john_wiegerink1

<p>I'm not a MX owner and never was, but as good as Pentax was at making cameras and lenses it's highly unlikely of there being any cutout circuit. I have owned many Spotmatics, K1000's and three ME and ME Super's and can't remember flash sync problems. Did you try more than one flash on that last black MX? You never know...................?</p>

<p>Rick,<br> I always love seeing results from the old Bronica's since it was my first real "professional"camera. I bought a nearly new Bronica S2A with waist-level and 75mm Nikkor to shoot weddings. It was a real treat for me since I had four backs and it allowed me to be always be ready and never having to change film at the wrong time. It was my favorite setup until I got a used Hasselblad 500C. Optically I still like the 75mm Nikkors rendering, but the silence of the Compur leaf shutter (plus flash sync speed) is what sold me from then on. The one nice thing that the S2A did do during the wedding was wake anybody who might be sleeping so they didn't miss the groom kissing the bride. I don't shoot weddings anymore and shoot only for my own enjoyment now. I still have the 'blad, but the S2A went to a new home many years ago. If I didn't have a Pentax 6X7 I'd be running a Bronica GS1 for sure. Most Bronica bodies and gear are dirt cheap compared to other equipment. It's tempting and I may just buy into it again. Maybe? Your shots tempt me even more. John W </p>

<p>I'd say you have a mirror problem or focusing screen problem. Is this a new camera to you?</p>

<p>Rick,<br /> The last shot (No.7) was shot in France somewhere around 1918 or 1919 just after WWI I think. Gee, I didn't know you were that old? Great job composing and rendering that old look that some of us grew up with. Some of the old box cameras were better than others and can still render nice results. Sharp isn't always nice. I keep two box cameras on the shelf. One is a Western Camera Corp. Cyclone No.5 (a 4x5 falling plate camera) and a Zeiss Box Tengor 2nd version 120 film. Both are fine takers. I'll have both out later and try to post the results. All of our family photos were recorded on my fathers Kodak Target Six-16. My father was a gunner in the Marines and knew how important it was to squeeze the trigger(shutter). He got really decent pics with the old thing, but mom was a jerker/flincher and you could certainly tell when he handed the camera to her from the her results. The old saying that "The camera is only a light tight BOX" really applies here. Always enjoy your shots and seeing your location in images. John W</p>

<p>Gus, my prism for the Leicaflex Standard doesn't seem contoured, but I could be wrong. I'll have to check when I get home. I do agree that the Leicaflex has an outstanding viewfinder.<br> <br />Wendall, Don from DAG got back to me and said he no longer sends the prisms out for re-silvering. He said it was taking 6 months or longer to get them back and the wait was to long. He did say he had some nice used ones for sale. I told him I would look the camera over real close to make sure all was well before I stuck anymore money into it. I'll let him know one way or the other tomorrow afternoon. Nice to know at least I can get one anyway.</p>

<p>John, I fired off an email to DAG so we'll see what they say. I have the prism out so may also try to find a place that can re-silver it. </p>

<p>I've posted this question on another site, but thought I'd give you folks a shot also. Here goes................<br> I just picked up a nice Leicaflex Standard MK I that works perfect and looks very nice except for...................! Yup, the prism. The prism looks like somebody shook a can of coca-cola and sprayed it inside the prism. I thought it might be just something on the screen or between the eyepiece and prism so I pulled the top and removed the prism. Well, it's definitely the prism. My question is does anybody here know if any other prism will fit in place of the original? Trying to find a Leica prism would be near impossible and probably cost twice as much as what I paid for the camera. I'm going to try and watch for a parts body, but even those are not cheap. It's still usable, but is like looking through a forest to see one tree. Any ideas?</p>

<p>Louis,<br> That good to know and I'll start adding those Sigma lenses now and get the A6000 a little further down the road. I'm in no hurry and figure the A6300 frenzy will make the A6000 just that much better of a deal when I'm ready. I already have my flocking material and a large selection of old glass. I also have the 28mm, 45mm and 90mm Contax "G" lenses. Thanks for the tip on the adapters. John W</p>

<p>Louis,<br> Are you real satisfied with the three Sigma primes? I'm going to buy the A6000 after the A6300 helps lower the price of the A6000 and was considering those three primes myself. Oh, I'll also use some legacy glass too, but want something a little faster for snap shooting. John W</p>

<p>Sebastian,<br> The A6000 might be a good option for me. Looked into the NEX6 at BestBuy some time back, but maybe I should look at the A6000. In the old days most 35mm cameras were pretty much equal and simple to operate. Now it's a nightmare for a 65 year old who doesn't want to even hear bells or whistles. Let alone find them and push 'em. I long for the days of simple photography sneaking into the digital camera age. JohnW</p>

<p>Ed,<br> I had already pretty much settled on going the used route. I'm not really trying to equal my medium format film quality so 16 MP is fine for me. I'm most interested in good out-of-camera-jpegs and at least the ability to use my Zeiss glass. I'm really leaning toward the Fuji X-E1, but should be able to get an X-E2 used for under $400.00. I'm sure I'll also get the Fuji 18-55mm since I've read nothing but good stuff about that lens. I'm in no hurry and that helps in the buying department. John W</p>

<p>Joe,<br> I figured I would be fine, but I just wanted to know how this lens stacked up against the 135mm Rodagon optically speaking. I'm sure I don't have to worry and was just curious. John W</p>

<p>First, let me say I shoot mainly medium format film, but do dabble in 35mm as well a digital. Here's my question........................I have a Contax G 35mm film outfit with 28mm, 45mm and 90mm Zeiss glass and would like to buy into a mirror less system to use those lenses on. I have a Samsung NX100 that I really like, but the optional EVF finder sucks along with not being able to use my G lenses on it. So here's what I'm looking for..................good-sharp image quality, excellent low light performance, optical or EVF viewfinder, the best JPEG output I can get(I use RAW too, but would like to have top-notch jpeg output if possible) and an easy camera to understand. My first real digital camera was an Olympus E1 and I absolutely loved it for its out-of-camera jpegs and color rendition. I'd like something like that again only in mirror less design. Here is what I was thinking of. Oh, and used is fine with me. The Olympus OM-D E-M10, Fuji X-PRO-1, Fuji X-E1, Sony NEX-6 or Sony NEX-7. I want to stay under $500.00 so I'll probably go used. I'm leaning hard on the NEX-6 for it's clean low light results, but the Fuji cameras look like they would fill the bill too. I'm in no hurry since I'm in the process of selling off most of my other digital hoard. Any suggestions? John W</p>

<p>I have and use a Schneider Componon-S WA 80mm f5.6 enlarging lens and find it an extremely handy lens for 6X7 and 6X9 negative. I recently acquired a Rodenstock Rodagon WA 120mm f5.6 lens for 4X5 negatives and was wondering if anyone out there has had any experience with this lens on the 4X5 format. The 80mm WA Componon-S also allows me to enlarge without having the enlarger head floating/wobbling around in the stratosphere. John W</p>

<p><strong>Chuck, </strong>I can't say about your Super-B since I no longer own one and my memory is to short to remember what the finder was like. My plain Super Has the horizontal split screen and is really bright. That's why I was wondering if anybody out there had the three last models so as to compare all three.</p>

<p><strong>Anthony, </strong>I have the Pro-Tessar 1:1 and it is nice, but I also have the 4 Proxar set and find it much handier and easier to use. The Proxar's are coated and of very high quality. I'm just saying that for me, I could live just fine with the Proxars. Oh, and the Proxars are much cheaper too.</p>

<p>QUESTION??? This question is not only to RICK, but to all here. I have owned most models of the Contaflex, but now I'm down to two Super BC's, a Contaflex-S and three Super's like Rick's. I actually like the Super the best of the cameras I have left. Why? Because the finder is super-bright compared to the Contaflex Super-BC or Contaflex-S and it doesn't use a battery like the other two. My Super's have finders every bit as bright and clear as my mint Canon AE-1 Programmed. The Super-BC and Contaflex-S look to be at least a stop dimmer. I don't know where the Super-B model fits in as to brightness since I haven't owned one in a few years now. Has anyone else noticed the old Super's finder being that good compared to the other models? Just curious. Oh, also the Contaflex is one of my favorite classic cameras to use and to have.</p>

<p><strong>RICK, </strong>I like and use pyro too(WD2H), but I still favor Perceptol/Microdol developer for some films and scenes. I almost never use it full strength. 1+1 or 1+2 is where it's at for me. I can get close to box speed with dilution. Grain goes up a hair, but I don't shoot 35mm so no problem with a little grain. Mixing your own is much cheaper and very easy. Being Dutch means cheaper is better in this case. I'm now tuning up my Pentax 67 outfit for some HP5 and FP4 snow shooting. If I get time I'll scan and post. John W</p>

<p>Nice shots! I can smell the breakfast Bill. Rick, I use several different B&W developers, but if I were left with only one it would be Perceptol. The only two developers I use with PanF are Perceptol and Rodinal 1:100 "Stand Developed). Actually I make my own and it works just as well as store-bought. The nice thing about Perceptol is it seems to like just about any film you can throw at it. It's just so easy to work with. Rick, your shots with PanF and Perceptol look great, but seem just a little "punchier" than PMK. That could be more due to PanF and not the Perceptol. </p>

<p>Years ago I bought one of these brand new in the box with all the paperwork. First thing I had to do was work on the meter by taking up all the slack in the adjustment knob and then calibrate it. After that it was one fine camera. I was going to get a couple more lenses for it, but decided to sell it while it still worked perfect and take the money to buy Pentax 6X7 gear. A couple of things I did like about the camera were the front shutter release and the fact that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be when tripping that shutter. Oh, and I had absolutely no complaints about what that lens could turn out. I'd be willing to bit that if I still had Kiev 60 it more than likely wouldn't be working in some respect. My Pentax, on the other hand, takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Of course I paid under $100.00 brand new for the Kiev 60 so I really wouldn't have been hurt to badly if it did die. John W</p>

<p>I must be doing something wrong with my 124G and its meter??? I have no problems getting very accurate readings with my 124G's built-in meter. But, and this is a big but, you have to make sure it's calibrated to the film and you have to know how to use it. These built-in meters don't have fancy "matrix" meter patterns like the latest built-in cameras have so you have to do some thinking. I use the 1.4 hearing aid battery with adapter in mine and I always shade the cell from overhead stray sunlight. I also do not measure the overall scene, but instead try to find something of middle grey value to meter (tilt down and get a reading of grass is pretty close) or use the zone system and take a close-up reading and set the value accordingly. After saying all this I still prefer to use my Gossen Luna Star F, but if I only have the 124G I can do just fine with its built-in meter. John W</p>

<p>Bill,<br> We all know that Ultrafine film is junk and nobody should buy it. They should stick only to Kodak and Ilford films. Right!<br> Now Bill, this is just between you and me, but I love the stuff. The reason for the above statement is so everybody doesn't load up on Ultrafine and either deplete the stock or drive the price up. Our little secret okay??? You have to buy the "Ultrafine Xtreme" version of this film and NOT the Ultrafine Plus" version. At least that's what I have found anyway. I have only used the 100 ISO in 35mm (bulk) and it's as good as anything else in 100 speed film. In 120 I prefer the ISO 100, but the 400 is very good also as your shot shows. I use mainly WD2H+ pyro and Xtol replenished with it and have no complaints at all. My fixer is 5 gal. of TF-2 that I mixed-up awhile back. This combination makes a very good low-cost setup with first rate results. Your OA is probably a little cheaper than my homemade WD2H+, but not by much. Oh, very nice tones by the way. John W</p>

<p>Yes, stocking up on film at my age would probably get me by for the rest of my life, but I haven't had the best luck with storing some papers. Kodak Polycontrast was one that didn't keep well for me. I've also had some Ilford multi-grade fog over time too. I will admit that my papers were stored in my darkroom and that might not be the best place to store them. My film is not stored in the darkroom and is kept frozen with no problems at all. John W</p>

<p>Yes, I'm happy 'cause the wife is visiting our daughter and I can stay in the darkroom as long as I want. I actually enjoy the darkroom more than tripping the shutter. If film goes extinct I'll be coating glass plates and my own paper. Hopefully I won't have to, but you never know. John W</p>

<p>Yes, there is an ongoing discussion on Apug about this same problem. It seems Kodak changed paper and ink(probably to cut cost) and that might be where all the trouble started. Oh, and Henry as far as APUG being a "left wing" political site? Photo.net can get the same way at times. In fact it's only when somebody brings up their views(which are the only ones that count anyway) or bias that things get started. Kind of like letting everybody here know one might be a "right wing loose wingnut". Some folks just can't resist letting or telling everyone that their way is the ONLY way. Might be better to just say APUG was just to political left it at that. It's when some folks challenge other folks beliefs that sparks start to fly. I like to soar with both right and left wings since I know of no eagle that can fly to great heights on one wing. First of all he can't get his butt of the ground. So, let's not dirty this site up with politics. Mine, yours or anybody's for that matter. Think photography and be happy!</p>