glen_johnson1

You can use a standard threaded cable release available at any photo store.

In this case, it means assembled from parts by hand by a single assembler.

People often confuse the term with quality, but with manufactured devices like cameras, it's really how well the company designs the camera, specs its materials, manufactures, and then inspects it that counts. A camera with a robust and thoroughly tested design, made using the best-quality machined parts and electronics, then rigorously inspected, will cost more - but it is probably going to last longer than cheaper models. The F3 wasn't hand-made, yet was one of the toughest and most well-built SLR cameras ever produced. The Nikkorex was produced in cooperation with another manufacturer, was hand-made, but was unreliable because of poor design and unreliable, poorly integrated out-sourced parts.

 

Nikon's original corporate policy of building cameras with evolutionary designs, best-quality materials, close tolerances, carefully-trained employees, and tight quality control are the prime reasons for the vast number of older Nikon SLRs still working out there. Where they have departed from that policy (usually, in order to compete with lower-cost competition) the results have almost always shown up in less-reliable, less durable cameras.

Definitely check out one of these: Minolta 7sII, Konica Auto S3, Revue 400SE, and my favorite, because it's usually cheaper, the Vivitar 35SE. Compact, with a razor-sharp, fast (f1.7) lens. See: www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Vivitar_35ES

"i have always thought in terms of clear sharp and shake-free photos not to the extreme of using the sloweert film and a $2,000.00 normal lens. I am not able to think about a camera that is deliberately designed to be defective. twisted lens and a leaky body."

 

That is the classic mis-appraisal, which inevitably appears here once a year or so. Fanatical members of the f/64 club need not apply for Holga or toycam ownership. da Vinci also thought Michelangelo's work crude and boorish. Whether you deem it 'pictorialist', 'impressionistic', 'surrealist', etc, - one thing is certain, it's a completely different type of photography. If you can't wrap your head around it, you'll never be able to take those types of pictures.

 

I have sold more photos with my WOCA/HOLGAs than with my high-end rollfilm cameras - perhaps I put more work into these Holga compositions than with my other gear, perhaps the New Wave is (currently) more popular. To me the Holga is just a tool to taking effective and different types of pictures, one means to an end, to be used, modified, and discarded as needed.

 

BTW, it isn't true, that the original Holga was 'deliberately designed' to be defective. It's simply a very low-cost camera(s), originally intended to take inexpensive family snapshots of Chinese on 120 rollfilm that (at the time) was the most readily available format on the mainland.

"My comment is based on my real experience at the shop. At first, I was very much tempted by Velbon's ballheads.."

 

And my comment was based on my real-life use of a particular ballhead in the field with a heavy camera and lens combinations, in all kinds of weather. There may well be Velbon heads that aren't sturdy enough or that don't fit Robert's needs, but one shouldn't generalize with a general condemnation - unless of course you've acquired and extensively used ALL of them in the field, yourself.

"You should forget about the Velbon's ballheads. They don't stay still either no matter how forcefully you tighten the locking screw."

 

Not true at all. Velbon makes a variety of ballheads for different size/weight cameras and one must tailor the right head to the right camera. For example, the Velbon PH-273QL medium ballhead I have holds my Bronica GS-1 with lenses up to 250mm just fine, with no slippage. And the clamshell ball clamp design makes for a one-hand adjustment, with no futzing around with a third friction screw to keep the head from flopping down when loosened.

I found this post on another Minolta forum, FWIW:

 

"The X-300/370/570/700/X7A were designed for amateur use, were built with average-quality components, and at this point are beginning to show their age. Note that internal components were further cheapened over the years, especially after production was offshored outside of Japan. I do not recommend buying them off ebay unless they have been proven to be recently serviced and guaranteed to work. If you have installed fresh, correct batteries, cleaned the battery contacts, and are still experiencing problems, there may be other gremlins.

 

These cameras can have a real problem with poor-quality electrolytic capacitors that generally begin to leak and fail after a few years.

 

If your camera shutter/mirror have locked, fresh batteries won't operate the mechanism, the capacitors may need replacing. When the caps leak they cause the printed area of the board to short out, in some cases destroying the circuit entirely.

 

If your camera has a fresh battery, and power, but when the shutter release is pressed the LED display blanks out and doesn't come on, then most likely the problem is the bottom, or shutter release capacitor. If the LED does not come on at all (on the X-700), then it could be the top capacitor. If the LED display blinks when the shutter release button is pressed, or if it just stays lit, then the problem is most likely not a capacitor problem but a break in an integrated circuit.

 

The easiest way to tell if a cap needs to be replaced is to examine the base. Some early X-700s also have tantalum caps that are usually ok, but you are looking for the electrolytic versions. Check the base of the cap, if it is electrolytic and going bad often there will be some signs of leakage, possibly corrosion, or odor. Leaking capacitors smell like ammonia. After removing the cap, clean the board in rubbing alcohol.

 

Film advance problems. NEVER force the advance lever if winding is difficult, you risk breaking the mechanism. Film advance problems on the X-series may come from bits of film jamming theadvance, lack of cleaning and lubrication (making winding difficult to the point of warping or jumping gears), the previously mentioned electronic or shutter module problems, or a damaged film advance mechanism, which on these cameras is fairly light-duty (plastic components).. You can replace with parts from another parts camera.

 

Shutter malfunctions and shutter sticking (partial frame photos) on the these cameras may result from oil migrating onto the shutter magnets, combined with dirt, it gunks up the mechanism. The X-370 is particularly susceptible to shutter problems, with the shutter mechanism often becoming partially dislodged or disengaged. On the other models, a good clean-lube-adjust by a repair shop should fix most problems, clean out all the old dried lubricant, and lubricate dry components to reduce wear. Shutter magnets can usually be cleaned but sometimes lose their kick and must be replaced. Sometimes the fabric shutter curtains can stick the shutter in high humidity conditions. Newer Chinese-built X-700 cameras had issues with locally subcontracted glues that adhere the shutter curtain, and failed resulting in curtain separation. These must be cleaned and re-glued with an appropriate adhesive."

The Contax S2 was produced by Cosina. I don't know why that would get people so upset. Cosina considerably upgraded the construction of the S2 chassis over the earlier Yashica FX-3 iterations - particularly the made-in-China Super 2000, though apparently the film advance was not the best as there have been more than a few complaints of early malfunction or failure. Cosina has apparently made use of some of the technical improvements in the S2 chassis in the production of its Bessa/Voigtlander RF bodies.

As I understand it, the P-pod was never intended to replace an fully functional outdoor tripod, merely to add versatility to its main function - as a monopod. The small, base-mounted tripod legs were really designed for indoor use, (for example in a museum that allows monopod use) to provide better stability on smooth floors.

 

Outdoors, with wind, you're better off using it as a monopod, or in the horizontal tripod position, which is much more stable. There are disadvantages to every design.

The answer is no. The Yashica 1.6x AF converter allows the use of only manual-focus C/Y mount Contax or Yashica lenses, but the added optical element will affect image quality to some degree. More importantly, lenses must be at least f/4 or faster to properly operate the AF function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holga.html

A chronology of Yashica 35mm Rangefinders, including the Minister D: www.yashica-guy.com/document/chrono2.html

 

History of Yashica Cameras: www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/A_History_of_Yashica_35mm_SLR_Cameras

With regard to the 'petals' or plastic clips on the film advance spindle, I believe these were designed for longer film leaders than are currently provided today. In any event, Yashica abandoned this design in all subsequent models - the film leader has a tendency to pop loose from the clip, resulting in 36 lost photos.

 

You may want to LIGHTLY tape the leader to the spindle to ensure it stays affixed - it will still pull off at rewind time - if you haven't gone overboard with the tape.

The Yashica FX-3, FX-3 Super, FX-3 Super 2000 are good inexpensive bodies, if you don't mind something dirt-simple (less to break, tho). They have a fairly reliable metal shutter and mechanical advance mechanism. No DOF preview, etc. The last Super 2000s made in China have more reports of malfunctions than earlier FX-3s.

 

There is the FX-D, FX-103, FR, FR-I, etc, these are battery-dependent and electronic, you'd want to make certain they're in perfect working order - parts can be hard to come by or non-existent on some models. FX-103 has TTL flash, but there are more reports of problems with its added electronics than earlier Yashicas. The FR and FR-I are getting pretty long in the tooth now, fabric shutters often sticking unless overhauled, and exposure counters often broken.

 

I would stay away from the later, Hong-Kong assembled 107MP,108MP, 109MP, these cameras have numerous reports of metering problems and reliability issues, the advance mechanism is not very robust, either.

Another great choice for a used straight-tray projector is a Braun D46 or D47 slide projector. Made in the 1960s, they are well built (all metal and cast aluminum parts), have a modern FCS halogen bulb, separate single-slide slot, and a great Rodenstock 100/2.8 lens. Mine was $40 on ebay.

The only 3rd-party manual-focus 24mm I've found to approach the Nikkor Ai/AiS 24/2.8 is the Sigma 24/2.8 Superwide II. Cheaply built, but most samples are very sharp at most apertures, it received a 4.0 in photodo tests. (see photodo)

The first thing I would do when considering an older film SLR as a user camera would be to thoroughly research my cameras of choice before bidding. This might include a visit to a collector website or enthusiast page to see what features the camera offers (Do I need autofocus? Light weight? Fast flash sync? TTL flash? DOF preview? Interchangeable prisms? A motor drive?). Also, very important, I'd check out common ailments one might expect, what parts are likely to need replacement, and how much maintenance might be required.

 

Personally, I'd never pay more than $100 or so for a working amateur-level, electronically-controlled camera like the AE-1, unless I had some other attachment based on prior ownership, nostalgia, etc. They were never intended to last for years (particularly the shutter), and the circuits and mechanical components, including film advance and mirror linkage, are starting to show their age.

"Oh, what a cunning little camera!"

 

That 1940 movie line must have sold another 100,000 of those, at least. I know Grandpa bought one.

Congratulations, Dave. Hope all goes well. If you haven't seen it already, I will attach a great resource site for Contax 35mm SLR cameras, specifications, accessories, and owner comments: http://www.cdegroot.com/photo-contax/ .

I wouldn't worry to much about difficulties processing 120 rollfilm, unless you're certain you will be doing a lot of it AND you require instant turn-around. It's just not that big a deal.

 

I should know, because I let that argument largely dissuade me for several years from trying medium format at all. That was a mistake. I finally experienced for myself how easy it was to obtain processing from local labs or color processing via mail order. The internet makes things even easier. I wish someone had encouraged me to try rollfilm and vintage cameras a lot earlier.

"Because of the many photo editors available, ANY photo from any digital camera can be made beautiful."

 

Sorry Audrey, that simply isn't true. A lot of people think they can produce a lot of film camera effects in photoshop - Holga dreamscapes and vignetting to insertion of non-existent subjects, to imitation depth-of-field, but from what I've seen, the results have been completely unsuccessful. Nothing could probably look more contrived than a digital imitation of a Holga photo. If your standards are low enough, I guess anything is beautiful, but sometimes you do need the right tool for the job.

 

Of course, if you've already argued yourself into a corner over the expense of film vis-a-vis digital, there's not much I can say, other than many of us seem to have found ways around the problem. One of the simplest is to take fewer bad photographs.

Some lenses have separate rubber covers over the focus ring that simply have to be re-cemented into place, but I don't think the 28mm CZ Distagon does, I know my example doesn't. It does sound as if either the focus ring or the fixed pin has slipped out of the helicoid track. I've never had to disassemble anything other than cheap no-name zooms, so I'll refer you to this board - http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/forum/messages/2/2.html - to post your question - there are some knowledgeable repair people that can offer advice on disassembly and repair.

I found my Woca (glass-eyed Holga)to be extremely simple to modify without instructions or assistance of any kind. If I can do it, I would think anyone could. But if you want to read about a step-by-step method of altering the camera to make both apertures work, using the - relative - precision of aluminum sheet and drill bit sizes, take a look at Mark Hahn's page: http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/holga_mods.html . You will see that you can choose any size 'sunny' aperture you like, as long as it's smaller than the fixed 'cloudy' opening.

 

I understand from others that many of the steps I undertook to make the camera light-tight aren't really necessary with newer Holgas.

"That's the thing about digtial cameras. You could do photography even if you're not blessed w/ the best photography equipment in the world, or wealth, at all for that matter."

 

That requires a lot of assumptions. That the digital camera will give you the type of images you're after. That you can afford the ancillary equipment it demands. That it will operate without breaking down. That it will not short out after getting wet. That it won't stop working after being dropped. That it can be repaired inexpensively once it breaks. That you can afford the replacement if it can't. There are downsides to every camera.

"Fully mechanical cameras are as susceptible as digital cameras, to dust, moisture, and breakage."

 

Not really. Many of today's consumer DSLRs are hardly protected better than today's TV sets in terms of weather-sealing, yet they are much more vulnerable to such damage with their extensive electronics and various openings. Part of the problem is inherent in the design. A 35mm electronic/mechanical SLR can be rendered fairly safe to light moisture by a good top plate seal and well-placed electronic components, and modern damage to older circuit designs can be repaired fairly easily. But even excessive humidity has killed DSLRs. The rate of return for moisture and dust/sand malfunction in DSLRs has been a major headache, one reason that Nikon has been attempting to improve gasketing on its less expensive models. This problem has been exacerbated as warranty coverage exclusions for dust, dirt and moisture ingress have been more and more strictly enforced, to the chagrin of many new DSLR owners. If you haven't seen all these complaints, you have been ignoring the problem.

 

Your argument on repairability seems to indicate that if people would simply quit repairing or maintaing older film cameras, any discrepancy in repairability would be equalized with current digital camera standards of quality. In other words, if the legacy of well-built, rugged cameras would just go away, digital cameras would be viewed as reliable 'the new normal'. I don't think that's likely to happen, if only because of the millions of quality film cameras out there that are already being picked up and used again, the proliferation of interest in restoration and maintenance on the web, and the disillusionment of many new owners of such technology. Most of us who have owned film cameras believe just the opposite, that the only truly beneficial course for photographers is to build newer digital models to the same standards of longevity and durability as that which came before. That way, we all win.