aaron_max

I have a complete original 1600f, full kit, that I’d like to sell. It’s currently, as of right now, for sale on FredMiranda. It’s a beauty and it actually works. Feel free to message me. Serial number 0254 with 3 lenses, 2 of which, 135 & 80 are Ektars with 1949 serial numbers. The 60mm is a Carl Zeiss.

Greetings all,

 

I am currently experiencing a self inflicted dilemma that could easily be settled by just saying "Nah, skip it. You're fine", but I just can't do that right now. Here's the long version of the scoop(to skip the blah blahs, look for the question after the ***:

 

I currently own a Nikon d610 on which I mostly(96.7% of the time) use manual focus ai'd and non-ai'd lenses that I ai myself, and my first digital ever, an Oly E-M10. The Nikon is my 2nd digital camera that I've owned and I bought it in lieu of an OM-D E-M1. The reason I ended up making that decision was the great price I paid, the lenses I already had and could use, and the seeming redundancy of also owning OM-D E-M10 & an E-M1 with the E-M10 taking a backseat to whatever I chose. I also shot the E-M10 with older film lenses and never added any m4/3's lenses with the exception of a Samyang fisheye and the kit lens. The OM-D E-M10 was my first digital(I finally caved) and I bought it in late 2013 with the Nikon d610 coming a year and a 1/4 later. Last year, with the E-M10 sitting around doing nothing, I sent it off to be fully converted to UV/IR, which is really fun to use, and now my two digital bodies work together very well.

 

****That all being said, here is my dilemma, I'd really like to have an E-M1 Mark I(II if I were more liquid) and I found an excellent one with under 6k shots taken, no lens, very clean, box and all, with a 90 day warranty. The asking price is $575 with no tax. I'd been sniffing around for another Oly for a while. I want it for the portability and to have another big boy camera to use. However, I then look at the E-M10 Mark II, with all its features and familiarity, and it can be had on the Oly site(not a refurb) with a kit lens, for $499, or $449 without the lens. Either gets me the portability that I want. Since I tend to use legacy glass and the only two m4/3 lenses I have are a kit lens and a manual focus fisheye, does it make more sense to go with the Mark II E-M10 or to pick up a used E-M1, either the one I mentioned on another like it? Or, I guess the question is: which is a better camera, the E-M1 Mark I or the E-M10 Mark II? Of course, I could just buy a filter and put it on my E-M10 and shoot it normally, but that's not as fun as getting a new body. Any help, experience, or input would be greatly appreciated.

All,

 

Thanks for your responses. Ramiro, I'm not related to a Beth that I know. When I have my ducks in a row, I will do as you

suggested. Thank you.

 

Steve, did you follow a path similar to mine? How frustrating is it to be a film guy and wanting to do this type of

photography and get a smack down at every turn. Today I took my Kiev(Hasselbladski) and shot a roll of B&W and loved

it. Perhaps I may just augment it with some better glass since the body works and I already own it.

 

Charles, you know it's not wise to speak of one's ex, or soon to be ex, in an unflattering way! We may stay together and

I'll know you don't respect or like her. Anyway, I know the Grover's place in the world as I stated. I don't expect a pro to

lust after it, but a beginner, someone like me and maybe Steve, would find appealing a solid monorail 5x7 camera, with

the ability to go 4x5 while putting funds towards better glass. Also, it might slow a boat down since it's quite heavy indeed.

That Navy paint is something. As for the glass and shutter, I certainly would not call it a paperweight either. If you have

some information on it, per your hands on experience, or can direct me to where you got this info, please tell me. I dont

expect a fortune, but paperweights are really cheap these days with all the DIY stuff going on. It can't be worse than a

Steampunk brick paperweight and those cost $40! It's clear as anything in my war chest of 35mm gear and fires like a

champ. The Autex shutter was one of their best in 1913 and while that means nada on the free market 100 yrs later, the

models below it still carry a modest cost. It was $29 in pre-Fed dollars new.

 

I actually finally found a lens that is similar enough to mine, on that auction site, that if sold for the asking price, would buy a nice

MF system for me. I also found a 4x5 Grover for sale on that same site for 259.00 sans the lens, but in similar

condition as mine. I totally agree that I should separate the two. To find someone who needs this exact set-up and would

pay accordingly is extremely unlikely. So lens with shutter as one, body and rail as another. Thanks guys and when I am

free of this grey and red humbling train wreck of an experience, I'll hit you back with what happened. Then Charles, really

let her have it.

Greetings all,

 

Since, this is my 2nd post on photo.net and I want to be crystal clear that I am not advertising, nor promoting this camera's sale as I ask

the following: Long Story and short story****

 

I picked up a very clean Grover with a 5x7 back, a Wollensak 1912/1913 8x10 Voltas f8 lens with an Autex shutter(O, B, T 100-1sec.),

and 8 film holders about a year ago at an estate sale. It's on a 20" monorail and everything is in great condition. The bellows are bright

red, clean, flexible, light tight, and I believe they are original. The metal shows no rust of any significance, nor are the gears stuck. The

lens is in great condition and functions very well. It's a great camera and it's one I thought I'd successfully venture into the LF world using.

Man was I excited...Yo Ansel, check this out......Boy was I wrong.

 

Fast forward to present day and I'm at a loss. When I bought it, I got some free expired film, which I have used many times. However, I

stink at this format. I am a 35mm and 120 shooter and now I know why. I cannot get a LF workflow together to save my life. I also have

no decent way to develop a shot should I actually not screw something up from loading the film to remembering to coordinate the metal

sheets to know what's been exposed. Ive not completed a shot from start to finish yet. Not one exposure. I'm a mess at it. My wife's mad

at the thing because it's so big and always in the wrong place. It's got to go. I really want to move into a better MF set-up since I tried to

run before I got good at walking. Plus, my Russian 120 tool was built in Kiev with a bottle of vodka and more quirks than Zoey

DeShawhosthatgirl.

 

Short story*******Since I've had it, I've periodically researched the body's origin, the lens origin, and LF in general. I know it's no

engineering marvel, but it does seem to be a steady daily driver with navy surplus camouflage. The lens is a big mystery since there

seems to only be info on www.cameraeccentric.com's info page in the 1912/1913 Wollensak brochure. Of course 100 y/o marketing pubs

aren't where I need to get the 411 on this thing. Does anyone know about, or has used this lens recently and is it the difference between

me getting a Bronica or a Hasselblad when I sell this joy? And if I sell it, should I separate the body and the lens? You guys will know how

one enters or augments in this format and how to navigate the gear waters. I don't at all. Ask me about selling a Nikon F4 & I'll thrill you

with knowledge. Currently, with this camera, I may as well be on a boat with a tiger.

 

Aaron

Hello all,

 

My name is Aaron and I've browsed this site many many many times and 'twas time for me to sign up and get bonefied. I am a 35mm

shooter primarily, though I have a modest medium format set-up in my Kiev 88. I only use a digital camera to take photos of things I may

be selling on ebay or for documents. I never use photoshop and I only adjust contrast on my pics after scanning. I develop my own B&W

and scan it with a cheap scanner. Thats the way I work because I want to act the age of the camera with which I'm shooting. I'm looking

to transition more into the medium format because the breadth of image that can be captured, while still mostly portable sans a tripod. I

have a website tethered to my Flickr page which is www.areyouaphotographer.com Since I walk with at least one camera at all times, I've

been asked "are you a photographer?" so often, I figured why not see if that domain was available. It was and it's easy for me to share

should one ask. Thanks to all who don't know that theyve helped me and to those who will help from here on and to those I will try to help.

It's time to look around now.

 

Aaron