glenn_mabbutt

<p>Thanks, I had found Capt. Jack's Steinheil page (<a href="http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Steinheil%20page.htm">http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Steinheil%20page.htm</a>) but all it really says is the Auto Cassarit was designed as a less expensive alternative for another lens in their lineup, and is "infrequently encountered". It seems that's really true :) I guess it just needs to be taken for a spin :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Greetings all, long time no see.</p>

<p>Quite by accident I wandered into a local camera store yesterday and came out with a haul of new-old-stock M42 gear that the previous owner recently found in the bottom of a box of his - a Praktica MTL 5 with Pentacon 1.8/50 lens, CZJ S 3.5/135 zebra, CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35 zebra, CZJ Flektogon 4/20 zebra, Steinheil Auto Cassarit 3.5/100, and an Osawa 5.6/300 fixed-aperture Reflex. They just wanted to get rid of it, so I picked it all up for a song.</p>

<p>While several are known-good lenses, the Steinheil and the Osawa seem to be less common. I don't have a lot of use for the Osawa reflex, but it did come with a couple of ND filters for the rear element, which may prove interesting. I'm mostly interested in the Steinheil Auto Cassarit - I've found a few references and a few pics of flowers on Flickr.</p>

<p>From the limited samples I can find it appears to have a pleasant bokeh and is probably a good portrait lens. Anyone have any opinions on or experience with either the Steinheil or the Osawa? Obviously the proof is in the pudding, but since I just got them and haven't had a chance to put them through their paces, I'd like to hear other people's experiences with them.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks. As mentioned it was in a display case with no staff around, so I didn't actually fondle it. It was big enough that there was a small chance it could have fit 4x5, and I've heard of some 4x5 box cameras, so I thought I'd ask.</p>

<p>I'm not really interested in 6.5x9 cm, so I think I'll pass.</p>

<p>I was browsing an antique shop today. In a display case they had what appeared to be a box reflex camera of some sort - it had a smallish hood on the top like a reflex camera would, but the lens on the front was fairly small and I didn't see a shutter from the outside - it appeared much like an average box camera does from the front. It was all black.</p>

<p>The brand on the front was "Salex" - I've looked that up and it appears they were a British importer/rebrander of a variety of cameras, but I can't find a site that lists/displays them all.</p>

<p>So, before I get too excited about this camera (the price wasn't visible, and there no staff immediately around), I'm wondering if this model sounds familiar to anyone. Specifically, what film does it take? My searching seemed to indicate at least some of the cameras branded "Salex" took whole or half-plates.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I have a 250 - the rangefinder is bright and very usable (made by Zeiss as mentioned above). The "Automatic" models like the 250 (usually) go cheap because they are automatic-exposure only and the batteries are no longer produced. I just use 3 x "N" batteries taped together and to the battery leads - this fits in the existing battery compartment without issue. (There may be slight voltage differences as the original battery was mercury, but it seems to be relatively minor.) My 250 with case, close-focus lens and RF adapter, timer, and "Wink" flash (also not so useful anymore) cost US$30 a few years back.</p>

<p>The 180 and 195 models allow manual aperture/shutter settings, and are thus more desirable and therefore more expensive, but otherwise function the same way.</p>

<p>Not sure what "split-screen focus" means in the original question - as with all rangefinders there is a focus patch.</p>

<p>Ben - I'm pretty sure that's what I have been doing. After returning the baffle knob to it's original position (and hearing a bit of a "clunk", which I'm assuming means it's disengaged properly), the winding arm to advance the film/cock the shutter does not move for love or money. (If I try to change the lens with the shutter cocked, the cocking arm gets in the way of changing the lens - I tried it just to see.) If I then open the back and manually remove the film and insert a new roll, I am able to use the lens I just mounted without issue.</p>

<p>That said, I bought the camera used and haven't had it CLA'd, so it's entirely possible something isn't quite right with the baffle mechanism itself. I'm enjoying it too much to cough it up for a while :p</p>

<p>I have a C330 (not the F), and I love it, particularly for informal portraits of friends and family with the 180mm lens (and especially now that I've found a flash bracket that lets the flash sit centered over the lens but in front of the WLF).</p>

<p>The only thing I haven't figured out yet is how to change the lens properly mid-roll - it has a light-blocking baffle that is engaged to protect the film, but when I've tried it the shutter has locked up completely after disengaging the baffle. Not a big deal, as I usually have the 180mm on it exclusively, but it occasionally bugs me that I can't do this when I should be able to :)</p>

<p>Interesting that a post on this camera comes up now. I was just browsing my local Kijiji (occasionally an interesting camera pops up, but only very occasionally), and <a href="http://winnipeg.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-King-Regula-Citalux-300-W0QQAdIdZ278382943">this</a> King Regula Citalux 300 was recently listed.</p>

<p>I have no interest in purchasing this camera (and no, I'm not the seller and I have no idea who the seller is), primarily as it would attract too much attention in actual use, but it certainly is an attractive piece.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do anybody know about Bessa compatibility with non-retrofocus wide angles like the russian ones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't own a Bessa R series personally, but from what others have said any lens that has a protruding rear element won't work - the Bessas have an extra "blind" in front of the shutter to help prevent light leaks, and the protruding lenses hit that blind. So, no, the Russian lenses won't work with a Bessa.</p>

<p>I don't have anything faster than a 50/1.7 (K-mount SMC Pentax M), which I'm perfectly happy with (considering I got it for free :), so a serious question as a follow up - for those who have faster lenses, is the wider max aperture actually that useful in practice, esp. given the extremely shallow DOF if you were to shoot wide open? Is it just that the faster lenses are optically better designed generally? I don't think I've ever shot the 50/1.7 wide open - I like it primarily because it's a bit shorter than the stock Pentax 50/2, so a touch easier to carry and store.</p>

<p>I also suggest going with whatever you normally like and use a flash. A few years back I made the mistake of trying to take some pics at a family wedding (not the paid photog, he took off early in the evening, so I was just having fun), but trying to shoot available-light. Big mistake - the lights were turned down so it was about EV 2-3 in the hall. I had a very, very low success rate.</p>

<p>The thing is, if alcohol is being served, the guests generally will be feeling too, um, *pleasant* to care about your flash anyway, so you won't be breaking the mood, if that's your concern.</p>

<p>My friend sold me his Spotmatic F a while back. After a CLA it's in great shape. Mostly my Jupiter-9 (85/2) lives on it for informal portraits. I really like the weight/balance with the J-9 on it.</p>

<p>I have a Rapid Omega 100 - interesting camera. My only complaint - the 58mm lens (and viewfinder) are still a bit pricey for my liking. Otherwise it would make a great MF 6x7 wide angle kit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If 1+100 for 2 hours and 1+50 for 1 hour give very similar results is there any reason to go with one over the other?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's to your satisfaction (which is what it's all about) the main difference would be economy of Rodinal with the higher dilution (you use less Rodinal per batch with 1+100) vs. economy of time (1 hr. vs. 2 hrs.).</p>

<p>Did the anti-halation dye wash out this time?</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, if you like or want to try the 6x4.5 format, the various manual Mamiya 645 units and especially lenses are going for a song. Mamiya made a variety of versions of the camera over the years that all use the same manual lenses, so now they're cheap and plentiful.</p>

<p>A quick check right now shows KEH has 2 Mamiya 645E outfits w/80mm lens and 120 film insert, one for $364 and $415. I just bought a 55mm S lens and an 150mm N lens from them in BGN condition for US$100 total - both work just fine.</p>

<p>Also, if you are shooting landscapes and architecture, Mamiya 645 is one of the few medium format system cameras with relatively inexpensive wide-angle lenses - they make a 35mm, 45mm, and 55mm that are generally well-regarded. KEH has some of those as well. Also, leaf-shutter versions of many of the lenses exist (a bit more expensive) if you need faster flash sync.</p>

<p>Right, what you've got there is regular Rodinal. Again, it's a trademark thing, and whoever is selling it decided to use the "R09 One Shot" brand, which is confusing because of history and other R09 formulations that are similar to Rodinal, but are not quite exactly the same. </p>

<p>But don't worry, just call it Rodinal. Repeat after me, Rodinal, Rodinal, Rodinal. Ignore the R09 completely except when ordering another bottle, it will only cause you grief.</p>

<p>If you used water straight out of the cold water tap, you've very likely got water that's too cold, especially this time of the year. Like I said earlier, the easiest way to eliminate variables is to go buy some distilled or reverse-osmosis water and do the full cycle with that. This will also eliminate any potential hard water issues. Leave the water in a room that you know has a relatively consistent temperature, pref. for several hours or overnight, then use it (your fixer should also be in the same room for temp. consistency). Assuming you're an average person and don't keep your house temp. extremely low, it should be OK to use after that. Strictly speaking, you don't need a thermometer for semi-stand, average room temp. should be close enough to 20 deg C.</p>

<p>Sorry, missed your last question - no, I have not added Borax or anything else to the Rodinal one-shot mix when I've tried it - I haven't found it necessary. I suppose if the pH was non-standard due to your water supply you could adjust it up or down a bit with either Borax or washing soda (boric acid or sodium carbonate respectively - not the same thing for film development by any means).</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind APH/Calbe R09 has a different pH than regular Rodinal, which is what you're using - if you're searching for stand development ideas, make sure you're searching for Rodinal (which is what most people still call it despite the trademark naming issues) and NOT R09, otherwise you're more likely to get confused.</p>

<p>Well, from your description your technique sounds correct, assuming the reels are loaded correctly (you would see uneven development streaks if it weren't), and your tank is functioning properly (ex, water goes in and out normally).</p>

<p>What sounds wonky to me is that the anti-halation dye isn't washing out on its own - as I mentioned, normally with stand/semi-stand it comes out after 1 or 2 hrs by itself as it sits for quite some time, usually no pre-wash necessary.</p>

<p>Perhaps there is something going on with your water supply. What temperature is your water? (Semi-)stand is pretty tolerant - 20 deg C +/- 3 deg shouldn't matter, but if your water is 15 deg C or colder, it might make a difference. Also, does your water have a high mineral or salt content?</p>

<p>To eliminate variables, I suggest getting some distilled or reverse-osmosis water, bringing it up to room temp (around 20 deg C) and trying it again. For reference, including mixing the developer, I use about 4.5 L of water per roll - including a water stop (1 fill, 10 inversions) and a slightly modified Ilford wash method of 5,10,20,20 inversions sequentially.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A few things:</p>

<p>1 . It's a bit confusing with the trademark naming issues now - which "R09" are you using? "R09 One Shot" (which is the same as Rodinal, and is now known also known as "Adonal" or "Blazinal") or "APH R09" (a.k.a. "Calbe R09") ? I've never used the APH/Calbe R09, but it's my understanding it requires a higher concentration of developer for the same results. Or, for semi-stand, you may need to leave it longer to accomplish the same results.</p>

<p>I regularly do Rodinal (not R09) 1+200 for 2 hrs - agitate for 30 sec. initially and then again for 30 sec. at 1 hr. So, if using R09 1+100, you may also need to do a 2 hr. stand.</p>

<p>Your EI/ISO settings are well within the exposure latittude of the films you mention, so that shouldn't be a problem.</p>

<p>2. What size is your tank? There is a minimum amount of developer required per roll of film regardless of dilution. With regular Rodinal, I think technically the minimum is 5ml/roll, but I use 3ml Rodinal/600 ml water (in a 2-reel tank) and it works. If you're doing R09 1+100 in a smaller tank, you may not be getting enough raw developer to make it work</p>

<p>2. As mentioned, the pink/magenta stain is normally the film's anti-halation dye. With stand or semi-stand, I've found the dye usually washes out with my normal 2 hr. semi-stand described above - when you dump the developer the water will be stained. I've heard this may be affected by the minerals in your water supply - hard water may require further washing.</p>

<p>Lex, funny you should mention gardening - a local photographer I've met uses 12-0-0 fertilizer mixed with water for fixer. He said it works as 12-0-0 is just ammonium sulfate, and is considerably cheaper than pre-labeled rapid fixer. I don't doubt him, but I've never tried it as I'm perfectly happy with Ilford's Rapid Fix. You can find the Flickr thread where he talks about it <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/33051635@N00/discuss/72157611036506934/">here</a> including his measurements.</p>

 

<p>Scott, interesting test, as I haven't tried TMY 400 II yet personally. However, it should be noted that you could do this multi-ISO, same roll scenario already with at least a couple of other ISO 400 films including Tri-X and HP5+ using stand or semi-stand development, particularly with high-dilution Rodinal. It develops to completion this way (so whatever the film is capable of recording at a particular light level gets developed).</p>

<p>Hi Kat,</p>

<blockquote>do you think you could walk me through the process of stand developing, and about how long I should let it develop for? Like you said before, 3 ml Adonal to 600 ml water for one roll?</blockquote>

<p>Right, the 3ml Rodinal/Adonal to 600 ml water is what I use for a Paterson 2-reel hand tank, 1 roll of film at a time. The process is really simple:</p>

<ul>

<li>measure 600 ml of water in a container</li>

<li>measure 3 ml of Rodinal (I use a 10 ml oral syringe from a pharmacy - the kind designed to measure liquid medicine for children). Add to the water. Mix.</li>

<li>pour the water into the tank</li>

<li>agitate for about 30 seconds - I use 5 slow taurus inversions (turning it upside down and back again while twisting it around)</li>

<li>put the tank down. Leave it for about 1 hr.</li>

<li>agitate for 30 seconds again</li>

<li>put it down and leave for 1 more hr.</li>

<li>Dump, stop, fix, wash as normal. </li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, what does Adonal do if you were to use it for film that has been exposed at its correct ISO? I'd like to be able to get some use out of the bottle for other film too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As others have mentioned, it's a standard developer, and there times listed in the Massive Dev Chart and elsewhere for non-stand development for many films. But, frankly, I use semi-stand with Rodinal for all films. Why? Because it develops film to completion. This means the same technique and times will develop any b&w film at *any* speed, assuming the film itself is capable of recording the light levels in the scene. What I mean by that is, an ISO 50 film is unlikely to record a scene decently (or at all) at ISO 3200 - it's just not designed for it. However, films like Tri-X or HP5+ work just fine at ISO 3200 as opposed to their rated ISO 400.</p>

<p>So, hopefully some images on your roll are salvageable. Good luck :)</p>

<p>I must emphasize, though, that stand dev with D-76 isn't very common, whereas stand with Rodinal is very common. </p>

<p>I highly suggest you pick up a bottle of Rodinal (for trademark reasons it's also sold as "Adonal", "Blazinal", or "R09 One Shot" - but not "APH R09", that's a bit different). Where I am in Canada 2 local stores have it for about CDN$16. From Freestyle in the US it's US$13.99 plus shipping, so it should be similarly priced elsewhere. It keeps forever. The store that sold you D-76 should have some, actually - it's pretty common.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Glenn, is there any way to do stand developing with D-76? I'm unfortunately working with limited supplies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In theory, it should be possible - stand dev involves high dilutions, long dev times, and minimal agitation.</p>

<p>I could only find <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=615">this</a> thread that talks about the book "Creative Darkroom Techniques" mentioning using D-76 at 1:40 (1 part stock D-76, 39 parts water) for 5 hrs. I have no idea if this actually works. Specifically, I think it depends what size tank and therefore how much stock D-76 is actually being used - in theory, regardless of dilution there is a minimum amount of developer required to develop film.</p>

<p>In my usual Rodinal scenario, I'm actually using less than the recommended minimum amount of developer (I believe 5 ml of Rodinal per roll is the recommended min.). But, I've found 3 ml actually works just fine. I have no idea what the minimum amount of D-76 is, though.</p>

 

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>If the film is capable of recording the scene at the light level, the only sure-fire way to get images from it is to use stand or semi-stand development. This method develops film (any b&w film) to completion.</p>

<p>This usually isn't done with D-76, though. Usually Rodinal is the developer of choice. My favourite is Rodinal 1+200 (I use a 2-reel Paterson tank, so 3 ml Rodinal, 600 ml water - only dev 1 film at a time), agitate for 5 slow taurus inversions, leave for 1 hr, agitate via 5 inversions again, then leave for 1 more hr. Dump, stop (water works fine), fix, wash.</p>