glenn_stewart__stew_

Alex,

I can't help you with the 'full list', but I can tell you about the SMC and Super Takumar lenses.

I bought my first Pentax Spotmatic II body just after Christmas in 1971. It was equipped with the 'New' SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 lens. The date when the SMC's started was late 1971. All Takumars before them, as far as I know, carried the Super Takumar brand. They were single coated, whereas the SMC's (Super Multi-Coated) were, obviously, multi-coated. Asahi Optical lead the way in this regard. I hope you find this useful.

Best regards,

Stew

-----

Photo web site at: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/

Ninfa,

Both are superb cameras. Though the Mamiya is often called a 'studio' camera, trust me, it works outdoors, as well. I've shot an awful lot of film with my RB, but not a single frame in a studio. It will focus past 10 feet and it will work with sunlight.

Both cameras will shoot 'square' and 'rectangular'. You have to see it in the viewfinder. Making some overlays for your focusing screen may help you learn the visulaization. The main difference between the two is that when shooting 'square', they both produce the same size negative, but when shooting 'rectangular', the RB or RZ negative is nearly twice as large as the rectangular composition you'll get from the Hassie.

Best regards,

Stew

Richard,

I've owned a Minolta Autocord and a Yashica Mat 124G prior to owning a Mamiya C-330 (two bodies and a bunch of lenses). The Minolta and the Yashica were very nice cameras, but lacked lens interchangeability. Since I don't tote my cameras around on a strap hanging around my neck, the weight factor was not an issue.

I have several shots posted on my web site that couldn't have been made with a fixed focal length lens TLR, unless I had made a multi-thousand dollar production out of them by hiring someone to put up scaffolding to allow me to shoot from a distance where the 75 or 80mm fixed length lens would have given me optimum framing. Take a look at: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/blk_whit.htm The Aravaipa mine hoist structure required the Mamiya 55mm lens bacause my back and one tripod leg were up against a steep and deep creek bank. With an 80mm lens I'd have had to erect a shooting platform in the creek bed, an expensive proposition, since the mine is over a hunderd miles from the nearest city large enough to rent such equipment. The photo of the bells in the mission tower at Tumacacori National Monument required the 250mm tele. I had to shoot them from about 100 feet away with the tripod raised to maximum height while standing near the top of a 6 foot step ladder in order to get a reasonable perspective for the shot. Had I shot this one with an 80mm lens, I might as well have shot it with 35mm, since the image on 2 1/4 film would only have covered the area of a 35mm neg anyway. Again, the scaffolding option could have made it work with the shorter lens, if I could have gotten the National Park Service to buy into the project.

The Mamiya lenses may not be as sharp as the Rollei's, but that won't matter if you can't get the shot.

Best regards,

Stew

Brian wrote:

>I am just starting to play aroung w/ film developer combos. I have a

>pretty good handle on what each film looks like, but I have no idea

>about developers. Can people just relate to me what their experience

>with individual developers has been as far as characteristics of each

>is concerned, along w/ personal preference. Maybe start a thread?

Brian,

Let me preface my comments with a statement so those who are wont to jump down people's throats before they take the time to understand the context in which the statements were made will, hopefully, grasp my intent.

The web page I'm about to refer you to is intended to show people that there ARE differences between developers when used with a single film. The information IS NOT intended to show or suggest that anyone will get exactly the same results I did. The usual statement 'your mileage may vary' does not apply. In this case 'your mileage WILL vary'. As I said, it's intended to show that there are differences, not to show specifically what those differences will be.

Now, having hopefully deflected some of the inane criticism that would have occurred otherwise, please visit my site and take a look at the 'Film & Developers' PAGES (there are two pages, not just the first one you will see. The second page is linked at the bottom of the first page). Please read the introduction so you can see what prompted me to do the work (and there was plenty of that) and put the pages on my site.

The pages will allow you to do side-by-side comparisons of several films and developers. Though it's not a strictly scientific study (I don't have the instrumentation for that), it will give you a GENERAL idea of how different developers affect film. I intend to add a couple more film and developer combinations to the pages, but the job will have to wait until I finish building my darkroom. This kind of work is VERY time consuming and a bit expensive.

The main objective of the pages is to show people that there ARE differences in developers, and to induce people to do their own experimentation to discover their own 'best' combination of film and developer. (Personally, I like D-76 1:1 @ 72-73F for 7 minutes with TMX exposed at EI 80 for 6x7 shooting.)

My web site can be found in my sig file at the end of the post.

Best regards,

Stew

Don,

My $.02, for what it's worth.

Most of my comments have already been made, i.e., intended enlargement size, ease of use, etc., but I do have a bit to add.

With today's b&w and color films, MF (6x7) negs are the equivalent of LF negs of 20-30 years ago (4x5). Kodak's T-Max 100 shot at EI 80 and developed in D-76 1:1 at 72-73 degrees F is grainless at 20x24, and probably at 30x40. Kodak's new Portra 160 shot at EI 80 and processed normally is good for grainless enlargements to at least 16x20, maybe more. Kodak's and Fuji's transparency films are also vast improvements over their ancestors. In my book, this makes it an easy choice to stay at MF, considering a few additional factors.

The lens movements allowed by LF cameras can be mostly overcome by using the same techniques in the darkroom, tilting the enlarging easel or (with some enlargers) shifting the enlarging lens. The effect on the print is pretty nearly the same, though some LF shooters will probably post responses that claim the LF images will be sharper. I can't argue the point, since I've never shot LF. I do, however, get thoroughly acceptable results from making my 'movements' in the darkroom. You can get acceptable results from MF negs in glassless neg carriers because they don't sag as much as sheet film does, since they don't have to span as much distance across the carrier. Glass carriers will solve the sag problem, but introduce four more surfaces to rid of dust before printing.

Not only is roll film more convenient to use than sheet film, it is not subject to fingerprinting or dust in the film holder, as is sheet film. This is the one point that turned me away from LF. There is no SURE way to know that there is no dust on the film before shooting.

Not only are 4x5 enlargers (and everything else associated with LF) proportionately more expensive than MF, but they are also BIG!! You better have plenty of elbow room in your darkroom before bringing in the 4x5 enlarger.

While sheet film gives you some advantages with respect to individual tayloring of your development processes to the particular image you're working with, remember that each such custom process takes time. Multiply that by the number of images you will be working with at any one time.

I'm not saying 'don't', just be aware of the pros and cons. I investigated LF a year or so ago when I was dissatisfied with 6x6. After working with 6x7 and experimenting with some different developer combinations, I'm satisfied that I'll never need to go to LF for my hobby shooting.

Best regards,

Stew

Fridiric,

By all means, RENT! At those prices for the entire school year you can't afford to buy.

By the end of the year (earlier, if you really develop a deep interest in photography) you will probably have a very good idea of what features you want in your equipment for professional or serious amateur work. THAT is when you should buy.

Best regards,

Stew

Fridiric,

Ny all means, RENT! At those prices for the entire school year you can't afford to buy.

By the end of the year (earlier, if you really develop a deep interest in photography) you will probably have a really good idea of what features you want in your equipment for professional or serious amateur work. THAT is when you should buy.

Best regards,

Stew

Jason,

I don't use an RZ, but I do use an RB. As far as outdoor photography goes, I don't see much difference between them.

You'll probably want a wide angle lens before long. I have the 90mm as 'normal', the 50mm WA plus the 180 and 360 for the odd shot when I want to strictly control DOF, or for shots that don't fill the frame with the shorter lenses.

I recently picked up a metered prism for a VERY reasonable price. The meter wasn't working. I fixed it myself (dirty switch contacts) and added about $200 US to its value.

I envy the prices you get over there. I bought all my stuff used and in good shape for less than half of what they would cost new.

The interchangeable backs make film type changes a snap. I usually shoot each scene with three types of film. This technique has paid off, since some scenes I thought would look good in B&W turned out to be duds, but looked great in color, and vice versa. I realize that many people consider MF film a major expense, but I think any scene worth shooting is worth spending a few bucks on, and if you can afford MF in the first place, you can surely afford a couple of bucks per scene to make sure you have an eye-catching image. This goes double or tripple if you have to travel to get the shot. A return trip will cost MANY times the cost of the film you shoot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only reasons to stick the 'studio camera' label on a photographic tool are if it will only focus to a distance of 10 feet from the camera, if it will only work when used with an elaborate flash system, or if it will evaporate when exposed to direct sunlight. The Mamiya's don't fall into any of these catagories. They are extremely good outdoor cameras, if you're not to whimpy to deal with their weight.

Enjoy your RZ. It will produce some of the most wonderful negs and trannies you've ever seen.

Best regards,

Stew

Craig asked:

>My beloved Gossen Luna Pro lightmeter has stopped working, I changed >the batteries (Yes, I was able to gat a couple of Varta Mercury 1.35V

>batteries at a local swap meet) and still no luck. Can anyone give me >any repair recommendations, I'm in San Francisco but I do not mind >sendng it off for service.

Craig,

Contact Bogen/Gossen. I've had one Luna-Pro repaired there. Price was reasonable, service was fast. http://www.bogenphoto.com/

While your meter is in the shop, you might consider having them install their adaptor (~$20) so you can use silver oxide (#76) cells in your Luna, rather than having to hunt for mercury cells. The adaptor changes the 1.5V silver cell voltage to 1.35V, as came from the mercury cells. The silver cells last for about a year, which is not nearly as long as the mercury cells lasted, but is FAR longer than the weeks-to-months you'll get from the zinc-air replacements that our all-knowing government has mandated.

Best regards,

Stew

Scott asked:

>I recently purchased an older Hasselblad cds meter 45 deg. prism and

>I was wondering where I could find replacement batteries for it. Any

>suggestions would be appreciated.

Then followed with:

>On further search I found a post saying I need to replace the

>original mercury cell with a "Wein Air-cell battery." Can someone

>direct me towards a mail-order source for these batteries?

Scott,

Do yourself a favor. Stay away from the zinc-air cells. While talking

with an engineer from Mallory one afternoon, I learned that these

cells require at least 50 percent relative humidity to operate

properly. Where I live, that's a rare occasion. Most of North America

is very dry during the winter months.

The zinc-air cells also have very short lifetimes. If you get a couple

of months use from one of them, you've done well.

There is a company here in Arizona (I don't work for them, I work for

Intel) that makes an adaptor to allow the use of silver oxide cells in

camera meters. The silver cells will last for over a year, and are

very inexpensive (about half the price of zinc-air). If your Hassy

meter uses PX625 mercury cells, check out this website for the

adaptor:

http://www.criscam.com/

Best regards,

Stew

New Photo Web site.

<p>

Please visit and comment.

<p>

http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/

<p>

Best regards,

<p>

Stew