mikheilrokva

Ilford SFX, 35mm Hoya R72 filter. Enough IR for me. Daylight loading and easy to process.

[ATTACH]1305036[/ATTACH]

I'm sorry, I didn't even notice this post for this long. There's a shop here that imports film from Ilford and it's fairly cheap too, so that settled my dilemma. Ilford it is.

I have an original ETR, with a set of MC lenses, speed grip, metered prism, and a bunch of backs, both 120 and 220. It soldiers on without missing a beat and the MC lenses get the job done despite what their critics say.

 

I liked it so much I got another body (an ETRS) plus a 75mm PE lens and the 45-90mm PE zoom.

 

I have added Speed Grip E to the system and although it's cumbersome now, ergonomics have improved. I have a feeling that I can drive nails into a plank with it.

Hello

 

ETR system has plenty of failsafes and is virtually foolproof. Since you got the shutter to fire its first frame, then I trust that you have the dark slide removed and shutter lock released. So let's move on. In order to advance film properly, the camera must "feel" the film back/magazine, for which purpose there's a pin on both - camera and back. I have circled the part on the image below:

 

 

When you turn multi-exposure OFF, the film advancing gear extends from the camera to match the corresponding gear on the back. And when you advance the film, the aforementioned pin locks advance mechanism in an appropriate spot to make the second shot. My best guess is that either the pin is bent, or it requires cleaning. It happens sometimes.

 

You mightn't happen to have a second back, to rule out the body damage?

It has been a while. After selling my ETRC, acquiring TLR and a folder, I finally came right back where I started: assembled ETRS piece by piece, again. I don't think I'll be parting with this one anymore. I also found that with a little bit of trickery I can squeeze 16 frames on 120 film using 220 back, instead of standard 15.

 

I think I'll let the dust settle a bit before I get some, but I WILL be getting it.

 

A shot from my first or second roll of Ektachrome in 1960:

[ATTACH=full]1266712[/ATTACH]

Fred LaRocque ND

Well stored. Not as well as Kodachrome would do, but still quite impressive for a film as old as my dad.

I'm sure film format has nothing to do with overall tone of image. It's more of a filter thing. But whether it is an optical filter, or instagram filter, is a different story.

 

I'm rather skeptical when it comes to stuff posted via an application which has embedded filters for images.

Thank you, but it's a bit difficult obtaining Phenidone in my country. Thanks anyway

 

Are you from Georgia, by any chance? :rolleyes:

I use a kitchen timer. You know, a lemon or apple shaped ticking thing. Before than I was using an app on my phone. Some things don't have to be complicated.

The long black lever in the upper part of the photo (it's not completely shown) is under tension. It means you have to release the shutter before you do gear adjustment.

 

OM2 requires the batteries to be operated but it can also be reset manually. Search this matter and do a reset before proceeding. You can't adjust the idler gear correctly otherwise.

 

Also, where's the mirror? Is it up or down?

If you like the Vivitar 2000 just use it. It doesn't automatically set the shutter speed to x sync speed, no ready light in viewfinder and correct exposure in viewfinder but it would work just fine. I believe the OM-10 has permanent hot shoe and not removable like the OM-1 and OM-2 so it's much stronger. I wouldn't worry about the T32 breaking the hot shoe.

Wait. If Vivi 2000 doesn't automatically set a shutter speed to X value and let's say OM-10 doesn't have a manual adapter, then how is the user supposed to make it fire at 1/60 speed?

I'll chime in as well on this matter. My OM-1 had a dead circuit issue, which turned out to be 'just' corrosion of wire. I removed the bottom cover, cleaned everything, changed the wire and it worked again. OM-1 used to use same Mercury batteries as EC I believe, so before doing anything else it's indeed a good idea to check for the nasty greenish rust.

 

As for the film, if I load it in the dark I can easily go 'way beyond' designated 24 and 36 frames, to 27 and 30 respectively. And if I load the film really carefully, I can even get 28 and 40. But of course it's a 'must' to check winding mechanism either as you've already been told, or doing the winding with already developed film and the camera back open, to see if everything works and film is being transported.

 

Rangefinders are generally less sturdy than reflex cameras and even if not, it's always a good idea to service anything that's older than 30 years. Humans included.

It's so frustrating to not have an off swith. Imagine how I felt when I got their flagship OM-4 and it had no 'off' position. It's like having a smart watch that doesn't tell the time!

 

And now I carry spare batteries everywhere. Double pack for night shots.

Yep, it should "lock up", i.e., mirror stopping half way up, without batteries, or in battery check or self timer mode. If the battery check works that's a good sign, but regardless there are many possible causes. I"m thinking spare parts!

Yes, I parted out the camera, it looked quite pretty on the outside so had no problem finding a client.

 

At a same time I'm surprised shutter worked at some unknown speed evrn without the batteries. Thought it was an electric shutter with no mechanical option.

Something similar happened to our Canon point and shoot camera at work. I think it was H55 or something. First it was random and seldom but after around 100 shots almost each photo came out like that, with stripes. It's not a battery issue. And it's not a shutter (mechanical) issue. I believe there's something wrong with a sensor. We replaced the camera since it was cheaper than sending it for service. Would suggest the same to you.

I wouldn't trust Instagram for assessing the image quality though.

Kodak Alaris begins shipping Ektachrome film to select photographers for testing

 

Maybe, just maybe...

 

Wishful thinking.

Having a quick google, I found this:

LOG SUMMARY OF OBSOLESCENCE LETTER

which is a list of equipment that company can no longer get parts for becuse their makers consider them obsolete, as of about 1999 (so maybe current equipment sometime in the 80s?) The AM-M1 is listed as a flexible gastroscope. Might this be a lens to record what you can see down your gastroscope?

 

It also appears on UK ebay with a price of about 82 UK pounds.

Thank you for clarification. I suspected it had to do something with medical equipment, but was unable to search anything comprehensive on the net. As for the price, there was another sample for 120$ but the listing was endig in a few hours so I deliberately chose to post the link from the one that would stay a bit longer so people could actually look up what it was.

 

I think the case is closed. Thanks again!

Hello

 

I was just browsing the certain well known bay, when I stumbled upon this strange 35 mm f/2.8 lens with "AM-M1 mount" attached to it. Mind you, that thing isn't removable, according to the seller. Here are the pictures:

 

 

 

Here's the link to the whole thing:

RARE Olympus Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 MF Lens with AM-M1 mount 50332503465 | eBay

 

So let's forget the "very rare" part, I just want to know if anyone knows what that thing is. Or what it's used for. I'd think it's something related to medical equipment, since Olympus is well known for the knack of seeing what's inside a human body, but can anyone be moe specific? Why is the adapter non-removable, or why is it 35 mm lens and not something else?

 

Thank you

Spare a thought for those of us who shoot 6x9 - only 8 frames per one 120 film

Frame count was a main reason why I went for 645 actually, for there were TLRs available at a same price too, which took 6x6 negs.

 

Spare a thought for those of us who shoot 6x9 - only 8 frames per one 120 film

 

To keep cost down I've resorted to buying 220 film, but it's only plentiful in Velvia 100. Buying it right, Velvia 100 220 can be more than US$1.00 cheaper per half roll than 120 Velvia 100. "Half" roll is how I do the price calculation for 220 film, so it can be directly compared to the price of a 120 roll. 220 Velvia can be cheaper than 120 color negative film per image if the prices are monitored carefully and by buying the cheapest

 

That forces me to do E6 developing though, but Velvia is a quality film I'm looking forward to using. For B&W I use Ilford FP4 but I also use cheap Chinese Shanghai 100 which if developed in high dilution developer for long developing times, it will produce acceptable results

220 is somewhat of a dying breed too, as much as I can tell. And well, I had to accept the fact of medium format being an exclusive thing for special occasions. A thing with single lens weighing as much as my OM-4 with three lenses and 2.5 times fewer shots is an item for seldom use. So it is what it is.

I hope Kodak doesn't keep us waiting too much longer! Was exciting news when I first heard about this early last year. But it should be worth the wait. I always felt Kodak had superior film offerings to Fuji, especially with reversal films.

 

I believe Kodak was inferior to Fuji E-6 in terms of resolution. Don't know about the quality though. If they make anything right now, it should be at least on par with the Japanese.

 

As for the delay, it is frustrating. Since I thought that Summer/Autumn is the most convenient time for shooting slides personally for me. And if it's not out until the end of August, then it might as well be delayed until Spring of 2019.

It's not that half-frame cameras are 'meh'. Some are very nice. It's just that they're not the ideal only camera. They're more of an occasional alternative than an everyday camera, because of the tradeoffs involved. You get a smaller camera, but you lose image quality. People here tend to value image quality more than saving a couple of ounces of weight.

Very true. I have PEN EE3 which I use on group trips, where I normally use high quality film for serious shots, but need something that can shoot more frames and quality isn't a concern since it'll be used for candid shots. It is automatic, true "point and shoot" so serves its purpose well.

 

As for the cameras listed by OP, Pen D is in fact a manual half-frame camera with a light meter. As long as Selenium works, should be fine. D3 is an improvement over regular D since it's got a lens with f/1.7 maximum aperture (versus f/1.9) and not so accurate (not after 40+ years of service) selenium meter has been replaced with a much better CdS cell. However it requires a battery. Hearing aid "675" cells should work like a charm. Is D3 worth paying double the price of D? I don't think so. But it's all up to you. If I recall correctly, "S 2.8" was an earlier model than D/D3 and had no meter at all. As the name implies, lens has f/2.8 aperture.

 

Which one to buy among those? I don't know. I personally would not buy any of the three because ... Well because too much fiddling for taking one simple shot. Half frame camera must be fun, due to inferior image quality. Heck, even Olympus Trip 35 is easier to use than any of those three. And it's a full frame cam with legendary image quality.

Nice sharp images

 

Which film was that ?

flower with a church on the background is Ektar. A decommissioned train is Fuji Pro 400H. and this black and white is Acros 100. I wish there was any cheap 120 format film though, with adequate quality of course. Results are outstanding, but I get only 15 frames instead of 38-39 at a same price.

 

^^ So I'm curious how it's turned out , got any pics you'd like to show us from the ETRC ?

I'm a long time lover of the ETRS(i) models , tough and dependable , both good attributes

when traveling abroad. Peter

 

Whatever I click or post will not do justice to Bronica. It is an outstanding camera. I can print/scan any size I want and the results stay sharp. I had very little grain on Pro 400H. Ektar had no grain at all. And neither did Acros (rest in peace). I feel unworthy of having MF gear since I shoot nothing important.

 

 

Yes, I believe the quote from the article is meant to be for unexposed film.

 

I haven't heard numbers, but I suspect that we will get an ISO 100 film.

 

That should have a longer refrigerated or frozen lifetime than higher ISO films.

 

For non-professional use, maybe 20 years if frozen?

 

Then all we need is the chemistry to be available that long.

Lower ISO film has longer shelf life than higher ISO films - is this true for the negatives as well? Or just the slides?

 

Of course it's all just speculations, but I think Kodak will try to release something other than ISO 100 as well (along with 100), because as far as I remember all slides that are in production are ISO 100 or lower. Maybe someone wants a faster film too. There was Ektachrome 400 or something several decades ago, nicht wahr?

Darkening the right side of the photo is most likely caused by desynchronization of shutter curtains (assuming that shutter is horizontally traveling one). Good old CLA should take care of it.

 

As for the puke colors, It's either development, or scanning. Depending on who and how developed/scanned.

 

BTW it all looks uderexposed too.