mark f

I had to make the same decision and went for the TTL. The only reason is that the shutter speed dial is easier to access without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. It is closer to the front edge of the camera so I can adjust it easily.

I'd do everything one shot and from liquid. For a developer, a good, basic starting point is HC110 mixed driectly from syrup. Rodinal and Pyrocat work well too, but are more of a specialty developer....great stuff, but probably not the best place to start. Either way, you can get a medicine syringe from the local drug store to accurately the small amounts of concentrate,

Use a few changes of water for stop. You could mix rapid fix as one shot (or you can save it for a few films). Hypo eliminator is not really needed for film After washing, I'd just soak in distilled water and forget the photoflo and photo chamois. Soaking in distilled and hanging works for me with no risk of scratching. Lastly, consider finding an easy way to make a room light tight rather than using a changing bag....it is much, much easier.

This set up eliminated the need for storage of any mixed chemicals.

 

For reels and tanks, I use Hewes and Patterson. They both work well and I use them both. Whichever you choose, make sure you practice a few times with a scrap roll of film to make sure you get the hang of it before risking a goog roll. Film clips are really not needed. I just use wood sprung clothes pins

Not much to add...I have a Tachihara (new) and a 150mm Sironar N (used) that I got from Midwest and couldn't be happier (and was under $1000). I'd recommend calling Jim at Midwest and ask him what he has used.

Joseph's comments are square on. I have and use the 50 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 for both film and dslr. They are both great optically. The 85 is great has a much better build quality and better focussing. If you are looking for tight head shots, the 85 would work well. If it were me, though, I'd get the 50mm 1.4 (not the 1.8) now and possibly add the 85mm later. The 50 1.4 has a similar build as the the 85mm and probably focusses faster than the 50 1.8 given the USM focussing motor. Don't forget to get the matching hood.

I concur....they are the best.

I have both (OK, a Rolleicord). If you are happy with a normal lens and don't need to shoot fast, the Rollei plus a good light meter is hard to beat. The larger Rollei neg will beat out the Leica every time. If you shoot things that don't move very fast, I'd get the Rollei and a good handheld meter.

I use 24 inch black light bulbs (BLB) and they work fine. I have 8 tubes and whole thing cost less than $100 using scrap plywood I had laying around. My exposures for Pt, cyanotype,and kallitype are between 4 and 10 minutes. I hooked it up to a Gralab mechanical timer to make life a bit easier. I'd go with tubes just to make the wiring easier....4 fixtures instead of 30. It took about an afternoon to make once I had all the parts.

From practical experience, I can tell you that a 135mm or 150mm lens works well for making postcard-sized images from 6x6.....and I have room for a grain magnifier. Given the cost of large format enlarger lenses, I'd just go ahead and get on and try it.

Assuming the camera, tripod, etc are rock steady (mirror up, etc), the limiting factor then becomes the potential resolution of the camera-film system. Things that come into this are things like lens resolution (stick to primes), using the optimum aperture, film resolution, developer choice and film flatness. Things can simply only be so perfect. The scanner can have infinite resolution, but if it isn't captured on the film, it won't matter.

 

For subtle landscape work where good tonalality and detail are important, you'll be much more successful with a medium or large format camera for larger prints.

Sounds like a Kodak Medalist...sometimes you can find one that has been converted to 120 or reroll 120 onto 620 reels. The modern alternative is a Fuji rangefinder of some flavor.

My experience with folders has been hit and miss (mostly miss) since the quality of the image depends on how accurately it can focus....which depends on the lens and the rigidity and alignment of the lens plane and the film plane. If you choose a folder, it would be worth considering a quality refurbed one from certo6 on 'bay.

sorry about the size of the first one....this one should be better

xx

My Dual Range fits on my TTL, but I did need to remove the little plastic button on the goggles. Maybe it fits onto some TTLs and not others (?). The only problem I've had so far (I am a fairly new user) is that you need to be careful to turn off the meter or the battery drains quickly....no big deal, though. I bought the TTL because I liked the bigger speed dial on the TTL as compared to the classic. I find the finder nothing short of amazing after using 70s era rangefinders.

I had a Moskva 5 which is said to be similar in build quality to the Iskra (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) and I felt that the image quality was OK, but not great.....it is pretty hard for any folder to be as good as a Rollei. I think the question is do you want the compactness of a folder over the image and build quality of the Rollei. I ended up selling the Moskva because I couldn't stand the build quality and the squinty little finder/rangefinder, not because of the image quality. I'd say buy both if you can, try them out and sell the one you don't want. Ebay is great that way.

I have an M6 .72 and the 35mm frame is easy to see and the 28mm is very hard to see (really not usable) with my glasses. That works for me since I am not a big 28mm person.

I was in the same boat as you wanting to spend less than $1000.....I waited until I had another $400 and bought a used M6 TTL (from Ken Hansen---highly recommended). My reasoning was that I wanted something that I thought I could use and get repaired for the next 50 years. I don't know if that is realistic, but I figured I had a better shot at that with the M6 than just about any other camera.

This is an interesting discussion.....I've had a Canon Elan (several actually) and the 17-40mm and, honestly, I have more fun with a simple 50mm. Add to that that I continue to dislike autofocus and I've decided (with my wife's agreement (: ) to go for a Leica.

 

Seriously, if you are curious about whether you'd like a rangefinder get an old, working 70's rangefinder like a Canonet. It isn't the same as a Leica, but it is very quiet and you'll never be afraid of hurting it!

The Tachihara sounded perfect until you brought up the reflex hood. I've always thought that a reflex hood would be nice until I try to figure out how to pack it into my already bulging photobackpack! If the reflex hood is a must, scratch the Tachi from your list. You could probably rig something up (which I may try someday), but it would need to be a custom solution.

If it is small enough, a bathroom fan may be enough (I had one on my old 4x5 foot darkroom). I now have a new darkroom where I installed a big Panasonic bathroom ventilating fan that mounts out side the darkroom, and blows filtered air in. That keeps the noise and dust down. It is hard to have too much ventilation and that was my first priority with a new darkroom.

The Tachihara is $600 new. I bought mine at Midwest (along with a nice used 150mm lens and holders), but Badger Graphic (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=136) also carries them. The URL has a picture of it.

The other camera to consider is the Tachihara (assuming you don't want to use roll film). I use 90mm-240mm lenses with plenty of movement and ability to close focus. Sometimes I wish for the more precise movements of a metal camera, but I really like my Tachi and can't imaging needing anything more.

If you are doing available light and handheld, the Mamiya will probably produce sharper pictures. The leaf shutter plus no mirror more than makes up for the optics in low light situations. Also, I used to own a C220 with is somewhat less convenient, but lighter so would be worth considering. Lastly, I would not be so sure that a kit with an 80 and a 55 for the mamiya would be heavier. The body is pretty bulky, but the lenses are quite lightweight. In the end, though, I sold my set up and simply went with a Rollei TLR. I used the 80 most of the time and appreciate the low weight, high quality optics and hand hold-ability of the Rollei.

xxxx<div></div>

xx<div></div>

I didn't do anything with the caption blank....who'da thought.

 

Thanks -- Mark<div></div>

Lastly, Navy Pier Canonet f1.7, Tri-X.....Sorry, no idea why these tiny images are no embedding properly (they are small enough on a side!)