john_wiegerink1

<p>Mike,<br> To me, GP3 is similar in looks to Plus-X, but it might not have an as effective annihilation layer backing. Some might not like that, but I do. It comes out beautiful in Pyro developers as well as Rodial. Trust me, it's worth a try if it makes it to market.</p>

<p>Rick,<br /> Now I'd call that shot "shades of grey going to pot". Interesting subject. I have the same exact camera with the same lens and it is one of the sharpest lenses I own. I took it out and shot a few exposures the other day and it starting acting up so I didn't finish the roll. Seems to be a shutter release/shutter problem. I guess things like that are to be expected from a camera as old as the Agfa Super Silette. It will be a rainy day tinker job, but should be a fairly easy fix.</p>

<p>There is talk on another analog photography site of Shanghai GP3 film coming back to market after a believed factory upgrade. The rumor seems to be true since they have started selling GP3 in 4x5. Now for the juicy part. It's also rumored that they are not only bringing back GP3 in 120, but also 220. If this is true I'm really excited since GP3 was one of my favorite B&W films before it dried up. This is one fine ISO 100 B&W film and I just hope they didn't mess with the formula when they retooled the factory. My fingers a crossed!</p>

<p>Well, I have made my choice and I'm in the process of getting rid of or unloading some of my stash in order to buy it. I'm still going with the Sigma adapter and Contax G adapter, but will pickup one Sony lens. Can't afford much more at the moment. I have a couple of other irons in the and each is sucking funds. I'll let you know when it arrives. John W</p>

<p>So many choices that it makes it hard to decide, but I think I'll lower my mega pixel requirement a little and opt for one of the A7 cameras. The 70mm Sigma is a very good Macro lens. Little soft up to f4, but that's OK by me. Just so it's razor sharp from f8 on and believe me it is. I did have some hit & miss focus issues with it on the Sigma SD14, but nice thing about digital is you cab check and verify. If it's not good for focus shoot again. I also have the Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP macro (55mm filter thread version) and it too is a great lens. The only thing I don't like is that the Tamron has a flat rear element and on my Canon 5D I get the sensor reflected "hot-spot". I had the same issue with an old Mamiya 55mm f1.4 M42 lens. It's another flat rear element lens also. I'm wondering how the Sony A7 series will handle the flat rear element thing. Mike, do me a favor and hurry up and buy that Sigma MC-11 so you can let us know how it works on your Sony with SA glass/lenses. Oh, and yes it's a no brainer for me not to go Sony. Now I just got to decide.</p>

<p>Mike,<br> I also have a very extensive Pentax outfit and do know about the shutter vibration problem. I used to drape my camera strap bag over the lens while the camera was tripod mounted. I then built a spike attached to a rubber budgie cord with a wide adjustable nylon strap on the other end. In the field I would set the Pentax up, compose and then stick the spike in the ground on an angle. Then I would take the strap and go over the camera and cinch it tight. Check focus and scene one last time and shoot. Worked really swell until you were on cement or inside and then you were back to the heavy camera bag again. Of course I could and maybe should look at the A7 II a little closer. Yes, my stash of lenses is why I'm leaning this way. In fact I still have the Sigma 70mm f2.8 Macro I bought from you and it would be one of the lenses I'd be trying on the Sony.<br> Edward,<br> I'm beginning to think your A7 II is probably a better option for me and should do what I want and think I need just fine. I just wish I could find one in my area to try out or at least play with in a store, but not much in my area.</p>

<p>John,<br> That's exactly what I would expect a CEO to say. I don't really buy that "far to costly or years away thing" since they have the capability to do it right now. Would it cost more? Yup, but shouldn't cost a lot more. I think these companies regulate their own advancement of products buy how many people will buy it at the highest price they can sell it for. So, instead of just popping out with a big 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 sensor camera they take baby steps and at every step they sell a ton of cameras most, not all, but most of us can afford. That way they have sold a ton of cameras all the way up to the introduction of the Full Frame medium format sensor. Now, if one of the other manufactures decides to "jump the gun" and bring out what we are talking about then the whole story changes. Automobile manufactures operate the same way.</p>

<p>I understand what you are both saying and have thought about exactly the same. If money were no object I'd just get the A7RII and the A7SII and be done, but money is in the equation. Here is my reasons for looking strongly at the A7r.<br> <br /> Reason no. 1 is the price for pixel resolution seems very good at the moment with the A7R.<br> <br /> No. 2 is no AA filter.<br> <br /> No.3 is I've read where it's "A7R" pretty good with legacy glass.<br> <br /> No.4 is I'm mainly a still photographer and really don't care about video. Also, I'm no longer shooting portraits, seniors or weddings for a living and this purchase is just for ME.<br> <br /> No.5 I have a large-format printer and do like to use it. Plus, would like an occasion super large print from out-of-house.<br> <br /> That said, my second thought/pick would be the A7 II for the very reason you stated. I think it should do for the occasional 30 x 40 inch print. I do like my shots to have fine detail, both landscapes and close-ups and the AA filter or lack of is a question mark for me. I could swing the A7R II if I were using it as a Pro again, but this is just for my pleasure now. Yes, I will sell a few prints, but I'm not going to try to make a living at it. Also, I just want to get my "feet wet" so to speak and don't want to invest a ton of money. Now, if I like what I get I might just be selling off some equipment and if that happens I will certainly move up the tree with the newer camera.</p>

<p>I've been holding off on upgrading my Samsung NX100 for a while hoping to hear Samsung might jump back in the ring, but my hopes are fading. So, now I'm getting ready to move before Fall colors arrive in Michigan. I was thinking Fuji, Oly and Sony, but now I think I'd be a fool to not go Sony. Here's why. I have a couple of Canon digital cameras with some Canon glass, two Sigma Foveon cameras with some expensive and excellent Sigma SA glass, six Leica R lenses, Contax G system with 28mm, 45mm and 90mm and umpteen Nikkor, Pentax, Canon FD lenses, etc., etc. With adapters I can use all of those on the Sony. With the Sigma adapter and Canon adapter I'd have full auto-focus to boot. Sounds like a "no brainer" to me? I'm eyeing a used A7r since I don't do sports and do use a heavy Bogen tripod. Am I nuts? I'd opt for the newer A7r II, but I still am mainly a film shooter/darkroom guy, but that just may change. Am I crazy or missing something? </p>

<p>Yes, labeling it medium format was the slight sticking point for some of us old film users. The younger whipper snappers could care less that Fuji labeled it medium format. Also, let's not forget Fuji Optical makes some of the very best "digital" lenses in the world. When sensors were smaller and less packed with pixels you could use your older 35mm film camera lenses on the newer digital cameras via adapters and it worked fine. Now that's just not the case. Lenses designed specifically for digital are the way to go now. Not that you can't use old glass on new digital, you can, but you won't get the most from your equipment that way. In fact the Chinese will probably bring out adapters to use Pentax 645 & 6x7, Hasselblad, and Mamiya lenses on this beast in just a few months.</p>

<p>Alexander,<br> Actually we are talking apples and oranges when talking formats or comparing formats in digital and film cameras. Fuji didn't have to go full frame (645, 6x6 or 6x7) for exactly the reason you stated. They weren't married to any lens line and didn't have to match the sensor to a line of lenses in their camera line up. Like I said earlier, just how big do we have to go anyway? Canon went full frame 35mm to make many folks feel better that had a ton of EOS lenses that they had bought for their film EOS bodies. Plus, at the time there were real advantages to a full frame sensor like less noise and just plain cleaner shots. Now, with new technology are old nemesis Mr. Noise isn't the problem it used to be so smaller sensors with matching lenses are the in thing and do a really great job. Still, I'm with you and prefer as big as I can afford as long as I don't have to buy a mule to lug the thing around.</p>

<p>I agree with Alexander on this one. If you lay the frame lines over full frame 35mm you do not gain much, but the proportions do look more to my liking and closer to the ratio of 8X10. I look at cameras like Sony's A7RII and say to myself, "How much more do we really need"? Plus, those cameras in the Sony A7 class are very small and nice to carry around. Still, this Fuji looks like the wave of the future, but I think I'll stay just a little in the past for now. Besides, I thought my Canon 5D was the wave of the future not that long ago and now I'd almost have to give it away. I swore after that purchase I would never buy another new digital camera again. I'll let somebody else buy it new and then when they think they have to have the next latest and greatest I'll buy their old clunker. Oh, my 5D still makes me smile when it does its job right or I do mine right that is.</p>

<p>Gunnar,<br> My Agfa is the Isolette III with uncoupled rangefinder and the Apotar lens is a Cooke-Triplet design hard coated three element three group job. It does a really nice job at f8 and is nice and "smooth" at f4.5. Of course being 2 1/4 film format does mean less enlargement so somewhat better than 35mm anyway. I have an Agfa Super Silette with the 50mm f2 Color-Solagon (six element) lens that has to be about the sharpest 50mm I own and I do own a more than a few 50mm lenses. It even beats the 50mm f2 Xenon lens on my Retina IIa.</p>

<p>Gunnar,<br> That's what I was getting at when I said Plaubel had the right idea with the Rollop II. Very nice camera. I like triplets also, but not all of them. I've had a few Novar triplets that just would not sharpen up even stopped down to f8. The center might, but the edges never would. </p>

<p>I had the same camera a good number of years ago and while it was an interesting and well thought out camera. I was never really impressed with the pictures I got from mine and I realize there might be variations from one camera to the next, but I believe the lens was just a bit soft even at f8 and beyond. Even having a unit focusing lens, my old scale focusing Agfa with front element focusing Apotar is a better picture taker. Still, Rollop/Plauble had the right idea.</p>

<p>Bill,<br> I tried both 100 and 400 Xtreme in Jay's 510-pyro and it was not as good as my results with Xtol replenished. I suppose I could tweak and play with that combo more, but I'm so pleased with Xtol-R that I'm sticking to it for a spell. Also, I've had excellent results using Xtol-R with FP4+ and very good results with HP5+. I have some PanF+ I'll be dipping in it when I get back home in a few weeks.</p>

<p>Alain,<br> I really like the Xtreme brand films, but as far as them being Kentmere or not? I have no idea since I have never used and Kentmere films. All I know is that I had heard that Xtreme 400 was grainy and not the greatest 400 speed film. Well, I finally tried it in 120 format size. I used Xtol replenished developer and have come to the conclusion that it is very good in Xtol. I don't worship grain like some folks so when I say very good I mean very little grain showing, still very sharp and I'm getting very close to box speed. To me that's a win, win, win!</p>

<p>Check this site out http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ since it has the best bulk prices I have found. I ONLY buy the Ultrafine Xtreme 100 and 400 in bulk and it's great film. It's suppose to be Kentmere film and I think that to be true. I also use the Xtreme 100 and 400 in 120 size and it's a really fine film in Xtol replenished developer. Their Xtreme brand films are first rate stuff. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Doug,<br> Nice shot and Delta 100 shows just how good it really is. What does the wheel attach to?</p>

<p>Don, I miss type occasionally too. Not an uncommon mistake when it comes to engine size. To be honest I was always a Chevy man/fan until I was back from Vietnam and discharged from the Marine Corps. That stint must have changed me and I bought my very first Ford...........a 1969 Mach I Mustang with a 428 Cobra Jet engine. That car could fly, but could not make it past the gas station. I had it a year and a half and sold it. God I wish I had that car today, but I had gotten Married and moved on to the 1970 Duster with the slant six. Now that car could make it past several gas stations. </p>

<p>Don, Plymouth must have been buying 283cu.in.engines from GM for their Baracuda? Just kidding! The engines in the Cuda was either a 225cu.in slant six (super great engine) or a 273 cu. in. V8. I had a duster with a 3spd on the floor and a slant six that you just could not kill. I know cause I tried. My buddy had a cherry red Cuda with a 273 cu.in and my other buddy had a gold Cuda with the same engine. But my best friend had a 1966 Sports Fury with 383cu. in., dual exhaust, posi-trac, 4 on the floor and a fifth under the seet. He talked his dad into buying this a a family car and it was factory stock. I'm going to try and dig some old pics up and post if I can find them.</p>

<p>Kent, <br> Nice shot and the old Contaflex is still an extremely fine camera. Their only problem is the lack of use. They have got to be used or they freeze up. Their Tessar lens is second to none. Period!</p>

<p>Patrick,<br> Been there and done that a few times! I did "car swaps" for a car dealership and would get sent to upper Wisconsin from Michigan and take the Badger across. I did learn a good trick for speeding up the trip. When in Ludington at the ferry dock you tell the car tagger or ticket taker you have pets in the vehicle. They will then load your vehicle last so it is off first and you can be on your way. I never had a pet, but was off first and on my way while other folks were waiting. It's a nice trip on a nice day, but not on a stormy day. </p>

<p>Tomasz,<br> I like the tones in your shot, but I also know scanning might be playing a roll in what I see. How do you find FX-15 and far as a developer. I've tried a couple of Crawley's developers(FX-37, FX-2), but have never tried FX-15. Your picture looks very good. <br> John</p>

<p>Yes, you must wind the film wind knob. DO NOT FORCE THE SHUTTER RELEASE! If you force the release you can throw the linkage out of wack. If you want to know if the shutter is the problem set it to 1/60th of a sec. , cock it and then manually trip it with the little silver arm on the bottom of the shutter.</p>