Rob_the_waste

<p>Actually Nick, the idea already did cross my mind. While the fader is a cheap fix (I only paid $12.00 for it), it doesn't quite cut it for all purposes. Sure it has a thin profile and lets me play with the lens zoomed in wide. I used to simply stack two 3 stop ND's and it generally wasn't bad except for the vignetting in wide angle applications and it caused a bit of a greenish tinge on the images. The camera sensor doesn't see the light the same way that I do directly and as such, the patchy coverage I see in the camera's viewfinder comes up more quickly than what I see when looking through the filter directly. Even looking through the viewfinder of my FT2 with the filter attached, the coverage is patchy only at the darkest points. In adjusting the fader a bit more one way and then the other, the patchy area either moves up and down or left and right. The reason I got it in the first place was because I understood the inconvenience of stacking ND filters and as I like shooting long exposures, I wanted something dark enough to shoot long in sunlight. At least now I know that what I want will require a proper neutral density filter around ten stop. A digital camera will compensate for the darkness and a film camera will require a bit of calculation (I don't have an aversion to that). There's a camera show coming up here next weekend and I hope I can find something reasonable there.</p>

<p>Nick, at this time, my digital weapon is a Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It only goes down to ISO 100 and the diaphragm can only go down to f8. I usually prefer to shoot waterfalls, but this one time I tried my luck shooting into the sun. I have a ton of film cameras, a number of which have lenses that go down to f22. I'm not in the market to spend a ton and a half of money on a DSLR (regardless of make) and another ton on lenses. The only reason I have the Panasonic is because my Canon SX20 went for a swim with me on Christmas Day.</p>

<p>Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was just because I bought a cheap one. Henry, your explanation makes sense. Now I just have to experiment a bit more. :-)</p>

<p>I picked up a variable neutral density filter recently, also know as a "fader filter." It's a versatile tool to have in the camera bag, but I noticed it does seem to have one minor glitch. When it's dialed up to maximum effect, the coverage becomes a bit patchy. I took one shot where I was able to get away with a 3 second exposure shooting into the sun, but part of the shot is unnaturally dark. I got this filter mainly because I like long waterfall exposures. Does anybody else notice the same problem... well maybe not problem, but nuisance?</p> <p><a href=" <p> </p>

<p>If you're looking into TLR's, you might want to check out the old Yashicas. They're decent quality and you can get deals on them in your price range. I have and still use a Yashica A with a 3.5/80 Yashimar. Since I fixed the light leak, it hasn't let me down. In this case, the light leak wasn't the light seal on the film gate, but rather the tripod hole was completely uncovered. A piece of electrical tape fixed that.</p>

<p>All this from Leicester, a classic lens that has withstood the test of time and possibly a historical year in the Premier League. Go Foxes!!! :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. However, it needs more than a cleaning. The front element looks like it took some sandblasting. It's beyond an abomination. It was a nice idea while it lasted... Oh well.</p>

<p>Hi all. I was helping to clean up somebody's estate when I literally stumbled upon this lens. It will take some cleaning up as it's seen some water, but I'm interested in mounting it on something. What was it designed to work best with?</p>

<p>I generally don't use TC's. However, I do have a couple of 2X teles, but the 3x that I had and used once went straight to the garbage. Good to see you back JDM. I've been away (busy) for a while myself.</p>

<p>Rick, not only am I glad you posted your work with the Minolta 1.7/55 lens (I have a 1.7/50) but also that you used Kentmere 100 film. I bought a bunch at a camera show a year ago and although I didn't get it processed yet, I can look forward to good results. Your images are first rate as always. The lens looks beautiful. The camera too. My Minolta user is an SRT201. I have an SRT101, but the metering follower needs mending.</p>

<p>I recently replaced a Canon SX20IS super zoom camera that got wrecked Christmas Day with a Panasonic DMC FZ200. I'm still getting used to it. The Panasonic gives me a bit more flexibility. I have been playing around with a combination of the Panasonic and a variable ND filter (fader). I like shooting long exposures and I started using it with the Canon before the fail. With the Canon, if I put the controls on Manual (which I did often), the camera worked well with the fader except at the full darkest setting. The Panasonic in manual mode seems to compensate on the LCD and I have trouble getting the result I want. Does anyone have an idea why the camera does this? Otherwise, so far, the camera has been fabulous.</p>

<p>Bonus. I found a pic of Clay.<br> http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Yom2?start=10</p>

<p>His name came up as Clay L. He signed of as /Clay. One of his acquaintances mentioned he was still looking for a Topcon Super D if he lived that long...</p>

<p>I regret being the bearer of bad news. Clay Lawton passed away on Jan. 22, 2016. Although I didn't know him too closely, I did have the pleasure of gaining his acquaintance over the past few years. Initially, we met through this very forum. His summer retreat was amazingly only about fifteen minutes away from my father's place so it wasn't an inconvenience to see him. He really was a crusty old man of the woods and he enjoyed his summers there. He was right on the Irondale River. He had a number of health issues including emphysema and it seemed they were catching up to him. He told me (and showed me) the damage done by the local bears to his gazebo and I don't know if he evened the score. We met on a number of occasions at the Toronto area camera shows. We compared notes. I know he had a few more cameras that he wanted to get, but I don't believe he managed it before he passed. He was funny. I will miss him. </p>

<p>Thanks fellows. I made my choice. I did check out E-Bay, and I got an FZ200 with an exceptional final price. I got it for a song with the trade off being the charger is missing. No problem. I bought a generic charger and two spare batteries for less than just the proprietary charger. I'm ahead of the game. Now I just wait. :-)</p>

<p>I recently lost my Canon SX20 super zoom to a mishap Christmas Day. It was about five years old and it has served me well. At the time I bought it, it was pretty much the all in one that I felt I needed. Now, I'm looking for a replacement and resale prices on used SX20's are a bit stiff for five years old. I figured if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I might as well spend a bit more and get something better. I've looked into the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 and for about $500 Cdn. it packs more punch than the Canon. Don't get me wrong, I loved that Canon, but there are some features that Canon didn't keep up with. The 2.8 constant maximum aperture, the Leica lens, longer maximum shutter speed, shutter release cable capability... I'm just wondering if anybody has any insight as to how well the Panasonic performs. I'm not interested in high end video. I hardly used the video with the Canon.</p>

<p>I have three Nikons, an FT2, F60 and F70. I like the FT2 the most, hands down. Wonderful pics of the beach.</p>

<p>What a wonderful set of photographs. I really like the pan shot of the man in green crossing the street. Everything else in the shot has the motion blur. Beautiful. A few years back, a customer whose mail I delivered to showed me a Tower 3 rangefinder with a Nikkor F2/50 on it. It had a dent in the filter ring which I showed him how to fix. He was kind enough to let me run a roll of film through it. It did well, but nothing I did approached what you posted here. Thank you.</p>

<p>Thanks. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>I have a Canon EOS 3000. I'm wondering if I can get away with a Canon 277T speedlight.</p>

<p>This Diax could have been one of the last of the line. I have my father's Diax stashed away somewhere waiting for another roll of film to tickle its innards. It's a scale focus model made in 1957 which was likely their last year. One time the film advance ratchet let go, but I managed to fix it with a customized spring from a ball point pen. Nice find. :-)</p>

<p>Nice stuff Rick. I have two of these lenses myself. At a yard sale that I was recently at, I got drawn in to buy an Olympus OM2-N, but while I was there, I saw another Oreston there on the table. It had the old style barrel, but it was labelled Pentacon. I told the gentleman that he had a very fine lens and I told him some of the history of that particular lens., although not in as much depth as you have. :-)</p>

<p>I see a Mamiya...</p>

<p>Maybe it just comes down to how discriminating the user is. I'm not easily offended. Your shots look fine. My eyesight is slowly degenerating with age., however, I'm not ready to go down with the ship yet.</p>

<p>I have a Moskva 2 with the 110mm Industar. It uses a 39.5mm to series VI slip on filter mount. I also have an Ikonta with a 105mm Dominar that uses a 32mm slip on to series VI. As Pete says, wait til you get the camera. </p>