arlindo_barlera

<p>Answering the initial question: My fist camera was a inexpensive box tipe, made in Brazil e no longer known. After this I had a folding one for a short time, which was known as Penguin, but I don't know what it realy was. Then a spared some money of my salary to buy the veritable first camera, a 35mm Neoca, made in Japan. Time goes fast...it was about 50 years ago.</p>

<p><br>

</p>

<p ><em >First and above all, my thanks to everyone that answered my question with different opinions which I respect, no matter if I agree or not with them. Mr.Staubus caused me envy with his old stuff – veritable treasures for me. Despite my little experience on the matter, I have to agree with his words: “They give me a classic look I just can’t get from digital” (...) Digital look has Just become boring to me. (...) I haven’t found anything for digital that surpasses the quality of a great 4x5 negative...”.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >My purpose wasn’t to put fuel to the fire on the digital x film arguments. My question was exactly about the use of the film câmeras, and I didn’t say what of them are better.</em></p>

<p ><em >No question about the facilities of digital uses. I have a humble TZ3 I use for computer services with good results. </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >I didn’ know that it’s possible to use expired films – with any surprises. I have a loto f them and I will try use them. For a decent scanning I’d send them to a Professional service and, even if I had a decent scanner, my patiente is a little short to do id myself.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >It’s really a pleasure to use old câmeras we always wanted but couldn’t afford, and the look of na old stuff is irresistible for me. Sure there are millions of old câmeras that haven’t any value, neither as usable nor as collectable. It can happens the launch of digital câmeras directed to B&W making the medium format unusable. And if, on the contrary, someone make a less expensive digital back to be used in place of film.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >Regarding my stuff, I presently have a Contax IIa (Sonnar f.2), a Nikon N80, Rolley SLX, Graflex 4x5, Linhof 9x12, Koni Omega Rapid 200, Pentacon Six and Kiev (with the Zeiss Jena lenses, from 50 to 180 mm, plus an Arsat 30mm, a no name view 18x24 cm, Canon Vt a very old and simgle wooden Ernemann and a dozen of otheer old câmeras. Amost all of them are in usable conditions. I have had Rolley TLR including an original Rollei tele, Minox. My first câmera was a Neoca 35mm. </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >For all that was Said, my conclusion is the traditional: What’s the better depends on what we want to do. People use film câmeras most for amusement than for profissional works.</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >Regards to all of you! </em></p>

<p>I apologize if my question is so simple, but I've been wondering who still uses film cameras, in special the medium and large formats. How and what for are they used in these days of all digital. By the way, have digital already surpassed the film photography in terms of quality? It seems to me that films, papers and chemicals are becaming every day more scarse and difficult to find, and processing films is another issue.</p>

<p>Hello!<br>

Sorry that my question was not so clear, and before I go any further, let me thank you for your help. Now I will try to be more specific:<br>

1] I already have the medium format negatives [6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5") and would like to have them enlarged up to 12x16 or 16x20 inches on paper for film photography, by the traditional [chemical] process. However I did no tind a laboratory that make this kind of work. They usually works with 35mm. The alternative is to scann the negatives in order to have them enlarged. The digital heads or enlargers I have seen refers to 35mm size.<br>

2] With film photography [optic enlargers] we need a specific negative holder for each size of image. How about the digital? Must we adjust the archive to a standard size OR the digital machine do it automatically? If I send the negatives to a laboratory, what do they need to know besides the size and eventual crops I want the copies?<br>

Answer to Neal: Your suggestion is valid, but I am not enthusiast of printed images, despite I don't know if it matches or perhaps surpasses the traditional in quality.<br>

Kind Regards!<br>

Arlindo</p>

<p>Hello to everybody!<br>

Sometime ago I learnt in this forum that scanned medium format negatives can be projected on photographic papers and enlarged in the traditional way, as film fotography, with some advantages compared with 35mm size. On the other hand, I have seen several adds for digital enlargers or heads - all of them for 35mm - certainly to make the projection of the digitalized image. As I am not familiar with computer photography [see my profile], my question is IF the scanned MF images can/must be reduced at a standard size to be transfered to the paper or it's necessary a specific enlrger/head for largers negatives, like film photography.<br>

Kind Regards!<br>

Arlindo</p>

Frequently I've read in this forum the suggestion to scanner medium format negatives as an alternative to the lack of

chemicals or Labs. to develop them. The result, as I've heard,is not the same as film enlargement. As I'm not adherent of

digital, my question is if the scanned negatives become digital photography or if the prints can be made in the traditional

way projecting the digital image on papers for film photography, supposed there are the chemicals.

 

In the traditional way, the largest the negative the smaller is the enlargement and better the result. Here is one advantage of

medium format film cameras, that may be not preserved in digital photography to the average amateur photographers that

cannot afford the top line parafernalia.

 

Then, I wonder if the digital has the same principle or if scnned negatives became standard to computer use. Perhaps the

sizes of negatives are replaced by pixels. The final question: what are the advantages of medium format film cameras used

for digital purposes?

 

Regards

Arlindo

Thank you very much, first of all, to every one of you that told me something on the Koni. A have bought one at e-Bay! The digital adherents certainly suppose I am crazy, but after reading my profile they will understand me. It’s a model 200 in almost mint conditions, with normal lens and the instructions manual, for $ 255,00, what I consider a reasonable price, though the final cost was a bit higher due to our extremely high Custom’s import charges. It’s and impressive machine! The original lens hood was a little loose so that I decided to take it away. I equally took away the filter adapter ring [with some drops of DW40 it was quick and easy to do] and replaced it for a 49-52mm in order to use my Nikon standard 52mm filters.

 

From another e-Bay seller I got an Omegon 58mm in like new conditions, with the original lenshood and finder, for $ 232,50 + shipping and Custom’s charges. Regarding this lens, I am intrigued how to use filters with. I have read that it uses Serie VII filters, but the lens has just an outer threaded ring with 54mm and filters – even with 54mm have always male thread. At the front end of the lens there is not the traditional inner [female] thread to receive any filter. The only suggestion I have read is to use a Serie VII [how to fix it?] then an adapter ring from VII to VIII Series and finaly 67mm filters. But in this case, how to use the original lenshood? The front end of the hood may receive a 72mm but it’s not threaded and so an insecure alternative.

 

Thank you again for your help.

I'd appreciate if someone could let me know if the removable backs of some Koni Omegas can be changed at mid-roll with

dark slides, or whether they are just alternatives between different sizes. The result of my searching didn't let it clear to me.

 

As an expert amateur, I can't neither justify nor afford the purchase of a Hasselblad with the basic lenses [even the less

expensive] so that the Omegas could be a cheaper alternative, with a reazonable quality, even if they don't matches the

Hassies. The references I have read says that the Omega lenses have a good performance. The Rollei 6006 seems to

became scarce and equally very expensive.

 

Regarding the Omegas age, I don't consider this a problem, since I like to shoot with old film cameras. I have still a Rollei

SLX [doesn't allow mid-roll], a Linhof 6x9, Graflex Crown 4x5, a no-name 7x10 view and a dozen of vintage cameras and

lenses, all of them working well. A Contax IIIa and a mint Rollei-Tele were stolen.

 

Regards.

Arlindo

Do anybody can tell me where I can buy rechargeable cells for replacement of a SLX

battery? The mine came with the used camera I bought sometime ago from e-bay and

can be recharged but it retain the charge just for one or two days, even if out of the

camera and not used.

Ferdi! Thank you very much for your help. I will observe the battery and if it really don't work I will provide a new one or the rebuilt of mine. Yesterday I tryed the first film with the camera and the shutter fired normaly. Now I have to see how long it works.

By the way, I wonder if there is any device to discharge the battery without the camera before recharging.

 

Kind regards!

Arlindo

My question may be rather elementar: when the quick charge is ok the red light

goes off. And the green one? My charger is a G-model and even conected for more

than 6 hours this green light did'n goes off. The PDF user manual is not clear

regarding this particular. The battery seems to not reain the charge. I have

just got the used camera, charger and battery from a supposed serious seller at

eBay.

 

Thanks!

Arlindo Barlera

Thank you very much Ferdi for your help. I have never had a gelatine filter in my hands, so that I did no know it is so thin. Now I understood how the holder works. It is fine. Thanks once more.

I have just got a Gelatine Filter Holder "Made in Germany by Rollei

RVI" [catalog # 96.950] and I was unable to understand how it works. The box

says "holder for gelatine foil filters" LXWIF 206 100 - for Rollei SL66.

 

It has a rear bay VI that matches my Rollei SLX, and can be open and

closed with a bottom spring. The front face has another bayonet that matches

the lens shade. The part that fix to the lens has a inner tread [66 ou 67mm?].

 

After exaustive search at Internet I was unable to discover how it work so

that I suppose there must be another part to fix the filters.

 

Any help will be welcome.

 

Arlindo BARLERA

Brazil