toni_nikkanen

<p>Also Fuji has a few 645 RF models that are portrait in the normal orientation.</p>

<p>In the normal position, the image is 7cm horizontally on 5.6cm vertically (as 6x7 is actually 5.6x7, just like 6x6 is actually 5.6 x 5.6).<br>

So it's not like some 6x4.5 rangefinders where the "normal" position gets you portrait images.</p>

 

<p>About TLR's... as you can shoot from the waist, camera shake need not be such a big problem as it is in eye-level shooting, as you can anchor the camera to your belly button. Also the leaf shutter in TLR's is very quiet and causes no shake.</p>

<p>I have a Mamiya 7 and the first reaction people have when they see with it is, "wow that's an impressive camera you have there", so I would guess stealth shooting is not easy with it. The good thing is that the viewfinder is good and the shutter is very quiet and causes no camera shake whatsoever though.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I have a S2A which is supposed to work great in cold as it needs no battery - well it was a beautiful, cold, crisp winter day in Finland last Saturday, so I went out for some shots. Got perhaps three and then guess what, the battery in my hand-held meter died! So I had to guesstimate the rest of the exposures. The camera kept working fine of course.<br>

Lithium batteries are supposed to withstand cold much better than the usual type, right? Maybe I need to get one for my meter.</p>

<p>Ah, found a nice set of extension tubes instead. I'll think I'll stick to using extension tubes and one of the 135-150-200mm lenses for now, then (as soon as I get a lens bought as well, of course ;)</p>

<p>Ok, thanks!<br>

Now I think I need to get a Pentax #T226 or equivalent high-quality close-up lens with 67mm thread from somewhere... bhphotovideo used to sell the Pentax lens, but not anymore and eBay is empty, so is KEH...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am interested in the 135 and 200mm Nikkor, and 150mm Zenzanon lenses. I have been unable to find out what is the minimun focusing distance of these lenses? I found one page listing all the Nikkor lenses but it was in Japanese, and at least after Google translation I got a good laugh, but not what I was looking for :) So anyone know?<br>

One of the things I would use the lenses for is head and shoulders portraits, so being able to focus at least that close would be good. Or do I have to use a close-up filter (such as the Pentax #T226) ?</p>

 

<p>One fun thing to try is to just put in the fresnel lens without the matte screen. Kind of wild looking and will certainly give you a headache quickly :)</p>

<p>By the way, if anyone can tell me some kind of exact type for the 4 screws that need to be unscrewed to get to the focusing screen, I would like to obtain new ones as these are completely worn out - I dare not open it anymore unless I have new screws to replace them with.</p>

 

<p>My knowledge of optics is very shallow but still, I think the fresnel is not critical for focusing, it just makes the image brighter - thats what it was initially used for (in lighthouses).<br>

The Kiev88 screen I ordered (from arax-foto) almost certainly has no fresnel of it's own but you might have a different kind of screen than I do. The one I have is this: http://arax-foto.com/accessories/screen/<br>

On the Bronica, the matte side of the focusing screen should be at exactly the same distance from the mirror as it would be if it were sitting directly on top of the fresnel. I THINK. That means, if you remove the fresnel and use a screen which has its own fresnel, you are still OK as long as the "integrated" fresnel in your screen is exactly the same thickness as the original one - but I don't think there is any reason to believe it would be :)<br>

Ok, now if you ask anything more I'll have to completely make it off the top of my head, I'm way out of my league as it is :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes it's a bit weird, but indeed I left the original fresnel in place as the Kiev screen (AS FAR AS I KNOW :) doesn't have one. Double fresnels would be bad, I am also guessing. But now that you've removed the fresnel the focus could be a bit off depending on the thickness of the fresnel in your new screen...<br>

Yes it's a bit weird, but better than what I started from.</p>

 

<p>I have checked the focus. Originally I thought the infinity focus was a very tiny bit off, but I took some test shots at close range and the focus seems perfectly fine.<br /> The way they were on my camera, the fresnel lens was sitting on some supports and the original focusing screen was simply stacked on top of it. I just replaced the original with the Kiev one, making sure I had it the right way upwards because that could screw focusing. Also at first I accidentally put it at an 90 degree angle so the split image was moving the wrong way, and I had to unscrew the very worn out screws and correct it :)<br>

<img src="http://www.delphine.org/~toni/photo/filmikikkailut/itsepilatut/09-ihmemies.jpg" alt="Focus test shot, focus was on the ilford (BIG)" width="1610" height="1619" /></p>

I bought a small bottle of isopropyl alcohol for cleaning negatives - it should be the nearly pure variety. I

thought to ask, is it safe to use this also for cleaning the glass surfaces of my Nikon FH-869G glass film holder

or will it cause damage? It has accumulated some cruft that doesn't want to go away with the regular cleaning

stuff I use ("alcohol-free cleaning agent for flat panel displays", I like it because it doesn't leave a stain on

the glass) - so I would like to use something stronger.

The screen arrived today and replacing the original Bronica one with the Kiev88 one was simple and straightorward; the

kiev one was slightly smaller and didn't have to be cut or anything.

The viewfinder is now brighter, though perhaps not greatly more so; and the split image is useful. All in all, a good and

cheap upgrade.

Funny you would replace it with a pentax 6x7 screen, as my Pentax 6x7 is next on line for getting a good focusing

screen.. along with my Minolta Autocord LMX. All of these cameras would be so much nicer with a good, bright screen :)

I find totally surprising that Adorama hasn't had Reala in 35mm for a while - when I visited NYC in August, the salesperson had his hands full of Reala 35mm, some of which I happily bought and shot during the following few days..

I've successfully removed and re-inserted my focusing screen and it went well on the second try, focusing to infinity is still OK, so I was

confident enough to order a Kiev 88 screen. Hopefully it'll arrive soonish and then we'll see if it will turn a really good camera into a super

camera or not :)

 

The original screen looks like some kind of DIY screen made by Joe Hobbyist; it's not even cut completely straight.. the fresnel doesn't

look too bad. Looking in the viewfinder with just the fresnel gives a funny feeling and a headache.

I am also interested in replacing my S2a focusing screen. I found the Kiev88 screen available at arax photo for $24. However I would like to understand something: what is this talk about replacing the foam? Is this somehow necessary? As far as I know I have no problems with focusing with my original screen, apart from the fact that it's very dark of course. Can I just get the Kiev screen, swap it with the original one with relative ease and relatively little risk of breaking anything and be happy?

 

The links above no longer work, by the way.

..for what it's worth, I got the camera back in 4 days, completely fixed and calibrated. I don't know what was wrong with it but it's fixed now.

Anyone know what's the difference between Reala and Reala ACE?

I can see the tab on the lens and it seems OK, occupying half of the space as you say.

 

However I figured out something more. If I move the level on the camera body all the way, the 150mm framelines don't

get completely activated and the 80mm lines are partially visible. It seems as if something is out of place inside the

camera and the lever is not able to move correctly. So it could be because of this, that the lever needs to be moved

more than the little tab on the 80mm lens will move it.

 

I've found a repair shop who said they could try and fix this and also calibrate the rangefinder while they're at it, so I'll

ship the camera over tomorrow. I won't be needing it for a while as I've got way too many rolls of film exposed with it

during the last 3 weeks to deal with :)

Also, I would appreciate if someone could send me a good photo of the backside of a 80mm lens and/or of the Mamiya 7

bayonet so I can try to figure out if something's not as it should be.

I have a Mamiya 7 that has worked well with the 65mm lens. Recently I bought a 80mm lens and tried it. The frame lines in the viewfinder

did not change to reflect the 80mm lens. I read this thread here on photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Iq9Z

 

And then tried moving the little tab in the lens mount using a pen and the frame lines change to 80mm just fine. Thinking the problem must

be with the lens, I went back to the shop and tried two other 80mm lenses they had. Even on those lenses the frame lines just won't

change. So what else could be the problem? It seems as if the body is working fine as the frame line selection tab works when operated

manually and all three lenses can't have the same problem, can they?

Stumbled upon this very old thread. I am now in Ithaca and will be until Saturday. Noticed Ithaca Photo went under last year and no-one nas rented the space.. also same thing happened to another photo company whose name I can't remember. Am I going to have better luck buying film in Niagara Falls (where I'm going next) than here? I bought a pile in NYC but it seems to get exposed at an alarming rate.

I have a Nikon 8000 and the FH-869G glass holder. I use it for all color film and it does indeed give corner-to-corner sharp scans. The garbage-collecting 4 glass surfaces are a real bother but on the color film side, Digital ICE makes most of the crap go away. I rarely use the glass holder for B&W film for two reasons: 1) dust spotting would take a LONG time 2) B&W film, at least the way I develop it, is much more flat than color film (fuji/kodak slides and negatives from a lab), and therefore I can get reasonably sharp scans even without the glass holder. Usually I see tight grain everywhere except very close to the border of the frame, where the image itself usually isn't in sharp focus either.

 

I try to avoid B&W films with a strong tendency to curl. Mostly this means some cheap small-shop films; the usual Kodak/Fuji/Ilford stuff behaves nicely.

Comparing flash power seems tricky. Guide numbers are thrown around with little concern for uniformity. Sometimes you get a guide number for 35mm field of view, sometimes 50, sometimes 105...

 

Are these numbers correct so far? ISO 100, 50mm field of view, feet:

Vivitar 285HV 120

Sunpak 120J 150

Metz 54 mz-4i 131

Metz 58MZ 137

 

 

None of these appear to be all THAT more powerful than the Vivitar. Maybe I really ought to consider the even larger units.