john_wiegerink1

<p>Arb,<br> Since you say it will mostly be outdoor shooting I'd go with Acros 100 for sure. But, I like as fine a grain negative as I can get while still maintaining excellent sharpness and Acros delivers that. If you don't mind a little more grain then go for something like TMY2 or Delta 400. The other nice plus with Acros in the reciprocity factor. You can mount your camera on a tripod or sit it on a wall, ledge, trash can or whatever and take long, low-light exposures and not have to worry about reciprocity exposure compensation. Oh, and did I say Acros scans are great? Of course you could go with a slide film also and convert to B&W. That way you'd have the best of both worlds. John W</p>

<p>Now, this is just my opinion, but I like Acros 100 for scanning and it isn't fussy as to the developer it's processed in and scans excellent. In 400 speed I'd say Tmy2 or maybe Delta 400. Both are excellent, but, again, in my opinion no match for Acros 100. You don't say what format your shooting? John W</p>

<p>I would be pleased also! Nice shots with good rendering.</p>

<p>I just added two pictures to my gallery of the Pentax 6X7 to Zeiss Maximar 9X12cm comparison.</p>

<p>just compare to my P6X7..........</p>

<p>I converted a 110A to 4x5 and another to Polaroid pack film. These cameras are not light and just a little clumsy to use. As for the 127mm 4.7 Ysarex? It's a crackerjack of a lens and it will cover 4x5 easily at any normal shooting aperture. I tested it against my 135mm f5.6 Symmar-S and I actually know it was sharper especially in the center. I sold both at a handsome profit. I still have a mint 110A on the shelf, but don't plan on converting it.<br /> If it were me I would look into a 9X12 folding plate camera. At least that's what I did and I'm much happier. Mine has a Kalart rangefinder, Graflex 4x5 viewfinder added and a heavy duty tripod mount added. 9x12cm film is just a sliver smaller than 4x5. You can still buy 9X12cm film from Foma and Ilford, but are limited in variety. I have a cutter with template that I use to trim 4X5 to 9X12 cm and can use and film I want. I also have two 6x9cm roll film adapters for the camera which makes it very handy. What's the advantage of the 9X12cm plate cameras over the 110A or B? Well, the biggest to me is weight. the other advantages are easier to hand-hold and use, front rise and horizontal lens movement plus the fact that some of these cameras came with interchangeable lens mounts <img src="/large-format-photography-forum/SAM_0289" alt="" /><img src="/large-format-photography-forum/SAM_0291" alt="" /></p>

<p>Robin,<br> If you ever get a chance go to the East side of Superior grab it. My wife and I would go for our anniversary every Oct. 7th and it was fantastic as the Maple leafs were turning color. Many Maples and red granite rock with beautiful round granite stones on the beaches. Not a place for B&W, but color negative and transparency film shines there. Many times there would be heavy mist/fog/snow, but it also made for some interesting shots. I've been there in January and while it's beautiful, it's also very cold too. John W</p>

<p>Robin, which side of Lake Gichigami were you on? I have been on the northern Canadian side aroundBatchawana Bay and it's absolutely a photographers dream. Stunningly beautiful place, but no place to live in the winter. John W</p>

<p>I'm at my cottage so I can't confirm this, but I am pretty sure I have a very nice black J5 at home. I can't remember which lens is on it. I have to admit I have never run a roll of film through the camera in the 20 years I've owned it. I'm found of the older Yashica camera, especially the Elector series rangefinders and SLR cameras. Their lenses were and are superb as your pictures do show. Nice work with an old camera. Viva la'film! John W</p>

<p>Q.G.,<br> I no can do on posting an image. I'm at my cottage for a week and I'm using my wife's laptop with none of my pics on it. I will be taking some shots with my Pentax 67 and will post a few when I return home. Now all I have to do is find a Swan with stripes or maybe a pig? Yours is still a great Zebra shot and I think the black-empty background makes it sing. John W</p>

<p>Perfect pose Q.G.! Did you have to pay him a "sitting fee"?</p>

<p>Julio Fernandez,<br> I just touched your picture on my screen and cut my finger, because it's razor sharp. Very nice tones as well. Of course post-processing might have some to do with this. John W</p>

<p>Ronald,<br> Thanks for the info and the link. I had read that Kodak pulled out all stops on R&D for lens coating in the mid to late 1930's and the reason was they wanted a coated lens to be introduced at the 1939 Worlds Fair. I read that information a long time ago so I might be a little mixed up. According to what I've read on Zeiss coatings is that they were invented in 1935 and didn't go to market with it until 1939 also. When I look at the 135mm Tessar on the Maximar in reflected light it looks almost identical to the reflection colors of my 1940's Kodak Medalist II's 100mm 3.5 Ektar. Coating or not doesn't really matter to me on this camera as it will be a B&W camera anyway and non-coated Tessars and awful nice for B&W. JohnW</p>

<p>Welcome to the wonderful (and confusing!) world of the old plate cameras! Thanks Ronald and I'm sure it's going to be a fun journey too. One question to add to the list on the Zeiss Maximar 207/7 I've dated mine at around 1931-32 and it looks like the lens could be single coated. Is that possible? <br> John W</p>

<p>Matthew,<br> That's the kind of information I was looking for and will certainly help me find what I need. Thank you very much,<br> John</p>

<p>I just picked up a very nice Zeiss Maximar 207/7 off the big auction for almost nothing. It is perfect except no sheet film holders came with it. I had some stuff (wife calls it junk) stored away in the garage and it included one film holder, two boxes of Tri-X pack film from 1958(good luck on this) and one film pack adapter. I searched, but instead of solving my confusion I just became more confused. What are the other film holders that will work in the 207/7 besides Zeiss? Will Kodak 33 (3 1/4 x 4 1/4), ICA 9x12, Russian 9x12 holders work etc., etc., etc.. I just want something I can use to shoot with this camera since I really like playing with oldies like this.</p>

<p>Annette,<br> I just check the "massive development chart" and ERA film is on it. Good luck and have fun. John W</p>

<p>Yes, you can use Ilford developer with ERA film. I'm away from home for the next week so I can't lookup any notes, but I would treat it as if you were using Kodak Plus-X film. I would go to the developeing chart at this site <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/">http://www.digitaltruth.com</a> and find your developer and see how long it takes with Kodak Plus-X. Do one sheet and see how it looks. I have used ERA 4x5 and really liked it, but I used mainly pyro developer with mine. John W</p>

<p>Rick,<br> Another gleaming shot! I've had mine for 27yrs, but I seemed to have used an old 500C Hasselblad more. I'm now putting the 'blad away and devoting all to the Pentax 67. I have all the lenses from 45mm up to 200mm and find no fault with any of those. Your pictures prove that. John W</p>

<p>Rick,<br> You seem to be pretty fond of that Pentax 67 and its glass. What's the longest lens you use for the Pentax 67? I have up to the 200mm, but seldom use more than the 105mm f2.4. You posted shots show just how good the camera can be in the right hands.</p>

<p>Rick,<br> You sure have that PMK pyro down perfect. I can see why you use it. Darin, I say that that's a real "punchy" shot and I like it. John W</p>

<p>I bought one of these many, many years ago at a local flea market. The thing that made me buy it was that great lens. The old Konica ad for the Konica III stated that "The lens alone is worth the price" and they were right as your shots show. Little on the heavy side, but a real great classic. John W</p>

<p>Tony,<br> How did you get the dark sky and the moon to stand out in shot no. 5 if you used no filters? Was it a long exposure near evening? John W</p>