mark_satola1

<p>That pretty much says it all, Patrick. Why spend $120 on a Blackbird Fly just so you can look harajuku cool? The thrifts are where it's at. I got a working Yashica Electro 35 GSN for $16 at Unique Thrift here in Cleveland. Light seals are decayed, but (borrowing a trick from Holga) a little black tape took care of that.</p>

<p>Agreed. That's a lot of money. If it took medium format film, it would be more attractive to me, but still overly expensive. I can get the same sort of 35mm results from all kinds of thrift store cameras, ranging from a Bell & Howell plastic throwaway to a 1959 Kodak Pony with scale focus.</p>

<p>Add me to the Bronica RF 645 pushers. It's the one that works for me. Mamiya 7 is big bucks even when buying a used one. Like the Mamiya 6, the Bronica's out of production, but it can still be serviced. The 6 has a wider range of lenses, though, and if you like square format, that's the way to go.<br>

My Bronica consistently gives me 18 exposures on a roll of 120, though technically 6x4.5 should only give you 16.</p>

<p>Bronica RF 645, Fuji Neopan 400.</p>

<p>I have two Koni-Omegas -- a Koni-Omega Rapd with 90mm lens, and a Rapid-Omega 200 with 58, 90 and 180mm lenses, they are indeed indestructible monsters, but very heavy. An afternoon with one of them can tire you out. But when you see the results -- quite lovely, I think -- you'll orget about the muscle strain from hefting it around. Best bet for 6x7 on a budget.<br>

If you go to KEH.com, you can assemble an RB67 kit for not too much money, just select components in their "bargain" rating. KEH's "bargain" is better than many other sellers' "very good." Shipping to Australia may be pricier than can be tolerated. For the most part, I'd steer clear of the Bay of Evil, it can be treacherous sailing there, though you can also get lucky.</p>

<p>Recently acquired an XSi and a Bronica RF645. Guess which one feels better. Yup, the MF rangefinder. The DSLR is easier to use in a variety of situations, but I find I'm setting it to aperture priority just to control DOF and firing away like it was a point-and-shoot. In fact, I was more "conscious" using my old P&S Canon, a PowerShot A510, which I left on "manual" all the time.</p>

<p>Looking through all the pictures I've taken in the last 6 years I find that the ones I like best have all been taken with old film cameras: Canon FTb, Zeiss Contaflex, Yashica Electro 35, Mamiya C330S, Rapid-Omega 200, the aforementioned Bronica. Digital cameras seem to create a different mindset (in me, at least) that does not produce the best images. Still, it can be hugely convenient. I just don't always trust myself with digital.</p>

<p><em>"I hope it's more than a grand because if it isn't I may just be suckered into buying one."</em><br>

I hear that. I don't need to spend more money on cameras. It would be fun to give it a test run, though. Sure is a pretty li'l thing in general, and as much as I love my old folders, how nice would it be to have the folder meme in a brand new unit? Very nice, I think.</p>

<p><em>"For a group of scientists and engineers coming into this project without prior experience...."</em><br>

Just spent some time at their website and many of these seem to be guys with 30+ years' experience working as engineers and chemists for Polaroid, so I'd expect they could come up with a solution to replace chemicals that are no longer manufactured. Their marketing guy was, I read elsewhere, the man behind SX-70 Blend, so I suspect that whenever they do bring their product to market, it will not be inexpensive.</p>

<p>I was a little disappointed to see that they'll be concentrating on integral films. While my 600s and SX-70 will be pleased to be back in use (They <em>are</em> going to supply the SX-70, aren't they? Site seems a little vague on this point.), my 1960s-era pack film Polaroids were hoping they would be able to get away from that Fuji pack film, whose plastic case is slightly thicker than Polaroid's metal case and tends to jam up the camera because it creates too much pressure in the film compartment.</p>

 

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4154934">Somanna Muthanna</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a> "...right now I chug along with iphoto... sigh."</em><br>

I use iPhoto for basic stuff myself, and for the most part it's fine, since most of what I do is documentary-style shooting. Nothing wrong with it if you're not looking to do all kinds of after-the-fact work on the image. There are some things it won't do, and some things that you can sort of make happen by fooling around with the sliders. For instance, I forgot to set white balance to tungsten the other day, and was able to bleed out some of the orange glow by upping exposure a bit and bringing down the temperature. Not perfect, but serviceable. I just have to remember to make sure I've got the camera at optimal settings.</p>

<p>Late addition to the thread. I shot my last pack of SX-70 Blend and boo-hooed for a minute, then realized I could, with some assiduousness, carefully peel away the ND filter that was across the top of the Blend pack and slip it onto a pack of 600. Better than putting an ND filter on the lens, because you don't have to re-jigger the metering thingie on the front, and, this being an SLR, your view is still bright, because you're not looking through the filter.</p>

<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 14px;">

<div class="post" style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 25px; margin-bottom: 25px; margin-left: 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;">

<div class="message" style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;">

<p style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-family: georgia, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 160%; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"If you look at prices on the Tourist's on ebay you might reconsider the "cheap" notion. I think people are scooping up the lenses and shutters for large format stuff."</span></p>

<p style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-family: georgia, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 160%; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;">Wow, I was lucky when I got my Tourist I on eBay 5 years ago, it was $10 and works fine, light-tight bellows, functional shutter speeds, etc. Included the leather case in A1 condition. They're not the greatest lenses and shutters, though, I can't imagine how they'd perform in a LF context. Any insight into how they're being used?</p>

<div><span style="font-family: georgia; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>

</div>

</div>

</span></p>

#1 does it for me -- signage and old advert slogans, great! "The Store With a Smile." How can you beat that? Lovely image

from what is in effect a simple consumer model camera. Ditto Lauren!

Thanks, Patrick. The packs weren't frozen, but we had a few days of 100-degree weather, and I tossed them into the fridge

for a while, where they were at about 40 degrees. Pulled them out when the heat wave broke a couple days later. Hope I

haven't ruined them all! The images I've successfully gotten from it have been outstanding.

I'm not saying this to sound snarky, but I think the easier and cheaper thing to do would be to get a Polaroid camera that

takes 600 film without modification. (With the understanding that there is a limit to any Polaroid camera's usefulness,

depending on the model, because Polaroid is discontinuing all film production.) You don't even need to go to eBay to get

one, I've found four working ones on thrift store shelves, none for more than $5. Of the four, the Polaroid Impulse takes the

best photos -- the plastic lenses on these models can be pretty bad, but the Impulse seems like it has an okay lens.

I have a working 350 and have successfully run a pack of 667 through it. Decided to try a pack of Fuji FP-100C, and immediately

encountered some problems. Black cover sheet came out fine. For the first shot, the white tab would not pull through except with great

effort (and a little tearing), and the actual print came out white. Second and third shots were great, clear, properly exposed, no trouble

pulling the tab or the print. Fourth shot, white tab was resistant to pulling, but it came through, and brought unexposed shot #5 with it! #4

was only partially exposed, big swath of white on the left side of the print. Looked at the number on the latest white tab, and it said #6.

Gave it a tug to see if I could get things aligned, and out came prints #6, 7 and 8. Yikes. Opened up the back and pulled out the pack, and

saw that there was a big gooey mess on the rollers and surrounding areas, like a chemical packet had burst into the compartment, rather

than spread over a print. I cleaned it up but haven't run anything through it since.

 

Has anyone had this happen? I figure it was one of a number of things: I didn't clean the rollers as thoroughly as I thought after the first

pack; the Fuji pack was defective (chem capsule burst wrongly); or the rollers may be a bit more resistant than they ought to be (?). No

clue here, very new to Polaroid pack cameras, and I want to be sure I'm doing everything right when I put my next pack in. I truly love this

camera, and the images I've gotten with it are kind of breathtaking in their clarity and their unique "Polaroid" qualities.

I once masked a Polaroid onboard flash with electrical tape. The heat of the bulb was enough to melt the adhesive, and the

mask fell off. Make sure there's enough tape sticking to the "non-flash" parts so it stays on.

Great answers all, thanks! This gives me a good amount of data that I need to make

easier what would otherwise be a a difficult decision. Any others who might want to

weigh in, keep the anecdotal information coming.

Thanks, Kelly. I did see that hole-in-the-Acros suggestion in other posts. If this were an ideal world, I suspect I'd just buy both, and decide which one I liked best.

I see the last posts regarding the toss-up between the Bronica RF645 and the Fuji

GA645Zi go back to about 2005. Now that these cameras are a bit older, can

anyone give me updates on their respective performance? I'm now in the market

for one or the other of these MF rangefinders, and am facing the dilemma so many

have faced in the past: which of these would be a better investment? I've noticed

people having trouble with film transport on the Bronica, and loose winds and

vignetting on the Fuji.

 

I'll be doing street-urban stuff with whichever one I get, if that helps. Any input you

can provide will be hugely appreciated!

I use both. I like options. I'd be honked if all film was discontinued, but it probably won't go that far, he said hopefully. They each do different things. I often use a little pocket digital to take "sketches" of things I want to come back and shoot with medium or large format.

There are of course battery disposal issues with them, so just tossing them in the trash is not a good idea. People tend to give me Polaroid caneras because they've heard I like them. I use the spent cartridges to test whether the cameras work, since the battery power long outlasts the time it takes to shoot 10 pictures. You load the empty cartridge in the camera and if it's working, the motor will whirr noisily as it thinks it's spitting out the lightproof cardboard sheet that protects the film. I have yet to find an old Polaroid 600 camera that doesn't work. Too bad they're discontinuing all that!

I once took a picture of a well-lighted interior (afternoon sun) through a glass window with no polarizer by using my coat like the cloth used on a view camera. Just made sure there was no light leaking around the coat, and adjusted aperture and shutter speed accordingly. Same principle as when you cup your hands around your eyes to better see through a window from the outside. Worked great!

Sounds like it's time to start looking into doing your own prints. Processing a roll of 120 with 6x9 images without printing can happen anywhere, from the drug store to the pro lab. Just specify that you don't want them to cut the negative. The neighborhood MotoPhoto will do that for me. They've also printed odd sizes of images without loss of any picture data by simply printing it onto a larger sheet and leaving a border. Of course you pay for the larger size sheet, not the size of the image.

Another thing you can expect to find in your old pack film Polaroid will be old batteries

that have gone bad and leaked all over the compartment. That greenish powder is

pretty nasty, so use latex gloves (I snitched mine from the medikit at work). An old

toothbrush and a mixture of baking soda and water will clean that stuff up pretty well.

When you're digging through Jim's Polaroids or the Landlist, note which models have

glass lenses, try to get one of those - better images. The batteries are specialized --

they look like standard photo batteries but have the sort of terminal you find on a 9 volt.

There are places online that sell them for about $8 or $9 each and it's been possible to

order them from Polaroid till recently. Don't know how long that will continue, but give

them a call at 617-386-2000 or 800-343-5000.

What a fantastic look these all have. It's an ineffable quality that can't be achieved with any

glass currently produced. The sharpness of the leaves is outstanding, yet the whole

image has a creaminess to be envied. God bless the Ektar and all who sail with her.