john_robison4

<p>I have that lens in M42 mount. It came on a Fujica ST605n picked up at a photo show, I needed a M42 mount body for a couple of Takumars that had come my way. Have not tried it out because the plastic focusing outer ring just crumbled into several bits and fell apart. I can still focus the lens but there is no distance scale or DOF scale. It seems from looking at ebay photos this is a common problem with this lens.</p> <p>There were apparently two versions of this lens in screw mount and I think mine might be the second version. Maybe I'll just wrap some black masking tape around the bare aluminum focusing ring to get a bit of a grip and try mine out.</p>

<p>If it worked reliably and was in current production the whole thing would probably be priced north of $800, perhaps a lot more. That would limit potential buyers I think. I have not done home C-41 but as Costco has stopped and everyone else sends out their C-41 (and you might not even get your negatives back if your not careful) I now think I'll order a couple of Tetenal kits from B&H and give it a go. From reading others experiences it seems doable for a reasonably careful person and I've done B&W now for the last 45 years.</p> <p>Oh, and I have an interior bathroom that is totally blacked out, that is where I load film now. </p>

Curvature of field? I don't know why but one side of the frame is worse than the other side. Perhaps one of the elements is off center or cocked. I could see the effect even on my iPad. Found a similar model at a thrift store but the shutter jammed soon and I just gave it to my three year old grandkid to play with.

<p>I actually had a Rollei 16 about 45 years ago. Big camera for a submini. Don't remember much about it but sold it after maybe 6 months because my little Pen VF didn't occupy hardly any more volume, just a different shape and 35mm B&W bulk was dirt cheap. I started shooting 18X24 then and have never been without one since.</p>

<p>With my Minolta 16II I've tried slit down 400 ISO B&W with Diafine and got reasonable results. Mind you, I had the '0' lens on it for focus at 10m and DOF from 5m to inf @ f2.8 for an indoor stage play so the set up was very specific to the conditions. For very low light I have no choice in a small camera but to drag out the Pen D with a f1.9 and shutter speed down to 1/8th. I do have a Mamiya Super but the slow speeds are a bit wonky even after I flushed the gunk out of the escapement. </p>

Of the ones you listed I have only the Box Tengor so am biased toward that one. That said I don't travel much but of my too many cameras I like my 35mm half frame Pen F and lenses. You can stuff a lot of travel on each roll. If I was going to shoot my Tengor then I'd use B&W and contact print it, then put the pictures in one of those paper albums, black pages, with those gummed paper triangles. Write notes about the pictures in a silver gel pen. Might as well go retro all the way.

<p>I'm just pointing out that what film size and format size a camera is often bears little relationship to it's size. Therefor it can be hard to classify a camera based on film or format size. Even within what is normally regarded a submini film, i.e. 16mm, there are plethora of format sizes. <br> 10X10mm<br> 10X14mm<br> 12X17mm<br> 13X18mm<br> Double perf, single perf, no perf, special single perf (110 size cartridges)<br> 14X21mm<br> and I'm sure I missed a bunch, 35mm film must have had, in it's history a hundred different format sizes. There are just too many variations so people have binned cameras into just a few discussion groups, and there is a lot of crossover. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Why so worked up Martin? What does it matter what people call them, it's just a name. After all a Tessina uses 35 mm film but is smaller than a lot of cameras that use 16mm. Are 110 film cameras submini's? Some were quite large as were TLR's that used 16mm like the GAMI, and the Goerz Minicord. The Goldammer Goldeck uses 16mm and is at least as tall and long as a Rollei 35. They seem too large to be classified as submini even if they do use 16mm film. And, most popular, (all actually), cameras listed as subminiature are huge compared to their negative area. I have a 6X6 Zeiss Nettar folder that is truly coat pocketable or will fit in a typical cargo pocket and provides a 6X6 negative.</p> <p>Please don't misunderstand, I think my IIIs is a marvel and the Minolta 16II, for what they sell for, are amazing little cameras (oh but only if they had a focusing lens like the Kiev 30, then they would be perfect). I also have a selection of Olympus half frames including a Pen F and several Pen lenses. They are a joy to work with and for a system camera, very compact. Sure, I never go anywhere without slipping the IIIs in a pocket but at least, with my compact half frame cameras I don't have to slit film, load my own cartridges, try to keep everything dust and grit free (don't always accomplish that one) and just generally work very hard to get pictures. I kick around with Minolta 16 and Minox 8X11 just for fun, but if I want compact and serious enough to produce at least a decent 8X10 without jumping through many hoops, then I grab one of my Pens.</p>

<p>Is there free parking at that location? Is there enough parking for expected attendance. Would hate to drive in from Olympia to find parking very far away or unavailable.</p>

<p>A binocular meant to be attached to the front of a lens via an adapter. If for instance you attached it to a 50mm lens and the binocular was 7X then you would have the equivalent of a 350mm lens. Performance was usually quite poor compared to a prime lens of the same focal length. I have a 4X Tamron Aux telescope with a series 5 fitting. I have attached it to my Olympus Pen F 38mm f1.8 via a 43mm to series 5 adapter giving a overall focal length of 152mm, the results were not very good.</p> <p>I would imagine the stress these placed on the lens filter threads they were attached to could quite often damage the lens.</p>

Is that out of focus appearance from massive field curvature? I'm not talking about distortion, but the shape of the in focus area being like a bowl with the bulge outward, away from the camera.

Glen H., I forgot Lomography reintroduced 110. The OP's camera takes the regular Minolta 16 cassette. The film does not need perforations to advance. Once you get a few cartridges, 2 or 3 should be plenty, then it is just a matter of reloading 18-19 inches of film into the cartridge. At current prices for ORWO 16mm B&W negative film you can reload for about 75 cents per roll for the film. I'm set up from many years ago to do this. That said, starting now a person could spend $100 real easy to get to that first roll of film ready to load. That is based on buying old expired film on eBay to obtain cartridges, figure 10 to 15 dollars a cartridge, getting a developing tank and reel that can handle 16mm, buying a 100 ft. spool of film, getting developer and fix. Depending on how good a shopper you are it could still run over $100 easily. A lot of lettuce just to try something out.

Wow, the Minicord is really narrow. Wonder what the Minolta 16II is. It's long base is 14mm and lens focal length is 22mm which would be close to a 53mm on 35mm at best comparable crop. Many 16mm film submini's had 25mm lenses, even more narrow than the 22mm. When Minolta came out with the MGs and QT with larger frames it really helped to get a somewhat wider angle of view. Of course for my Minox IIIs I just use the binocular clamp to put a .42X aux fisheye in front of the camera. Works ok.

Glen H, Years ago I bought a Yankee Master tank and reels off of eBay, they do 16mm and are better built than the Yankee II. Bryan Roberts, Minolta did indeed make a SLR viewing 16mm camera but they took 110 cartridges. The OP camera takes the standard Minolta 16 cartridge. They are easy to reload, the 110 cartridge is anything but.

You might get more help on the Minox forum. It also covers 16mm cameras. I have several Minolta cameras using 16mm film and about a dozen cartridges that I reload. You have to reload film yourself and develop it yourself. That really isn't an option. Sure, Blue Moon camera in Portland Orgeon can develop and print 16mm, both color and B&W, but it is very expensive. For B&W you can use ORWO 16mm negative movie film, for color you would have to make or buy a film slitter and slit down larger format film, either 35mm or 120 size film. Discouraged yet? Well, you get the picture, even I don't do it as much as I have in the past. Still have 200 feet of 16mm film to use though.

<p>This could make it easier to clean the external VF/RF window.</p>

I don't think you will ever see any effect from that little paint loss. You would gag if you saw my beat up 85mm f2 Zuiko, still produces good results though. Always use a proper hood.

Since I like Olympus products I've always toyed with the idea of obtaining a Trip 35. Trouble is, already too many unused cameras sitting in cabinet. I do have a 35RC so it is hard to justify still another VF type Olympus. Still......

Noting much at all. Using old folders, 35mm SLR's, almost everyone ignores me. The exception is my home made pinhole cameras, which are always on a tripod, and sometimes my IIIs Minox. One time, a couple of blocks from the apartment, I was using a 4x5 pinhole camera and a beautiful young girl approached and was very interested in what I was doing. Now, I'm a fat, rumpled old man with messy hair so it was not a suave, touch of gray around the temples, handsome visage that was the attraction. I explained to her the negative/positive process, in this case using photo paper as a negative. When I got back to the apartment I told the missus that this here pinhole camera thing is a chick magnet, she just rolled her eyes, and went back to her reading.

It's the type of camera that some company should still be building today. A basic film camera to learn with. Full manual control of shutter/aperture/focus, scale focus, simple optical viewfinder. But today it probably could not be produced in sufficient numbers for a under $60 retail and would become just another overpriced Lomo toy.

With a tester like these and moving slit focal plane shutters would you not have to test in at least 3 parts of the frame. At the start of travel, in the middle and at the end, to check for capping?

Ok Erwin, here is the drill, and you probably are not going to like it. You are not the only backer to get a Travelwide 90 where the helical is too tight. When I received mine it was way too tight. So.......here is what I did. I disassembled the helical. That required removing the 4 very tiny Phillips head screws inside the camera, from the back. You will have to have a small Phillips screwdriver with a shaft long enough to reach the screws. Then you can thread off the focusing collar and remove the helical. If you look closely at the helical you will see, running laterally, 4 places where there are raised ridges, every 90 degrees around the circumference of the helical. These ridges must be reduced to the surface of the helical valley. Let's be clear here! I'm not talking about the threads of the helical, these raised ridges run from front to back in a straight line. Anyway, back to the tutorial. Obtain a sheet of #220 grit sandpaper. Cut strips of sandpaper 7mm wide by 200mm long. Now, drag the sandpaper across the ridges, applying downward pressure with your thumb, right on the ridge. Take several swipes with the sandpaper and then examine to see what progress you have made. The ridges must be eleminated. If part of the ridge goes over the threads, gently sand those down also. After you have finished you may want to polish up your work with some #600 grit sandpaper. Now reassemble the helical. If you do not want to disassemble the helical then you can just turn it all the way out and use the sandpaper on the area you can reach. Doing just the area you can reach will also help the helical to turn easier. I hope this has not been too daunting. I've been a do it yourself type of person since forever so it was not too difficult for me but I can see where this could seem overwhelming. Hope you can sort things out.

Welcome Kenji, nice to see some young folks interested in film. Lots of excellent advice that I cannot improve on. Just wanted to welcome you to the wonderful world of classic film cameras. Take care.

Regarding used DSLR prices I think a good deal is the Olympus E1, you can find bodies for less than $100 and it is still a fairly good performer with a good viewfinder. Brought out in 2003, in digital terms practically Stone Age.

Almost forgot, some cameras of this type won't let you release the shutter if you are out of range, I.e. The shutter speed is too fast for the light conditions even with the largest aperture or the scene is too bright for the shutter speed selected. Be shure to check if this is the case before you do anything thing else.