polka

<p>In 1967, this was my first camera, it just arrived to France, very sparingly like all japanese imports, and it immediately seduced me because of the automatic metering and electronic shutter. I found it actually more convenient to have direct control of the depth of field and just some hint of the shutter speed ; you could also trick the meter if needed by changing the film speed setting.<br> The most impressive thing about this camera was the huge range of automaticity ; this first picture was taken at F/16 around 1:500.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

The "deux-chevaux" is a popular french citroën car<div></div>

<p>Did not work, trying again :</p><div></div>

<p>And last (but not least) a big picture :</p>

<p>Third picture, a detail showing the structure :</p><div></div>

<p>Second picture :</p><div></div>

<p>I did it "on purpose" some 40 years ago : after developping a film normally and making some "normal" prints, I sinked the film a few minutes into hot water then let it dry and used it to get these reticulated pictures.<br> Here I show the same picture before (BullNet) and after (BullRet) and a detail of the structures (BullDet)<br> I do not remember the temperature of the water (maybe 45-60°C) nor the time (a few minutes, maybe 5 ?)<br> You have to be cautious because the gelatine is very fragile after the treatment, as long as it is wet.</p><div></div>

<p>Here a link to my answers in a very similar thread on the APUG forum :<br> http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/longest-handheld-exposure.102089/page-2#post-1350413<br> Don't you think I am bragging ?<br> Paul</p>

<p>Some questions and some tests :<br /> With the lens blocked at infinity, viewing a scene very far away (mountain, distant building...), is it focused on the groundglass ? and/or is it focused on the film when the picture is taken ?<br /> If it is focused on the film but not on the groundglass, then the position of the miror is wrong : in your case, the miror may be 0.5mm too thick or too advanced. But maybe there is another possibility : do this other test :<br /> Place yourself right in front of a plane vertical surface (let's say a brick wall at 1 or 2m) and focus the center of the picture on the groundglass. Do the upper and the lower borders of the image seem as well focused as the center ? if not, then the miror may not be exactly at 45° with the film and the groundglass plane (the miror should be exactly in the bissecting plane of the right angle [90°] formed by the film plane and the groundglass plane). <br /> To confirm this, another possible test would be to block the lens at infinity and to view a very distant object putting its image on the groundglass alternatively near the upper and the lower borders. If the miror is not exactly at 45°, then the image of the distant object should seem better focused near the lower border than near the upper border.</p>

<p>Hi !<br> I have a Minox35 EL since 1979 (their first model bought with discount when they changed for the GL), and it never failed me. When they stopped this line of products I decided : why not buy their last model (the GT-S ; new but with discount too)?<br> I had a lot of problems with it :<br> First, the same one as Barry ; the diaph would not move. My experience : you cannot use the camera as it is, because moving the diaph ring you will adjust the cell to the selected opening, but if the diaph remains open you will grossly overexpose. So to solve this problem I had to open the lens, it is possible, but very perilous. Inside, the diaph blades are opened by a cam but closed by a little spring. When the spring is not tensed enough, the diaph remains open.<br> Then, I had another problem with the shutter : sometimes it did not close, so, I had to open the inside too.<br> At the end, it worked OK, but I noticed that the film advance was very irregular (and I could do nothing about this). The frames were not overlapping, but quite ; not a real issue with negs but not very cool for slides.<br> So I put it on a shelf and took my faithful EL back to use :-)<br> My opinion (based on my sample of two) is that their first models were built on a higher standard than the later.<br> Paul</p>

<p>I adapted a TTL prism from a broken Kiev60 on my Rolleiflex T . The meter can be used<br> Paul</p><div></div>

<p>Yes, my Miranda Sensorex EE has selectable global/spot metering, but moreover is truely automatic and able to memorize mechanically the measurement when pressing the shutter release halfway (just like the Konika Autoreflex, but this one has only global metering). Besides, as the sensors are on the mirror (like in the Topcon RE super) the viewer can be a pentaprism or a chimney etc. and still keeping the meter.<br /> <br /> So it is the real "spot" "matic"<br /> Paul</p>

<p>I am surprised that nobody mentionned the Minox 35 in this thread. My Minox 35EL (first edition of this little camera) was the one that I had always with me and certainly the one that totaled most shoots. I bought it in 1979 and it is still working like a charm (after 36 years !).<br> What I liked most is :<br> - streamlined (it has no bulgings and easily sweeps in or out any pocket ; and the lens is protected when closed)<br> - discretion (no comment)<br> - automatic speeds (electronic shutter from 1/500 up to 30 seconds and more)</p> <p>Paul</p>

<p>I answer to myself : no, it was the first Nikon rangefinder ! see :<br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/nikon1_S.htm<br> Paul</p>

<p>Didn't one of Canon early 135 camera use a 24x30 (or 24x32) frame, moving 7 sprocket holes per view instead of 8 ?<br /> Paul</p>

<p>Look better, it's a <strong>Fujica</strong>, not a <strong>Yashica</strong>... but anyway, a nice camera for motorized P&S.<br> I have also a Pen FT, but I do not use the built-in cell, because it's actually not coupled so you have to "copy" what it says in the viewfinder on the lens, like if you were using a separate cell (and besides, I prefer to measure "incident light").<br> Paul</p>

<p>Beside, my prefered 120 half frame camera is this one : A little 645 folder called "citonette" and sold by Rodenstock around 1934. It has a rather fair anastigmat lens (75mm/2,9) and a classic compur shutter (1/250..1sec, B, T)... and two red windows in the back to pull the film halfway while using the 6x9 pict. numbers.</p><div></div>

<p>And this is an example of what I get with this little camera<br> Paul</p><div></div>

<p>My prefered 135 half-frame camera is this Fujica Drive, with a spring loaded motor (20 picts per full load) and both full automatic and full manual exposure (working selenium cell). The 28mm/2,8 lens is excellent.<br> Paul</p><div></div>

<p>Personnaly, I have been doing my small and medium scans with Epson scanners for years (fisrt with a 1200ppi scanner, then with a 2400ppi scanner and now with a 4990 scanner which delivers 4800ppi). Before, I had my 35mm color negs and slides scanned by Kodak with quite the same quality (18mm?) than the Ilford offer (I checked on their site www.Ilfordlab-us.com).<br> If you want to scan your pictures yourself, you have to consider that it is very time consuming.<br> So I would first try if the mail-in scan offered by Ilford does not actually suit you ; their prices seem right, approx. in the same range than the former Kodak offers that I experimented, satisfactorily. The only reason why I started scanning myself was that they did not offer medium format scans.<br> Besides, I do also B&W classic (chemical) enlargements - and find them better than ink-jet prints. But it seems that the Ilford lab does - after scanning - the prints on silver papers, so it's equivalent to analog-chemical processing : that's good !<br> So, in my opinion, for efficiency : try them.<br> For fun : do it yourself the analog-chemical way.<br> <br> Paul</p>