Brian Carter

I think it's a reverse adaptor K or a reverse ring light adaptor K. More explanation can be found on the Pentax K-Mount Page in the section dedicated to macro.

 

I searched 'Pentax K' in the macro forum, and came up with 0 results.

Could you clarify your directions, please? Thanks.

I'm 90% certain that it's the lower lens mount from something similar to an Bowens Illumitran slide duplicator. The lens would bayonet in on one side and the other side would mount in an opening on the lower part of the bellows. The groove is there to allow the lens to be rotated and then held in place by a set screw so you could make sure the aperture ring was centered in the front of the unit

 

[ATTACH=full]1281510[/ATTACH]

Thank you I will look into that.

Thank you. Yes, it is the mount that would be on the camera body. That's why I hedged calling the other side a T-mount -

even though it might be missing the bolt part - because the 'socket' side was so wide.

It's a 54mm diameter rim. As the pictures show it's quite large compared to the mount.

I don't know of any T's this size. and it doesn't make sense to have mounts for lenses on both sides of an adapter.

 

My guess now is that it's for mounting lenses on a specialty camera, maybe one that takes lensboards?

P.S. Shouldn't I move this thread to the Pentax section?

Thanks.

Thank you, John. The mating ring with clamping screws would be on the receiving optics, yes?

I think these mounts are for telescopes, large microscopes, CRT displays, lab equipment, etc., not for lenses.

But i've never seen one this size before - it appears to fit in a 54mm opening.

Just so I'm not treading water in the wrong forum - can someone please verify that this is a minolta mount?

The mount itself looks Minolta, but the moving pin seems to be in a different location.

Thanks/

P.S. Is the other side a T-mount, in a different than usual diameter? Is there such a thing?

Thanking you all in advance.... I have wondered about the below pictured small (60 x 69 x 22mm) modular flash bracket for a year.

Now i'm trying to ease back into photo.net, and the first thing I have is questions. Some nerve.

 

I used to shoot with a Rollei 35S, and I've seen many small cameras - this bracket has no maker ID, but it is well machined and appears to be versatile, but for a specific unusual camera -

- It has both plug-in connections, and a pc socket.

So it will accommodate a hot shoe connection, or a pc one?

- The threaded screw will only work on an extruded socket.

(That extrusion needs to fit into the recess around the screw.)

- As the screw wheel is turned, small holes in the back of the wheel are revealed through an opening on the camera side of the bracket.

Perhaps one of the holes turns into position to receive a spring-loaded pin, to keep the wheel from turning during use?

 

It's the little details like that that kept me interested.

Any ideas?

 

Hmm. I was certain that I had written a reply, telling you that you were spot-on, Dave.

And my first premise is wrong, they are for the 2500 after all.

I missed the relationship between the thin slot above the SB-4 socket at the base of the 2500,

and the circuit 'plug' that extends into the receiving area on the module.

Together, it's quite a different look - and it puts variable auto exposure controls on the front of the flash,

so you can make easy ratio adjustments from the subject side.

All this time - right under my nose. Thank you. My question is fully answered.

 

Ha! You know, I am just now realizing that you are the buyer of these, Dave!

Thanks for your help. I'm surprised at how little information is available with a specific search online.

 

I think they might qualify as a real curiosity - a curio? - better than that, at the least.

I wonder how many were made? No matter - Time to move on, it's your hobby now.

/Cheers

Hello. Among my odd items is this Minolta lens to clamp-on mount.

I think it's a MN lens mount - it looks close, but not exact.

The other side of the adapter is a grooved rim, of the kind that would accept screw clamps.

 

Clearly I am ignorant of just about everything about this adapter.

Does anyone recognize it? Thank you/

 

Thanks all for the contributions, I needed to pick up my meter and I needed a moment from crisis for hobby stuff. Turns out the negative probe on my meter has a hard plastic sheath around the tip, leaving just a pinpoint. Fine for detail work, not so much for tight spaces. It does not fit into the outside shoe slots, to reach the metal contact there.

I got some readings using the positive probe in the pc hole, and tripping the flash. The range of 13.9v to 4.9v that i got fits with the 14.1 shown on the dpanswers website voltage list for the Vivitar 2500 i was measuring.

 

Unfortunately, by the time i (later) put my mystery adapter on the same 2500, my meter had stopped reading anything. The display shows strong visible zeros, but never budges from that. Maybe I blew out a probe?

Whatever, I will need to have a functioning tester - this one says every battery in the house is dead... ;-)

I'll get back to you.

 

Even if these things prove to be voltage reducers, it doesn't answer how they came to be. If home or shop made, the assembly quality is high.

I'll try taking one apart.

Thanks again/

P.S. I read that reverse polarity is not at all good for digital slrs - not sure if it makes a difference in the mechanical cameras, or old TTL systems.

You are correct re the purchase of a box of accessories, but that's it.

Let me help you ;-)

The Vivitar dedicated modules are part of the body of a particular line of flash units. They each contain the necessary hot shoe contacts for a particular camera line, and they also include the auto control sensor. Instead of receiving a hot shoe, they clip onto the bottom of a flash head. The larger connection area allowed for multiple contact points, allowing more information and functions.

 

The Vivitar DM/ modules (DM/O, P, N, M, C..) are used with their 3000 & 4000 series flashes (not all of them). The PM/ series is used with their 5000 series flashes.

Having never seen the DA/ modules before, I spent the usual 15 mins on Google before I asked questions.

The result was 2 references to using them with the '2500 series' flashes.

I don't know what that is, seeing as how the 2500 flash (my first picture), doesn't even take modules.

 

So...Still a mystery to me... but a touch more complex than first impressions might imply.

No, it's not the 2500 Thyristor flash. That doesn't accept modules. I've attached photos of the modules, and a 2500 flash.

The numbering is not very convenient. Thanks/Brian

 

Thanks. I've googled voltage reducers, and I only find the Wein model.

If not, what are they?

 

Anyone know what this Fuji accessory is used for? Thank you/Brian

<p>You are correct, sir.</p>

<p>Hmm. I browsed to the new scans, clicked 'submit changes'; but 12 hours later the images have not changed? What am I missing?</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>I would like to upload improved scans of the Polaroids that I have had in my portfolio for some time. The existing images are from low resolution scans, with some poor Photoshop work in places. I have much better digital copies of my Polaroids now. How can I upload the new scans without losing all the comments? One of them was a POW, and I don't want to lose all the history. Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>David makes it clear that he not only fails to 'get' the majority of images in this category - he also lives in London, in London yet, and he cannot unlock the key to taking meaningful pictures. He admits this, and expresses the desire that it be otherwise...</p>

<p>I suggest shooting in black & white - whether film or digital - and learn how to exploit the exposure range. A full range of tones gives a photo depth.<br />Then study the geometry of your scene - is there a separation of elements? do you control the lines and borders? Figures and shapes influence emotion.<br />Are you trying to take good photographs? Stop that right now. Instead, take pictures that say something about what you're taking pictures of. Or say something about you. Do a good job, but stop trying to take great photos.<br />Edit your shots like a stranger. Anything personally appealing must be discarded in evaluating your choices. In a good photograph, the drama must exist even if you do not.<br />Try that for a year. Shoot a couple rolls a week. Get back to us.</p>

<p>Marc Williams. Congratulations.</p>

 

<p>Hi Christina. Good question. I like Marcus Williams' response: photojournalism tells a story within the picture. Good examples of the genre are no more 'snapshots' than any other accomplished photogaphy. Many of the greats have had no qualms about manipulating the scene and/or the print to achieve their desired result (Cartier-Bresson, Eugene Smith).</p>

<br />

<p>Technically, photojournalists produce images for distribution through the media - to illuminate and inform. What I believe you are asking about is nothing less than the sum total of what makes a strong photographic image - control of the medium and of the craft. Forgive me, but using your posted photo as an example:</p>

<br />

<p>1) The bride's head is in the center of the photo. The Rule of Thirds is only a guide, but it is a guide. Elements need balance and/or flow to interest us and produce an emotional response. Once I have my subject in the viewfinder I spend most of my time reviewing what's happening around the edges. 2) The background highlights distract us from the intended subject. The eye goes to the highlights (i'm talking b&w), and they should be used to control what the viewer sees. 3) There is no separation of elements. Drama comes from the way we perceive shapes, and interesting shapes are created by the spaces between content.</p>

<br />

<p>Wedding photos need only satisfy the client, and the bride in that photo may be delighted with the emotions she feels, looking at it and knowing what's going on. But it is not successful as a photojournalistic image because it only provides routine information, not enough to get a stranger involved. We have no questions about what happened before or what will come after...</p>

<br />

<p>Speaking of strangers, the PJ, or 'street' approach, at a wedding, requires sticking your normal perspective lens into people's personal spaces. A lot. If you are not comfortable doing that; if you don't feel that it is your right because you are entrusted with the job of getting good images; then I don't suggest it. If you feel awkward it will show in the shots. Working to make people more comfortable while you're walking around shooting will make you more comfortable, and people will respond to that.</p>

<br />

<p>The artistic advantage of shooting in b&w is that the amount of information is reduced. It is easier to control the emotional impact of an image when you're just working with shapes and the zone system (exposure and development control). People have highly personal responses to colors, and lots of contrast is often necessary to provide interest. I think when we call b&w 'artistic', we're talking about feeling more comfortable, more at ease - wanting to go in and search the image rather than feeling it thrust at us.</p>

<br />

<p>Thanks. I think I needed to think about this myself. I hope my portfolio backs up my words. I always come back to 2 simple rules: Take a LOT of pictures; and ONLY show people the good ones. For wedding photography, i'd add a third rule: control your fill flash.</p>

 

Oh, his technique - sorry. Here goes:<br>

1) Take a Lot of pictures.

2) Take more pictures.<br>

3) Only show people the good ones.

One of my favorite all-time. Always looking, always shooting. <br>

His proof sheets do show him to have set up many of his iconic shots, at least the people... The practice seems to

have been common. Nonetheless, he's the first master at catching geometry on the fly. His portraits don't tend to

have the energy so many of his street shots do, but his best 20 is world-class historical art.

Oops. I'm an Olympus user - shouldn't have assumed Teressa's meaning...

Teressa it may be helpful to point out that what you call the 'minimum value' is an inverse number - it represents the

widest diameter opening for your lens. You leave the lens wide open, both so the camera has the full range of

apertures available and to improve the viewfinder/screen image.<p>

Mechanical shutters, stops or no stops, need help to be accurate. Opening up ( 1.4, 2.8, 3.5, whatever) each time

before setting your desired aperture gives more consistent results than simply moving the ring from one setting to

another, say, from f/11 to f/5.6. Especially as equipment gets older, and certainly with film cameras.

Well now, that is something... Thanks.