jim_rais

<p align="justify">

The Yashica 24 has only a cold shoe, which means you can attach your Nikon SB but it will not fire if you trip the shutter. If your Nikon SB has the possibility to be used with external cable, then you can connect the flash unit to the X-contact on your Yashica, but since I'm not sure what kind of flash unit the Nikon is I just can say it will flash when connected to the X-contact of the TLR, but don't blame me if your photos are ruined by the wrong metering.<br> <br>I use myself the small Metz 30BCT (which is computerized) for my TLRs and connect this unit to the X-contact of the TLR with good results. On the Metz (or other brands like Sunpak, Vivitar etc.) you can choose out of several apertures and adjust this with the result of the metering of the moment. The flash unit itself will calculate through its "eye" how much light it has to produce and or when it has to cut it off if enough. Hope this helps.</p>

<p align="justify">

As said, it is normal that the LCD display is still on if you power off the 645. When you eject the battery pack at all, the LCD turns off but it still holds the setting in its memory. This LCD (and its memory) is co-powered by a built-in lithium battery which - according to the specification of Pentax - has a life for about 5 years. If it dies the built-in lithium battery needs to be replaced by a Pentax service centre.<p>

Judging to its look and comparing to the database of <a href="http://rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml">Rollei Club</a> it might be a 2.8C. Check the serialnumbers on your Rolleiflex.<p>

<p align="justify">

I had pretty much the same problem once, years ago. I used one-month-old already diluted developer, put in the dark at lower temperature which - according to the manufacturer - can do no harm to the films. Wrong. The fogged, very thin and soft with nearly no contrast at all films had cost me a particular client. And my face of course.<p>

<p align="justify">

Manual instructions for such a camera is very important, to begin with. I suggest to look around <a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex.htm"><u>here</u></a> or <a href="http://www.urmonas.net/manuals/index.html"><u>there</u></a> first. If your model Rolleiflex is mentioned (which is likely), start downloading the manual. Don't forget to donate the first-here-guy. The other-there-guy doesn't mention about donation. Good luck, you will love the camera in the end, especially - like Mike said - after having to give the camera a good service first.</p>

To illustrate the above<div></div>

<p align="justify">

People are often mixing-up terms as built-quality and image-quality. Those are two separate terms. One may experienced that the Yashica-Mats are trashiest among the TLRs, but you have to ask first <b>what</b> does this person mean by "the trashiest" in this regard.<br> <br>It's a welknown fact that Rolleiflexes are better <b>built</b> than the Yashicas, but image-quality wise the Yashinon is not any worse than the Tessar. I own both brands, but to be honest I find the Yashica-Mat to be more fun to work with. As a TLR it has at least not that "serious image" as the Rolleiflex :-) And this aspect often invites you to go out shooting.<p>

<p align="justify">

It depends on several factors, Tom:<br>

a) what kind of areas/islands are you going to visit in Indonesia (jungles, cities, villages, mountains).<br>

b) the kind of photography you want to shoot (street, nature, cultural).<br>

 

<br>Indonesia is a large country with different cultural and natural aspects. Some parts are modern where you can easily find what you need for your photography (in your case batteries, 120-roll films), other parts are remote that you need to go miles further to have those things that probably sourced from years-old stock.<br>

 

<br>I have worked with Bronica SQ-B, but since it's too heavy for this not too big a chap, I never taken it on trips. The heaviest I have brought along with me on a trip to Indonesia (Java and Bali only, which are modern enough) was the old Pentax-645 with 2 or 3 lenses, packed in a medium Billingham bag. I found out it was too heavy as well and in the end I spent more time to be alert of my surrounding, especially in some crowded places. Such a camera is prone to theft and is very visible to everyone.<br>

 

<br>I second Doug Miles that Fuji GS645S or other MF rangefinders is the type camera to work with for such long and various journeys. The Fuji produces decent results, it's light, not too expensive and not too complicated to operate. With two of these cameras packed well, you'll enjoy both your photography and your trip. Another option is of course the renown TLRs (Rolleiflex, Yashica-Mat, to name some). OTOH, if your photography is only focused on nature, environmental etc. the Bronica wins due to its interchangeable lenses.<br>

 

<br>The biggest problem I see here is how you're going to keep the films fresh for such a long time. Big cities have their own development centres, mostly Fujifilm, and they are OK. Outside in the villages or remote places it will be a problem. Not developing the exposed films until you get home is also such a risk, due to degrading of its quality caused by humidity and high temperatures. Those are things to consider first.<br>

 

<br><i>Selamat jalan dan jangan lupa untuk menunjukkan foto-fotonya di sini atau di website Anda</I> = Have a nice journey and don't forget to share the images here or on your own website.<p>

<p align="justify">

I use a small light flash unit Metz 30BCT4 with a collapsible bracket grip for my TLRs. It's a light combination and doesn't need much room in the bag. If you don't have to lighten the entire ballroom, this is pretty much an ideal set-up.<p>

<p align="justify">

Really impressive quality! The more when one realizes that this is a 70 years old lens design. Well, despite computer-aided lens design of nowadays, there's not much room for shocking improvements in the lens world so to speak. Maybe except for zoom lenses, but who cares zoom lens if this oldie has this beautiful image quality. Thanks for posting the razor sharp image and have fun with "grandpa" :-)</p>

<p align="justify">

Hi all, have any of you ever experienced the Domke F8 bag (or comparable small

bags) to carry two small TLRs, one small flash unit, collapsible flash grip,

handheld meter and some packages of 120 films? Will it hold all? Your sharing

about the possibilites and impossibilities with this small bag is highly

regarded. Thanks.</p>

<p align="justify">

<i>may be Canon is after for the profit because its cheaper to produce than 50/1.8 mkI. still, you get the same specs of 50mm f/1.8.</i><br>

<br>What else than more profit Canon might have as an excuse behind the replacing of 1.8/50 back then? It's all about (big) business. True, you still get the same specs of 1.8/50, but due to the mk II reputation of being cheap (read: worse built), people tend to skip the 1.8/50 without knowing that there was the better built 1.8/50 mk I once.<br>

<br>The history repeats itself with 18-55 IS, which has - according to many, among others <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=2">photozone.de</a> - the edge over some of Canon's more expensive lenses. But too late. The reputation of, in this case exactly reversed to 1.8/50 case, the original 18-55 has spoiled the whole thing that people just don't care much if 18-55 IS is the better one that the original one. They just skip the lens, period. I just don't understand the logic of some manufacturers, anyway .. <p>

<P ALIGN="justify">

<I>I never used the 50 1.8 but I hear its very cheaply made so I ended up with a used 50 1.4.</I><BR>

<BR>Tommy DiGiovanni, Canon has also made the better version of 1.8/50 in the past, marketed in March 1987 for the first time and discontinued in 1990. This version is known as the 1.8/50 mkI and is still widely sought after at the second hand market. The quality of the glass is more or less equal to the nowadays version II of 1.8/50 (and the 1.4/50), but built wise it is superior to the version II which has plastic barrel down to the mount. The version I has metal mount, but no USM, and as remarked by others it's noisy indeed compared to 1.4/50. Personally I find it a pity Canon has blown-up the reputation of the good old 1.8/50 by replacing the original one with the cheap version II.<P>

Marco, there were a lot discussions going on the other tread which are pretty much the same as your question if it's worth it to go from 1.8 to 1.4 lens. I think everyone has to decide for themselves, but there are some thinking material about this matter. Scroll all the way down to nearly about 5 to 6 posts before the end. Congratulations with your 5D anyway.<br>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OF7F" TARGET="_blank">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OF7F</A><P>

The strap is available on the market, among others <A HREF="http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=975&PT_ID=328&P=Rolleiflex-TLR-Accessories">here</A> under # 17002.<p>

<P align="justify">

Antonio, I do agree with you that there <I>is</I> always a difference between fast(er) lens and the less fast(er) lens. The question is whether this minimum of difference can justify the huge increase in price. The small increase in quality of the faster lens is practically negligible for the most. Doesn't mean that there's no difference in quality at all - I'm with you there - but the difference is not <I>that huge</I> to justify the 2 or 3x price difference between the lenses that differs only of 0.5 stop, whereas the quality doesn't differ with the factor of 2 or 3x, either.<BR>

 

<BR>But true, if one is very critical towards quality in order to produce poster-format photography or just for the purpose of enjoying the high(er) quality (read: finer taste), these fast(er) lenses are for them - beside for the already mentioned group "photographers" that purchase these lenses for "another" purpose. Either way, the manufacturer is the happy smiling party.<P>

<P align="justify">

<I>Bakker,<BR>

<BR>If there is no difference between an f2.8 and an f3.5 lense then why do manufacturers bother making faster lenses?</I><BR>

 

<BR>Antonio, I'm no de Bakker, but I'd like to point out that manufacturers offer a wide possible lens choice for photographers who really need fast(er) lenses on one side and for "photographers" who need to be seen with that fast(er) lenses - which is ALWAYS pricey and thus status-sensitive - on the other side. Knowing that a 1.4/50mm lens, for instance, sells for almost 3x over the price of a 1.8/50mm, despite the difference of only 0.5 stop, you know that every which way they turn manufacturers can't loose as they sell something which is "needed". And the need varies from photographer to photographer. So, manufacturers <b>do</B> bother making lenses with minimal differences as long as the photographers are willing to pay the price, but it doesn't mean that there is a huge difference, quality-wise that needed for photography in real life, in that 0.5 stop. Just my 2 cents ... <P>

I have personal experience with Jürgen Kuschnik of Rollei Service. No complaints there. He's good, reliable and reasonably priced. His background is also solid (a worker of F&H, went to USA to lead Rollei service centre and now has his own Rollei service centre in Germany).<p>

Try these reputable addresses:<br>

<a href="http://www.paepke-fototechnik.de/index1.htm">paepke-fototechnik.de</a><br>

<a href="http://www.rolleiservice.com/">rolleiservice.com</a><br>

Both in Germany. Hope this helps</p>

<p align="justify">

Robert, I take the liberty to liven-up your original image a bit without changing it too much. The steps I took:<br>

1. More brightness + contrast<br>

2. More saturation applied<br>

3. Gradient filter used for the first half of the image (the sky). First colour was #FFCFAF, second colour was #FFFFFF (white)<br>

4. Sharpening applied<br>

5. Processed in Neat Image to get rid of the noise<br>

 

<br>I think this brightens the picture a bit, however I do agree with some of the posters here not to take the shot in pitch dark situation but just before the colours of the sky vanished. Good luck.</p><div></div>

<p align="justify">

I too need glasses to read. In that respect it's too bad they don't develop TLR-like digital camera yet which you can view from above on the large screen with the help of a 2-3x magnifying glass. That's why I find the old (film) TLRs ideal for the purpose of focusing/composing - with or without the reading glasses on.<p>

<p align="justify">

<i>I hate being teased like this.... What's the purpose? So they can release it with dramatic flair at the show? What percentage of actual consumers visit the show? Why is this an effective marketing technique? JUST TELL US!</i><br>

<br>Haha, poor Derek. This is the marketing technique they aim at people's emotion. The more anger (read: impatience), the more people will closely follow the next news until it is revealed. The advantage of it is that now people really pay attention for the news and not just let it passes by of course. Great news from Fuji, though. Just curious what it will be.<p>

<p align="justify">

I'm no computer expert at all and I always download the images via card reader to the computer first, then edit them in the computer. That is: the less succesful images will be deleted afterwards and keep the best ones. In your case, if you only want to view the (bigger) images using the PC, aren't you better off by connecting the camera - with the memory card still in the camera - to the computer via USB port? Just a thought.<p>

<i>I wasn't even aware that the Canon software was any good but apparently it is decent in at least one person't eyes.</i><br>

<br>I second every word of Puppy Face's about Canon's DPP RAW conversion. That is: elegant, fast and easy to use, also in Windows version.<p>

John, you can't miss the 6x6 fun factor, indeed. So, have fun with <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=766699" target="_blank">my own 6x6 portfolio</a>, shot with TLRs.<p>