fred_rooks

<blockquote>

<p>I thought I'd read somewhere that all Kodak Ektachrome films had ceased production. If this is the case is it known if Elitechrome has the same or similar archival stability?<br /> Trevor M</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are confusing Ektachrome with Kodachrome. Kodachrome is the film that's gone, but Ektachrome is still in production, as is Elitechrome 100, the latter being a consumer product. Both Ekta- and Elitechrome are so-called E-6 films as opposed to Kodachrome, which used the entirely different K-14 process. As to archival stability, I can't tell for sure, but I believe that current E-6 films are at least as archival as Kodachrome and that some sources claim that Fujichrome films are somewhat better in this regard than Kodak's. I don't think it's worth worrying about though.</p>

<p>Shame I've sold my 167mt not long ago. I would've had a look inside and replaced the battery for the new owner.</p>

<p>I found some additional information <a href="http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=17328">here</a>. I think it falls under fair use if I cite the instructions:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You need to remove the bottom cover, the top cover, the cover around the lens mount and the front panel on the shutter release side.<br />Removal of the top cover is described here: <br />�<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FVYGuuNYF6QC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=contax+167+remote+socket&source=web&ots=NH-fPwfcPh&sig=4UliHTwEBu2RTaiBwnf8LziAR0s#v=onepage&q=contax%20167%20remote%20socket&f=false">books.google.com/books?id=FVYGuuNYF6QC& … mp;f=false</a><br />You also need to remove one screw on left side and the right side of the top cover and two screws that hold the top cover and the cover around the lens mount together.<br>

The cover around the lens mount is additionally held by two screws on the bottom, covered by two rubber pads.<br>

Removing the bottom cover is easy - the battery chamber and everything else there stays in place.<br>

The front panel is held by four screws: two at the lens mount and two on the side of the camera. The screws on the side are covered by a plastic strip that is glued on.<br>

Now you have the battery in plain sight...<br>

HTH,<br>

Dirk</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Dirk! Sounds easy enough, but I would recommend leaving the job to someone else if you haven't disassembled a camera before. If you decide to go ahead, please let us know what type of lithium battery the 167 uses. I can't find this information anywhere.</p>

<p>Go for the classic three-lens kit, consisting of one of the 50mm Planars (F1.4 or 1.7), the 2.8/28 Distagon and the 2.8/85 Sonnar, and you'll never regret it. The 2.8/45 Tessar is nice, but Planars are more versatile, much better made and a lot more comfortable to use, so mine usually stays at home. As for Yashica lenses, the better Yashica standard lenses (especially the 1.4/50 ML) are not much cheaper than their Carl Zeiss counterparts, Distagons are considerably better than Yashica offerings (though most are also very good), and the 85 mm Sonnar has no equivalent in the Yashica line-up. If I were to select three Yashica lenses to replace my Zeiss glass, I'd take the 2.8/28, 1.7/50 and <em></em>2.8/135 C, all with ML coating.</p><div></div>

<p>Definitely an improvement. I'm about to dress my second Contax 139 in blue when it arrives (the first one is all black, and I have a left over free practising kit from Aki Asahi). I hope it will look half as good as your red beauty.</p>

<p>I'll examine a few Velvia slides under a microscope next week. I did it before, but I didn't take any notes. All I can remember is that I could see details that were not resolved in 4000dpi scans. I think that your conclusion wrong and that Velvia and other modern colour films hold a lot more information than your numbers suggest. Basically, dye clouds in colour film are not aligned in rows like cells in sensors (pixels, if you like), but are distributed randomly in different layers, hence counting them under a microscope, which has limited depth of field, in order to calculate the equivalent pixel count does not make sense, or at least is not as straightforward as one may think. That said, I am unable to tell at this time how exactly you are wrong, and it is only my opinion that you are. I hope I'll be able to find out based on my own observation.</p>

<p>I'm a bit irritated that people keep questioning the usefulness of film, and this is deliberately the most arrogant answer I could come up with :-):<br>

I will always shoot 35mm film (along with medium format) even if DSLRs match the capabilities and beauty of film (currently, only two or three come close in certain areas but not overall). This is because I'm interested in photography and not electronic imaging. If I ever do become interested in digital manipulation, I can always have my slides and negatives scanned.<br>

Film for me is a high quality and cost efficient medium for capturing valuable images and conveying them through prints and projection. Digital, on the other hand, is a consumer gimmick suitable for producing heaps of mediocre snapshots and silly manipulations to be posted on the Internet.<br>

Digicams are like MIDI keyboards; 35 mm, medium format and large format cameras are like baby, studio and concert grand pianos, respectively.</p>

 

<p>Indeed, Astia is no longer imported to the UK, but you are free to import it yourself or have it sent from overseas. There are lengthy discussions about this at apug.org. I think the importer of Fuji films to Britain should realize that offering diverse products pays even if some sell less than others.</p>

<p>No, they didn't, or at least there is no indication that they did. And I hope they never will. In my view, Astia 100F, Velvia 50 and Provia 400X (or their successors) are crucial for human culture and deserve to be protected by UNESCO :-) if the worst is to come.</p>

<p>At <a href="http://zeissuserforum.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5e00c5df9c4e1cfb2268386b81d6dc14&t=1233&page=2">zeissuserforum.com</a> someone posted the following comment:<br>

<strong>‘</strong>as alreaedy mentioned here, i repeat: if you hold 159mm with winder for portraitshots with heavy lens, then winder will loose contact to camera and will not work anymore... this due to stupid plastic design. fantastic camera-stupid winder-design!<strong>’</strong><strong> </strong>(I haven't found the previous mention though.)<br>

This makes me think that even slight bending of one of the contact pins would lead to a problem. Look closely whether the pins are in one line and of the same length. Also check the contacts on the body to see whether they all look the same (one could be pushed slightly deeper into the body). In the W-3 winder (Contax RTS II), there is a grounding screw that causes trouble when it becomes loose. Of course, there are numerous other possible causes both in the winder and the body.<br>

Anyway, the the 159mm is such a rare camera that I would advise you to forget about the winder altogether, since it probably increases the wear of the body quite a bit, and get to a 167mt (which is cheap, plentiful and not collectible) for situations requiring a winder. You might want to have the 159mm checked nonetheless.</p>

<p>I'm not a 159mm owner, and this sort of thing never happened to me, but if it did, the first thing I'd do would be to make sure the contacts on the winder and on the base of the body are perfectly clean.</p>

 

<blockquote>Would you agree that Kodachrome is a stellar performer in Enlarging negative?</blockquote>

<p>Ehm, ..., .., nope.</p>

<p>I have the 2.8/45 Tessar along the 1.4/50 Planar, and I use both lenses regularly. The Tessar is married to my Contax 139Q. The slightness of this combo allows me to carry a 35 mm SLR when travelling with a medium format system or when I'm not supposed to have a camera at all. I'm content with the quality and especially the character of the slides it produces. Besides, this Tessar is a nice, collectible jewel. Otherwise, the Planar is a better lens in every respect, and that's what I use with my larger Contax bodies when size doesn't matter.</p>

<p>If you've never used film at all, you might first want to get a cheap Canon film body (a Canon 50E perhaps) and try out some slide film with your Zeiss lenses. I bet the results from film, albeit `only' 35mm, will amaze you. Despite all the lies and nonsense you hear an read, film can provide nicer and in different ways technically better images than any digital sensor, and I'm sure it does in the hands of many artists. A 35mm film camera will give you an idea about the medium in general, and then you will be able to answer your question whether to get a larger format system yourself.</p>

<p>The gears in my FR-1 are white, as shown <a href="http://www.cdegroot.com/photo-yashica/fr1-repair/fr1_inside.jpg">here</a> and <a href="http://ja8pmn.fc2web.com/camera/sinri/YashicaFR/YashicaFR_1.htm">here</a>. Take a look, and if you think the parts are identical (my guess is that they are), e-mail me your address. I'd be happy to post it to you.</p>

<p>If you're talking about the winding crank, which I assume you are, unscrew or pry off (I don't know whether it's glued on or screwed on) the round cover to expose the screw holding the lever in place. This screw has a reverse thread, so unscrew it clock-wise. Then apply a small amount of some suitable glue (not super-glue or anything too strong) on the threads of the screw, tightly screw back in and let the glue harden.</p>

<p>No, it's the sector gear of the shutter/winding mechanism. The person who damaged it must have forced the winding lever quite a bit. I could send you the entire self timer assembly if you'd like. Mine is an FR-I, though, and all the gears in its self timer are made of metal by the look of them, so I wonder whether they are interchangeable.</p>

<p>Do you know anything specific about this cause of death? If it is purely electronic? I've given a deep CLA to both of my RTS IIs, but I've never had the opportunity to explore the internals of the original RTS. I do have a broken Yashica FR that I bought for its leatherettes, which now decorate my Yashica FX3. It died from an injury to one of its plastic gears. </p>

<p>I don't know of any design flaw in the electronics of the original RTS, but it it obvious that this first Yashica-made RTS from 1975 (or is it 1974?) would be more prone to failure than later models. By the way, the Yashica FR is a lower-spec'ed Contax RTS in disguise. While it is true it is impossible to obtain parts for these cameras any more, RTS bodies (for parts as well as in working condition) are relatively cheap and plentiful. Personally, I would rather trust an old RTS that was looked after and used little rather than a heavily used and battered RTS III, which is a far more complex camera with more things that can go wrong (LCDs, motors, vacuum film plate, ...). Only one Contax has failed me so far, and it is an RX with a broken aperture mechanism, which I am hopefully about to get mended soon. My two RTS IIs are going strong with a little attention to their few known problems. In case something happens, I have a spare parts body and a copy of the repair manual. So yes, the original can be considered reliable RTS if it works correctly and hasn't been damaged or worn out, but the RTS II Quartz is a better and more dependable camera.</p>

<p>Please refer to <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/contax/index.htm">this excellent site</a>. Despite their external similarity, the RTS II Quartz is a different camera in many ways and not a somewhat upgraded RTS. For instance, it has an different shutter (with curtains made of titanium and a mechanical shutter speed of 1/50th), metering system (with TTL flash capability) and viewfinder (97% as opposed to 92% if I remember correctly). Both models are very dependable in general, but if you want to be sure you have a really reliable piece, check it thoroughly and have it CLA'ed. Keep in mind that all RTS IIs have a large decomposing light seal inside that threatens to damage the shutter or clog up the internals of the camera, so a CLA is almost mandatory for any lover of this model. I don't think the original RTS has this issue, but I've never disassembled one, so I'm not sure. Anyway, I think the RTS II is the best and most reliable Contax ever made. Moreover, many if not most older Contax SLRs need to have their mirror re-glued in place since the adhesive tape under it tends to loose its strength after decades of use. This isn't too difficult fortunately. Don't be afraid to buy any Contax body if it looks good and works correctly and also consider an ST, RX or RXII. The 137MA (avoid the auto-only 137MD), 167mt and Aria are not bad either.</p>

<p>Both scans look very good to me, Scott. Where are the supposed additional issues with the colour one? Both crops exhibit scanner noise and aliasing artefacts (which is colour in the Velvia example): I truly don't believe that the Nikon LS-9000 has the resolving power to bring up the grain of Gigabit film. The grain of Velvia is definitely much larger than that of Gigabit film, yet the noise in both crops looks very similar. I propose the conclusion that in both cases it's caused mainly by the scanner, not the film.</p>

<p>Daniel, what happened to the border lines running through Lake Chad in the 7D crop? Is it not the same map?</p>

<p>Yes, I am looking at different samples including the ones linked above, in which you obviously confuse resolution with sharpness. I assure you that film (especially fine-grained film such as Velvia) looks much better in reality than in any scan ever made. Scanner lenses aren't sharp enough, and scans seriously suffer from aliasing artefacts. I haven't seen too many drum scans, but I believe they have more potential. I look at slides under a loupe all the time, project them often and have even examined a few under a microscope. I'm yet to see a scan that would contain what I expect to see in reality. I'd have to sit with you in person over piece of film to demonstrate this, however.<br>

In the Techpan-7D-Velvia comparison, I see no detail in the 7D image that would be absent from the Velvia one. What I do see is that Velvia resolved rivers in Ghana, Nigeria and the Congo correctly as blue lines, whereas the demosaicing algorithm of the 7D interpreted them as green. I think this speaks about the colour resolution of Bayer sensors. The 7D image is higher in contrast and apparent sharpness and not as noisy as the scan, that's all. I think I prefer the Velvia crop over the 7D one.</p>

<p>Of course, scans from 35mm Velvia (and other films including Ektar) at 5400 ppi can match the output from the 7D (or any other small-format DLSR) in terms of resolved details, even with grain aliasing shoddy optics common in film scanners. What I see through a loupe on a light table or projected on a wall is much better, though. When looking at samples from the 7D, I see nothing that couldn't be achieved with 35 mm film. Not that I think it's desirable to make film pictures look like digital ones. People usually strive for the exact opposite.</p>

<p>It depends on many factors, in fact, whether film or digital is better in a given situation. I'm perfectly aware that digital sensors beat film in certain ways for certain uses, but I maintain that 35 mm film (both colour and B&W, negative and reversal) offers some appreciable technical and artistic advantages over 35 mm digital sensors even in today's, mostly electronic world.<br>

We could talk about its dynamic range and non-linear response curve, or its colour gamut and resolving power with high-frequency, low-contrast detail (such as in foliage or grass, which tend to have the appearance of algal growths when shot digitally because Bayer digicams are no good at this at all). Or we may argue about the ability of film to handle very long exposures. But these are minor points of discussion.<br>

Most importantly, film is different in a whole bunch of qualities, not merely better in one or a few. For me, the main attraction of film is that it can deliver beautiful, unprocessed images literally out of the box. I believe every devoted photographer should shoot some film from time to time, as it brings variety and new qualities to one's work. I don't understand why people limit themselves to taking pictures with digital cameras only. Giving up film is such a shame.</p>