rick_drawbridge

<p>Great, <strong>Marc</strong>. Just love that relaxed group of teenagers in the Ansco picnic ad! I'm always impressed by the amount of copy in the ads, far more than you'd expect today; I don't know that todays readers would wade through 37 reasons for buying a Signet. Love the classy Willoughbys ads, and I still want a Bertram Lensmaster...</p>

<p>Interesting work with the, Nikkormat,<strong> Rob</strong>; they sure are nice cameras to handle. I usually opt for an orange filter rather than a red unless I'm somewhere stark, like in the mountains or on a beach, but you've done very well. Plus-X is not a film I know well; back in the day it was always Ilford FP-4 or Verichrome, or the very nice Agfa IS-21 for me in that speed range, but I know many photographers downunder stuck with Tri-X and Plus-X in D76 as their stock in trade. Great location; let's see some more of it.</p>

<p>Espresso:</p><div></div>

<p>Window:</p><div></div>

<p>So many nice little 127 rollfilm cameras, and obviously the Yashica 44 is one of the better ones. Nice images,<strong> Kris</strong>: all power to Bluefire for coming up with this product; they claim that it's "The first 127 film to be manufactured in North America since 1995" and I guess that's fair enough, even if it's generally accepted that it's cut down Portra NC160, as Dave S. and John mention. However, I know there was a lot of work involved in sourcing the backing paper and actually getting the product sorted, so I'd agree the claim is justified. Now you can try Rollei Redbird/Nightbird, the only other 127 films I know of, if you like red pictures... I should have stocked up on the B&W Efke 127 while there was still some around. Thanks for a pictorial post.</p>

<p>Friday seems fine, <strong>James</strong>, though I'm not sure about tree bark and mud... Would you initiate the post, to get the ball rolling? A three-image limit should satisfy most members, and I think restrictions on a time-frame for the taking would prove to be unworkable. Just use the parameters in respect of cameras that already exists for this Forum. Even, um..."old" cameras might find a place...</p>

<p>Another great read, <strong>Marc</strong>. I do enjoy re-reading Keppler's stuff; he was always entertaining and informative. The article on "Trends in 35mm" made some accurate predictions, too. Again, many thanks.</p>

<p>There's no known cure for the addiction,<strong>Bill</strong>, though nagging can help, but the cat's not going to be a very severe critic... Lovely old folder, and I think the 6x9 format is just great to work with. I'm looking forward to seeing more barns and hot rods.</p>

<p>Beautifully compact folder. The Xenar seems sharp enough, though the "glow' of an uncoated or hazy lens shows, just a little. Certainly a great find. Great sculptures, too; thanks, <strong>John.</strong></p>

<p>Good idea! I think it provides both stimulus and incentive to get out there and use a camera, as well as livening up the Forum. I used to contribute to the Canon FD Forum "Pictures of the Month", but it's a little restrictive, limiting the photographs to just one breed of camera.</p>

<p>Classic find, <strong>John</strong>, and I hope you can post some samples. Beautiful old lens, and just what a clever guy the previous owner was, judging from this post and your current one on the 35mm printer. I'm often humbled by the skill and ingenuity of previous generations...</p>

<p>Big, ugly, bulky things, but they can produce superb images with that Sekor glass. I used them commercially for several years, right from the first release, and they're probably about the most reliable cameras I've owned. I switched to Pentax 67's because I preferred the handling, but I'm not at all sure that my photographs improved. Good move, <strong>Andrew</strong>; have fun, and please post some results.</p>

<p>Great reading, as usual, <strong>Marc</strong>. The list of films available in the US was sheer nostalgia! Can't say I can recall the Mimosa or Supreme brands, but possibly they were confined to the USA. I seem to have used something from all the other manufacturers, over the years. The dealer ads were fascinating, as usual. Thanks for continuing this series.</p>

<p>Nice spot of indulging, <strong>Rick</strong>. I particularly like the Signet and the Panoram. Funnily enough, I too found a pristine Turnit III, much to my delight, though they don't come cheap...Otherwise, nothing much of interest in the last couple of weeks; there was a nice Hi-Matic E, an Instamatic 400 with the clockwork motor, and a tidy copy of the gem-like Voigtlander Vitoret 110EL . Repairs to workhorse cameras swallowed most of my budget.</p><div></div>

<p>Quite right,<strong> Mike</strong> and <strong>Q.G</strong>.; from an operational point of view the lack of the aperture scale matters not a jot. To "have things right" is just obsessive behaviour on the part of we collectors...Thanks for the information, <strong>Chuck</strong>, and while I'll have to say that I much prefer working in MF formats myself, <strong>Kris</strong>, I just find a fascination with the huge range of 35mm cameras.</p>

<p>Most commonly, the filters screw into the threaded lens barrel, rather than into the bezel or "beauty ring" which sits lower in the same threads. I bought a couple of el cheapo nylon "filter wrenches", an almost-complete circle of nylon with a finger grip on each end and a serrated inner face that one compresses around the filter, and twists. They have worked in about 75% of cases, before destructive measures are adopted. The merest trace of penetrating oil applied to the joint between the filter and the lens and left overnight, prior to the attempt, has been known to help.</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Andy</strong>, I'll try to do a more comprehensive post on the camera in the next few weeks. The snaps I posted really don't do it justice! Nice to hear that you have some shelf space. I don't dare build any more shelves... That doesn't sound like a very satisfactory design feature, <strong>Steve</strong>; having clumsy fingers I think I'll stick with the Yashica winder. And <strong>Chuck</strong>, that's interesting that the FXD had a similiar problem with the visibility of the aperture scale. I must investigate further, though it's not a big problem as I almost always work with my head in aperture-priority mode, and just like to see what the speeds are doing.</p> <p>Fair comments, <strong>Mike</strong>. I seem to recall that "Quartz" was all the thing at that time, and I'm not sure how we ever survived without quartz crystals in our wrist watches. And <strong>Gus</strong>, what a wonderful collection of cameras!</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Soeren</strong> and <strong>Q.G</strong>, at least I now have confirmation that the aperture scale was not electrically illuminated, and I'll investigate further. Possibly something is out of line within, and obstructing the passage of light to the display. I've found the whole "Real Time" thing amusing, in that (in retrospect) the RTS seems pretty much behind the times when it was released in 1975, and I suspect that the only truly innovative R model was the RTS III with it's vacuum system for flattening the film. While the shutter release is great, it's no better that the almost-contemporaneous Minolta skin-sensitive release, where a mere brush on the release button lit up the LED display, and a subsequent light pressure tripped the shutter.</p> <p>I find the RTS's design with it's separate button to operate the display clumsy in the extreme, leaving me wondering just why this feature was adopted. While the RTS certainly has a rugged feel and I appreciate it's reputation for mechanical excellence, I know it's electronics have not survived the passage of time any better than many other models, and I'm left wondering just what all the fuss was about. Certainly, the lenses were top-class , but there are heaps of great lenses out there... Perhaps some Contax devotee can explain the charm!</p>

<p>"Yes" to all, with the exception of the phone app. Enough is enough when it comes to gadgets!</p>

<p>I'm surprised by the quality of the images from the Triotar! Nice quality all round, <strong>Kris</strong>; thanks for the post.</p>

<p>I'm glad the new acquisition seems to meet with approval, and yes, everything in the pic was included in the price. Thanks for the hints regarding the missing aperture display; it looks like a purely mechanical device with no LED's involved, but just how it's illuminated has me foxed. As <strong>Mike B</strong>. noted, it looks like a simple optical system but it lacks any obvious light source, such as a Judas Window or translucent strip.</p>

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

<p>It seemed a good price, since they're not particularly common in my part of the world. This example is a little worn but seems to work well, and the 50mm Planar f/1.7 is bright and clear and mechanically snappy, though the screen-printed numerals (shame on you, Carl Zeiss...) have worn away a little, to be replaced with Letraset by a slightly clumsy previous owner. One thing that's lacking is the aperture display in the viewfinder. When I point the camera at very bright light I can just discern the numerals and the green pointer that moves mechanically with the rotation of the aperture ring, but to all intents and purposes it's invisible. Can anyone tell me if this scale is illuminated by reflected light, as is the case with most cameras of this ilk, or was there some sort of electric back-lighting? Better still, can anyone suggest a fix?<br> <br /> I'll post something more comprehensive when I'm more familiar with the camera, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions, and of your experiences with the RTS. I banged a few frames through it this morning just to check it was working, while out on an arboriculture project I'm involved in, and post a couple of snapshots; the Planar seems adequately sharp. Kentmere 100 through Pyrocat HD, scans fom the Epson 700.</p><div></div>

<p>An impulse purchase for $80, a camera I've not laid hands on before. The Contax RTS.</p><div></div>