escuta

Thanks Julio, I'll certainly post pictures once I get it working. I tried shining a light inside the bellows just now, in the dark, no little spots of light appeared. So that's good news

Thanks a lot rodeo joe, I'll read the link later tomorrow

The fixer was a 700g packet whereas the developer was 415g, both to make up 3.8L. What those weights convert to in volume once in solution, i don't know. Rodeo_joe, you mentioned 40ml, is that for the developer? I certainly noticed a diference in volume between the the developer and fixer. I filled up 3 "1 litre" bottles to the brim (so more that one litre in each bottle). The left over liquid for each, I poured into a 500ml bottle. The developer is about 2/3 full whereas the fixer is 3/4 or a bit more.

Thanks Peter, but I added an additional 800ml of water to the 3L of water + chemicals. I did this for both the developer and for the fixer. Won't the solutions be too dilute?

This week I prepared batches of Kodak D-76 and Kodak fixer for the first time (first time preparing any developer or fixer) using the instructions on the packet. I thought it all went well but I think now that I may have made a mistake. In both cases, I mixed the bag of chemicals with 3 litres of water at the specified temperatures until dissolved. I then added an additional 800ml of water to the mixture. I realise now, or I think now, that I should have added enough additional water to make up 3.8 litres in the mixture. Have I made a big mistake or is it not so critical? I plan to dilute the developer so perhaps I can make adjustments there, but I think the fixer is to be used straight. Please let me know - thanks!

The camera arrived yesterday. I think the seller was using the word "functioning" a bit loosely, however was correct in saying that it will need some lubrication if it is to be used. It's a in nice condition though. The folding door snaps open and closed with a confident noise as does the viewfinder. The brilliant finder is usable and the film-loading and winding mechanism is in good order. The bellows also look in good condition. Aperture adjustment works. The focal ring however is completely seized up as was the case with Rick's machine and those of many others online. The shutter velocity ring moves and the shutter mechanism does work, but at a snail's pace. Good that it works though. It also has a timer, which also works. In case anyone has any information on dates of production, the camera is stamped with the Agfa logo on one shoulder and with "Billy Compur" on the other. The Agfa Solinar lens is rated in centimetres rather than millimetres (10.5cm f/4.5). The film winding knob and door release button are situated on the bottom plate making it unstable to rest on a table in the landscape orientation. An odd design feature this! And since I'm really into details: Serial number of the Solinar is 568585 and inside the camera is etched 4R 0505. And on a more personal note, the camera was posted from my wife's home town in central Brazil, so that's nice. From reading Rick's link, I'll advise the camera tech to try denatured alcohol to separate the frontal lens elements before cooking in the oven! Any other tips I can pass on to the tech? All the best, thanks!

Nikon FE, Nikkor-N.C Auto 24mm f/2.8, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/500 f/11: Nikon FE, Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5, PK-11A+PK-12+PK-13 extension rings, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/30 f/2.8: Nikon FE, Nikkor-N.C Auto 24mm f/2.8, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/30 f/2.8: Stanley No. 80. Nikon FE, Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5, PK-11A+PK-12 extension rings, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/15 f/2.8:

Thanks a lot Rick. It was an excellent photo on Flickr of a lamp post, taken by a Kiwi photographer, that clinched it for me to get the Billy. I think the photographer is probably you. Thanks also for the link with the servicing tips. Nice looking camera! It may be some time before I get some scans done. My more immediate project is to make contact prints using some frames that my mother used back in the 40s and 50s. She had a similar folding camera which seems to have been lost. It may have been an Agfa. I took a snap of the frames. The smaller is a strange (to me) 3"x2" format. The larger, which I plan to use, is 2.5"x3.5" and should be good for 6X9 negatives. All the best,

Thanks Gary and Dustin, I just bought the oldie. The seller assured me that it has no leaks, but said the the mechanism would need some lubrication having sat unused for so many years. I'm probably going to take it for revision. The technician here is very competent.

Hi forum, I sent a similar question to another forum, but I've not yet got a response and I'd like to make a decision quickly: I'm choosing between a very new looking Agfa Record I with an Agnar 105mm f/4.5 and an older looking Agfa Billy with a Solinar 105mm f/4.5 and with a much more sophisticated looking shutter mechanism. Both are the same price. Nothing is cheap here, around US$85. Both cameras are said to work and both sellers have excellent reputations. I'm leaning towards the Billy, even though I'm sure it will need a service. What you think? Here are photos of the two: The Record I Agnar: and the Billy Solinar: All the best!

Nikon FE, Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8, PK-11A extension tube, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/250 f/2.8: Nikon FE, Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/250 f/2.5: Nikon FE, Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/500 f/2.5: Stanley 102 block plane. Nikon FE, Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5, PK-12 extension ring, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/15 f/6.7: Stanley 102 block plane. Nikon FE, Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5, PK-12 extension ring, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/500 f/4: Nikon FE, Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5, Kodak ColorPlus 200, 1/250 f/2.5:

Thanks rick_jack. I think it may have got lost in the conversation, but I did buy the "K" 200mm f/4 that chulkim suggested, which has the same optics, by all accounts, as the Ai. It's missing the coupling shoe, but I should be able to source one of these locally for use with my F2. My own Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 is a similar to the 200mm K in that it was the last of the P series and according to Bjørn Rørslett, has the "Gauss formula" shared with the subsequent Ai lenses. I've certainly been very happy with it.

and thanks again chulkim, i just bought that K lens off ebay, sounds like it'll be worth the wait.

No Ks for sale here that I can find, but I found a nice looking Q.C for a good price. It's the multicoated Q version before the K and was made between 1973 and 76 according to Nikon Lens Versions and Serial Nos. If anyone knows anything about this lens, please write. But thanks everyone, yes, I'll consider the 200mm lenses and won't buy the tele-converter.

and thanks for the aperture info, i wasn't able to work that out

there's a TC-200 for R$250 (Brazilian Real) and there's a revised 200mm Qs for R$400. Thanks for the K link, I hadn't heard of these and will look them up. With import duties on freight and shipping the ebay lens will end up costing roughly R$450 and unfortunately may end up sitting on a dock somewhere for 4 months before it's delivered. This is why I always try to buy things locally. The reason I asked if the the 105mm + 2X might be better, is that I've heard such bad things about the 200mm Q.

Thanks, I'm still living in the dark ages, all manual, the cameras and the 105mm f/2.5 that I'm thinking of teleconverting. I guess another way of putting my question is: is a Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 + TC-200 better than a Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4?

Hi Forum, I'd like to purchase a telephoto lens with a focal length up to 200mm or so for use with FE and F2 film bodies. While the Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4 is available cheaply where I live, I've read bad things about it and everything I've seen longer than 105mm is over my budget. I have an excellent Ai'd Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5. How would this combine with the TC-200? Does anyone have experience with this combination? Also, what would the effective maximum aperture be using the teleconverter? Thanks!

I think i found the trick. The coupling prong on the DP-1 may need to be pushed upwards before mounting the non-bunny-eared PK extension, whereupon it makes a little click. After that the meter works. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh no, another correction. While pressing the depth of field lever on the F2 does stop-down the aperture of the lens (when using the K extensions), the metering doesn't seem to work, ie. the needle doesn't move as I adjust the aperture and the lever is pressed. Why would that be?

rodeo_joe, thanks for picking up on that. It's the Photomic DP-1 head and yes, you're right, it does mount. I tested again and it didn't seem to want to turn, but then I realised i needed to push down firmly first. None of the lenses I use need to be pushed down like that, perhaps they're more worn. So I was being too cautious. And stop-down metering does indeed work and is very clear in the DP-1 finder. All the best!

In the end, I got lucky and picked up a set of tubes with a PK-11A, PK-12 and a PK13. To my surprise, these do not mount on the F2, so I'll be using the FE exclusively for macro. The PK-11A is extremely useful with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses that I have. All three are very practical to use in various combinations with the 105mm f/2.5. If anyone stumbles on to this thread in the future, the Nikon Auto PK Extension tubes user manual may be found here: https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000005521&configured=1&lang=en_GB All the best

Self-portrait with no hands - Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f/1.4, Ilford HP5 400: Renovated building in Brasilia - Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-N.C Auto 24mm f/2.8, Ilford HP5 400: Another one - Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor-N.C Auto 24mm f/2.8, Ilford HP5 400: A Quad 303 power amp - - Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkor Ais 28mm f/2.8, Ilford HP5 400:

Back again. The PK13 was sold and they hadn't removed the advertisement. There's another reasonable deal on a Nikon E2 and on a Nikon M2 (together). I understand how the E2 works, but I 'm a bit unsure on the M2. Can I do stop-down metering with this? If I find another PK13 at a good price, can I use it with the F2 and stop-down metering? All the best

Correction, to make the above less ambiguous: "minimum focal length" should be "closest focus"