k5083

<p>I picked up an N70 and an N90 recently on a whim. Both cost less than $30. Like Jeff, I had not really explored this era, having focused on true classics.</p>

<p>As much as I love the oldies, these cameras are just absurdly capable and surprisingly well built. Thinking about what it would cost to get these same capabilities in a digital -- the matrix/center/spot metering, 1/8000 shutter speed, fancy flash and program modes, dof preview -- it's just crazy that they cost pizza money. Sure, it's been rumored that film is dead so film cameras are discounted, but a 99% discount still seems kind of extreme. Most gratifying was how well these newer Nikons work with manual AI lenses, which is how I mainly will use them. I find focusing through their finders very easy, and the focus confirm works great.</p>

<p>Having played mostly with low-end DSLRs like the Rebel line, it's a revelation that these don't feel at all like junky toys. Even my wife noticed. Normally she rolls her eyes at my classic cameras but the other day she said, "I want that Nikon that was in your briefcase today" (meaning the N70). I told her she was welcome to it (after all, I can replace it for $20) but that it shoots film, was she okay with that? "Ugh, film"; so I get to keep the camera. But she sensed the quality.</p>

<p>I grew up in Ontario, Canada where the Contax line in the 1980s had considerably more penetration than in the U.S. When it came time as a 15-year-old to get my first real SLR the guys at my camera store talked me into the C/Y line, using as arguments the quality of the bodies and the upgrade path to Contax cams and Zeiss lenses. They may not have been the best choice from an availability of accessories perspective but I went for it. My first SLR was an FX-7, assuming I would upgrade to the 139 in a few years. However, by the time I was ready, the 159 was available -- an utterly magnificent camera and an easy choice over the 139. I never did get a 139.</p>

<p>When I visited the U.S., the Contax always drew a second glance from other camera buffs as they were never common here. I still shoot my original FX-7 and 159 today along with other 137, 159, and 167 bodies I have picked up over the years. As much as I appreciate the merits of other brands and acknowledge that the Contaxes have a few quirks, I still consider them the finest 35mm SLRs I have used.</p>

<p>Thanks for the pics and the memories, and enjoy your 139. Try a 159 too, they're amazing.</p>

 

<p>Heh. I've litigated against Carl. He's an interesting and basically okay guy.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about this.</p>

 

<p>I do not hoard film. I do accumulate bodies like some others here, but that is different.</p>

<p>I get my 135 C-41 from the drugstore, other formats from B&H, just what I need, shortly before I need it. If a 5-pack is on sale for some crazy price I might get a couple extra. I'm sure the day will come when the sky really is falling and we'll have to buy a bunch of film before it goes away. That day is not here yet, lately we hear reports that film sales are up and new emulsions coming out. That's good because my freezer is full of the kids' Eggos and there's no room for film.</p>

<p>Since you have so few slides, yes you should scan them. Understand, however, that the scans will be far inferior to the original slides, even if they are 36 Mb or 100 Mb or whatever, and their only purpose would be as emergency backups to make it less of a disaster if the originals are destroyed. If properly maintained, the Kodachrome slides and probably even the E-6 will be more durable than whatever media you store the scans on.</p>

<p>My spouse has let me know that she is on board with me doing this to our Nissan Murano. Not only would it get my camera collection out of the house, but it will cover the dents and dings she keeps putting in the car. Best of all I won't have to stop my acquisitions, because with her driving style, some of the cameras will get scraped off the corners from time to time and need to be replaced.</p>

 

<p><em>Why buy an expensive exposure/spot meter when a $2.00/2mp camera does the job almost as well?</em></p>

<p>Which $2.00/2mp camera would that be? Of course they all have meters, but in my experience they don't report to you what aperture and speed they have selected. If you know of some models that do, especially with spot meters, and are selling for lunch money I'd seriously like to hear of them.</p>

<p>As far as digitals being collectible, I imagine that a few models that the community decides are innovative, either in technology or style, might become so. I doubt they will become collectible in the way that almost all decent film cameras are collectible because they are so much more useless when obsolescent. An obsolescent 60-year-old 35mm camera, if it works, can be loaded with new film and produce results as good as today's cameras; a 10-year-old digital with outdated sensor just produces junk by today's standards.</p>

<p>My first digi was an HP much like the one at the top of this thread and my 6-year-old now uses it. Yes, it does suck AAs like crazy, four at a time. I'm thinking of giving him an old film cam; the film and processing might actually be cheaper than the batteries for the digi.</p>

 

<p>That is fascinating about the possibility of Osawa CS lenses.</p>

<p>I have a Sears Auto CS and it is a sweet little camera. It came with a 50, and I found the 28 and 135 not too difficult to obtain, but after that it gets difficult. I've never heard of any third party doing anything for this mount. </p>

<p>The page below, about the ZE series, notes in passing that Mamiya at some point made an M42 to NC adapter.<br>

<a href="http://www.mamiya35collectors.com/ZE.htm">http://www.mamiya35collectors.com/ZE.htm</a><br>

That would open up a lot of possibilities.</p>

<p>The ZE mount was physically similar to the CS mount and although ZE lenses won't work on an NC, I imagine an enterprising individual might be able to modify one to do so, although the auto diaphragm operation might be impossible to preserve. ZE adapters were made by Mamiya for its 645 lenses and by third parties for T mount. </p>

 

<p>If I understand Walter's OP correctly, he was not talking so much about the range in quality (good/bad) of classic versus modern lenses. His point was that although there are good old lenses, there are also good new ones. His further point was that the good old lenses do not have special qualities not found in newer lenses, so (assuming you have access to good newer lenses) there is no point in adapting them. That is where I think his assumptions may be questionable.</p>

<p>Start with the fundamentals of lens design. There are a lot of optical performance measures by which a lens can be evaluated, including but not limited to sharpness, contrast, color rendition, flare control, light falloff, sharpness falloff, and all of the above wide-open as opposed to stopped down, or focused at close distances as opposed to far. Some of these parameters probably are at odds with each other and even if they weren't, it would be cost-prohibitive to maximize all of them in one lens. So the legend goes that different manufacturers, and perhaps different countries, characteristically focused on some performance parameters more than others. Certainly there is literature suggesting that different basic designs (e.g. tessar versus planar) optimize different parameters. This must have aesthetic consequences, even though it may be difficult for us to pin down how the design contributes to a lens's characteristic "look".</p>

<p>Among classic lens buffs there is a feeling that modern lenses by the major manufacturers, both OEM and third-party, have become very uniform in optimizing certain parameters that are perceived to correspond to some notion of consumer taste. Older lenses, it is believed, had more interesting variety. And so photographers seek to adapt these to their digitals in the hope of achieving these different looks. Of course it's possible that they are deluding themselves. But it is also at least possible that they might not be. </p>

<p>Obviously a lot of us are using film nonclassics! <br>

My most recent outing was with my Contax 167MT, which is still my workhorse film camera for days when I'm not in the mood to fiddle with anything funky. <br>

<img src="http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/23756/2594121480079328339S500x500Q85.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I also shoot a Yashica T4 on social occasions, and I have a couple of other film P&Ss that see occasional use.</p>

<p>Somebody should just market self-adhesive delete buttons. I'd put one on my RB67.</p>

 

<p><em>"It's sad and rather frustrating that basic consideration, thoughtfulness, and respect towards others are denigrated by some as being "political correctness"."</em></p>

<p>But it should not be surprising, because "political correctness" has never meant anything but precisely that. It is what people call basic consideration, thoughtfulness, and respect towards others when they don't feel like having or showing these things.</p>

<p>I find that the generalizations about women on this thread, even when meant to be complimentary in their explanations of why they don't participate more (e.g. women are not gearheads), strike me as stereotyped, patronizing and, on balance, unhelpful to the goal of being more inclusive.</p>

 

<p><em>"I just got a letter from a dear friend who is sending me all his Oly gear. Fve bodies and a slew of lenses and accessories all like new in boxes."</em></p>

<p>Where do you find such friends?</p>

<p>Anyway, nice cameras and pics. </p>

<p>That's the one that keeps telling me some other lens is <em>the worst lens ... in the world!!</em></p>

<p>Thanks Tom. As a li'l ol' Elements 3.0 user, I don't have content aware fill and have been retouching these with the clone tool. I know, I should upgrade. Unless, you know, there's a plug-in. Which, now that you've tipped me what to look for, I see that there are, for Gimp and older PS (Alien Software Image Doctor's smart fill).</p>

 

<p>I get these on my flatbed all the time. I think it is dust on the sensor, because shaking the scanner seems to fix it (or at least change it). I wonder if there is a good plug-in for fixing these things.</p>

<p>Wonky electronics unfortunately typical of the FT-1, FS-1, and related Konicas. There's no economical fix. </p>

<p><em>A ((Glen Beck)) lens- NO, TELL ME IT AIN'T SO!</em></p>

<p>Well, its field of view tends to be to the right of where I point it, and no matter what the film, it only renders in black and white. So ...</p>

 

<p>Now that I look at it, that shot above probably should be cropped to a square. </p>

<p>Anyway, it was a fun day out with the old gear, the type I wish I had more time for these days.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The Beck 135mm is sort of the sleeper of this group. I have no idea who/what "Glenn Beck" was, but the lens has always performed well for me.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've become fond of the Helios 44-4 as a normal length M42 lens. It definitely has a different look than the German glass, very compatible with my Flektogon.</p>

<div></div>

<p>It was a quiet day on the field, nothing much moving. Lots of time to walk among the planes and take in the shapes and angles.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The drugstore scans had decent sharpness and resolution but excessive contrast. Most of them I re-scanned myself. In a few instances, however, I liked the high-key effect of the drugstore scans, although of course I still worked them over in PS. These pics are a mixture of their scans and mine.</p><div></div>

<p>I had the film scanned at a drugstore when it was developed. Normally I just get the negs developed and scan myself, but the scans were cheap and a lot easier to explain to the clerk than the concept of just developing the negs.</p>

<div></div>

<p>It was a bit of a yucky day by southern California standards but I liked the effect of the muted lighting, together with the glass I was using, on some of the more neglected planes.</p>

<div></div>