james_kimber

Patrick, actually it's strange you mentioned the Argus C3. I have one tucked away somewhere. I got it from my grandfather when I was much less wise, so I figured it was junk... but I kept it anyway because it was a gift. I'm sure after all of this time, it would require a lot of love to get it back to operable.

 

So the C3 is a good starter restoration project? Cosmetically, it's not in terrible condition afterall. And I should wait on my Bolsey until I get the Argus the way it should be?

 

Adolphius... first, great name! Second, do you know of Japanese manufactured metal shutter blades that may work? It may be very difficult to find compatible American-made shutter blades in Japan.

I recently acquired a Bolsey C TLR because I am interested in getting into

camera restoration. Mind you, this camera was $25 so the aluminum body is very

ugly, the shutter is stuck, the red logo is missing and the leatherette looks

awful.

 

I have no idea where to start to make this camera at least look good (or better

yet, work and look good) and this camera is old enough to be my grandfather. I

know there's places like cameraleather.com that sell custom leathers for

cameras, but they don't support the Bolsey C. Is there a place I can contact

that could support my needs? Where do I start in trying to make this camera

work? How do I clean the waistlevel finder? I have a million other questions,

but I guess I can stop there.

 

Any help would be great!

Obviously I know they can be made, but can a normal person without fancy optics

make a polarizer filter at home?

 

I want to have one for my Holga... not for actual photographic purposes... more

for my curiosity and to give me something to figure out when my ship hits the

ocean for months. I've been scouring Google all day trying to find a tutorial or

some kind, but can't seem to find one. Just a PDF on how to "make a polarizer

lens" using a an already supplied, manufactured polarizer filter.

 

Plus, it'd be nice to have one in my all-homemade Holga filter set for fun. It

might make it one step closer to a real camera!

This may be a little late, but you can also get some good covers at cameraleather.com

I must be getting old too... 25 just isn't as young as it once was, I guess.

 

I think that article is garbage.

 

Now, I doubt I could go through 20-25 rolls without a light meter and only have a handful of poorly exposed shots like Doug (it would probably be more like 20% unusable), but I think I could hold my own without being intimidated by the scenario. And I'm FAR from pro.

Great! I will give your advice a whirl this weekend. Hopefully, the results will be better.

So I would usually need to slightly overexpose? Is that so the blacks are closer to true?

I am using a Nikon D200 and the fastest glass I have to pair it up with is a

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-f/4. Typically, I never have to shoot in any situation that

would require me to go higher than ISO 400. However, the other I ran into

needing to push the D200 to 1600 and higher (something I've never done before).

 

Although I know the camera is completely capable of getting fairly clean shots

at these ISOs, I wasn't so hot at it. I was exposing everything as I normally

would at any other ISO and saving in RAW. Also, I was using a monopod vice a

tripod, and there was very little to no action. Was the monopod with slow action

my main problem for getting "noisy" images? Or are there other secrets that you

low-light photographers have that I don't know? Any help would be greatly

appreciated!

I guess it would depend on how big the gym is (I re-read the post and Preston did say the lights were in corners). But if you're using 1/4 power at 1/10,000 of a second, how does that help you?

 

I'd still stay away from flashes of any kind in sports though.

 

I'd also be scared that I run into overly-emotional kid who uses my flash stands as target practice claiming I blinded him earlier.

Wow... OK. This makes more sense. Thanks for the illustrations, Patrick. That helped a lot.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding then (and I'll admit, I haven't gone to that website that was strongly recommended and strongly not recommended in this thread). 4:3 sounds unattractive unless you live in a sunny climate where everything moves slowly (Florida? Arizona?). It basically sounds like 4:3 is slower and can't produce the DOF other makers can. What are the advantages then besides less weight? Or am I missing the big picture?

Stupid question time.

 

I keep reading that 4:3 is great and wonderful, yet I don't really understand

what the differences are between 4:3 and the full-frame everyone elses. I know

some of you say you could write novels (well, maybe not novels, but at least

short stories) about why 4:3 is superior and anyone who doesn't realize that is

missing out on life (and money). Then I also run into the ones who refer to 4:3

as "consumer market" cameras not intended for anything more than allowing the

average person who can focus a camera to call themselves a photographer (please,

no one get offended... I'm a loyal Olympus user too. I was quoting someone,

literally verbatim, off of another message board I frequent.)

 

What's the deal?

 

I always enjoyed the OMs, so I stayed loyal to Olympus in the digital world

since they never let me down in film photography. Apparently, that's not why

most people chose Olympus DSLRs.

 

Can someone explain the differences in Lamen's terms? I'm not a rock, but I'm

also far from brilliant.

 

All this educated talk is making me more confused.

Michael, I agree about not using flash. When I was playing high school sports, I hated when a photographer would have the gall to use their big flashes on us. Yes, I said gall... it's extremely rude, I think. And worst of all, it could also affect the game, which is the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do as a photographer.

 

You have to remember that these kids are not professional or big program college athletes. All they need to do is complain to the coach or referee and suddenly, you're out a shoot.

If light is low and the action is fast, you need the fastest lens you can afford. I would go with the 24-70 since you can at least hit f/2.8 and you'll probably be close enough to the action that zooming out to 70 should take care of your needs. (If you're too far away, then I'd be refiguring my budget.)

 

I'd also bring a monopod for the camera body if you've got one. That'll help kill some of the noise in case you need to slow down the lens a little to get enough of that precious light.

 

Worst case scenario, you could always join the National Press Photographers Association, pay their annual fee, and then suddenly you have access to the best equipment for free with only needing to pay shipping. But that's only a temporary fix because you'll end up paying more in shipping over a season than if you bought new glass... but you would also be using glass that probably neither of us could ever afford.

Oh, I forgot the least important factor of how to get a good shot, but most important factor overall... how much money you're willing to spend... That's always throws everything off.

Yes, Owen, CW is right. I don't have much more of a scientific answer to that. Generally speaking though, if your lens is fast, you see more in lower light or can blur out your depth of field better with faster shutter speeds (something that aspiring sports photographers drool over). Also, more expensive glass tends to have better contrast or sharpness. Once you decide what elements of photography are most important to you, you can upgrade to lenses that better suit your style.

 

Illka's shot above is much sharper and less noisy with the Sigma wide open than you or I could produce with our lower end 14-45 zoomed at 25mm. I think our lens' can only shoot at f/4 when zoomed at 25mm, so we need a slower shutter speed to allow enough light in or a higher ISO (which can create noise). Illka's Sigma allows her to shoot the same moment at f/2. Since it's more open, she can use a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO. That's really important if you want sharp images at night, those cool sports shots with blurred backgrounds, or trying to catch a flight deck crewmember's cheeks flapping from the exhaust being pushed through a jet's air intakes like flags flying in a hurricane. (I can't wait to get that shot right...)

 

It all depends on what you want to shoot, when you want to shoot it and how you want it to turn out. That's the pickle I'm in. I have a very small, low end selection of tools to choose from, but I need to use as much strategy and planning as possible before I can upgrade any one area.

Chris, you shot all of that on the E500? Wow! Very impressive! I didn't expect the E500 to perform so well. I wish I had seen that a year ago... I may have saved myself a few hundred dollars with that motivation going into my could-have-used-more-research purchase. I'm not saying I'm not happy with my 510, but I could have traded up at least one of the lenses.

No, that's a good point Ilkka. I'm like many amateur Olympus users and don't necessarily have very deep pockets (one of the draws to Olympus and the 4/3 system vice Nikon, Canon and anything German).

 

I don't know very much at all. If you see my "portfolio," I'm hit-and-miss. I was really invested in LOMOgraphy for many years. Now, I've grown out of that phase to a point, but it's really affected my photography skills. So I'm trying to gain that back.

 

All I know of Sigma is that they're less expensive. But cheaper doesn't mean worse. I mean, who would have thought 10 years ago that brand new Olympus cameras would be cheaper than Panasonics? Panasonic! They're supposed to be a cheap audio player company.

 

So I'm now comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 and Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 and the Olympus 12-60 SWD and Panasonic/Leica 14-50. Wow... it's like a weekend vacation! My wife will be very annoyed. Worth it?

Patrick, why don't you make the camera? I know you'd have to hire a couple of engineers and computer geeks, but then the camera would be a reality. You could be the new Yasuhara!

Also, in response to Michael's comment on the Panasonic DMC-L1 (totally off the subject of Olympus and 4/3)... I hear you on these new Panasonics.

 

I bought the Panasonic LX2 for my wife's birthday (she doesn't know a thing about photography, but does know what she likes). I wish she would let me use it. She loves it so much, she even gave her beloved, more expensive Nikon point-and-shoot to one of her sisters-in-law (something to be said being that my wife is from brand-name crazy Japan).

 

I really like where Panasonic is going... and they're 4/3... If I had the money to switch, I'd be tempted. I may put my Nikon D200 up for sale to help raise the needed funds...

Ed said, "Better, what other form factor [than 4/3] can adapt to 13 other lens mounts with adapter, to include PENTAX screwmount, all Pentax "K" mounts and even Pentax 645 medium format lenses?" in the opening post to this thread.

 

I've searched high and low for adapters for make my Pentax K-mounts and Nikons to see if I can add them to my everyday camera bag. Right now, the Pentaxs just sit rarely seeing the light of day until I pull them out for routine cleaning. (I'm a stickler for ridiculously clean cameras and accessories--maybe the military background?)

 

Does anyone know where these adapters are? I'd really like to get my hands on some of these adapters.

Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself.

 

You also have the option of the E500. It should run about the same price of the E410 (maybe less if you shop around better than I do)... you'll lose some megs if larger than normal prints are important to you... however, it's designed more like it's big brother, E510, and has many of the same options. It's a good camera though and serves me quite well when I pull it off the shelf.

It depends on exactly what you want from your camera. However, since that was the price range I was looking at when I bought my Olympus, you could easily opt for the advanced amateur-type cameras: E510 or E410. I personally like the way the E510 feels in my hand with the right-hand grip, as opposed to the 410's almost perfect rectangle-like design.

 

A new E510 should run you about $570 with a lower-end Olympus lens. The E410 should go for about $100 less (but I think B&H will offer you two lower-end lenses with it). That should give you a good start anyway while you learn the camera.

 

But there are quite a few much more proficient Olympus users here who may give you better advice.

 

By the way, welcome to PN! I'm pretty new here myself.

 

Good luck!

Thanks for your advice. I'm not opposed to my 510... I've taken a handful of good shots with it. And waiting on the body may be the best option (by the time I have the money for the E3, it may have a price drop or I may be able to find a good used one). Maybe I'm letting impatience get the best of me!

 

I'll definately get the 25mm (if nothing else, it'll at least be one more tool in my bag), but I think I'll wait on the other upgrade and compare the Olympus 12-60 and Leica 14-50 in depth.

I've been thinking about buying the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 Leica D Summilux and

14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 Leica D Vario-Elmarit lenses for my E510.

 

One, I want to know if anyone is using this combination of camera and lens and

how it works for them. I read a review on B&H that one of the Panasonic's didn't

communicate properly with the E510.

 

Two, is spending $1700 for these two lenses on my E510 a better investment? Or

should I use that $1700 on the E3 though I'd be forced to use my Olympus 14-42mm

f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko ED and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko EZ?