polka

For cameras (like Rollei35 or Minox35) with 35mm focal lenses, guesstimation of focus distance is easy : as the width of the picture is 36mm so also approximately the same as the focal, you simply have to estimate the width of the subject framed in your viewfinder at focus distance and set this value on the focusing ring. Or else, as the height of the picture is 24mm (landscape oriented), multipy the height of your framed subject by 1.5 and that's it !

POLKa

Did you already sell all your equipment ? I would have kept the three Nikon lenses and bought a modern Nikon film body for them. Maybe, I would have kept also the Nikon digital body, in case some day in the future, you wanted to snap some digital again ?  

Mine is a KodakDX7630 that I bought in 2004 ( 6Mpix on a 1/1.8" CCD modest zoom equFF : 39/117mm ). Never needed anything else digital for up to A4 prints. Plus : it has an optical viewfinder and is also very convenient for panoramics and proxi-photography (flowers and insects).

But I still like to waste (B&W) film with MF (Zenza Bronica) cameras and print them pictures in a "wet" laboratory.

POLKa 

The question is : through how many lenses goes your picture : shooting analog is the first lens, then either you scan the film, the scanner is a second lens ; or you enlarge to paper in a wet laboratory, the enlarger lens is also a second lens, or else you scan it with a digital camera, thus also through a second lens, or you use a slide projector and you have also a second lens. In any case each second lens adds some convolution to your original picture on film and thus reduces somehow its resolution. 🙄So, doesn't the only way seem to shoot directly digital ?😉

I just noticed that the link I gave above does not display the picture essential for its illustration ; here it is !

POLKa

 

I have a FT, but I do not use the ttl cell at all (I did not put a battery in it), because there is no way to cut it off, and if you don't cover the lens it will drain the battery all the time. The semi silvered mirror is not the first big one, it is one of the smaller mirrors in the view finder. I had to reposition the main mirror to correct the focusing and i explain how to do it here :

http://www.collection-appareils.fr/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=19399 

The title is in english, but the text is in french (gogol translate is your friend).

POLKa

On 6/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, Niels - NHSN said:

As usual, when @orsetto contributes to a thread, there is rarely a need to expand.

I will just echo the importance of seeking  out a healthy sample from the start, and not wasting time on seeking out a bargain. In my experience, true bargains are only to be found in estate sales where the price is often so low that you can justify to chance it.

I have personally enjoyed several more TLR's than is depicted below, but have now settled on a very late (early 1970's) somewhat rare "white face" model T (with Xenar lens) and a mid 1950's 3.5C with a Planar.  
Far left and right respectively in the photo below.

The 3.5C came from an estate sale and had the expected sluggish shutter from years of lack of use. After a bit of searching I was lucky to find an almost retired Rollei specialist in the Netherlands who didn't insist on a full rebuild, but would clean the shutter with a very fast turnaround and a with last-century-price-tag. (good luck on finding such a person).

The main usability issue of the older 'flexes is the very dark focusing screen IMO.
My model T has a modern screen which is a joy to use and until I replaced the one in the 3.5C, I simply couldn't enjoy the camera. It is only the later Rolleiflex models that allows quick user replacement, but with the right sized screwdriver and basic DIY skills it is also possible swap the older screens.

For the 3.5C i bought a Chinese screen off eBay that I had to sand down to the correct dimensions - if I were to do it again, I would just buy one from Rick Oleson : https://bright-screen.com

 

I selected (a long time ago) a rolleiflex T like the one at left, because you could switch between 6x6 and 645. I used it 6x6 with negatives and 645 for slides (landscape oriented) because I found it most convenient for slide shows. After, I found a rolleikin device to use 135 film for portraits : because vertical framing and its 75mm  was IMO an ideal portrait little tele lens. Besides, although there is not a big difference between 75mm and 80mm rolleiflex lenses, I personnally prefer the 75mm perspective framing.

POLKa

On 10/28/2022 at 6:11 PM, James G. Dainis said:

Here is a photo of me on my front porch:

The camera meter exposed well for the background. In real life you would recognize my facial features easily enough but the camera just does not have more than 10 stops of latitude compared to the human eye/brain range. You would have to take a meter reading of my face and then open up one stop to get a good exposure of my face, but then the background would be greatly overexposed appearing almost white. You would have to learn how to use fill flash in a situation like this or else delve into The Zone system of development i.e.  expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Ask you instructor about that.

 

 

Yes, the answer : Fill-in flash !

 

To my opinion, the Minox35 is smaller, lighter and more streamlined, so that when closed it slips better into any pocket.

And it has an electronic shutter, which works OK between 1/500 ans several seconds (like the Yashica Electro35 - my first rangefinder).

POLKa

My father had a very bad experience with his Contaflex Super B he bought in 1966. He had dreamed of this camera for years (at these times Zeiss was very reputed in Europe and the japanese camera imports were both rare and reputably not as good as the german). Finally, my father bought a Contaflex Super B when the better Super BC was replacing it and he got the last available Super B (because he insisted not to depend on a battery for the photo cell). Unfortunately, the camera he got had been exposed in the storefront for a long time and its selenium cell was almost dead. It was adjusted once when he bought it (without telling him), but finally, they could not re-adjust it once again after only a few months and thus simply deactivated the AE function... for a camera payed full price and still under warranty !

IMO, my father made two errors : 1/ not to buy a Super BC instead of a Super B 2/ not to buy a better japanese camera instead of a Zeiss.

POLKa

Interesting question : how would you !measure! the focal length of one of your photographic lenses ? Let's say a retrofocus wide-angle lens to make it a little difficult.

POLKa

My first Canon was an EOS630 (analog with autofocus), then I bought their 300D (6Mpix APS sensor), to use the same EF lenses. 6Mpix was something in those times, but after that, for playing tourist, I prefered compact digital cameras : the first, a kodak 7630 also 6Mpix with a rather modest but excellent zoom. Nowadays, i still prefer compact digital and almost never reuse my 300D. But lately I repaired my EOS630, which had the "excessive battery drain" syndrom and use it again with BW films (like all my MF cameras).

POLKa

As I had an alkaline 625 batterie nearing the end of its life and giving only 1.35V, I tried to compare the measurements of my Gossen Sixtar equipped with it and with a new alkaline 625 that gives 1,65V : the difference in several situations (sunny, cloudy,very low light) is always around 1/2 to 2/3 f-stops. So to say, there is almost no need to correct the setting of this lightmeter. I have also another lightmeter, a Gossen Polysix, that uses ordinary AAA batteries and works by equalising two leds, and this meter is by design completely unaware of batterie tension.

A camera for masochists... that I have and like

 

POLKa

My very first toy camera was a Mycro (14x14mm) which taught me photography (choose speed, aperture, guess distance - develop films - make BW slides on "safety film" by contact under red light etc.)

Then, my first serious camera was a Yashica Electro35 bought in 1967, because of its revolutionnary (analog) electronic shutter.

 

POLKa

My Canon EOS 630 had only one central autofocus zone, but capacity to memorize the focus while composing the picture.

My zenza bronica S2 with 50mm and 75mm nikkors and 150mm zenzanon (and also - cheating - my minox 35, hidden in my pocket)

 

POLKa

I enjoy using my 35mm and medium format manual mechanical cameras, but I have also a Canon EOS 630 that was one of the first EOS models. It is a nice all automatic camera, of course with less bells and ... for instance, it has only a central focusing spot, but you may memorize the focus (and you have even the option to memorize two distances and have the camera compute the diaphragm needed for correct depth of field). BUT, this camera had to be fitted with non rechargeable batteries, and because of a lot of motors (pulling the film, auto-focusing, rewinding...) they do not last long. I solved this issue buying compatible rechargeable batteries with a charger.

POLKa

I got a (new) 630QD in France whereas they were said to be available only in Japan ?

Polka

I have Leica II which was a modified Leica I (#4472) with three Angenieux lenses : 1.8/50mm 2.5/100mm 3.5/35mm. As today the body is not very reliable (quite a wreck), I use the lenses with a more recent Leica III body... but even so, not very often ! There are more usable cameras.

POLKa

MINOX 35, the most compact, the quietest, the best steamline. My EL works like a charm since 1979.

POLKa

I have a Konica AutoReflex T on which I had to adjust the mirror tilt like John Schriver suggested.

But before doing that, you should check what exactly is the issue :

With your lens focused blocked on infinity take landscape pictures full open and with several closed diaphs, and compare the sharpness of far away details.

If the taken pictures are sharp even full open, you will have to adjust the mirror so that on the groundglass they are equally sharp.

But if the taken pictures are NOT sharp, then you have a problem with the "register" of the lens to solve first (the register is the exact distance from the lens to the film plane not to the groundglass !).

I had a Nikkormat that seemed to focus not correctly, and actually, it was the lens that needed correction of its "shimming".After doing it the pictures were sharp both on the film and the groundglass.

I had also to adjust the mirror tilt of an Asahi Pentax and an Olympus Pen FT, and either I am a specialist ot these adjustments or they are relatively easy.(I guess they are)

 

Anyway, FIRST make sure that your viewfinder is TOP corrected for your sight !

 

POLKa

In the cameras that write something on the film, you can remove it in the middle (to swap with another) and after putting it back, it will automatically go to the next unexposed.

 

I have a Canon IX that does it, but I have also a tiny Konika RevioZ2 that doesn't, and so when you remove the film in the middle, it's for good.

 

POLKa

Hi ! some self-advertisement here :

 

links to two papers I wrote, presenting a mathematical model of pinhole photgraphy. As I am French, they are in french and you have to read french... but there are pictures indeed, and more interestingly, at the end of the second link, two javascripts that let you play with focals, pinhole diameters, etc. These graphic scripts work best with the Microsoft Internet explorer (some scaling problems with other browsers).

 

les sténopés n'ont pas de cercle d'image, seulement des cercles de confusion (pratique)

les sténopés n'ont pas de cercle d'image, seulement des cercles de confusion

 

For those interested, another paper on my anamorphic pinhole cameras. Also in french, but on the F295 forum, I posted a lot in english ; look for POLKA !

 

photographie anamorphique au stenopé

 

Enjoy, and tell me.

 

Polka

On my Bronica GS-1, there is a special switch on the lens permitting T pose. The rationale is that (the shutter being driven electronically for all speeds including B pose) when you want very long exposure times, you would drag very (maybe too...) much on the battery ; thus an option for a completely mechanical T pose.

 

Polka