james_fardon

The 35mmf2.4 Zeiss Flektogon is a good and useful lens. I have one which I intended to sell but after trying it on a Pentax K body with an adaptor I changed my mind. They actually sell for quite decent prices on Ebay. The other Pentacon lenses are likely to be good, whilst the Vivtar is a pretty poor lens, I used to have one in Nikon F mount.

I don't agree that the EOS3 is better in every respect. ECF seems to work better on the EOS30 although it is still not good enough if you wear glasses. I also prefer the control layout on the 30V. Unless you have a particularly specialised requirement the 30V has more than enough features and 'performance' to keep you happy. The 3 has significantly better build quality which might result in it lasting longer. In particular the catch holding the back closed on the 30V looks delicate. Other than the build quality I think the 30V is actually a nicer camera.

I agree that the 300mm f4.5 non ED is nothing special, but it is an acceptable lens and probably better than most of the 70-300mm zooms. I used to own this lens, but later bought a 300mm f4 AF which is better, but the difference is not night and day. For landscapes used on a tripod I think it will be adequate. Note that if you are trying to shoot distant scenes there will be degradation due to haze and convection no matter what lens is used. You would probably have a long wait trying to find an ED non IF lens in the UK. I suggest buying a 300 mm f4.5 only if the price is right, saving for a 300mm f4 AF or buying a Sigma APO Macro 300mmf4. Frankly I think the last option offers the best value, although it is not as well built as the Nikkors.

Just out of curiosity is this optical system designed for some sort of phase contrast imaging application?

I bought an R3 and 35-70mmf3.5 (E60 version). I have now gained considerable respect for Minolta! For a 70's Japanese zoom lens it is pretty sharp once stopped down a bit. Nice solid feeling camera with a useful spotmeter and speeds down to 4s. Has been reliable so far. Even so, I doubt that I will buy any more Leica R equipment because I think Nikon MF bodies are better overall and enough of their lenses are on a par with the Leitz equivalents (i.e. 24f2.8, 28f2.8AIS, 55f2.8, 105f2.5 and 180f2.8).

You might want to consider the Horseman SW6x9 as it offers much the same functionality and optics. Whilst not having the exclusivity of Alpa, Horseman makes high quality product.

I'm just wondering if the person recommending Ffordes has any personal experience selling their items on commision. If so how long did it take them to sell? Admittedly EOS lenses are in demand, but I think it will be a lot slower than selling through ebay (even if it is reasonable to ship from Israel etc). Ffordes is probably better since they advertise in AP and sell via mailorder, but most other shops that sell on commision, seem to ask excessively high prices, offer little or no warranty and make no great effort to sell the items. Consequently they often sit there for months gathering dust at the back of the cabinet.

Italy is a great place with great people and lots to photograph, but.. I would suggest not taking any more than you can keep firmly strapped to your person. I.E. take the 17-40 and 50 but definitely leave the 70-200f2.8 behind.

You could try Peak Imaging for XP2 C42 processing. I have had pretty good experiences with them, i.e. the films are returned pretty clean and unscratched compared with a lot of other labs.

I've used a Pentax 28mm f3.5 shift lens on my K1000 handheld on many occassions with no real problems. This particular lens has built in skylight, orange and yellow filters, so is particularly convenient if using b&w. If you shift beyond the recommended limits (which depend on orientation) the edges will get a bit soft. If you look hard enough you will also find a bit of chromatic abberation. These are problems suffered by most retro-focus wide angle and shift lenses. It is still a very sharp, high quality lens. I also use an old Nikkor 35f2.8 PC which is good, but the wider angle of the Pentax is often more useful. You may be able to use a medium format equivalent of this set-up hand-held, but personally I would prefer either of the Horseman, or Pro-shift that you have ruled out or a baby view camera used on a tripod. If going to this kind of expense they are likely to give better quality than a compromise design retro-focus shift lens.

I may not make myself popular by saying this, but using microfilms for 4x5 or even worse 5x7 is pretty absurd and verges on obsessiveness. How good is the film registration and flatness in a large format camera? Usually not all that accurate and not very flat. This will nullify any 'sharpness' advantage of these films. Tech Pan may have been good for astrophotography, but it has been superceded by cooled CCD chips for this purpose. In my experience it produces lousy tonality for most pictorial purposes. Acros has finer grain, but lower resolution than either Delta 100 or TMAX 100, but is probably still a good choice in comparison to the other suggested alternatives.

Whilst TechPan may have finer grain and higher resolution when developed to high contrast, when developed to pictorial contrast Ilford Delta 100 is the highest resolution general purpose film available, closely followed by TMAX 100. This is not just my opinion, I have seen microdensitometer traces that support this conclusion. TMAX is slightly finer grained. They are both faster and have better resolution than EFKE 25. I know that some people enjoy playing with microfilms, arcane developers and EFKE films, but if you just want good results try these two. EFKE films are capable of good results, and look fine in isolation but when compared to modern films they betray their 1950's heritage.

If you just want a few snaps then you have already received good advice. If you are serious about producing some quality material, then you need to plan the flight with the pilot, and request that once you have the shot set-up he throttles back to reduce both engine and wind induced vibration during the actual exposure. Obviously this requires an itercom and good communication with the pilot with safety being paramount.

As an aside the resolution figures for the Bronica Zenzanon look somewhat anomalous to me. Why should the resolution drop from f5.6 to f8 and then increase again when stopped down to f11. This suggests a potential experimental error. Anyway, even with normal careful technique using ISO 100 B&W film, a sturdy tripod and a cable release it is quite difficult to exceed even 50lp/mm on the negative and even more difficult to get this detail in a print.

These cameras handle very differently. I have tried a number of TLRs including a Rolleiflex 3.5E3 and a T as well as assorted Yashicas, Seagulls and an MPP. Rolleis are superbly engineered cameras that have the potential to produce top quality images, but I find TLR handling to be awkward for me. This very awkwardness restricts my potential eyepoints and usually forces me to slow down and use a tripod. Strangely, I have produced some of my best MF work using TLRs despite not being a natural with them. For handheld use I am much happier with a rangefinder or an eyelevel SLR. The Bronica is far more versatile, and has the potential benefit of not having 25 years or more of wear (GX and FX excepted), but if you are prepared to find a good one and are happy working with one lens you may be surprised and delighted with the results from an old Rollei.

I don't think you will easily beat 7Dayshop's prices, however if you want a UK guarantee then Mifsud's prices are competitive compared to other mainland dealers. I have not bought any cameras or lenses from 7Dayshop, but I do buy my films from them. I have bought both new and used cameras/lenses from Mifsud's and the staff are knowledgeable and helpful. Acfoto.de and other German sites that I have looked at offer similar prices to UK mainland dealers, but you will have to pay 20-30 Euros for p&p so where is the saving?

I was under the impression that developer effects on grain clumping were primarily a function of how good a halide solvent the developer is. I would buy that agitation has a possible effect, but its magnitude must be small relative to solvent and physical development effects. Compensating development with dilute developers often results in compressed midtones which then print as a muddy mess. This is not an effect that I usually want. Also diluting the developer will reduce the solvent effect thereby suppressing the fine grain effect (admittedly this is partially offset by the longer development time required). Conrad has provided an excellent reply, one of my problems with the FDC is that there is not a single H&D curve or a microdensitometer trace to substantiate any of their opinionated, controversial and sometimes contradictory claims. As Conrad implicated I do think that secondary developer effects are of tertiary importance to the photographic process. I know that I wasted a lot of time buying and trying different developers when there were far more fundamental problems with my work (such as the method and consistency of my metering technique).

'strong/harsh agitation is generally bad and only serves to excessively increase grain and contrast, while extended breaks from agitation, especially with well diluted developers, will have very beneficial effects on most if not all aspects of the negative's "contrast" as well as reduce apparent graininess.' Please explain how 'strong' agitation increases grain. Also what happens to the midtones when reduced agitation is employed and why is this beneficial? Why would minimal agitation with a dilute developer reduce 'apparent graininess'?

How do these individuals know that the Ilford recommended times are off the mark? I'm sure Ilford wants to mislead people so that they get disappointing results with their products and go off and buy Kodak, Fuji or Efke instead. Check your themometer, agitation procedure, timing procedure, temperature control and get a sensitometer and densitometer. Also process several control strips to see if you are capable of consistent work before saying that the manufacturer's recommendations are wrong. I have no connection with Ilford or any other film company, but listening to unsubstantiated, opinionated bunk (even if it is my opinion!) helps no one. Try the recommended times and then modify to get the results you like with your own procedure.

Kodak has produced some good products over the years, but they have also foisted inferior quality 126,110, disc film and APS formats on the public. Allegedly because market research showed that people are incapable of correctly loading a 35mm or roll film and did not need the potential quality that 35mm is capable of. Of course there was a short term gain in sales. What would have been nice is to have a 35mm guage film without sproket holes, a slightly larger image size and a lower aspect ratio format (say about 1.3 vs 1.5). Roll film should have been repackaged in cassettes without the clumsy backing paper to reduce film flatness problems. Incidentally I have heard (unconfirmed) rumours that APS film production will be terminated in the very near future. There is no chance of a new high quality APS camera.

If you really want to carry just one type of film why not try Ilford XP2 Super or Fuji Neopan 400CN? They offer extremely fine grain for 400 ISO films, are more than sharp enough for most general photography applications and are forgiving enough to allow for less than ideal metering technique without needing exotic development procedures. All in all I consider them to be almost ideal for travel photography.

The command dial is not the only design fault, there are frequently problems with the pop-up flash as well. Unless you have experience in using and checking EOS cameras for correct operation I suggest buying the new Elan 7. All the EOS cameras are fairly complex and you may need to refer to a manual to ensure that everything is working. If you are relatively inexperienced but determined to buy a used camera with a limited budget, then get something simple like a Pentax K1000. You may lose a little convenience but the image quality can be as good or better than any EOS film SLR.

I know that 7Dayshop has attractive prices for Canon EF lenses, but have you actually bought from them? I stand to be corrected, but there are rumours of lenses being packed in jiffy bags and arriving with damaged boxes. Maybe I wouldn't worry if it was a 50f1.8, but with anything more expensive I would not be happy. Incidently I have no problems buying films and other items from 7Dayshop for which they are excellent.

'Better to use the maximum amount of developer solution-- penny wise-- pound foolish type of thing (I tend to use Rodinal anyways so this isn't much of an issue).' Is this your own theory or are you parrat-phrasing some of the drivel printed in the 'Film Developing Cookbook'? After all; this learned tome lectures the reader about the supposed benefits of using more developer than recommended by the manufacturer and then goes on to describe techniques such as water bath and divided development! You may be assured that 500ml is more than enough developer for one sheet of 5x4. Techniques like divided and water bath development would not work If more than a few ml of developer were required. Oh yes and if you fill the tank very nearly to the brim I don't think you will get even/sufficient agitation. Other than the Jobo tanks there is no ideal off the shelf soloution available in the UK.

I have now tried an old Paterson tank (not system 4)designed for up to two reels of 35mm, but it is only just tall enough to take a 4x5" film. There is evidence of underdevelopment at one edge, probably due to the lid/light trap preventing adequate developer flow and agitation in this region. I agitated continuously by rolling the tank along the edge of the workbench, because I used 500 ml of developer. With the tank vertical around 700 ml of developer was required to cover the film. A slightly taller tank would be better, but it is a workable idea.