bill_brady

I've owned almost every MF there is from a Lubitel to a Yashica D, MAT, and 124, Bronica S2, Mamiya C330-220, RB, RZ, 645 .... even a Seagull!

There are some pitfalls to buying a Kiev MF camera, for one thing stay away from KievUSA! Mike Fourman of Kiev Camera is a gem as is Jenna Kaplan. The K60 is more reliable than the K88, it's simpler. I have used both 88s and a K60 for over a year with great results. The lenses resoulution numbers you find published on the web are accurate, and they are not bad (I have run a number of Rez tests myself, most of the Kiev lenses are better than the film), but if you have a K60 or an 88CM you can buy German Pentacon lenses if you want.

I have found the Kiev bodies to be surprisingly good if you stay away from the period 1990 -1993 (the first two digits of the serial number is the year of mfr.) If you are worried about reliability, buy 2 or 3, they cost about $100 a throw. A lot of the bad experiences new users have are because they have not owned a 120 camera before and don't load them correctly. You have to follow the instructions with 120 cameras or else you get bad spacing and/or light leaks.

I have a 30mm Fisheye that I bought out of a dealer in Moscow for $175 and it is a fantastic lens, the fit, finish and performance are all first rate. The Hassleblad 30mm fisheye is $5979, I'd be afraid to take that lens out in public!

The TTL lightmeters are very accurate and are voltage regulated. They are owner adjustable and sometimes adjustment is required. The shutters I have tested are within 1/6 f/stop except for the two highest speeds (just like most focal plane shutters). The ground glass viewfinders are the brightest I have used and the waist level finder on the K60 is an engineering marvel, having about 4 different operating modes!

Stick with the factory shutters, some dealers have tried to put cloth shutters in K88s, they don't fit. Aftermarket flocking is OK as in MLU, MLU is recommended. The shutters flash sync at 1/30 and slower, but unlike numerous other cameras, they will *not* fire the flash if the shutter speed is too high... another source of poor construction rumor.. but I call it good design.

Today I have a Kiev 60, a Mockba 5, and a Yashica MAT and will soon have an 88CM. I am more into LF and use the Kiev mostly for astrophotography. I have no reservations recommending Kiev cameras to anyone who wants to get into MF, especially if they buy from Kiev Camera in Altlanta.

I'm a retread too. I have been trying everything but so far nothing

matches my old (1980s) Tri-X negs developed in HC110 dil B. Especially

the local contrast and edge effects.

>Bill - What's the deal on testing the lenses?<<

<p>

1. By using a standard target, I can compare lenses I do have with the

published numbers for lenses that I don't have. Why? because I may want

to sell one and replace it. I would even like to know how the

individual lenses compare with others of the same type.

<p>

2. I can test my lenses at various distances, allowing me to choose the

proper lens for, say, close-ups.

<p>

3. I can compare my lenses with each other. Knowing the relative

sharpness of each lens helps me decide which lens to use to obtain the

desired results.

<p>

4. By testing now, and in the future, I may be able to detect any

change in a lens' performance.

<p>

5. It helps me to judge a film/developer performance and to find any

weak spots in my technique.

<p>

6. I have aquired a taste for lenses made in the former Soviet Union.

These lenses are often a mystery performance wise, and there is an

awful lot of misinformation circulating about them.

<p>

The Edmunds target also allows me to judge the color performance of my

respective lenses. Important for astrophotography and very hard to

judge by "eye".

<p>

I shoot enough variety that I find that every lens gets used, sharp or

not. In fact, I have often used a lens that was *not* sharp for

portraits. I also understand that "sharpness" is more often a product

of local contrast and edge effects than lens resolution.

<p>

Thanks for your interest!

I use RO (pure) water and fill and dump the tank 3 times in 10 minutes.

Pure water has a great affinity for hypo, much more than tap water. I

learned this trick from an old timer at Kodak many years ago, the same

one that told me about developing slide film in C41 soup.

In the old days we shot Panatomic -x and developed in Accufine. Both seem defunct now. I want to test some MF and LF lenses using the big Edmunds wall chart.

<p>

I have some TMax 100, 400 in 120 APX100 & Arista 100 in 4x5, and Tri-X in both. I tried TMax100 in TMax developer but ran into grain problems before I lost the patterns.

<p>

I have Rodinal, D76, Dektol and Microphen available.

<p>

What would be the best combo for lens testing? Should I shoot at a high ISO? (ie: 100 at 400).

<p>

Thanks!

I have been making lensboards for my Tachihara. I use the "bendable"

3mm plywood for light traps and thin basswood or cherry for the board.

They work well.

<p>

You need access to a scrollsaw, or you could do it by hand with a

coping saw. (I have a scrollsaw).

Andy, I'm not sure of what your problem is. Exposures too short?

<p>

I am using a similar setup. I use a old Kodak safelight with a 15 watt

bulb 4 feet from the neg. My starting time with Polycontrast RC is 2

seconds as recommended by Kodak for that arrangement. I use Dektol 1:2.

Can anyone point me to a good source for "how to" closeup lighting? I'm always dissapointed in my close up lighting whether natural, flash, or photoflood. My lighting experience has been in portraiture and perhaps thats a liability eh?

<p>

By source I mean books, web sites, etc.

>I hope you haven't gone out and bought a 180 or 200 mm lens with the

>expectation of doing close up work at 1-1 on your Tachihara.

<p>

Not at all. I was looking for two lenses one long and one for macro

work. I have a Symmar-S 150 which I am not sure of at 1:1. I was

thinking of something in the 120-135 range that would also be good at

1:1.

Hi,

<p>

I am about to order a screw on lens cover and step ring for my Angulon 90mm f/6.8. Measuring shows about 40mm. I don't want to make a mistake because the step ring is $27.43! Is 40.5 the size I need?

<p>

Thanks!

I don't remember the details except that I spent hours cutting with a

dremel mototool, but I modified one myself back in the early '80s. The

only thing I bought was a 4x5 neg carrier and a lens.

<p>

The biggest problem I ran into was light falloff at the edges. Most of

the time, however, it rather nicely matched the light falloff in the

camera lens so it all sorta came out in the wash. I did many 16x20's.

You guys have talked me into going for the 203 7.7 Ektar. They also

have a couple of shorter Ektars in Supermatic shutters, a 127mm f4.7

Graphic and another without the X sync. A 127 *plus* the 203 f7.7 would

fill out my kit, but I am not sure if the 127s are Wide Field Ektars.

They list both as covering 4x5, but the refernces I see in the FAQs

here are to the WFs.

<p>

So, should I also get the 127 4.7? Do I want to go for the one with X

sync because it's likely newer? The exchange credit I have will cover

both lenses almost. Or should I forget the 127 unless it's a WF?

I just check eBay, there is an 80mm 39mm + Adapter up and a Copal #1

closing in about an hour.

<p>

Tempting

I'll see if a Nikkor M or G-Claron is available.

<p>

The shutter + enlarging lens idea is attractive. Where would I get the

adapter ring? also, aren't most enlarger lenses stopped at f/16 max?

Would that be a problem?

<p>

Thanks!

Howdy guys,

Thanks for your help in the past.

I am looking for smaller lightweight lenses for my Tachihara. I am returning a Rotelar 270mm because it was too big, too heavy.

<p>

I am thinking of a Geronar 210mm f/6.8. It appears to be light weight and compact. I'd rather have a Xenar I think, but none are available.

<p>

I also need a close up lens in the 135 or 210 mm range. I have a 90mm Angulon and a 150mm Caltar S II. I am wondering how a slightly longer Angulon would work at 1:1. I think they made a 105 or 120? I doubt the Geronar would be very good at 1:1 and I don't know if the Caltar is good. My goal is to have a lens that I can carry in the field for landscapes but also use for a flower sized close-up. My 6CM SLR is just too heavy!

<p>

It amazes me that these used LF lenses sell for much more now than new in my 70s and 80s catalogs!

<p>

Any recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

The Epson TWAIN driver does unsharp masking at scan time. This *is* the

best spot in the chain to do it. Because the scanner driver has all of

the physical pixels available to it, it is possible to actually

increase sharpness as long as you aren't scanning at max optical

resolution. (like increasing DMax with a higher bit count ADC) The

problem is finding out whether any particular driver actually does

this. I'm still not sure about the Epson driver.

Ditto on the Kodak book. I found it to be a great source of tips and

techniques.

Exposing at ISO 80 and decreasing the development time by 20% made a

huge difference. Perhaps allowing the D-76 a day or two to "season"

helped. (I wonder if my using RO (pure) water has anything to do with

it?)

<p>

Now I can see every step on the Kodak scale and the shadows are smooth

while the overall density is up. The sharpness is better as well. I can

see all this with a loupe.

<p>

Anyway, this is a much better starting point. Thanks!

I use my Kodak 21 step tablet to calibrate my computer/scanner. That

way I can use it for a densitometer, uncalibrated of course, but better

than using a newspaper.

Emulsion In

Agitate for 10 sec per minute

Increase time by 11% over small tank.

<p>

I have had problems with uneven development, I suggest that you go with

lower temps and a longer time if you can.

<p>

That said, I have used it successfully many times over the years.

>>> Use ASA 80 and cut you development time by 15 to 20% for starters. <<<

<p>

OK, I'll try it. How about the ISO 400?

<p>

Thanks!

Yes, I mixed it about 2 hours before I used it. I used RO (pure) water.

I don't see how it could have oxidized but I suppose anything is

possible.

<p>

I have some Microphen I could try, but that's primarily for pushing I

think. I also have some Rodinal on the way.

I received the Arista film. First, it's the same thickness as the Kodak

and Agfa film, perhaps a tad smaller, .0078 vs .0082.

<p>

I shot some test sheets using the scale in the Kodak Prof. Photoguide

and other stuff, developed in D-76 1:1 according to the instructions on

the box and scanned. I used 2 #2 reflector photofloods and calculated

the exposure using the Kodak Master Photoguide for photoflood lighting

at ISO 125, 5:1 lighting ratio so I got some light shadows in the pic.

I used a quick disk to get a bellows compensation of 1.1. I bracketed +

- 1 stop using both shutter speed and f-stop. Negs that should have

matched did.

<p>

The highlights somehow have too much contrast. From Zone V up, the

scale is stretched giving the soft shadows a harsh appearance. Zone 3

density is OK. There is quite a bit of grain and local contrast is only

fair, no real "edge effect".

<p>

So far, I don't like the results. Perhaps D-76 at 1:1 is the culprit.

<p>

What am I doing wrong? - Thanks in advance.

I have collected a number of film holders here and discovered that older wooden holders are generally about .005" "deeper". I have one that came loaded with old Ansco film and had a paper sheet underneath.

<p>

Using a micrometer on my Tachihara back, the ground glass position is nearly identical to the older wooden holders. When I calibrate the depth of the glass, put in a wooden holder, the depth is within a few thou. The plastic holders are about .005" too close.

<p>

What gives? are the newer holders made for thinner films?

I changed the eGroup settings, you don't have to become a member to

access the files section. Anyone can download the file(s).

<p>

Any questions, just ask. The technique that this scale implements is

found here on the LF site (Paul K Hansmas 4 page article). The scale

saves you having to measure the near and far focus points on your

camera rail then calculating the difference and looking up the f/stop

in TABLE I of Hansmas article. The scale provides that reading direct.

You just note the position (mark the rail) at either near or far, focus

on the second point (far or near) then read the best f/stop directly

from the scale.

<p>

If anyone would like me to print out a copy for them, send me a SASE

(email for address) and I will send you a printout. You do need a

decent printer (600dpi+ is best) and a accurate graphics program to

make your own printout.