mark_freburg

<p>Ha ha ha!</p>

<p>Jos, Spencer, thank-you. The LensPen is cheap enough it seems worth having for that inevitable occasion when something does get on the lens inadvertently.</p> <p>Jos--that video explained the SensorKlear product well enough but was still terrible. The narrator was not very professional, was she?</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen. I <em>don't</em> routinely clean my lenses. I don't touch them unless I see something on them, and I can't get it off with the brush. Basically last option. But I like being prepared. The old Boy Scout tendency I guess. I also keep clear filters on my lenses, a carryover from the old days. I've been told this is completely unnecessary, too. Again, avoidance through pre-planning? Thoughts?</p>

<p> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71XNik67NKL._SL1299_.jpg <BR>I am out of the loop in many ways, and was not aware of the "LensPen" until recently. It looks like a handy tool, beter than carrying a lens cloth and liquid lens cleaner.</p> <ul> <li>Do you recommend the LensPen?</li> <li>How long do they last?</li> <li>Why are there different kinds, and why do I need them? (See photo of kit, below...er, <em>above</em>...apparently.)</li> </ul> <p>Thank-you!<br /> --Mark</p>

<p>Ha ha ha ha ha!!</p>

<p>Douglas, I'm also a member of the Pentax Forum. I've looked at the sale section. I will consider that option as it doesn't have the fees that eBay has, as you mention. Thank-you!</p>

<p>Hector, thanks for the additional info on KEH.com!</p> <p>To the guys commenting on "mint." I should not have used the word. I have been collecting guns for decades and it's the same way in that world. I made the mistake of speaking casually as one might while sitting around the kitchen table speaking to friends, as opposed to speaking across the sales table to a buyer or seller. I clearly understand the difference and apologize in case I mislead anyone who doesn't understand the specifics of such terms when used officially.</p>

<p>Jochen, your comments make sense, though I might take exception to "K-mount junk" only because what I have is in such excellent condition. If film wasn't such a hassle I could use this stuff until I die. That doesn't distract from your sensible suggestion, however. I guess I need at least a starting price, however, for several items.</p>

<p>Well, I actually might have the boxes for a couple that I bought new, but the rest no. Most of it is excellent to mint however. I have looked on eBay. I guess I need to do more of that for a longer stretch to see get a broader idea of averages. Thanks Spencer.<br> --Mark</p>

<p>Thanks folks. I should add I'm more interested in selling than buying. A also wonder what "KEH" is. I guess I should google it!</p>

<p>Is their a source--any kind, anywhere--some kind of guide as to going prices for older 1970s-1980s film cameras?<br> Thanks for any and all discussion, suggestions, or general blather on this topic!<br> --Mark</p>

<p>I really don't know anything about cameras. I have a half dozen Pentax classic film bodies and a bunch of lenses that kept me happy until the early 2000s when I finally went digital, also Pentax because of the lens compatibility of course. Got a high end Canon non-SLR. Don't know anything about other cameras. Would do some research and buy a really nice, small and handy rangefinder because before I got into SLRs I learned photography on a rangefinder, and I consider those real cameras. No focus, no internal meter--you make pictures with your brain. But maybe those <em>don't exist anymore?</em> They are all digital too, and of course have built-in meters...?</p> <p>I guess I'd like someone to build an SLR with the simplicity of a manual, match-needle camera like the Pentax K1000 except digital. No menus, no automatic nothing. Only shoots RAW images. That would use up my lottery winnings.....</p>

<p><strong>Beatrice</strong>, SMC M prime lens are EVERYWHERE, as well as aftermarket lenses, and you should be able to replace that lens inexpensively. I wouldn't bother with trying to fix it or having it fixed myself, unless you just enjoy that sort of thing for its own sake. <br> --Mark</p>

<p>I probably suck for saying this, but after doing a lot more research in the days since I last posted, I'm not going to do any of my own processing, and for now, due to the cost associated with buying film and having it processed, which seems to be about $25 per 36 exposures of C41 (at best), I'm going to hold off on using my film cameras. <strong>Walter Degroot</strong> mentioned he was happiest hen using match-pointer 35mm cameras, and darned if I didn't get a lot of real joy from them myself, so I'm not dumping them, at least not my favorites, but I have several hobbies to feed (which is nutty in and of itself), so that's the upshot of all this. I recently bought another modern lens and yesterday bought a second--gasp--digital SLR--I hope I can get out of here alive having said that, but darned if cost of a second used DSLR body versus the cost of just a few rolls of film plus processing didn't come up in the decision. Am I a traitor? I still love those old friends, especially the ones that are mostly mechanical....<br> Mark</p>

<p>I need to be clear about my interests (oh, by the way, I did specify in my original message that I do 35mm only). I really would like to use my old cameras because I love the simplicity of the manual cameras and the fact that they force one to be a photographer and not simply a computer using drone. Forgive me if that seems to harsh an assessment of modern electronic everything cameras. ;) When I used cameras in the old days I think I thought far more about all aspects of the shot. Today of course one thinks about the composition but it is too easy to let a digital camera "think" for itself when it comes to exposure--but of course perhaps I've become lazy. <br /><br />You all may think me not really a photographer of the caliber one should be based on that statement, but it is what it is. I would truly love to get these old cameras out again and use them, but I really don't want to do any of my own processing. (I am willing to scan negs/slides/prints using my current scanner.) To me, processing is a separate hobby from making photos. Consider it like the firearms hobby. I'm an avid target shooter. I happen to also load my own target ammunition, but I know lots of folks who don't want to have anything to do with loading their own target ammo, and will only buy it commercially. They enjoy shooting, but don't have the time or inclination to spend at the loading bench. I'm the same way with photography. If I really had the interest to do my own processing I would never have stopped doing it forty years ago. <br /><br />I sincerely appreciate all the advice regarding processing but after giving it some hard thought, I decided that wasn't the way I want to go. I'm going to look at the commercial processors out there and follow up the suggestions many of you made. Thanks again!</p>

<p>James--great tip.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, thanks to everyone for all the great info. It seems I have a lot of investigation to do, first locally, then using the tips you've given me here. I've learned a lot in just a day or two!</p>

<p><strong>Brad, Bruce, Matthew</strong>--thanks for the recommendations. <br> Is super high res scanning worth the extra cost of having done, especially for someone like me who will almost never make large prints? I find that picking and choosing the photos I scan is sufficient for me.<br> <strong>Matthew</strong>--I agree with you about slides. (I have been shopping for a good dedicated slide scanner for years as I've never been happy with flatbed scanner for slides.) One good thing about digital is that when you want to shoot a million photo digital is there. when you want to take your time, compose your shots, and think about just what you are doing <em>without</em> all that dang electronic interference, a good old manual, non-auto anything except perhaps an internal meter is just the ticket. And it's better <em>not</em> shooting a ton of photos, so as not to lose mental focus. At least for my feeble mind.</p>

<p><strong>James</strong>, thanks again. The case is already finished, though I couldn't swear to the actual finish. It is a matte finish, but so many acrylics are available in a matte or soft finish these days it could well be acrylic. <br /><br />I'm getting educated in another thread on the possibility of using my old cameras again so whether to display them or preserve them hasn't yet been decided. ;)</p>

<p><strong>Mike</strong>, thanks for making me aware of what still sounds like a broad array ISO 100 film. <strong>Ed</strong>, I have <em>processed</em> my own film in the distant past, but always needed a darkroom for <em>printing</em>. Can I assume you are talking about skipping printing and just...scanning...negatives?? <br /><br />I have only ever scanned prints and slides....</p>

<p>John and Mike, it looks like I need to look into film prices and see how much they are, as well as processing. About three decades ago we had a pro lab in the city near the suburb where I still live. I should see if they still exist. I guess some footwork around camera shops might not be a bad idea either, although I suspect most shops cater primarily to the digital customer and won't have much positive to say to a prospective film-shooting customer. I'm leery of the cost here, but for an occasional thing it might be okay, and cheaper than some of my other money-consuming hobbies. I'm glad to hear I can still get Tri-X and Ilford, Plus-X would be nice as well. I do realize processing B&W film is simple, but printing is the difficulty. I do have a pretty decent scanner and printer. I've done up to 8x10 with satisfaction, and rarely go that big. Thanks for the tips!</p>

<p>(I debated posting this here or in Films and Processing--if it should be moved I completely understand.)<br /> I have gotten a bit of renewed interest in my older 1970s-1980s cameras, which I stopped using a decade or two back, partly because of laziness--digital is simple (and cheaper), and partly because of the dearth of sources for good film processing. I haven't done any darkroom work for about forty years and frankly I don't plan to get back into it for a multitude of reasons I won't go into.<br /><br />My questions are thus. Can a fellow still get new film? What are the issues in using expired film (I see it for sale on eBay)? Are there any truly competent places to have film processed and printed? I used to like doing B&W work, but color too. I used to shoot slide film when I didn't want a processor to interpret my photos.<br /> <br />Basically, is it possible for someone <em>without</em> his own darkroom to actually use his older cameras? Any tips and advice would be appreciated.<br /><br />P.S. 35mm format</p>

<p><strong>Sidney</strong>, thanks for the link to Eric--most helpful! <strong>James</strong>, this oak and glass case I mentioned is a couple decades old. I wonder if the fumes you mentioned continue to be given off forever? I do have a couple hygrometers around that I use in cigar humidors. Seems the room I use is between 40%-60% humidity.</p>

<p>Thank-you gentlemen for your most helpful replies. <br> I have a nice little display case with several shelves where I can display perhaps most of my cameras and lenses. It is solid oak with glass shelves and a plexiglass cover that will keep out most dust but let in light. I've been using it for a different collection but truth be told I'd rather be looking at these grand old cameras than what's in it now. Would that work for the UV light, <strong>David</strong>? <strong>Chuck</strong>, I think the cover would be like doors on cabinets you mentioned--except I could see my gear, eh?<br> I also have a vacuum food storage machine, and I could take your advice, <strong>Bill</strong>. I wonder if my cameras and lenses would ultimately be better off that way? <br> For what it's worth, guys, those small desiccant packs that come with electronics are all used up by the time they come to us. To be of any use, they can be heated in a low temp oven (no more than 200 degrees and I'm not sure those packs will withstand <em>that</em>--I use commercial desiccant packs intended for reheating and reuse).<br> <strong>Stephen</strong>, although I don't plan on using these cameras now, there are many memories tied up in them, and although I'm not young I'm not planning on kicking it just yet, so I think I'll be a greedy and keep my old gear for a bit longer. I will try to be a good steward so another generation can eventually enjoy it as well. But everything will come out of those bags right away! I confess I don't know where to get seals replaced if necessary (MX winder for one), so a good Pentax repairman recommendation would be appreciated. <br> <strong>Paul</strong>, if I go with the display idea and have to lay some telephotos horizontally (because they are too long to fit vertically on the shelves I mentioned), will that really be an issue? Actually, since I m a longtime user of the Pentax system, I to this day use lenses that are decades old because they work on every Pentax camera body. I can only think of an old Takumar that I don't use today because it duplicates the focal range of other lenses in my collection. But I could use it if it would help keep it in good working order. (?)</p>

<p>I don't really do film photography anymore because I haven't done my own darkroom work in 40 years, and so it seems film work has become to difficult and expensive. (I <em>would</em> like to use my older equipment but that is probably a discussion for another thread?) What I wanted to ask the experts on classic cameras is this. What is the best way to store my older 1970s-1980s 35mm film cameras and lenses?<br> Right now, and for many years, they have resided in various camera bags, on a closet shelf, in a climate-controlled house. The bodies that take batteries have had batteries removed. <br> I am a little concerned because a while back I noted that the foam/sponge insert in the film winder for my Pentax MX had turned sticky, showing deterioration. It occurred to me that other seals might eventually suffer, or leatherette, or the internals that might be better off being used rather than sitting, etc. Well, those are my thoughts. Any advice?<br> Thank-you for any comments you care to offer.<br> --MARK</p>