gary_reese2

For an Ilford developer with a Vitamin C derivative developing agent, try Ilfosol S. Patterson FX-50 is a liquid form of XTOL, but I found it to have too short a shelf life after opening.

 

I fell for Covington's statement that folks were going to DD-X after bad experiences with XTOL. Well, I'm back to XTOL and maybe for good. Why use a 1926 era developer (D-76) when there have been so many advances made . . .

Better than what? For true manual exposures, the X-570 exceeds the pseudo-manual modes of the X-700 and X-370 lineage. The latter two modes require you to take your eye away from the viewfinder when the camera is set to manual. As a student camera it made it to the top ten list in my book "Student Cameras." It has some parts which cannot be cannabilized from a X-700 or X370, which were far more popular sellers. Don't pay too much attention to folks saying "parts aren't available" for this or that camera. Unless it is a part which commonly fails, there are scores of carcass cameras available to repair technicians.

Casey's has moved to the north side of Tropicana, just west of its old location next to the Liberace Museum.

 

E-6 processing must be done at either:

Michael's Photo Lab, about two blocks west of Casey's (SW corner of Maryland Parkway and Tropicana).

Color Reflections, 4600 S. Polaris Ave. While on Tropicana, go two lights west of I-15, then north 1 1/2 blocks on Polaris.

Allen's has closed.

 

Michael's also sells 120 film. Another 120 film source is at Sahara Camera, at Eastern and Sahara.

 

Running around buying film is a waste of time for someone in town for a short while. B&H Photo and Video will ship FedEx and you can have the parcel held at a FedEx depot for personal pickup, thus avoiding the heat here. The nearest FedEx to the airport is on Eastern, north of Sunset and south of Russell, at the east side of the airport.

 

Keep in mind that Las Vegas camera stores are getting anxieties about stocking too much film, so on any give day your favorite choices maybe out of stock. Pay up front and they might hold stock for you.

 

Of course, you *MIGHT* luck out and find one roll of what you need in stock at a Wolf's or Ritz. What poor, pathetic excuses for a "camera store."

Edward wrote:

 

< There is an article in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of "View Camera" magazine on using inkjet "negatives" for contact prints. >

 

The author didn't address the question of how he was able to get the Light Magenta and Magenta inks to show up on non-panchromatic enlarging or contact printing papers. Epson printers are designed to create B&W by laying down a matrix of colors from all the cartridges in the printer.

Photographers who seek just the "Best nature photo" sites are setting themselves up to come back with the 10,000th (1/000,000th ?) views of the same icons previous photographers have shot. The chance of their viewers having seen the subjects before is great and the chances of getting commercially worthwhile images from a single trip are low. These photographers are setting themselves up for failure, unless they are in Jack Dykinga's words: "a human copy machine," or they have a life list of places in which they want to emulate the images taken by the master's of photography (who used "lesser equipment").

 

I suppose: "different strokes for different folks." But some brief research into past issues of Arizona Highways, at any of the Bookman's bookstores in Arizona, can lead one to discovering some locations which fit THEIR ideal of a fun place to shoot. I can't know, without a series of questions, what kind of subject matter my students are most motivated to shoot on any given trip. When that students shops around for recommendations and ends up choosing the most recommended sites, we are back to my argument: they are setting themselves up for a quick photographic high but little that will be noteworthy in the long run.

 

There are enough variables from the weather itself that one should be prepared to lead to where ever the light/wind/clouds are best at any given time. A few reference books and an atlas and a partner who is willing is both read them out loud enroute, then enjoy the shoot with you, is a ticket to photographic nirvana.

The ASA standard calls for development to a 0.8 gamma. That is considered overdevelopment with most any general purpose, pictorial film. Most of us know that effective film speeds inch upwards with overdevelopment. Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion: ISO speeds (ASA/DIN) are overstated for films developed to normal, lower gammas/contrast indicies/average gradients. It is no wonder most folks who bother to test for their own Exposure Index (E.I.) come up with a slower speed.

Epson Enhanced Matte Paper and MT5 works for me. The times you need in the press are on the instruction sheet. For 4 ply mat board and 13x19 prints, I have success with 2 minutes and about 180-200 degrees F.

 

Don't use Colormount with Epson papers. It'll peel off the board in short order. I understand there is a new Clearmount dry mounting tissue available from Bienfang. No experience with it here.

What is being called "bronzing" here is called "differential gloss" by Epson.

 

Tetenal makes a high gloss media which won a shootout at PMA when printed with a Epson 2200.

Daniel Tan writes:

 

<< The general consensus is that the OM2SP isn't that great. >>

 

Huh? Not in my online experience. It is one of the two most liked, the other being the OM-4T(i).

I don't know what country you are from, but the other specialist OM System repair shop in the USA is Photosphere in Dallas. You can find them at <a href=www.olyfix.com>Photosphere</a>. That said, the world is fully of experienced repair technicians who have worked on OM System equipment. Just be sure you know when to determine if a repair makes economic sense. When I hear students who have had repairs which exceed the cost of getting the same model used, I cringe.

There is a decade worth of OM Mailing List postings on the f/3.6 which are searchable on Google. Just add OM to the search phrase to bring them forward.<p>

 

You can see my lens test comparisons on this and all other infinity focusable OM System lenses at: <a href=http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>Olympus OM System Lens Tests and Auction Values</a>. As a bonus, you will find auction prices there, too.

Preston wrote:

 

<< I know those tests, but I find them hard to quantify in real-world terms. >>

 

I did the tests partly because I found it hard to quantify the subjective opinions users were posting to the Internet. The range of responses to the almost daily "what do you think of this lens?" question drove me crazy. So did the old magazine published tests, since they never covered the entire lens lineup.

 

Shoot whatever seems real world to you, using a variety of Zuiko lenses at different apertures. Evaluate the images in whatever manner seems real world to you, then rank the results. If your results show any correlation to mine, then I have saved you the work of having to test every Zuiko you might want to own.

 

Or just shoot away and actually take pictures. I go through phases, depending on which side of my brain is firing on all 8 cylinders at any given time.

 

<< Is there a large sample variation on the 35 mm lenses >>

 

Since virtually all OM System Zuikos are "used" lenses at this point, the answer is yes. They are showing various levels of wear and abuse. How would you know, for instance, if a careless filter rim ding was carefully hammered out by a camera technician. If you mean lenses currently in production for other camera systems, I hope we can believe the conventional wisdom that inexpensively manufacturered lenses will have the most sample variation.

 

<< are the multi-coats significantly better than the single-coats? >>

 

They often involved a change in the optical design, since you can't just add multicoating without changing its optical corrections. If you want to go crazy, test the various versions of multicoating within a single type of lens. Too many folks just assume that the post 1983 "Meade Green" multicoating is superior to the pre 1983 multicoatings, which often reflected more colors. I'll accept the user reports which suggest that the Meade Green is more durable. But I'll counter that the Meade Green was probably cheaper, too. So, does cheaper equate to better?

 

Now, to your question. My 35mm f/2.8 SC is in storage, replaced most often by the 35mm setting on a zoom, or the 35mm f/2 when I want top performance. The SC is capable of very sharp pix when stopped way down. But at f/5.6 or wider, the edge performance is quite unacceptable TO ME at close focus distances. I suspect a lot of curvature of field - the sort of thing floating elements correct for. The edge and corner contrast at wider apertures is particularily low for a Zuiko. I didn't see enough of an improvement when I tested a late multicoated version, so I never replaced that lens. Heck, my data even suggests I saw a deterioration . . .

Hi Lindy:

 

I always used some sort of hood, even if I didn't have the exact one. Popular Photography lens testing of silt image contrast (pre-1990) showed it really made a difference. I also worked in large rooms with subdued lighting.

 

I only tested a few lenses with filters. At both my Canon FD and Olympus OM lens test sites you will find some wide open aperture tests with and without filters. I did that in an effort to show folks that if you think you can trust filters based on brands, you are probably mistaken. Their image degradation is most apparent wide open, where you need the sharp image on the ground glass to be able to focus accurately. If my SQF grade drops below a B with a filter, you can be darn sure you will have to hunt for correct focus in the viewfinder.

 

A Google search (use: OM pcacala filters) can probably lead to folks being able to find my old postings about vertical autocollimator tests of brands of filters. It was amazing how a random sample of 45 filters had over 90% with obvious optical flaws. If folks just shot a with and without filter comparision wide open and compared the negs or slides under magnification, they could answer for themselves if their filter is a keeper or not. But most folks can't be bothered and they just blindly rely on some particular brand to bring home the bacon. Buyer beware!

 

Finally, don't overlook what has become the most important take home lesson from my whole lens test exercise. If you employ some means of mirror and diaphragm prefire, you get sharper images. See: <a href=http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>OM Lens Tests</a> for more information.

If Photodo.com is the only thing going, then we are in trouble, besides the fact they only test at two apertures and the tests aren't film based. Have people forgotten to research in the libraries now that we have the Internet? There are a legacy of Canon FD lenses tests from the USA magazines alone: Modern Photography and Popular Photography. I have photocopies of many of their tests provided to me on interlibrary loan. I also have the chart of French Chasseur d'Image test results for Canon FD lenses. There are many others in the European literature. The pedestrian 50mm f/1.8 in any version (and versions matter for lenses!), is hardly the very "top drawer."

 

What some Canon FD loyalist should do, as has been done for Olympus OM lenses, is to compile the data from Popular and Modern Photography and post it to the web. They would be wise to also give the serial number for the test lens, since many build variations exist and all too often the tester didn't record it (myself included).

Hi Wentong:

 

<< the easiest and simplest lens is the best: 50mm f1.8. it might not be the lens you will use the most often but it is the sharpest. >>

 

I'm afraid that I don't know of any objective comparisons which support your statement. What do you base this statement on? What lenses have you compared it to? What is your methodology for making comparisons?

Oops, my apologies! This thread was started by Jeremiah and he didn't cross or duplicate post. My old SysOp tendencies are rearing their ugly head.

Hi Henry:

 

Now that you have a handful of subjective opinions, you might already be satisfied in a conclusion to stay away from this lens. On the other hand, Popular Photography testing showed it had the lowest flare level of any lens they had tested to date.

 

Another way to look at this is "what other options are there if you want a 35mm focal length?" For that, try a reference provided to you where you cross posted this question:

<a href=http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>Olympus OM Lens Tests</a>.

I didn't test a 200mm f/1.8, which is a rare and expensive lens to get a hold of, but see my <a href=http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm>Canon FD Lens Tests</a> for some other common candidates. My vote goes to the remarkable Canon FD 35mm f/2 breech mount, concave front element version, pre-S.S.C. with chrome snout. That is "version 1" if you prefer a nickname. Leave it sit wrapped in aluminum foil in sunlight (but not hot sunlight; leave foil open) and the radioactive decay produce cased discoloration reportedly disappears. Also, the reference to "thorium floride" should read "flouride."

 

Rare earth lenses like this were made by all the lens manufacturers, but were generally replaced with non-radioactive versions in the mid-1970s. In most cases for lenses I have tested, the later, non-radioactive versions as poorer performers. Which makes sense to those of us who don't necessary subscribe to "the latest is the greatest" psychology, which the marketing folks want us to believe. The technique I cite for eliminating the color cast to these lenses gives them a new lease on life.

Carl Shipman capitalized on being able to recycle his text among his "How to Select and Use" books. The general text can be found repeated in the Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus and Canon books of the same copyright date.

 

Probably the worst Olympus book was London's. She recycled her text, too. But it was 98% generalized text in her books covering the major manual focus camera system manufacturers.

Don't send them Fuji professional slide film or bulk loaded film. They only do amateur emulsions and will return pro film unprocessed.

If you want some quantative test results, you can check its performance against every other infinity focusing OM System lens at my: <a href=http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>Olympus OM Lens Tests</a>.

 

At the prices they go for, you might get "damage anxieties" when you actually shoot with one. It's amazing how an over priced lens will slow you down because you are afraid you might trip or something.

 

A Google search which includes the term OM will get you to some postings, from the very active Olympus Mailing List, on the pronounced barrel distortion this puppy has between maybe 35 and 38mm.

 

Me? I'd rather carry around outdoors the tiny 35-70mm f/3.5~4.5 Zuiko and indoors the 35-70mm f/3.6 with its way cool optimized lens hood.

I did my own lens testing of Bronica RF645 lenses vs. many PE lenses for the ETRSi. They outperform the PE lenses, esp. so for the 45mm RF to 40mm or 50mm PE matchup. The 45mm doesn't have to be a retrofocus design since it has no mirror between it and the film.

 

I'll agree with Mike Johnston's review: the RF645 is a real high performance, sleeper system. It has a great price/performance ratio.

Hum, seems a strange question. One picks a film to match the subject, not the camera.

 

However, I can think of one exception. Konica Infrared. The GW690 models are a top notch camera for that film, especially considering you meter with a handheld meter anyways.

 

Gary Reese

For filter and exposure comparisons, go to:

http://smcqueen.com/Maco/

<p>

The "onecachet" site isn't the manufacturer's site, it is the USA distributor's site. Don't trust it. Try instead:

http://www.mahn.net/Frameset.htm

click on Technical Application, then

Film Development Times

<p>

Anyone know what the heck is:

Stamm/stock

in their tables? I assume "full strength" (a.k.a. stock solution).

Hi Arne:

 

Thanks for unearthing that primary source reference. Hey, maybe we are all correct here. Nothing to keep Calumet from changing suppliers without changing their branding nomenclature. In another words, there could be overlapping Rodenstock and Schneider lenses which are II-N. The book is copyrighted 2000, so I've written the author with your info. He or I will post if there is any information to follow up with.