. If I was half as organised as I should be I'd be able to quickly find the Crawley & Puts articles and read them more carefully. I'd especially like to read all of Mr Crawley's technical articles that have appeared in AP, but taking photos is a bit more rewarding than keeping the 'grey matter' entertained.

 

The links Bob suggests seem to cover most of the issues nicely, and make up for the deficiencies in my ramblings! Anyway, where's Roger Hicks when you need him?

Hi Ilse

 

I think "we" have confused you. Roger and I are in England. I use Ronse as a nodal point on my trips to Europe - accomodation, place to have car serviced, friends nearby, etc. Some day I may even reocate there.

 

Yes, agree it is a nice district, with rolling countryside and woodland; very different to other parts of Flanders. However it's not really 4x4 territory; I think I only know of one dirt road that requires 4WD. And you're rarely more than 1km from a house or village hereabouts.

 

Regards, Alan

Ooops - shudda checked it better!

 

In the above: "A down-side of retrofocus designs is that field illumination (and sharpness) in the corners of the image can suffer, compared to non-retrofocus designs: modern formulations have 'largely' overcome this."

 

Should read: "A down-side of non-retrofocus designs is that field illumination (and sharpness) in the corners of the image can suffer, compared to retrofocus designs: modern formulations have 'largely' overcome this."

 

Well, it is 2am here!

A note on retrofocus lens designs and dof, etc:

 

These are essentially reversed telephoto designs in which the effective focal length of the lens is less than its physical backfocus distance (ie the distance between the rear lens element and the image plane).

 

In principal, an additional wide angle 'supplementary' lens is placed in front of the main lens components, thus shifting the nodal point "forwards" (this is the origin of 'retro' - moves the nodal point "back" towards the front of the lens), thereby allowing the 'exit pupil' (rear elements) to be placed farther away from the film plane - primarily to allow space for a slr's mirror-box.

 

While all this has the effect of shortening the focal length, a retrofocus lens will invariably be physically longer than its focal length implies: some very short focal length retrofocus lenses are very wide at the front (the "supplementary" component) and pretty long too. A down-side of retrofocus designs is that field illumination (and sharpness) in the corners of the image can suffer, compared to non-retrofocus designs: modern formulations have 'largely' overcome this.

 

The design & construction of a lens has no practical bearing on the extent of depth of field - the diaphragm settings do, of course. But the placement of the diaphragm, as well as other aspects of the lens design, do impact significantly on the out of focus (and in focus) images, flatness of field, and control of chromatic and spherical abberations, etc. Lenses which have variable defocus are more complicated and require more explanation than any of us should really need to know! :-)

 

Fingers are crossed that I got all that right! It's amazing what gems are stored away in my memory .... the problem nowadays is getting them out when I need 'em!!

 

Alan