jordan_levie

<p>Hey everyone,</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far. I have a little update.</p>

<p>I emailed John at Pebbleplace and he was kind enough to get back to me right away. He says:<br>

"The 5D and 5D2 share the same DNA, so if it doesn't work on a 5D, the same<br>

is true for the 5D2. This is noted on the Leica page"</p>

<p>Anyone care to confirm or deny? I've read that there can be variations in the mirrors from camera to camera even of the same exact model, so I'm still skeptical that the 5D and the 5D2 are identical. <br>

-J</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey All,</p>

<p>I'm sure many of you are familiar with the great volume of lens compatibility data listed at www.pebbleplace.com It's a really great site, but I'm concerned because it does not appear to have been updated recently. It seems like their archive of data never made the jump from 5D to 5D2. Am I right about this?</p>

<p>So here's my question: Is there any comparison to be made between mirror clearance issues on the 5D vs. the 5D2 or are they totally different beasts? I have a feeling that we can't really apply any of this great 5D data to the new 5D2, but I'd like to confirm that thought. </p>

<p>Does anyone know of a similar source for mirror clearance info on the 5D2? I know there has been plenty of discussion on this topic on a lens by lens basis, but it would really be great to have something like what pebbleplace did on a manufacturer by manufacturer basis.</p>

<p>Thanks! </p>

<p>Thanks, Paul for the response.</p>

<p>I should have mentioned that the camera has no battery. This is primarily where my confusion arises in the first place. Since there's no obvious power source I wasn't sure why I got no response out of the meter. I have a feeling you're right about the selenium cell being dead. Can you explain a little more why this would be so problematic to repair?</p>

<p>As for processing and scanning...should I be aware of any difference in terms of simply getting the film developed? I can't imagine why my lab would need to treat 1/2 frame exposures any differently. Generally I just have my negatives processed and cut and then I scan them myself at home. I think this workflow will pretty much be identical between 1/2 and full frame exposures. You're right that it's time consuming, but I like the results so I keep it up.</p>

<p>Thanks again.<br>

-Jordan</p>

<p>Hello All,</p>

<p>I recently adopted my father's old Ricoh Caddy 1/2 frame 35mm rangefinder camera. It's really a nifty piece of work. All of the mechanics seem to be in good order. Focus, aperture, and shutter rings all operate as they should. I used my little homemade shutter speed tester and things seem to be close-ish to what they should be.</p>

<p>My question is in regards to the built-in light meter. That appears to be the one thing that isn't working whatsoever. Is anyone out there familiar with this camera/brand? Is this a common problem for camera meters of its type? I wonder if, given its age, the photocell in the meter may simply need replacing? Is that something I can maybe do myself and do we think I can find the necessary parts out there somewhere?</p>

<p>Also, I'm just curious to learn more about this camera and the brand in general. Is this an especially rare item? Is it valuable? Any tips/tricks for working with 1/2 frame systems? I'd love to hear any info that people have to offer.</p>

<p>Thanks as always!<br>

-Jordan</p>

<p>P.S. the serial# is 45234 if that helps anyone narrow down my querry. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks! That's extremely helpful.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Stopping down, hmm. Yes, lowering the f-stop would indeed mean a wider aperture. You're right, I guess I mixed up my language there. Maybe I should have said, "and close down my lens to compensate for slower stocks." But I don't believe the chart is completely backwards. I'm not exposing for 3000, I'm using the 3000 to check an exposure based on a slower stock.</p>

<p>Say I'm shooting 50 asa Velvia and my meter tells me to expose at f2. I go to check exposure with the 3000 asa fuji-roid. That being a much faster film stock I will need a smaller aperture (that is, a smaller physical iris size, not a lower f-stop number) in order to compensate. Hence, based on my chart, I would expose my test at f16. Right? As Mr. Dainis pointed out, 50 asa would be about 6 stops below 3000, therefore I should be right on the money. </p>

<p>It's pretty straightforward for 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 asa. What I'm really trying to establish here is that I did my rounding-off correctly for the 64, 250, 500, and 1000 asa columns. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I really don't feel like this should be a debate. Some photographers might find this superfluous others might find it useful.</p>

<p>Point is, I made the chart and I'd like to confirm that I got it right. Can anyone help me?</p>

<p>Hello all, </p>

<p>Happy holidays! I'm putting a call out there to any Israeli readers of this forum. I'm hoping to travel to Israel this coming year and I would like to find an 10 day - 2 week long intensive photography workshop (or apprenticeship, or class, or seminar, or whatever). Does anyone know of anything like this? Might there be something offered through one of the universities or smaller institutions?</p>

<p>I'm interested in photography in general, but would also be equally happy with something in cinematography, studio lighting, darkroom, or film study/filmmaking. </p>

<p>Can anyone help me? Thanks!!<br>

-Jordan Levie</p>

<p>Hey Guys, Thanks for the advice. Obviously I understand basic exponential exposure theory, but I'm going for precision here (down to the closest 1/4 or 1/3 stop). If anyone out there is a math-head and can check my numbers in detail, I would be really interested to see if I got this on the button. </p>

<p>Hello all, Happy Holidays. <br>

I recently acquired a polaroid back for my Minolta xd5 and I've been working on a film speed compensation chart to help me with my exposure checking. There are a ton of camera related 'calculators' online that deal with f-stop or depth of field, but none that specifically adjust for ASA. The math is relatively simple, but I'm still a little uncertain of my results. I'm going to post the little chart that I came up with and I would love to get some feedback. Do my numbers look reasonable? </p>

<p>The basic idea is to use the Fuji brand 3000 asa instant b&w film and stop down my lens to compensate for slower stocks. I also plotted out the chart for 1500 asa in case I use any ND.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help! </p>