leica_virgin

If anybody is interested in the 100mm f3.5 lens, I have one that is as-new. Absolutely pristine with the original red velour lined box with caps, case, and finder. The case is in its original box, also. It even has the packet of Canon silica gel that came with it. It's a real beauty. I'm asking $175 plus shipping. This is far less than I paid for it 10-12 years ago.

SOLD

Feel free to message me and I can send you a list of (almost) everything that I've got. I've got several neat lenses in M39 including an extremely nice 3.5cm f3.5 Summaron. The Summaron appears in one of the CL photos. Another one is a mint 100mm f3.5 Canon in the original red velour-lined box with caps, case, finder, and even the Canon silica gel packet. Likely never used. This one does not appear in the photo. I've got a dozen or so Nikkor lenses (all non-AI) including the 35/3.5 PC and the 85/1.8, both in near-mint condition. The 85/1.8 actually looks brand-new. I have the bubble and original box for it. I have both the 10.5cm f2.5 and 13.5cm f3.5 Nikkors in S-mount. Both are the newer versions. I sold my SP a few years ago but the buyer didn't take all of my lenses for it. How about Takumars? I've got a super-nice 35/2.3. The only flaw is a tiny mark on the focusing ring. It has the original AOC cap. Such a cool lens! Also a 105/2.8 semi-auto, also with AOC cap. I've also got a 35/2 Super Takumar. It's not the large one; it's the newer (but not SMC) smaller version. Not a mark on it. I've got a 200/4 preset Takumar in original case which looks like new. You get the idea - too much to list here. I always tried to get the nicest stuff that I could find. No junk.

OK. I'm sure that it is just me...but I do not see an option for "edit". I apologize for failing to make it clear in my original post: I am not willing to split up the P67 outfit. If I do sell it, it would only be as a complete outfit. Sorry.

I wasn't sure if this is an acceptable way to list a camera collection for sale, but I thought that this would be easier than trying to list everything on this forum individually. I figured that it would be far easier to merely provide the link to my Craigslist ad which includes fairly detailed descriptions. I don't really have set prices established for everything and I wasn't expecting anyone to be interested in the entire lot. OTOH, I'd certainly entertain such an offer. As of right now (5 April), the only thing that is sold is the Rollei 35.

 

Regarding the Pentax 67 outfit: The body has seen little use and is in amazing condition. I purchased it in 1998. Shortly thereafter, I bought the 45/4 lens brand-new. It has been my go-to lens but, again, has not been used much at all. I also have the 90/2.8 which, like the 45, is the newer style with rubber focusing ring. I also have the 200/4 and the 135/4 Macro. Both of these are the older style. I also have a Kenko 2x teleconverter. It's really a nice set. I don't really need to sell it. So I am not willing to give it away.

 

Vintage Film Camera Collection - photo/video - by owner -... (craigslist.org)

Size: "150ppi & do your own math" or print (bigger) billboards and keep people away from them.

Flat shipping? Paper can get embossed. If you have a top box for your car and nothing else to haul, fine. Otherwise sandwich the print between 1/4" stacks of waste sheets and pallet lids. But why?

 

Thanks. Most helpful.

I've blown up images taken with a 16 mp Pentax K 5 and Sigma 70 mm macro lens to 20x24 and they have looked quite good to me and the clients. These were studio shots, taken with a heavy tripod and studio strobes at minimum ISO, so no camera shake issues, focusing problems or noise issues. I wouldn't worry about getting a print back rolled up--if you have it dry mounted it will be flat when it is framed. The lab that I used until last year for big prints like this has unfortunately closed, so I don't have a recommendation since I haven't needed a large print made recently.

 

Thanks very much, AJG. Much appreciated!

I've been a photo dot net member for 20+ years, but I'm still a relative newbie to the world of digital. So I'm posting this question under "Beginner":

 

How large can I go with having a 4:3 image enlarged professionally? Although I purchased a Digital Rebel in 2003, I never liked it and I never shot anything with it that I considered worthy of enlarging. I purchased a Fuji X-T4 last spring and have finally gotten around to using it. I vacationed in the North Georgia mountains two weeks ago and my wife went gaga over one of my shots. I used my 16mm f2.8 lens and the image is pretty sharp. So how large can I get away with and still maintain decent resolution? I shot it in jpeg, not raw. Assuming that the print turns out nicely, I'll have it framed and give it to the Mrs for Christmas. I've had a number of fairly big enlargements made from 6x7 negatives and transparencies. But I just don't know what I can get away with using the X-T4.

 

While we're at it, if someone could recommend a good lab, I'd appreciate that, also. I'm not looking for cheap. I don't mind paying good money for good quality. How about shipping an enlargement flat as opposed to having it rolled and shipped in a tube? I've been using the same frame shop for 20 years. So I'm sure that they can deal with a rolled print. And I'm sure that rolled is going to cost a whole lot less to ship.

 

Lots of questions, I know. Thanks in advance!

Although I'm not a typical "beginner" (I've been into photography longer than many on this forum have been alive), I figured that I'd post my question here:

 

I have an old Digital Rebel (circa 2003) that I have not used in at least five years. I never cared for it that much and, nowadays, my phones take better pictures with far less hassle. My latest phone is a Galaxy S10. With its modest wide-angle capability, I have even less incentive to break out the Canon. I hope to retire in a few years and would like to purchase a new digital outfit. I hope this to be the last camera that I will ever have to buy. But what to get?

 

My background: As I said in my opening sentence, I know photography reasonably well - at least the basics. I am far behind the curve when it comes to digital. I do not even have basic image-editing software on my laptop. I plan to shoot almost exclusively outdoors, mostly landscapes. I have always kept a 24mm f2 Vivitar lens on my Minolta X-700 and a 45mm Takumar on my P67. Let's call my budget $2000. What do I get? I've been looking at the Fuji X-T4. Their lenses seem to rate very well and they're not ungodly expensive. I'm leaning toward the 16mm f2.8 R WR, at least to start. I do not believe that I need the 1.4 and would rather spend the money elsewhere. I figured that I could pick up the 18-55 zoom somewhere down the road. Then again, the X-T30 seems to rate very highly at about half the price of the X-T4. I don't want to buy something and then, a year down the road, wish that I had bought something with more capabilities. OTOH, the money that I'd save buying the X-T30 would allow me to buy the 18-55 now.

 

I have a modest collection of early Nikon F (non-AI) lenses from 24mm to 200mm, including the 35mm f3.5 PC Nikkor, which I'd love to be able to play around with.

 

What the heck should I get? I'd like to buy ASAP while the Mrs is still in a good mood. LOL. THANKS in advance!

I have a gorgeous Leitz 3.5cm f3.5 Summaron lens which I have owned for the past 10-12 years. I would call it near-mint. The lens body is pretty much flawless. The entire time that I have owned it, I have kept it on display in a covered bookcase. It has the original Leitz front cap. I am not sure about the rear cap. The cap that is on it has a matte black finish. I do not have a case or bubble for it.

 

I've been looking at recently-completed SOLD auctions for this lens on eBay. They have been selling for between $259 and $415. The average (as of last week) was right around $350. I'll let this one go for $350 and I'll pick up the costs for USPS Priority Mail shipping and insurance in the Continental US. I'll consider shipping outside of the US at the buyer's expense.

 

As luck would have it, this site is not allowing me to upload photos at this time. Please message me and I'll be happy to send as many photos as you'd like.

I have an extremely nice 10.5cm f2.5 Nikkor P rangefinder lens. I purchased it about five years ago to go with my SP. Like the SP, it spent its entire time in my possession sitting on display in a covered bookcase. I am ashamed to say that I never took the first photo with the SP. Sadly, I sold the SP recently but the buyer did not take the 10.5 lens. This is a very pretty lens. I have the original rear cap and a later 52mm Nikkor button-snap cap. Sorry, no hood or case. The aperture and focus both work as smooth as butter. I'll be happy to provide as many photos as you'd care to see. $300 plus $20 shipping will include USPS Priority Mail (to Continental US) with tracking and insurance.

I am, by no means, a camera expert. Just an old guy with an appreciation for old film cameras. I have a Leica M3 Double-Stroke that I have owned for the better part of ten years. The serial number is 841181 which, I believe, dates it to 1956. I bought this camera from the original owner's son (so I was told). It truly is in gorgeous condition. The only negative cosmetically: there are a few very faint rub marks on the top plate. The bottom plate is nearly flawless. I am embarrassed to say that I have never run a roll of film through this camera. It has spent the past ten years sitting on a shelf in a barrister bookcase. I do not own any M lenses (not only am I old, I am poor). But I do have two LTM-to-M adapters and a few LTM lenses including a near-mint 5cm f2 collapsible Summicron and a 3.5cm f3.5 Summaron in the same (or nicer) condition. I have an MR meter (mint) and original case (avg) for the M3. I am asking $900 for the body only. I would be willing to make a package deal for anyone interested in the meter, case, and lenses. I also have a near-mint iiig that I may be interested in selling. I would be happy to provide as many photos as anyone would want to see.

 

I'm lazy. so rather than typing a new listing, I'm just going to paste the link to my CraigsList ad:

 

Vintage Camera Collection - Nikon & Leica

 

Forgive the way this is written for CL. I'm sure that most of you reading this know more about the equipment than I do. I have not sat down and come up with prices for anything. I am more or less "fishing" to see if there is any interest in any of it. I probably should have started here rather than CL. Then again, I'd much rather sell locally than deal with shipping.

 

I know about what I paid for most of this stuff. And, as I said in the listing, I'm not giving anything away. I'm just getting old and thought that this equipment should find a new home.

 

What else...the SP is the titanium curtain version. It's not mint, but it is darned pretty. The M3 is gorgeous - just a few minor rubs on the top plate but you have to look carefully to see them. The iiig shutter sticks a little bit on slow speeds. So probably needs CLA if you plan to use it. But it is very pretty, too. The Summicron is awesome. I also have a sweet 3.5cm Summitar. Another cool lens is a 100mm f3.5 Canon LSM like brand-new, still in the velvet-lined box.

 

I'll happily send a list of all of the lenses upon request.

<p>Thanks to all! Very interesting points-of-view.</p>

<p>Tom, I understand your point. But if I wanted to go to that much trouble to make a fraudulent claim on my homeowner's insurance, what is going to stop me from substituting my year of birth for the four X's that the seller places in the serial number? If the insurance company is going to accept it without any proof of ownership except for the serial number anyway, what's to stop me from making up a serial number from the first few digits?</p>

<p>Sorry - I'm not buying.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses! Point well-taken, Shun, about someone reporting camera as stolen - although I cannot imagine why anyone would go to that kind of trouble.</p>

<p>But in the case that I described, the seller posted a photo of the top plate of the camera and the serial number is there for all to see.</p>

<p>I don't really give a darn about the camera anyway. But, as I said, it is just one of those little things that irritates me.</p>

<p>Can someone please tell me why people don't just give the ACTUAL serial number of cameras when listing them on eBay. I received an e-mail showing one of my saved seller's newly-listed items. One is an early Nikon F and the seller indicates that the serial number is "64xxxxx".<br>

<br />Why not just provide the ACTUAL SERIAL NUMBER? It's not like it is a license plate number on a car that can be traced to the owner.<br>

<br />Just one of those little things that irks the daylights out of me. Perhaps if someone can give me a GOOD reason why this is done, it will irk me a little less.</p>

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>Marc is correct. Your Kodachrome may be older than you realize. I have an opened Kodachrome box with an expiration date of Mar. 1954. The magazine looks similar to yours and the canister is the same yellow/yellow scheme. However, I believe that yours may be a little older since the cap on yours has a flatter profile than mine. The cap on mine seems to look more (but not exactly) like the 1960's caps.</p>

<p>I just received another eBay purchase: three rolls of EX-135-20 with an expiration of Nov. 1965. I opened one (of three) and it has an unpainted aluminum canister (no embossing) with a painted yellow cap. I have other rolls of EX-135 and EH-135 both types expiring Sept 1963. The EX has a yellow canister with a blue cap and the EH has a blue canister with a white cap. Both canisters are embossed with "_Kodak_" (underscore/dash before and after Kodak).</p>

<p>I love CraigsList and I have bought a number of items - some have been "hits" and some have been "misses". My best "hit" was the boxful of Minolta cameras and lenses that I purchased from a gentleman via CraigsList Orlando. There were several fairly well-beaten SRT and X-series camera bodies along with a couple of lenses. But one of the lenses was a 50mm F1.2 MC Rokkor in near-mint condition. I got the whole shooting match for $75.</p>

<p>Another find included a 135mm f2 and a 20mm F2.8 FD Canon lenses. The 20mm showed some wear to the exterior but the glass is very nice. But, best of all, the 135mm is near-mint. I had actually gone to purchase the 20mm and wasn't even in the market for a tele. I'm not really a Canon guy and didn't even know anything about the 135. But I went ahead and took it, too. I got both for $150.</p>

<p>I have the good fortune of working with sales reps in a variety of locations around the country. So I peruse CraigsList listings in several different cities. My rep in Ohio has picked up a couple of items for me in Columbus including a very nice 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor for $60. Paid my rep $10 to ship to me.</p>

<p>I enjoy going over the various CraigsList sites looking for goodies. But, as Jay pointed out, it is imperative that you know what things are worth. You can score some treasures but there is a lot of trash, too.</p>

<p>Indeed, Brian, they've gone the way of the glass soda bottle (glass in general, I guess). The unpainted ones in that eBay listing are the only ones that I remember. But, as I said in my original post, they were a hoot to blow up with firecrackers. I must've blown up about 16 trillion dollars' worth in my younger days. LOL</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. That's why I love photo.net!</p>

<p>Bob: I didn't realize that the change came that early. Time flies, I guess. Thanks for that piece of info.</p>

<p>Jim: Thanks for the link. It pretty much confirms what I recall - that Plus-X DID come in an aluminum canister. I'm going to have to look into why this batch that I've got from 1969 does not have canisters (at least the one that I opened).</p>

<p>If the change to all unpainted canisters took place in '65, that would explain why I do not remember the painted ones. My brother (four years older) said that he remembers our grandfather, who shot Kodachrome, using film in the painted canisters in the early-1960's.</p>

<p>Can someone please tell me when Kodak switched from metal canisters to plastic for their 35mm film? My older brother and I were discussing them this evening. I believe that it must have been late-70's/early-80's. I am reasonably certain that they had made the switch by 1982 but I do not know for certain.</p>

<p>My brother got me into 35mm photography around 1970 when I was ten. I seem to recall that, at that time, all Kodak 35mm film (slide, B&W neg, and color neg) came in metal canisters. By this time, the canisters were aluminum (great for blowing up with firecrackers) with steel caps.</p>

<p>For the past couple of years, I have been buying NOS film on eBay. I recently purchased a dozen rolls of PX-135-20 with a 3/69 expiration. I assumed that these would all contain metal canisters. All but a couple of the packs were in like-new condition. One was crushed fairly badly so I decided to open it. The film magazine was packed in sealed foil - no canister. No big deal; just a surprise. But since I shot mostly B&W in the early-70's, I could swear that Plus-X and Tri-X were packaged in canisters.</p>

<p>While we're on the subject, can someone tell me when Kodak switched from the enameled steel canisters with the embossed "Kodak" to the aluminum ones? Many of my eBay purchases have been late-50's/early-60's Kodachrome and Ektachrome. These are packaged in the steel canisters - Ektachrome in yellow with blue cap, High-Speed Ektachrome in blue with white cap, and Kodachrome in red with yellow cap (or it is vice versa?).</p>

<p>My brother and I both worked at a small camera store in the mid-70's. This evening, we both laughed about the large box FULL of empty film canisters that we had at the store which were probably thrown away. Those same canisters are now fetching $3-$5 on eBay. You've got to love it.</p>

<p>Hi Karen. I'm sure sorry to hear about your dad's passing.<br>

I am certainly not an expert nor am I even a regular poster on photo.net. But, from what I know, the local photo shop is one of the LAST places that you want to go to sell your dad's gear. My bet is that they will give you nowhere near what it is really worth. I know next to nothing about Alpa cameras and lenses - except for the fact that they were VERY expensive when new. I have a number of old Modern and Popular Photography magazines from the early-1970's. A used Alpa 10d body sold for $229.50 in 1971 - nearly the same as a Leica M4. WAY beyond my paperboy budget back in the day (I had a hand-me-down Leica iiic that I bought from my older brother). From what I do know of Alpas, they were well-made marvels of Swiss engineering. I'd love to have one in my collection.<br>

Of course, as with ANY vintage item (be it a camera or a motorcycle), condition is everything. But PLEASE do not let the local camera shop talk you into letting them go for peanuts. Camera shows are also not good places to sell equipment - for the same reason. The dealers that frequent these shows will typically never give you top dollar.<br>

Best of luck!</p>

<p>I regularly check my local CraigsList photo offerings (I even occasionally check not-so-local just in case something interesting pops up). A couple of days after this past Christmas, I was perusing the listings on CraigsList Orlando. I live north of Gainesville; at least two hours from Orlando.<br>

A gentleman had a listing for a Minolta SRT-101 body with four lenses for $75. One of lenses was a 58mm. I figured that I had nothing to lose by e-mailing him and asking what the 58mm lens was. I assumed it to be a 1.4. Much to my surprise, the gentleman replied that it was a 1.2. I told him, "Hold it for me, please; I'm on my way."<br>

The gentleman even told me that he once worked for Kodak but, apparently, he had no idea what he had in the 58/1.2. At the time, even I didn't realize how much they're fetching on eBay. He was even courteous enough to drive part way to meet me saving the drive all the way to Orlando.<br>

At any rate, the lens is in near-mint condition. It is a later-vintage version with the rubber focusing ring. But for my $75 (naturally, I did not even try to talk him down), I also got a 25/2.8 MD Rokkor, a 135/3.5 MD, as well as a 75-200 MD. I know that neither of these lenses is particularly great - but all three in near-perfect condition. He even threw in two XG-9 bodies which are in pretty trashy shape. I figure that I will eventually dissect them for a science project. The SRT-101 is in decent, but not perfect, shape. The shutter fires but I have no idea if it really works. But who cares? I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a mint one to go with my 1.2 lens (a black body would be nice).<br>

I love telling this story because it is one of the only times that I have actually purchased a decent piece of equipment and did not have to pay out the whazzoo for it. It's not quite as good as the story of the forum member who obtained a Nikon SP at a church sale for fifty bucks. But that Rokkor looks great on the SRT-101 sitting on my bookshelf. Now I just need to find the time to put it on my 20+ year-old X-700 and go out and actually USE it.</p>

<p>I have not attended this show since I moved to North Florida almost ten years ago. I lived in the Bay Area for many years and went to the Largo show a number of times. I recall there being a couple of people selling high-end - and correspondingly high-dollar - stuff. But there always seemed to be more ratty, over-priced old stuff.<br>

Since it is a three-hour drive for me now, I've long since decided to save the gas money (and time) and stick with eBay and CraigsList. I've bought a lot of great merchandise on eBay over the past thirteen years - far better deals than I ever recall seeing at the Largo show.<br>

Not that it is a big deal, but the Minnreg Building is a rat-hole. I believe that it is an old Honeywell facility from the late-1950's. Can't they find a nicer hall (like a church) to rent for this event?</p>

<p>I just picked up a very nice SP on eBay. I paid out the whazoo for it but (a) I was able to use PayPal to put it on my credit card until I get my tax refund and, (b) I was able to catch the wife in good mood (which you never want to let go to waste). The SP is something that I have wanted for many years and now I've got one to go with my Leica iiig.I've got a 5cm f2 Nikkor on my iiig.</p>

<p>I bought the SP from a gentleman whose father had purchased the camera new. It has the cloth shutter so, as I understand, it is from 1957-58. It came with the 5cm f1.4 lens which is also a beaut. I also bought a 3.5cm f2.8 that the fellow was selling.</p>

<p>This is my first Nikon of any kind. I am anxious to get out and use it. I was hoping that I could get some advice regarding other lenses. Is the 8.5cm f2 good (I cannot imagine a BAD Nikkor)? They seem to sell on eBay for fairly reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Now...so that I can get out there and pick up some more Nikkor glass...is anyone interested in a 58mm f1.2 MC Rokkor? This is the newer style with the rubber focusing ring. It is in really nice shape. There's a great story here: I got this thing along with a box of other Minolta lenses as well as two SRT-101's for $75. The fellow had an ad on CraigsList Orlando. When he told me that he had the 1.2 lens, I jumped in the car and drove a hundred miles immediately. One of the few instances of my getting a steal.</p>

<p>Oh...and, by the way, Gene...NICE S2!</p>