bernard_lazareff

<p>OP requirement: "<em><strong>small enough to fit in my pocket</strong></em>"<br> Pocketable + top optical quality = Retina II;<br> I have a slight problem with the 50mm FL (prefer 40mm) but the image quality of the Xenon is quite something. The back opens for film loading, like with any decent film camera ;-) And accurate focussing is no problem with the RF. Only gripe is the viewfinder does not have a projected bright frame, but in practice one gets used to the correct eye placement for good framing. <br> As mentioned by Mark Amos the Oly XA is also an option, even more pocketable. But it is battery dependant, and therefore not a classic (Just joking, I know there are no zealots on the Classic Camera forum). </p>

<blockquote> <p>The OP said the frame is green on the negative. I think if the film actually saw purple/magenta it would show yellow and not green.</p> </blockquote> <p>Purple (or "purple") seen as red + blue. And, once again, the film may see some "blue" around 400nm that the eye does not (or hardly so). Negative film. Red-sensitive layer, exposed to red, absorbs red (cyan subtractive primary). Blue-sensitive layer, exposed to blue, absorbs blue (yellow subtractive primary) . Minus blue minus red results in... green. </p>

<p>@ Larry Dressler: (<em>Bernard The OP said it was Blood red not Purpl</em>e) My point in bringing up "purples" is the wavelength of the blue component of the purple object with respect to the bandpass of the blue detector, be that the eye, a digital camera, or film "X". So, if the flower reflects some radiation at, say 400nm, beyond the short wave limit of the eye's "blue" banpass, that radiation will not be seen and the flower will look red. Ditto with the D300 of Cory Ammerman. But, if the blue layer of the Fuji C200 film is poorly filtered against UV and short-wavelength blue, it will be sensitive to that radiation from the flower. And, if the OP had seen the flower to be the same color as the scan, there would be no need for discussion.<br> @ Cory Ammerman (<em>main contributing factor in my case was white balance</em>). Disagree. The problem here is that we don't have on the scene a single kind of blue, with just the amount to adjust. What we have (see above) is somewhat similar to metamerism, and cannot be properly cured in post-processing. Throwing out the unwanted blue in the flower would upset, e.g., the color of the sky, or that of a "legitimate" visual purple, i.e. one whose blue component is within the bandpass of the blue eye sensors. <br> I commonly see a similar (but not identical, only shifted into "real" visible wavelengths) issue while hiking with my Vuarnet sunglasses: some flowers that are purple to the naked eye look pure red with the glasses on, just because the blue component of the flower's purple is shortwards of the blue cutoff of the glasses. </p>

<p>Purple flower colors are often problematic in photos. Purple = mixture of red and blue; if the "blue" is predominantly short-wavelength (say, 420nm) it may be in the cutoff slope of either the films or the eye's spectral response, and result in very different "purples".<br> Besides "<em>Fuji ProPlus II 200. Its edge code is identical to that of the C200 film</em>", C200 is the economy film from Fuji, cheaper than Superia; possibly Fuji has cut some corners (like, UV filtering) to keep the cost low. If you feel like experimenting, re-do that photo with C200 and with Superia (or Portra, but not Ektar!) , each with/without a 81A filter. </p>

<p><em>how set the iso</em><br> Method A. ignore GOST scale and use the DIN scale. In DIN scale 1 step is worth 1/3 stop, i.e; 1 small step in the ISO scale. Specifically:<br> 18 DIN = 50 ISO; 19 DIN = 64 ISO; 20 DIN = 80 ISO; 21 DIN = 100 ISO; (...) 27 DIN = 400 ISO; at this point you should be able to make any conversion yourself. <br> Method B. Google is your friend: http://www.kataan.org/gost-to-iso-conversion-chart/<br> Method C: Pretend that GOST = ISO. The difference is less than 1/3 stop and probably cannot be noticed using negative film; and I would worry more about the base calibration of the meter. (you're not going to shoot slides using your vinatge meter?)</p>

<p>Todd, Rick, thank you for providing the correct model name and confirming that the behavior of the B mode is normal, not a fancy of my copy. Rick, your picture also confirms that the closest focus is 1m; from there I can easily interpolate the positions of small stickers with distance markings.<br> If I didn't already have too many cameras, I'd be tempted to buy it for myself. Good performance of the triplet; serious contruction and reliable operation. Just a little sign: the frame spacing on the test film is very uniform. </p>

<p>@ paul wheatland<br> <em>I'd leave it at the charity shop, just my opinion</em>; Sure I will: I'm in charge of the photo section of the charity; just attempting to provide added sale value by selling tested cameras (as opposed to "as is")<br> <em>there were many: Zeiss, Olympus Trip, Fed50 Automat, and others</em>... I'm not saying it's unique, to the contrary, I wrote "Retina it's not"<br> <em>Relying on aged selenium automation may or not produce proper exposure</em>. Which is why I made a test roll; I'd say dial an ISO number half of nominal and all will be fine; even with box speed my test roll is OK. And this aging of Se cells is not a law of nature: a few days ago I was checking against a Sekonic 308, both a Gossen Sixtomat (+0EV-0.5EV over the range) and a Zeiss Ikophot (basically perfect). <br> <em>With a missing scale</em>... I'm about to replace the scale; that is how I had to find a way to keep the shutter open with diahragm at max aperture, which proved not as obvious as I thought. </p> <p>To repeat my question that might have escaped attention in the middle of other considerations: <br> <strong>Does anyone know that specific model and can explain the purpose of the "B" mode as described in the OP?</strong> </p>

<p>Test picture #2</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop</p><div></div>

<p>Test picture #1</p><div></div>

<p>Close up of mode control</p><div></div>

<p>I have been checking an Agfa Silette, to be put on sale at a local charity. This model seems to have auto programmed exposure, based on a Selenium cell; which even seems to work! The lens is an Agnar. The distance scale is missing; by analogy with other Silette models, as well as actual measurements with a ground glass, I think the end/detent points of the distance ring are at Inf, 4m, 2m, and 1m. So far so good.<br> When embarking into the focus verification, I needed to have the shutter open and the aperture at maximum (2.8). That Silette has a "mode" control: central position is "A", programmed exposure; to the left (photographer's perspective) is the "flash" mode with manual f-number and shutter at 1/30 (probably). To the right, again a series of f-numbers labeled "B": the shutter indeed is on B setting, and I figured the diaphragm would just be set at the requested f-number. Maybe for fireworks? <br> But... I found out that under a given illumination, the actual f-number will be as requested only up to a certain aperture, so you could obtain smaller apertures (larger f-numbers), but not larger, like f:2.8 for focus check. I could, however, perform my focus check by blocking the light from the Se cell while tripping the shutter in B mode, this made the camera deliver the requested 2.8 aperture.<br> Question: what is the logic behind that behavior? Is anyone familiar with that camera? General impression: a Retina it's not, but it's well built and I wouldn't mind too much having that as my only camera for a 1-week tourist trip.</p><div></div>

<p>Two quick points to the OP.<br> 1. Your misconception about the price of teh FM3A shows you have not done your homework. To avoid paying too much, look at prices of <em>completed</em> auctions (checkbox on the right of the screen). And be patient. <br> 2. The FM3A is a "better" camera than an FG, FE, or FM2. But costs, say 5x the price. Will you make 5x better pictures with the FM3A? Or get 5x more keepers? Or, if you have the cash anyway, wouldn't it be better spent on extra/better lenses? </p>

<p>@ <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=589033">Walter Degroot</a><br> (I expect others will understand why this is boldface; not for the sake of shouting)<br> <strong>Here is a procedure:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>From the homepage click on My Workspace, top right corner, below the search window and below Sign Out.</strong></li> <li><strong>In the My Workspace window, on the right, there is a large frame / box, with a title Account options. Click on first item below titl: that is <a href="/community/inbox">Check your Personal Messages</a> </strong></li> <li><strong>In the Messages window, choose a message, click on the subject. The text appears; Go to the bottom of the text message. You see: <a href="/community/send-message?receiver_id=172915&reply_to=825343">Reply</a> | <a href="/community/delete-msg?delete_msg_id=825343">Delete</a> | <a href="/community/report-msg?msg_id=825343">Report</a></strong><br /> </li> </ol> <p><strong>That is how it looks for me because I have no new messages. If you have new messages announced on the home page (top right) there might be a slightly simpler procedure. <br /></strong><br> <strong>Best,<br /></strong><br> <strong>B.<br /></strong></p>

<p>@ Winfried Buechsenschuetz: Thank you for confirming that a silver oxide cell will not fry a meter circuit. Btw, I also have decades experience in electronic design, including stuff where microvolts matter.</p> <blockquote> <p>Battery voltages different from the original ones MAY work on some cameras while they will give wrong readings on others.</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, I emphasised this in my OP: "I conclude that <em>in the case of the Minolta Hi-Matic <strong>7S</strong></em>". As already stated, I'll collect information and post when a sizeable chunk is available. I can already state that for a Minox 35 changing from the original mercury PX27 (5.6V) to silver oxide PX27/4SR43 (6+ volts) makes no difference. As stated by Winfried, this seems to be a rule for electronic shutters. Yet you can buy adapters: <em>"Buried within the V27PX Adapter are micro electronics that drop the voltage from the 6.2 Volts put out by the four silver oxide cells to the 5.6 Volts that your camera was designed for". </em>Free enterprise. </p>

<p>@ Charles Monday. I beg to disagree. I can't imagine what kind of component would have its lifetime decreased by being over-supplied from 1.35 to 1.55V. Except maybe a high-density, high-clockrate digital circuit drawing, like 100 amps at 1.something volts. Can you be more specific about what component in a light meter of the 60's or 70's would "<em>fail permanently a lot sooner [at 1.55V] than it would have with the correct voltage [1.35V] applied</em>"?</p>

<p>And same view seen by the Himatic-G, supposedly a lesser camera (I "cheated" and used an outboard rangefinder). In fact all these evaluation of optics quality done on this forum and elsewhere, based on 700pix pictures, don't mean much. Anyway...</p><div></div>

<p>One pic from the 7S</p><div></div>

<p>@ all: thank you for reading and responding.<br> @ John Burton & Mike Gamill: Well, I'd rather not promise, but I'll test at least the cameras I have. Won't enjoy the 7S that much, I did a CLA for the local charity's photo section; I already have too many cameras.<br> @ Rick Drawbridge: The agreement between the 7S and the Sekonic was as good as it gets; the level of 1/3 stop discrepancies is easily found between good meters; and such discrepancies can be cancelled or inverted by just changing the color of the target. Short story, I'd not hesitate to shoot slide with the 7S.<br> @ Cory Ammerman. Indeed that is a no-fuss solution. <br> @all: as advertised, I made tests with both cameras this morning, developed them before lunch, and scanned them after lunch. More significant than a scanned frame, IMO, is a direct view of the negative. That is what people should post when they ask for help about development issues. On the left, four frames shot with the Himatic-G; on the right five frames shot with the 7S, including one in daytime indoors (close to the low limit of the meter). All in program auto mode. Would you agree that the negs look OK and the exposures are consistent? FP4+, D-76 1+1, 12min@21°C.</p> <div></div>

<p>Afterthoughts.<br> (1) Of course, I checked only the meter display in the viewfinder. Fine for metered manual mode. To test the actual exposure in auto mode, a test film will detect only gross errors (more than 1 EV), and I do not yet have the adequate equipment to measure the exposure in programmed auto mode. <br> (2) Some excuses for presuming that the battery voltage issue (with CdS sensor) would be substantial: (a) numerous reports that I believe true; (b) the light response of CdS photoresistors, such that an x% error on battery voltage translates to a larger fractional error on the inferred ligt measurement (explaining would digress too much). <br> Anyway, I'm about to do a test film with the 7S and also with a more modest Hi-matic G, that is programmed-auto exclusively. </p>

<p>I just finished the rehabilitation of a Minolta Hi-Matic 7S for a third party. And, of course, the missing mercury battery issue. Buy an adapter, the cheaper alternative being probably by F.P. de Gruijter (http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/batt_adapt_us.pdf). Or incorporate in the camera a Schottky diode (I have some, bought after reading all these articles about the mercury problem). </p> <p>Anyway, just to see for myself the magnitude of the problem, I inserted an SR44 (silver-oxide, measured at 1.58V open-circuit) with the proper O-ring for centering in the bettery compartment diemnsiuoned for a PX625. And made a series of measurements, comparing with a Sekonic 308B. The Minolta 7S has a meter display in EV units, so I set the Sekonic accordingly. For all uniform patches (walls) or scenes between EV 5.5 and EV 15 (@ ISO 100) both measurements were within 1/3 of a stop. This covers up to sunny 16. Only when metering a sunlit white wall did the camera read 1EV above the Sekonic; but who wants to render that white wall as zone V anyway? and who needs a meter when the sun shines? <br> I conclude that <em>in the case of the Minolta Hi-Matic <strong>7S</strong></em>, the "mercury battery problem is non-existent! And I'm going to pop an SR44 into my <em><strong>7SII</strong></em> that I've been using for years in manual mode, always postponing before addressing the battery issue. </p>

<p>Very nice, thank you! Now, where are my anti-GAS pills?</p>

<p>As an aside, the pic above was taken with a lowly 1.3Mp dumbphone, assisted by... a Zeiss Proxar from my Contaflex kit.</p>

<p>Serving as a volunteer for our local charity (photo department) I get to see a sampling of cameras with anything between 10 and 80+ years of age. I thought I should share an entry for the title of the ugliest Plastic P&S; maybe even all categories. In comparison, the Konica Aiborg looks <em>stylish</em>. <br> Challenges welcome.</p><div></div>

<p>Another one...</p><div></div>