jim_baker6

Thanks for the replies, guys!

 

It appears that when the self timer is used, the shutter is X-syncronised. In fact, the only option which cannot be selected is the self-timer + M!

I have only seen photos of this camera. I have seen a dial on the bottom with M,X and V settings, for 'bulb', 'X sync'

and 'self timer'. Does this mean that in self timer mode the flash is disabled?

Thanks for the responses! I'm inclined to agree with you, Kerry because if there were a 1/500 version, I think there would be more information about it. The Marriotworld website contains a wealth of information and in fact was one of the sources that got me thinking in the first place. It states that the camera was fitted with a 'Pronto 4-speed shutter or a Prontor SVS 8-speed shutter'. It then says that there was a later version with a 9-speed Prontor SVS shutter. So there appear to be 3 different shutters! Matt Denton has an excellent description of the Vito B and appears explicitly to list the 1/200, 1/300 and 1/500 versions (http://mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/vito_b.html). So you see how I'm not 100% sure it doesn't exist!

The maximum shutter speed of the earliest version of this camera was 1/200 sec and a later version had a maximum

speed of 1/300 sec. There are a couple of mentions on the internet of a still later version with a maximum speed of

1/500 sec. Try as I might I can find no information to confirm the existence of the 1/500 version e.g. a photo of the

camera showing the 1/500 setting on the shutter ring! Can anyone confirm that the 1/500 version exists?

Hope selling your lenses is a turning point -it's certainly a sacrifice! I too have a set of Zuiko lenses. I would keep the

ones I use most. I mostly shoot landscapes so I take my 24mm f2.8 and my 50mm f1.8. If I'm shooting people but

don't want to get too close, I add my 85mm f/2. If I go on a safari, or some other rare thing like that, then I add my

135mm f2.8 and my 200mm f/4. If I really think I will use it, I take my 300mm f4.5. I also have a 50mm f/2 macro

which I don't use that much. So reverse the list and that's the order in which I would sell them. Selling either the the

50mm f/1.8 or the 24mm f2.8 would trigger selling the whole system (cameras etc.). As for performance, that's

another matter. In descending order: 50mm f/2 macro (just), 50mm f/1.8 (almost as good as the macro but more

handleable), 24mm, 85mm, then (roughly equal) the 300mm, 135mm and 200mm. Handling? the 300mm is a beast

but the others are all OK. What would I not buy? The 180mm f/2.8 which has more colour fringing than the 200mm

f/4. I would also not buy the larger aperture lenses. They're better optically, I'm sure, but they are also heavier and

more expensive, a lot more expensive.

Hey, guys, thanks for the help. Looks like I have some fixing to do!

Hey, guys, thanks for the responses! Looks like I have a bit of screw tightening to do. This little project started when I was trekking in the Andes this summer. I had my OM-1n (with 24 and 50mm lenses). It was ultra-sunny and found the extreme contrast a bit of a problem. With the flashgun I was prepared to carry, it was sometimes difficult to balance ambinet and flash, even with the 24mm lens fitted so I could get close to the subject. I thought "I wish I could keep a decent flash and have synchronisation at all shutter speeds, so I can do something about this ambient light". These 1970s rangefinders seem to be the answer. I looked at earlier cameras and couldn't decide whether I should put them in my rucksack or in a display cabinet! The 1970 rangefinders, on the other hand, still seem eminently useable, just like my OM-1n. The designers seem to have developed these cameras to explicitly deal with the problem of balancing ambient and flash, with options (in most cases) to link the focus to the aperture while retaining complete control of the shutter speed.

My end point is always a 20"x13" colour print on my wall (this is the largest size I can handle in my darkroom). If I'm lucky, I get one per holiday. That's my little project, anyway. Once again, thanks for the help.

My mistake! I'm not familiar with these Forums. I posted on the Leica-Rangefinder Forum then realised that the

Classic Camera Forum was the best place to ask a question about this rangefinder, inconsequential or otherwise. I

am used to handling SLR lenses but this is the first fixed lens rangefinder I have handled. The lens is obviously more

complex than an SLR lens but I don't know if the slight 'play' in the lens is part of the design or due to looseness. No

doubt if I had a row of such rangefinder cameras I would rapidly come to my own conclusion, but that's not

possible.

I have just purchased this camera on ebay. I've noticed that the front of the lens is a little bit 'wobbly' (i.e. the

frontmost ring/shutter ring assembly). Of course I will be shooting a film to test the camera but I wondered if any 'S3'

owners could comment?

I have just purchased this camera on ebay. I've noticed that the front lens element (i.e. the frontmost ring/shutter ring

assembly) seems to be a little bit 'wobbly'. Of course I will be shooting a test film to assess the performance but I

wondered if any 'S3' owners could comment?

I would like to echo Skip's comment about the 200mm f4. When looking at real photos it's a match for the 180mm f2.8, or maybe a little sharper (at, say, f8). What's noticeable about the 180mm f2.8 is that it has greater chromatic aberration (CA) . This may be an issue in astrophotography since CA is most noticeable in highlights etc. so it may also affect star images. In fact, you might want to consider a mirror lens for this application because they are intrinsically free from this type of aberration. I would only consider the f2.8 if I absolutely needed the extra stop and was OK about the extra weight. At the other hand, I've found the 200mm f5 to be very similar in performance to the f4 and it is noticeably more lightweight.

I have an OM-1n and had just your problem. My solution was to obtain a bag with a detachable shoulder strap and a through pocket to take a belt. I sewed two clasps to the rucksack where the shoulder straps attach to the bottom and cut off the rucksack's belt. The idea was to attach the bag to the bottom of the rucksack and use the camera belt in place of the rucksack belt. When I want to take a picture, I reach behind and unclip the bag, then pulled the bag round (supported by the belt) to access the camera. It worked perfectly. I like the arrangement because the bag is supported by the rucksack but I can access the camera without taking the rucksack off and rummaging around. I carry the shoulder strap in my rucksack so I have the option of carrying the bag on my shoulder, if, say, I've 'arrived' somewhere and want to take the bag without the rucksack. As for the bag, I carry and OM-1n with a 24mm lens, an 85mm lens and a T20 flash (+ film, spare batteries etc.) so I wanted a bit more than a 'minimalist' bag. In fact, I bought a second hand Camera Care Sytems bag on e-bay. I'm not sure of the model and in any case the company has ceased trading. The important thing is for the strap lugs to be on the outside of the bag so the clasps are kept apart, preferably in line with the rucksack shoulder straps. It will work for rucksacks in the 20-30 litre range. For larger rucksacks, the camera bag will be too low, I think.

As Nick says, the PS200 has a guide no of 14 (for 80-100ASA film, in metres). Let's assume 100 ASA. For 400 ASA this guide no is doubled (because the film is more sensitive) so the guide no (GN) becomes 28. GN = subject distance x aperture so for a subject distance of 3 metres (10ft), the aperture should be about 9. Therefore f/8 should be OK, as Nick says. With an aperture of f/2, the subject distance is 14 metres (46 ft!). With a 50mm lens, at 14 metres, your wife would be correctly exposed but no matter how pregnant, would look small! I have an OM-1n and a T20 flashgun which I always use in the manual mode so my problem is similar to yours (same camera and a flashgun with fixed output). I have to keep in mind the aperture/subject distance combination that gives me the exposure I am happy with in the final print. In my case I keep in mind '3 metres (=4 steps), f/11'. I have calibrated my step so I know for me, 3 metres = 4 steps. So to take a flash photo, I set the flash selector to 'X' (it's never anything else) and the shutter speed to 1/60. Then I take 4 paces, turn, focus, compose and shoot. If I need to move out to 4 metres (about 1 1/2 steps), I open out the aperture to f/5.6 to compensate. If I move in to 2 metres (about 1 1/2 steps), I close down the aperture to f/16.

 

I got confidence in this approach my shooting a test film i.e. 4 steps, f/11 + all the other combinations, carefully noting down the settings for each shot. It's worth shooting a trial film because, ultimately, it's only the final print that matters.

 

I find when I am taking people shots it's not a good idea to spend too much time trying to figure things out. Your subjects tend to end up with sort of fixed smiles that don't look natural! The approach I use is quick and pretty foolproof.

 

One final point: I bought an adaptor so I could hold the flash off camera (it connects the flash hot shoe to the PC socket via a lead). I hold the flash above the camera. This prevents red eye. Also, I can keep the flash above the camera even for portrait shots which I think is more natural. I had to work out how to hold the flash while I was focussing etc. In your case, this should not be too much of a problem because the flashgun appears to be small.