luis_rives

<p>David, They have to be earning a nice living from camera repair otherwise there is no point doing this. I know for a fact that the person that is working on my lenses right now has a huge backlog of work. I suspect that any tech that has a good reputation in the photo community for doing excellent work, will have more business than they can handle. Its surprising how many people are still using film, and is also encouraging to know that its certainly not going away.<br> <br />Drew, Thanks for the suggestion. I saw the website where they mention they work on LF lenses. Will contact them and see what they say, perhaps their prices might be more reasonable than they would be here in the NY area.</p>

<p>Peter, I don't want to get on his bad side because I have used him before and he really does good work, just that it takes him so long. Since I am not a photo pro, just a serious hobbyist, I don't need the lenses to earn money from them<br> <br />Charles, Thanks for the suggestions, will explore them further.</p>

<p>This month marks the one year anniversary that three of my 35mm lenses have been with a highly regarded camera technician, and there is no indication that they will be ready anytime soon. In my next life I want to come back as a camera repair tech because there clearly is plenty of work and money to be made, certainly more than as a photographer.</p>

<p>Dave, I emailed Carol this afternoon and she replied that she does not work on Fujinon lenses. I am in the NY metro area but can send the lens anywhere in the US.</p>

<p>I searched the Large Format forum and did not find any posting on who currently does CLAs on large format lenses. I have a Fujinon lens that has haze on it and would like to have it professionally cleaned. Any recommendations on who currently can be relied on to perform this service? Thank you.</p>

<p> I have used extensively the MOD54 system with Paterson tanks and was wondering if the CatLabs CL81 insert for processing 8x10 film fits inside the Paterson tanks. The cost of the CL81 is less than half of the complete CL81/Jobo tank system, plus I already have the tanks so I would be saving quite a bit of money if they fit in the Paterson tanks. Thank you.</p>

<p>I have used DD-X on both films and my results have been substantially less grain than rodinal. As a matter of fact I now use TMAX400 most of the time and for 35mm and 120 would not think of using anything else than DD-X. If I am developing 4x5 I use HC-110, mostly for cost reasons.</p>

<p>Interested in purchasing a used "Green Monster" in good to fair condition for reasonable price.</p>

<p>Ross, Leica's magic is not in the bodies but in their lenses. However, to experience the magic you need a Leica body if you are shooting film. If digital, there are a couple of excellent adapters to use their lenses in digital bodies (the Sony A7rii comes to mind foremost). If you are concerned about the price of the Leica M3/M2 they are downright inexpensive compared to the price of their lenses, even the vintage ones. On the other hand Leica lenses and bodies are for life, yours and your offspring, and probably theirs as well.</p>

<p>I am considering purchase of a Fuji G617 with the SW 105/8 lens and the number of actuations in the counter shows as 121. Would this be considered excessive? Asking price is 800. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thank you for the clarification and the info. I actually was not sure where the dimension from the film plane was taken to, but knew the data existed.</p>

<p>I know that there is a specific name that lens manufacturers use in their specs for the infinity focus dimension of a particular lens, the distance from the film plane to the face of the front element when the lens is focused on infinity. Does anyone remember what that is called? Thank you.</p>

<p>Recently purchased on the big auction site a Schneider-Kreuznach Angulon 90mm f6.8 lens, very clean all around and because of its size perfect for the field. Serial number dates it to about 1960. However I was surprised to see that it does not have a preview lever. Thus the only way I see to focus it is to set the shutter on bulb and hold it open while focusing, which is not going to be the easiest of tasks. Am I missing something with this lens? Is there any other way of focusing this lens? Thank you</p>

<p>I do not believe that large format photography is dead. I think the biggest challenge is convincing someone that is doing large format to use this system. I use LF on a non-pro basis and I love it. My biggest question is the wash cycle, ie. how does one get a flow of water thru the system for a period of time so that the film washes on its own. Will ask that question to the designer. I use the MOD54 system and I love it. The biggest drawback is that it uses 1 liter of solution for 6 sheets of film. Depending on what developer you are using it can get expensive. It does use quite a bit of fixer, at least 200 ml per 6 sheets of film. Using the Paterson tank allows the use of a hose directly from the faucet to the center of the tank where the circulating water exists thru the edge of the tank. Will ask some questions and if satisfied will support it.</p>

<p>Larry and Glen,<br> Thanks. The 1:49 dilution works out to 8:00 @ 68d for Delta 100 film which is what I will be developing. From MassiveDev, 1:47 dilution is 7:30 @ 68d for that film. A while back there was a post in APUG that suggested the 1:49 dilution with times for various films. I use the MOD54 insert on a 1 liter Paterson daylight tank for developing 4x5 (that's where the 1 liter comes from).</p>

<p>I recall reading somewhere that it is not recommended to develop more than 80 sq. in. in one liter of developer whether diluted or undiluted. I would like to develop 6 sheets of 4x5 film in one liter of HC-110 at a 1+49 dilution. Is this too much for the developer? Can I increase the development time slightly to compensate for the additional sheets?</p>

"Too big and too much for me, but very cool." I put a summicron 35/2 plus the adapter on my A7rii and it fits in a coat pocket. Try that with a Nikon 800 or a Canon 5dsr. My only gripe with it, and its minor, is that the eyepiece should have been on the extreme left ala RF, but otherwise its a stunning camera (4.5 stops of image stabilization with ANY fixed focus lens that can be mounted on the A7rii).

Still unaffordable. I own an M-2, M-3, M-4, M4-2 (my first Leica purchased new in 1983) and an M6TTL and would never trade them in for a digital Leica. Recently traded an A7r for an A7rii (this is a camera that Leica should have built, but then it would probably cost over 10K) and paid a fraction of what this new Leica would cost. Sadly, the folks at Leica lost their way a long time ago.

<p>Just read the review of the Braun and it appears to be the best of the "affordable" scanners. The only problem is that it does not scan 4x5 film. One would think that for the $2K that the Braun costs, Epson or someone else could make a flatbed high end scanner that would do 4x5, 120, and 35mm film. Probably a reflection of how few people use film nowadays.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention that I also have a prewar Balda Super Pontura 6x9 in beautiful condition which is awaiting CLA at the moment. This is a quite rare folder by now.</p>

<p>I also have several folders, including the Zeiss 6x4.5 and the Zeiss 6x9, both with coupled rangefinders. I am not partial to the 6x6 format though I own a Perkeo and a Zeiss Ikonta IV with the coupled rangefinder and the automatic frame counter. Also have the Voigtlander 6x9 prewar with the uncoated lens. I refer to them this way because I can't remember their model names or numbers. By far my favorite format is 6x9 and my favorite folder is the Agfa Record III with the uncoupled rangefinder. Its Solinar lens is the sharpest of all, including the Zeiss. All my folders are in working condition and use them all the time, though now the cold weather has arrived here in the Northeast and its tough to operate them with bare hands. By the way, I have a 4x5 folder on order that is being constructed as write this, though given the weather, will most likely have to wait until next spring to put it thru its paces.</p>

<p>Perhaps there is a thread about this already, but I would like to know if any members have upgraded from an Epson 4990 to a 700, 750, or 800 to scan 4x5 and 120 film. I was wondering if there would be an increase in the scan quality to make the upgrade worthwhile. I have read the specs on all, but I am more interested in real world experiences and results.</p>

<p>Wondering if any members here have used the above scanner and what their results and experiences are. I use a Plustek Optic Film 7600 to scan 35mm film and have found it superior to my Epson 4990 scanner. I suspect that the results would be the same with the Epsons 700, 750, and 800. I currently use the 4990 to scan 120 film but was wondering if there was a better affordable alternative (less than $2K).</p>

<p>Out of my own curiosity, I was wondering if there are any photographers left that use film commercially, especially 4x5. If there are, why would they do so in a commercial setting? In my mind the only people I see using film are hobbyists or amateurs (like myself) and "fine arts" photographers.</p>

<p>Henry, as I write this I am looking at my copy of the receipt from B&H dated 11/4/82, when your store was located on Warren St, for a new Summicron 50/2 for which I paid $389 not including tax. I believe that price was not out of line with the other dealers of the time, but yours was the lowest price. The point of my post was to show that the absurd present cost of Leica equipment has got to be drive by more than mere inflation would indicate.</p>