johan_de_groote

Thank you for that link. Since the register has to be larger than the P6 to be able to adapt then the following would be possible: Bronica S2A, Hasselblad 500, Kilarflex/scope, Kowa, Mamiya RB and RZ, Novoflex and Pentax 67. Hasselblad with only 0.8mm difference could be difficult depending on mount diameter. Pentax645 might be possible depending on lens diameter and mount diameter.

 

I was thinking along the line of macro, rectilinear wides and zooms. It might not make economical sense but that's another issue.

Bueh, I understand the basics, using lenses for the 35mm would make no sense I agree. But lenses for other 6x6 systems should be possible. Of course taking the register issue into account. I'm more interested in lenses that are not available for the P6 system or just more modern lenses.

 

Do you know where I could find a list of the mounting dimentions of MF systems? Making an adaptor would not be easy, but I have a basic machine shop at hand.

If you are a die-hard Canon freak you may already have some lenses that fit on a Canon dsrl. So why not take advantage of that? Just search for a model that will suite your needs instead of fixing on the 40D.

Are there any adaptors to put a lens for the -let's say- Pentax645 on a P6? I

find adaptors for putting P6 mount lenses on almost all other systems MF and

35mm, but not the inverse. With all that turns up on ebay I would like to know

if they exsist.

According to the Hartblei site, the 1008 also accepts Hasselblad viewfinders. Might be good to ask them about your particular finder.

The CZJ 120 is also nice indeed. Lot smaller and lighter than the 180. I have used it for some portraits (my first try at it) and the outcome was good (as good as it gets for me). Shortest focussing distance is also less than the 180 which is why I prefer it inside.

Have you tought about the Hartblei Kiev 60M? It is a bit cheaper but misses some of the accessoires that come with the Arax. But they are also adjusted like the Arax and the M has mirror lock-up. I don't have it long enough to comment on the time it will last. (Hartblei also has the body alone for sale) But I have good experience with both arax and hartblei.

 

The difference between the biometar and the arsat: see for yourself at the lens tests at www.kievaholic.com and www.pentaconsix.com Biggest issue with the arsat is that at the shortest focussing distance light enters at the lever for depth preview. I removed that lever completely (and closed the gap) because you have a preview lever on the body of the Kiev so you don't need it.

 

I don't have any frame spacing problems so far. They are not very regular, min 3mm, max 5mm (rough estimate).

 

Hartblei lists adaptors from P6 to Pentax 654 so that should be possible.

 

The following impression of the lenses you mention is purely personal on the limited use I made of them!

 

The CZJ 180 is a beast of a lens...very heavy. It is fine for portrait if you have the distance needed. I often don't have that inside and as a tele it is a bit short. A very nice lens you don't want to carry a whole day.

 

The flektogon 50 is a mixed bag for me: wide but not wide enough. And only f4.0. But I don't have found an alternative yet.

I'm not young anymore, but there is one thing that bothers me and that always pops up when this debate starts: "you can shoot hunderds of photos because digital costs nothing". As if the chore of wading through all those images later doesn't cost. And I do not mean cost in the monetary sense.

 

As Doug said: "I previsualize so that I'm not having to spend so much time shooting (vs. hiking, swimming, playing with my son, whatever), or edit 50 so-so shots to get the best one". For me, this is the cost of digital. Coming back from traveling and having to go through all the images, trying to recall which one best captures the mood of that moment and a few months later discover that you only remember the photos because you didn't experienced the moment when you were there.

 

That for me is the reason to go back and stay with film for that use. But just as others said, it is a tool. There is a place and time when it counts to take hunderds of pictures and don't have to worry because having them is more important and so is the ease of working with them later on a pc.

 

It just changed the way I think about photography. I can now with digital to things I couldn't do before and I have an opportunity more.

"Slightly expired"? Does that mean I'm slightly expired as well? LOL I really love your pages, cameras and (found) photos.

You won't believe it but I actually found a picture of the beast on the net: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/levequeld8.jpg

 

Only difference is that the dials of mine are a black (with a green hue), the front of the turent is black and the lenses are different.

Thanks for the help.

Well, hard to google if you don't know what you have in your hands... But I'm going to try at least. Thanks.

"Dave, perhaps you would be good enough to link to a lens test for any lens ever made that is sharper at f2 that at f8."

 

Apaarently, the CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 for the Pentacon6 is sharperst at 2.8. See the test and explanation here: http://www.rickdenney.com/lens_testing.htm (If someone would care to explain it a bit simpler for me I would be grateful)

I liked the pics but didn't manage to see any of them a bit larger. Apparently this site is very restricted in browser/OS compatability.

 

But you are far ahead of me anyway... they look very nice from what I saw of them.

I have used a Practika MTL3 for about 10 years as my first "real" camera. It was handed me down from my dad after years of use. I never paid any special attention to it and it always served me well. It has been dropped and abused by a 15 year old (me) and survived. I have no doubt it will survive me.

 

Until I got eye trouble and couldn't focus correctly anymore. Then I went autofocus.

I'll check them out. Sadly the camera isn't in good shape. I kept it because one of the few films made with it shows me when 6 months old.

 

I have read a bit in the mean time, and from what I understand of it it doesn't use the cassets but plain reels.

I know this is a still photo forum but because of a thread in the

film&processing forum I found on the Kodak site that they still make super 8

film. I tought this had ceased to exsist in the 80's and went the way of the

dodo.

 

Anyway I do have a fully mechanical super 8 camera here that has sit idle for

40 years or so. It needs some serious TLC but before I go that way, can you

guys guide me to some serious forums like this one where I might find

information and help to identify (and use?) this camera?

 

The only mark on it is an approx triangular shield with a mountain in relief

with the letters "L.D" in red and a red "8" below them. No other markings

outside or inside except the number 2972 on the bottom (serial I guess).

I fear that the negatives/slides will stand up better to time than any digital format.

POW= prisoner of war?

I think we will see some serious advances on the lens side of things. With cheap dslr the market for lenses has become bigger. Also science is slowly getting a grip on metamaterials having a negative refractive index. Thenthere are those liquid lenses that can change shape under electrical fields that might scale to larger sizes.

 

Other possible progress is in stabilisation and maybe even corrective optics. I do hope that corrective optics can be scaled down from telescopes to camera size. With advances in dsp this might be possible.

 

Sensors can still evolve a good bit. I hope we get some layered sensors so that capturing rgb will be at the same position instead of next to each other and then interpollating. Or they get cheap enough to go for the old "3 sensor" setup with beamsplitting.

 

"One thing that I feel sure about is that while technology will march endlessly forward average people won't actually get any smarter."

 

I think this doesn't need to be predicted... Someone said once: "the total amount of intelligence is constant, but the population is ever increasing".

 

"Resolution (for the 135-sized format, 36x24mm) will likely top out at 24 MP. Beyond that quality pro lens resolution is exceeded."

 

I don't think that resolution of lenses will stop them offering 50+ megapixel. Most of the buyers don't understand anything of it at all except "more is better". Once you have to explain to then stuff like diffraction I fear you are wasting your time.

Maybe not a confession, more a resolution:

 

I'll try seriously to start a "project": to shoot the water towers around me. Also learning to shoot in b&w, something I've never done.

Canon Eos RT and 300D

Kiev 60

Pentacon 6 TL

Zorki 4

 

All used as unprofessional as possible... I'd love to add a TLR because I hear so much good about them on this forum. And I'll try this year to shoot at least a roll with all the other cameras that are around here.

My brother found a case of glass negatives in an attic (at his work). Probably

from previous owners of the house before it became offices. They have been in a

open box for years and are dirty and dusty. The scenes look interesting

(sportsmen, painters studio etc) so I tought of scanning them. But first they

need to be cleaned.

 

How to clean those without doing any damage?

Lovely, nice documents of a time.

Why? Because it can be done... But I agree that putting the electronics into the body of a camera that fits the lens would give the most chance to success. Drilling out the lens would be a daunting task not to mention getting ground glass into the works. Dismounting might be better.

 

I would love to put a digital sensor in my Eos RT. One day I'll find both a RT and a digital cheap enough to actually try it.

LOL! At least there are still some uncorruptable critics.

 

Dogs have masters, cats have servants...