Farkle-Mpls

<p>Rick -- the Camranger looks pretty cool. Would it incorporate GPS information into the image when it was stored on the iPad/iPhone which was controlling the camera, taking location from the embedded GPS? It doesn't look like the Camranger itself incorporates a GPS antenna and the 7D doesn't have one of it's own.</p>

<p>I've two EOS 1v for film cameras and I've had to make myself NOT buy more 1vs just because I find a good bargain. There is the coolness of getting a professional model, "low mileage" camera for $400 but then there is the other part of my brain saying "Really? Do you think you're going to wear out two EOS 1v cameras? Why do you need a third, (fourth, fifth) ..."</p> <p>I know I'll find sympathy and camaraderie on this forum but none of us will really find answers because we're not really asking a question ...</p> <p>(And don't get me started on the sense of having <em>five</em> Leica film bodies.)</p>

<p>I know the name of the city was changed to HCMC but is it still popularly called Saigon? I did a double-take when I read that. Had to think about it for a few seconds. Kind of a fun mental "rediscovery".</p>

<p>I've had my 35mm ASPH 'cron for five years and the hood has never come off accidentally. There are pinch-fit tabs (spring-loaded, I think) which hold it in place. It should not fall off, in my experience. The rubber lens cover is another story though ... I order spares when I lose mine.</p>

<p>As much as I love the absurdity of releasing a completely manual camera -- and I mean that in the most affectionate terms -- is this anything different than my M4-P, except my M4-P has an additional socket for flash bulbs ...? I'm not talking cosmetics (brass top plate on M-A), I'm talking about functionality.</p>

<p>Oh boy. This discussion came up in the prior thread I referenced earlier. I made a commitment to the group to try it because that's what I thought some people wanted. I don't mean for it to be divisive I just thought some people wanted it and I wanted to help and was curious to explore the idea.</p> <p>However, the discussion is probably a healthy one (albeit one I thought we vetted in the earlier thread) so people should feel free to post their thoughts. Maybe a photo or two as well ;^)</p> <p>Alex -- what are you curious about in regards to the 21/4? The fact that Canon never made one? Ha. I was thinking on the Leica half of my brain (Cosina/Voigtlander makes one). That lens used was my trusty Canon FD 20/F2.8! Or maybe my FD 17/F4.0. Sorry, I do miss EXIF data at times like this. Let's just settle for "one of my really wide angle FD lenses." Thanks for the catch.</p>

<p>Rick -- I noticed that. And that's great news. But I promised on the thread I referred to earlier that I'd run the thread this month -- there seemed to be interest -- so I did as I said I'd do. </p>

<p>I'm with you JDM. My comments on this post pretty much line up my feelings on the idea:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00cnE6</p> <p>This will be the proverbial litmus test. If lots of people get energized and contribute, great. If not, this will be the one-and-only thread. Alex has a great thread with a lot of history and followers and if this effort is tried and falters, then the few that want the "purity" will have their answers on what the rest of the forum supporters want. </p> <p>Lastly, I've learned so much from Photo.Net in the past six or so years I've been active. Both from Canon FD and the Leica and Rangefinder forums. I feel I need to do something routinely which gives back some of my energy. This thread, if it's successful, is a way to do that. Ironic considering I was probably one of the early adopters of the "adapted" lens on MILC cameras with my NEX-7. </p> <p>We'll see how this goes. </p>

<p>Another shot from the same roll. Many of you have probably browsed these same halls (Bellagio, I think).</p><div></div>

<p>A few people have commented on the fact that some of the photos posted to Alex's POTM are taken on digital bodies using adapted lenses. I'd like to offer another POTM for those who want just photos taken on Canon FD bodies. I'm in no way wanting to compete with Alex's monthly offering; rather, for you who want to ensure there is a thread representing FD lenses on Canon FD bodies, here you are. </p> <p>I encourage you who have the equipment to contribute to BOTH threads. If this thread doesn't garner much interest, it won't be renewed so here's your chance to support "all FD" photos.</p> <p>I'll kick this off with a photo taken on an F1N (LA Olympics) with Ektar 100.</p><div></div>

<p>OK ... so I've been reading/learning on this forum for several years and perhaps it's time for me to step up and agree to contribute on a monthly basis. I have too many FD bodies which don't see enough use. It's a pretty low-risk venture to offer up a thread every month for people to post photos to: even with the caveats suggested.</p> <p>I really have no dog in this "digital-with-FD-lens vs. Canon FD body-with-FD-lens" fight but I do see this as an opportunity for me to make myself shoot more film on my FD bodies. Mine are great cameras -- most have been CLA'd over the past three years -- and I should shoot them more.</p> <p>SO ... Mark W is the moderator so I'll wait for his nod on this but starting Sept 1, I'd like to offer up a POTM with the stipulation that photos posted have to be shot on a Canon FD body with an FD lens. As there are many third-party lenses in the FD family, there is no stipulation the lens must be Canon branded.</p> <p>If the only photos posted are mine, well, there's your answer on the interest of a "pure" FD photo thread. No harm in trying.</p>

<p>Very nice work! I was going to ask what film + developer you used ... and then I noticed you had a NEX-7!</p> <p>I have the same lens -- very sharp. You've inspired me to shoot some B&W this weekend.</p>

<p>I've sold some FD lens on eBay while in one of my fits of downsizing. I have upwards of 40 FD lenses. I freely admit I don't use them all so I don't have a lot of hands-on time with each lens.</p> <p>I once sold a lens to a buyer who wasn't happy with it. There was slack in the focusing mechanism and I offered to pay his return postage. It was a very reasonable transaction both buying and returning. He understood I made a simple mistake and it cost him nothing. Further, we got to talking and I ended up buying a few FD items from him -- focusing screens I think -- and we had some very productive business transactions after that. My point is this: maybe the seller made a simple oversight. We don't get the advantage of meeting these people we deal with on eBay: all we have is the benefit of feedback, an item description, and the rest is trust. I think trust works best when everyone leads with the perspective that people are usually honest and mistakes get made. 350+ transactions on eBay and with one or two exceptions, that's been my experience.</p> <p>On the cost of repair, that should be the seller's choice. I had an EF 28-135 lens jam after three weeks of use. I told the seller I'd like it repaired, knowing the $150 lens was NOT worth the cost of repair. They politely offered me my money back. Fine. No harm, no foul. Not the way I would've wanted it but it wasn't unfair.</p> <p>I understand your frustration Bill and I do hope you're happy with your lens, even though it ended up costing you more than you had planned to spend.</p>

<p>Hi Emir,</p> <p>I find so many people in the Twin Cities contributing on PhotoNet but I never see any of them in any "Film Walks" that our studio hosts. Hopefully, some time we can meet.</p> <p>Thanks for your comments. Your experience is different in that you seem to be looking for good scanning options. Processing has always been fine for me but, I agree, scanning options seem limited in this area. I do my own scanning (never satisfied though) so I'll take your advise if I need some good quality scans.</p>

I (via Gus) sent my M7 in for service to Leica NJ as well (it had been dropped and the rewind crack was a little wonky). I also wanted the ISO sensor converted to optical. For about the same price, they did all that service and also replaced all the body skin. The skin was a bit of a surprise as I hadn't noticed any issue with it.

JDM -- another vote for Steve. I had him CLA two of my T90s about 18 months ago. He even cleaned the cases of both cameras so they not only functioned like new, they looked new! One (perhaps) useful tidbit: as I develop much of my own film, I had Steve set up both T90s to leave the film leader out of canister when it rewould the film.

<p>Chris,</p> <p>Search this forum and you'll find a lot of responses for questions like you pose but here is what comes to mind at this late hour. Likely others will add some more:</p> <ul> <li>Rangefinder accuracy -- when the lens is at infinity, does your rangefinder split-image also show distant objects aligned?</li> <li>Are the horizontal and vertical images in the rangefinder aligned? This often gets out of adjustment with the bumps and knocks a camera can accumulate over the years.</li> <li>Shutter speeds: do they sound reasonably accurate? Particularly the slower speeds. Remember those speeds are important as you can hand hold those small bodies down to 1/8 or even 1/4 second (particularly at 18 years old, you still have good muscle control).</li> <li>Does it have a take up reel inside the body (for the film to wind on as it's shot). It should be spring loaded for Canon bottom loaders.</li> <li>Check other obvious stuff: the prism magnifier thingy on the left side will flip around and show you appropriate image magnification (a wonderful feature!)</li> <li>Shutter curtains: are they smooth or wrinkly? Can you shoot a roll of film to make sure they are light tight and also to test shutter speeds?</li> <li>Make sure film winding is smooth and reasonably easy to turn.</li> </ul> <p>I've probably forgotten many things but that's a start.</p>

<p>Chris --</p> <p>First, welcome! I'm glad you found this forum. I have many Canon RFs (a couple of them are the very nice IVSB2 model you're looking at) and they are quite fun to kick around with. </p> <p>Practical advice: expect to pay for a CLA (clean, lube, adjust) on any vintage camera you buy UNLESS the owner can show you PROOF of service from a qualified technician. A CLA can run from $150-$275, depending on the person doing the service.</p> <p>The 50/F1.8 is a great lens and no worries about the infinity stop.</p> <p>In regards to price, unless it's been serviced, I think you're overpaying. Not by a lot, but consider you will likely have to drop $250 or so on top of your current outlay for a CLA. I'd offer $125-$150 less than asking for that reason.</p> <p>Good luck and I hope it works out.</p>

<p>Fred -- Hacking was developed primarily for military use to coordinate the setting of (mechanical) watches to the second. Usually done by pulling the crown out and stopping the escapement.</p> <p>I collect vintage watches and while almost all newer movements support hacking, most of my older ones don't. I have a wonderful little Longines from 1939 with a 10L movement which was their military-spec movement sold to a civilian market. That one hacks.</p>

<p>Christopher Junker -- you can't turn on/off any mechanical watch! (Well, except one of the complications on the watch may be able to be turned on or off, like an alarm or chronograph.) The mainspring provides power ... which was my point.</p> <p>Same with any mechanical camera which is why the question is moot: we're talking about a different topic (switching on/off a mechanical device vs. switching on/off an electronic device, which is what the quoted article is talking about). Do we have to "shut off" the spring which powers the shutter? OK ... let me trip the shutter. Oh wait, there's still tension on the spring so there is still stored energy in the mechanism. Oh TSA, what do I do now?</p> <p>As for fogging of film, there is a plethora of posts regarding that topic elsewhere on PNet. Do a search and you will find unending amounts of information.</p>

The original post is moot. The title of the article indicates only that electronic devices are impacted by this ruling. An M3 isn't electronic. To that same point, do they want me to power on/off my mechanical watch?

<p>Dave (Prince),</p> <p>Both Fast Foto and Nat Cam send E6 to The Camera Shop in St. Cloud. Nat Cam gets daily drop off and pick up and Fast Foto was once a week, last time I asked. Use National or send it directly to The Camera Shop (TCS).</p> <p>http://www.thecamerashop.com/imagecenter/slides.html</p> <p>TCS cuts Nat Cam a price break so I don't believe it is any cheaper to do business with them directly AND if you use Nat Cam, there is obviously no postage charge (they use St. Cloud-based Spee-Dee for courier service).</p> <p>So, based on my experience: <br> C41 + scans: Fast Foto<br> E6: Nat Cam (turn around is a week) ... TCS via Nat Cam offers scanning options as well</p> <p>Although you didn't ask, if you want <em><strong>cheap and reasonably good, quick C41 processing and scans</strong></em><strong> </strong>use Walgreens at 50th and France in Edina. Seriously, I've had them do over a two hundred rolls of C41 for me in the past 5 years and they've never screwed one up. I have standing directives to them not to cut my negatives too. This is your "good enough" option -- not professional -- use Fast Foto for that.</p>

Dave, I've had pretty questionable experiences with Nat Cam and C-41, at least on their Edina processor. They can turn around E6 by sending it out to St. Cloud, in about a week -- good processing done there. If you're near Edina, Fast Foto on France Ave does good work, esp with scanning, on C-41. I think everone sends their B&W out to Lindhoff.

<p>And Jay, yes, Ken absolutely rocks and I also would recommend him without reservation. I need to send him another F1. Maybe I'll do that this week yet.</p>

<p>A footnote on my Feb 19th posting: KEH did fix the problem I had identified with the camera (the light meter) but I was disappointed that they didn't convert the light meter to 1.5v as I had politely asked them to do. I had also offered to pay. They didn't respond at all -- yes or no -- to my request for the voltage conversion. </p> <p>The camera does work though and I'm happy with it so, ultimately, they fixed what they were required by warranty to repair.</p>