jaydann_walker

<p>Jim and Les, this was apparently surplus film and I recall we had this "service" in Australia in 1980 or thereabouts. As a rank amateur in Sydney in those days, I used the lab until it shut its doors almost overnight. Everything I shot for two years faded long ago. My best scan efforts after multiple passes result in a sort of faint image, after endless time on the scanner. I lost a great many shots I would now cherish if I had them. Lesson learnt.</p> <p>JDW at home in Tasmania</p>

<p>At the risk of seeming somewhat alcoholic if not cynical, on first sight your new logo reminded me of a lopsided martini glass. I also dislike the type font you have used. Entirely my personal observations, of course.</p> <p>As a design architect, over 25 years and after much discussion about corporate marketing image matters with clients, staff and other architects, I came to the disappointing conclusion that almost everyone I dealt with did not pay much attention or place great emphasis on my logo. In fact, most didn't even notice it. </p> <p>I am now retired from design architecture and setting up a new web site for my architectural photography work. There will not be any logo on the site, as I intend to let my images promote my personal 'brand' to my (professional not mainstream) clients.</p> <p>All this said, put into your shoes I would go with John Tonai's good advice, and have someone design a logo for me. You should avoid the 'boxcam' look or wording, which to me comes over as amateurish.</p> <p>Consider changing the type font and go with the martini glass or a new similar design in your new logo. A new type face, longer, leaner, with the name in capitals, I think, may greatly improve the image. I do not mean this unkindly, but with a business name like 'Studio Kristo', cute or fancy artwork would be best avoided. The simpler, the better. </p> <p>My thoughts, for your consideration.</p> <p>JDW</p> <p> </p>

<p>Quang-Tuan, congratulations! A beautiful effort. Well worthy of an honored place in anyone's collection.</p> <p>As a lifelong nature lover and (sometimes) nature photographer, I am very enthused by this announcement. All the more so as Amazon will make the book available (on pre order) for US$39.63, reduced from US$65.00, which even with our currently lousy Aussie dollar/US dollar exchange (currently 70 cents on the dollar) and P&P to pay on overseas shipping on top of the book price, is a great bargain indeed.</p> <p>Amazon is also offering bonuses for pre orders.</p> <p>I will most certainly be putting in my order in September, and I encourage all other nature lovers on this site to do the same.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>I am completely down on Sony for reasons I can sum up in one word - service. Specifically, lack of.</p> <p>I bought a Sony DSLR (I prefer to not identify the model, to keep all this more impartial) for my partner in late 2012. This camera developed shutter and processing problems almost immediately. Service in Melbourne was slow and annoying. At one point, the distributor suggested the camera should go back to Japan to be "done over completely" but noted it would have to be at my cost - this for a six months old camera. The service would take up to six months to have done. No thanks, we decided. As at the time all the problems were relatively minor, and involved basically either resetting the function (shutter) or redoing the process (processing), we opted not to, and just live with the problems.</p> <p>In 2013, while we were traveling in Indonesia, the camera broke down completely. We were in Surabaya at the time, and on the advice of the city's leading repair center, we took the camera to the Sony distributor in Jakarta gave us various reasons, most of them seeming to be thought up on the spot in the very typical Indonesian way, mostly to do (this was finally admitted by staff) with the fact that parts had to be ordered from Japan or Singapore, which the distributor did not consider their role to have to do. As usual the buck was passed back to the manufacturer. I had this in Australia also.</p> <p>I went back to the repair center in Surabaya, where the very helpful (Chinese Indonesian) owner, after making several very long phone discussions with Sony staff in two countries, suggested I should take the camera wither to Malaysia (which coincidentally was to be our next destination) or Singapore. Which we decided to do.</p> <p>In Malaysia, Sony in Kuala Lumpur took the camera and (after charging us their usual service fee, which was reasonable but annoying as Sony in Australia had clearly documented the problems with the camera had first occurred during the warranty period) sent it to their service center. FOUR WEEKS later after several phone calls and two visits to the center, we were finally provided with a quote for repair costs which to our great annoyance, was A$220 more than we had paid for the camera.</p> <p>At that point we cried "whoa!" and walked out.</p> <p>In 2015 my partner's brother had problems with his Sony laptop. Same scenario. In his case, Sony in Australia quoted A$400 MORE than the original cost of the laptop, to essentially replace everything but the diapers on the thing. He also gave up.</p> <p>Sum total and results, three ex-customers for Sony. I for one will never buy anything produced by Sony.</p> <p>In fairness I must say other friends have electronic equipment manufactured by Sony (mostly older gear) and have never had any problems with it. Another family member owns a Sony digital camera and it has worked without problems for two years, altho she shoots infrequently and only in "safe" social situations with it.</p> <p>By comparison, my Nikon D700 (purchased secondhand in 2012) has needed only a very basic CLA, which I had done in Singapore during a stopover. The excellent repair person there took two days to do the work and told me there were no serious problems at all with the camera. I have used this D700 constantly since I bought it and have shot more than 120,000 images with it.</p> <p>To be fair, this is the sad saga of one person's experiences with Sony camera gear and I suggest you regard it as such. However, for us, enough is enough. Our money doesn't grow on trees, and any future spending for my photo gear will go to manufacturers who think enough of their customers to provide a reasonable standard of service for said equipment at affordable costs. Nikon, Canon or Fuji will get my business. Not Sony. </p> <p>JDW on the road.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Jochen, Agfa also made and sold a Rondinax for 120 film. I have one, and use it often. An odd contraption - I still cannot quite work out the somewhat mysterious processes by which it so deftly manages to unwind the film from the paper backing, and then wind it onto the reel, by way of two fully manual actions which, I always think, would fog the film. But no.</p> <p>The big downside to any Rondinax, I think, is having to constantly rotate the inner reel during the entire processing sequence. Can get very boring if one uses diluted developers requiring extra long process times. </p> <p>For a 1930s solution to film processing, the Rondinax tanks works well - which may explain why they can be so expensive to buy when they (occasionally) turn up on web sites like Ebay, or in secondhand photo shops. </p> <p>Then there are film changing bags, made in many varied sizes (I have and often use an 8x10 film loading bag), which when used with a small processing tank like my metal Nikors from the 1970s (light weight, easily loaded, and if used with care, often as not still as good as new after decades of regular use), provide an easy way to load film for processing without having to resort to any such Rube Goldberg inventions.</p> <p>As for the topic of this thread, well,the web site (link) left me entirely unimpressed. As someone write, so much marketing blabla, copy written in a way that talks down to the viewer, like so many adults lecturing children. Not for me, thanks. </p> <p>JDW in Indonesia</p>

<p>Let's lighten up a bit on this, folks. Some of the spam advertising is quite funny - the titles, I mean. I would never open any of the files, but those titles, ha! I read them over my morning coffee and have a good laugh. Later in the day when I return to this site to check the day's posts, often as notall the crappy stuff has been removed. </p> <p>Our poor moderators are doing their work diligently, but they have enough problems as it is. Can we maybe not add to their woes by ceasing to jump up and down and screeching,"do this or else!"?</p> <p>Frank, well and good (heh) for you to say, ban the spammers for life - but who are these spammers, and what good would it do to ban them? Lock one out, they pop up again like weeds in my garden, under a dozen new, instantly made up names. </p> <p>As an architect-photographer and not an IT expert, sadly I have no solutions to offer to this problem, except to commend the moderators for cleaning up the site so well and so quickly, as they do. </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Is your Summicron an M mount lens, or is it a screw mount lens on a screw mount to M adapter?</p> <p>I had this problem many, many years ago with a Summaron 35mm. When I used it on my M2, it showed the 90mm frame lines. It turned out the lens was on a 90mm adapter... </p> <p>Leica gear can display such odd quirks. A remote possibility, but worth checking. </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>I am also revisiting this thread. Yes, Greg, we were (I was) a bit hard on you, in my earlier post. A late apology to you for this, and sincerely meant. My sense of fun went too far, I reckon. </p> <p>For all that, I still am not quite sure why you posted for critique work. Your photography, as I see it, is sufficiently good that you should not have any self-doubts about it. </p> <p>In other words, well done, mate. </p> <p>Any improvement/s you seek would be minimal and best thought out and applied by your good self. You know your strong points and weak points. Revel in the former, practice, research and study to improve the latter. </p> <p>Continue as you seem to do now, to give your clients a "mix" of romantic and fun imagery. Sound them out before the big day to verify which they lean to, and guide yourself accordingly. But give them both. </p> <p>I wish you continued success in your chosen area of photography, which is no longer mine - I left all that many years ago, to preserve what remained of my sanity, and focused on other areas. Have never regretted this decision. I do enjoy and admire good wedding photography, however, and yours is most definitely in this category. </p> <p>BTW, I have just now given you two more "clicks", if it matters... </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>+100 for Recuva by Piriform. This nice little bit of software has saved me from several assassinations in the recent past. </p> <p>Recuva can be fiddly to work with at first, also slow, depending on what you want to recover. A recent accidental delete of an entire card by my partner involved a cautious approach and 2-3 hours of waiting while the software did its work, but in the end we got almost everything back on the card. It can also produce way to many results, some of them going back a long time. Odd what remains on a card even after many reformats! Select your Recuva options with care and repeat the process if need be. </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Ray, if color accuracy is not what you want, then why go through all this? </p> <p>Me,I would scan at very basic levels with almost everything on the scanner turned off, and then do the fixing up in post processing. </p> <p>I tried all the above some years ago in a (largely failed) quest for scanning perfection, and eventually gave up. Scanning is at best a haphazard and imprecise process) and you would be best off creating repeatable workflows (by the time you have scanned a few hundred slides, you will have many of these) for the results you want. </p> <p>The key to survival and keeping your sanity in scanning, I have found, is to mentally "lighten up" and not treat it like a science. As I've already said, it is a very imprecise process and by merely very small adjustments in the scanner as you go, you will get many different and often (but not always) pleasant effects. I prefer to do it all in the post process. </p> <p>I would strongly recommend that before you subject yourself to the color charts ordeal, pick several negatives of subject matter you like and spend an evening with your scanner, experimenting with different settings. Keep detailed notes. You may find (as I did) the results you want are less difficult to obtain than you thought, and with good notes you can then easily repeat the processes. </p> <p>Scanning is not fun to me, but with good preparation it can be enjoyable. A pleasant work environment, nice music and good wine can help. Seriously. The keyword here is "enjoy"...</p> <p>JDW</p> <p> </p>

<p>Notwithstanding everything I have written before, I strongly urge you to buy another Nettar. And retain your sanity.<br /> <br /> Life is not meant to be this complicated. Some of these problems are irresolvable, and our time is just too short.</p>

<p>Another thought came to mind. Out of curiosity. Is the lens scratched in any way? Are there spots on (or in) the lens element(s)? Is there fungus in the lens? </p> <p>A relative who owns a Nettar had a similar problem some years ago. I checked the lens and spotted the above. Sadly, in his case the lens was beyond saving or repair and the camera is now a shelf queen. An unfortunate waste of a good user camera. </p> <p>If the problem persists, you may want to consider buying another Nettar. There seems to be an endless supply of them OL, at almost bargain prices </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>It seems to be a film back issue. Assume you have checked and verified that there is a pressure plate in the camera. This may sound odd, but I have seen more than one folder for sale and yet without a pressure plate, which can easily be removed and not replaced or incorrectly replaced by a previous owner or user.</p> <p>Another possibility could be that you take an image, shut the camera front panel, wind your film on to the next exposure, and later abruptly reopen the front panel to take the next image. This can create a small vacuum in the camera which would pull the film slightly off the film plane and affect the focus. This may also sound odd, but I've been told it was a common problem in the 1950s when folders were more popular cameras. </p> <p>As a third option, check to ensure the front lens element of the camera, or the entire lens unit, was not removed and then incorrectly reinstalled. I doubt it is possible to separate an element from the lens unit and reinstall it reversed, but who knows?</p> <p>As a (distant) fourth possibility, I would recheck the struts,as has already been suggested,just to be sure.</p> <p>Folders are basically quite simple constructions and not much can go wrong with them.The four points above would probably ensure you have checked 80%-90% of the problems.</p> <p>From your images, it seems your camera doesn't have light leaks in the bellows.This is THE most common problem with old folders, easily enough repaired in most cases, but a fiddly and time-consuming job. </p> <p>If all else fails, if this camera is worth it to you, consider having it CLA'd by a reliable repair person. This could be expensive, however.</p> <p>Carefully and sensibly used, the Nettars are reliable performers. I had one with the 75mm f/4.5 Novar and found the lens to be a very sharp optic. The only problem I ever had with it was film buckling due to opening and shutting the front panel too abruptly. I sold mine about a year ago after I bought a Voigtlander Perkeo I with the 75mm f/3.5 Color Skopar, which is SO good, I would never go back to a Nettar-Novar combo, altho it also is no slouch either in the image quality stakes.</p> <p>When you have it working properly, I'm sure you will enjoy your Nettar.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Jochen, I've been a photographer since 1960, and there were several uncles in my family who were shooting with top range gear since the 1920s. One had the first Leica in Eastern Canada and two others had a Rollei and a Yashica, hence my lifelong love for TLRs and roll film, now seemingly gone the way of the folding Kodaks all my aunts once used for summer snaps on the family farm. <br /><br />The 35/50/135 kits were popular even in the Leica screw mount camera days. An uncle bought an M3 when they first came out and had the same three lenses. So their popularity dated to well before the SLR craze which didn't hit our part of Canada until the mid 1960s. I remember the camera ads in the old camera magazines from the late 1950s. The lenses on offer then now seem so,well, primitive by comparisons. Imagine a 28mm f/5.6 - Leica sold one for many years and it was very popular for those who could afford it. Expensive, even back then.<br /><br />When I bought my 28, I recall talking to my camera dealer about it. This was mid '80s, in Sydney (Australia). He told me almost no-one bought 28s at the time. He had a 24mm f/2.8, ex media (or "press" to quote the term of that time) lens, in his show case, which he kept for almost two years before it finally sold. I remember it had a small chip in the front element. I borrowed and used it occasionally. The slides I shot with it were outstandingly good, but again, a 24mm wasn't in my line of thought at that time. I was also, I must add, hideously expensive, in those long ago times 24mm was mostly seen as "panoramic". <br /><br />Zoom lenses were limited at the time. A few daring Nikon users had the (in)famous 43-86, and now and then I saw the 80-200. The 75-150 I believe came out in the early '80s, as a E series lens. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this... <br /><br />In the 1970s when I bought my first Nikkormat (I wasn't rich enough at the time to allow myself the luxury of a Nikon SLR), the 35/50/135 kit was the standard sale in the retail camera trade in Australia (also I believe in North America and probably Europe). My stockist at that time told me 135s were optically very simple to construct and his sale profit margins on telephotos were high. I was poor then, and opted for the 50mm f/2, multicoated. I still have it and use it. A beaut lens. <br /><br />At the time Nikon's prices for their 135s and 35s were outrageous, way above and beyond my limited budget (I was earning a whopping net salary of A$150 a week at the time). As much as I wanted the 35mm f/2 (and eventually bought one, 10 years later), generic lenses made more sense financially, and at my dealer's advice, I bought 35mm and 135mm Hanimex lenses, at much lower prices. The 35 was optically inferior and I quickly traded it in for a Hanimex 28, a good lens. This combo served me well for ten years until I had more cash to part with and bought firstly, a Nikkor 135 f/3.5, then the long lusted after 35 f/2 to supplement a 28 f/3.5 I had acquired secondhand. All pre AIs which I had modified to AIS. I still have them all and often use the 35 and 28, mostly for B&W street work, at which they excel. <br /><br />As regards the 135 f/2.8, even when I had more disposable cash in the '80s the used Nikkors f/2.8s were so expensive that I thought the matter over and eventually got the f/3.5, which I've used at most 20 times over three decades.It's a nice lens, but as I don't "think" telephoto visually and rarely have need for it. In the '90s I bought a demo 80-200 Nikkor which has also seen so little service, it probably needs a servicing. A nice lens, but again, not one I have much need for. Ditto a 300mm which I now and then borrow from a friend who has a stash of old Nikkors. Good for fun landscapes and beach shots, but not a lens I would have spent A$650 for in 1979. <br /><br />When I bought the Nikkors I was offered very low prices for my two Hanimex lenses and I gave them to a friend who was starting out in photography. In 2010 they were still being used (he is a dedicated film buff) and producing excellent images, on film of course. I'm not sure what they would do on say, a Nikon D700. Sure, some of them may be producing somewhat inferior images on test charts, but a lot of the work I see now from the younger film photographers using "heirloom" lenses is as good as, if not better than, what we shot back then. The young now seem to be more daring and willing to experiment than we were then, due to the rise of digital, I reckon. <br /><br />I recall the "telephoto trend" changed in the late '80s or early '90s, when shorter zoom lenses began to be included with camera kits and photographers began thinking more in wide-angle. This seems to have been the case with then young(er) photographers I knew, who are now a few decades older now and steadily catching up to me in age but continue to make more use of their wide-angles. The digital craze changed the playing field for lenses and now even super wides are in common use, much more so than telephotos, I think. <br /><br />Even now with D700s and newer DSLRs, I use primes over zooms, for quality reasons, not for old time's sake. Primes are excellent value for money, with zillions of them available on Ebay and privately at very good prices. The 85 (I have the f/1.8) seems far better value than the super expensive 135 f/2 or the more affordable and superb 180f/2.8 ED (I own the latter but not the former). IS would be useful on 85 and longer lenses, but the prices would then rocket upwards, and perhaps Nikon (and the other manufacturers) may have wisely decided to concentrate their IS and marketing on zooms. It's all about the markets, of course, and the amateur market is where it's at. As was the case in the 1960s when SLRs began to overtake the other cameras on the market. Remember what happened to TLRs when Nikon and Pentax began flooding the retail outlets with less expensive SLRs in the mid '60s. Suddenly we all wanted one, and within a year or two as new Leicas, Contaxes, Exaktas, Rolleis and Yashica TLRs were collecting dust in secondhand stores and pawnshops everywhere, at sale prices to make me want to cry when I think about it. As cheap as chips. <br /><br />Inevitably, time passes and things change. In the '70s we all shot slide films and many of our images were grossly overexposed, but nobody thought anything of that. Maybe we didn't know any better. Nowadays slide film may soon go the way of the Passenger Pigeon. No-one thinks anything now of shooting with 24s, 20s, even 16mm Nikkors. Every second DSLR shooter I meet has a 20mm f/2.8, I see them everywhere. In 1961 or 1962 a Canadian camera shop salesman told me SLR zoom lenses were "only a fad" (he may well have said "only a craze") and wouldn't last, hah! Back then if anyone had even mentioned Image Stabilisation, we would have phoned for an asylum ambulance for them, no-one would even have imagined it. <br /><br />My apology for being so long-winded. I have been around a long time, and I have lived through (and often bought into) several major camera fads of their time. If anyone had talked about laptops and mobile phones in 1961, most likely we would have called the same ambulance as for the geek who went on about IS. In that sense, it has been an interesting half century. <br /><br />Many thanks for having raised an interesting topic, and giving me the op to reminisce. <br /><br />JDW <br /><br />Lest someone takes offence at my earlier comment about Rolleis and Yashica TLRs, I own three of the former and two of the latter, and I make sure each one is fed at least one roll of film every year. As I said, a lifelong love...</p>

<p>Bob B's advice is very sound. I would go with it.</p> <p>If you have delivered all the photos, then your part of the contract agreement is done. </p> <p>You could offer to clean up the best shots in photo-processing, but only minor things (like eye blinks). If she holds out for major facial surgery, consider pasting a gorilla head on all her images... by this I mean think it, and laugh about it, but don't tell her this, and don't do it!</p> <p>If I were in your shoes I wouldn't post any photos of this event. Not even on this site. Legally that could be very dangerous for you. </p> <p>And keep on shooting.</p> <p>If the b-zilla starts making threats, politely remind her that there are legal consequences (and costs) associated with libel and maliciously damaging one's professional reputation. Then step back and let her seethe. </p>

<p>The most important question. Do you have a contract for this work? If so, what does it state?</p> <p>I for one would also like to know, how much were you paid for this assignment?</p> <p>Until we know about the contract, it's difficult to give you any meaningful answers.</p> <p>However, from a lot of past experience in wedding, I would go with Ellis. She sounds like a bully. Stand up to her and see how she copes. </p>

<p>David, read your past posts, and decide if "prissy scold" is appropriate or not. I note you used the term "sarcastic" in your response. Is the pot calling the kettle black? You can be that, you know. No, not black...</p> <p>Enough said. My post(s) are not meant to offend or prolong what could easily deteriorate into a series of rants. You have years of experience and you obviously know your craft. At 67, surely you would not be beyond seriously considering a little advice which I can sum up in two words. Lighten up! This is NOT a perfect world and you do NOT have the answers to everything. People make mistakes. Even you make mistakes. I know I make mistakes. We are all human. So sit back and enjoy.</p> <p>May I add, in many of your posts, I have always appreciated your good advice, and found it to be very accurate. Far more so than many other posters. However, for all that, a little humor, black or not, on this site lightens up what can be a rather leaden purist topic.</p> <p>We are in national election mode, in the final week, in Australia now, and everyone here is a little crazy from all the effluent floating about, I think.</p> <p>Anyway, to return to the original post, could someone please tell me what camera Chris wants to sell? And who the Famous Photographer I've read the thing several times, and for the life of me, I cannot work out what it is...</p> <p>Chris, would you care to post again? You have entertained us well with your original post, and I for one am waiting like that cheese-eating cat for your next.</p> <p>Or are you really Ken Rockwell in another avatar?</p> <p>All this is said entirely Without Prejudice, of course.</p>

<p>OK, I'll bite.</p> <p>I own a Rollei TLR that may have been handled by Vivian Maier in a camera shop in the 1950s. It's old and clapped out. How much would it be worth to a collector? Chris, please can you advise?</p> <p>If Chris is trying to sell a camera, not really so clever of him to not tell us what it is and how much he wants for it, eh wot? Anyway, I've never heard of him, obviously he isn't famous for his dead birds in plastic wrap or not (is that what he meant by "peeps"?), and he is obviously still in the land of the living - so sorry, not interested in his gear, whatever it is. Obviously he will need to become a celebrity ("cel?") first and then pass away. I suggest he takes his time in doing all this, especially the latter. There are so many Glad Wrapped sparrows out there waiting for him. </p> <p>What, I wonder, is David doing with HIS life? Perhaps he will bite at this, and tell us. I for one await with baited breath, like the cat eating cheese before peering down the mouse hole. This site has been quiet of late, and a good rant or two will liven up things a bit. </p> <p>Actually, I think I prefer to forget all this. It isn't spam. It's just ridiculous. April 1 is almost three months gone!</p>

<p>Specifically what are you trying to do? What results are you expecting from your film processing?</p> <p>You seem to be all over the place and not clearly defining what your processing goals and intentions are.</p> <p>Over many years of observing darkroom workers playing with this and that developer, I have concluded that stand and two bath developers mostly appeal to the basically lazy who can't be bothered learning proper technique and want a "one size fits all" solution to all their processing.</p> <p>Personally I have no time for stand development and I have seen only mediocre or outright bad results from all attempts to work with it. It gives you virtually no control over the end product but at least you will have time to watch a video movie or have a beer or two while your film basically stews in a chemical bath. </p> <p>Two bath development has many followers (I happen to be one of them) but unless it it applied with great care, film contrast options can be fairly limited and adding or modifying chemicals in a haphazard way to either bath must be done with great care to avoid disasters. The process times are not always but can be critical. </p> <p>Again, the effect you want is everything. As I don't know that, I feel very limited in what else I can tell you.</p> <p>Some disciplined reading on your part will surely help you gain a basic understanding of what you want to do with your shooting and processing. I would recommend, as a start, the two excellent books on basics by Henry Horenstein, as well as one of the Steve Anchell darkroom guides. The answers to your many (and seemingly disjointed) questions will be found in those two books. There are many others you can then go on to read. Horenstein covers all the basics in B&W, he writes well and is easily understood. Anchell you may find somewhat more complex, but he outlines many different options with developer mixes and after reading him, you should be able to think through what it is you want to do and then return to us with some less general and more definite questions about your processing. we can then help you with some more exact answers.</p> <p>In photography as well as in darkroom work, clear goals and exact knowledge are indispensable.</p>

<p>Woo hoo, everyone! I stand corrected on much of what I wrote before. Bill Bowes' post was especially informative. I will be on the lookout for filters for my bargain basement and rough-looking Perkeo 1, which works perfectly and was, I reckon, one of the bargains of my lifetime.</p> <p>Used camera prices in Australia, where I live, are ridiculously high. A leading secondhand camera shop in Melbourne is currently flogging, rather trying to flog, a 1950s Rolleiflex in so-so working condition, with lens hood and a rather battered case but no lens cap, for A$550. Of course it has the magic name, Rollei. Used Rolleicords when they do turn up, sell for about A$400, and a Vb in reasonable condition will fetch A$650 and up. Old folders rarely turn up in camera shops and have largely vanished from Ebay in the past year, as have most quality cameras. </p> <p>Then of course 120 film prices here, now edging to $10+ per roll. Chyeapest to order OL from overseas, even with postage and the depressing Aussie dollar devaluation US and some European film prices are still very good value. </p> <p>With the right mindset, photography with a 6x6 folder can be amazingly liberating (not so much 6x9s which seem to inhibit rather than free my creative instincts and, I've found, are good mostly for landscapes and not much else. With the square image folder, there is so little fuss or bother, just look at the scene, set speed and aperture, and shoot away. As long as I remember to wind either before or after every shot, my images (usually) come out fine. Fortunately I'm good at guessing distances, and my results seem to come out always sharp.</p> <p>Voigtlander lenses have to be the sharpest I have ever worked with. The Color Skopar on my Perkeo in a true winner. Most Perkeos come with the cheaper, three element Vaskar, which apparently was the competitor to the Novar on the Zeiss Nettars. I've seen slides shot with a Vaskar, and they were excellent.</p> <p>Used with care at f/8 or smaller apertures, the Novar is a good performer.</p> <p>So I've eaten my words, and now agree, yes, there are many MF bargains out there for those who have the time and inclination to look. </p>

<p>Some of you posters live in dreamland, I think. Good usable Mamiyas and Yashicas for $150 or less? Where? I will take 10, and pay spot cash for them. Volume discounts, of course... </p> <p>Ten years ago you would easily have found a ton or so of MF cameras in your price range. Nowadays, not so. Prices have caught up. From long experience, I can safely say to you, any camera you find for $150 or less will probably not work right, and will need a full CLA, which will double your costs. If you want to go this way, go right ahead. I certainly wouldn't.</p> <p>The safest under $100 bets would be a 1950s German 6x6 folder in reasonable condition. Last week I bought a 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo 1 with a Color Skopar lens in so-so but usable condition and the much-sought-after compur shutter with speeds from 1 to 1/500. Cost me $90, and came with a case, lens hood, and a yellow green filter. Private purchase, from an estate sale. </p> <p>This little gem produces 12 6x6 engraving like negatives on every roll of 120 film I've shot with it so far. </p> <p>Zeiss Nettars 6x6 are sometimes available, and come with Novar lenses, which are possibly slightly less up to par in the quality stakes than the Color Skopars, but good performers. The overall build quality can be iffy, but Nettars were amateur cameras, and not often overused, in fact the opposite will likely be the case, and the shutter speeds will be stiff from underuse. </p> <p>Be warned that a using a folder and getting good negatives involves a sometimes very long learning curve. A separate exposure meter is an absolute must. Also a lens hood, tho prices for some hoods (like the Voigtlander) on web sites can be a sick joke, one would-be seller wants $125 for one in a case, but has been listing this item for six months and it remains unsold. You can find generic lens hoods in some secondhand photo shops. A UV filter will suffice to protect your lens, if it's worth protecting. Many old folder lenses suffer from overcleaning, tho' again, this often doesn't affect image quality. </p> <p>Unfortunately it's now a case of you get what you pay for, at a premium. Maybe best for you to save up your money and buy better. A good Yashica TLR will also serve you well, but for a good one you'll pay much more than the upper limit on your budget. Ditto a Mamiya TLR, tho the really good ones (C330s) cost big money, and these cameras tend to be heavy. To me an RB67 is a studio camera and not really the best for casual outdoor work. Think Graflex! </p>

First, let me say Congratulations! on buying a Nikon D90. It is a fine camera, and with a little care in use, will serve you as well as many newer (and more expensive) Nikon models. I own two, as well as a D700, I use my D90s regularly and am always pleased with the results I get. If you want the cheapest-best option, go for the Nikon 17-55mm kit lens. On the whole it performs well and I have even seen pros using it for their assignment work. Family friends recently had their daughter's wedding shot by someone (pro) who usedD90s and this lens for most of the shooting, and the results were exceptionally good. If you prefer a prime lens or want a better fixed length for portraits, take a serious look at one of the Nikon D 50mm lenses. A secondhand D lens will give you approximately a 75mm outlook. If used carefully and with an appropriate lens hood and a clean Nikon UV filter, it is also a mean on the street performer allowing you to stay at a discreet distance from your subjects, which can also be a positive factor in portrait shoots` The 50 will let you print easily to A4 or larger print sizes. Best of all, prices on used 50s if bought secondhand (ideally from a reliable seller such as a long-established photo shop) will please you without emptying your wallet or draining your bank account. It's very much a matter of horses for courses, as Australians often say.

<p>Look for a Nikkormat (FT2 or EL) in good working condition. Add a standard (50mm) lens. The 50 f/2 is a classic. You will never look back or regret buying this.</p> <p>If you are more into wide angle photography, a 35mm f/2 or a 28mm f/3.5 will serve you well, and not run into serious money.</p> <p>Nikkormats are 1970s cameras and so much older than many of the later F model Nikons, but they are built like Sherman tanks and just go on and on and on working and producing good images. Go for the best working model you can afford. Check the metering system ('jumpy' needles are an indication that the meter will need repair, which can be expensive or may not be fixeable at all). Also check the foam seals inside the camera.</p> <p>Even if you drop a Nikkormat, even the ELs, often as not you just pick it up and go on with your shooting. A few dents sometimes improve the look, tho not the resale value.</p> <p>Not much else can go wrong with a Nikkormat. My oldest two (ELs) were bought new in the 1970s and have never required servicing, tho I did replace the foam seals (did this myself) in the mid 2000s.</p> <p>Then again in my experience since the 1960s, almost every Nikon made except the old original Nikkorex and the FG10 are good cameras. Solid, reliable, and always deliver the goods.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I bought my first Rollei (an E2 with a 3.5 Planar) in the 1960s and I've owned two Ts since the 1980s. I've never had any problems with either of the Ts that couldn't be serviced quickly and at minimal cost. More importantly, if I were to sell either today, I would get more for them (even on Ebay) than I originally paid. Try that with a Yashica.</p> <p>The Ts are considered as flimsy by some but in 30 years of using a T I've never had the so-called problems with the aperture and speed adjustment lever. Both cameras were serviced once, about 12 years ago, and work as well as they did when I first bought them (in 1985 and 1992). As does my E2, purchased new in the 1960s. The E2 is showing some separation in the taking lens, but when used with a lens hood and not aimed directly at the sun, images are fine.</p> <p>Accessories for these cameras are bayonet 1, which was considered an amateur size, so they are often available quite cheaply. I also have 16 exposure kits on the two cameras and I use these almost exclusively. The images I shoot are easily enlarged to A4 or occasionally larger. Image tones can be described as gorgeous. Rollei B&W negatives print more easily and with far better tones than 35mm negatives shot on the same films. </p> <p>I would recommend a T first, and then a Rolleicord. If you try one and decide it's not really your sort of camera, you can easily sell it, and even the dedicated bargain hunters on Ebay will often as not pay your asking price. </p> <p>So you should consider buying the T at the price you mentioned. Condition being everything, of course. Most Ts were regarded as an amateur Rollei and few were badly used or even overused. Even a grey body model (the original Ts from 1957 or so til the mid 60s were Series 1 and mostly grey models), is a good camera, and far easier to work with than a Rolleicord.</p> <p>See if the shop will let you shoot a test roll with it. That will likely sell you on the camera.</p> <p>JD on the road in rural Australia.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Lisbon is a wonderful city and I greatly envy you for having the good fortune in life to live there.</p> <p>I have visited two times. May never get back there again, but of all the capital cities of Europe, if I had the opportunity to live anywhere, it would surely be your town. A true photographer's heaven. But then so is almost all of Portugal. </p> <p>I for one, will greatly look forward to your posted photos in future. </p>