m_elek

Is that calculated in dog years? Is this another Bill Mitchell trick question in which the definition of classic cameras (to be discussed but never used) changes to include some but not all pre-1975 cameras?

I know, but if I told you, I'd have to ... well, never mind.

More than a loaf of Wonder bread. Less than a brick (clay or Argus variety).

More than you would expect.

Briefly:

 

-- Increase contrast in an image editor (Photoshop, Picture Paint Pro, Corel Paint, etc.)

 

-- Get better lighting

 

-- Don't compress the photo so much.

 

-- Go with 480 width on larger versions and not 640. And don't compress the photo so much.

If you were outside on a sunny day and the camera was loaded with fast film ... you probably lost or damaged a couple. If you were inside, and the camera had slow film, maybe or maybe not.

 

Process the film. No one here will be able to accurately answer the question.

The Rolleiflex was a staple of the studio photographer for decades. The larger negative gives you plenty of space for cropping and composing. Even uncropped, if you like.

I'm going to change that to "In general, any modification by a third party degrades the value of a camera."

 

There probably are instances where third-party modifications increase the value, but those are the exception and not the rule.

The Super Ikonta B (530/16) gave 11 shots on 120. This camera was modified so the user could get 12 shots on 120.

 

I would guess that the user was told to not use the camera's frame counter and autoframing mechanism and to simply line up each shot with the frame number appearing in the new window.

 

It looks well done, although it degrades the value of the camera. Any type of modification, which also includes adding flash synchronization, degrades the value of a camera unless it was modified by the camera maker.

 

On the other hand, you'll get accurate framing as well as an extra shot.

 

It has nothing to do with modern film. By the way, I don't understand the (Super-Six) in your first post.

$500 seems like a lot, but it's not that much. And so you will dump a $800 camera and spend another $1,500 or more so as not to spend $500? And end up with a tiny negative that cannot capture the tonality of medium format.

 

Spend the cash, get the camera repaired properly and then get back to it.

Zeiss Ikon, not Icon

or you might have turned the crank in the wrong direction.

If you buy something Japanese from that era, you'll need to replace the foam seals. Not a big deal, unless you haven't done it before. The camera also will likely be soiled, and the viewfinder might be very dirty. This will be the rule, not the exception.

 

However, careful shopping and persistence should enable you to find something good that won't need a lot of work.

the best camera for that amount is no camera at all.

 

at that price, you either get something that's poor quality or you get a used camera that might need to be serviced (another 75-150 euros) or is simply junk.

 

if you can push your budget up to about 250-300 euros, then you can buy an entry level camera and kit lens.

there's a place in Caldor Plaza (well, what used to be Caldor Plaza)

 

and another on East Ohio Street

as far as i know, all supposedly had been reserved. however, people are still able to buy them. 36? 50? surely, you jest.

as i've said, phishing and related scams should be considered capital offenses

the contax g lenses have no aperture or external focusing rings, because those are handled electronically. there are no adapters to handle that -- you would need to build electronics into the adapter, although you could create a helical for focusing

 

there is some guy in japan who does one-time g=>m conversions. once converted, they cannot be used on a contax g. for the price of the conversion, you can buy a zeiss lens

find a book of LIFE photogs, "What They Saw." great book. some even used leicas. covers the periods from the 1930s to the 1970s

Who knows? Perhaps you should ask Leica.

The later Rolleiflex models (C-F) are heavy cameras -- roughly 46 ounces, if I recall. The Rolleiflex T might be a good choice, although it's a camera that you must try to know if you'll like it. That's sort of true of all of the TLRs.

 

If you remove the need for a meter, then you can also add the Rolleiflex Automat or the Rolleicord to your list. Both of these are noticeably lighter than the lettered models.

 

The image in a TLR is laterally reversed, so it will take a few rolls to get used to that. And they are much slower in use -- slower to focus and somewhat slower in framing your shot. However, one of the photogs at work said when he started, they had to use Rolleiflexes to shoot everything, including sports. So I guess you can adapt the camera to your own shooting style.

 

Anyway, back on topic, I'd probably seek out an earlier Rolleicord and see if you like it. Then you can always move up to a different model.

I would guess that it has to do with the lubrication (grease) hardening in cold weather. When warm, the grease softens again. Having the camera might cure this.

I love the square format and don't find it limiting at all. $500 does open up a world of options.

 

A Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar -- good choice. A Rolleicord with a Xenar, also a good choice.

 

I don't have any experience with Japanese medium format -- the quality should be excellent, given the comments.

 

Whatever you buy, budget about $150 or so to have the camera serviced. If it doesn't need to be serviced, then that's a bonus. But assume that it will when you buy.

for a college student, "affordable" might need to be $50 or less.

all digital camera makers should put big warnings on page 1 of the manual.

 

FORMAT THE MEMORY CARD ONLY IN THE CAMERA

 

ONLY DELETE PHOTOS WHILE THE MEMORY CARD IS IN THE CAMERA