christopher_moss

Don't forget there are excellent and relatively cheap Olympus Pen F/FT/FV bodies to be had, with a full range of lenses and other accessories (if you can find them). They scratch my occasional itch for tiny photography.

You probably just forgot this basic electronic principle that current in series - as the two SR batteries are used in this case, is not additive but the voltage is doubled.

Lithium cels also maintain their power all the way up until it dies completely.

 

In my neck of the woods the 357 silver cells are much easier to find than SR44s.

<p>Peter Shawhan wrote:<br>

<em>I have nothing against digital photography, and do some digital shooting, but I considered it worth pointing out that the combination of Leicas and B/W film can still produce reasonable results.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Reasonable? We are up to 744 pages of film goodness at another site:<em><br /></em><br>

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/</p>

<p>It's the same camera except for black paint and a higher price tag!</p>

<p>I can't agree that the OP shouldn't bother unless he intends to wet print. In fact I think that might be taken as being just ever-so slightly chauvinistic about wet printing! I'm not so terribly old, but my time is limited by leukemia. I've bought an old 500c, and I'm having a ball scanning the negatives with an X1. I'd say 'Go for it!' and have some fun whilst you can.</p>

<p>I agree that C-41 is much easier than people generally think, there is another alternative here. I usually develop XP2 in 1:100 Rodinal for one hour of stand development. Three inversions at the start and at 30 minutes, then fix and wash as usual with B&W chemicals. Lovely results and cheaper than using C-41 chemicals.</p>

<p>Acutol was my very first developer back in, oh, about 1973. That was when I was struggling with my father's 1950's Gnome tank and Gnome enlarger. Little did I know it was the start of a life long chemical addiction - I now have a fridge full of liquid chemicals and a freezer for powders and films!</p>

<p>I mixed up an unopened bottle of TMax last night (1:4 to make one US gallon). Today it developed a TMax 100 120 roll film as perfectly as I could wish for. Tonight I realised the bottle has sat at the back of a fridge for about ten years!</p>

<p>I've sold two M7's and replaced them with two MP's. The rewind knob works fine, and there is no need at all for the expensive little add-on handle. Why the change in the film cameras? The MP's feel different in use to the M7's. Smoother, slicker, quieter. If you enjoy the feel of good mechanicals, the MP is the one to satisfy. I should say that anyone looking for that final film camera, who isn't having to worry about the price difference vs. an M6, will prefer the MP.</p>

<p>The big issue is auto exposure - if you like it there is no choice to make. Otherwise, the MP handles better (it really is smoother and slicker to operate so there must be some truth in the talk of finer tolerances, and the brass gears probably help). I sold two M7s and replaced them with two MPs.</p>

<p>It's been a few years since I printed in a wet darkroom, and these days I scan my B&W films for inkjet printing. Diafine is my standard developer, simply for convenience and the fact that the low contrast negatives it produces are excellent for scanning and post-processing. I scan with a Nikon 9000ED using Vuescan, then adjust the files in LR3. Heres some Tri-X shot at 1250 in a Bessa III developed this morning in Diafine:<br>

Chris</p><div></div>

<p>This rumour first surfaced a couple of months ago, after the Asahi article was noticed. It quickly died out after denials from Leica, but has come back to life after Mike Johnston wrote about it - his readership is large. Leica have again denied it, as in this article and video of a factory tour showing film cameras being made:<br>

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1729979/leica-we-producing-film-cameras<br>

So how to explain Dr Kauffman's remarks? It might have been as simple as the mistranslation/misreporting of his speech. I think it entirely possible that in 2009 Leica stopped the <em>development</em> of film cameras, but not the <em>production</em>. Such a substitution would fit with his next remark about the cost of developing a new film camera, and that they would only be competing against themselves.</p>

<p>Nikon Scan works fine on my MacBook Pro running 10.6.4, but I also have Vuescan. I asked about a version of Silverfast for the 9000ED, and was told by LaserSoft that they would charge me $399 for it. Somehow I'm managing quite nicely without it! I agree that ANG negative holders for 120 film are a must - I found the Nikon version at B&H, but I later discovered that there are cheaper versions sold on the Bay: see post #12 on <a href="http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=658">this thread</a>.</p>

<p>I received two 100ft cans of Legacy Pro 100 today, and two of the 400, which are generally reckoned to be Acros 100 and Neopan 400. I'm intending to use them with Diafine, which means exposing at ISO 200 and 640 respectively. Since I'm scanning the negatives rather than wet printing I don't mind if they come out looking a bit flat.</p>

<p>Can you alter contrast with a diabetic's urine?</p>

<p>And one more from the same film:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Leica MP and Elmarit-M 90mm, Delta 3200 developed in TMax, scanned on Coolscan 9000:</p><div></div>

<p>Every month is Leica film month! I'm using an M9 mostly for colour, Visoflex, and whenever I am required to document family events. Whatever I do for my own pleasure is done with the MPs. Just to get into the spirit of the thing, though, I have ordered a C-41 kit to try out on some Ektar 100.</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

Your reply sums up why I love reading this forum! Lots of arcane knowledge.<br>

Chris</p>

 

<p>Well I think I like it!</p>

<p>In the many pencil markings on the wall of the tunnel down to that gallery, you might find one made by me in the mid-1960's!<br>

Chris</p>

 

Let's all focus on this part:

 

"Optical-mechanical classics like rangefinder Leicas and top-quality limited or out-of-

production collectibles like the Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex Rollei 35, Minolta CLE and

rangefinder Canons and Nikons will hold, and they may possibly even increase in value in

the face of the digital onslaught."

It flashes if the film canister doesn't have a Dx code, or if the film speed is set to some value other than the Dx code of the film loaded. Since I mostly use TriX at 1600 I get to see a lot of that flashing light. It's easy to ignore!

 

Chris

Whilst seconding the votes for a Minolta 5400, which I use for 'good' scans, it is important

to ask just what the scans are for. Before I got the 5400, I dipped my toe in the water, so

to speak, with a $99 Pacific Image 1800u. This has proven to be fast and easy, whilst not

giving the same resolution as the 5400. It is probably a far better deal in terms of price:

quality ratio. It certainly is far better than even a good flatbed - I use an Epson 4870 for

645 negatives and the Pacific Image is better with a 35mm negative than this is. I think

this is a choice where you don't want to buy a scanner that will leave you dissatisfied and

then having to buy another, but also it's true that buying one far better than you need will

not only waste money, but also a great deal of time as no good scanner is going to give its

best results without spending some time learning how to set it up. No matter what you use

you are going to want to tweak the scans in Photoshop afterwards. Thats a fact of life.

So when you ask if there's something available that's perfect, I would have to say no. Like

every other aspect of life there are trade-offs and compromises and you must find what is

the best solution for the scans you want, versus the time you can spend on it, versus the

money available. If you really want scans just for e-mail, web pages, and selecting negs

for later wet printing then you don't need a perfect scanner, you need a simple one. I

would suggest a $99 scanner is a safe bet here, if only in that if you decide you want a

Minolta or Nikon later then it doesn't hurt too much to write off a $99 experiment!

 

Chris

Halifax, NS<div></div>