dave_powell2

Hi Melvin,

I think Charles's answer is a good one, based on my similar experience with a Kodak Monitor 620. I'd only add one thing: Before starting to screw the lens out from its mount, also note the width of the gap between the back of the lens and the front of the camera when the lens is set to infinity focus.

When I did the same operation with a Monitor 620, I temporarily lost infinity focus because I screwed the lens back in until the front of the body stopped it...which was going too far!

Sincerely,

Dave

Denis is right on!

Dave

Yes Richard, Elements has the same kind of filter. Don't know about all versions, but in mine, its under Filter > Noise > Dust&Scratches. Very useful when judiciously applied!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi John,

Is this the P4 with a 3.5x zoom? If you're just pointing the camera at the moon, I wonder if the image will be big enough to resolve the contours and craters that you mentioned. This kind of shot is often taken with cameras that are attached to a telescope's eyepiece socket using a T-mount adapter. I'm not sure that a 3x digital point-and-shoot will show much more than a small bight disk in the sky!

Sincerely,

Dave

I forget which photo.net forum it was in, but one photographer also lamented that digital may be moving the "common man" to devalue the photographic image itself. The argument went something like: "Everyone sees all of these wonderful images at art fairs, photo shows, and even filling the picture frames for sale in department stores...and thanks to digital cameras, folks think that they can do just as well themselves."

Again, that was just a paraphrase from memory. But one wonders how the rise of digital is affecting the marketplace at the interface where photographers try to sell their work to non-photo-pro buyers?

Sincerely,

Dave

16-bit is also an advantage when upscaling an image in size.

Dave

I don't believe that Dennis had to remind me about the amazing Topcon SLRs! After years of shooting with a Canon AE-1, an FT-QL, an Olympus OM-1, and a Nikon FE, I found a Topcon Super D at a yard sale, and took its 50/1.8 standard lens out for a spin.

I was shocked to see that its images seemed to be noticeably better than those from the others. After that, I also started to notice Topcon Super D's stacked in the equipment pillars attached to exam chairs in eye doctors' offices. So I guess that if they are goood enough for scientific work, they are indeed worthy classics!

Sincerely,

Dave

Thanks Howard!

Dave

Thanks again, everyone...good suggestions!

Dave

Over Thanksgiving, a friend of mine also purchased the Fisher Price digital camera for her young nephew. It was apparently a very big hit!

Dave

I don't know Elements 5, but I did upgrade to version 3 due to the same promise of 16-bit benefits. One important function that 3 doesn't support is actually converting an 8-bit file to 16 bit! For that, I still have to go to full Photoshop. So you may also want to determine whether 5 can even handle THAT fundamental capability.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Craig,

I haven't actually used this film, but I think (?) that it is often used to simulate the look of IR photos without having to mess with true IR film. If this is true, then you might want to try using a red filter, instead of a filter that blocks most visible light. But as ai said, I could be wrong!

Sincerely,

Dave

Perhaps a bit more buck for the bang, but the old Topcon SLRs and lenses are both heavy and capable of producing stunning images. SLRs like the Super D also have a removable prism housing, which allows you to insert the optional angle finder, magnifying chimney finder, or other specialized viewers. They too can cost a bit on eBay...but boy, are they useful!

If you pay attention, you may even see one of these optical instruments mounted in the column of equiment beside your eye doctor's chair. They're still good enough for scientific use...so maybe the bang/buck ratio still works in their favor!

Sincerely,

Dave

Very interesting, Richard. I think I can almost see some Russian characters bleeding through from the paper backing...just above the building above the girl's head. Or is that chimney smoke?

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Janaka,

The above responses pretty much cover it! I've used a Tourist with 4.5 Anaston lens, and obtained very nice results. But the images from a German Bessa II with Color Heliar lans are noticeably better!

However, if it's reasonable, you may still want to spring for the Tourist, so that you can play with its somewhat unique film-handling capabilities. If you do, watch eBay for the "Tourist Adapter Kit," which Kodak designed for all f/4.5 Tourist models. This kit makes use of the fact that the f/4.5 Tourists' backs are actually removable (and may also be opened at either end).

The Adapter kit includes a second camera back, with a rotating aluminum wheel that reveals different film-number viewing windows for 6x9, 6x6, 4.5x6, and even 828 (roll) film formats. The kit also includes film-plane masks for these formats and 828 spool adapters for the film chambers. (Over the winter, I plan to experiment with using the 828 adapters to shoot 9cm-wide "panoramics" on 35mm film stock...which may be possible since 35mm film is the same width as 828.)

The adapter kit has worked well on my camera... with one proviso. After you set the wheel for the film format that you will be shooting, you may want to tape the wheel's edges down with black electrical tape or gaffer's tape. That's because a little light seems to leak in under the wheel to flare the film. But if you're on vacation, for example, it might be nice to convert your 6x9 Tourist to shoot many more 4.5x6 images on each roll!

Sincerely,

Dave

Thanks Rich and Robert...makes sense. Better re-up at the nearby BJ's!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hello everyone!

I'm shopping around for less-expensive 35mm film development and printing. The

pro lab that I had been using is up to $13 per roll (with additional charges

to generate a photo CD). This seems REAL steep to me...especialy since I have

12 rolls of vacation prints to process.

Other options in the Boston-north area are CVS, Walgreens, Brooks, Target, and

Wallmart. But someone at the office said that even some grocery stores have

excellent processing. So I'm wondering if anyone in the New England area has

had good luck with Demoulas Market Basket or Stop and Shop...and remembers

their cost per 24-exposure roll?

(Our membership to BJ's wasn't cost-effective, so we let it go.)

Thanks everyone!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hello!

I've found just one thread on the web that claims that the 3.2MP Minolta

Dimage Z1 (the SLR-style body, as opposed to the pocket camera) is very good

for shooting digital IR...even hand-held. Does anyone else have experience

shooting digital IR with it, and web sites or examples of the results?

Many Thanks!

Dave

I agree completely with Skip's answers. My Pentax MG is just a tad smaller than my OM-1, but the OM takes the edge for rugged ease of use. (I've taken quite a few photos with it that got mixed up with the "professional" post cards that my wife purchsed on trips...and the OM's photos looked better!

The only thing I'd caution about is the on/off switch on the OM's top deck. It's very easy to leave it on, and to drain the metering battery. The switch also appears to be plastic, and it could conceivably succumb to a young-un's rough handling!

So, as Skip says, you can't go wrong with the Stylus Epic for a child. Some pros that I know even use it as their pocket camera for vacations. It's one of the best 35mm point-and-shoot bargains out there!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi don't own either, but the Contarex and its lenses are gorgeous. And I've read that shooting with the Apla is "an acquired taste." Have you had a hands-on experience with one yet?

Sincerely,

Dave

Congrats Ralf...Good job rescuing this wonderful camera! Are you familiar with its winding stop mechanism? If you flip the "Monitor" viewfinder up, there's a little tab sticking up from the top deck. With your fingernail, click it to the right before taking an exposure and the camera auto-stops at the next frame when you wind on. (It's been a few months since I last used my Monitor 620, but I believe that's how it works.) Anyway, this feature allowed me to shoot 16 exposures on 220 film without having to read film numbers.

Another of the camera's little tricks is the parallax-compensation dial on the flip-up viewfinder. Turn it to the approximate focus distance, and the viewfinder is shifted to frame (more or less) the correct view at that distance. I haven't really used this much...don't think it's all that useful (except for closeups).

Nice photos, by the way...Enjoy!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Rob,

You can try either a faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, or an added ND filter, to reduce the exposure. As you do so, the flashing area should grow smaller...but as mentioned above, you should also consider the effects on the entire image. So capture a few and see which you prefer!

Sincerely,

Dave