wayne_cornell2

Thanks for all the informative resopnses and offers. Given the options I think I will put together a bracket that mounts to the tripod screw and use a sync cord.

 

I loved my F and always wished I had moved on to the F2. From what I have read about the F3 and the workmanship of this camera I'm thrilled to get one even at this late date. Only trouble is this one is so clean I almost hate to use it. Oh, well, the F series wasn't designed to spend all the time in a display case.

 

Thanks again.

After spending a year with the F100 I walked into a local photo

store recently and came face-t0-face with an absolutely mint F3 with

the HP finder at a price I could't resist. It's a lot different than

my Nikon F or 30 years ago but also much the same -- quality from

the word go.

 

My main question (which I could answer through web research)

concerns the hotshoe mount. Are the adapters difficult to find and

how expensive are they? I don't plan to use a flash much but there

are times when it would be handy. Also I have a Sigma flash that

works TTL with the F100. Could it be used TTL on the F3?

 

Thanks

quote:I agree. A lot of the photos being posted on this forum have no redeeming quality other than they were taken with old cameras. Its useful to see a few sample photos to see what old cameras can be capable of but it would be a shame if this forum became a repository for peoples photo albums.:end quote

 

One man's great art is another man's yawner. Personally, one of my major reasons for shooting is family record. Posted photographs are like TV. If you don't like what's being shown there is no law that says you have to look at 'em.

Thanks for sharing the photo, Bill.

QUOTE: I have one of those with the Solagon lens. Mine is the Ansco Super Memar - which is an identical clone. Most of those Agfa rangefinders have gummed up shutters. I've yet to find one with the slow speeds working. Another annoyance is the lack of strap lugs so don't buy one without a case. The ones fitted with the Solinar (Tessar type) lens are not very good. The Solinar just does not live up to the reputation of the better Tessar types.END QUOTE

 

Thanks for the tip on the lens hood. I've had an Ansco Super Memar with the f2 since my mother bought it new about 1959 or '60 but have never been overly impressed with a lot of the photos. I'll bet a lens hood could make a big difference.

The FED 5 isn't a pretty camera but they are cheap, seem to be pretty reliable and have the I-61 L/D which is very nice lens. Finding one with an operating meter can be tough. If you don't want to make the move up to a Bessa of Canon screw mount, the Zorki 6 is a good choice. It has a hinged back, long-based rangefinder and a pretty decent viewfinder. It lacks slow shutter speeds but few people use them anyway. The Mir is in the same catagory. Maizenberg, the FSU repair guru, said the Mir was the most reliable.

Oil on the blades isn't as big a deal on rfs as it is on slrs

Thanks for the info on the built-in UV filter.

Really started a discussion, didn't I?

Background: I spent a number of years in the early '70s as a newspaper photographer. In those days we shot black and white -- almost exclusivly Tri-X. Most newspapers used, at the most, an 85 line screen for photos. Any finer and the dots would bleed into each other on porous newsprint. So, we printed most picture pretty low on contrast to keep some dot in the highlights so they would blow out to total white. I guess my eye on printing adjusted accoerdingly. I've never been much of a high contrast guy. That's why I like the way the photo came out -- shooing with the sun high and bright, with a light background reflecting more light.

As for the hair, may be the scanner to a degree, but it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, hey, whatever trips your trigger. All I wanted to say was, I've always used Tri-X but am very impressed with Tmax. I like the way it looks. If you don't, fine. Maybe there is some info that will help somebody. Judging any photo is a subjective thing. I probably wouldn't like some of the stuff critics shoot, either.

I'm been a fan of Tri-X since the film was introduced back in the

50s. But when I recently acquired a used Mamiya C220 I picked up a

couple of rolls of TMAX to hold me until a shipment of 120 Tri-X

arrived.

I should explain that shades of gray have always been my first

priority in black and white photography. I've never been much for

high contrast, which is one reason I liked Tri-X. But my results

with TMAX suggests it does a better job with the gray scale and has

less grain than its older sibling.

 

After shooting the 120 TMAX 400 with good results and getting less

grain than with Tr-X, I pulled out a roll of 35mm TMAX 100 that has

been in my bag more than a year and shot some photos of our

granddaughter in bright sunlight using a Nikon FM and 50 1.8 Nikkor.

I processed it in D-76 1:1, 68 degree, 11 minutes -- one minute

shorter than the Kodak recommendation (I also shorten developing

times for Tri-X). Again, I was very pleased with how the film

doesn't blow out the highlights.

 

Based on my results, I think I'm going to concentrate on TMAX from

now on. Tri-X is a super film but I think Tmax is better -- at least

from my perspective.<div></div>

Pulled the top last night and cleaned the haze out (didn't touch the mirror!). Much better. Thanks

Thanks.

 

I believe the screw in the back must be the one I can see that goes up vertically into the bottom of the top.

Saw a post from 2003 on Cleaning the Koni-Omega viewfinder but

didn't go into any detail on removing the top. I have a model 100.

There are two screws on the left end of the top (with camera back

facing me) and one screw on the right end. I removed those but the

top remains firmly attached. Anyone out there have more detailed

info on how to get the top off a Koni?

"35mm film cameras are now obsolete"

 

 

And the digital model you buy today is obsolete before you get it out of the store.

Ok: We've now seen every photo Mihaela? has shot (most of them much too dark for my taste). Seems like every forum has at least one individual who seems better at shooting off their mouth than their camera. LOOK AT ME! HEY, HEY. LOOK AT ME!!

 

Raid. Hope you have a wonderful trip. I'm outta here.

I suspect you could get the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor used for about the same price as a 28mm f2. I my opinion the 24 is an infinately better lens.

Nice shots. A couple of years ago I sold a Contaflex someone had given me. Makes me wish I had kept it.

Check that it's alex-photo

AlexPhoto is one of the best sellers of FSU gear. You can bank on his descriptions -- he doesn't sell junk. The Ukraine reference is important. A lot of Ukrainians bristle if you call them Russians.

I have a nice Zorki 3M that I enjoy using. Probably the most user friendly model is the Zorki 6, which has a hinged back and lever film advance. Like the Z3 the Z6 has a decent viewfinder.

 

I usually shoot Z1s with the wide angle J-12 because I like the dept of fiel and it keeps my eye away from the vewfinder on the camera which has a metal ring and scratches the hell out of the plastic lenses of my glasses!

 

There's an interesting story in a Russian newspaper about Oleg, a guy who collects and repairs old FSU gear. I can't read Russian but have dealt with Oleg and it's nice to put a face with the name.

 

http://www.okvintagecamera.com/me.htm

Correct. The extra memory enhances performance but the PC3200 memory is only going to run at pc2700 speeds on a machine that was designed for pc2700 memory.

Everyone has his one definition of "classic camera." One of my

favorites is a 1954 Zorki 1D camera (Leica II copy). I used it and

a Jupiter 12, 35mm lens to shoot this photo on Tri-X film.<div></div>

IMO most of us would dump Leica in an instant to spend $1500 on a FAST RESPONDING polycarbonate digital camera with non-distorting, fast Vario Sumthin' (manual focus please) and bright frame finder."

 

I disagree. If you are willing to dump a Leica for the latest electronic whiz bang, you are missing what makes Leica special. Leica users tend to be folks who enjoy the "process" of shooting film -- or just owning a beautiful, well-made piece of equipment. Because digital technology changes and improves virtually every day, it would be impossible for Leica to build the equivelent of an M2 or M3 in digital. They couldn't charge enough for it. No matter how well a camera is made, consumers aren't going to pay Leica-type prices for it if the technology inside is outdated in a year or less.

 

Because of the takeover of digital, the Leica is becoming more of a "niche" market. I believe the only hope of the company is to continue to solidify that niche, while dumping non-essentials like slrs. There is no way the company can compete in the digital market.

Not sure Apple is a good example. About the only thing that company now has that's going anywhere is the ipod. Apple dominated in graphic arts even after it fell behind in the consumer market. But even the graphics people are moving toward the PC platform -- they are tired of having to fork over tons of cash every time Apple introduces a new machine not compatible with the previous generation. I used an Apple at work but am migrating everything over to Windows. It's not as good an interface but I can be relatively sure the machine will still be compatible with the next generation of software upgrades. Leica's strength has always been it doesn't go for gimmicks or trends. It has targeted a specific niche. It needs to get some good management, dump the slrs and focus on what it does best -- quality rangefinders.

Sigma makes some capatible flashes. Don't have as many bells and whistles as genuine Nikon but they cost a lot less and you get all the basic ttl advantages.