Argenticien

<p>Kitty, what David said above is true about Pentax-M lenses, but the camera will also take any other Pentax lens with the "K" mount. You just need to avoid the much newer ones that were meant for electronic bodies and lack a physical aperture ring. Beyond that, in fact, you're not limited to Pentax brand lenses. Look for any third party lens in "Pentax K" mount, and you may be able to find some bargains there. Some of the same suspects as make good third party lens today (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) made them at that time. Between Pentax-branded and others, lenses in K mount might be more numerous than those in any other mount in the world.<br> The 28mm + 135mm advice is good too. Those focal lengths both are usually very affordable. When you get even a bit wider (24mm or 21mm), things get pricey. An 85mm is great to have, but those can cost 5x the price of a 135mm. Those could be future gifts if the initial gift makes the film camera bug take hold!<br> Initially, you don't <em>need </em>any filters. Eventually if desired, yellow is good for basic black and white film, and a polariser helps. Filters are not camera-specific (for this kind of camera, anyway); anything in the right mm diameter for a given lens will work. It could be a 40-year-old one (presuming it's intact) for £1 from a camera store junk bin, or a £100 brand new German one.<br> <br /><em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Nice, sharp photos, Rick. Meanwhile: I took particular note of something you mentioned: "with perfect frame spacing". That <em>is</em> saying something. I was just yesterday scanning negatives from my Minolta SRT102 and noticing that the frame spacing varied between about 2 mm and about 0.2 mm. Let's call the latter "zero" for practical purposes of trying to cut a negative between frames -- argh! I'm surprised that my camera, which got through rigorous Japanese quality control in the relatively modern era (1970s), would be beaten by an infamously unreliable and balky Soviet model. Granted, a lot of it is probably down to whether, how, and by whom each of our respective cameras was used and maintained in intervening years, but the outcome still defies conventional wisdom. Keep hold of those good Kiev examples you've got!<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Some of the tonality that I got from the Efke (first rolls I've shot in perhaps two years) remind me why I loved that film. But in processing and scanning I was reminded why this was a love-hate thing: The film is curly as $^%&@#, had a few of the (in)famous Efke emulsion defects (little circular blotches that were definitely not dust), and the light leaks ... I don't know about those. I handled two Efke 50 rolls no differently than the four Ektar rolls I used that day (in loading, shooting, unloading, and storage in a Japan Camera Hunter opaque black film container), yet the Efke 50 got considerably edge-fogged into several frames while the Ektar didn't. A roll of Efke 25 in there got minor edge-fog, limited to the rebate.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>View of Castillo San Felipe del Morro and some of Old San Juan, from atop nearby Castillo San Cristóbal. Ektar 100, lab dev. (1/250 @ f/11)</p><div></div>

<p>Another on Efke 50 via Rodinal. (1/60 sec @ f/4) Again at Castillo San Felipe del Morro</p><div></div>

<p>I've been lurking far more than posting, so here's a few contributions. All with the Bronica S2 and Nikkor 50/3.5 -- very, <em>very </em>frequently my go-to medium format kit. All these are from a recent trip to Puerto Rico.<br /> <em>--Dave</em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>First is on Efke 50 via Rodinal. (1/125 sec @ f/8.) Light contamination at bottom-right was via edge of film while rolled up (insufficiently tightly) after exposure, not from any light leak in the film back (that I know of). I am down to about 5 more rolls of Efke 25 and 50.</p><div></div>

<p>I need to find the source of barrels where that quality of picture constitutes bottom material.</p>

<p>Darin, that is one of the most beautiful photos I have seen. Oh the chrome!<br> My Vitessa works well once loaded, but I have a devil of a time loading it. Last week it took me several minutes to get a film engaged. The camera was professionally serviced a few years ago, so I tend to think the difficulty loading is not a fault with this unit, but either user clumsiness or inherent to the design. The single little film slot on the take-up spindle is fiddly. I find I have to hold the film canister in place with one hand, hold the film leader end in the slot/sprockets with the other, and actuate the plunger with my third hand... oh wait ... <br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2071652">Rick Drawbridge</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 29, 2015; 08:12 p.m.</p> <p><strong>...</strong>I try to keep contrast to a minimum. ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Said our man in <em>Grey</em>town! Perhaps I'm strange, but I burst out laughing reading that!<br /><em>--Dave</em></p> <p>Canon AE-1 Program, FD 50/1.4 lens pretty far open; probably about 1/30 sec. Cinestill 800 film. Lab dev; Epson V700 scan. Sorry I'm late to the thread!</p><div></div>

<p>I don't have a Mamiya 7, and usually I try to refrain from answering questions re: cameras I don't own. But in this case, having been only a visitor to this world may make me a useful sample/data point. On the one occasion that I was fortunate enough to borrow the similar Mamiya 6, I shot <em>two </em>unintentional frames in one roll of film, due to how very unexpectedly light a touch would fire the shutter. I'm still keen to get a 6 or a 7 some day, but now know I will require some acclimation if I do. Wasting film acreage gets expensive and tedious (as in, requiring more frequent reloads) pretty quickly on 120 film. <br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Rick, 'Forty One' is beautiful. I don't know how you devise such clever and attractive compositions out of the mundane and everyday (whilst dodging rain showers).<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Rolleiflex 2.8E (Planar), Ektar 100, f/16, 1/125 sec. Lab dev, Epson V700 scan.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p><div></div>

<p>Slow weekend? I'll try to keep it going...<br> Rolleiflex 2.8E (Planar), Ektar 100, f/4, 1/4 sec. Lab dev, Epson V700 scan. Camera propped on my backpack, on the ground, as I was travelling without a tripod. This might be the first time I've had lens flare from the Moon rather than the Sun. It was absurdly bright that night.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p><div></div>

<p>Rolleiflex 2.8E (Planar), Ektar 100, 1/250 @ f/11. Lab dev, Epson v700 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Rick, another vote for "Starting the Day". It's beautifully composed with beautiful tones, <em>and </em>I'm mad for coffee, so that's a clear winner. And the SR-1 looks like a fun little camera. I see you have some of the same problem I do with period-correct Minolta accessories. The newer items in ALL-CAPS with striped-sun "O" seem more plentiful than the older, small-lettered "minolta" ones. I've got three old "minolta" lens caps that rattle about and won't stay very well on my SRT's lenses (with which they arrived). When I ordered replacement ones from KEH, they unexpectedly arrived in later "MINOLTA" style, but in seemingly mint, unused condition. I didn't argue the case, deciding it was more useful to have new, snug-fitting--if historically inappropriate--ones that properly protect the lenses, rather than period-correctness at the expense of functionality. Even more true for straps that must keep the camera separated from the ground!<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I'm for using it as well, with the logic others have stated: If you use it and it breaks, then it's a shelf queen, but you're treating it as a shelf queen already anyway, so it's little loss. Further, if you occasionally exercise it (winding on and running the shutter through its speeds), as James has suggested with the Contax, then you <em>are </em>using it, so you might as well do that with film in. With the Agiflex, it looks like only two exercise rounds through all the shutter speeds equals one roll of film. Plus, the passage through of light stops the lenses getting melancholy. :)<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p><strong>Bruce</strong>, thanks for the kind words.<br> <strong>Bill</strong>, I like the first orchard landscape (the one with the road winding into it). That one would probably make a nice print...<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Rick, I like the Streamline picture. Maybe the vehicle is from USA, but I hope the espresso-making is pure New Zealand. I follow the high-end coffee scene a little bit, and I've read that NZ is at the forefront right now in that regard. (see for random example http://sprudge.com/the-latest-fashion-trend-is-cold-brew-bespoke-boutique-bottle-service-in-auckland-78202.html) Yet another reason for me to find a way to get over there once in my life...<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Bronica S2, Nikkor 75/2.8, Delta 100 Pro, 1/30 @ f/4. Souped in Rodinal, Epson V700 scan.</p> <div></div>

<p>Bronica S2, Nikkor 75/2.8, Pan F 50, 1/500 @ f/5.6, polarizing and yellow filters. Souped in Rodinal, Epson V700 scan.</p> <div></div>

<p>Bronica S2, Nikkor 75/2.8, Ektar 100, 1/500 @ f/8, polarizing filter. Lab dev, Epson V700 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Now I'm home and have had a look at the camera, my ca. 1935 one also has no threads (as I had suspected earlier today, from memory). Any hood would be a slip-on, friction-mount affair, and probably expensive if anatomically correct, period-accurate, and Zeiss-branded. Based on my experience with push-on lens caps, I'm not a fan of friction-mount accessories, as they seem more prone to fall off into the sea, canyons, <em>merde</em>, fire, alligators, or whatever you're walking above. (This last example is not made up; on a family trip perhaps 35 years ago, my mom fumbled an untethered lens cap whilst on a walkway over a pond of alligators in a reptile park in Florida. Obviously this was replaced, not retrieved.)<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I've got a 531/2, pre-war if analysis of the serial number is to be believed, albeit with the f/3.8 Tessar, so not quite as fast as yours. Handed-down conventional wisdom about lens coatings ("pre-war lenses have less or none") would have us believe mine should be perhaps more flare-prone than your '52 example. I have never owned any hood or other accessories for it, and it performs just fine...once I initially cleaned a lot of schlock off the lens elements.<br> <br /><em>--Dave</em></p><div></div>

<p>I have resisted and continue to resist digital for many of the reasons stated. My first DSLR, which will possibly be my last, a Pentax K20D, is a nice machine, but got less use than my film kit. I now have a Sony a7, and I have to say, it finally makes digital enjoyable. I shoot 99% with adapted classic glass, not the autofocus kit lens. I will say Cory has nailed it with "the ability to change ISO's at a whim." To me, the less heralded "killer app" of digital is that ISO-switching -- not the ability to chimp, not the allegedly low/no-cost shooting, not the instantaneity, etc. It's great to be able to switch mid-"roll" from shooting outside in the sun at ISO 50 to shooting in a very dark pub at ISO 6400. Yes there are workarounds for this with film (such as: load very fast film to be ready for indoors, and use a several-stop ND filter on it outdoors) but these are suboptimal. I hate those cases where digital gets to "win." :)<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p><strong>Mike, </strong>"Raindrops" is great. I hope everything turned out well. (When someone says "waiting room", I infer "hospital".)<br /> <strong>Brad,</strong> beautiful colors there. It makes me want to run out to my local yarnwala (if there even is one anymore) armed with a camera...<br /> <em>--Dave</em></p>