Niels - NHSN

The camera shop I help out with checking used film cameras, frequently get nice looking Canon 5D and 5D MKII as trade-ins which are subsequently "given away" for around €150 and €250 respectively. Those are excellent cameras with a long life left as you probably know. I imagine the pricing should be similar in the Netherlands. Nikons older high end models like D300 or preferably D700 would be my preference because they accommodate all the wonderful AI manual focus lenses, as well as the cheap screwdriver AF and also the newest types - but that is just me because I have a large selection of manual fokus Nikon glass - it is unlikely to apply to your friend. Both systems have a huge number of third party lens and flash options that sells for close to nothing. Sorry to hear about the E-500. I owned one for a few years and rather enjoyed the qualities of the Kodak CCD sensor. It didn't go bad on me, but I sold it because the 4/3 system became a dead end when m4/3 was announced.

Thanks, James. Yes - it is in better condition than I normally experience. In recent years I’ve developed a liking for Nikon cameras with pre-AI compatibility. I love that I can use all non-Ai and prong Ai/S lenses - which are the ones I love the most. — And pre-Ai lenses are unreasonably plentiful and cheap at the moment.

Nikon F2 Photomic Black (1973) w. Nikkor-N•C Auto 24mm f/2.8 (1973) and Nikon AR-1 soft release. I will exercise this new-to-me pristine black F2 over the weekend. The camera body is replacing one I owned which had the annoying ring sound post exposure: A high pitched ringing sound caused by a spring resonating against the mirror box - quite common - which you cannot un-hear once it gets into your brain. Film is ImagePro 100. Lens is an old friend. Soft release came with the camera.

Great photo!

Approved 😄 Looks very authentic and vintage - nothing like my practice of using Dymo - of course my film holders are not as old as yours. What film do you load into the Graflex? True. I can't put everything I get to good personal use, so some things are quickly passed on to somebody who shows genuine curiosity for film photography - after I have established that it works as intended. And not all cameras I show in this thread are my own. I help out in a local camera store checking the used film cameras they often receive. Sometimes a camera needs to have a film run through it to completely make sure it works, which I normally do on weekends - perfect for this thread, sometimes I just borrow a camera or lens for the weekend to see if I like it.

The Retina 1 above did not check out, unfortunately. A few aperture blades were stuck in the center of the lens. By chance I got a 1a (1949-50) the other day, so I’ll give Retina another chance to sway me 😉

I admire your curiosity. I wish I had the time and energy to play around like that. I’ll do as @stuart_pratt - stick to the more conventional process for now, but thanks for sharing!

Very good idea if you have the goggles - I assume they must hold light tight around the eyes, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense. Anyway, I don't use the clip in the center of my 120 steel reels - they make more mess than good. I place my thumb on the end of the film and roll until the thumb is in the way, from there there is enough resistance to continue rolling the film onto the reel. This works well for me on 120 Hewes and Kindermann reels. I actually find it easier to roll 120 than 35 now after applying above method.

Here’s a discussion about the phenomenon related to Kodak. Similar problems were seen at Ilford (probably same backing paper manufacturer?). It resulted in changes to backing paper printing etc. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-120-film-backing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/ The 120 customers using folders are probably a minority.

There was a lot of complaints about faint imprint of frame numbers onto 120 film a few years back. As I understand, it was mostly applicable to expired film and was observed on both Kodak and Ilford products. Both manufacturers reduced the amount of ink used as a consequence.

I think that depends on the individual sample and how it was treated during the past half century or longer. Both manufactures made excellent cameras but also catering to a wide range of users with different pocket depth. For example; a Zeiss Ikon entry level camera I recently held (BOB 6x9) seemed a little flimsy in its folding/unfolding action while others I have handled felt more substantial. It is also worth keeping in mind that the results from these cameras were mostly just contact printed, so the requirements for precision were not as high as say a Rolleiflex/Hasselblad or the 1970's Fujica 6X9s. I have had a few folders over the years but mostly stop using them after a short while when the novelty wears off. The results are rarely as good as I expected. I suspect it is more often film flatness that causes problems rather than front standard parallelism, but I have admittedly not given it too much thought or attention.

Conversation in Botanical Garden, Copenhagen. iPhone 14 Pro Max

Creative naming: ELINAR - almost looks like ELMAR 😆

Shame not more members are posting to this thread these days 😢 I enjoy hearing what folks are up to. This weekend my black Nikkormat FTN will see some use with a 50mm f/1.2 AI-S. I am using Kodak ImagePro 100 hoping I can find some deep shade and shoot wide open in a nearby botanical garden. I have had the lens since May, but have yet to fully explore how things looks at f/1.2. The hood is a HN-3 intended for 35mm lenses, but used here primarily for impact protection and less for light protection. The correct hood is a HS-12 snap-on which is quite bulky and is only in use when I record video with this lens. The meter in the camera requires 1.35V to operate correctly, so I use a Kanto Camera MR-9 adapter that converts a 1.55V SR-43 to the correct current. It works very well.

I try to find a setup on my digital camera as close to my preferences so I can make do with the Jpeg and can avoid wasting time in front of a computer screen messing with the raw file. imperfection is increasingly a quality in an AI world.

Any lens where you manually/mechanically can control aperture and focus will have a future - one way or the other. Focus-by-wire and electronically governed aperture is less likely to have a future beyond their native mount. I am sure the lovely 135mm DC can outlast you.

Probably not, but no need to sell before you have verified. I never found 28 and 35 to be too close to disqualify owning both, although I may not have both in my bag at the same time.

Was he a photographer?

Over time I have amassed two Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5 samples. They are wonderfully tiny and characterful but the LTM ergonomics are also very quirky. I don’t need two. They are only 4 years apart (1950 vs 1954) supposedly same optical design, but I imagine my two lenses may have some sample variation - they are handmade after all. I have never really checked carefully. This weekend I hope to make some A-B comparisons to see if I prefer one over the other. Below is my Leica IIIG (1957) with the newer Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5 (1954) and a Leitz VIOOH finder (1950s) loaded with HP5+ rolled into a Leitz FILCA brass cassette. The hood is not original. I own an original FOOKH hood, but the current ridiculous value makes me overly nervous when using it. The one I use is a knockoff I found on Amazon and besides being cheap it is also better made than the Leitz version.

When one is concerned with storage, preservation and longevity, it is advisable to consult some of the many excellent sources offered by museums and universities on the internet. Or use materials that has proven non-destructive over time. The history of camera manufacture also reflects some of the learnings. Organic derived materials used for lubrication, gluing optical components and lens assembly have proven to be problematic due to yellowing, hardening, evaporation and have been replaced with synthetic alternatives with improved properties. The use of shock protective foam around pentaprisms turned out to corrode the mirror surfaces with time, and lacking alternative foam materials the manufactures placed plastic buffers to protect the silvered surface from the ill effect of the foam. In later years products are not really produced with a long life in mind it seems. The manufactures don't seem to care much, unless the ill effects could happen within their responsibility of the warranty period. One example that is beyond me: The rubber material Nikon used on their AI/AIS lenses produced between since 1974 and 2020 has lasted up to 50 years without issues, yet the rubber material Nikon uses to improve the grip on their cameras since the 90's goes sticky and gross after 5-10 years - and seemingly still does. How hard is it to learn from this?

Already weekend again! A friend was about to throw this Kodak Retina 1 camera out. At first I wasn't interested as it is fairly worn and corroded, is modified with a wonky looking accessory shoe and isn't a camera with any particularly interesting features. Besides, I can't save every camera friends and acquaintances want to dump on me. However, a little internet searching revealed that Magnum photographer David Hurn used this exact model during his early career and was his first camera: https://youtu.be/7aSxWBVVbTc Why not try it out then? If it checks out with the roll of ProImage 100 I have loaded, I may try to clean it up and make it a little more presentable. Kodak Retina I (Type 149) 1939-1940.

The Flickr share link from your previous post. I use Safari/Mac. You sometimes have to wait a few seconds for the photo.net software to parse the link and show the picture.

It is not. If you read through the thread you'll get a hint of the culprit. Silica Gel has be used for ages in close contact with electronics and optics without issues. Here's some sewn fabric pouches from Nikon in the early 60's: On the package put on the lens in the above mentioned thread; there is no mention of Silica Gel. If you follow the link to wikipedia further down the thread, you'll see that "desiccants" covers all kinds of chemical substances.

That particular linked warning is based on stupidity of the third degree from someone who should know better. I wish moderators would change his title as he is obviously NOT using Silica Gel that damaged his camera.

Keep them in an environment with moderate to low humidity and dust free air circulation (not a ventilator, just naturally slow moving air). or if humidity is a problem, consider a dry cabinet or dry box made for photo storage. I have a dry cabinet I bought when I lived in Japan. I still use it and it is very convenient. Given the value of my lenses, I don't think it is an outrageous expense - even if one don't live in very humid place like Japan. Don't put your lenses in closed ziplocks unless you include fresh silica gel pouches.