ben_hutcherson

As said, I don't see how it could possibly cause problems. I'd say the "strength" or effectiveness of a polarizer is dependent more I think on the quality of the filter than on the technology itself. After all, to sort of wave my hands, a circular polarizer is really just a linear polarizer with an add-on to unpolarize the light. The danger of using a linear polarizer is that if you have some optical component that either has its own polarizer or act as one(i.e. a beam splitter/semi-silvered mirror) you can end up feeding light into the polarizer that's 90º out of phase and both will black out. Most AF systems use semi-silvered patches on the mirror. With that said, the whole AF/MF distinction isn't necessarily true either. Linear polarizers can cause metering issues with a significant number of Canon cameras going back to the 1960s as they use a semi-silvered spot in the middle of the focusing screen to meter. That in and of itself acts as a polarizer. Offhand, I think some other models meter through semi-silvered patches in the mirror, which again can cause issues with a linear polarizer. My Pellix can completely black out(both through the find and on the film) with a linear polarizer in the correct orientation(or incorrect, as the case may be) orientation.

Admittedly my opinion has probably been soiled, but I do not have a high opinion of CZ Jenna optics. I'll freely admit that my one and only experience was on a Rolleiflex Automat II with CZ Jenna Tessar and it was absolutely terrible. At the same time, I've been told that these particular lenses had their front and rear group separated at the factory and ended up mismatched. So, I know that one particular bad experience doesn't necessarily represent the entire company, and I've heard both great things and bad things about CZ Jenna. BTW, give me a Schneider on a Rollei over a Zeiss any day. Of course, sample to sample variation exists. With that said, I've had a bunch of Tessars and Xenars on various Rollei models and I find that the Xenars tend to both be sharper and give better color rendition. Planars and Xenotars can be a different story, and I don't have as much experience with those to give a comparison.

I can do pretty well with a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord down to 1/125, and have even managed acceptable results down to 1/30th(although my success rate is low at that speed). I've never used a Hasselblad, but I find that I need to go to about 1/250 to get good shots handheld with my Bronica SQ-a, albeit I have decent ones at 1/125. I consider that a bare minimum speed with that camera and an 80mm lens. I use WLFs almost exclusively in MF, and one of the things I find is that in combination with a good strap, the camera is inherently better supported than a 35mm camera held at eye level. I can rest the camera body/film back against my stomach, and there's plenty of padding there to help it :) At the end of the day, though, when I look at my negatives and transparencies, the sharpest ones have come from a tripod, although I have some pretty darn good ones from using whatever makeshift support I could find(there are usually plenty of them out there if you keep your eyes open). At the same time, some of my most INTERESTING photos were either in situations that I couldn't have realistically used a tripod or happened fast enough that I'd have still been positioning the tripod by the time the moment passed. Although I strive for technical perfection as much as possible, if the alternative is missing the shot all together I'd still rather hand hold the camera. Let's also face it that even in 6x6, the film is large enough that slight motion blur can be hard to see unless you're looking at it through a loupe or pixel peeping a scan. I have negatives where I saw defects through the loupe, but still looked great at 11x14 and even passable at 16x20 if I didn't put a loupe on them :) . I also have to remember when pixel peeping a scan at 100%, I'm looking at my 30"(diagonal) Apple Cinema display which is probably 1/4 of a 6x6(if that much). That's significantly larger than I'd likely ever print a 6x6...or really anything. I'll also add that I've handheld an RB67. It is a bit awkward and I avoid using my 65mm lens because it's too front heavy, but with a normalish lens(I don't have a 90mm, but use a 127mm for that purpose) it's certainly doable as long as I'm not focusing too far from infinity(for those not familiar, these are bellow focusing cameras, so the whole camera gets longer at closer distances). The mirror dampening on the RB is superb. I honestly was amazed the first time I shot one since I think the mirror is roughly 8x8, or at an absolute minimum would have to be 7x7. I've used 35mm cameras with more mirror vibration. Of course, part of it could be the sheer weight of the camera, but the mirror is also quiet-again quieter than a lot of 35mms I've used. The one thing I don't like carrying around is the metered prism. It is handy, but adds right at 2lbs to the weight of the camera(the spec sheet lists 960g, and just some lazy math in my head says that's about right since 1kg=2.2lbs). I can even claim to have hand held 4x5 with my Speed Graphic. Granted these cameras were designed to be used handheld, and some of the most famous journalism photos from the 20th century were taken with a handheld Speed or Crown. They're not TOO heavy, and I find that the standard side belt handhold makes them comfortable even without a neck strap. Granted most of the time I use it on a tripod and focus/compose on the GG. Still, though, you can focus with rangefinder or even scale focus provided that you use the infinity stops and they are in the correct position for the lens(and for the rangefinder if it has the correct cam and is properly calibrated to the lens). The wire-frame finder is close enough for fast moving subjects esp. since you have enough area to crop if need be. The optical finder is actually decent, albeit you have to manually dial in parallax correction and need to have the correct mask for the focal length lens you're using. Still, it can be done-I just don't do it much given the cost of sheet film. I have used my miniature Crown handheld a decent amount, and even used the GG handheld.

My "primary system" comment was related to it being(or not being) your primary MF system. Granted there's no reason you can't have more than one MF system or 35mm system for that matter, although if you're not going to jump whole-hog into MF like I did a couple of years ago it's wise to invest in one system. Granted I'm a fine one to talk, as I have something resembling a system in Canon FD mount, Canon EOS, Nikon F, and LTM in 35mm/APS-C, and then the S, SQ, and RB67 system. I also have a couple of Rolleiflexes(yes, I really like 6x6). Just to be clear on the size/weight comment on the S system-the bodies and backs are Hasselblad-sized and the lenses are actually quite small since they lack a shutter and focusing helicoid. The thing is a solid chunk of metal. The GS-1 never seemed to really catch on like the other Bronica systems. The "manual of arms"(to borrow a firearm term) is more or less the same for it as the SQ and ETR, but you don't see a lot for sale. The cameras themselves are hard enough to find, much less additional lenses. If you want 6x7 and don't have mountains of money, the Pentax 67 and RB67 are your best option. I'm not as familiar with the Pentax system, but I've mentioned above why I like the RB system. If I had plenty of money lying around, I'd love to have a Mamiya 7 and a 43mm lens, but they bring serious cash even on the used market. I had a thread not too long ago on ultra-wide 6x6 lenses. The widest available is the Zeiss 38mm, which is a fantastic lens but again it's very pricey. I think it also requires a special body and external finder. The widest common 6x6 lenses are 40mm. We won't go there on the Hasselblad, but KEH generally gets about $250 for the Zenzanon for the SQ. For the S system, the 40mm Nikkor runs about $250 and the Zenzanon about $400. The 50mm SQ lens runs around $100. I've never priced a Nikkor for the S since my system came with one, but I'd guess it's around the same(I think the hood is somewhat tough to find, and it's an absolute necessity since the lens is a flare monster). You can get 645s as wide as 28mm, although I don't know what they are offhand. Also, bear in mind when you're comparing focal lengths to 35mm/APS-C that it's difficult to make a direct comparison since the aspect ratio for the common formats is different from the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm. A lot of charts will look at diagonal angle of view, which to me is a pretty meaningless comparison. I generally look at horizontal angle of view, although for non-square formats the vertical angle of view is useful for vertical images. Using the horizontal equivalent, a 40mm is about 25mm on both 645 and 6x6. For 6x7, 40mm(not sure if one exists) is about the same horizontal angle of view as 20mm in 35mm. Here's the best chart I've found http://rabinergroup.com/pdfs/LensangleofviewtableLong.pdf

To me, Tri-X in D76 is what B&W looks like. I know that this is a sweeping statement and I use a lot of other emulsions, but still when I'm picturing a scene in B&W in my mind that's what I see. One of the nice things about solvating developers like D76 is that even though the grain can be large, it tends to not have the defined edges of the other developers. This does reduce sharpness, but to me gives the grain a look that makes it just blend into the image.

I love my S2a(I also have a C, which is a stripped down body without a removable back) but honestly I'd suggest avoiding it as a medium format system. The focal plane shutter is nice and allows the S2 body to have a 1/1000 max shutter speed. The fastest you'll typically find on a leaf shutter is 1/500, and sometimes slower(most of the RB67 lenses are that way). In addition, they have an instant return mirror, something that you don't see on a lot of MF SLRs. With that said, they are mechanically quite complicated. The mirror moves down, not up. This means it needs to have auxiliary baffles to cover both the mirror and the focusing screen to keep light from bouncing around in the mirror box. There's a lot happening there-most controlled by cables-to go wrong and there aren't a lot of people who will even touch them. The Ss were known to have issues with the film advance gear stripping-I THINK this was fixed on the S2, or at least it doesn't seem to come up as often. I was fortunate to be able to buy a reasonably complete system fairly inexpensively, and I bought it because it came with a 50mm, 135mm, and 150mm lens along with a whole lot of accessories(including prisms). I wouldn't want to use it as my main camera, though. I n addition to the above, these cameras have the worst mirror slap/vibration I've ever experienced on an SLR. The focal plane shutter has a fairly slow sync speed-I think 1/30 of a second. If there is a way to operate the camera without film, I've yet to find it. I spooled up a roll of backing paper to "trick" it and test the oepration, but that's as close as I've been able to get to dry firing(and it didn't let me watch the shutter). Bought individually, basic accessories like lenses and film backs can be pricey. The camera is HEAVY-with a waste level finder and 75mm lens, it weighs about as much as my RB-67 with a metered prism(that prism alone weighs 2 lbs) and a 127mm lens. The RB67 weighs less with a 90mm lens and waist level. If you want 6x6, I would very much encourage you to look at the later Bronica SQ system. This is a camera that is operationally very similar to the Hasselblad 500 series, albeit they a fair bit "cheaper" feeling than the Hasselblad(although they are still plenty durable). These are much newer than the S series, and you can probably get a basic system(SQ-A body, waist level finder, 80mm lens, and 120 back) for $300 or so. The camera IS electronic, which scares some folks(the SQ-A uses a PX28, while the newer SQ-Ai uses 4xLR44). I've had the same battery in my SQ-A for nearly two years now. The Seiko shutters hold their time well, and you do have an "emergency" 1/500 mechanical speed. Lenses and film backs are relatively easy to find, and they are also inexpensive compared to their Hasselblad counterparts. The lens price difference becomes even more dramatic as you step further from the standard 80mm lens. Zenzanon lenses are excellent. I have a "speed grip" on mine-this adds a large hand grip off to the side with a hot shoe on top and advances the film/resets the camera with a lever rather than a crank(two strokes of the lever). It makes the camera so handy off the tripod(without impairing it on the tripod) that I can't stand to remove it. For a 645 system, most of the above about the SQ is also true of the Bronica ETR system except that components mostly are even less expensive. I'm relatively new to the 6x7 format in general and the Mamiya RB67 system, but it is superb. Although it's really meant to be a tripod camera, it can be handheld. The mirror dampening truly amazes me, as I feel almost nothing from the huge flipping up. RB stands for "rotating back" and for a camera this large it's nice to be able to change the orientation without turning the camera. Of course, in 6x6 you don't have to worry about any rotation :) . In any case, the RB67 system is a fair bit more expensive than the Bronicas mentioned above, although it's still far away from Hasselblad prices. The system is quite comprehensive. In addition to 120 and 220 6x7 backs, I know that Mamiya at least made a 645 back(I have one). The rotating back uses the standard Graflock system, which opens up a lot of possibilities. I have used Graphic 22(6x6) holder on mine, and Graflex made roll film back as large as roughly 6x8. You can fit a back that will allow you to use holders for sheet film or plates.

Bill, I have a box of Arista 100 that I haven't opened yet. I keep meaning to tack some 120 and 35mm onto an order from Freestyle-it's certainly inexpensive enough. With that said, FP4+ has been film of choice of late in 4x5. Although I don't like it as much as Plus-X, it's at least still available in all sizes and is not terribly expensive. In fact, Ilford charges roughly the same price per surface area for everything from 35mm to 4x5. My freezer is currently stocked with quite a variety of sheet film-in addition to the staples of FP4+ and TXP-320, I have some Velvia($$$) along with a bunch of expired Kodak B&W that I want to play with. I've had some advice on how to shoot Ektapan from the good folks at LFP(I have probably 100 sheets of it). I have some Graphic Arts film, which is an ortho litho film, and I've been advised that it's possible to coax a continuous tone negative(or at least tame the contrast some) with a dilute developer. I standardized on D76 a while back, but am open to experimenting with other developers.

They're not at all related to F-mount lenses for Nikon SLRs. The Nikkor P lenses do not have an integral focus helical-they attach to the one in the body via a bayonet mount. MOST 35mm Nikkor lenses will not cover medium format. The notable exception to this that I know of is the 135mm(13,5 cm) rangefinder lens made for the reflex housing for those same cameras. There was an adapter that would allow you to mount this lens, but it's rare as hen's teeth and also doesn't even mount on the S2 body. From my perspective also, it's kind of a pointless adapter since the 13,5cm RF lens is quite expensive, while it's not that difficult to find or expensive for the P mount. While we're at it, I also find it a bit lacking in performance vs. the other P mount lenses I have.(BTW, if anyone wants/needs one of the rare as hen's teeth Nikon to Bronica adapters, PM me :) ).

I've been using LF for a few months, and one of my biggest disappointments when I first got into it was that Tri-X 400 is no longer available in sheet film and hasn't been for quite a while. Now all we can get from big yellow in traditional grain sheet film is TXP-320, which is a great film in its own right but quite different from TX-400. Aside from hunting down now expired 220 stock, you also can only get TXP-320 in sheet film. The going rate from the major suppliers(B&H, Adorama, Freestyle) is ~$100 for a 50 sheet box of 4x5 TXP-320(Ilford charges around $35 for a 25 sheet box for most of their films, and most of their emulsions are available in sheet film). As I said, I wish that some kind of instant film was still available in 4x5, and the positive/negative film would be particularly attractive.

Now that Fuji has discontinued Pro 160NS in 220(I think as of February or March) does anyone know of any other makers/emulsions that are available in 220? I've not shot a lot of 220 over the years-often times I've found that 12 exposures is perfect for me, and I've been in situations where I've just blown nothing shots on 135-36 just to finish a roll. With that said, I appreciate sometimes not having to stop and reload as often-something that's still a bit awkward even on a Rolleiflex with having to switch spools, and can take 3 hands on most SLRs since you usually need to remove the insert. There's also the fact that 220 backs/inserts are virtual give-away items for most SLRs these days while 120 backs for the more popular have held their value steadily. I can also hope that Kodak Alaris finds it in their hearts to re-release TXP-320 in 220, but I won't hold my breath :) . Granted they are resurrecting an emulsion from the dead, so maybe getting a currently produced emulsion coated on acetate and spooled into rolls isn't too far fetched :)

You may know this, but before Bronica died a silent death the brand was bought by Tamrom. This was in the late '90s or early '00s right before digital made huge inroads into the wedding/event/portrait market(where Bronica was a popular staple brand) and continued to market/sell the SQ and ETR system for a few more years. One of the reasons Tamron claimed for buying Bronica was to take advantage of their "optical expertise." I've used a lot of different lenses in my time in photography, and I really think that Zenzanon lenses are very much under-appreciated for just how good they are. One of the things that's often said about LF lenses, and MF to a lesser extent is that they don't have to be as good as 35mm lenses since the negative(or sensor) is larger and of course you also have to make some compromises to get the image circle needed. The latter is even more significant in LF lenses since photographers expect an image circle that's significantly larger than the film area. In any case, as I mentioned, I've been working the past few days with a portion of a negative that's not a whole lot bigger than 35mm, and at 8x10 it's as good as any Canon or Nikkor lens I've seen. I too can be(and usually am) snobbish about using camera brand lenses-or as the case may be the "standard equipment" lenses for a system(like Nikkors on the S-system). With that said, you have to admit that the 3rd parties have made some big strides in optical quality in recent years.

Wow, this thread was a fun trip down memory lane. While the max ISO difference is there, I've never liked pointing this out as a reliable method of ID since it typically will require you to handle the camera and manually adjust the ISO. For me, the easiest way to tell the F-1(original) apart from the F-1n(revised) is the plastic tipped film advance lever. Also, the F-1n had the film box tab/memo holder on the back door, something the very first version lacked. There 11 other changes(13 total) although these are the most obvious ones. Between the differences in shape, differences in finish(matte vs. gloss), presence/absence of a hotshoe, and control layout there's really no way to confuse the F-1N(which I've taken to referring to by it's proper name, the New F-1, to avoid abiguity) with the either of the earlier F-1s. BTW, I know Canon/Nikon debates are old and stale, but I was given some NICE Nikon equipment a few months ago and have acquired some additional items and have been trying to give the system a fair chance. One of the things I was given was an F3, which is a camera that was more or less directly competitive with the New F-1. There's a lot to like about the F3 and it does a few things the New F-1 doesn't-namely it has MLU and I appreciate the fact that it can be directly powered from the motor drive without requiring a special cable and the use of certain battery packs. That aside, I really think Canon knocked it out of the park with the New F-1 and I consider it a high point of early 1980s/"Classic" 35mm SLR design(I'm putting the T90, EOS-1 and F4 in a separate category even though all came out in the late 1980s). I intend to write up a side-by-side review of the two(or maybe even brave a Youtube video) once I've had some more time with the F3, but the New F-1 to me is just a superb all around camera.

I wish I could answer your question fully, as I'd like to know myself about the optics. I've been suitably impressed with my Nikkor optics when I can get around the earthquake the S2a sets off(although I find that the 13.5cm, which I understand is the same as the 35mm RF lens, slightly less impressive than the others I have). At the same time, when I do my part the Zenzanons on my SQ-a absolutely blow me away. This week, I printed a dozen 8x10s that were a crop from the center of the negative-the projected size is larger than the baseboard of my enlarger and I'd guess it would be about 24x24. In any case, the prints are tack sharp. This particular negative is Tri-X(EI 400, straight D76). It was shot with the 80mm from a tripod and in full sun-I think with the filter I had on I was doing 1/500th and was either at f/8 or f/11. All of that aside, Seiko of course is well known for precision timekeeping. I have been looking at getting 150mm Fujinon 4x5 lens, and many of these come mounted in Seiko shutters. They are well known on LF lenses, although they tend to be less expensive than Copal shutters. I have no doubt that the Seiko shutters in Zenzanon lenses are made by Seiko-just like the well known Compur and Pronto shutters in Rolleiflexes and Hasselbads. Seikos aren't unique to Bronica-the 127mm pre-C lens RB67 lens I'm holding in my hand also claims to have a Seiko shutter. I think all the RB/RZ lenses I've seen have Seiko shutters. If it's any consolation, this particular 127mm is beat to heck and the pre-C lenses are getting on in years(they were made from 1970 to 1974) and the shutter speeds are still dead on. The SQ series shutters are electronic and should hold their timing pretty much indefinitely.

This thread was an enjoyable read. An A-1 was my first "serious" camera. I bought it in 2005 for an upcoming trip to France, but used it a lot before then until I felt competent with it. Although I carted a bag full of lenses with it(the one I bought came with four) I ended up leaving most in the hotel room and spent most of the trip with the body and a breech lock 50mm 1.8 hanging from my neck. I think I shot about 600 frames on that trip(who knows how many since then), mirror squeak and all. The vast majority were shutter priority, which remains my preferred shooting mode to this day. I moved on to the F-1, new F-1, and T90 along with most every other FD mount body along the way, but still have my first A-1 and give it some exercise every once in a while. BTW, I did finally fix the squeak with a drop of watch oil on an on an oiler through the hole in the mirror box. I know that's frowned on, but it worked. I also resealed mine even though it didn't leak-just putting new mirror foam in it made the camera a fair bit quieter.

Thanks again, Dan. I know that you are "the man" when it comes to Graflexes. You've helped me out plenty with Graflexes and LF in general both on the Gralfex forum and the LFP forum. My miniature Crown is a Pacemaker. I've used it some as I have a bunch of film holders and still have some Efke 50 in the freeze. Overall, though, it's mostly just a shelf piece that sits on top of its original box. My 4x5 Pacemaker Speed is the camera I usually use, and even though I have a decent B&J field camera I like that I can use the freebie lenses with dead shutters I've picked up on the Speed. With that said, when I get "a round tuit" I'm planning on making a board for the B&J from scratch(I haven't found any aside from the one on the camera, and they're simple enough pieces of wood) with a square hole and locking rails in the center to take a Pacemaker board. There's plenty of area to do that, and it lets me mount future lens purchases on a Pacemaker board and use them on both cameras. I'll keep my eyes open for a miniature Century Crown. They're certainly cheap enough these days and thanks to the Graflok on the RB67 I can cross-shop a lot of backs. I'll also keep my eyes open for the roll back you mentioned. While I'm at it, I need to find a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 carrier for my Besseler 23c. As I understand, the "23" means that it can handle that size film. I just wish I could find a cheap 4x5 enlarger...

I think the Swinger was one of the big 1960s products, and it was roll film(albeit smaller than the earlier 100 series used). I have my grandfather's Swinger, and he was quite proud of it-apparently he lucked into getting one when they first came out, and thought they were rare because they were in short supply when first introduced. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it was one of the most common and least valuable cameras of the era. The pack film cameras-or at least the higher end ones-still kept some value since you could get film for them. I think Fuji has been making pack film for a long time. It wasn't that all that long ago that Polaroid quit making it(working from memory, maybe '08 or so), but the Fuji products got a lot more popular after Polaroid stopped. Since pretty much every MF SLR system has a Polaroid back available for it, there was a market for it as long as studios were still using MF. I REALLY wish someone made it in 4x5 still-Impossible makes 8x10 pack film($$$) so I'd guess the ability is out there.

I've dealt with Freestyle for a while and they are always great. As you said, everyone has their favorite developers. I like D76. It does require mixing, and should be mixed at above room temperature. I usually dump a pouch into a 1 gallon Datatainer bottle(you'll probably end up with a bunch of them also-they're not often mentioned but you'll find them in almost every darkroom) then half fill it with hot water and shake vigorously to dissolve as much as possible. I keep adding hot water and shaking until the container is full. I generally do this a day or so before I want to use it. Chemicals sitting in plastic jugs on my bathroom floor come out of the bottle at almost exactly 20ºC, which it just so happens is a "standard" temperature for a lot of developing times. D76 is a fairly forgiving developer. You typically either use it straight or dilute it 1:1-the latter tends to increase grain but decrease contrast. I use it both ways, but the difference isn't dramatic either way(aside from the developing times). D76 is a solvating developer, which means that it tends to give relatively fine grain at the expense of sharpness. Overall, I find it just to be a good all around choice-as I said it's forgiving and will give good results with a wide variety of films. Kodak lists the shelf life of a full bottle of "stock" solution at 6 months, and 2 months for a half-full bottle. Realistically, mine are usually somewhere between those values. Keep some glass marbles handy and squeeze the air out of the container, and you can push storage times closer to the 6 month mark. Realistically, though, at the rate I develop(usually a couple of rolls a week, although sometimes I'll go a couple of weeks without doing any) I find that I finish a bottle before it goes bad. Kodak doesn't list a lifetime for diluted solutions, but does advise that they be prepared immediately before use-I take that to mean a couple of hours at best. The powder does have an expiration date printed on the packet, but it is hermetically sealed. I have used it a year or two past the expiration date and have not seen any difference from in-date powder. One of the things I like is that I can buy a couple of packets at a time and they take up very little room on the shelf.

Dan, thanks for the references on those. I actually have a Graphic 22 back(6x6) but use it on my RB67. I wasn't paying that close of attention when I bought it-I actually intended to get the 23(6x8)-on my next visit to the shop I'll see if the whether the other holder I have is a 22 or 23. I have a 2x3 Crown, but it doesn't have a Graflok back so I'm limited to cut film holders for it. I think my local shop has a 2x3 Speed with a Graflok so that would be an option. I know you know a lot more about Graflexes than I do, but from what I understand it's easier to just find a miniature Graphic with a Graflok on it than to try and find one separate from the camera. In any case, I appreciate all the other responses. Rick, thanks for the complete run-down on the various lenses available for the Bronica.

Before really taking an interest in photography, I was a camera collector/accumulator long before I had an interest in photography, and I had a particular interest in Polaroids. It all goes back to the early 90s, when a small local shop my mom frequented stuck a Polaroid 125 in their front window one day. I was fascinated with that camera, and the owner was nice enough to humor me, take it down, and show me how it worked. Not too long later, the store closed as the drug store next door expanded and swallowed up the two adjacent store fronts. The older gentleman who owned the shop pulled the camera out of the window one day and gave it to me. I don't know exactly when that was, but I was probably two or three years old. Chances are I could have walked into the drug store and bought film for it(I think Polaroid was still making roll film in the early 90s). Polaroids were still "hot" in those days, but of course by that time the 600 series dominated with some attention devoted to SX-70s and the then new Spectra series. At that age, too, any instant film was pretty much out my reach. I went through the years and picked up my fair share of cameras-aside from Brownies, I also picked up one of the original SX-70s and a Polaroid 250. I used the SX-70 a fair bit, but never really paid much attention to the pack film cameras as I didn't think film was available to it. When my attention turned to 35mm(and later the larger formats) I learned that pack film was still very much alive and could have easily bought some, but my limited budget would have rather bought roll film. I knew about the well regarded Fuji products, but had never really encountered them. After hearing about their discontinuation, I finally bit the bullet and ordered some still in date stock. I'm PROBABLY going to end up using most of it in either my 250 or in a Polaroid back on my RB67(with a nod toward the latter, although I also want to use the 250), but I felt it appropriate that the 125 which I've now likely owned for longer than its original owner-and which quite literally started it all for me-get my first box of pack film. These first two shots are photographically not spectacular and of course the exposure is off. None the less, it's a thrill after all these years to finally see images from my first camera. http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee204/ben10ben/IMG_4328_zpsubul6bnb.jpg

With the caveat that I don't have as much experience with Nikon lenses, the only lenses where I've seen any sort of lock is on AF lenses, and at least on the ones I have you have to manually engage it. All of that said, I prefer how it was done on Canon FD lenses. The aperture ring has a lock position marked "A"(or sometimes just a circle on older lenses) that is used for shutter priority and program, along with certain aperture priority bodies. It physically signals the body, as moving the ring into this position pushes out a pin on the mount to signal that the ring is there. Engaging the "A" position requires physically pushing the lock button, as does getting it out of that position. If you're adjusting the aperture without looking at the ring, you won't accidentally put the ring there. Heck, on some bodies(the FTb comes to mind) it's not even physically possible to move the lens to the A position as there's no corresponding hole in the lens mount bayonet.

That's certainly always worth considering, but with that said it's very difficult to incorrectly load a Quick Load camera. Basically as long as the leader is pulled to the orange mark, you are virtually assured quick loading. I've had a couple of FTs, an FTb, and a Pellix all with this system, and don't recall a single misloaded roll. I still use my FTb regularly. As it so happens, I have a Pellix sitting on my desk. Mine is more or less retired as the mirror is covered in cleaning marks and also has some damage(a ripple) at the top that does show up on the film. The finder also is quite dark(likely due both to the mirror damage and the fact that they were never that bright to begin with) that I find focusing with anything slower that f/1.8 difficult-the last lime I used it my FL-mount 58mm f1.2 lived on it for the entire roll. In any case, here's the loading mechanism-as I said it's pretty much fool proof http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee204/ben10ben/IMG_4315%202_zpsiuy4ic92.jpg Granted if the film was never loaded properly, you should be able to tell pretty easily as the leader is-of course-distinctly shaped and should be easy to find. Not too long ago, I had a roll break on rewind. It was the first time it's happened to me, but I suppose I've been lucky in the past 12 years(got my first SLR in 2005) to have not had it happen earlier even with bulk loaded film. The film was Rollei 400IR, which is on a super thin base(the stuff is a real bear to load onto reels). I was shooting it in my Nikon F3, and since it was my first roll of the stuff I was primarily just walking around the front yard eyeballing compositions, focus, and exposure. For anyone who's ever shot IR film, you can probably relate to doing this as an R72 filter is more or less optically opaque, so with an SLR you have to take the filter off, focus, compose, meter, note the focus distance on the scale and then move that spot to the IR index, and put the filter back on. The extremely slow speed(I was at ASA 6) means that you're mostly working at wide apertures if you want hand-holdable exposure times, so actually refocusing is important. In any case, to get around to my point, I finished the roll and started rewinding it. I felt a drop in resistance, so gave it another turn or two. I then got back inside and found a nice tear over the film gate and about half the roll still on the take-up spool. At least I got about 15 frames off of it, and even some halfway decent ones :)

The only Canon RF I have is a IVSb, which is very much like a Leica IIIc both in appearance and operation(although IMO the Canon has the better viewfinder since it combines the RF and viewfinder into one window, and also has a zoom function for precise RF focusing and for correct framing with a 135mm lens). In any case, it's quite "old" in how it functions in that it has two shutter speed dials and the main one(top one) "unwinds" as the shutter fires. When you advance the film you can see the dial spinning back to the set shutter speed. Truth be told, it reminds me a lot of my Speed Graphic, where you have to reset the tension on the shutter while firing(although thank goodness the Canon/Leica shutter caps-heaven help you if you've forgotten to put the dark slide back/removed the film holder when you rewind the Speed shutter). In any case, I think it's the same in that it has an X setting on the front dial. The FTb, like all of the other Canon SLRs I've used, has a hard "stop" at each end of the shutter speed dial. Granted I did learn on Canons, but I prefer this to the Nikon fully rotating dial as I can set the shutter speed entirely by feel by referencing the stops. To be fair, if you put a Photomic finder on an F or F2, you do get the hard stops on the dial. The F3 and F4 are a bit of a different story still, as the shutter dial does infinitely rotate but it will lock when you hit the "A" position and you have to hit the center button to unlock it(from which point you can rotate it either direction). The New F-1 physically locks OUT the A position-you have to lift the dial and rotate it to get to it(or out of it)-again it's probably familiarity, but I prefer that approach since you won't inadvertently twist the dial there and then spend a second wondering why it won't turn.

Offhand, the only Canon body I can think of(and I've owned/currently own and use most of the FD bodies) with a separate flash sync setting is the New F-1. It syncs at 1/90, and there is a position for this on the dial that is separate from the main shutter speed settings. Of course, it will also sync correctly at 1/60 and lower. The F-1 actually undergoes a mechanical change when crossing these two shutter speed settings, as 1/90 and faster is mechanically timed and 1/60th and slower is electronic. With the battery removed, the New F-1 will actually function correctly at 1/90 and faster as well as B, although it will seem completely dead if a dead battery is installed. Earlier bodies(EF with its copal square shutter excepted) sync at 1/60, as do the A series bodies. I'm a bit fuzzy on the Ts, although I know the T90(the only one I really care about :) ) syncs at 1/250. The F3 isn't much better than the New F-1 with regard to its flash sync setting, since there's no step between 1/60 and 1/125 and it also has a separate X position on the dial to fire at 1/90. The one that leaves me scratching my head on the F3 is that the "emergency" mechanical lever fires at 1/80 and not the flash sync speed of 1/90.

I have about 50 rolls of Plus-X in the freezer, albeit all in 35mm and unfortunately all 24 exposure rolls. The lot I have expired in 2012. I think there's some newer stuff out there, but not a lot newer(2012 sticks in my head as when they stopped making it, which would probably make the newest expiration 2014 or so). I've been using a lot of FP4+ lately, although I took a lot more of an interest in it when I got into 4x5. If you want to "go yellow" in 4x5, there are three different emulsions available and one of the three is now only available in 4x5! I have some expired Tri-X Professional 220 in the freezer, although the half finished roll I have in one of my Bronica backs is the only roll I've started of it. I want to get a feel for it before I crack open the $100 box of 4x5. In any case, I agree that while FP4+ and PX are superficially similar, they do have a very different feel. I've always described PX as having almost a "creamy" look and I love the way it renders caucasian skin tones. As much as I try, I've never warmed up to T-grain films. I recently bought a couple of 35mm rolls of TMY2 to give it another fair chance, but I just can't seem to make it look like good old faithful Tri-X and other "traditional" films. The owner of the used camera store where I spend a couple of hours a week loafing(plus generally handing over my fair share of money) gave me a sealed 25 sheet box of TMX that expired in the early 90s a few months back, and I'll crack it open one of these days. I want to play with the Ektapan and Graphic Arts film first :) . BTW, if you want to complain about odd film speeds, Tri-X Professional is rated at ASA 320. Historically, a lot of of slide films have been ASA 64-notably Kodachrome 64, but there was also an Ektachrome 64T(I think I still have a roll or two of the consumer Elite Chrome 64Tt) and a comparable Fuji product. The legendary Pan-F was ASA 32.

I have finally managed to dial in an 8x10 on Ilford RC VC paper that I need to print in volume. It's what I'd call a "normal" negative but I'm cropping it down a decent amount from 6x6(I think it projects to about 16x16 on the base board). At f/11 on a 75mm lens, I have it up to a 6 second exposure... Suffice to say that I'm surprised at how fast this particular paper is. When I started 4x5, I tried shooting paper, but I had a terrible time nailing the exposure.