bob_miller4
-
Posts
435 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by bob_miller4
-
-
<p>All the Vivitar macro 2X teleconverters with the close focusing ring are multicoated, regardless of mount.</p>
<p>By the way, I've thought of one potential reason why a new FD lens can occasionally be hard to mount onto an FD teleconverter.<br>
The mounting flange on the teleconverter that faces the back of the lens to be mounted on it has a small groove at the top. (just like the groove on the camera body's flange) The breech lock FD lenses have a round pin that fits into the groove. However, I recall that the new FD lenses have a squared off pin instead that should fit into the groove but might not, if the groove is too snug.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Vivitar sold an excellent multicoated Macro Focusing 2X Teleconverter in Canon FD mount, made by Kino Precision Industries (remember their Kiron products?). Good to like-new used examples are available cheaply online. It's basically a well-corrected 2X with its own focusing ring for "macro".<br /> Here's more from an earlier discussion (there have been several) on this forum:<br /> http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00YBjE<br /> I have had no trouble using this with a New FD normal lens on an A series camera body.</p>
-
<p>Meter battery placement in the Spotmatic series was poorly thought out. Many bodies now have battery compartment covers frozen in place by corrosion from old batteries. Canon mechanical SLRs were much better in this regard.</p>
-
<p>Vodka works on magic marker stains on hard surfaces. Maybe it removes sticker residue, too.</p>
-
<p>I have a theory that goes like this:<br /> A number of lens manufacturers, Asahi for example, produced SLR lens designs for a time that included rare earth compounds in the glass. Certain examples of certain lens designs give off enough radiation to cause yellowing or read high on a radiation meter, while other examples of the same designs do not. Why?...<br /> ...If the glass contained some thorium oxide by design, in a fixed proportion to the other ingredients, all lenses of a given design made with that glass should show the same telltale signs of radioactivity.<br /> But what if the thorium oxide in it was only an incidental impurity more present in some batches of a rare earth compound than in others, because of lot-to-lot purity variations in a raw material? Or possibly the raw material sources changed over time, or there was some alternation among different sources depending on cost and availability. You could then have lookalike lenses varying significantly in radioactivity.<br /> Someone familiar with Japanese lens-making in that era might be able to support or refute this.<br /> I worked for companies that made partially stabilized zirconium oxide powders that were plasma sprayed to create thermal barrier coatings on jet engine turbine blades. It was known that some zirconium oxide raw materials contained more residual radioactive oxide impurities than others, depending on the original sources of the ore, subsequent purification steps, etc.</p>
-
<p>The eBay seller of the 244T gave me a full refund after I alerted him to the problem. I've since ordered a 277T from KEH.</p>
-
<p>Maybe it is the flash, because meanwhile I tried something else---using it on a Canon AV-1 camera. On the AV-1 the 244T flash showed the same general type of alternating good-bad behavior I noted above.</p>
-
<p>A riddle maybe you can solve:<br>
<br />I recently bought a used Canon T70 camera body (from KEH in their excellent condition, looks pristine) and separately a Canon 244T Speedlite flash (from a private seller, this looks pristine, too). Yes, I know that the 277T was designed for the T70, but its fewer-featured buddy, the 244T, is also OK per the T70 manual.<br />So, after putting new batteries in each (AA type, Energizer Advanced Lithium), I first checked out the T70 and all functions looked OK. The 400 speed film loaded OK. Then I mounted the 244T flash and turned it on.<br>
<br />PART A (Good):<br />I used the Program mode with the FD type lens' aperture ring set to A. As expected, depressing the shutter release button partway displayed in the viewfinder the lightning bolt symbol for flash and the aperture the automation chose. Pushing the button further set off the shutter and flash normally, and the film advanced. Cool, so far!<br>
<br />PART B (Bad):<br />I then gave the flash time to recover (its indicator light went on) and I went to do the next shot. This time, the flash symbol did not appear in the viewfinder, only the blinking P that normally means the flash wasn't there or wasn't on. The shutter went off as if there was no flash, and the flash didn't go off.<br>
<br />PARTS C, etc.:<br />So I switched the flash off and back on as it remained mounted on the camera. Now the flash symbol returned to the viewfinder when it should have and the flash went off when it should have. Just as it did in Part A. But the next shot was like Part B. After more repetitions it became clear that only switching the flash off and on made it display right and work right. The same was true when I tried ordinary alkaline AA batteries in the flash.<br>
<br />SO---what's the explanation and the cure? (Note that all contacts were clean). Thanks!</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Has the gear upgrade improved the images noticeably?</p>
-
<p>I've used synthetic clothesline looped through the camera body's triangular lugs to make a double strand. Not elegant, but effective. <br>
I tried once to use an old silk tie, but it snapped, sending the camera to the asphalt pavement of a parking lot. Since this was late 1960's Canon SLR equipment, everything continued to work as it had before the disaster. </p>
-
<p>Tokina made this lens and also made other versions for distributors such as Hanimex that differ only in some cosmetic details. It's a nice lens!</p>
<p>See:<br>
-
<p>The Canon FL 50mm/1.8 lens had its front element more recessed than does any FD variant. This version works well for me without a lens hood:<br>
In the link you can see the chrome A-M pin which easily switches the mounted lens to manual operation of the aperture. This is handy when the lens is mounted on a non-FL/FD camera (such as a digital SLR) using an adapter or extension tube.</p>
-
<p>If no one assigned any value to these kinds of details, no one would bother to invent them. The market will decide how dumb it wants to be.</p>
-
<p>Here's what I think I know:</p>
<p>The DX has a barrel holding the glass elements that extends further back into the camera than we see for most M42 lenses. This was OK for the early Yashica SLR designs, but the rear of the barrel could block the path of the reflex mirror in later Yashica SLR's and in non-Yashica M42 mount SLR's or digital SLR's. The newer DS optical design kept that barrel clear of all M42 mount camera mirrors.<br>
In addition, the DS lens has enough radioactive thorium oxide in some of its glass elements to yellow the glass over time. It's like a similar situation with the Asahi Super (and Super Multi-Coated) Takumar 50mm/1.4 lens. There are forms of UV exposure that remove the yellow.</p>
<p>Also, the DX has a tab to switch between manual and automatic aperture operation, while the DS does not.</p>
-
<p>Did any rogue drugstore employee ever slash at your negatives with Occam's razor?</p>
-
<p>There is a Mirror Box 2 for the Canon 7 series that allows mounting of special short-mount breechlock telephoto lenses for reflex viewing:<br>
<a href="http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_MB2.html">http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_MB2.html</a><br>
These are the two M lenses designed for the mirror box:<br>
I have the M135mm/2.5 lens. With a 25mm long FL or FD extension ring (or "life-size adapter"), it focuses not quite to infinity when mounted on a Canon SLR camera body that takes FL or FD lenses.</p>
-
<p>Yours is a Sonnar-like optical design also used in later Canon SLR lenses. You'll love the photo quality!<br>
See info below from Canon Museum website, in order of release date:<br>
1. R breechlock mount versions (one is like yours) with 10-blade diaphragm:<br>
2. FL breechlock mount version with 8-blade diaphragm:<br>
3. FD breechlock mount, chrome nose version, with 8-blade diaphragm:<br>
4. FD S.C. breechlock mount version with 8-blade diaphragm:<br>
5. These later versions had a different optical design and a 6-blade diaphragm:<br>
FD S.C. breechlock mount<br>
New FD quasi-bayonet mount<br>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Mark, what tech would you recommend in the Midwest (such as Indiana) ?</p>
-
<p>Michael,<br /> <br /> Yesterday I shot over 48 pictures with the same camera and flash. Of these, only four (two well-separated groups of two), showed the dark band. No squeal was heard. Per the flash instructions, I left the lens aperture at 8 and let the thyristor adjust the exposure, which it did well in three of the pictures with dark band (in the fourth, a foreground object made the flash cut off too quickly, so there was underexposure of the main subject).<br />I could see some highlight detail in the dark band, sometimes evenly across the width of the band.<br /> I also shot over 20 pictures with the same camera and no flash, using the aperture priority shutter automation, and no dark bands appeared on any of these.<br /> Could your hypothesis account for the above and also the intermittent nature of the problem?</p>
-
<p>Gordon,<br>
I was using a 35-105mm zoom and I had considered the possibility that the flash only properly covered focal lengths longer than 35mm (or whatever). But this raised questions: <br>
1. Wouldn't the light intensity fall off gradually outside the flash's "good zone", as opposed to very abruptly? With 28mm lenses, I've used flashes meant for higher focal lengths, but still got a decent amount of light along the edges.<br>
2. Why would the black stripe be only on one side of the frame, and consistently on the same side? </p>
-
<p>Yesterday, I shot some photos with a Canon AV-1 camera with an old Vivitar thyristor flash mounted on the hot shoe. The shutter was set to 1/60 sec for flash. A few of the pictures had a mainly black stripe at one end of the frame, but most were perfect. Where the pictures were shot in landscape mode (horizontal). the stripe was at the left end of the print. Within the stripes, some highlights could be seen, as if the shutter was open but the extra light from the flash was absent. Does this sound like a flash synchronization issue associated with either the flash unit or the hot shoe connection? Thanks for your guidance!</p>
-
<p>Carlton Willey was later a NY Met, and was pretty good for a while.</p>
-
<p>The A-M ring makes the lens easy to use with manual aperture (M) when there is non-FL, non-FD hardware between the lens and camera body. <br>
This lens also has enough flare protection for the recessed front element, so it doesn't really need a lens hood when no filter is mounted.</p>
-
<p>Another, often successful, approach is to use the affected lens as if there was no fungus. If you can't see the effect of the evil cooties on the picture, they might not be worth exorcising. </p>
<p>I challenge anyone to show an example of fungus spreading to nearby lenses when the lenses are properly stored at low humidity, etc.</p>
Presenting the Penta J
in Classic Manual Film Cameras
Posted