john_wiegerink1

<p>Martin,<br> The ML is my favorite also. No battery problems either and that's nice. Size and picture quality are the two and only reasons why I keep a couple of Minox 35's around. There is no excuse to leave home without one since they are so small.</p>

<p>Martin,<br> I never said the Minox 35's were low quality, but like anything made, "time does take its toll". Dust on or between the shutter magnets is a real problem and you don't notice it until you get your roll back from the processor and find they are all blank. Seems the later ML's, Touring, MB and MDC cameras were less prone to this problem.<br> You do bring up a good point about the flash shoe cover insert and one the OP might want to check.<br> All said, I still love my Touring and ML cameras. Even the old, simple EL ain't to shabby!</p>

<p>Martin,<br> Yes, I find it a strange thing to have three bad Minox 35's also, but it's not impossible. I love the little Minox 35's, but will be the first to admit that they are above average when it pertains to problems. A shutter tester is a very nice thing to have but if your problem is consistently one way, like underexposure, then the simple test to calibrate your camera as I outlined will also work just fine. The OP should do it with at least one camera to at least find out. If he is getting his film processed at a lab then it is entirely possible the lab is screwing up, but I can't believe a lab can be that far off all the time. I'm curious as to how this turns out and hope we hear more on his problem...........solved or not solved?</p>

<p>I have this same scanner and also a Nikon LS8000. For 35mm and medium format the Nikon is the cats meow. I also shoot 4x5 and some 8x10 and the Nikon seems to have a little trouble fitting those two sizes into its film carrier. Ha! Ha! That's where the Epson 2450 comes in. It does a really fine job with 4x5. It will do medium format fine also, but not as good as the Nikon. I also own an Epson 1600 Professional scanner and a ArtixScan Microtek M1. The Epson 2450 will pretty much keep up with those two for 4x5 and 8x10. Vuescan should handle all your needs in the scanning department. If you are using 35mm disregard all I have said and by yourself a dedicated 35mm film scanner instead of a flatbed. Sorry, that's just my advice and you can certainly do as you wish.</p>

<p>Martin,<br> I'd bet my money on exposure problems. Development problems would have to be pretty drastic to have a very big influence on his "so called" exposure problem. Of course I could be wrong about that since my wife points that out to me all too often.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear of you under exposure problem. Minox 35's are not what I call "fully automatic" when it comes to exposure. Another words you have to do a little thinking as to the scene you are going to shoot. Bright background requires use of compensation switch or overriding the ASA/ISO dial to get the scene to expose correctly. It's just not a point & shoot camera. I very seldom have an exposure problem on my Minox 35's, but I would if I didn't think about what I was doing all the time. I've had better luck with the latest models(ML, Touring, etc.), but my best picture taker is a beat-up old Minox EL. Now, I'm not saying you don't know what you are doing, because I don't know how good you are at doing what I said above. Also, it's possible you have acquired three faulty Minox 35's. Do trust me when I say that the Minox 35, in good running condition, will take photos as good as any camera out there and the Internet has plenty of Minox 35 pictures to prove it. <br> If I were constantly getting underexposure I'd keep setting my ASA/ISO dial to a lower number until I found where my exposures were exactly what I want. Here is what you can do:<br> 1. Put the film you normally use in the camera and set the ASA/ISO dial to the film speed on the box.<br> 2. Now, find a scene you normally would shoot and one you likely have been having an underexposure problem with and take one shot with a piece of paper included in the scene that says ASA/ISO 100.</p> <p> 3. Now advance the film and lower your ASA/ISO setting 1/3 stop-setting(that notch is actually ASA/ISO setting 80) and take picture no. 2. including another piece of paper with the words ASA/ISO 80 on it.<br> 3. Continue to take shots and continues to lower the setting 1/3 stop-setting for each shot and include the piece of paper with the ASA/ISO settings on it. Do this until you reach two full stops lower on the ASA/ISO dial. If you were using ASA/ISO 100 film then your final shot would be at ASA/ISO 25. <br> 4. Shoot the rest of the roll at whatever you want or do another test scene on the roll, with different lighting, following the same outlined procedure. Process the film and see which of the pictures you like and that will be you setting for that film. If the picture you like is ASA/ISO 64 then you always set your dial to ASA/ISO 64 and "NOT" 100 like it says on the box.<br> Remember, you are not changing the film you have in the camera since it 's actual speed sensitivity is already set at the factory. All you are doing is calibrating your Minox 35 to the film and scene you are using. The films sensitivity stays exactly the same as when it was packaged at the factory. Also, the older Minox cameras only had ASA/ISO film dials in full stops. and nothing in-between. For example, they go from ASA/ISO 400 down to ASA/ISO 200 with no 1/3 stop marks between those main settings. Newer Minox 35's had/have the 1/3 marks.</p>

<p>I don't know Don, but I'd say don't change a thing as far as exposer and development go. I really like the way that old Autocord is working for you. As to the "T" series fixers? I make my own TF2 and it works very fast at clearing film. I'd say find your clear time and add twice that time onto it. If the clear time is 3 min. then your total fix time will be 9 min.. All I can say is that it works for me, but YMMV.</p>

<p>John,<br> You better find that lens 'cause it looks like a winner!</p>

<p>Erko,<br> I have never used or handled a GS-1, but I can't believe it is as loud as the S2a, but it's possible. When I retired from weddings and things, I wanted a bigger negative than square and thought about a GS-1, Pentax 67 and the big Fuji rangefinders. This was going to be my "travel" / bum-around camera. Well, the GS-1 was priced slightly more then I wanted to pay. So, I ended up with two Fuji 6X9 cameras. One wide and one normal. Shortly after that a Pentax 67 complete outfit fell into my lap and all thoughts of a GS-1 were gone. I did try the RB67 route for a year and decided it just wasn't my cup of tea. Your GS-1 shots and Rick's S2a shot's sure do get a guys mouth watering again, but I have all my needs nicely filled. Of course the "wants" are always there. Very, very nice and as good as anything out there.</p>

<p>Rick,<br> My first good wedding camera was a Bronica S2A. I had three magazines and the standard 785mm Nikkor-P. I could never fault that camera as far as results went. I got buy with this setup for a few year until a Hasselblad 500C came along. The results were not much better, but the ease of use, flash sync and handling were. Actually the most noticeable thing or difference for me was the noise factor. I'm sure other people noticed it too. The first thing my assistant(my wife actually) said was "wow, that sure is quiet and I wouldn't have known it went off if I didn't see the flash". So, while it might look like a grenade launcher it sounds like a 60mm Mortar round going down the tube. It was and still is a very dependable piece of photo gear and very high quality. I never had one problem with the one I owned and I didn't baby it either. It's long gone, but I do still have a very nice Retina IIa.</p>

<p>Martin,<br> Not many developers are as good as Rodinal for shelf life, but that's not what the OP asked.</p>

<p>I used this developer a few years back and it's really very good and a fairly good value cost wise. I didn't have any keeping problems, but used it up well within six months if I remember right. It has a good shelf life and should keep as long or longer than D76. I would imagine if you used mylar wine bags or something similar you could increase the longevity by a lot. Keeping air(oxygen and it's bi-products) out is the key. Probably the only reason I don't use it(F76) or another "store bought" like it is because I mix my own developers now.</p>

<p>Allan,<br> The only difference in the H2O version of Pyrocat-HD / MC and the glycol version is pretty much the keeping qualities of the developer. If you use glycol instead or water the shelf life goes from months to years. So, for me anyway, glycol lets me makeup almost a lifetime supply at once. The disadvantages are glycol is pretty thick when cool so it's a little hard to measure/mix. Why I use the little eye-contact cups. I have a small black line marked on my "A" cup and one on my "B". I just pour stock from my bottle to the fill line and then add it to my premeasured amount of H2O just before development. Simple and no way to contaminate anything. The advantages for glycol are you can mix a near-lifetime supply at one time. Another advantage is that you have that much stock mixed so you won't have any mixing variables come up for years. Every batch you mix for working solution will be the same. I just developed a roll of PanF+ 35mm in Pyrocat-MC and when I examined the negatives on the light table after drying it just made me smile. Really, really fantastically good stuff and well worth the effort. As for which is better? Mc or HD? I say flip a coin.</p>

<p>Peter,<br /> I only use the glycol version of Pyrocat-MC and never have a problem with inducing water into the stock. Just make sure your syringe is dry. Actually, now I use tiny plastic throw-a-way contact lens cups and they work just perfect. A syringe will work fine too, but the viscosity of the glycol mix is so thick it makes it difficult to extract the solution without using a fairly large syringe with "no" needle on the end. So, I now prefer the eye cups instead.</p>

<p>Don't you just love it when you ask a question and end up getting an answer to a question you never ask? I have mixed up both Pyrocat-HD and MC. I settled on MC simply because my negatives/prints looked a little sharper, but it could be just to my eyes. Scanning wise I really couldn't see any difference, but I'm using 120 film and a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED. I used Pyrocat-MC mainly with Acros, FP4+ and Shanghai GP3 when I could get it. That said, I'm now mostly using Xtol-R for most of my 35mm and even some of my 120 film.</p>

<p>Nice camera/lens and very nice results. Never owned a Contax SLR, but have owned a few rangefinder Contax cameras. I had a real sweet-like new Contax IIa color dial with the coated 50mm f2 Sonnar that I let somebody talk me out of for a very good profit. I still regret letting it go. There are some things money can't buy and that camera should have been one of them. I've also owned several IIIa's, but never got along with those very well. All I have now is two Cantax G1's and three lenses. Very good outfit, but not like the old cameras. There is just something about Zeiss glass that is unexplainable. <br> John</p>

<p>Louis,<br> Is this your friend that shoots Jpegs? She knows how to pose as well.</p>

<p>Luuk,<br> I have several EL's, a GT that works fine, but the meter needle is wacky, one Touring and the ML. The Touring and ML are the most trouble-free and if I pick up another Minox it will be an MB or ML. That being said, the sharpest-best picture taker of all of them is a beat up EL. I've had to clean the magnet contacts twice on it since the shutter wouldn't open, but the end results are so good it's worth the time and effort.</p>

<p>Yes, there is a chance that the flashes high voltage surge could have caused this problem, but maybe not. Still, with the prices so low on the big auction site it wouldn't make sense getting yours repaired. I'd just shop for another ML and contact the seller to make sure you are getting a good working camera. I have bought several Minox 35's off eBay and always make sure the seller pulls the back off and trips the shutter to make sure the shutter blades are working. I can usually fix the problem if they are not, but it's a hassle and time consuming.</p>

<p>I have the same lens and a slight clicking/rattle is normal in the "U" mode. Mine is not loud, but you can hear it. I know this might bug you, but if your lens is working fine I'd suggest not messing with it.</p>

<p>My Uncle shot with an old Argus C3 and when we would go visit as kids we would beg him to haul out the old slide projector and give us a show. My aunt would make a big bowl of popcorn and us kids would sit there in a trance. I wouldn't really call the Argus cameras crude. Maybe simple would be a better word. Simple doesn't mean the same as non-capable. Being from Michigan I have run across many Agfa cameras of different varities and they were all "spartan", but very usable. I will admit that they do vary as to optical on film performance. You get a good one and it will surprise you how good a cheap camera can be, but get a bad one and...................well, you understand. QC does and did vary.</p>

<p>Nice camera, great pictures, but given the choice of the Yashica GSN classic or the Packard? I'll take the Packard every time. Love those old cars! I have a very nice GSN that I just got the battery pack adapter for, but have not run a roll through it. I did open it up and replace the POD (pad of death). Rick, how would you rate this picture quality wise to all your other fixed lens rangefinders. Just curious.</p>

<p>John,<br> Yes, it's nice to be reimburse for their mistake, but who can reimburse you for the shot you traveled X amount of miles for.</p>

<p>Welcome to the bleed-through club. First off, this is NOT normal, but now seems to be normal for Kodak films. Both b&w and color film stocks suffer from this problem. Kodak(Alaris) has changed either the ink or the paper backing or both and now we suffer ink bleed through. To be fair, it is probably a supplier problem and not Kodak itself, but Kodak should be held responsible since it is the one marketing the film and making a profit from it. I, myself, will not buy anymore Kodak film until this problem is totally resolved. You and others can do as they wish, but I'm not about to trust the chance of a "once in a lifetime" shot to end up in a trash can.</p>

<p>Welcome to the Windows 10 club and I don't mean that in a positive way in this case. I have a Nikon LS-8000 scanner and had a similar problem. Windows 10 would not or could not locate a driver for my Nikon Scan 4 software and scanner. It was suggested to download a trail version of Vuescan and leave it on. Then to try and run my scanner software. Worked like a charm and has been working ever since. I was almost tempted to revert back to a dual setup with Windows XP, but no need after the Vuescan trial download. </p>