john_robison4

Cripes man! That probably weighs more than my entire Olympus Pen F film kit, a Pen F body and 4 primes. Bet that rips through a 36exp. roll in no time. Okay, just had to weigh my Pen F kit in it's small Tamrac bag, total including 2 extra rolls of film and other dobobs, 4lbs-6.5oz. or 2kg.

If (a really BIG if) I wanted to make a new SLR I'd get a Ricoh KR-5 Super, take it apart, and use it as a model for a making all the parts. Buy the shutter ready made, keep the early PK mount and spend money on the viewing system. This project is way, way overthought.

Well now I've seen everything. Was it hard advancing the paper through the camera? I would be concerned it would unduly strain the advance gears due to the thickness of the paper. Actually kind of a neat idea though.

The mostly plastic 35mm compacts from the mid 70's to late 80's leave me cold, both in styling and the stinky slow zooms on some of them. Plus I just cannot abide auto only exposure control. As far as a compact 35 I like my Oly 35RC. Certainly not perfect but solid and good enough. Cons; a hard to grip aperture ring, a silly 43.5mm filter size, defunct (mercury) battery needed. (I use #675 Zinc air cells), focusing ring feel is too light and loose for my taste. Pros; Compact, solid feel, shutter speed easy to access and adjust, RF patch easy to see, RF easy to adjust, GN lens, (not a big deal, seldom use flash). As far as the odd filter size I keep on a 43.5 to 43mm step down ring, obtained from one of those HK suppliers for $2. Works fine and does not shadow the meter eye. Besides I have a pile of 43mm filters and hoods and caps because I have a Pen F camera and several Zuiko's for it that take that size. Finally, full mechanical (not battery dependent) manual control when I want it! This is a biggie with me, I don't care how 'smart' the meter is.

. Done that, with my half frame Pen F and also the screen on a TLR. This thing also reminds me of a contraption made by Nikon many years ago to use Poliroid 4x5 pack film on a Nikon F, the Speed Magny. An ungainly thing to be sure, with the image projected onto the film and due to the layout two mirrors are required to get a correct image, left to right. Photographing through the eyepiece should work for my OM-1, I have a ultra fine screen for it intended for super telephoto lenses.

And it is not even my idea, seen it on PP. I'd modify it a bit to make it more comfortable to use. Really just a +4 diopter (250mm) lens projecting an image onto a piece of tracing paper. Lens would cover about 5X7 inches. Then just photograph the image with a small digital camera or with your phone. We baby sit an inquisitive 2 year old. Sounds like a good winter project.

Have you seen the back side of the camera? A big lump and of course no reflex viewing. Ungainly would be a polite term. No, don't think I want to festoon my lovely mechanical SLR's with such a Rube Goldberg type contraption. Besides, with a home made square cardboard tube, a +4 close up lens and a iPhone you could build a camera that would operate in a similar manner but with a total cost (assuming you already have a phone or small digital camera) of 10 or 20 dollars, an afternoon and some packing tape.

The concept appeals to me but I think it has as much chance as me flapping my arms and flying to the moon. Why the appeal? Well, why do I still use film? Because that is what the cameras I like take. After looking into a dinky useless viewfinder, trying to focus a legacy lens on a DSLR, I have renewed enthusiasm when I bring my OM-1 up to my eye and focus on that big bright (and interchangeable) screen. I use the 1-10 screen, plain matte with grid lines. Oh yes, I suppose one could cough up $5K or so for a full frame DSLR, a large and heavy monster to be sure. But why, I have perfectly good SLR's from the 70's that are mechanical marvels. Besides, I certainly don't have that level of disposable income. (And I suspect I'm far from alone in that regard.) Yes, it ain't going to happen but....what I'd like to see is an interchangeable back for my OM-1, about the size of the Data back, with power supplied by a battery pack that attaches to the bottom of the camera and supplies power through built in contacts that go into the digital back. I'd even accept a smaller than FF sensor, say 18X24mm (Yeah, I'm a half frame fan.) And a matching screen with the outline of the frame on the screen. Since all OM single digit cameras had interchangeable backs in practice it would be; unclip the film back, clip on the digital back and power supply. Young folks who have only had DSLR's with tunnel vision penta-mirror vf's always have a WOW moment when I let them take a peek through my 44 year old OM-1 with a 85mm f2 attached.

"Details....... are scarce..." I would call that a huge understatement. And Kickstarter? Lets see, collect a few hundred thousand dollars from 'backers' (What precisely is a 'backer', from their often strident demands in the comments section of these Kickstarter projects, they certainly don't know.) . Offer pie in the sky promises on product and delivery times for the 'Rewards'. Reluctantly post empty 'updates' about unexpected delays in the project. Finally, after the whole thing goes down in flames the project 'creators' disconnect from all contact with the backers and try to disappear.

Always had a soft spot for the 4:3 aspect ratio. My camera of choice has been Olympus, from a early all manual Pen VF camera (still have it) to the Pen F and a few half frame Zuiko's, and a Pen D.. With todays T-grain film grain is less of an issue.

Not bad, considering it isn't TTL focusing. Have not tried my IIIs with binoculars. I have a nondescript pair of 7X50's , really old without center focusing, each eyepiece has to be focused. We viewed a 90% + eclipse with eyepiece projection on a piece of white Masonite through my very old 2.4 inch refractor. Without a proper solar filter, eyepiece projection is the only safe way to view the sun that I know of.

Very nice MTC. Those are beautiful pictures.

Wouldn't use the bino clamp (got one though). I build most photo accessories I need. Lets see.... 50mm f1.8 Zuiko, used in reverse. Held up off copy by translucent material. (I'll figure out what later). Plastic front lens cap with 1/2 inch hole bored dead center. Make cradle for IIIs out of hobby plywood cushioned with black felt and made to place lens directly over hole after advancing the film. Glue cradle to lens cap. Bore and tap hole 'in just the right place' for cable release. A hair elastic could be rigged to secure camera for each shot. Slip camera out of slot to advance film and tension shutter between shots. Ah yes, can see it in my minds eye. (Especially after little afternoon cheap red wine).

Les, I was speaking of the viewfinder model, not the Pen F, which I also have. No screen, just a projected frame VF. When The OP mentioned all manual and compact I also thought of the 35RC but it has a 42mm lens. Sounds like the OP wants a full frame 28mm angle of view. And all manual. And compact. And he would like the lens to be a 'pancake' lens. Now, I have a 28mm lens for my M4-2.....but it's a plastic, 2 element, f11 swiped from a little plastic 35mm and mounted as fixed focus on a body cap. It's only the thickness of the body cap, about 1/8 inch. Somehow though I don't think that's what he had in mind.

Nope, nothing I know of. A Leica 1f with a CV 25mm f4 perhaps. Compact and all manual. But if you already have an M6 then I wouldn't mess around trying to find a 1f. For compact I really like my half frame Olympus Pen. This is the first model introduced in 1959. It is all manual with a Copal leaf shutter with B-1/25-1/50-1/100-1/200 w/X-sync via standard PC, a 28mm f3.5 stopping down to f22 that will focus by scale to 2 feet and a .5x projected bright frame finder. Weight about 13oz. The 28mm on a half frame has about the same angle of view that a 40mm would have on a full frame 35mm camera. Not as wide as you want but fairly compact.

With a fairly simple 2 element cemented lens you could measure from about midway of the thickness of the lens. But with a 6 element 50mm camera lens it would hard to exactly determine where along the lens barrel one should measure (close to mid point?) So it's just easier to use your eye. Of course the best way may be to 'cut and try' as it were. Unfortunately too busy now with house repairs and just moved and cannot find which box has Minox developing and film slitter and other accessories to my IIIs. I have at least 600 pounds of boxes, all labeled "John's camera stuff". None have ever said I was too bright.

I'm quite aware of the math. That is why when I said focus with your eye (corrected) I meant with the distance part of your eyeglasses, so that a parallel bundle of light will be coming through the lens. Then the Minox lens, set at infinity (which I noted in my post) will bring the light to focus. I am quite nearsighted so if I focused with my eye alone the lens would be set too close to the object and present to the minox lens a divergent bundle of light that would focus behind the focal plane. Fuzzy fuzzy.

The Omega watch face looks ok, the stamps, not so much. Since the Minox lens cannot be stopped down the limited depth of field would make it critical to set the exact distance from the object. Since the image is not being viewed through the lens this could be difficult. Just for kicks and giggles I suppose one could use a standard 50mm camera lens reversed, focused by eye (corrected) on the object being photographed, then the camera, with its lens set to infinity placed in the position of where your eye was. I alsol have a series 5, +10 diopter (100mm FL) that I could try mounted in the bino clamp. Should be interesting. For regular macro I mount a 55mm f2.8 Vivitar Macro on my Pen F. The lens is i M42 mount and I have an Olympus M42 to Pen F mount adapter. This lens focuses from infinity to 1:1 and with half frame that is a field size of 18X24mm.

Close up lens!? For what purpose? It focuses to 8 inches (like mounting a +5 close up lens ) and that with parallax compensation. At 8 inches field size is less than 4 by 5.5 inches. How much closer would a person want to come?

<p>Actually, just looking now it seems Bodies go for a lot less than $50. I have a Sears KS500 with 50mm f2 that is a KR5 with Sears name on it that works perfectly and I bought for $5 at a photo flea market 3 years ago.</p>

<p>Look at a Ricoh, starting at KR5, the most basic model. Then look for KR5 Super, a slight upgrade. These have the same PK lensmount so you have a wide choice of K mount Takumars plus third party brands in basic K mount. All manual control, vertical travel mechanical metal shutter, uses S76 batteries (2) for meter but is still fully functional without meter.</p> <p>Bodies usually go for less than $50 or less on the big auction site.</p>

<p>You must have the same strain of GAS I have. Just got a N61 in the mail yesterday from Latvia for a total of $12 with shipping. I have an M4-2 but am too poor/cheap to buy Leica lenses or even CV lenses normally, (although I have a 35mm f2.5 PII, long story) Hey, I have that same meter too.<br> Dull, rainy and cool here and have not loaded a roll yet, very busy with other projects like a 28mm f11, 2 element plastic lens pulled off a simple 35 and adapted to the Leica, that one looks good so far for a snapshot lens in good light with fast film.</p> <p>There is a Leica Store at Bellevue Mall but that is about 60 miles one way. I'd still like to rubber neck in the store with my plastic body cap lens mounted on the M4-2. Probably cause some of the Leica fan boys to faint dead away.</p>

<p>I cannot imagine why Canon bothered to make such a limited camera. If I recall correctly it had a regular roller blind focal plane shutter so I don't think the body would have been any cheaper to make than the FL or FD lens mount series. The front lens components probably would have been a little cheaper to make than the fully interchangeable auto aperture & meter coupled FD mount but not by much. That said, if the camera is still functional and you can use a #675 hearing aid battery to power the meter (the #625 mercury batteries are no longer available) then there is no harm running a roll through it with the already attached lens, probably the 50mm f1.8</p>

<p>That body and lenses don't match. The camera had a fixed rear lens group and interchangeable front components of several focal lengths. The lens in the picture appears to be a Canon FD mount with a 2X attached to it. There were only 4 lenses available for that camera, all except the 50mm very hard to come by today. They consisted of 35mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8, 95mm f3.5 and 125mm f3.5. The lens in the picture would fit any Canon body using the FD mount such as;<br /> Canon FTb<br /> Canon TLb<br /> Canon F1 <br /> Canon TX<br /> this is by no means a complete list of bodies with the FD mount but they are common and easy to find used.</p> <p>I do not know how or why these two different systems are together but the lens pictured will not fit the camera in the picture. </p>

<p>Since I still shoot Pen F (the real Pen F that uses film). I did not like it when they called one of their digital cameras 'Pen F'. Now a search brings up a lot of digital stuff even when I include the world 'film' in the search.</p>