nicolas_douez

I can't think of this Super-Takumar any longer when I think of something I might sell. Someone got it.

I'm not old enough to have decalcified bones problems... :)

Voce comecou uma mensagem :)

...I would think of <b><a

href=http://photocam12.free.fr/Takumar/supertakumar.htm>that one</a></b>.

"On a separate thread about the Rollei 35 someone said the meter on the Rollei 35S can easily be recalibrated to use 1.5v - where can I get instructions on how to do the job?"

 

It's not difficult : two potentiometers to adjust on the lightmeter unit and you're done. But it's not a good idea, for some reasons someone else will explain to you. Think of the MR-9 adapter instead.

 

And now, goodbye, photo.net !

Breaking screws on this German stuff seems to be quite common these days (private joke someone else will understand).

 

Well, I will check my screws box. I've a taken apart IIIa body so it will be easy to see if I have a matching one. Basically they're 1.2mm panhead screws but with a head quite narrower than the standard. That said, if you replace both the two, the camera aesthetics won't be disturbed that much.

 

I keep you posted.

May I object one or two things ? First, I don't need to be comforted by the majority's opinion to have my own - and there is no such poisonous or cloudy thing as you seem to think - and say - there is over my life, be assured of this. I'm fine, thanks !<p>

 

Second, I still don't believe that fixing the lens wobbling <u>and</u> the rotational play by adjusting the three 120 degrees lens bayonet flanges is something which can be qualified as "contrary to good sense" just because it's the very fix to process. It's the contrary to the contrary. In other words, it's the only thing to do. Just try on your own 50mm. You don't risk anything but getting rid of the rotational play.<p>

 

I might have had the only five 50mm lenses in Contax/Kiev mount on which this fix has been successful - who knows. Ask to your friend the world's master. BTW I would fear to become one of your "friends" because what you say about someone with whom you have "very friendly relations" according to your own words are finally the worse things (including some not so flattering initials) I've read about this man on any photo forum I ever visited.<p>

 

The native language matter is not the only thing that builds up the gap between you and me. You're way more cynic than I am. Probably because you're quite older. I'm just hoping I won't become like this.<p>

 

Best wishes.

Csab' : threadlocker is something very different from nail gloss because it needs an anaerobic environment (within the threads) to polymerize while nail gloss just needs air to dry. With time, nail gloss turns into dry powder and doesn't prevent the screw to move because of vibrations, while threadlocker remains supple and is a permanent protection against unexpected unscrewing because of vibrations. Threadlocker also prevents the threads from corrosion and auto-soldering. I do recommend threadlocker (by all means don't use the permanent type !).<p>

 

Threadlocker is even less expensive than some high-end famous brands nail gloss doses :-)<p>

 

Michael : let us stop that useless argument. <p>

 

But just do accept that you have set fire to things by using despising and bashing words such as "nonsense" and advertising for somebody who is not automatically that popular here because like someone else that sensed told long ago on this very forum, he is not G*d regarding the Contax cameras and he has not a particularly friendly contact (which is what <u>you</u>, not me, just said, didn't you ?) ; and then you played the astonished virgin guy who had no idea of what he did and didn't understand why what could have been an acceptable wine quickly turned into acid vinegar as for the discussion.<p>

 

I'm the commercial competitor of nobody just because I'm a modest camera tech. by hobby <u>only</u>, as many of us here are, and my only purpose is to help some other owners of the same cameras than mine to fix them, when I can, and always <u>for free</u> ! Fixing classic cameras is <u>not</u> my main job. I don't ask $$$ for spare parts - I give them for free when I've some available which I don't use - and don't have a huge list of waiting customers on my blackboard just because I've no customers at all.<p>

 

FYI the only Harry I know is Harry Callahan - FGI it's not only the name of a character Clint Eastwood played in some detective movies :-)<p>

 

So, if Fred B. still has wobbling problems with his J-8 lens, I still strongly advise him to adjust the three lens 120 degrees bayonet flanges the way the late <i>Kiev Survival Site</i> told they had to be. Too bad Russ Pinchbeck has some personal problems which make his wonderful site stay away for a while.<p>

 

Cheers<p>

Nicolas

Once fitted in the Kiev/Contax/Nikon RF camera lens mount, the 50mm lenses must neither have some wobble nor any rotational play because the rectangular dot on the lens barrel must be precisely machined to fit the rectangular space in the bayonet locking latch within minimal tolerances range. If most of yours have rotational play, you have a problem. You know, I don't care that much. It's your cameras and your lenses.

Csab : look at <a href=http://www.loctiteproducts.com/products/detail.asp?catid=10&subid=48&plid=153> Loctite blue</a> to have an idea of what threadlocker is.

Michael Schub : if the lens wobbles in its lens mount this has nothing to do with the lens mount locking latch but with the three 120 degrees lens bayonet flanges pointed - for two of them - by red arrows on the attached photo and which must be slightly adjusted in a way you obviously didn't discover despite your universal technical knowledge. <p>Too bad the <i>Kiev Survival Site</i> is temporarily down - but when it's back, you can read it before using <i>nonsense</i> or other such bashing words which are the typical clues, among the systematic use of the name of a certain repairman, of somebody missing other obvious elements to peacefully continue the discussion whenever it comes to Contax and/or Kiev gear. <p>Just stay with your half-dozen Contax and Kiev collection and let the people who just want to use these cameras have access to the good info even if you are not interested at humbly getting it yourself.<div></div>

"As this is common to both Zeiss and Kiev products one must assume this was how it was designed".<p>

 

Absolutely not. Neither on a well maintained Kiev nor on a Contax II or III, knobs must not have play, and the 50mm lens must not wobble in its lens mount. <p>

 

Regarding the lens, see Russ Pinchbeck's <i><a href=http://www3.telus.net/public/kaylalyn/index.html

>Kiev Survival Site</a></i> to learn how to fix the problem.

It's 28.5mm <b>push-on</b> filters and hoods, originally designed by Zeiss-Ikon. Plenty of them on e*B**.

Steve Ash in Great-Britain will be your man.

 

http://www.sdash.plus.com/

Frederick, see <a href=http://photocam.ibelgique.com/infrared.htm>this excellent page </a>written up by Ioannis Kalogiros (who lives in Belgium BTW).

This forum is for discussion of "classic" cameras that were manufactured until 1970, independent of film format, camera type, or manufacturer. Thus, this is the place to discuss folders, box cameras, Twin Lens Reflexes, press cameras, rangefinders, and other types of cameras that are no longer prevalent. Older SLR cameras manufactured before 1970 are also on-topic in the forum.

 

The forum is focused on the practical use of these cameras rather than collecting them.

 

Classifieds (FS/WTB/WTT) are NOT permitted in this forum. All equipment wanted or for sale MUST be posted in the photo.net classifieds section ONLY

Thanks Michael S. for the link to the thread regarding the use of filters with XP2. Same as with any B&W film then. Good news.

Bookmarked already ! What a nice page. Congrats.

 

I've never used the XP2 film and I'm tempted, because it's a good shortcut to B&W to test lenses actually ; I've a (probably stupid) question : can I use an orange filter with XP2, and will it be of the same interest for landscapes as with classic B&W film ? Thanks.

It essentially depends on how they're close to the pristine condition.

Willy Ronis was on the air on French radio the other evening and how good and refreshing was it to listen to this old young man. One of the last living masters of street photgraphy (and photography in general).

The ID-11 is back (same as D76 but in two powders) and at 1+1 you will get very nice results with the Pan F.

I'm pretty sure it's a problem coming from the film being slightly unproperly loaded in the spiral spool. That can happen if the film is tightened a little bit too much. Inspect your spiral spool for sticking debris too.

 

No worries about the pictures. The dork bars will be easily removed with PS and a glass of scotch.

 

Very nice pictures BTW.

 

There is another possibility but as you use a M2 it cannot be this : when the film is rewound very fast (eg, with a motor rewinder), the film brushing the felt of the film cartridge light seal lip can produce static electricity (thus, sparks) and the identical phenomena can be seen as a result all along the roll. Again the rewind knob of the M2 doesn't allow to rewind as fast as you can get that problem.

I could have written what Beau Schwarz and Marco Ferrandi wrote myself ! I've a nice collection amassed with time of several Ai and Ai-S lenses from the 20mm to the 180mm ED. Of course I'm aware of the so-so results got with a APS-C sensored DSLR and the 24x36 designed lenses under 50mm. My own tests will lead me not to use the 20, the 28 or the 35 and begin with the 50 or even with the 85, and upper. As I'm not a big fan of short focal lenses, no big deal. I used to shoot all summer long without removing my 2.5/105 from my F2AS already.

 

As for the D200, I will wait for putting my hands on it, and my right eye through its viewfinder. I expect a HUGE improvement from the D70/D70s viewfinder, with which it's almost impossible to quickly and correctly manual focus even with luminous lenses. All the macro shots I tried with a friend's D70 and my 2.8/55 Micro-Nikkor Ai-S were extremely hard to make. I must add that I wear glasses, which increases the difficulties regarding the D70 finder at practical use.

 

Just wait and see for the D200. In the meanwhile, I've still some Reala and Provia 100F rolls to burn, and the results that come from my Canon G3 are very satisfying for my needs as for digital.

Mark, as you ask that question to a high-end rangefinder club, don't expect to get any other answer, in general, than : the retrofocus lens has distorsion and is bad, the non-retrofocus one is better because it's not a retrofocus superwide design etc. See what I mean ? Like Paul N., I have a 3.5/20mm Ai-S Nikkor and I am very, very, very happy with it. I just got a 4/21mm Biogon for my old Contax RF but didn't find time to use it - not sure to be floored by its qualities when compared with the Nikkor though, as far as I can see from friend's pictures shot with it. Wish I had a 2.8/20mm Ai-S like yours BTW, to benefit from a brighter image in my F2 viewfinder.<div></div>

"Take it to a 1 hour minilab and report back to us" might be the <S>third</S> fourth. 1 hour minilabs are well known for providing high-end results by which all film cameras testing processes are stapled actually :)