harris_goldstein

I have this metal lens hood that I know someone is looking for - but

I can't identify it so we'll never find each other. It's probably

circa 1950-60 and it's marked "B&W 35.5 EI".

 

What makes it interesting is that the threads are on the inside of

the hood (i.e. female threads). Every lens I've seen has had

internal threads, making this hood incompatible.

 

Ideas?

The Polaroid brand was purchased by a liquidator who will now market or exploit (depending on your point of view) any number of inexpensive consumer technology products made by others under the Polaroid brand. See http://www.pettersgroup.com/EN/press/20050427_Petters_Polaroid.html

 

It's a sad ending for what was once an innovation leader. I suspect the production of pro-level polaroid film will continue but I wouldn't expect much in the way of R&D.

BTW, I have found DHL ground to be the least expensive alternative for shipping heavy items. No relationship, other than using them. YMMV.

Many other items that could be used as a "club" are prohibited. Baring a specific approval for tripods, I would consider the possibility that any individual security location would not allow it to go though and plan your time accordingly.

You may be able to take a 49mm plastic cap and, with a soldering iron, create 3 or 4 indentations in the edge of the ring that will allow a tight enough fit.

XD-11s tend to have a problem with the leather shrinking and leaving a small gap at the edges. Purely a cosmetic issue that does not detract from the excellent functionality. But you should be aware of this.

In all likelihood, both lenses were made to fit a specific mount (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc). I assume from your post that they came with a Canon mount. What were the models of the cameras they came from?

 

I'm not that familiar with Canon, but I believe back then they might have had a bayonet mount (FD?) and another mount that required a rotating ring on the lens to lock it to the camera.

 

If you look at the mounting area on the lens, it might have an engraving that says C/FD or C/FL.

 

It's not likely that these lenses will work well (might work, but be very limited in function) with a new Canon camera but might work well with an older (but still very usable) Canon such as the F-1, AE-1P or A-1.

 

Out of curiousity, why do you feel the cameras they came from are outdated? If it's the lack of AF or program exposure, using the Vivitar lenses on a newer body may not help. If it the lack of specific batteries (mercury batteries are no longer available) there are alternatives. If they are truly broken, they may not be worth fixing though "several hundred dollars" seems high.

If you are looking to purchase locally, check out the store(s) that sell to wedding photographers. Many seem to be going digital and trading in their MF equipment.

 

Tallyn's was mentioned earlier. I think (but can't be certain) that their web clearance items are often examples of trade-in as I described. BTW, once stopped in there (at Tallyn's) while in Peoria on business and found them to be very good to deal with.

Suggest you wander over to www.subclub.org. Lots of info there.

 

In addition to the aformentioned movie film, short lengths of 16mm film available at http://www.subclub.org/sponsors/goathil2.htm.

 

Using 16mm microfilm requires somewhat altered, but not difficult, development techniques. I was given a formula that based based on very dilute HC-110 but don't have it handy.

There are any number of high quality, rugged mechanical cameras from the 70s and 80s that will meet your needs as well as newer cameras such as the Nikon FM2n mentioned earlier. The best deals are on mechanical cameras that were high quality but not quite professional tools. The reason is that the demand for them falls far short of the supply. They were well made and deliver great results. Since they were not used all day, every day, you can find them in excellent condition.

 

But like any 20-30 year old mechanical item, you do need to carefully check condition. And while there are good deals on eBay, too many people sell items where they express no knowledge of the condition.

 

One thing to watch out for is batteries. Many older cameras (like the SRT-200 you used) would be perfect except for the fact that they were designed to use mercury batteries that are no longer available. Yes, there are Wein cells and other alternatives (I use an adapter in my Rollei 35 and a common hearing aid battery in my Spotmatic) but it's an unnecessary compromise with so much good mechanical equipment out there.

Hard decision, but you're not likely to go wrong either way. Other factors, such as transportation, might make one or the other a better choice. For example, when I was there a few years ago you could take an overnight train from Edinburgh to/from London which was a good option if the English midlands don't appeal to you (renting a car in Edinburgh).

 

For B&W, I would gravitate toward the north and northwest coast of Scotland and the west coast of Ireland (esp. Cliffs of Moher).

 

Sounds like 5 in Ireland and 5 in Scotland to me.

In addition to the previous reply, this is my understanding (but I'm not a Graflex expert; try www.graflex.org):

 

You have a spring back, you need a graflock back. You might be able to remove the spring back and install a graflock back, but they were not intended to be swapped back and forth. Even if you could switch the spring back for a graflock back, they are hard to find and relatively expensive. Info here, including a link to a discussion on conversion: http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html#GraflokBack

 

The graflok back allows you to take off the ground glass back and replace with a roll film back. So you could focus first on the ground glass then (assuming steady on a tripod) replace with the roll film back. Or you could use the rangefinder (which I suspect was the preferred method of focusing with the roll film back). Or you could zone focus based on distance estimation.

 

Rollfilm backs were sized for 2x3 and 4x5 Graflex backs (maybe 3x4 also). I assume your camera is a 2x3, based on the photo. If not, the roll film back would not fit regardless of back style.

 

If the issue is film availability, 2x3 sheet film is available from www.jandcphoto.com. Of course, that does not address the issue of variety of emulsions and processing options that 120 provides.

Lots of vibration in a helicopter. As noted in earlier posts, keep you shutter speed high (at least 1/500) and don't worry about aperture (except in terms of sharpness of your lens). Make sure that your arms are not touching the anything attached to the airframe. That way your body helps to isolate the vibration.

 

In 35mm I used a 135 or 200 to capture most buildings. When you consider distance, you need to keep in mind the minimum altitude you can fly at plus the angle of the shot. A picture of a flat commercial roof is only of interest to roofing contractors. So, without getting into geometry, the distance to your subject will typically be at least twice your altitude (for oblique shots). The racetrack shots can obviously call for a wider lens.

 

You probably won't be hovering when you shoot. Too much vibration then. Depending on regs in your area, you'll probably be at 500 or 1000 feet.

 

Use relatively high contrast film. The haze that is typically found saps contrast. A good lens shade is essential.

 

Older asphalt (roads, parking lots) makes a good grey card. Depending on it's shade, maybe a stop off.

 

If you have to shoot through a window bring something to clean it inside and out (and get permission of course).

For your summer visit, consider a side trip to Isle Royale.

I've used Paul Ebel in Wisconsin (715-778-4372).

I generally used the 200mm for aerial on the 6x7. Your needs might differ, but I was taking oblique shots of commercial building from 1,000 feet. I needed the longer lens to use most of the available negative space. I was shooting from a high wing Cessna and also needed to make sure the wing strut was out of the image.

 

BTW, weathered asphalt is a pretty good grey card. About 1/2 stop from 18 percent.

West Photo has an extensive rental program. Not sure if they have the lenses you're looking for.

I probably was not clear in the original post. I may be able to purchase a used D100 at a price I consider fair given the other cameras on the market (including the D70) and the rate of depreciation on DSLRs.

 

The advice I'm looking for is what questions should I ask of the seller to ascertain the condition of the camera. Not the general questions that would apply to any camera, but those questions specific to digital cameras (such as "actuations").

 

Thanks again.

I'm a long time Nikon film SLR user and have always bought used film

bodies. Have had a couple of digital P&Ss but looking to get a used

D100.

 

I know what questions to ask in general, but not sure what to ask

specifically about a digital camera. For example, just how important

is the number of actuations and what constitutes "high mileage"?

 

I'm taking into consideration the dropping pricepoints for DSLRs.

But how critical is the warranty? I realize repairs are expensive,

but can you assume, like most integrated electronics, that most

problems occur relatively soon?

 

Finally, improved sensors and electronics will result in higher

megapixel counts and lower noise. But realistically, are the next

generation of DSLRs likely to result in noticeable better quality up

to 11x14?

 

Thanks.

Optics: Obviously it depends on how you use the camera and what you want from it. How big an enlargement and from what portion of the negative. You could start by enlarging 1/4 of the negative (not 1/4 from the center) to 8x8. If that satisfies you, especially the area from the corner of the neg, then you're fine. Make sure you take your test from a sturdy tripod. If you don't have a good tripod, it would be a very good investment.

 

Focus: Keep in mind that you are focusing with one lens but exposing with another lens. In theory they are matched. But I bought a "trash" Yashicamat many years ago and opened it up. The mirror that reflects the image from the viewing lens onto the screen had slipped. I put it back in place and it was fine. Shoot a very detailed subject wide open (to minimize depth of field) and compare focus.

 

Shutter: There are supposedly ways to test a shutter using a PC monitor or something like that, but I've never tried them. If you develop your own B/W and have consistent procedures, shoot a flat surface across all shutter speeds (adjusting f stop) and compare film density. If not, shoot a roll of slide film.

 

IMHO, a TLR is a great learning tool. With a tripod, it slows you down and encourages you to focus on composition. You may want to check out www.jandcphoto.com for b/w 120 film.

Unfortunately, the self timer is stuck in the "on" position, so the camera doesn't function. I have a few QL17s, so maybe this one gets kept for parts.

The Mamiya 220s and 330s are a lot of bang for the buck if in good condition. But be careful of the chrome lenses (the ring around the class is chrome) with a Seikosha shutter. The lenses are fine (though maybe not as good as the later "black" lenses) but parts are no longer available. If you do buy a chrome lens, makes sure there is a distinct difference between the 1 sec and the 1/2 sec speed.

 

Make sure you save enough $ for a good tripod.

Steaks and bricks!

 

Or, if you prefer, a thermal barrier and a thermal moderator.

 

The styrofoam coolers that Omaha Steaks (and others I assume) are relatively thick relative to volume and sturdier than what's found in the stores. Bricks or something like that in the cooler would moderate the temp over the course of day and night.

 

If I had to leave gear and film in the car, it would be in the trunk since the interior is a greenhouse.

Good idea. On a similar vein, I've been thinking about the flexible 1 gallon plastic containers used at Starbucks and other coffee places.

My view - from the other side of the lens.

 

My wedding (many years ago) was shot by a National Geographic photographer who was a friend of my wife's family. The wedding was held in a home, so certainly not a traditional wedding.

 

He succeeded (at least I think he did) because he did not try to duplicate typical wedding shots. If he had tried to do that, I'm not sure he would have been successful given NO experience with the process/structure/procedures of formal shots.