jim_eckberg

<p>The trajectory is not upward for film. It's in the same mix as vinyl records, vacuum tube radios, manual typewriters, dot-matrix printers, space shuttles and other older technologies. These do continue to be used to some small degree (well, not the shuttles), but their prominence has clearly passed. Those things were all wonderful in their day, but times change.</p>

<p>All that being said, it's a good time to go out and shoot some film using our vintage MF equipment. The infra-structure - what there is of it - remains active enough to process what you expose. Some increased urgency has occurred with Kodak's free-fall into bankruptcy and its recent decision to kill the consumer film division. (Movie film is not still film's savior; they still shoot film stock for now, but distribution to theaters is quickly becoming digital projection using internet/satellite transfer. As for Fuji to the rescue, I doubt if they want to be the last one out to close the door.)</p>

<p>I'm saying the clock really, truly is running now; so go out and shoot more. I will. For too long my collection has been shelf-bound. I think there's about a year, maybe two, where I can readily get film and use it. After that - not so sure at all. So I'm loading up and getting out to expose some film while it's reasonable to do so. I think all of you should do so as well. Open up those freezers and let some light in.</p>

<p>Now where did I put that old Minolta Autometer?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>On August 24th, Eastman Kodak announced it was trying to sell its film division by sometime in early 2013. The founding product group of the company. Gone. Stupid.</p>

<p>http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/companies/kodak-film/index.html</p>

<p>After this notice was made known in the press, major retailers (such as Target stores and others) quietly began closing-out what remained of their film stocks from their shelves. Why order or carry a dead product?</p>

<p>OK, the trajectory is in place. There are exceedingly few large companies that would see any reason to buy Kodak's photographic film production as it is entirely a proven profitless endeavor. Yeah, forget China; pipe dream. That means that film, as readily-available commodity, will probably cease to exist within a year or so - maybe less (IMHO). Never mind the other producers, they'll be gone quickly, too. The pros and their voracious film use are what kept film being made and held down costs for the rest of us back in the day. Few pros shoot film anymore. Hobbyists really can't support the enormous costs of boutique film production. If film does continue to some degree, get used to 25USD (or much more) per roll.</p>

<p>SO . . .</p>

<p>Get out there and shoot film with that classic manual camera of yours! Fall is a great time to expose roll after roll of film. Do it before it's gone. Your old-school MF lenses can soldier on as adapted oddities for digital cameras (bless their little glass hearts), but soon film will be all but gone. Deep down, you knew this was coming.</p>

<p>I've got a Rolleiflex, a Contax IIa, some Kodak Retinas, and my late brother's Nikon to load for a photo safari to Lake Superior's North Shore splendor this weekend. I've scrounged some closeout rolls of Kodak color negative film from a bin at the local pharmacy. They can still do the processing when I get back. The digital camera will stay home; the little swine.</p>

<p>So long film, I knew you when. I'll still be collecting vintage manual cameras. That needn't stop just 'cause the film to use in them is gone.</p>

 

<p>Jan, you've got a long way to go before you should be concerned about the size of your collection. When you get to this person's level, you might think about having an intervention. Briefly, that is. ;-)</p>

<p>

<p>And that's not the largest collection display I've seen, either. So enjoy what you find along the way. It's a lot of fun and you'll meet some very nice people, too. Happy to have you with us.</p>

<p>Most of the more mature folks on this forum probably don't still own the same photo equipment they had back in the day when they started. It's a natural course to trade-up your equipment as your interest in photography continues. It happens now with digital equipment, perhaps more often.</p>

<p>For whatever reason, I've owned some real dog lenses over the years. They often seemed like great deals at the time. They were not the best choices on my part for a variety of reasons, sometimes not just for lackluster image resolution. Most of these turned out to be quite temporary acquisitions for my camera bag. Ya live, ya learn.</p>

<p>Now I wish I hadn't let some of them go. With more time (and income) on my side, I would enjoy fiddling with these optical misfits in ways I wouldn't have thought of long ago. I wonder if some of you have had the same experience?</p>

<p>Here are a few of my "cruddy" examples:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><strong>Canon Serenar 50mm f/1.9 Leica screw-mount lens</strong>: couldn't get a really good photo with it at any distance setting, any f-stop combination, but it had beautiful construction that I still miss.</li>

<li><strong>Vemar 400mm f/6.3</strong>: above average resolution in a very inexpensive lens, but the clumsy pre-set aperture, stovepipe size, huge filter requirements, and hefty, unbalanced weight of the lens drove me to trade it in.</li>

<li><strong>Nikkor 43-86mm zoom</strong> (Yes, even Nikon was capable of making a dog or two): barrel distortion on one end of the range, pincushion on the other, minimal sharpness across the board; still, what early Nikon F looks better without one mounted on it?</li>

<li><strong>Vivitar 135mm f/3.5 preset </strong>(my first tele with my own money): tiny, tiny T-mount lens with virtually no coating on the optics, it flared and bloomed any bright portion of an image; that's a feature I'd like to have these days for fun.</li>

<li><strong>Soligor 200mm f/2.8</strong>, why did I let this go? Not a super performer in resolution, but wow, that big aperture was handy in low light. It was a heavy thing, though.</li>

</ul>

<p>Downtown Chicago is an amazing place for photography. Fountains, architecture, river tours, Navy Pier, museums, Millennium Park, Hancock Tower, and of course Lake Michigan with its vistas and numerous sailboats. You won't be far from any of it at your location.</p>

<p>To me, the city is one of many visual extremes, so I'd go with what Mark said above regarding a Nikon kit. You'll use the 24mm quite a bit. Chicago has many spaces that are hard to define with a 50mm's limited point of view. The 105mm (or 135) is needed for the reach to capture architectural details (of which there are many), and for shots near the lake. Keep your kit light in weight, you'll do more walking than using a cab, most things are quite close to one another.</p>

<p>Many museums are of vintage era and offer plenty of natural light (the Field Museum for one) so don't worry about filters. Ektar 100 is a great film, but at street level even in mid-day, you'll find yourself using large apertures as the grand buildings can shield a lot of sunshine from you. No matter, stick to the 24mm and you'll eliminate most shake at even very low shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Enjoy Chicago. I've been there many times and always find something new and interesting to do or see. And good to eat. Expect to go home carrying a few more pounds on you. Chicago is a great town for great food.</p>

<p>Look, brothers and sisters, we all love film-based photography. It is our preference, our passion. As much as we'd like it all to go on forever, nothing does. Nothing. My dad loved his vacuum tube radio and his Dictaphone. His dad rode a horse to work. Change is hard, change is good.</p>

<p>You and I are discussing whether or not film will continue to be available by using computers to post comments on an internet forum and not by tapping away on ribbon typewriters to send letters via mail to a magazine editor. When you show us recent photos taken with your vintage film camera, you convert the negs/prints to a digital format in order to share them. And in ten years, the digital imaging technology we use today will be replaced by something even newer and better.</p>

<p>Who would continue to spend $10-15 each time they wanted to shoot a couple dozen pictures and then have to drop that film off to have it processed, when you can buy a single, cheap SD card and rattle-off 300+ photos, see the results right away and then use the same card over and over?</p>

<p><strong>Well, most of us on this forum, for one. </strong></p>

<p>But although you and I can come up with many good reasons and strategies to justify the use of film in our lives, hundreds of millions of our fellow beings can not. Forget for a moment about the places where you can and can not buy film now. Forget Wal-Mart. As we all pass through the anger and denial phases of grieving about the demise of film, you must agree that film will probably not be made in anywhere near the production amounts nor the variety of types that were available only a few years ago.</p>

<p>That's my challenge. I want to keep buying film but find fewer places to do so. Without question, there is plenty of cheap film still around here and there. Stores are shedding inventories as demand falls. How many times have you passed by film in a store's close-out bin in the last few months? You know in your heart that local shops will not be ordering large new supplies of color negative film, no one wants enough of it to make it profitable. As new film stocks become more scarce (as they are now), the price where it is still available will probably rise, and the variety will suffer. That will include niche retailers like Freestyle and B&H. I'd like to be ahead of the curve and secure some examples of film that will surely not survive much longer (each of us has our own different idea of what might comprise that list).</p>

<p>I'm there with ya'll. Shooting photos with an "experienced" manual film camera is a satisfying, engaging activity for me. Always has been. I want to continue to do so before it becomes absurdly expensive or downright inconvenient to do. With what I see going on with local film supplies, I sense the trend toward that eventuality arriving much sooner than later. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm betting I'm right.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the tips on Freestyle and Four Corners Dark, I was not aware of those vendors. B&H, Adorama and the rest are known to me, I feel confident shopping with them. There are a few CVS stores in my area, I'll check them out. Thanks, that was helpful. I'm compiling a list of film I'd like to acquire.</p>

<p>My initial reference to Wal-Mart was not an indication of a sudden, irrational concern driven by discovering that my favorite store is no longer carrying film. I do not shop at Wal-Mart; don't like them. They are a canary in the coal mine when it comes to consumer trends, good or bad. And they're a whopping big canary, too.</p>

<p>I also understand the regional aspect of chain store inventories on some products. Film is not regional. That some chain stores still have film product on their shelves is not surprising. But where film once commanded more variety and quantity on their shelves, the trend is down, way down.</p>

<p>I do try to buy as much film as possible, and I'm the cranky gray-haired guy at the counter telling some part-time teenage clerk that they should stock more film; do it all the time. I just want to get ahead of what I see as a looming hike in the price at the pump for my hobby, and a scarcity in the more unusual types of fuel. Supply and demand, people.</p>

<p>And now I'd like to conclude this thread response by including the words "deer urine" once more. (Although, up here in Minnesota, we generally prefer to use the more polite term "deer attractant".)</p>

<p>I've found out that Wal-Mart, the planet's retail juggernaut, does not sell film in their gazillions of stores or on their web stie. If no interest, then no inventory; a simple formula for them. They do have single-use film cameras still available, yes, but no film itself. That's it for me. The film doomsday clock just clicked very close to midnight.</p>

<p>I have over a hundred wonderful vintage cameras perfectly able to produce excellent images. But I cannot find film locally to use with these instruments, nor can I get my negatives developed without sending them far, far away. Enjoying film photography is getting much harder and decidedly more expensive.</p>

<p>So I've curtailed acquiring any further examples of cameras and lenses (for now) and am actively scouring about trying to find the last bits of fresh, boxed silver halide film. A portion of this stock of film will be used to lovingly shoot some last sets of images through the amazing old photo instruments I've collected; other rolls will be stored as part of my overall photo technology collection (a couple boxes of Kodachrome became the first of the inductees).</p>

<p>Yes, some film will probably be available for enthusiasts and artistic types for another year or two. But it'll cost us, and it will only be available by mail order or the odd eBay auction. I can hope otherwise, but I know it's true.</p>

<p>I'm located in the US. I would appreciate your opinions about the best and most economical stores to purchase negative film, in 35mm and 120 formats. I have no sheet film cameras to feed. Yes, I know this means buying through mail.</p>

<p>Good for you, John! Your simple solution has provided some great images with vibrant color! Modifying equipment is an old and revered photographic tradition, congratulations for your courage to do so and on its successful implementation. More of us should act on ideas like yours. I'm glad you got out the tools to help you produce better, more interesting images. We should all follow your lead. Heck, the vintage stuff isn't worth anything today anyway.</p>

<p>Now where's that old Argus 75 and my screwdriver set?</p>

<p>Sold about 1983. List price back in the day was about $100, so you could've got one for around $59. Not "pro" level lens quality here. Many people splurged on a good camera body and its normal lens and then bought inexpensive off-brand zooms for the occasional telephoto shot. There were many, many low-priced after-market lens brands like this Coligon years ago. Nowadays, pretty much everything that's available for D-SLRs is way better than average. Change is good.<br>

I'm guessing this lens will not deliver stellar optical performance for you, so have some fun with it. Shoot without a lens shade and point it close to the sun and your subject; it will probably produce some outstanding amounts of flare (better than a Photoshop filter). Since (I think) it's a one-touch type zoom, try shooting at slow shutter speeds while mounted on a tripod and then zooming in or out quickly. Makes weird old-school type motion images. If the lens has a protective Sky or UV filter, smear some index finger grease around on it, you'll get the nicest soft-focus look this side of Hollywood (be sure to clean it off when done).<br>

The Coligon may not be a great lens, but mounted on your Spotmatic and used with a little creativity, you should still get many frames of interesting images.</p>

<p>Don't you just love the internet? Gordon, thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it and I'm sure I'll visit often. A great site with detailed information for me to pour over. But it also reminded me that I should start shopping again for an example of a Pentax ES.</p>

<p>I have a number of vintage cameras with selenium cell metering systems. I've always heard that, as these cells produce electricity when struck by light, the cells should be kept in the dark when the camera is not being used. This would supposedly keep the metering cells active much longer. Since I have my cameras proudly on display on shelving, I've chosen to cover selenium cells with some opaque, low-tack tape. Not very pretty, but I'd like to preserve the electrical ability of the metering cell as long as I can.</p>

<p>Am I wrong in doing this? Does this really matter, or do the selenium cells lose their ability more from natural age than exposure to light?</p>

<p>Stopped in yesterday to the last independently-owned camera store in my Midwestern US city. It's a great place to see what's new and find some decent deals on vintage equipment. There is good information about today's imaging technologies and respect for the film stuff that brought us all here. Plus, they always have lots of hot coffee and warm conversation while you look about.</p>

<p>Not anymore. This Monday, March 22, the store closes for good.</p>

<p>What killed it was not so much eBay, but the actions of the major photo manufacturers. They don't want to deal with supplying the various far-flung mom and pop camera stores with new products. Too inefficient so they say. In their mind, it's better to deal with the enticing profitable volumes offered by centralized distribution to big-box chain stores. As capitalists, I guess they're right to do so. But, with no new products to show, there are no new customers for my hometown store, and no place to trade-in or sell the old stuff.</p>

<p>Now I no longer have a friendly resource to see and handle out of the ordinary photo products or to get accurate, personalized advice. I'll have to settle for a small smattering of focus-group tested items sold by yawning, disinterested clerks working in expansive, brightly lit pole barn mega-stores. Yeah, I'm bitter right now. I'll get over it.</p>

<p>Yuri, if you find a store in NYC that still offers used equipment, enjoy it while you can, shop at it until you can't. Many, many of us understand your plight. If you're having trouble finding used equipment in a city of several million people, imagine what it's like for those of us out here in the prairie. Be sure to post us on what you do find. It might be worth a flight.</p>

<p>Are these Minolta-made extension tubes or off-brand? Most Minolta variety I'm aware of were marked with the millimeters of their thicknesses; 14mm, 21mm, 28mm. Not sure what the EB and EL markings are. Some inexpensive extension rings from long ago only had a lens mount ring and a camera mount ring. You could then screw-in combinations of 3 different thicknesses of extension rings between these adapters. Maybe that's what you have. Would help to see a photo. If there's any optics inside these tubes, they're for some other purpose.</p>

<p>Extension tubes were/are used to permit very close-up focusing. Much less inexpensive than a dedicated macro camera lens. With all three mounted on your camera, the front element of your lens is only a few millimeters away from your subject. Focusing your lens doesn't do much, you'll have to vary your actual distance to and from the subject. And, yes, it can make your viewfinder look very dark as these rings greatly diminish light-gathering abilities of the lens. Try using the thinnest of the rings. That will get you very close to most subjects, but not uncomfortably so.</p>

<p>The original early 70's Canon F-1; a better Nikon F2 without the big head (you can read a lot into that statement, eh?).</p>

<p>I have this very nice 50mm f/1.4 Miranda lens that won't focus to infinity. I've checked the removable pentaprism and focus screen for mis-alignment; they appear to be as they should be. The lens does not seem to have had surgery in the past, but I can't confirm that. Does anyone have any experience with this type of focus problem with Mirandas? I'm game to try some minor lens repairs myself, but would need to have a better idea of where to start and what to tweak.</p><div></div>

<p>I have an Olympus bellows I use with my "old" E-500. Works well. One thing about this combination: I need to have an additional extension tube placed between the camera body and the 4/3 adapter. The protruding flash housing on the camera body interferes with attaching the camera (rotation is blocked by the rear housing of the bellows). Luckily, I still had a short Olympus OM extension tube.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, everyone. I followed your advice and all it went well. I'm very glad I asked. Now it's off to shoot some film with this great vintage camera!</p>

<p>I have noted some interesting posts regarding Praktica cameras. We do not see many examples of this camera brand in North America. Praktica never seemed to find a good distributor for their products here. As a casual collector, I still feel I owe it to myself to have at least one representative camera from their line.</p>

<p>For those of you who know and collect them, are there any particular stellar performing or noteworthy examples of Prakticas I should keep my eye out for? And, conversely, are there any major clunkers I should gently avoid?</p>

<p>There are over six-thousand-million people on earth (6 billion). The percentages of market share at the start of this thread don't mention or detail the <strong>numbers</strong> of human beings buying digital cameras. Could a one percent share of this market comfortably supply cameras to many millions of customers? Isn't that enough to support healthy "niche" manufacturing? Millions of unit sales? Do we really need to start making the only basis for choosing our brand of photo equipment like choosing sides on which of only two football teams we want to see as world champion? What's happened to us? We're just cheering on monopolies.</p>

<p>I want variety back. I applaud Olympus and Panasonic for doing something different with the offering of the EP series and other micro-4/3rds cameras. Good for them. They are doing something that appeals to at least the possibility of individual expression. It's a refreshing start. I wish Sony and the rest of the camera manufacturers would shrug off the "me-to" race to offer the same features and let loose with the tremendously creative engineering resources they already have. Go guys! We've got all the heavy, complicated black-bodied equipment we could ever need from Canon and Nikon (with apparently an endless supply on the way). We're dying for different out here! We're looking for style, craving the unique. The vast (millions and millions) of us are always searching for new ways to make photography fun. And that doesn't include watching sales charts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought this Heiland Premiere camera in it's original leather case, along with a Honeywell Electric Eye 35R camera and a Honeywell Tilt-A-Mite flash for $20. The owner was the son of a retired Honeywell employee, wishing to find a nice home for his dad's old equipment. His father purchased the cameras at the headquarter's company store in St. Paul, Minnesota. Part of the fun of collecting cameras is to hear the stories behind the instruments. We had a brief but very enjoyable chat and then I returned home to assess the condition of cameras.</p>

<p>Turns out, the Heiland Premiere is really a Dacora Dignette from around 1956 and the Electric Eye is a Mamiya from about 1962 (still researching that one). Honeywell often just rebadged products. The only problem I could find with the Dacora is a very sticky focusing ring. At first it would not move at all. The lens ring is very small for my fingers to get the ample torque needed, so I turned to using a tool. Now, don't wince, I gently used a Vise-Grip (with some padding on the jaws) to see if some extra leverage would help. It did. The lens ring slowly came back to life and moved throughout its range. The movement still felt stiff and I could sense that the lubrication it rode on was coarse and useless from age. I kept moving the lens ring back and forth for awhile while I watched TV. After some minutes, it felt just fine.</p>

<p>I set the camera down, satisfied I had repaired the little camera. The next day, the focusing ring did not move again. Stuck. I'm not prepared to carry a Vise-Grip with me every time I want to use the camera.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any advice or knowledge of how I can remove the outer lens components and refresh the lubricant on this old camera? Or, should I even do that? I have no experience with German-made Dacora cameras, I'm hoping our European friends may offer some insights.</p>

<p>I'm OK with leaving the lens set on infinity or at a hyperfocal distance and f/stop combination if my attempt at internal repair might damage this little guy forever. I'm very taken with the Dacora. Sure, it's not a high-end camera; maybe not even a lower-end of the middle-range type. It's a family camera for all occasions. It feels good in my hands and has a very pleasing streamlined look from the age of Eisenhower.</p>

<p>Any help you could offer would be welcome.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a copy of an ad from Modern Photography in December of 1962. I think this is your camera, sans the accessory shoe.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, John. Before I posted, I took the bottom plate off and saw the oddball construction with that long shaft you wrote about. I got scared and put the plate back on. I'll need some very specific information before I begin poking about.</p>

<p>Given the very low value of the Petri, I don't think getting it serviced will happen very soon. I'll try your suggestions first. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I was preparing to load my Petri Flex SLR with film for a few winter shots. I thought I'd warm up the springs and gears first by shooting some blanks. I wound and shot the camera several times as I have done before. All went well. Suddenly on the next wind, the camera's shutter release wouldn't trip the shutter. Nothing to do with the self-timer, and I didn't change any setting such as shutter or aperture. Weird. Just stopped working.</p>

<p>If you have any diagnosis, let me know. I really don't want to part this camera out if I don't have to.</p>

<p>If it's major surgery that's called for, does anyone have any experience in taking off the top or bottom plate and releasing the shutter down in the guts? I've revived a couple of other older cameras by doing this before and thought one of you might know the trick.</p>

<p>The Petri is not a camera I care all that much about, I happen to have acquired it with a batch of other cameras. I don't mind disassembling it if there's a chance I can disengage the blocked gear or release arm that's stopping the shutter from working.</p>

<p>Any help would be appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>Not an expert on this type of camera but here goes. Most older mechanical camera problems usually occur along two main lines: wear and lack of use. Your problem may arise from the natural wearing of the metal gears or ratchets used in winding. The metal parts simply don't mesh or stay aligned as they were originally assembled. Or, because the camera may have not been used for a long time (as is common with vintage equipment) some pressure friction or lubricated components do not actuate as before.</p>

<p>The wear equation requires disassembly and repair. That can mean a technician may only need to make a simple adjustment or (worst case) instead might need to replace parts. Either way, you should expect to pay as much for repair as the cost of buying a new/old camera body (if you can find one). Up to you.</p>

<p>For the lack of use side, you could try winding and releasing the shutter a number of times without film in the camera. Spend an evening clicking away while you watch TV. Sometimes this gently limbers-up vintage equipment. Sometimes, not always. Then run another roll of film through the camera. If the problem continues in the same way, you're looking at a repair. If a squeak develops, or seems harder to wind while you do this, stop.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd be happy the old instrument works at all. If you're not going to use the camera in a professional capacity, accept the limitations of the unit and compose images near the center of the frame. Enjoy it while it works. Metal fatigue, friction and corrosion will eventually overtake the springs and gears in all our collectible treasures. If you really, really love the camera, repair it. If you purchased it to complete a series, get a couple of quality snaps from it and keep it primly dusted on your shelf. Most people who collect vintage cars never drive them very much. Sometimes it's the same with camera folk.</p>