Niels - NHSN

Great to hear that! It warms my heart when old well made things can be repaired for a second life. Often the deciding factor against using local competent craft people (as opposed to buying new from dubious sources on the other side of the globe) is the price, but obviously not in this case: win-win 🙂

Always nice when people come back with updates. Thanks. The photo of the light certainly look much better now. It also appears to be in focus. If there was an issue with the lens reassembly I'd expect to see it in both shots? Have you done an infinity test with your new focusing screen?

Thanks @argh How about taking up photography as a hobby and hang out here in your spare time?

Contax IIIa w. Sonnar 50mm 1.5 (circa 1955) It has been a while since this one was out last. This weekend is cloudy and dark and calls for a fast lens. There's still some pleasing fall colours around so I have loaded it with a roll of Fuji Superia X-tra 400. According to this: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_serial_numbers , the lens would be from around 1955, and I would expect the camera and lens were sold together. I don't know if the aluminium hood is contemporary with the camera, I got it in a separate purchase, but it says Carl Zeiss and fits.

@William Michael I know the owners appears not to care, but as moderator, don't you have a lifeline to anyone in the back office that could show a little mercy? One can't expect users to ignore their browser security warnings to visit photo.net. It is unbearable to see this once great site suffocate from lack of update of a measly certificate.

Leica IA (1930) w. FODIS rangefinder (1925-1929). Black paint and nickel hardware. I finally found a IA in good original condition with a reasonable pricetag. This represents the DNA and origin of 35mm film photography as we know it. Although the rangefinder fits in the accessory shoe, I suspect it was normally kept in the pocket and taken out when necessary - rather than inconveniently mounted like shown below. The camera is completely serviceable despite its age of 90+ years and as I plan to use it, I will test if it needs service - I expect it will. I have loaded a FILCA film cartridge with HP5+ for the weekend.

You can still get batteries for your DSLR as is apparent from the link. The politicians gave ample warning, and some manufacturers may have chosen not to adapt - if only for some arcane product groups in their portfolio, and DSLRs may considered as such for some manufacturers. If manufacturers don’t wish to adapt their products to environmental regulations, it’s a matter affecting them and potentially their customer loyalty, i.e. If DSLRs are killed, the manufacturer chose to kill them - take your future business elsewhere. I for one am happy when our politicians steps in where the industry can’t figure out to make reasonable standards by themselves. Had the industry agreed on standards by themselves, regulations wouldn’t have been necessary.

Nikon FE (1980) & Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8 - later model with “AIS look” I have a weak point for distressed Nikon FEs like this, which I was recently gifted. The FE was my first SLR and I naturally have a sentimental relationship with the camera and not least the user experience which I have never found better in an SLR. This one needed a bit of battery chamber cleaning, new light seals, new mirror bumper and some exercise. I hope it checks out with film. I will use a partially exposed roll of Fujifilm C200 that was in the camera when I got it. Magpie included for size. 😉

Where I live Gold 200 is about 25-30% cheaper than Portra 160. Haven’t checked Portra 400.

I usually give an old leather strap (with potential) a thorough leather oil treatment to make sure the the fibers are flexible and don’t crack when bent. As I said earlier, a saddler will be able to replace the leather so you can continue using the original clips.

"Messing around" is sometimes all it takes. Great find. Film photography may have become expensive when looking at film/processing prices, but as you have just shown; great equipment can be found for close to nothing - if avoiding those things that have caught the hipster's attention.

I have now posted examples here:

@stephen_mcateer I just posted a thread with examples from the affected Rolleiflex with separation. It does seem to perform quite good in the situations I choose to photograph:

I thought others here might find the results below interesting. And I would be interested in hearing your experiences with the effects of lens separations, should you have any such first hand. I had an opportunity to borrow a Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 with a Carl Zeiss Planar lens suffering from servere separation in the front group - probably covering 50% of the inner surface area. I was curious to see how or if it would affect the results, primarily sparked by some individuals who claimed the camera only had value as a parts source. I informally ran a roll of Kodak Gold 200 through the camera. Deliberately trying to challenge the lens for potential flare faults - including dominant bright areas of light as well as shots wide open to make sure the edges of the lens where in play. A click on the image will take you to a larger version on Flickr. Scans are all as they came to me from the lab - no additional processing on my end. The Camera: The separation can be difficult to see but appear to be covering about 50% running along the edges: Example photos 1/15 f3.5 Table top tripod, Kodak Gold 200: 1/250 f8 Handheld, Kodak Gold 200: 1/500 f8 Handheld, Kodak Gold 200: 1/250 f/3.5 Handheld, Kodak Gold 200: 1/250 f5.6 Handheld, Kodak Gold 200: 1/125 f8 Handheld, Kodak Gold 200 To my eyes, this is a very useable camera.

The scissor-connector is a very clever design. The leather is more likely the potential culprit, especially if it is the original 40-60 years old strap. A saddler should be able to replace the leather if you have concerns. On the other hand, any strap that you can fit through the space of the "scissors lug" will be perfectly fine. I used a simple Nikon nylon strap on my 3.5T during the first couple of years. I do love the ease of removal the scissors allows and I have not had reason to doubt their durability.

I am checking this new-to-me combo to see if there is a need for an overhaul. A Leica IIIC (1950) which has been factory converted to a model IIIF (BD) at some point. A Visoflex II unit with an Elmar 65mm f3.5. The focusing unit behind the Elmar lens-head accepts other Leica lens heads, for example my Elmarit 90mm/2.8 but today I will only use the 65mm. I will use HP5+ in hope to have enough light to check the faster speeds, as they are often the weak point. @arthur_mcculloch2 I have received the film back. There is no obvious problems to my eye. I tried to include a lot of light and backlit situations. I will post the results in another thread soon and tag you.

I feel your pain. I don’t have the patience to work with film scanners anymore. I make do with camera scanning now. An old slide copier bellows and a good macro lens allows for quick scanning.

What exactly do you mean by "manual" development? Fotoimpex processing is, to my knowledge, standard machine processing. Which country in EU does not have any E6 labs?

I will be using this borrowed Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 with separation in the taking lens. It is mostly out of curiosity; to find out if and how this defect affects the images. From the outside it is almost impossible to notice unless you know it is there, but at some angles it becomes very visible - it makes me wonder how it may affect the photographs. I will use Kodak Gold 200 and try some difficult light situations.

Another silica gel pouch. This one survived from a Mamiya M645 1000s (1980’s). I don’t think manufactures put branding on their pouches anymore?

Without batteries the mirror should lock up on any speed, block the shutter and further advance - and should be released only when set to B. If it is behaving differently, it is not a battery issue but a mechanical malfunction.

Olympus XA (1979-1985) I have a soft spot for compact 35mm cameras, yet this is the first time I try a camera from the Olympus XA series. First impression is ambivalent. Focus throw is ultra short and the focusing lever is not exactly ergonomically designed for eye level operation. It also has a very short rangefinder base-length so I wouldn't expect critical focus from this setup. The scale focus on the XA4 with its 28mm would probably be more to my preference, but I have never seen one of those. However, If you set the XA to f/5.6 and 3m (both marked on the scales) you'll have sufficient DOF in most situations to just point-and-shot. I do like the size, and the fact that you have full knowledge of both aperture and the AE choice of shutter speed. It is also nice to have the ability to compensate for backlit situations. The pressure required on the shutter release is feather light, mostly in a good way. Compacts originating in the 70's often had very long shutter release travel to accommodate the automation. What is not so nice is the lack of tactile confirmation when your finger touches the shutter button area. I have wasted a couple of shots while fumbling for the right location while composing a picture - but that may just be a matter of practice. It is easy to understand why this camera see so much love on the internet. Film is HP5+.

Not all lens elements in your lens are cemented together. You can clean the glass surfaces that faces air if you disassemble the lens. This is the schematics from the original planar patent. You'll notice 2 groups of 2 lenses are glued together. Those are the problematic surfaces in case of separation or haze. You can theoretically de-cement lenses and re-cement them, but it is rarely economically viable. All the other surfaces can normally be cleaned.

I may have a chance to shoot with the mentioned 3.5E2 in the near future as I am a little curious as to what effect the separation may have. If I do, I will report here. Normally separation is not too hard to spot, but in this case it almost looked like regular glass coating coming from the edges towards the center. It was the faintly defined edge where the separation stopped that gave the flaw away. On closer inspection one could also see the separation had a slightly shifting color not unlike that of oil on water. In this case separation occurred inside the group in front of the shutter and covered about 60-70% of the surface.

<Correction to my posts above: My cable is an SC-17 not SC-24 - just for completeness> 🙂 Just a status: The idea of using the bulky SB-5000 as on-camera blind controller of the SB-700 kind of defied the purpose of improved mobility when shooting with one flash as light source over the SC-17 cable solution anyway - so I dropped that approach before trying to see if it is even do-able reversing the units. I had no intentions of buying a wireless radio unit but as chance would have it, a discontinued NOS wireless WR-10 kit appeared in my local camera shop at a very good price. It was very difficult for me to find reliable information if the WR-R10 radio trigger unit would even work with a Z6ii, I think the kit was discontinued before the camera was released, but the shop allowed me to try it out at home before committing (I feel so privileged to still have a brick and mortar shop nearby!). It turned out to work like a charm; at least for flash control of the SB-5000 - I haven't tested the included WR-T10 remote because I'd probably use Snapbridge if I need that functionality, as the APP is more versatile. Only thing that bothers me is the awkward location of the transmitter - I would much have preferred it to be located in the accessory shoe, but one can't have it all and be cheap at the same time 😉 I'll have to tape it to the camera if going outside - otherwise it is bound to get lost. The included 10pin adapter would have provided a much more reliable attachment on the front - if only my camera had supported that connection method. Anyway, @ilkka_nissila thanks for your input and seeding the idea of radion wireless.