mwmcbroom

I'm intrigued by this, being an x-IVsb owner, and as I mentioned above, an owner of a IIIa, which is the same as the IVsb except without the flash rail. But now I'm curious. Can you tell me what the differences are between the IVsb and the IVsb2?

 

Ah, I just googled it. Apparently the IVsb2 has both bulb and x-sync? One of the things I like about my IIIa is the bulb and x-sync aftermarket installation on my camera. There's a sticker on the baseplate, explaining how to use it, from International Camera Corp in Chicago, which is still in business.

 

Nice set of lenses you have. I'd love to get a 25mm some day. Having a 50/1.4 and/or a 50/1.2 would be nice, too.

This camera has a rapid winder on it...before I waste more film, I'm wondering if the problem could be in the rapid winder and not in the film advance mechanism, per se. Specifically, is it possible that the rapid winder is advancing enough to cock the shutter, but not advancing the film I'll the way?

 

My apologies, I should have read your post more closely. Perhaps you've tried it by now anyway. I just took out my IIIa again to see if the shutter would trip without the film being wound all the way. Turns out, mine does fire the shutter. But, interestingly enough, I had it set to the slow speed dial, and I had the dial set to one second. When I tripped the shutter, it went very fast. Sounded closer to 1/1000 sec. So I moved it from the slow speed dial, but I selected 1/40 so I could hear both shutter curtains. Wound it to within a couple of frames on the counter to where it should be, and fired it. Same thing again. Sounded like 1/1000. So, yeah, chances are your camera will behave similarly, but your premature exposures are limited by the fast shutter speed and available light. Also, if the winder is falling short in its winding, the frame counter should show this, plus the wind knob should still have some take-up slack left. Although the winder probably locks down that shaft.

Cool. Well, now that the weekend has passed, I hope you had fun! What lenses do you have for your Canon RFs?

I started out using Epson Scan software with my first Epson flatbed, a model 3170. Then I moved up a bit and bought what was the top of the line at the time -- the 4990. And I still continued to use Epson Scan. I tried a demo copy of Silverfast and hated it. It was totally non-intuitive and I didn't feel like having to learn it. I also tried VueScan and didn't care for it either. There was a problem I ran into that I couldn't figure out a way around. I think it was being able to set different exposure profiles for each slide or negative that was in the batch. I don't remember specifically anymore. But Epson Scan has done everything I've needed it to do, so in the immortal words of old seeds everywhere: If it ain't broke, why fix it?

I would definitely try it out without that rapid winder first.

 

I'm looking at my IIIa right now, which is identical to the IV SB except it does not have the flash rail. I note that the frame counter is part of the knob that you use to wind on the film. Is your frame counter staying aligned with the proper pic as you're shooting? I'm just guessing here, but it seems like if your camera is stopping short of its intended position, it might be reflected in the counter. This is really just a guess, though. Make sure that little lever with R<->A under it is set all the way to A.

 

You might try doing a search on the Classic Camera Repair Forum archive and see if there's anything stored there that might help you:

Topics - The Classic Camera Repair Forum

 

I miss that forum.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ben on the Canon outfit reviewed. The IV was, in fact, my first interchangeable lens rangefinder. Well, to be more precise, mine was the IVsb, of which Canon made lots. It's probably the most common LTM Canon found these days. I bought mine from a pawn shop back in about 1983. Paid $75 for it. It came with a Kyoei Super Acall 135mm f/3.5 lens and that was it. I picked up a chrome 50mm f/1.8 for it at a camera show about a year later. It was cheap. Back then, Canon rangefinders still were not very highly thought of within the greater photo community. I can recall, back when I first started operating as a camera dealer back in 1989, I bought a 50mm f/0.95 for not much money and sold it for not much. 50mm f/1.2s -- couldn't get more than about $70 for one of 'em. The more common bodies often sold for less than $100. But the Hansa was already legendary, although nobody I knew ever had one either in their personal collections or for sale.

 

I sold my IVsb during a time of too much gear and not enough $$$. But I couldn't stay away from Canon LTM cameras. These days I have two IIIa models, one standard, and another one that had X/fp pc connectors added to it. The IIIa is basically identical to the IVsb except it doesn't have the flash rail. That added on PC connector on one of my IIIa's is much more handy than the useless proprietary flash rail found on the IVsb. Most recently I bought a Canon P, which came with a nice case with a hump to accommodate the meter that could be mounted to the cold shoe. Best of all about my P -- its shutter curtains aren't wrinkled. Very unusual for a P. I have a decent selection of lenses now -- 35/3.2, 50/1.8, 100/4 -- all chrome Serenars, the 35 and 100 have their own leather cases with viewfinders -- and I bought another Kyoei Super Acall 135/3.5 to match the one I sold years ago.

In my opinion, fueled by my senses as an artist, among other things, I think that traditionally the best ratio is the golden mean, which translates into an irrational number, rounded off to three digits: 1.61:1. What approximates this in terms of enlargement sizes is 4.8:3 (1.6:1). 5:3 is close at 1.667:1. So enlargement wise, going with a 5:3 ratio, you'd be looking at 10x6 or 20x12, etc. This ratio stretches things even farther than the 35mm still camera ratio of 1.5:1, but it is the most aesthetically pleasing. So that's what I'd go with.

 

Even though I own a Pentax 67 (and I love it), I'm not a big fan of the 6:7 ratio. At 1.167:1 It's too close to square. I like 6x9 much more, but then that's the same as the 35mm format, 1.5:1. But I personally think it would be cool to have something just a bit wider, at 1.61:1. In medium format, with 1 being the side of the image, or 6cm, then the length would be 9.66cm. Cool.

A few weeks after I received my Canon EOS XS (1000D) as a Christmas present -- in 2008 -- I discovered that I could mount all sorts of lenses to my DSLR. I started off with just one adapter -- Nikon F because I had an old Nikon F2 outfit with several lenses. I never looked back after that. Something of a manual focus lens buying frenzy occurred during much of 2009 and extending well beyond. I've also expanded to several systems, including Canon FD, which is not compatible with Canon EOS. But no worries. Eventually I bought a Sony NEX 7 and about a half dozen different adapters so I could use all my lenses with it. The EOS DSLR doesn't get much use anymore.

I did something similar with my EOS DSLR. I already had an M42 adapter for it, so I bought an M39 to M42 adapter. All that was was a thin piece of threaded metal. M42 threads on the outside, M39 threads on the inside. Worked fine, but obviously only as a macro.

With an EF to M adapter you can retain AF and auto diaphragm with an EF 35mm on an M5. For me that advantage would outweigh any potential benefits using an equivalent FD lens.

 

Huh, that's good to know. Waiting for Canon to come out with a FF M before I jump into that pool. I've already got a NEX 7 and it does what I need, but APS-C unfortunately.

I must agree regarding the quality of the Tamrons. As Adaptall-2 lenses, they are also imminently practical for somebody like me. I have a few systems that do not have more than just a couple or three lenses, but I have Adaptall-2 mounts for them. One system I just bought into has no lenses -- the camera I bought, a Contax 139 Quartz, came with an Adaptall-2 Tamron, so I was all set with that camera because I now have a Yashica/Contax Adaptall-2 mount for it. Of course, one of these days, I'll have to buy a Contax lens for it -- just to see if they really are such legendary optics. I'll probably get a T^ 50/1.7 cuz even those are fairly expensive.

 

Now in the above case, what the photos show is not only the quality of the Tamron optics, but just as important, my EF exposed the subjects absolutely correctly in Shutter Priority Auto. Also, one would expect, given the lenses' wide open apertures, that the EF's focusing screen will give a bright easy-to-focus view, and so it did. Gives me confidence with that camera that it will perform as expected.

Just the other day I found some pics I shot with one of my EFs a few years ago. We had a tree removal outfit remove three dead pine trees from our backyard. I used my EF and three Tamron lenses to record the process. The Tamrons were the 01B 24mm f/2.5, 30A SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD, and 60B SP 300mm f/2.8 LDIF. The images were scanned on my Epson 4990 flatbed scanner, set to 3200 ppi. The photos were reduced in size for display here, else nothing has been done to them.

 

I set the EF to Shutter Priority and fired away.

 

The SP 300mm f/2.8 LDIF

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting1.jpg

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting2.jpg

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting3.jpg

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting5.jpg

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting6.jpg

 

The 24mm f/2.5

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting7.jpg

 

And the 80-200mm f/2.8 LD

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting8.jpg

http://michaelmcbroom.com/treeremoval/treecutting9.jpg

Hey Ben, just a minor quibble regarding something you wrote in a message on the previous page. You wrote, "You can probably tack on an extra $100 for an F2S(DP-2 prism, same as the DP-1 but with LED read-outs) or for a standard eye level."

 

Actually, the DP-2 (F2S) finder is the first one that has the ability to meter down to 10 seconds. The F2SB and AS finders also have this capability. The DP-2 is unique in appearance of the F2 finders. It's physically the largest with that big hump on top. And its LEDs are unique as well.

 

Oh, and clean eye-level finders (the DE-1) for the F2 have reached crazy heights. I'm glad I got mine when you could pick 'em up for $40 or so. These days it's cheaper to buy an F2 with DE-1 than it is to buy a DE-1 by itself.

I have an old Yashica 50DX flash that I still use with my original Canon F-1. Totally manual, only one switch -- on/off. I just use the wheel on the side of the flash to determine exposure, and it's right every time.

I can see why not many were sold. The Vivitar 283 and 285, with their auto range settings, smoked it as far as capabilities go.

It was Christmas of 2008. My wife bought me a EOS XS (aka 1000D) with the 18-55 II zoom. I hadn't done much of anything photography related for several years. In fact about four years before, I sold off a lot of pieces that I felt I would never use again. Funny thing happened, though. Holding an SLR in my hands again started waking up long dormant urges. I had kept a small EOS outfit (Elan IIe, and a few lenses) for the wife, and a Nikon F2 outfit just to have something from the old days. I dragged the Nikon out of storage, dusted everything off, and for the first time in years, bought some film and loaded it up. About this same time, I discovered I could buy a cheap adapter that would allow me to mount Nikon lenses on my EOS DSLR, so of course I bough one. That was what started it all. Before I scarcely knew it, I had bought several Nikon mount lenses so I could use them on my EOS. And of course, I'd get to use them on my F2.

 

I was shocked at how cheap everything was. I could scarcely believe my eyes. So I started going a little nuts and this is when I started buying camera bodies, like FTbs for $10-20, A-1s and FEs for $40, and old Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s for $100-150, I even bought a nice Bronica ETRSi outfit (body, prism finder, 75mm lens, and three backs) for $129. It was an auction and there was just no bidding interest. I've since also put together a nice Pentax 67 outfit -- a camera I've always wanted but was never able to afford. Until recently.

 

All of the FD gear I own now, I bought during this buying frenzy that lasted for a few years. Several pieces were items that I couldn't easily afford back before the prices fell through the floor. Like a New F-1 with Motor Drive FN. Or an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, or a 55mm f/1.2 SSC -- two of 'em, at one point, in fact. I now own three EFs and three minty FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC lenses. Why? Folks practically gave me the EFs and the 50s came with outfits I bought and I've just never gotten around to selling them on eBay. Besides, I kinda like being able to mount all those 50s on some of my clean FD cameras.

 

Nowadays, because of a resurgent interest in film technology, and because a lot of digital users are using the old vintage lenses on their new cameras, prices for the old gear isn't as cheap as it was back in 2009, but you can still find really good deals if you're patient. I've gotten a lot more choosy, just because there isn't really much of anything I still need or want -- except for huge L lenses, which even if in FD mount are still quite expensive, albeit nowhere near their new EF counterparts.

I have several, but I use them seldom, to be honest. I have a difficult time choosing a favorite, since the reason why I own any of them is because they are a favorite in one way or another. A few of mine are a Canon QL17 GIII, Canon AF35ML (aka Super Sure Shot), Canon Sure Shot Classic 120, Olympus XA, and Oly Trip 35. Each of these cameras is capable of producing excellent photos.

Poorly written write-up. My biggest, most obvious question is, "Why?" You can't fix stupid.

I develop my B&W film in D76. This is the only B&W developer I've ever used. My scanner is an Epson 4990 and I'm using Epson Scan software. I just leave my scanner set to RGB when I scan my B&W images and the reason why I do is that sometimes my scans will pick up some interesting slight color tinges. Sometimes these slight color tinges can be interesting. Often they're showing a gentle blue tint. And I've found that I can exaggerate this color during post processing if I deliberately concentrate the intensity during certain steps. So I just leave color active and just run with it. I can always easily convert to grayscale during processing if I feel the inclination.

I began my sojourn into mirrorless photography with a NEX 7, which I bought used a few years ago. I'm still using the same camera, and I have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten with it. My plans are to upgrade to a Sony A7 II -- after considerable thought on the matter, I've decided that I don't really need all the extra resolution of the A7R or R II. I have found the NEX 7's 24.3 mp resolution to be plenty. I mean that's 6000 x 4000 pixels ya know. And the A7 II's resolution is the same. I am much more interested in the full frame capabilities of the A7 II and its in-body stabilization. Especially the latter since most of the time when I'm using my NEX 7, I'm shooting with manual focus lenses. This is a big reason why I bought my NEX -- because I have a large selection of MF lenses. And Sony's AF lenses are really expensive, which is a drawback for me. So I'm gonna stay the course and upgrade to the A7 II when finances permit.

I couldn't agree more with Ben, especially with regard to his comments having to do with flash photography, which to me would be the easiest solution. I don't see stepping into flash photography as being especially difficult, however, especially when using a fairly sophisticated flash like the 299T. It's a big jump in capabilities over the 199A, which was the best flash contemporaneous to the A-1 at the time. Incidentally, here's a pretty decent write-up on the 299T over at the MIR site:

 

Canon Flash - 299T Speedlite

 

It's cheaply priced on the used market these days and well worth considering as an addition to any FD kit.

If the weather holds, I'll be attending an airshow this weekend. I plan to pack light for a change and take only two or three cameras:

 

My only digital worth mentioning is a Sony NEX 7. For a lens, I'll pack a manual focus one. I''m leaning toward my Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD (a great zoom, btw)

I want to take a 35mm camera. Probably my Nikon N80 with a Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED lens.

And I'm thinking about taking my Pentax 67 with a couple of lenses -- a 300mm f/4 and a 45mm f/4.5.

Yeah I'm not familiar with your lights or transmitter, but chances are it has standard PC sync capability, which is all you need to get your lights working with your 67II. I have a question, though: what lens(es) did your friend supply with the camera? Reason why I ask is the Pentax 67 has a rather slow flash sync -- around 1/30 if I'm not mistaken. Which may not be a problem in the studio, but if you find you need a higher flash sync in case you're dealing with anything that involves stopping the action of a subject that might be ambient lit as well as the flash, you might want to consider using one of the leaf-shutter lenses made for the Pentax 67. I'm not all that familiar with these lenses. I believe Pentax made a 90mm and a 165mm.

Hiya Rick, where are you located? I always recommend a repair facility that is local to me -- in Houston, Texas. They do top-notch work on all sorts of photo equipment, they're fast, and they have reasonable prices. And they do mail order. I recommend you contact them and see if they can help you out. Not affiliated with them in any way, just a satisfied customer.

 

Professional Camera Repair - Houston, Texas, Sensor Cleaning, Digital Camera Repair, Film Camera Repair, Medium and Large Format Camera Repairs

If you want to throw a lot of light, the Metz 45 and 60 series are good options that are meant to be put on a flash bracket, although getting working batteries can be a nightmare.

 

This is generally not true. I own both the Metz 45 and 60 CT series flashes. The 45 CT4 comes with a "cartridge" that holds "AA" batteries, so it's an easy to use no-brainer. The 60 CT series throws more light, but it must use an accessory battery pack that connects to the flash via a cable. It's kinda awkward to use in walking around situations, but fine for studio work. You can still find the dryfit batteries for the Metz battery pack, but they are expensive -- like $70 or so. You can usually find a complete 45 CT 4 with bracket for less than that. Note, you want the CT 4, not the CT 5, which was a bit of an oddball unit.