dave_powell1

Hey, please post some images taken with this camera when you can! It's an wonderfully retro-looking little chunk of Bakelite! And I've always been curious how well it performs...especially since they are so cheap on "the 'Bay." (Well, actually, it is kinda fun to watch the bids skyrocket when one of the rare pink ones pops up for auction...give me black any day. The 225's little brother is the Beacon (or the Beacon 2, with its connector for an external Beacon flash). These smaller cameras took the old 828 roll film, which is actually the same width as modern 35mm, but with a paper backing). The Beacons were manufactured in Chicago (I believe) by Whitehouse Products...which needed to find new uses for Bakelite when the market for its radios saturated.

It's not really an "old factory or building"... but how 'bout the Delta waterworks? Some neat backgrounds there! (The police might question you, though.) Or how 'bout the Kinderdike windmills? (Overdone?)

On both domestic and overseas flights, I've had very little problem carrying on camera equipment. Just don't plan to run from the curb to the plane at the last minute, because your gear is almost GUARANTEED to get one (and sometimes two) inspections...the second one just before you enter the plane on international flights.

 

The only item that has attracted undue attention was an old Kodak tabletop tripod...the one with three thin metal legs that screw into a little round metal camera platform. I once had three security agents debating whether the legs were really screwdrivers! One female agent also turned to my wife, winked, and said: "You have my sympathies." Other more modern tripods have not grabbed extra attention.

 

I've also had no problems with X-ray damage to film or memory cards that I've carried on. (I wouldn't put them in check-in luggage, since it is screened with stronger X-rays.) I always remove the film cartridges from their plastic bottles and pack them in a baggie, for easier screening. (I've also never packed film in one of those protective lead bags, since that supposedly attracts additional attention.)

Ditto all of the warnings about pickpockets. Also, don't let ANYONE distract your attention from your possessions in ANY way...by asking for the time... by throwing a doll to the ground in the middle of a crowd (it is done)...by tossing the doll toward you...by asking if the food in your hotel's breakfast room is only for guests (which is how my wife lost her purse). I use a money belt and make sure that ANYTHING I carry is double-attached to my body...in clear view...with my hand on it.

 

And if your hotel room doesn't have its own safe, insist on keeping your valuables in the hotel's main safe. I wouldn't consider a room without a safe any more secure than the sidewalk outside. My wife's purse had our room key in it, showing both the hotel name and room number...and when we reported the loss, we suggested that the room's lock be changed. The hotel manager could have cared less. I imagine that there may be a Centralized Room Key Lending Library somewhere in Rome for the gypsies to borrow from. Or is that just my paranoia showing?

 

I know of a great location for sunrises, but I forget exactly where it is... will have to ask my wife tonight and post again tomorrow!

Great info... Thanks! And let me know how your test goes, Richard. When I get set up to try, I'll also let you know how it goes!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

Of course, if you scan an image as a JPEG, you can still open it in Photoshop, convert it to 16-it (or 32-it in CS) and save it as a TIFF for further processing!

Hi Again, everyone!

 

Well, the lens does indeed seem to be locked in place! Mine is the model of OM-1 with the port for the motor drive (the OM-1N?), and the lens is the standard F-Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1.8 (serial # 800836). When looking at it from the front, the ribbed release tab is at 2 o'clock, and the smooth DOF tab is at 8. I tried both positions of the mirror-lockup, jiggling the lens, and using a great deal of hand force...and it still wouldn't budge. Don't understand it, though...it was removable last month. Somethin' must have slipped out-o'place I guess. Thanks for all your suggestions!

Just a quick update. I tested the collar around the release button again last night, and when it is turned clockwise (until just hand-tight), the release button is indeed locked. Turning it counter-clockwise then unlocks the button!

Hello! I looked around and didn't see this topic...but forgive me if it's been

beat to death (as it may very well have been)! I just bought a used 5MP

Minolta Dimage A1, with Dimage Capture software that lets you control the

camera from a PC. I was thinking of mounting the camera (in macro mode) above

a light table with a film-flattening mask, and then 'scanning' some 35mm and

medium-format negatives and slides using the camera. Has anyone else tried

this? Dynamic range may be a problem, but with the camera teathered to (and

controlled by) the PC, I should have a bit moe more control over that than

normal?

Using higher bit depths (like 16 or even 32 in Photoshop CS) has similar advantages when you upscale an image in size. Photoshop only as 256 shades per color channel to deal with in 8-bit mode, but more than 60 thousand in 16-bit mode... and I won't even guess how many in 32-bit mode. The end result is that higher bit depths give Photoshop many more tonal choices to assign to interpolated pixels during upscaling...which produces smoother tonal transitions in the enlarged image. You may, however, want to keep high-bit "master" copies of your most important images... But keep in mind that even publishers probably can't print from them. I believe that most printers and publishers still need 8-bit files for laying on paper!

The Bantam's are very nice cameras...especially the ones with the f/4.5 Anastigmat Special lens (which some have likened in quality to the Ektar). The Bantams used old 828 paper-backed roll film. But the film is actually the same width as modern 35mm. So I was able to non-destructively "mod" my 828 to use modern 35mm stock. And the results were quite good! Also, by putting a square mask over the film plane, I was also able to get more then 40 images on a 36-exposure roll...as opposed to the 8 images that the old 828 film allowed. However, one 'hardship' with this is that the film must be removed from its canister, loaded into the camera, and then removed in a changing bag or a dark room (which isn't hard, once you get the hang of it). Another slight difficulty is that you must tape over the film-number viewing window (which would fog the paperless 35mm). So one has to do tests to determine how far to wind the film between exposures (a number that changes as you wind further into the roll). But once you get going, the Bantam is a terribly fun little pocket camera that produces pleasing images. (Needless to say, however, my modded Bantam 4.5 is totally impractical for vacation use!)

You're very welcome...and thank you, Minh!

Many Thanks, everyone... I'll look into your ideas tonight and let you know!

 

Dave

I'd like to add the Kodak Monitor 620 with the "Anastigmat Special" lens. I remember seeing a lens-test site that claimed it beat out Hassey lenses in some circumstances. Regardless, it certainly seems to produce nice results! Kodak made several models of Monitor 620, and mine can readily use 120 film. That's because is uses springy metal in each chamber to hold the ends of the spools. So I only need to trim the edges of the film spool and pop it in...the spool's length does not matter. Another great feature is that the camera has automatic film stops, and you don't need to use the red film-number window. This allows me to get double the number of exposures using 220 film (which is longer because it doesn't have paper backing).

The Argus C-3 was one of my biggest photo surprises! A friend gave me his father's, and I shot a roll of scenics. When I had them printed at the local pro shoppe, the manager asked what camera I'd used...he'd never seen such clear, sharp, detailed images before, even from his Hassey customers. The store manager actually had a shelf of old broken cameras near the counter, so I pulled down his own C-3 and handed it to him. He couldn't believe it. But he was right...in the prints, I could see the outlines of individual leaves in the trees on the horizon! The C-3 also seems to produce richly saturated colors with entirely their own "look." And if I slip an ancillary viewfinder into the flash shoe and screw a metal hood onto the lens, it almost looks like megabucks!

Yes, Dave's right about the cable release. Be sure to look for one that lets you lock the cable after you press it in (most do, but some don't). The Argus C-3 was one of my biggest photo surprises! A friend gave me his father's, and I shot a roll of scenics. When I had them printed at the local pro shoppe, the manager asked what camera I'd used...he'd never seen such clear, sharp, detailed images before, even from his Hassey customers. The store manager actually had a shelf of old broken cameras near the counter, so I pulled down his own C-3 and handed it to him. He couldn't believe it. But he was right...in the prints, I could see the outlines of individual leaves in the trees on the horizon! If you go to the Argus collector sites, you will also notice that the C-3 often produces richly saturated colors with entirely their own "look."

Two more fun stories about people's reactions to old cameras... While attending a local Historical Society party, I took some architectural shots with a friend's medium format Bessa II folder. Someone saw me measuring the lighting with a hand-held light meter (with the Bessa II also hanging around my neck), and said: "Now THERE's a real photographer." And later, I noticed a local architect showing a crowd of folks his new very-high-end digital SLR. So I sidled up beside him, held the Bessa (with lens extended) beside his camera, and said: "OK, Dave...Let's compare MEGAPIXELS!" He burst into laughter, but we ended up in a half-hour conversation about the art of photography. (My wife was NOT pleased!)

Nice idea...And unlike the "simulated" point-and-shoot panoramics that crop out the top and bottom of a single 35mm frame, this uses a whole long chunk at the full film width! What did you use for the two tracks that appear to run across the film plane?

Thanks Al...I do feel very lucky! (The camera was buried under a mound of the usual Polaroids and cheapie plastic point-and-shoots. Thanks too for the great ideas about the hood! The rubber is so thin, I could see it coming apart eventually. I'll let everyone know how the prints turned out.

Ah yes... The Kodak Ektramax! It feels and looks like a typical "cheapie plastic 110". But it does give some exposure options and has that fast 1.9 lens. If you buy one on eBay, though, be sure to verify that the flash still works. I've bought three of them over the years (at yard sales and on eBay), and NONE of their flashes worked. May be a weak point for them!

Hi! I think I'm squeezing the right things!...The two little "tabs" sticking out of the opposite sides of the base of the lens? Thanks!

The advice to look on eBay is good. Just keep looking! The key issue here is the "lens registration distance" for Nikon lenses and Pentax bodies. (Tables of these distances can be found on the web.) Nikon cameras (and lenses) are designed with a longer distance between the film and the lens's optical center than most other SLRs (including Pentax). For this reason, Nikon lenses CAN be used (and focus at infinity) when mounted to almost any other SLR body (using an appropriate mechanical adapter ring). But if you tried to go the other way, and mount a Pentax lens on a Nikon body, you would need an adapter with an extra optical element, to (in effect) boost the Pentax lens's "registration distance."

Has anyone else found that the 50mm lens on their OM-1 has suddenly become non-

removable? I press in the two release tabs, but the lens no longer turns. I'd

be amazed if there's a simple fix. But if there is... let me know! (Of course,

this wonderful camera is still usable!)

 

Thanks!

Actually you can do it (I do)! Over the course of a few years, I managed to obtain the following two items on eBay:

 

--A Canon FD T-mount adapter (used to attach T-mount lenses)

--A T-to-C-mount step-down ring (from an unknown manufacturer)

 

When mounted, your C-mount lenses will not focus to infinity (due to their tiny registration distance from the film). But they will be a fun alternative for macro photography!

I second (or third) the Canon 110ED-20! I've taken wonderful photos with mine (especially night street scenes at f/2). You'll probably want to get the 110ED-20 model instead of the earlier 110ED (which did not support 400 ASA film). The Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 may be a bit sharper (with its custom-designed aspheric lens), though as mentioned before, its battery is hard to find (I got mine on eBay from a guy in Australia). Minolta also made some nice non-SLR 110 cameras, but I don't think their results were as good as the Canon's or Kodak's.