Dustin McAmera

Frank: you seem to be asking if you can use plates in cut-film holders; whereas in cameras of this age, I'm used to seeing plate-holders, which you can adapt to accept sheet film with 'film-sheath' inserts. So if you have holders that accept sheet film as they are, I'd look and see if part of the holder is a removable insert. See a 9x12 example in the picture in this wiki page: Film sheath - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia If what you have really are film-holders, it's hard to see how those could be adapted to accept a thicker media; but I expect you could find some plate-holders that fit the camera.

I measured the image of the film gate of the Mercury I in this picture by Dirk Spennemann (in the Camera-wiki pool at Flickr); Univex Mercury I As I viewed the jpg in Paint, it was 169 pixels high and 129 wide; I assumed we could rely on 24mm high, and that gives you 18.3mm wide; close enough to proper half-frame as you could want, to the accuracy of the measurement. But Glen seemed pretty sure of what he said above; so then I found this page at Kurt Munger's blog: Mercury II 35mm F/2.7 review - Photo Jottings He gives the size of the film gate of a Mercury II as 19x25mm, and that's consistent with the proportions I got in pixels. So I'm going to add those dimensions to the wiki page, seeing as I have a respectable source who says he measured it. If you have your hands on a camera that's rare, or even a common one that's not well-described in the wiki, accurate details are always welcome! You can post them at Flickr, or register to edit the wiki yourself. You need to get one of the admins to do that (because when we allowed self-registration we got so much spam); again, the Flickr group is the easiest point of contact: Camera-wiki.org

Hartlepool. Yashica 44LM, Macocolor UCN200

Large Format Photography Forum

Yashica 44LM, Macocolor UCN200.

Hogweed.

That first picture in particular is fabulous!

Polruan, Cornwall. EOS M50 with a 15-45mm kit zoom.

3¼x5½ inch would be either a 122 or 125 roll film (see this page at Camera-wiki); a 'postcard' size. As far as I can see, neither sheet or roll film close to this has been offered in Ilford's annual 'ULF' unusual-sizes programme.

Here's a Butchers' one with a Beck Rapid Rectilinear: Carbine - Antique and Vintage Cameras

Carbines come in a range of sizes and specifications, denoted by a model number. For an idea of the range, you could look at a catalogue reproduced at Pacific Rim Camera: Pacific Rim Camera Reference Library The 1930 catalogue has the most Carbines to look at, though the style of the shutter, with that air-release attachment (I think?) suggests yours is earlier than that. I also see that catalogue doesn't offer the cameras with Beck lenses; in this and the 1935 catalogue, they seem to be mostly 'Aldis-Butcher' (i.e. made by Aldis for Houghton-Butcher Manufacturing, who made the Ensign cameras), plus some more expensive options. 'Carbine' was a name that belonged to the Butcher company. They ran into trouble when the First World War came along because most of their business was importing German cameras into England. That was why they joined with Houghton, who had a big factory of their own, and so Houghton-Butcher began making Carbines in London. I have two Carbines: one for 2¼x3¼ inch on 120 film, and one for quarter plate (3¼x4¼ inch) - that's as sheet film in single holders, or originally there would have been roll film that gave eight pictures that size. I have exposed a film in the smaller of the two, but not yet developed it. I'm ashamed of how long I've owned the big one and not used it (I haven't even photographed the camera). I bought it in part because I already have an Ensign Reflex in the same size, and I guessed the same film holders would fit both cameras; and they do; so when I fancy doing it, I can actually use the big camera. It has a Ross Expres lens, so it should be pretty good. Good luck with yours!

Hoofprints and birdsh*t on a frosty road, by me (though fellow Brits might consider this, and many of my photos, a load of Jackson Pollocks). Agfa APX400 in my Balda Jubilette. Oh, and Bill's post is definitely figurative: I see Jackson Pollock flipping a pancake.

That's a lot of solution. What did you use it with? I dirtied the sensor on my EOS M50 very soon. I saw a speck of dust on it while changing lens in the street, and without thinking I blew on it. So now I had a few spots of spit and one of dust. The high-street store where I bought the camera doesn't sell do-it-yourself cleaning things, but would take the camera from me and do it, for significant money, and not right now. So I tried the other camera store, where the man sold me a kit with two solutions (less than 5ml of each) and six single-use swabs. First, you blow with a blower (not your spitty mouth, idiot). Then you run the camera's self-clean, with the sensor facing down. Then you wet a swab with liquid A and wipe the swab across the sensor; it dries in seconds, and you can assess the result. If that didn't clear it, you try liquid B on a fresh swab. That worked for me. I've used the kit twice, so I have one more go until I need more swabs. I still have most of each solution, which is why I think 50ml is a lot.

There's a copy of the Panoram cameras made in Tianjin, China in about 1970. I wrote up what little I could find out about it for Camera-wiki, when one was sold at Westlicht. I could only find one other example mentioned on the net, so we have no pictures except the ones in the auction lsting, which we linked to. There's no detail about the lens except its length. Lanjian Saomiao She Ying Yi 950 SM - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Thats a Tenax: Tenax I - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

I don't know that you'll find anything very much more modern than your NII in a *film* camera. If your problem with your camera is that you see it as old-fashioned, jumping to another system because 'parts are still available' seems like only a short-term answer. Anybody still using film now is choosing to do something a bit old-fashioned, surely (and I am one of them, when I'm not too lazy). If you want to make a real jump into the future, it's going to have to be a digital; any digital will give you the option of a 4x3 frame. Make it a mirrorless, and you can use anybody's lens you like (probably including the ones you already have) on a mount adapter.

.. but do you need to do any conversions, after spending all that money on a *rangefinder* camera?

Sorry - I've posted this one before.

The OP's words aren't clear to me; but it seems he means to photograph an artwork (not make a pastiche of it like JDM), then use photoshop on the image and claim the result as his own. In my book that *is* theft of the intellectual property. I have nothing in any galleries unless you count Flickr, but even in my little world, Creative Commons licences allow you to allow/forbid such derived works. Even when allowed by the maker of the original, it would normally be required that you acknowledge that maker, and reproduce their licence conditions where you display your derived work. If we don't respect other artists, we have no cause for complaint if our photographs are stolen. Photographing artworks is always tricky. If I were an art student, I might photograph artworks to help my memory of them, if the gallery even allowed that. I wouldn't think of reworking or publishing the pictures without permission. On the street, it's often impossible to photograph a scene without an artwork being in view, and an artwork may be an essential part of a place. That's different from the museum, because we own the public space; Henry Moore doesn't get to forbid us from photographing the High Street when one of his things is put there. But even then, I'll check with myself that my picture is 'of the High Street', not just of the sculpture. I might still take a tourist picture of the scuplture, for my own memory, but I wouldn't publish it.

I have a little plastic thing to hold the stop-down lever; it came with a Kiron reversing ring. You still have to release the mount yourself (and I suspect I may originally have learnt to do what I describe above from the Kiron instructions - don't know). The ring came without a hood, which sounds like a good thing to have.

I have here in my hand an FD 85/1.8. Looking at the back with the rear cap off. If you were mounting the lens, you would be twisting the outer barrel anti-clockwise (looking from the back, remember), while the camera would hold the inner barrel still. Here, let's hold the outer still and twist the inner clockwise. If the red spot is at twelve o'clock, there's a chunky metal boss at about seven or eight o'clock, between the two levers. Hold the lens in your left hand, and place your thumb against that boss, ready to push on it, clockwise. Now in the channel round the edge, where the camera mount goes into, there are a couple of little metal pins; more like the ends of two metal strips; that project a tiny way out. One is between twelve and one o'clock, and one's at four or five. When you put the lens against the camera body, the pins are pushed in, so they're not in the way of the barrels rotating past each other. Get something to push with. I used a tiny screwdriver. I guess it would be ideal to arrange to push both pins at once. I managed to open my lens by pushing one, then the other pin, while applying pressure gently to the little boss. When it goes, the boss will move round to about ten o'clock, right next to the lens-release button, which will pop out. The lens should now be at full aperture, and the lower of the two levers stops it down.

No, the Zenit winds on with a knob. The Zenit 3 from 1960 has a lever. They also don't have slow speeds, and they load through the bottom; but they're among my favourite cameras. The Kristall from 1961 and the 3M from '62 have an opening back, but still no instant-return mirror. Thanks for the write-up Alan!

I have taken a felt pen to my Industar 50: f/16 is now 'Intense'.

In fact, it's in the camera manual, page 136 'Notes on imprinting data' that you should set the imprint density to +1 or +2 if you're using Kodachrome 64 or 200, because of the low sensitivity of those films when exposed from behind. So I would guess you could do the same with your cine film.