DWScott

<p>I ran a quick test roll of Kentmere 400 this past weekend, developing it in Diafine.<br> My results: I like it best exposed at 800, maybe 1250. (I exposed the test in whole stops, so I have samples of 800 and 1600, not 1250.) I'm posting the results of exposing at 800. I do wish this had a bit more sparkle, like Tri-X in Diafine.<br> The roll was developed for 5 + 5 minutes (A + B solutions), with moderate inversion agitation for 5 to 10 seconds every minute.<br> The whole roll results are posted here:<br> https://flic.kr/s/aHskogGALa</p> <div></div>

<p>Not sure if this should go in the Modern or Classic thread. Shot on auto exposure with the Pentax LX.</p><div></div>

<p>I've had three of them, two black bodies, and currently one silver. All three have been heavily used, the first two by a professional photographer. None of them have had any problems. They seem very sturdy. I keep an MX because it seems likely to be the one camera in my collection that will be operable for the next fifty years, and able to be serviced.<br /> The good points:</p> <ul> <li>Sturdy mechanical camera, basically the last inheritor of the Spotmatic legacy</li> <li>Small and easy to carry</li> <li>Simple and reliable meter that requires readily available (and cheap) battery</li> <li>Takes every K-mount lens (with an aperture ring) and M42 lens (with adapter)</li> <li>Big viewfinder</li> <li>Can take a power winder, which makes the camera easier to carry and shoot (it adds a grip and shutter release to the camera.)</li> </ul> <p>The low points:</p> <ul> <li>I find the top plate cramped; its just too darned small. The shutter speed dial is also quite stiff to turn. Taken together, I find it awkward to get my finger tips around the shutter speed dial to change it, and have to jam my fingers in behind the winder lever to do it.</li> <li>Meter switch in the shutter release can get touchy/dirty. The result is sometimes the meter doesn't activate until I've managed to ham-handedly press the shutter release button too far and trip the shutter. I'm sure a good CLA would clean this up, but all three of my MX's behave the same.</li> <li>The viewfinder has a low eyepoint. Combined with the large size, wearing glasses with this camera is awkward. The corners in the viewfinder aren't always visible. If you have good eyesight, don't worry. But if you need glasses, the viewfinder is not as comfortable as a high-eyepoint finder like the Nikon F3HP.</li> </ul>

<p>Best looking engagement photo ever :-) Nice LX</p>

<p>Great resource, thanks Rick. I just ordered a mirror too.</p>

<p>A shot from a Track Day organized by a local speed shop that specializes in Mustangs.</p> <div></div>

<p>This is a shot from an Alan Doyle concert at the CNE bandshell in Toronto.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a few from recent events, shot with my Pentax LX.</p>

<p>Yuri, best of luck! That is a role that I often play at weddings, and it can be very satisfying. You have none of the pressure of the Official Photographer. Being unobtrusive and blending in with the guests, there are gems to be found. The bride and groom will share unguarded moments when they are not in front of the big Canon/Hasselblad or whatever.</p> <p>I think your first plan (the Leica with a fast normal and the Bergger film) will help you deliver a unique look that will probably be distinct from the "official" photos. The only other thing I would consider is one additional lens -- something a little longer like a 90mm (if you have one.) This gives you the ability to observe from a slightly longer distance, which is important when the official photog is doing their job (which is all the time.) I often shoot Pentax 35mm and that means I pack my 77mm or 135mm. I am always glad to have one of those lenses along.</p> <p>I respect and celebrate the work that the official photographers do. Having been in that role a few times, I don't ever want to diminish their work or become a nuisance to them. But it has been a real joy to have three different brides tell me that their favourite photo of the day came from me.</p>

<p>Have you checked out any of the Fuji cameras? (X-E1, X-E2, X-Pro1, X-T10, X-T1)</p> <p>I have always wanted a reliable "film" look from a digital camera, and my Fuji X-E1 delivered it. The Fuji's have different selectable modes, to give different film-like looks to the JPEGs coming out of the camera. I particularly like the Astia/Soft look, and the Black and White (with Yellow filter or Red filter.) These are very film-like.</p> <p>To me, it's a look that has plenty of detail and sharpness (the Fuji doesn't have an anti-alias filter, so that helps.) But it isn't overly "sharpened" (like video) and has plenty of latitude. I find the Fuji X-Trans sensor delivers those things. Adding the characteristic curves of different "film looks" to the JPEG output, and the Fuji is really the ultimate choice for getting a film-ish result.</p> <p>Some will say you can do the same in software -- but I'd rather not spend all my time on the computer. The JPEGs look great right out of the camera. And if I worry about making changes later, I can just shoot Raw+JPG or Raw.</p>

<p>I have great results from scanning the film, then putting each stereo pair into the "Stereophotomaker" app. This free app works really well. It's simple to create "Holmes" cards with it. I print directly to a colour printer, or output a JPEG and send the JPEG to a photo lab (even Walmart) for a 5x7 print. With a little trimming of the top and bottom, 5x7s fit perfectly in Holmes viewers. These viewers are commonly available in antique shops, flea markets, or you can order new ones for a reasonable price.</p> <p>This technique works equally well, no matter what stereo camera I use. I have done it with a Revere 33, a Holga 3D, an ancient 127-format "superslide" camera, and with a modern Fuji W1 digital 3D camera.</p> <p>Your Sputnik camera should return excellent results, using medium format film. I would try it!</p>

<p>Thanks all!<br> <br />Regarding the name: I'm just going by the RolleiClub info.</p> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"> <tbody> <tr> <td bgcolor="#555555"><strong>Start S/N</strong></td> <td bgcolor="#555555"> </td> <td bgcolor="#555555"><strong>End S/N <br /></strong></td> <td bgcolor="#555555"> </td> <td bgcolor="#555555"><strong>Prochnow <br /></strong></td> <td bgcolor="#555555"><strong>Parker <br /></strong></td> <td bgcolor="#555555"><strong>Evans <br /></strong></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"> <tbody> <tr> <td bgcolor="#dddddd">1.100.000</td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd"> </td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd">1.168.999</td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd"> </td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd">Rolleiflex 3,5</td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd">Automat Rolleiflex Model X</td> <td bgcolor="#dddddd">Rolleiflex X (type 1/2)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Then on their Index Cards, they give the following:<br> Rolleiflex Automat 6x6 - Model K4 / 50<br />October 1949 - May 1951<br />Serials: 1.100.000 - 1.168.000<br> The detailed description and the photo match my camera.</p> <p>Just figuring out the names and numerology is interesting :-) </p> <p>At least it's not as confusing as trying to find the same info for Zeiss Contax products!</p> <p> </p>

<p>The camera looks much cleaner now. I retouched the paint a little, and the black pebble leathers from Camera Leather look great. (The old leather was moldy in places, and wore off completely when attempting to clean it.)</p><div></div>

<p>Of course, the requisite camera shots.</p><div></div>

<p>The new-to-me Rollei works as advertised. I am glad to have this classic in my collection.</p><div></div>

<p>My stroll through Mount Pleasant Cemetery was accompanied by a huge number of raccoons. I've never seen dozens at a time until this evening.</p><div></div>

<p>The focusing screen in the Automat was VERY dark. I replaced it with a screen from Rick Oleson. The new screen is brighter, and has split-image focusing. But the screen illumination is still very dark compared to my Yashica EM or the 2.8F.</p> <div></div>

<p>I thought I would share the first shots from my newly restored Rolleiflex Automat K4/50.</p> <p>This is my second Rollei. I foolishly sold a 2.8F, because I liked the rendering from my Yashicas better and because I was self-conscious carrying around that expensive a camera. Much as a love my Yashica's the Rollei has a real romance about it. I decided to buy an old user.</p> <p>This Automat was received in very ugly condition, but basically operable. Testing showed that shutter speeds were good, winding mechanism was good, but the focus was off. I have had luck adjusting focus on folding cameras of the same vintage, so I tore down the Rollei and tried my hand at it. This afforded me the opportunity for a deep clean and to install new leather as well. Unfortunately, the focus rails were worn, so achieving correct focus was not really possible. I took it to the good people at Camtech Photo in Hamilton, who were able to rebuild the camera to achieve reliable focus.</p> <p>These shots are from the first test roll after the camera was rebuilt. The film was Ilford XP2 with a yellow filter (for expediency only -- XP2 is my least favourite film.)</p> <div></div>

Just like *every* pro digital camera. No one buys a top end Nikon, Canon, Phase One, Leica etc unless they can quickly recoup the cost from their work, or they are wealthy amateurs. Either are valid, and the Pentax is not out of line price-wise.