gnashings

<p>Always wanted a Retina IIc or IIIc... or C... but I dont see the additional expense justified for a stroke of the CAPS key;) Still, within realistic expectations, that's the one I want. Other than that, M3 please:)</p>

<p>Completely off topic camera-wise, but I couldn't help it - this short is a real work of art as a film, and in my humble opinion if it doesn't move you... well, I'll leave it at that.</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfOFVMth5Q</p>

<p>Rick, it seems you have a lens with a great talent, but like many a genius, troubled... in this case by BDID. For the uninitiated, that's Bokeh Dissociative Disorder :) As you may have noticed I am not one to bokeh this and bokeh that, but I do believe the image is a sum of its parts and hopefully more than that - and the OOF rendering plays a big part. I just don't think that there is a specific set of rules defining good or bad bokeh (mind you, I love the silky smooth brushed haze look that seems to frame many of your floral images). Having said that, I find "Kowhai" particularly striking, even though I bet many bokeh "gurus" would scoff at the OOF rendition of that image. I find it beautiful and very (risking the Wrath of Cliff) dynamic. Also love the backyard photo, agian envy stricken by your eye for colour! (and... "where does he get all those wonderful toys!? ;) )<br>

Aside from that I hope the new old garden agrees with the Gnomes, as we all know their not fond of change, and a guarded by grumpy Gnomes is a recipe for many a mishap! But judging from the photos, I think this is not something you have to worry about!</p>

<p>split filtering can be quite a revelation, although I don't always find it necessary, it certainly allows for some amazing range and details in extremes of shadow and highlight. Great work, I bet the actual prints are quite something!</p>

<p>Vintage colour look? Mission accomplished! </p>

<p>you're a sick, sick little ascetic... SIX cameras? Good God MAN! Do you sleep on a plank in an unfurnished room? </p>

<p>Jokes aside, with the vintage of cameras you're looking at, keep in mind that the resultant quality can be estimated based on make of the camera, but will largely depend on the particular example you obtain. Its a bit hard to give you fool-proof advice, with the caveat being that these old little beasties will generally punch above their weight, especially if you go with a medium format. <br>

I think a roll film folder is the "classic" way to go, so my vote would be with one of those, as far as 35mm folders go, perhaps a retina?</p>

<p>keep in mind, this is a lubitel... meaning, the chances that 15 1/15th of a second exposures will add up to 1 second is... remote at best:) I know its hardly the most "elegant" solution, however, I have taken numerous long exposures with a lubitel (and other cameras for that matter which have the same problem - or "quality"), and honestly, I think even if I in my hands the handy little timer, I would still use the cable and count (or use a watch). While it may be more elegant, I think you would find it less convenient with even the minimum of practice. </p>

<p>What I meant to say is I agree with Maury, Brian, David, and myself:)</p>

<p>Fascinating as usual, great work - minus flip-flop man:) I'm super curious about the "historic oops" - I can't pick it up!</p>

<p>I've been to that affair a couple times - and I like it. I mean, mostly its overpriced crap being pushed by shady dumpster divers, but amidst that you meet some interesting people, have good chats, find the occasional gem of a deal on something, and get to look at a bunch of neath old cameras. I just wish it was more visible - i just found out now, and now is too late to go:(<br>

And count me in as a fan of the drivel, and also accept my best wishes of get well soon for your Dad.</p>

<p>Adventurous?! I was in college, it was a different time... wait... what?! ;)</p>

<p>Unfortunately there is only a handful of places that have worked hard and earned a stellar reputation for rating their used equipment in a fair, accurate and consistent manner (KEH comes to mind). This is not the case with private sellers, and even those who go to great lengths to provide an honest description and even photo evidence of their wares' condition leave a lot open to interpretation. Then there is a boat load of those who either have an overabundance of optimism or hope to gain that extra dollar or two by downplaying the flaws present in their items... As such, JDM's advice to assume the worst and bid accordingly is the best approach to take. Unless the seller insists the item is flawless, making it plainly an open and shut case to return the item if its not, its best to count any item (especially a lens) as a case of getting lucky if it turns out to be better than described.<br>

Of course, this doesn't stop many of us from tinkering, and if its something you're into, it is very satisfying to get rescue an old lens or camera with your own two hands - but its never fun to go into such an endevour with the knowledge that you spent a great deal of money on something and not only is it not working now, it may be worst off when you're done with it... Caveat emptor, know thyself, the grass is always greener, penny-wise and pound-foolish and a few other cliches fit nicely:)</p>

<p>they won't work with your SECAM TV though... ;)</p>

<p>You said it comes WITH THE MANUALS... as far as checking if it works... you know, that's what those are for - to tell you how to operate things. I know they don't have menus, but I am pretty sure near the front there is a table of contents. I know its a pretty advanced concept...</p>

<p>Investment? A better investment than any digital camera, since it will probably be worth what you paid for it for a very, very long time and may even go up in value (most likely will). As far as value, to you - that really depends, if you buy it just because its cheap, you'll think its waste of money. If you decide to use it, you will see that its a very capable system you have on your hands and one that will only be limited by your own abilities.</p>

<p>Also - you say you are fully digital - does that mean you have an on/off switch? If you do, will you marry me?</p>

<p>Nick - which A1 shoots at 5 fps? Just wondering...</p>

<p>I think I am a better person for the victory I just scored versus myself in the internal struggle over fully expressing how I feel about those digisnapping lens vultures... And the micro 4/3 system is the biggest blight yet.</p>

<p>I have two FM's, an older one (on off collar) and a newer one, both meters are shot. I am inclined to believe that either that is a weak spot of these or I just have horrible luck wit Nikons, which pisses me off, because I LOVE the FM's, I think that they are basically the definitive SLR - they are just like newer spotmatic (except all my spotmatics, being decades older, still have working and very accurate meters).</p>

<p>I was just going to post a simple "me", but I see Mr. Linn beat me to it:)<br>

I think it was the spiritual precursor to the A1 - built for what I believe Kodak termed as "adams", advanced amateurs. Much like the A1, I wouldn't be surprised if it found its way to the camera bag of some pros, although the newer camera was more of a system than the EF was allowed to be - technology of the time being a factor I am sure, as well as maybe a more heavy handed marketing "directive". I love the camera, its one of my favourites - it handles right, does everything right, and looks just perfect! </p>

<p>Wow! it DOES look brand spankin' NEW! Beauty! I think it deserves some film ;)</p>

<p>Just to echo the "we don't mind family shots" sentiment, count me as +1 on that front - but, these are beautiful, and thanks so much for sharing them. I know the lovely subject matter helps - but the execution is wonderful. </p>

<p>Rick - that lens is beautiful! I know that this focal length is quite foreign to most people who have started into photography after the SLR became king of the jungle, and I have to admit that at first I found myself wondering where this lens wants me to go, what it wants me to do... but as I shot a few rolls, as I mentioned before, I really started to enjoy the way this focal length showed me the world. I have to say, to give credit where its due, that it was definitely the influence of a few of your posts that made me stick with the 135 long enough to see what you see in them - and I am glad I did. I think people who dismiss them as the vestigial tail of photography's evolution are missing out.</p>

<p>But enough about me;)</p>

<p>This lens of yours is beauty! And its nice to see that Soviet optical industry, which has been largely dismissed (and most often with good cause) as a culture of reverse engineering, copy-cat knock offs and Monday morning QA/QC was capable of designing a lens which to the best of my knowledge is a homegrown design and an outstanding one among its peers. </p>

<p>I loved the pictures but "Contrasts" absolutely blew me away, its OUTSTANDING.</p>

<p>Point well taken, Craig :)</p>

<p>SP - it seems that any camera or lens "help make great pictures" in your hands - pleasure as always, thanks for the trip!</p>

<p>What a nice, intelligently compiled kit, too! Great score - the friend probably thought "I might have to move some day, I better start getting rid of some of this stuff or I'll end up like Chuck! Hell... he's already beyond help, lets give it to him" :)</p>

<p>*please note, I am betting the statement would work with any CMC'er substituted for Chuck, I know my name would fit perfectly;)</p>

<p>sectarian violence... I can just see it now ;)</p>

<p>P.S. You guys beat me to all the good snot jokes... ;)</p>

<p>soooo cool! I've always wanted a black QL17 to go with my "normal" one... but I guess I don't want one bad enough to pay the price... Perhaps someday, and your minolta, looking all elegant and understated makes me think that's very likely to happen. Its a very pretty little camera - congrats.</p>

<p>(did anyone else notice that we congratulate each other on camera purchases kind of like people do when someone has a baby? :) )</p>

<p>your images really display an exquisite eye for composition - I am sure most if not all of those photos get "taken" daily, many times over, and I am also sure the majority of those exposures dont captivate the eye quite like yours have. Thanks for sharing them, I really enjoyed them!</p>