simon_fallon

<p>John, David, thanks for getting back. In answer to your question, I shoot exclusively film, or at least, I always used to. And apart from a didgie compact for movie clips and snaps of my daughter, I can't see anything changing there. No denying the convenience of digital but for some reason I just can't feel the same love for it as for film, despite film's numerous frustrations and foibles.<br>

I think you've answered my question between you; so a used L508 is still currently my best bet if I want to 'upgrade'. Although, having taken a look on the auction site, it seems that £100 (ish) is perhaps a bit hopeful..</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've been away from photography for a while now (work, unexpected parenthood) and I'm wondering if there are any new(ish) spot/incident combo meters on the market that are recommended, which have superceded the Sekonic L508, say. I've a L408, but TBH I always found its 5 degree 'spot' a bit neither-one-thing-nor-the-other, and often thought of changing to a true 1 degree. What usually put me off was price, indifferent reviews and sometimes sheer physical size of some of the meters available. I know many people swear that there's no substitute for a dedicated spotmeter such as the Pentax, but I couldn't currently justify the expenditure for something which, frankly, lacks the versatility of even my L408. If only that meter had a 1 degree facility..<br>

So I guess I'm looking for either a compact and affordable (ok, cheap!) dedicated spot meter, or a combined spot/incident meter that's recommended as great value for money. Grateful for any suggestions.</p>

<p>I've just devved a roll of HP5+ in dilution H (approx 63-1). Temp was 20 degrees, agitatation continuous for the first minute then 4 moderately vigorous inversions per minute. Total time in the soup was thirteen minutes. Not had a chance to print yet, but even at a glance I can see the negs are nice and crisp, but a bit dense. I think next time I'll try the same recipe but cut the time to ten minutes, though I suspect even that might be a bit long. Looking at these negs, I also suspect that it might be interesting to experement with considerably greater dilutions; I might try 100-1. I know this post is two years after the previous one, but it may be of use to someone hunting through the archives for info on this film/dev combo. Good luck.</p>

<p>I've just devved a roll of HP5+ in dilution H (approx 63-1). Temp was 20 degrees, agitatation continuous for the first minute then 4 moderately vigorous inversions per minute. Total time in the soup was thirteen minutes. Not had a chance to print yet, but even at a glance I can see the negs are nice and crisp, but a bit dense. I think next time I'll try the same recipe but cut the time to ten minutes, though I suspect even that might be a bit long. Looking at these negs, I also suspect that it might be interesting to experement with considerably greater dilutions; I might try 100-1. I know this post is two years after the previous one, but it may be of use to someone hunting through the archives for info on this film/dev combo. Good luck.</p>

<p>James,<br>

I read about that gorilla. I suspect he's also responsible for a lot af the digital images I've seen over the past decade or so... ;-)</p>

<p>The satisfaction of knowing that a trained monkey can't do it.</p>

<p>Well, I said I'd post the results of my Tri X/ XA4 second roll, sorry it's taken me so long! Well, the good news is that the Tri X, devved in dilute Tmax, came out fine. Not perfect; I have to get used to the vagaries of the XA4's metering pattern, and most of the negs were just a bit thin, maybe half a stop on average. It looked like underexposure rather than under development, as the highlights were dense enough.<br>

Lex, you make a fair point, but I know I didn't fumble the processing sequence. However.. When I shot the roll of Acros (ISO 100) the ISO lever was set, I remember now, to 1600. I'd been testing the shutter speeds with an empty chamber and must have left the last ISO setting. Didn't think anything of it, because the XA4 works off DX coding. But... if I recall correctly, DX doesn't work on this camera at 1600; to use this film speed, one has to set it manually, as I had done. I don't have the user's manual, but I would have assumed that the DX reading of the ISO 100 cannister would have "overruled" the manually set film speed, but perhaps this doesn't happen if the ISO lever is at 1600? If so, then I shot an ageing roll of ISO 100 film effectively underexposing it by four stops. I'll have to check this out, but it wouldn't explain the clear rebate. Maybe you're right about that, and it was just a fluke roll...<br>

And Harry, if you re-visit this thread, did you ever track down the gremlin?</p>

 

<p>John,<br>

I have used and owned both models, an Asahi 6X7 MU for two decades, and - much more briefly - a 67ll. As far as build quality goes, IMHO, the old 6X7 is superior in this respect from the moment you pick it up. I strongly suggest you get some hands-on with both models before you decide. <br>

That said, the handling of the 67ll IS more user friendly, largely due to the ergonomic built in hand grip. How much of an issue this is comes down to personal preference. Both models are heavy and rather cumbersome, but you soon get used to it. My Nikons feel like toys after a day with the Pentax. I found the optional wooden hand grip very useful on the 6X7 (as much for picking the camera up with as anything else), but more or less redundant on the MK ll.<br>

With regard to reliability, the 6X7, or 67 - which is simply a later version of the MKl - has by far the better reputation. Furthermore, if something does actually go wrong with a MK l it is usually much easier and cheaper to fix than a MK ll due to the latters much more complex circuitry; either model is likely to need servicing and/or repair sooner or later. Repair techs I've used over the years generally swear by the MK l, and swear AT the MK ll.<br>

The MK ll's are MUCH more expensive, unjustifiably so in my opinion. The MK ll metered head does indeed give matrix, C/W and spot metering - useful enough - but for the price difference you could buy a decent MK l and a lightmeter or a metered prism and a couple of lenses for a less than a MK ll body.<br>

If you go for a MK l, I wouldn't even consider a non-MU. These were the very first models and, apart from their age (not necessarily a problem in itself) the enormous vibration caused by the mirror clunking up is all too often enough to take the edge off the MF sharpness at slower shutter speeds, even with a sturdy tripod. Shutter vibration is enough of a potential issue, and I have to say that the MKll appeared to do a bit better in this respect due to more efficient shutter damping.<br>

As you probably know, all 67 lenses are compatible with all 67 body versions but, sadly, heads and prisms aren't. The MK ll offers multiple exposure facility, the MK l has to be specialist modified to provide this. MK ll focussing screens can be easily changed by the user, MK l screens have to be done by a technician. Both models only flash sync at 1/30th sec which can be extremely limiting. If you plan to do wedding stuff you'll almost certainly need a leaf shutter lens or two; these are available in 90mm (used only, equvalent to about 45mm in 35mm format) and 165mm (roughly 85mm in 35mm terms). AFAIK the 165mm can still be bought new. Both these lenses will sync at up to 1/500th sec, invaluable for fill-flash.<br>

A last word about lenses. I have four; a 45mm, 90mm leaf shutter, 135mm macro, and a 165mm. All are ancient, all VERY well used, and all are razor sharp. I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that, all other things being equal, there is anything to be gained from buying newer, cosmetically nicer lenses.</p>

<p>Interesting thread. My money would be on the developer as the cause of Harry's problem. For the first time in years I've just had a very similar experience. Just bought an Olympus XA4 via Evilbay. As it was bright and sunny I loaded an old - 3 or 4 yrs - but 'fridged roll of Acros 100. Camera seemed to work fine and I devved the film yesterday in Rodinal diluted 1-50 for 8 mins, which has given me good results in the past. However the film came out completely clear, with NO rebate markings at all. Just here and there through the film are hints of a ghost image, but these are few and far between, and not dense enough to even recognize the subjects.<br>

Now then.. I confess that, without really thinking about it, I broke the golden rule of testing by combining two variables at once, namely an untried camera and old developer. The Rodinal was/is several years old, dark brown, and there was only about an inch of it left in the bottle. Over the years I've been so impressed with this developer's justly acclaimed keeping properties that, as I say, I never gave it a thought. It's never let me down before, but I'm hoping that on this occasion it did, and that I simply asked too much of it. If not, it might well be the camera which obviously would be worse.<br>

Today I'm going to shoot a roll of Tri X and will put it through fresh dev. Fingers crossed, and I'll post the results.<br>

Simon.</p>

<p>Thank you everybody. As you all seem to have realised, my main concern was damaging the camera or lens. Years ago, when I knew even less than I do now, I unknowingly fitted a pre-ai lens to my FE2 and shot most of a roll in aperture priority before I realised that the meter reading didn't alter when I changed aperture. I can't be sure if this damaged the camera, but when I then fitted an ai lens, the camera still only gave me wide open readings regardless of the F stop that I set. Maybe the fault was about to happen anyway and the timing was a coincidence. Anyhow, you've answered my query. Now all I have to do is find a set of these elusive accessories... Thanks again guys.</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

I've scrutinized the archives on this subject but the more I read the more confused I became; it seems the lens/body/ring permutations are a compatibility minefield, even by Nikon standards. I recently acquired a 20mm ais Nikkor and would love to try it with the recommended K1 ring (probably with FE2/FM2 body) but the few K ring sets I have seen on the auction site all seemed to be pre or non-ai. What I need to know is: did Nikon ever manufacture an ai version of this accessory, and, if so, is it important that I use this later version with the above mentioned lens/bodies? Also - opinions welcome - are the potential results worth the work, or is there a later, more convenient way of obtaining similarly dramatic near/far results with this super little lens?<br>

As always, any advice much appreciated.</p>

 

<p>Bob, that's a sensible suggestion. It goes against instinct to shoot when the subject appears out of focus but it's the most logical next step to try. Alex, from your last post it would seem that the orange colour is irrelevant, so it must be something else. Could imperfect flatness really be the cause, though? I've used these resin filters on 70-300mm zooms without seeing the same issue, and polyester filters can't possibly be perfectly flat, (although my experience with those is limited).</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses so far. To clarify a couple of points: the lens is indeed the ED AIS version. There is no provision for any type of drop-in filtration. I should explain that it is only "new" to me; it is actually 2nd hand but in near mint condition. Shots taken without a filter in place look crisp and sharp, even with a 14b teleconverter attached. Images taken through a protective skylight filter likewise appear to show no sign of image degradation, nor indeed any focus shift at the taking stage. The filter was, I believe, a Cokin resin type (may be Hi-Tech or Cromatek, I can't now remember as I dont have the original container). Not the very highest pro quality perhaps, but the very same filter used on shorter lenses seems to give excellent results. There is definitely something unusual happening, it's almost as if the apparent need to re-focus once the filter is in place is actually an optical illusion, and that it is the re-focussing itself that is actually throwing the final image out of focus, although this in itself would be even stranger. FWIW I noticed the same filter de-focus phenomenon a few years ago when using an old Sigma 400mm, but I put this down to cheaper, older optics. Have any of you experienced the same problem(s)?</p>

<p>Hi all, I recently took some b/w pictures on my newly acquired 400mm F5.6 Nikkor through an orange filter and I realised that the image went out of focus when the filter was attached, necessitating a re-focus. And obviously I then had to re-re-focus when the filter was removed. Does anyone know why this should happen? I have used fiters extensively for many years and never encountered this before on any other lens. Also, the filtered negs were drastically less sharp than the unfiltered ones; this too has never been noticeable with shorter lenses. Grateful for any suggestions.</p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your responses. I've noted every suggestion and will now get busy checking specs to make a shortlist; two or three of the above sound promising and I suspect it may come down to which one happens to come up first on a certain auction site. Thanks again guys, helpful as always. Regards to all. Simon.</p>

<p>Hi all, can anyone recommend a really small, lightweight flashgun to carry everywhere with a two or three lens FM2 kit?  I will happily consider a third party gun. Small size is my main priority; I'm hoping to find something  which I won't notice the weight of in my bag but which offers at least two or three auto f-stop settings and reasonable exposure accuracy. Grateful as always for any advice.</p>

Joseph, I'm impressed, and after you've gone to such thoughtful lengths I hardly dare tell you this, but the truth is I actually never shoot digital at all, except for a few family snaps on my girlfriend's pointandclick. I prefer film, almost exclusively b/w, and for my most recent attempt to reach for the moon I shot a roll of Tri X 400 and a roll of Rollei Pan ISO 25. It wasn't till I was set up and ready to fire that I realised that my 14b teleconverter wouldn't physically fit onto the TC 300 doubler (due to the 14b's protruding front element), so I had to make do with the 400mm doubled. I believe I stopped down to F11, giving me an effective aperture of F22 with doubler attached. I bracketed shutter speeds around 1/60th for the Tri X, and 1/4 sec with the Rollei Pan. I'm temporarily unable to print due to lack of a darkroom (digital users can look smug at this point) but under a Nikon loupe the negs look not bad. Problem is, of course - as you undoubtedly know - with so many variables one could spend a very long time trying to perfect something which may not actually even be achievable. All I can say for certain is that there is no detectable motion blur on the slower negs when compared to the Tri X shots, and that, under the loupe, I cannot see any difference in sharpness between the frames taken with the 2X converter and those shot with the 1.4X. I'm unable to say as yet whether my equipment would have given better results with an even sturdier tripod, or if shooting wide open would have improved things. Obviously a different lens and/or converter might be sharper, my film/dev combo may be less than ideal, and all this is without even adding a second converter to the set up! But I'll persevere, and if I ever discover the magic recipe I will share the results with the forum; just don't hold your breath, guys... Joseph, and all so far, thanks again, very nice to hear from you.

Joseph, you know your stuff, but exposures won't be long enough for moon- motion blur, and I'm reasonably happy with my Manfrotto tripod, (though I suppose a bit heavier would be a bit better, and shutter bounce is a concern). However, you have raised an interesting point that I hadn't really considered, namely diffraction. I had always thought-and I'm prepared to be corrected- that this source of image degradation was due to the physical size of the aperture in use, (which is of course set on the prime lens), and that the smaller effective working aperture resulting from the fitting of a converter (or two) had no effect on image quality because the light loss was the result of "lengthening" the lens whilst the actual diaphragm opening remains the same size regardless of any lens add-ons. Hmm... Thanks for posting, you've certainly given me something to think about.

Thanks for the responses so far; I'll keep an eye on the thread for a while.

Has anyone had any success with photos taken on Nikon equipment through stacked converters? Some years ago I

saw some shots of the moon apparently taken this way; sharpness was more than acceptable and I have since

been trying - on and off - to achieve similar results. I have a 400mm F5.6 IF ED Nikkor with matched TC300 and 14B

converters, also TC200 and 14A for 200mm and shorter lenses. So far results have been less than stunning, although

I suspect camera shake may be partly to blame. What I would like to ask you all is: does anyone know if the order in

which the converters are fitted makes a difference, ie should I fit the TC300 onto the lens, and then the TC14a

between this combo and the camera? Or the other way around, and fit the TC14B onto the back of the 400mm and

then the TC200? The reason for mixing the A and B type is simply that the 14B and 300 won't fit together due to the

protruding front elements, although I have heard of fitting an extesion ring between them to overcome this. As always,

grateful for any experienced advice.

P.S. I always rated it at its nominal speed of ISO 25. Agitation was a mixture of twirling with a "twiddle stick" for the first five seconds, (after tapping the base of the tank smartly on the worktop a few times to dislodge air bubbles) followed immediately by five or six inversions. I would then rest the tank for a few seconds before repeating the twirl/invert routine. Thereafter I would agitate briefly- 2 or 3 seconds- every minute, alternating between twirl and invert. Sorry for the long winded posting but, as some of the other respondants have said, TP is tricky stuff and you don't have a practice roll.

Marko, I have devved dozens of rolls of Tech Pan and, after trying it in Rodinal diluted 1-250 I never again bothered with "special" developers, including Technidol. Eddie Ephraums suggests a Rodinal dilution of 1-200 for Tech Pan, which I find a bit too contrasty; on the other hand my nerve used to fail when it came to diluting 1-300 (I always worried that it wouldn't quite do the job, although if Erik says it does then I will happily take his word for it). Even at my slightly stronger dilution of 1-250, I used to mix up 600 ml of solution for one roll of film just to ensure that there was enough active ingredient to carry development through all the way. Temperature was 20 degrees (strict), times between 12 and 15 minutes, depending on contrast required. Many people, myself included, found TP to be very sensitive to "streaking" which shows up as uneven development marks in the emulsion, usually caused by too vigorous tank agitation and/or failing to vary the agitation pattern during development. Also, of course, too strong a dev mixture, although if you go with 1-250 or 300 dilution this obviously won't be a problem. A final point: TP has an extended red sensitivity so, unless you want blues skies and green foliage to turn almost black I recommend that you don't use a red filter; I stuck to medium orange at the strongest. Good luck.

Thanks for your responses guys, very helpful. Antonio, I agree with Jack, you have some beautiful images in your portfolio. OAO for now.

Hi All, I'm thinking of buying a Ricoh GR1v but I cannot find spec details

anywhere on the web, including (so far at least) Photo Forum's old pages. Can

anyone tell me where I might find them? I mean details like does it provide

manual exposure, is there a self timer and/or threaded cable release socket?

What is its highest ISO setting etc etc. Come to think of it, I don't even know

if it is a rangefinder or an SLR... Grateful as always for any help.

Thanks Alan, and no, I wasn't aware of the problem you mention. As yours is so far the only response I shall probably wait a few days and re-post to another forum. I appreciate your help, but I really need to find out more details; as I say, I have been unable to find these so far on any site. Thanks again.