Dustin McAmera

<p>Do you have a manual? If not the Mamiya Leaf site has them for most discontinued models: <a href="http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/documentation.html">http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/documentation.html</a></p> <p>I think you must be talking about the battery compartment in the film back, which can be opened with a coin, and might quite well be a bit mangled on a used one. I believe the battery in there is only to serve the film back when detached from the camera: the camera's batteries are in the grip section of the camera, and the compartment fastens with a little folding key: you shouldn't need a tool to open that.</p> <p>With no batteries in the camera, you can't pull the dark-slide <em>out</em>: there's an interlock to stop you doing so. So I guess the previous owner may have pulled the dark slide and then taken the batteries out, and the same interlock is now stopping you putting the slide <em>in</em>. With the dark-slide removed, you can't detach the film back.</p> <p>As Edward suggested, I'd take it back if it was sold as working and it isn't.</p>

<p>Mamiya made a good range of lenses for their 645 cameras, but I don't think anyone else did, so unless you can get a mount adapter, you don't have many choices beyond the focal length.</p> <ul> <li>55 mm f/2.8: only a moderate wide; my favourite lens on my 645 Pro.</li> <li>45 mm f/2.8</li> <li>35 mm f/3.5</li> <li>24 mm f/4 (full-frame fisheye)</li> </ul> <p>For macro, or anything close-up or low down, you will probably find a waist-level finder useful. You can get an 80 or 120 mm macro-focusing lens, but it's a lot cheaper to get a set of extension rings, which you can then try with all the lenses you have. I quite like the close-up view with that 55 mm lens. You could get a bellows, for more, and more variable, extension, but it's a lot more cumbersome than rings.<br> There are reversing rings too, if you can find them for sale: I have a reversing ring for one of my lenses in 35 mm, and find it very limited. It works right there, and nowhere else.<br> If I was more into close-up, I'd get a slider (goes between the camera and your tripod, and lets you rack the whole camera forward and back).</p>

<p>Are these your scans from the negatives, or scans or prints from a shop? If so, have you looked at the negatives to see if they are the same? Could just be a mistake in their scanning.<br> The second picture I'd say just needs a better scan, to have a proper black. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Either making or buying a bellows seems a lot of investment if you only want to use the camera once or twice, and the same applies to the film, I think. Cutting 120 film down to size, or spooling 35 mm with a real 828 paper the first time will take you along a learning curve, which will be a lot of effort per picture if you just make one eight-exposure roll; it might be worth buying a roll. I see Tri-X listed at B&H. Making your own seems more worthwhile the more rolls you want. Do you have spools? <br> Of course, we don't do this stuff because it's sensible or efficient. I made a little cutter to cut roll film to size for my 127 cameras, and I can adjust it to cut the film 35 mm wide. I originally did that to serve a little Zeiss camera that makes pictures 22x32 mm; almost like half-frame 828, but the spools are different. I cut one roll of 828 for my Coronet Cub Flash: the Cub is made from a resin plastic that is degrading rapidly, and the body is (now) so badly warped that it won't close. I have a better 828 camera (a Bantam Colorsnap), but I wanted to use the Cub before it died.</p>

<p>I got a new bellows (for a Kershaw Raven) from custombellows.co.uk a few years ago (I'm not connected with the company, etc.). They just make you a new bellows; you'll have to fit it.<br> Making your own bellows is quite well-covered on the web: just do a search for 'making bellows', and be careful you don't make the one for an Irish bagpipe.</p>

I replaced the mirror in my Pilot *Super* with one from a Polaroid 600 series camera. I had to cut about a centimetre off the wide end of it (and I didn't do the neatest job of that; snapped one corner off; but it's still a big improvement on the original mirror). With that done, it's very near to the perfect size and shape.

Oxford University's Museum of the History of Science has T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia)'s quarter-plate Dallmeyer: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/cameras/item57.htm

<p>I don't think the Combiplan tank is made any more; a shame, because it's good (if expensive, and a bit fragile). It can take 4x5 inch, 9x12 cm, quarter plate (3¼x4¼ inch) and one smaller size which I forget (maybe 6.5x9 cm). It can take sheet film or glass plates (if you can find any!). I load mine in an ordinary large-size black bag.<br> You can get a special insert to hold a few sheets of 4x5 in a Paterson tank; that's quite expensive too, and I think only works for 4x5 inch.<br> If you really want to have a go at sheet film without buying any equipment, you should investigate the <strong>taco method</strong>; the sheet film is held gently in a folded/rolled shape with an elastic band, and developed in a normal tank for roll film. I haven't done it myself, but there's loads of information around the web about it.<br> Alternatively you could get some ortho film and develop it in print-developing trays, under safelight (and not too close to the safelight, I think, to be safe). Bear in mind that being insensitive to red will quite markedly change how your pictures are rendered. Rollei, Adox and Ilford all have ortho films. They're all ISO 25; you probably need a tripod!</p>

<p>Take a look at this earlier post:<br> <a href="http://m.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00YV2b">http://m.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00YV2b</a><br> Sorry; it's not very encouraging...</p>

<p>As Jim says, download the manual; however, I <em>believe</em> these are true:</p> <ul> <li>If you have a film back attached, but no film in it, you must have the body set to 'Multi' for it to cock the shutter.</li> <li>The shutter should work at 1/60, mechanically timed, even if the battery is bad, with the front switch set to the yellow dot.</li> <li>There are electrical button-connectors linking the body to the back, and the body to the prism; it's always worth cleaning these.</li> </ul> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Hey - I'm going to make my millions selling 18% grey gloves!<br> <br />I always have my hand-held meter with me, even when I'm using a camera with a TTL meter (quite rarely these days - I've retreated to the 1950s!), and measure incident light. A grey card reading should give you much the same result.</p>

<p>Forgive me for hi-jacking the thread to mention that a later edit of that Camerapedia article is at Camera-wiki.org, where most of the Camerapedia writers went when Wikia bought the Camerapedia name and URL:<br> <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Konica_Auto_S">http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Konica_Auto_S</a></p>

<p>Fotoimpex (in Germany) lists Foma 100 in 2.5x3.5 inch, but as a 'special order item'. If they actually have it, the price isn't bad: 13.90 Euro including tax but not shipping, for 50 sheets.<br> <a href="http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/fomapan-100-64x89-cm-25x35-inch-50-sheets.html">http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/fomapan-100-64x89-cm-25x35-inch-50-sheets.html</a></p> <p>How would you develop it?</p>

<p>In your quarter-plate camera, you'd be unlikely ever to want to focus it for a plate again. Couldn't you shim the focus screen up (or back, if it's a rear screen) to make it be correct for sheet film?</p>

<p>120 film, at least some brands of it, used to be numbered only 1-8. Certo's Super-Sport Dolly (late 1930s camera) has two red windows on the left, to let you shoot 6x4.5, and a third in the centre to let you shoot square; but in case your film isn't numbered for the square format, some models of the camera have numbers 1-12 engraved on the winding knob.</p>

<p>I only have one 35 mm half-frame camera, a FED Mikron. It's a copy of a Konica camera. It has a 30 mm f/1.9 lens; 30 mm is the same as the diagonal of the frame, so this lens is a little wider than a 50 mm on a full-frame camera. The Mikron has auto-exposure, or you can set manual aperture with a fixed 1/30 second shutter speed. Focus is manual, and you can see the focus scale in the VF. I'd like proper manual exposure (i.e. a manual shutter-speed control), but otherwise it's one of my favourite cameras. It depends on a big selenium meter cell, which I guess will fail one day; hope not.</p> <p>This is my FED Mikron set at Flickr:<br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/century_graphic/sets/72157594149487932/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/century_graphic/sets/72157594149487932/</a></p> <p>There's a half-frame format on 120 film too: 120 was invented for 2¼x3¼ inches, and the 2¼x1⅝-inch size, which we mostly call 6x4.5 cm, is half-frame, but doesn't have the same minority status as 35 mm half-frame. I have several cameras in that size. I also have some half-frame cameras for 127 film, which give 3x4 cm pictures, almost the same as full-frame 35 mm.</p>

<p>With any camera of this age with a cloth shutter, it's worth checking for pinholes in the blinds.<br> As for the lens, it's a coated Tessar copy, and should be ok if it's in good condition. Give the front and back a gentle clean before taking any pictures you use to judge the lens by.<br> Nathan Dayton has this table:<br> http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/lenses/index.htm<br> .. which doesn't have the I-61, but has the I-22 and I-50 (other standard-length Industars). Both of these seem to have better resolution than the J-8, especially at the edge. On the other hand, the Jupiter gives you f/2, and that carries a lot of weight.<br> Remember that the RF can be adjusted, and if you have trouble with accurate focus, it's possible a previous owner has adjusted yours!</p>

<p>They do look under-exposed. I wouldn't rule out that the fault might be with the production of the sample-print by the store. I can also think of several possible ways that you could have under-exposed the whole film:<br> - You might have set the film speed wrong (left it at ISO 400 when you only loaded ISO 100 film, say).<br> -Your camera may have an exposure-compensation control, and that might have been left on.<br> - You might have left the camera on a manual exposure setting, but thought you were using auto-exposure.<br> -Your camera's meter might have a fault, or maybe just need a new battery.<br> More information might help us: what camera, what film, and what settings did you use?</p>

<p>Read the manual, as JDM says, to know what your camera can do; the AE-1 is pretty good.<br> There are a few next steps beyond 'just focus and shoot'; you'll pick them up as you need them if you use the camera enough. Here are a couple.</p> <p>The metering is centre-weighted; so if you put a big bright thing (or a dark one) in the middle of the picture you can fool the meter into exposing badly. You can avoid that, still in AE, by pointing the camera a little way aside, giving the camera a scene of more normal brightness while you meter. Press the shutter button half-way down to get the meter reading, then (still holding the button half-way down to keep the reading) re-frame the picture as you want it, and finally press the button all the way down to shoot. Obviously, the 'surrogate' scene you use for metering should be similarly lit to the one you're taking, other than the bright thing in the middle.</p> <p>Sometimes you may want to photograph a scene which is mostly dark (or mostly bright). AE won't expose correctly in this situation; it will overexpose to try to render the scene as of average brightness. Again, you can get round this, by metering off something which <em>is</em> of average brightness, under the same light. You can even buy a 'grey card' specifically made for this. I've seen people use the palm of their hand as a grey card, or the flap off a corrugated-card box. You can do this in AE, using the half-pressed-button thing, but you probably aren't gaining much convenience over setting the aperture manually. Another solution is incident-light metering using a hand-held meter.<br> Enjoy the camera!</p>

<p>Camera Eccentric has this document for some old shutters:<br> <a href="http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/repair_1.html">http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/repair_1.html</a></p> <p>Daniel Mitchell's site has pages on several shutters:<br> <a href="http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php">http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>If you like the AE-1, then look at the A-1. It is really very similar to use, but carries on metering into slightly lower light, and in addition to shutter-priority, you can switch it to aperture-priority or program AE. It uses the same battery as the AE-1, which you can still buy without difficulty (and which lasts for ages). You get more information in the VF than with the AE-1 (both shutter speed and aperture), and you can switch that info off if it annoys you; a nice touch if you're in good light, and want to be left alone with your composition.<br> It gets the same mirror-brake problem with age as the AE-1 (my AE-1 hasn't had that fault; I bought a second-hand A-1 with it, and had it lubricated at a reasonable price); be choosy when you buy either of these cameras, or be prepared to pay extra and have the camera serviced.</p>

<p>Sorry - I'll <em>start</em> by being negative. Nothing would make me do anything like this to my Yashicas: I think if there's a better 127-film camera than the LM, it must be another of the TLRs. Further, I don't think what you'll get is that good. The reduced format will be 24x40 mm, which would be attractive in landscape orientation, but the waist-level finder is hard to use sideways on. I keep my 127 cameras going by cutting 120 film down to size. There are several discussions of this on the web (including the 127 group at Flickr). There is also the new Rera Pan ISO 100 B/W film, being imported from Japan by several dealers (In Europe, Macodirect has it; in the US, B&H does).</p> <p>Having said that, I remembered this post at Flickr. All this guy has done is to remove the film roller at the bottom of the camera, to make room for the cassette. As long as he doesn't lose the parts, he can reinstate the camera any time.</p> <p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/127/discuss/72157619694358223/">https://www.flickr.com/groups/127/discuss/72157619694358223/</a><br> (and click the picture in his post to go to the gallery of pictures he refers to)<br> There's no effort to stop the film curling at the edges, and I bet it does, but the worst effect will be among the perforations, where it won't be seen. He doesn't mention making a viewfinder mask, but it would be easy to cut one out of card.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Looks like the film passes across the front of the holder, so must be emulsion side out, except on each spool, like the backs for a Graflex (or the inserts of a Mamiya 645).<br> I replaced the cloth pieces in a roll holder, not exactly like yours but similar; it's a reducing back for a quarter-plate camera. I bought a length of black satin ribbon at a craft store, which was fortuitously almost exactly the width it needed to be, so the sides are ready-finished, and naturally don't fray. I used double-sided tape to fix the pieces in, and relied on that to keep the fixed ends from fraying, but I hemmed the loose ends.</p>

<p>Consider a small Graflex like a Century Graphic, with an RH10 lever-wind roll film back for 6x7.<br> Given the age of the stuff, you may have to assemble your camera, lens and film back from more than one purchase. For less money than you're talking about above, you should be able to get a good kit. Again, given the age, you may have to renew light-seals in the film back.<br> The RF on these cameras is only ever adjusted for one lens at a time; it's about half an hour's work to readjust it for a different lens. You may, in any case, consider the RF a bit clunky compared to those Fujis. You can also focus with a ground-glass, and there may be a focus scale on the bed, if you get the camera with its original lens (if not you can make your own scale). Of course, there is no meter in the camera.<br> The camera's not tiny, but more compact than an RB. The Century is plastic-bodied, so not too heavy (I think the other Graphics are wood). It's quite easy to hand-hold it.</p>

<p>Can't help much...<br> If it was sold as a Kodak-branded product, I imagine it would be Kodak yellow, like the ones (in other sizes and dates) shown at 'Early Photography':<br> http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_F118.html<br> ... but note the Premo film-pack, low down on the page. There's a 4x5-inch pack branded 'Premo', though Kodak's name is on the box; and the box is white with red pattern and black text. There's also a later, quarter-plate 'Kodak' pack in yellow. The notes say that the film-packs were re-branded as 'Kodak' film-packs from 1922. If your little roll film was the same, it could well have had the older Premo packaging.<br> <br />The roll only gives six pictures, according to the advert shown at Camera-wiki:<br> http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Cartridge_Premo<br> So I imagine the rolls weren't very different from an 828 film, if you've seen one of those.</p>