gatorgums

Thanks very much for the positive comments!

Thanks for the offer Louis.

It came with the manual and the film exposure guide for

Kodacolor X speed 80 film.

I have to make one ammendment: I BELIEVE it has

not been used, as there is not on scratch, speck etc on it,

and even the front fold cover was stiff.

The inside was like a new car.

BTW Louis, i was looking at the color photos you have

posted on your site which you took

using the konica C35 ;great contast and pretty shots.

I have the C35-V thats why l looked to see what the pics were like.<div></div>

Hello fellow photogs:

Here are two photos of my first "classic" folder!

It cost too much- $6 and change Cndn, at the thrift.

Its' in great condition, l only hope that they

are still making 120 film when l go to use it!

hahahah<div></div>

Holy cow!

What a nice lens on that thing!

Ps:

This is really something of an engineering marvel!

There should be a collection somewhere of all the camera types

that Minh has converted, sort of like a museum!

Minh, my thanks to you also, in questions or posts i have put up, you are always polite and very generous with your knowledge etc.

Thanks Gene for posting the photos of the camera and beautiful pics.

If these are the pics that came from that camera Minh,

then all l can say is wow!!

These are interesting photos, Lauren;

at least in my opinion.

Perhaps the calibration is off, or there

is a light leak on the camera body.

Good going all the same!

I like the first photo best though.

I call attention to the leading camera-equipment sales mfr- distributor in the world. Canon.

I do not even own a Canon and i don't care if i ever do.

Sports pros? Canon.

On and on .

Point being, i agree with your findings to this extent Ilkka:

Everybody has an opinion, ask 25 people the same question and ,you all know the rest of the line.

Nikon has some superb lenses, as does Canon, as does Leica,

as do any of the major mfrs, we all know this.

It is a dud you have stoked, Ilkka, not a flame-bait.

Again, i say, the pros use the best and don't bitch about it.

You get what you pay for.

As for Miss or Mrs. Katherine's original post. Like the man said,

have a look at Salgato's portfolio, Katherine.

He never whined, he just took the shots.

They were very good, because he is a very good artist.

One cannot give or take away credit to the Leica "R" system.

The camera he used worked for him.

Katherine, and this goes out to all the Katherines out in cyberspace,

( lest Katherine take the comments personally- i am just using her post as a general example of what is so typical amongst unqualified and subjective opinions such as hers, touted to be quasi-factual-) if Sebastian had used the VERY SAME camera Leica R system, do you think he would have taken less meaningful photos, or that his photos would have failed to have impact?

Personally, i do not think so!

You could give me a Hassy or the latest pro Canon digital and the

very best "L" lens and it would be pointless.

I may as well use a good quality point and shoot;

hey, maybe my Yashica MG-1 would get me the shots! hahahaah!!!!

Leica shm-eica ; Canon sh-manon- its the photographer that

wins the best photos- the cam is just a tool.

Get over it Katherine and get yourself the best Leica you can afford .

Then come back and tell us all that the camera and lens is no good.

Why crank about your own photographic inadequacies?

ps: Is Leica still in the film camera business, and if so,

wonder what their sales figures have been the last few years?

Surely that paints an obvious picture, doesn't it?

It is a niche market only, the used Leica fan club market.

Like l said , nobody cares.

Especially Canon.

Great going Katherine, whoever you are.

You got the guys rav'in , ta be sure!

All you Leica gods and stuck up Leica owning " collectors" ;

Nobody cares anymore!

Leica is a legend, like a Van Gogh painting.

Just like owning a Van Gogh, it satisfies the ego and makes the owner feel and appear special.

The world and life go on, Leica club aficionados.

Go smoke a cigar or polish the Leica chrome on that C3.

Nothing wrong with Leica or any of their owners ,

but attitude is everything.

Be a well rounded Leica individual and count the lesser

non Leica owning " folk" in!

Nothing wrong with owning a legend,

but there are very few still alive!

My humble opinion.

I once owned and tested a Konica Auto S3.

The results that came out were less than steller.

I had muddy shadows, weird color, soft images with only

a few exceptions.

I would never own or buy a Konica auto S3 again because of this.

However, i did use THE ORIGINAL PX625 BATTERY! as found,

AND CHEAPO $2.50 FILM! hmmm ...

Thanks for the tip, Mike.

I did not use this actual combo, but i can say that at least

i could find out if the MG1 actually would fire. It did.

I have since bought a 6volt cell, and cased it in some cardboard .

I think i have a spring in there to take up the difference.

I may try the foil though.

Thanks again.

Not to worry, i have disassembled the ICBM battery config!

Nothing new for a lot of folks but ...

I had no six volt battery for my camera, so a cr123 and 2

button batteries will make 6v taped together.

looks like an old Russian ICBM...it worked though.<div></div>

bull.

What a stupid idea.

look, there are already umpteen

programs to create fantastic 3d views of products.

This company has to be dreaming.

its kind of unsettling to realize

that such cameras were actually

being sold and used in your lifetime!

yuk!

I you all want i can show you a marvel

of a camera that i saw at the antiques mall.

It is German, it looks like it does

not know what it wants to be, a 35mm or some

version of a box camera.

It is tinny, ungainly and feels like an empty coffee can.

It has a crown monogram and the letter "K" on it's face plate.

Ugliest G-Dang thing, excepting perhaps Gene's posted

freak box , that i have ever seen . OTG!

I like those pictures though - fuzzy and mysterious,

creepy as they are!

Nice.

If it were dressed up a little with some

self - adhesive mac-tac, that might help.

Since it is from the macrame era, maybe a

nice orange or yellow original 'tac from

the seventies would go good.

Thanks for that link, Noah!

Well, it sure got everybody talking and i appreciate all

the comments.

I guess i'd have to say that from this experience i

have learned the following , and maybe more which i have forgotten.

How to remove the rewind crank on the top plate of a rangefinder camera.

How to be sure to check and record ( ya, i did take digital photos every step, but that did not help me with some things)the

position and fit of tiny pieces , screws, pins, springs.

(I like to use green painters tape to stick the tiny stuff on

so they do not go rolling off the table.)

Be sure not to ever touch anything inside or outside a camera unless 100% sure you can

repair and then get back into previous state.

(That is why , after i removed the top plate i DID NOT touch the split prism thing)

Have the patience to get the right tool to do the job, and do not start the job UNTIL that tool is present!

Patience.

To carefully observe how tiny parts fit together and their

effect on other moving parts.

One thing i will likely do in this lifetime is to take apart a compur shutter, or any leaf shutter , for that matter, in an effort to repair it.

I actually threw the camera out , but then dug it,

deciding to enjoy the quiet wirrrrrrr of the compur shutter

and to keep the camera as a reminder.

I always liked the sound of the leaf shutters on the slow speeds!

Sort of tranquilizing.

There is a functioning but very rough rangefinder with broken window, etc., for $5. at the market.

I think that i am going to get that one and see what can be done.

Stay tuned!<div></div>

I think the problem may well lay with the your approach

to the issue , Dallas.

You have undoubtedly alienated at worst or turned the barbs up at best

on a good many readers of both your original post and your subsequent comments to questions submitted.

It perhaps benefits but few to write about a relatively simple concept using overtly complex scientific terminology and wordy

frameworks which do as much to confuse your intended point as clarify it.

A little less of yourself would go far as well.

If , as you say, you have discovered new processes then why not take

your knowledge and share it graciously with everyone without the

apparent obsessive focus on yourself and what you have " published ".

etc.?

Just a thought.

That said, what you have proposed simply is not new.

it is simply the chemical manipulation of an image before during or after its development.

Guys were doing this sort of thing with polaroid prints a long time ago.

Artists use paints that change the colour of their art when viewed at different angles.

Subjects never become used up- it is the approaches which become stale and lifeless- used up as you put it.

What if the man who photographed Martin Luther King in the sixties

had said, " no, i can't be bothered photographing him or going to the event. Its been done so many times before" .

What if the guy who took his video cam to Texas

the day J. F. K was shot had the same attitude?

Successful artists and photographers ALWAYS find new approaches and angles which give their work fresh dynamism.

As someone once said of Monet, "ah , but he does not breathe

the air WE breathe! "