tomspielman

I've gotten several cameras from Goodwill auctions and like you I try to stick with the local one because Goodwill's handling costs add up. But people have been bidding prices way up there recently and a lot of times you'll pay more for a completely untested camera than you would on eBay. The other trend that's bothered me about the local seller is that they now like to sell cameras in large lots. So for every one camera that I might be interested in, there are 5 or 10 in the lot that I'd have to get rid of some how. Consequently I haven't bought a camera from them in quite awhile.

Over the last 4 years I've purchased or was given about 25 film cameras. I've had multiples of the same model, - sometimes because I got a really good deal and sold the other or because I used one for parts. However, I only have 5 film cameras currently with plans to keep 3 or maybe 4. Like you I do appreciate the engineering and have bought some cameras just because I thought they were cool rather than because I had a specific use in mind. Many that I purchased were in minor states of disrepair because I get satisfaction out of fixing them. But, I do have rule that if I don't use a camera, I don't keep it.

I think what it comes down to is that over time digital sensors have become better at working well in low light than film ever did. Having said that, there are still very real limitations. Even though manufacturers may advertise their cameras as being capable of super high ISOs, often pictures taken at those ISOs look pretty bad. My digital camera has a few ways of handling ISO. You can force it to use a particular ISO. You can also have it also pick one automatically within a specified range. What ever you choose for the low end of the range will be the default. With the ISO on auto, the way my digital camera seems to behave in Aperture priority mode is that it will try to keep the ISO at the default as long as the shutter speed will be fast enough for hand held shooting. In Shutter priority mode, it will open up the aperture all the way before it raises the ISO higher than the default.

And as far as alternative finders go, Olympus did have this gizmo:

Since it's kind of hard to see where the foam is I marked up the pic a bit.

I had a Canonet QL17 and it was indeed a good camera. I've thought about getting another one. I've since owned an Olympus RC35 which was even smaller but the lens wasn't as fast. There's and RD version which does have a comparable lens but those quite often ended up with sticky shutters or apertures that needed to be cleaned up.

This Summer I was repairing an Agfa camera from the early 40's. A pic of the inside gives some clues as to what film was being used and recommended: A film box tab was taped to the inside (and I left it there) that said "Ansco Plenachrome". The sticker, - which I'm assuming was there when the camera was originally bought, says Agfa Isochrom and Agfa Isopan. At least that's what it looks like to me. I've since sold the camera otherwise I'd verify. These may have all been consumer films based on the camera. Not sure how old the box tab is or when the last time the camera was used before it was given to me.

I haven't had an OM-2 for awhile and I know the shutter mechanism changed so I can't say for sure whether the pads were in the same place or not. But, I have a couple of pics below from my most recent OM-1n purchase that shows the gooey remains of foam on the mirror and where it is/was in the box. What comes in contact with the mirror isn't a single strip but two foam squares. You can see the goo on the bottom of the mirror at the corners. This pic is of the camera upside down and shows where the foam pads are/were mounted near the front edge of the focus screen. There's not much left: There are also a couple of narrow (maybe 1mm or 2 thick) strips of foam in the corner seams of the box leading from the bumpers mentioned earlier to the back of the camera. Not sure if the mirror even contacts those but if one got dislodge a little bit it might interfere with the movement of the mirror.

So are you pretty discriminating about what you decide to keep or do you just add more storage as necessary? Because a 16 bit tiff from a scan of a color 6X6 MF negative can be over 400 MB in my case.

So I don't shoot a ton of film, maybe a roll or two a month on average. Some months more, some months less. But some of it is medium format and when scanned to a tiff, the files are huge. I know you can use zip compression on 16 bit tiff files but they're still pretty big after being compressed that way. And I also know that once I'm done with my edits I could store in a high quality jpg or even an 8-bit tiff but I'm afraid of losing something. Or what about a file I may not want to edit now and come back to later? Are my fears unwarranted? Probably a little. If I want to get a high quality print, I usually would know right away. So what do other people do?

Yeah, I should have clarified. I couldn't get Nikon Scan to work. VueScan would work fine, but I've never been fond of it. Last I tried it, it didn't have a way to do quick thumbnails on the 8000, or at least I couldn't figure out how to do it. I run the G5 headless and use screen sharing to run Nikon Scan, then I grab the files off it when it's done. It works well enough. You've got some classic stuff there. My workspace would look like that except that I moved my iMac upstairs when my son left for college. The G5 and the scanner are still in the basement but that's also where I process the film. It's not the most convenient but then again, the 8000 isn't exactly quiet so some separation has its advantages. New(er) iMac coming this week, but I miss the versatility of the old towers.

On my 8000, old grease on the rails kept the scan head from moving. The green light would never go steady though, instead it would flash rapidly. I had a similar experience with a 4000. Was advertised online as working for $149 which was crazy cheap. Since they're local I called and asked them to put it on hold which they did. When I got there they had difficulty finding it and when finally somebody produced it they said it was actually not working. I'm a little suspicious that somebody just realized that it was way underpriced. I almost offered to take it anyway and kind of wish I would have. Just the adaptors were worth $149. I'm surprised you were able to get the 8000 working on a Mac Pro. I couldn't even get it to work on an iMac from 2010 no matter what OS I tried. I'm running it off an old G5 cheese grater tower.

So if I'm alright shooting hand-held as long as the light's good enough for a fast-ish shutter speed, then the Fujica might not have been a waste of money, - which makes me happy. We'll see if it's compact enough to really make a difference. I like the results I get with the Yashica, I just don't like carrying it around. The Fujica is not as svelte as I had hoped but maybe it's just svelte enough. They clearly put a lot of effort into making it thin. It's only a little thicker than the Stylus XZ-2. But it's a little tall and a little heavy.

Great. That's very helpful.

Below is a picture of a few of the cameras I have. The two on the left are MF cameras. The other 3 are a mix of film and digital cameras that I consider compact. The one in the middle barely qualifies and the qualification is that I can stick it in a pants pocket. The one on the right is a P&S and the only camera I've ever bought with travel in mind. It can survive and be used under 60ft of water. The Fujica GS645 (2nd from left) is my most recent purchase and I got it because I wanted a compact MF camera. However it will barely fit even in a coat pocket and then only if you don't mind one side of your coat hanging about 3 inches lower than the other. It will fit in the side pocket of my commuter back pack which I do travel with. And you can reach the side pocket without taking the pack off, so it may work out. Some overhead shots to given an idea of relative thickness: What I don't have anymore is the Agfa Isolette, - an early version which was truly pocketable.

Leaving the high end digital sports photography out of it for a minute. :) Let's say you've got a MF camera with a mechanical shutter limited to 500 or maybe 1000. And you're shooting with a normal lens. Can you get a sharp enough photo handheld for a nice 24 x 24 print? I know there's a lot of variables, but in practice would people want to use a tripod for something like that or could you get good results without one? (I'm kind of hoping you say yes, you can get good results hand-held)

I thought sports photography relied pretty heavily on monopods...

Right, but the OM1 or the F2 gives you something you don't get with a Rollie and that's versatility. I shoot digital, 35mm, and medium format but I don't have any particular nostalgia for MF at all. I do appreciate that there are benefits to a larger negative but when do those benefits really come into play and do they come into play at all with hand-held shooting? Now, this is something I've heard more than directly experienced, - that a large print won't be sharp unless the camera is supported somehow. Maybe that's my real question.

The OP ended up going with a Mamiya 6 which sounds like a good option given their requirements. This thread and similar ones raise a question for me. What does "compact" mean to people when it comes to medium format cameras? Because I don't think of a 6X6 TLR as compact. ;) And there's a related question I have. Why choose a medium format camera over a 35mm? I choose a medium format camera when I may want a quality print that's larger than what I can get from a good 35mm camera/lens combination. Are there other reasons? And if that's the reason one would choose to use a medium format camera, can you get those shots that are suitable for large prints while shooting handheld? If not and you're bringing a tripod with you anyway, how compact does the camera itself really need to be?

I was at harbor on Lake Superior yesterday morning. My wife was still sleeping so I decided to go for a walk and get some pictures since I like nautical things. My wife woke up before I left so I asked if she wanted to come with and she joined me. After we came back she noted that I hadn't taken many pictures. I didn't because I was focused more on her and enjoying our walk rather than using the camera, - which is the way it should be. My phone does a pretty good job of taking snap shots though it has its limitations. A small camera with a zoom lens provides a lot of versatility without taking up much space. I figure I'm more likely to lose a camera while traveling than any other time. I'd be so nervous about an expensive camera getting lost, damaged, or stolen while traveling that it would have a negative impact on how much I enjoyed the trip.

It comes down to what a "Range Finder" is in the photography world. Though we've come to think of a range finder as a type of camera, range finders were originally separate devices that photographers used to determine the distance between themselves and the subject, - a focus aid. They were typically the dual window, mirror, and split image system we see on range finder cameras today. The photographer would read the distance off the range finder and then set the distance on the lens of the camera. Sometimes these devices would be mounted on a camera via flash shoe or other means. Later cameras had range finders built in but still required the distance to be set on the lens independently. Eventually cameras were made with "coupled" range finders, meaning that there was a linkage between the lens and the range finder that set the proper distance on the lens based on the distance found when the photographer matched the images in the viewfinder. Now when we talk about "range finders" we are usually talking about cameras with built in range finders rather than the range finders themselves. And I believe that some people when they think of a "range finder" are thinking of a certain style of camera rather than whether or not the camera has an actual range finder. That's where the confusion lies. Anyway, Leica doesn't make an auto-focus range finder because if it has autofocus, it wouldn't be using the type of range finder that we associate with range finder cameras. In other words, it wouldn't be a range finder anymore. There are already plenty of autofocus cameras that look like classic ranger finders if that's what you're interested in.

Among a bunch of cameras I was given a few years ago was a plastic Brownie Twin 20. I was trying to clear out the last of these cameras this Spring and I almost threw the Brownie out but I thought I'd run some film through it and sell it for what I could get on eBay. I figured advertising it as "film tested" might be worth a few extra dollars. I had to re-spool some 120 which wasn't awful but not something I'd want to do a lot of. The camera had some undeveloped film in it so I had two 620 spools to work with. The camera has a certain charm. The twin viewfinder windows with the lens a little lower in the middle made it resemble a face. The shutter fires with a satisfying thunk. The pictures were nothing to write home about and I ended up accidentally breaking the red window (which was pretty brittle). So in the end it got tossed anyway but I can see why some people might enjoy them. There is a little bit of a market for 620 spools so I could probably sell the two I have for as much as I could have gotten for the camera.

I haven't completely given up on HC-110. It is solvent developer like XTOL which is supposed to produce finer grain. However, I've been using HC-110 at dilution H which perhaps reduces the solvent action too much. So my next test is to try dilution B or something with a higher concentration of developer. The other thing that might be contributing to the problem I experienced is something you touched on. I scan with a Coolscan 8000 whose LED light source is rumored to accentuate grain in B&W scanning. That's one of the reasons I tried XP2 which uses dye clouds like color film does. The Coolscan does a great job with color film. Happily though I got good scans with XTOL so I know I can get the desired results with real B&W film. I was also very happy with the results I got from XP2 so it's nice to know that's an option, - but kind of an expensive one.

I guess there's some fun in doing stuff like that but you can already get old but good f/1.8 or faster 50mm primes for cheap that'll work with an adaptor, - no MacGyver-ing required.

I might be misunderstanding what equipment we're talking about. You took a non-interchangable lens from a Yashica rangefinder and somehow attached it to your Sony?