rick_schuster

<p>I really enjoy carrying one camera/one lens (especially a fixed focal length), because it allows me to focus more on what I'm seeing, and less on my equipment. The limitation can actually be a good thing for me. I don't always do it, but I find that I usually enjoy my time more when I do. Thanks for your post.</p>

<p>If you don't have luck finding any, I've noticed that FPP has manufactured new ones that you can buy. I've not tried them, so I can't attest to the quality: <br>

http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/620-1-620-film-spool<br>

http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/620-4-620-film-spools</p>

<p>Thanks, Bruce. Good idea to use ND filters to vary the exposure, since the camera gives you no other exposure control. I'm confused though, as to why you recommend a slower film (ISO 50) for indoor and nighttime shooting, and faster film (ISO 400 or 800) for outdoor daylight shooting. Am I missing something?</p>

<p>That's my favorite street shooter, and the one I grab off my shelf most often. I hope it finds a good home with someone who will make use of it. </p>

<p>Wow. Fantastic images, Brad! <br>

All great, but I especially love the first Bel Air image, and the second Buick Eight one (the wheel). Great work.</p>

<p>Sorry to see you go. All the best to you!</p>

<p>Beautiful image, but I agree that the out-of-focus front detracts from it. My eye is drawn to the front edge of the cut part, right where it's out of focus. I love the undulating grain down below the cut, but I want to see that smooth part in front in sharp focus. Less back focus would be good.</p>

<p>To see if it's the same problem I have, you could try pushing that cylindrical part (where my first arrow points in the photo above) inward toward the lens while cocking the wind lever. If it is the same as my problems, this may hold the two gears together tightly enough to properly wind the shutter. If that works, at least you may have identified the problem, not that I have a solution for it.</p>

<p>I've not had that problem with my Retina IIIc, but have very similar problems with a couple of older Retina IIa cameras. The problem on those is with the gears to the upper-left of the lens (if you're looking at the front of the camera) not meshing properly. There's a bit of looseness between the gear inside the round stainless steel shaft and the gear that's inside the shutter mechanism. The gears slip so that the outer gear turns properly, but the inner gear doesn't turn enough to cock the shutter. It seems feasible to me that with the cover closed those gears mesh properly because they are held tightly in contact with each other, but with the front extended there's some looseness allowing the gears to slip. Might not be the same problem, but just an idea. <br /> <img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11324487/retina.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Wow, Brad - that first shot is beautiful. I hope you have a nice print of it hanging on a wall. </p>

<p>As others mentioned, National Camera Exchange is alive and well. They celebrated their 100th anniversary with an exhibit of cameras and photos at the Mpls Photo Center. I'm so glad they're still here. The flagship store in Golden Valley is great.</p>

<p>new link to images:<br>

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4ln353v8a51ynee/AABGJpwcLkmXNTlK8Yx3c9lXa?dl=0</p>

<p>I had dreams of this a few years ago, then decided it was a silly notion and would likely never be a reality. I think I'm much better off doing 'digital conversion' by just shooting film and getting high quality scans made. It really is the ultimate RAW format -- you have a physical neg that will always be great quality, and new scanning technology can always be applied to get better digital files in the future. Whereas digital photos that I shot years ago on an early DSLR are stuck in their inferior quality forever. <br>

And if you really want the convenience of shooting digital, then the other comments about adapting the lenses to a new digital camera are a much better idea than trying to convert an old camera to digital. That Konica conversion that guy did is pretty amazing though!</p>

<p>The key word in your question is "asking". People might be asking $100 to $250 for them, but it doesn't look like they're selling for that. Click the Advanced search button and only look at Completed Listings. It looks like the ones that have actually sold (the ones with prices in green) are mostly in the $15 to $60 range, though I do see one that sold recently for over $100. The price that some people ask for cameras (the 'buy it now' ones) is ridiculous. They must get a taker now and then. They seem to just keep listing them over and over again hoping someone will bite. A few years ago I was curious what my Kodak Duo 620 was worth, and I saw a ridiculously high-priced "buy-it-now" one, so I put it in my watch list to see if it would ever sell. It's been re-listed over and over for years and is still for sale, though they've reduced the price a little. </p>

<p>I can't imagine a better 35mm folder than my Retina IIIc (though I haven't used a lot of others, so take that with a grain of salt) -- it's a joy to use, and the lens is fantastic. Any of the Retina folders with a rangefinder should be great users though -- which means any of the II or III models, I believe. If you don't care about having a light meter on it, which may or may not work anyway (the meter on mine happens to work and I use it), then maybe go for a II model and save some money. I have a couple of Retina IIa folders that I've been doing a little work on, and the biggest difference I see is the solidity of the whole lens/shutter mechanism on the IIIc compared to the IIa. On my IIIc the lens is rock solid and steady, but the IIa has a bit more flimsy build in the slide-out lens mechanism. It might be that these particular copies of the IIa are more worn out than usual, but the build of it makes me think this might be typical.</p>

<p>I also have a Zeiss Ikon Contessa, which I absolutely love the look of but don't find it as easy to use as the Retina. It spends more time on the display shelf while the Retina IIIc might be out being used. </p>

<p>p.s. - I'm sure some would disagree, but I wouldn't pay the extra premium for the 'big-C' Retina IIIC model. </p>

<p>I wouldn't go as far as the others in discouraging you from buying any of these, but it depends on what you want and what risk you're willing to take. Also, do an 'advanced search' on ebay for 'completed listings' to see what these cameras have actually sold for recently (the ones with prices in green are the ones that actually sold). I don't think any of these that you listed are real great deals as far as price. On the other hand, they look like fairly reputable sellers and it looks like they have 14-day return policies, so if you're willing to risk losing the cost of shipping you could take a chance on one. I've had good luck on a lot of cameras, but have also gotten many that needed some repair. But I like to take the chance if the price is good enough, and I enjoy working on the ones that need repair to try to get them functioning properly. <br>

Often a seller honestly thinks that a camera functions perfectly because the shutter fires. aperture adjusts, or whatever. But often the shutter speeds are way off or other problems exist that aren't obvious. Sometimes these are easy to fix, sometimes you can just live with some things not working perfectly, but sometimes the fix is too difficult or costly. And in my opinion many of these cameras aren't worth the cost of sending to someone for a professional repair.<br>

I have a Retina Auto III that I bought for $15 on ebay and needed some repair, but I was able to get it functioning well myself and it shoots great (though if I leave it sit for a long time it may stop working again because I didn't strip it all the way down and do a full cleaning). When I get a camera for that price I figure it's worth a gamble, and I can mess around with trying to fix it without worrying about wrecking it. If I mess something up, I'm not out much, and probably learn something valuable in the process. The others are correct that the Retinas are very complex cameras, but sometimes you get lucky.<br>

http://shotonfilm.wordpress.com/the-cameras-2/kodak-retina-automatic-iii/</p>

<p>I'm guessing that the very tiny screws on the outside edge of the front barrel of the lens may have been loose (or did the whole front element with the gear screw all the way off?). When I took my Super Ricohflex apart, I carefully marked where the lenses were aligned with each other so that I could re-assemble correctly. Since yours are already off, you'll have to reset the focus. I don't think it's terribly hard on this camera -- someone else might give a better description or a better method, but I'd use a piece of ground glass on the film plane to set the bottom lens to infinity by looking at a very distant object, using a magnifying loupe on the ground glass; and set the top lens using the camera's ground glass and magnifier. I'd have to look more closely at mine again to remember exactly how they adjust, but I think they're pretty simple once you look at how the front element focuses. I believe you'd set both lenses with the gears removed, then slip the top gear on with the two infinity marks aligned, and tighten the tiny screws holding that gear on; then slip on the bottom gear so that it's meshed with the top gear (being careful not to spin the lenses), and tighten that one. <br /> If you're in the US, a good resource to have someone else repair it would probably be Mark Hansen in Portland, OR. I know he likes the Ricohflexes.</p>

<p>Thanks for this info. I recently received the exact same camera via a gear giveaway, and the top plate got smashed in transit (all the parts on the top plate of this camera can be seen imprinted on the bottom of another camera that it was packaged with -- which would be kind of funny if it wasn't so sad). The shutter button on mine is smashed way down. Your description should help me in dismantling mine and attempting to get the shutter button straightened out. I think my repairs will all be in the top plate, as the shutter blades are fine. Hopefully someday I'll post about my successful repair.</p>

<p>Nice results. Looks like they might be very sharp. I like the wide image format. I have some Autographics I need to try this with.</p>

<p>Joe - <br /> Thanks for sharing your experimentation with us all. Count me as one who appreciates your sharing of information, and appreciates constructive, helpful suggestions and critiques of your experiments. Many of us tinker around with adaptations to old cameras, but few of us take the time to share our experimentation with others. Some of these old folders are clearly not precision instruments that require precision adaptations. The issue of the film plane location would be a critical issue in some cameras, but probably not in some of these folders that focus by selecting from a few position slots for the flimsy lensboard. It's worth a try. It looks to me like you're onto some good ideas, and I look forward to hearing more about how your experiments turn out. The 3D-printed rollfilm adapters look great, and have great potential for the old film formats that are larger than 120 (620 spools are smaller, so it's kind of the opposite problem there -- I can get 120 to work in many 620 cameras by simply trimming the edge of the spool with a nail clipper). By sharing your experiments, hopefully others can help you refine them more quickly, and we can all learn from your outcomes. Keep it up!</p>

<p>Nice little article here about the wide latitude of Portra:<br>

http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2011/08/mat-marrash-pushing-kodak-portra<br>

He mostly talks about underexposing it, but apparently it can handle being overexposed a lot, too, without pulling the developing.<br>

I like to shoot Portra in old cameras that I think have inaccurate shutter speeds, and I've had good results with some likely way-off exposures. </p>

<p>Nice app, Lukas. It's about the same as using Audacity on my mac to measure by sound, but it's very convenient to have it on my iphone. Seems to work fairly well. With a phototransistor plugged into the headphone jack to measure the actual light, it would be great. Can I just solder the leads of a phototransistor to an audio plug, or is it a little more complicated than that?<br>

Thanks for making this app -- I hope it sells well.<br>

It looks like it could use some improvement, though. It freezes up on my iphone if I let the recording go past 3 seconds. Then I have to restart it twice to get it working again. Why the 3-second limit for recording?<br>

Some other suggestions to improve it:<br>

1) it would be nice to have the option to select the targeted shutter speed on the record screen (before you record it).<br>

2) it would be nice to be able to select the targeted shutter speed via a simple on-screen dial instead of having the click the 1/1 to go to another screen, dial it to your speed, and click 'done' to go back. <br>

Also, I don't think the shutter speeds would have to be split into two separate dials for 'new' and 'old'. One dial containing all the shutter speeds would be simpler to use. If I want 1/4, I can select that; if I want 1/5, I can select that -- without having to decide if it's a 'new' or 'old' shutter speed.<br>

I'm not meaning to be critical, as I'm grateful that you made this app. Just want to help you improve it.<br>

Rick</p>

<p>beautiful work!</p>

<p>Stunning images! I especially like the second one with the cliff illuminated by moonlight. Beautiful. Thanks for sharing the images, story, and technical info. Now I want to try this.</p>

<p>I'm glad you asked, as I've been curious about this myself. At 43, I'm very glad to see that there are many people here who are younger than me. I'm optimistic about the future of film and classic cameras.</p>