harris_goldstein

I assume you question is specific to what can happen from being stored, as opposed to used, over that time period.

 

You've hit upon the biggest issues - leaf shutter and other grease stiffening. But I would also be concerned about:

 

any springs, such as mirror springs, that may have been altered by lack of use

 

corrosion in electronics - battery and any capacitors

 

impact of humidity (corrosion, fungus)

 

degradation of any foam in the bag or case that may have gotten into the camera

I've had both. You won't need encouragement too long - you should be pleased with your XD-11. Biggest problem that I'm aware of is the tendency for the camera leather (at least on the earlier versions) to shrink. I believe the shutter and electronics were fairly stable. I think the XD-11 is arguably the best Minolta made, though I think the XE-7 (and XK) may have been more durable.

 

My understanding (though I could be wrong) is that your MC lenses will allow manual and aperture priority exposure with your XD-11, but you need the MD lenses for shutter priority.

If you are financing with a credit card and it's not a business expense, consider the total cost. Credit card interest rates will drive the cost up - perhaps making the F100 4-5x the cost of the N80. Personally, I think the N90s (used) is a camera whose capability far exceeds it's going price. And the "s" version allows you to use commonly available AA batteries.

"Unfortunately it came out just about the time as the Olympus OMs and suddenly people wanter smaller and lighter instead of built to last forever."

 

I haven't heard much criticism of the OM system (1, 2, 3, and 4) when it comes to "built to last forever". Nor, for that matter, of the FE2 and FM2 (the earlier FE and FM did have some bugs to work out). And I'm a long time Nikon owner.

 

The FT3 was, and still is, a fine mechanical camera. But the fact is that the heft was not absolutely essential to being rugged even though some manufacturers took the opportunity to slim down and cheapen their product line or came out with pure consumer-grade cameras (Nikon EM, Olympus OM10, etc).

I own or have owned SRT, XE, XD and X series Minoltas. Here's my persective (FWIW):

 

The SRT were great camera's in their day, but the battery issue (I know there are alternatives) make them less desirable.

 

The XE series were probably the best Minoltas in terms of quality and ruggedness.

 

The XD were almost as good as the XE (except for the leather covering) and provided additonal exposure options.

 

The X series marked the decline in quality. While the features/capabilities of the X700 were above the earlier Minolta models, reliability (especially the shutter) was a problem. I have less experiece with the other x-series cameras, so take that into account.

 

As I understand, MD mount lenses were only necessary for those cameras (XD and later) that had a program mode. The build quality of the MC and early MD Rokkers are a pleasant reminder of when lenses where built to last.

IF you're mounting them to the wall and IF you can predetermine the position (front to back), it's a relatively simple matter to fashion a triangular bracket that bolts to the wall studs. Or possibly use a shelf bracket.

 

Personally, for a simple solution, I would fashion a bracket out of 2x4s (my wife accusing me of using 2x4s for everything) or even 1x4s that you could bolt the Bee's to. This is what I think I'd to (hope my description is clear):

 

Take a 18" section of 2x4 for the vertical piece that mounts (by bolts) to the wall. Take a 24" section of 2x4, nail and glue it flat to the top of the vertical at one end (now you have a right angle). Add metal right angle braces on both sides of the joint. Use 2 18" 1x4s to reinforce the bracket (angled at 45 degrees), one on either side. Add a 5" bolt at the end of the horizontal 2x4, coming up from the bottom (with a nut and washer at the top) to mount the Bee on. When you determine the proper placement, make sure you account for the umbrella and/or softbox you may be using.

 

You could get fancier, but this should work.

www.jandcphoto.com occationally has short dated b/w film. Though their "regular" prices compare favorably with short dated film. Check out their Classic Pan.

I remember going to both Olden's and Willoughbys on a visit to NYC in (I think) the late 60s or early 70s. Both were in their prime.

 

Later, in the 90s, I happened to see Willobughbys again. Different location, much smaller, and apparently no difference then a couple a dozen of the small shops in Manhattan that cater to "unsuspecting" tourists.

And you need to be careful of any grit that may have lodged in the felt light trap - lying in wait for film to scratch.

 

One disadvantge of reloading by taping on to the remaining film stock is that you can't easily clean the light trap with high pressure air from inside the cartridge. You can minimize the potential of a problem by only using them once or maybe twice. Since, for all practical purposes, there is an inexhaustible supply this should not be a problem.

 

Years ago, some non-Kodak cassettes where reloadable (Ilford definitely, Agfa maybe). This was the ideal situation. Free cassettes as good as the reloadable cassettes you need to buy. Not sure it this is still the case.

Are these negatives (all or part) something a preservationist organization (perhaps the NY Public Library) might be interested in? For example:

 

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/explore/dgexplore.cfm?topic=cities&collection=ChangingNewYorkPhoto&col_id=160

 

If so, it might provide a path to preserve them.

There's heavy beasts and then there's HEAVY beasts. I think that there is a significant weight and cube difference between, for example, the ETRS and the SQA. But even the ETRS is a monster compared to your IIIf (and perhaps roughly comparable to your Y'mat). And the SQA is relatively trim compared to an RB.

 

I think it boils down to whether photography is the primary objective of the trip or secondary. For me, when secondary, I find that the simpler I keep it the better and the more time I spend on actually taking photographs.

 

I agree with your square format view. It's interesting - I find a square print on the wall seems to capture more attention that a rectangular print. People just aren't used to seeing square prints, so they take notice.

You said it yourself: "2 different animals for maybe 2 different application.".

 

Clearly (IMHO) the Mamiya 6 would be preferable for candid portraits. (I think it's hard to be candid with a larger, relatively noisy, MF SLR). Why are you disappointed in the focusing distance? 1.5 meters with the 150mm should just about fill the frame with a headshot. And probably the closest without severe paralax issues.

 

But what do you hope to achieve - compared to your Leicas - for candid portraits? Granted the larger film size will give better quality (all other things equal) but are you really constrained with the quality from your Leica? I suspect that on day trips with 3 kids and all the paraphernalia that goes with them that even the Mamiya 6 - or the Leica - gets left behind sooner rather than later.

 

So now I'm back to the SQA, but more for the formal portrait work you mentioned (i.e. on a tripod and with some form of lighting control) and in the field where the purpose of the outing is photography. In my mind, it's less of an overlap with the Leicas. Plus interchangeable backs.

 

But, if you're looking for more of a middle ground, what about the 645 SLRs (such as Bronica ETRS, Mamiya 645, Pentax 645)?

 

My 2 cents.

Seto, 200ml seemed low (in volume) to me so I checked my Nikor stainless steel tank. It requires 250ml of solution to reach the top of a single 35mm reel (though without any film in the reel). So your tank, at 200ml, may represent the exteme in terms of developer usage.

 

I don't know the cost of developer where you are and I don't know how many rolls you develop, but I think you may be at a point of diminishing returns. I doubt you can find a tank that requires substantially less than 450ml.

 

You don't mention which developer you are using, but the manufacturer should have a publication that tells you how many rolls can be processed in a given volume and whether any compensation is needed.

It's hard to know based on such limited information. But I see so much darkroom gear being sold a low prices that, unless I was in a hurry, I wait until something better (in terms of the enlarger) comes along.

 

Brands to look for would include Omega, Beseler, and Durst. But keep in mind each made enlargers across the spectrum - beginner to pro.

 

Also, the lens (or lenses) included make a big difference.

 

Place a "wanted" ad in Craigslist (if there's a site in your area)and see what pops up.

For casual architecture, you will typically need a wide angle - somewhere between 20mm and 28mm. For portraits, you typically want a short telephoto - somewhere between 85mm and 105mm.

 

My recommendation is the Nikkor 28-85mm D zoom. 1 - It will allow all the automation your N90 provides, 2 - it's good quality, 3 - it's fast enough (f/3.5-4.5) for most situations, 4 - it's easily available used and relatively inexpensive (approx $100-125 at KEH). If you can afford it, the 28-105 or 24-85 would be good choices.

 

I'd shy away from the 28-200. You can find one that will "go with your camera" but quality suffers with such a large zoom range.

 

I have a 28-85 AF Nikon for my N90s and a 28-80 Tamron SP for my FM2 - plus a bunch of wider and longer lenses. But I find I use that 28-8x focal length range 90% of the time.

 

The N90 is a fine camera, but one drawback (in my mind) is that it requires CR5 lithium batteries. These can be expensive - depending on where you buy them. You may want to "stock-up" when/where you find them at a good price (they should have a long shelf-life).

Came across this the other day in a related posting: http://www.deansofidaho.com/. I've never used them, but he seems to specialize in older classics. I'm not sure if the scope of his services goes beyond shutter repair or not.

While as noted above, credit card merchant agreements and some state laws forbid surcharges for the use of credit cards, many states (and I believe merchant agreements) do allow discounts for cash. Same net effect, except that the "advertised" price is available for credit card users.

 

No doubt there are people out there who are just as "irked" by having to pay 3% more so that others can use a credit card.

 

As to "building in the 3%", I see a bit of a distinction between a business and a private seller. But I'm not incensed, when buying from a private seller, as long as the terms are clearly stated up-front.

 

Personally, if selling I see the 3% as preferable to having to deal with a check. At least on the value of items I have sold (none have reached the 3%=$50 level).

Some comments on the older Nikons and Nikormats:

 

Any older body is likely to need the seals replaced. An inexpensive DIY operation.

 

Many of the earlier Nikormats (FTN, FT2) used a mercury battery that is not longer available. That size battery is available in alkaline, but with different voltage and discharge charactoristics. There are adapters available. I won't get into a debate about practical impact, but you may want to stick with an FT3 or later.

 

F2s are like tanks, with the exception of the ring resister in the meter. Stick with a DP11 or DP12 prism if you go with an F2 or budget for repair.

 

F3s are fine if you can find one in good condition. 90-some % (my estimate) were used professionally and used hard. For whatever reason, it seems that everyone I've seen for sale falls in that category.

 

FM2s and FE2s are perhaps the most desirable (in my opinion) in terms of quality, capability, and size. FE2 gives you an auto-exposure option. FM2 is all manual. The FE and FM are also good, but had some issues resolved in the later models.

 

If size is an issue (if it's going to be carried all day or lots of travel), you may want to avoid the Nikormats and F2s.

 

There is also the issue of AI and non-AI (Auto Indexing) lenses. An AI lens (assuming it has the meter prong) will work with all the above models. Non-AI lens will not work on later models except in stop down metering mode (and may not mounnt on very later ones at all).

 

But why just consider an older Nikon (unless she has existing Nikon mount lenses)? Nikon's not a bad choice, but there are also excellent cameras and optics from Canon and Olympus (among others). Just be aware that the battery issue impacts other models (not just Nikon) as well (try http://www.butkus.org/chinon/camera_batteries.htm for older battery info).

I don't know how someone can help you decide if it is a good decision based on the information provided. The Hasselblad is a fine camera and, if in good condition, will still give many years of service. But lenses are expensive, so if you want to round out your system with additional lenses, be prepared to spend a lot of money.

 

If you want to know if $850 is a fair price, then you need to describe the condition, the model of the 80mm lens (C, C T*, CF T*, etc), and the services the local camera shop provides (did they check out the camera, do they provide a warrenty, will they show you how to use it). Also, does the serial number of the film insert match that of the film back?

 

Assuming they at least provide a return privelege, and that the camera is in excellent condition, then $850 seems (to me) to be on the high side of reasonable. Depends on the factors above. If you want to compare with a reliable source, go to www.keh.com.

 

You could probably do better than $850 on the auction site, but may take on more risk.

To elaborate on Roy Des Ruisseaux's point on the rapid wind, the C220 series does not cock the shutter when you wind the film. You have to cock the shutter with the lever on the lens. Not an issue for studio or landscapes, but could be an issue for any sort of action shot (though no doubt there are wedding photographers who have mastered the 220).

 

The 220 is lighter and generally less expensive.

 

Be aware of the lack of long lenses (relative to 35mm). A 180mm Mamiya lens is roughly equal to a 100mm in 35mm (assuming full frame 8x10 equivilent). For dancers in action, a prism would be a plus.

 

A nice thing about the TLR, when compared to a SLR, is that the viewfinder never goes dark and the noise is much less. There may be better options, but not at the price you can get a C220 or C330 for. You'll probably want to budget for a body, prism, 80mm and 180mm.

Many years ago I had a Yashica TLR with differing focus points for taking and viewing lenses. A test roll showed the taking lens was in focus when focusing by distance. Turned out the mirror between the viewing lens and screen was slightly off it's mount.

www.ifp.org has photography classes in St. Paul. Not sure about studio lighting. Also, Hennepin Technical College offers a lighting and studio classes.

While my personal favorite for 35mm and medium format is my Tiltall, I think Manfrotto offers the best price/performance/selection option. I've used in winter here in Minnesota without issues (at least tripod related issues).

 

I think you have some compromises to make. It's my opinion that center columns should only be used in pinch and I even try to avoid full extension of the lowest leg section. So a substantial tripod may be required to give you the height you require. Also the light cameras you mentioned will also require a substantial tripod.

 

There are carbon fiber tripods that may give you the height and stability you need with low weight, but I've never looked closely at them.

 

One thing I do is get foam pipe insulation (from a Home Depot or equivilent) and wrap the upper leg section.

I'll put in a plug for my favorite P&S travel camera: Rollei Prego 90. Why?

 

- Reasonably compact, but not so small as to be difficult to use controls

 

- 28mm minimum focal length - IMHO required (assuming you don't have a 24mm) for travel

 

- 90mm max focal lenth - IMHO good for head and shoulders portaits or to isolate a large subject (such as building) when you just can't get close enough

 

- excellent optical quality - in part due to a reasonable zoom range

 

I'm sure there are other cameras with similar charactoristics.

 

Biggest drawback is the slow lens, but that's acceptable if using 400 print film.

"I could probably still recover 80% of my Canon investment, (blank warranty cards, extended warranty) all mint and I still have the boxes"

 

If you can recover 80% of your investement you'd be doing better than 99.99% (OK, an estimate) of similar sales. Not impossible, but I would suggest unlikely. And the longer you wait, the less likely it is.

 

Have you ever felt hampered by your Canon lens choice in a way that would have been solved by your MF Nikon lenses? Do you have a continuing need for your Nikon MF lenses? If the answer to both is "yes", then a switch makes sense.