peterson

I am baffled by the negative responses that some folks have had to this camera. People have complained about the size of 4/3 cameras not living up to the promise of "smaller / lighter". Now the micro-4/3 comes out as a perfect response to the criticism, and people are upset again.

I discussed this with my local camera shop staff and some of the guys there - they were all pretty excited about it. They've started to take reservations for the new oly 4/3 when it's released, so I put my name on the list. I can't wait !

The pattern on the shutter curtain is for metering, as has already been pointed out. I would hope that the lock up is from depleted batteries, or something in the battery compartment producing resistance e.g. dirt. It may make sense to clean / polish the battery contacts carefully, and to try another set of batteries. Failing that, it looks like the camera is headed for repairs.

I used a minolta XE-7 for many years. It ws a fantastic camera for those of us who couldn't afford the XK. These were great cameras, with great glass that have now been orphaned, and hence is available relatively inexpensively on the used racks of a decent camera store.

The greatest of digital cameras will still produce images limited by the technology that they employ. Keep the film camera, and consider picking up a nice scanner.

My electro 35 GSN also releases at the absolute bottom of the travel, after the exposure indicator lights are off. It's light a trigger with a long take up - the antithesis of (for example) the contax cameras with their microswitch shutter release.

Still, the shutter is amongst the quitest that I have ever used. A truly great camera - if only I could change lens's

By the light of stars. That way the light will be millions of years old. The camera will feel young by comparison.

Part of the "one of a kind" polaroid transfer effect, is the simultaneious transfer of additional material from the original polaroid negative, to the frame (border) area of the reciever surface. It may be a good idea to try the transfer while wet, ie to do the lift off part of the trnsfer with the print submerged in distilled water.

Kathleen Carr has written a fantastic instructional paperback on image transfer,emulsion lift and other creative undertakings in the polaroid lift.

See also:

http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441759987&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=282574488338439&bmUID=1203244816745&bmLocale=en_US

I believe that many sellors of used equipment still have this camera, as well as it's lens's available. My local store; Allen's Camera, in levittown PA still has the camera and lens's, I believe.

All else being equal, I've got to believe that the greatest likelehood for such an effect is when the film is outside the camera, sitting wrapped up on it's role. and gets splashed with bright light. I truely wish that 220 film came in a cassette like 35mm !

If the effect is intermittent and rare, that would support my contention at least somewhat.

I got back into medium format film after shooting digital only for the last 3 years. The camera that brought me back to film is the mamiya 7 and I've fallen in love with it quickly. I just finally splurged and went for the ultrawide 43mm with the hope of shooting some nice fall landscapes in the New jersey wetlands.

I expect to use the M7 for wide angle landscapes, and in the studio for portraiture with a short tele.

Of course I won't be doing any macro work with the M7, nor any long tele stuff - for that I'm looking to add a good macro lens to my RZ67.

Neither of these cameras has any real "digital future" which is a good thing for me - that one fact makes them highly affordable.

Rangefinder focus is a big change - I've gotten used to focus in the horizontal (landscape) then, in the studio rotating the camera to vertical for some shots. One thing about rangefinder focus - it's spot on or it's off by a mile. In the dim light of my studio modelling lights I find rangefinder easier and more sure then the ground glass of an SLR. I do miss visualization of depth of field but of course one can predict that "in your head", remembering that DOF gets smaller as the film format size increases (for the equivilant field of view).

I met up with my M7 by accident while browsing the used equipment at a local camera store. I had actually gone to the store with the intent of checking out and possibly buying the pentax 67II.

The M7 was lightest, most compact interchangable lens medium format camera that I had ever seen, and it was cheaper then the Pentax which was limited, I felt, by it's huge heavy mirror (When that mirror slaps, feel it in your toes - almost). Also, most of the used M7 lens's (excepting the 43) could be had for excellent price. It appears that "no digital future" of the m7 has caused it's price to fall like a rock - lucky for me. Now I'm thinking of getting a 2nd m7 body, and I just bought my third lens (finally - the ultrawide) yesterday.

This is a minimalist's camera, and of course it has no ability to shoot macro, nor to shoot long tele at medium or close ranges - that stuff I leave to the RZ67 or to digital. But for landscape work, and for studio work it is top notch !

So all I can suggest is to start prowling the used stacks at the camera stores - I'll bet they have one lying at the bottom.

jp

My sense, is that our perception of digital images as "sharp" and hence better is based on the edge detection processes in our software, such as "unsharp mask". This same process is also at play (effectively) in the upsampling programs such as genuine fractals. In a sense our software is converting our images into a series of lines, and angles - basically making it "vectorized".

We look at these images and our first impresion is that sharper and less noise translates into a better overall image. This impression holds up until we try to glean information about a soft edged highly detailed subject. It is especially true when we try to crop, or blow up a small background detail. In this case we often quickly see the digital image loose all hope, while the film image holds together, and gives us the missing detail.

In my mind, the combination of medium format or larger film, followed by digital process is the ultimate arbiter of perfection, and will continue to be. The transition from film to digital - i.e. scanning, is the weak or at least the most difficult link. Perhaps some of the tens of thousands of dollars that we save by buying a used mamiya 7, over an H2d should be spent on a high end scanner.

Shooting reversal film seems initially to make the most sense - making it easiest to pick out the "keepers' for scanning. However a recent article in the British journal of photography suggested that better scan results were obtained, in the case of one specific scanner, using color negative film.