Jump to content

arthur_smith1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    109

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by arthur_smith1

  1. arthur_smith1
    A gentleman never discloses such information. That's how I was properly raised.
  2. arthur_smith1
    I am offering a very fair offer. If he agrees, great. If not, no harm no fowl. I don't think a trial should command a premium. That was his suggestion, not mine.
  3. arthur_smith1
    Which is why you should not look at "asking" prices. People can ask whatever they want. Which does not mean they will ever sell at asking prices.
  4. arthur_smith1
    I live in America. The 'value" of things are determined by what someone is willing to pay for them. Without criticism of the transaction. This indeed is the definition of a Free Economy.
  5. arthur_smith1
    So I should pay more? That makes no sense.
  6. arthur_smith1
    I wouldn't trust that book as a credible source- hopelessly out of date.
  7. arthur_smith1
    May physically be possible. Optically, it will give you poor images, if that is what you want.
  8. arthur_smith1
    The seller let me borrow this beautiful Rolleiflex Old Standard for the weekend, to take it through its paces. I shot a roll of Pan F Plus today, and loved it. It's in clean vintage condition, everything works well, including the frame counter. Sure, the slow speeds do seem a little slow, but to be expected at 89 years of age. Ignoring the auction site prices, what does this community think is a reasonable offer for this camera? No, It's not a 2.8F, but it's a piece of history. What should I offer for it?
  9. arthur_smith1
    Issue resolved. Thank you.
  10. arthur_smith1
    Hi, I recently bought a beautiful little Rolleicord IA Type 3, the one with the little red window on the bottom. Turns out the previous owner seems to have dropped the camera, and as a result, the back door does not fit well to the body, And yes, I have light leaks. I like the Holga/Diana lomography look, but not on this camera. The lens is amazingly sharp. Does anyone have an extra door? I tried making light seals, but the door fit is so off, light is always going to get through as is. Thanks! Arthur
  11. arthur_smith1
    <p>Really surprised no one has mentioned KatzEye split microprism screens. Not cheap, but well worth it. I had one installed into my Nikon D300. And it almost made digital photography enjoyable again. Now I can use all my Ai and AiS glass, and have a pretty accurate focusing aid. The green rangefinder light is less than useless. </p>
  12. arthur_smith1
    <p>I can only comment on the 2.8- it is far and away the best telephoto lens I have ever used. I got mine a few years ago as a "throw in" with the F3HP that I bought. Now that The Angry Photographer has caused demand and prices to go through the roof (I love the guy- he is usually spot on), the lens is that much more enjoyable. </p>
  13. arthur_smith1
    <p>Thanks- I have never heard of Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer charts- will have to look into that. I have been using my iPhone Pocket Light Meter, and Gossen Luna Pro F, and the more I compare now, the FM's meter looks to be within a half stop. Not bad for an almost 40 year old camera. </p>
  14. arthur_smith1
    <p>New 55 recently released a pretty cool looking product, and published a home brew formula, for a monobath developer that can be used for Tri-X, and HP5 Plus. Has anyone tried it? If so, thoughts?</p>
  15. arthur_smith1
    <p>Ask 50 photographers what the best 35mm camera to use is, and you'll get over 100 responses. I don't think not using a light meter makes someone a better photographer. They are tools, and can be used nicely in the right hands. They are never 100% accurate, but it's always nice to have a guide that can make an accurate recommendation as to what exposure to use for most given situations.</p>
  16. arthur_smith1
    <p>Your matrix meter is not the "end all". It makes suggestions. And sometimes, those recommendations are not correct. It is says 1 stop under, it may be, but does not mean that your shot will be. It's a guideline. </p>
  17. arthur_smith1
    <p>Unfortunately, we live in "zoom nation" these days, and the latest myths are that zooms can outperform primes. It will never happen. They are convenient. But even the less expensive prime lenses can be spectacular. of course, with the D300 you have the goofy crop factor. But a 35 for normal, and a 50 for short portraits, is a nice combo. <br> Kind of hard to look at slow zooms again, when you can open up to 1.2, 1.4, or 1.8 on normal primes. 2.8 might be as fast as a zoom can get. </p>
  18. arthur_smith1
    <p>The 17-55 is fairly sharp wide open. No lens is "perfect" wide open, and sharpness is only one measurement of many as to what constitutes a good image. But it sounds here as though you have multiple issues. </p>
  19. arthur_smith1
    <p>An update- I shot another roll over the weekend, and developed using Rodinal and semi-stand developing. Got some beautiful exposures, and the process seems to hold highlights beautifully. So, maybe it was my development. In any event, very happy! Still think the F3 meter might be the best out of the Nikon manual focus bodies.</p>
  20. arthur_smith1
    <p>The best deal I got at Photographica this year was a Nikkor 80-200 push pull zoom with factory Ai mod, and the somewhat hard to find C (coated) designation. It really is a great, sharp zoom.<br> The crazed frenzy to the dollar table is not worth it anymore. I used to do it- my life is far too valuable. </p>
  21. arthur_smith1
    <p>I was hoping to get help on here, not have my purchasing or troubleshooting skills critiqued. This is far from my primary camera, and the good exposures I have taken have already helped the camera more than pay for itself. </p>
  22. arthur_smith1
    <p>The DOF preview lever was not opened up all the way. Guessing this may have had some impact on proper exposure. </p>
  23. arthur_smith1
    <p>Might use the FE2 to compare metering. That meter is usually dead on. </p>
  24. arthur_smith1
    <p>I dont want to overengineer a solution for an otherwise great camera that I paid less than $40 for. But, I did have a few good exposures that I spotted in scanning last night. And they required very little, if any, adjustments to highlights. Sending it in for a CLA would cost more than I paid for it. I have replaced the seals, mirror dampener, light meter batteries, and a few cosmetic things. I am going to keep working the shutter and live with it. </p>
  25. arthur_smith1
    <p>Important to note is that I did have a few nice exposures. But to my eyes, the light areas seemed very light, almost washed out. Out of all of my cameras, I think the F3 has a great light meter. I may use that one to compare, as well as Pocket Light Meter. </p>
×
×
  • Create New...