mikheilrokva

My Zuiko 135 f/2.8 fell from the shelf, from around 6 foot height, landed on the floor and bent the lens mount. It still fits as it should and all, but infinity is a bit off. I need to stop down to f/11 to achieve focus on infinity. But my lens fell on the "butt", aye, with cap on and all, but still. And some of my other lenses, like Pentax 50 mm f/2 and Soviet Helios lens landed on their filter rings, bending them heavily. Nothing was affected. At all.

"finite shelf life" is used along with production and sales discussion, so it seems to me they are referring to unexposed film and its expiration. But who knows.

And I thought Fuji somehow turned into an incarnation of generosity itself and began to produce films with 42 frames on it.

I've had several OM system lenses, "spikes" have nothing to do with compatibility, since some of my 50 mm lenses had spikes, while others had bent metal plank instead of spikes and mind you, they ALL fitted all of my OM bodies, which are: OM-1, OM-2, OM-2S, OM-4, OM-10, OM-40. I never had 65-200 mm so I can't speak for it, but it would be a good idea to measure bayonet teeth and compare then with any other lens which is compatible to your OM body.

One OM body with color film. One OM body with BW film (optional). 28, 50 and 135 mm lenses. Hood for 28 mm lens. One extra film. Varimagni finder for challenging angles. Nothing else. This is the 'maximum' load for me. It all fits in small shoulder bag. But usually OM-1 with 50 mm lens, with strap and its own case + 28 mm lens in my pocket is all I take. Less load = more mileage.

I thought the thread was forgotten as it happens sometimes :oops:

Still waiting for the update. Very curious.

Have you actually developed and counted the frames on the film? Until then it's all speculation. My Contax II "took" 42 frames a year ago. Turns out it broke after 32nd frame so I got one "multiexposure" picture which consisted of ten exposures.

Yep, I know of them, only had 1-1 (matte with microrastre) and 1-13 (split-screen), but I very much prefer the split screen, it's easier to focus at night. OM is a quite versatile system, the only serious thing they didn't have was removable prisms (although substituted by 'Varimagni' periscopes).

To further extend the matter, I was unable to notice any serious difference between 1.4 and 1.8 lenses in terms of VF brightness (both were 50mm), even the difference between 1.8 and 2.8 lenses is quite bearable during the daytime. However, f/3.5 lens is already quite dim, split-screen gets half-dark in low light situations and f/4 lens has one half of split-screen permanently blacked out, along with dimming the whole viewfinder. So the faster the lens, the better the VF. P.S. All these differences are much more dramatic on OM-2S and OM-4, since they have smaller and darker VF than OM-1/2 (n or non-n) by default due to the dual-mirror required by new metering circuit.

It's just his way to put things. Internet forums are strange places sometimes :rolleyes: On each of them there's usually at least one person who says that using film is a step back, no matter the subjective reason of each individual. Basically that's true, but still, our reasons are our reasons, sometimes objective reality can be neglected.

Indeed, "A" series Canon cameras are well known for lubrication going bad over time, catching slow mirror disease, "squeak" noise et cetera.

It would be true if the shutter was vertically traveling. But AE-1 has a horizontal cloth shutter, so in case desynchronization, either left or right side would be underexposed.

So if Portra and Ektar are product of Alaris, then what are "true" Kodak still photography products? Cheap color film + Tmax and tri-X?

According to various Internet sources several people have tried developing Kodachrome at home, with success and at high cost and all. As for me, I just don't understand. When product is discontinued, you have to move on to the next best thing. What's the point in stashing the dead stuff in a freezer? How long will it last? Twenty years? And I'll have to use it "wisely"? With economy and all? That's not for me, sorry.

400 is widely available here and there and it's my preferred film for low light, considering the price tag and amateur nature of my activities, but it's nearly impossible for me to find fresh 200 for a reasonable price (that is less than 7$ per roll)

Is it still available anywhere?

Just make sure you examine them personally before buying anything, two-digit OM cameras (OM 10, 20, 30, 40/PC) are much flimsier and have cheaper build quality than single digit machines and can be a buzzkill. One big thing where Pentax shines over Olympus is that their lenses can be used on digital Pentax as well (which I currently do), while OM lens mount is a dead end. Other advantages include camera wind indicator, shutter lock button and minimal battery drain.

Even higher grade film scans sometimes require some fiddling, that is why some people prefer slides over negatives. Hopefully someone experienced will show up with more comprehensive and rational solution. Best of luck to you! In the meantime shoot some more, Pentax ME Super is a nice little camera, if I had it ten years ago, I'd never go for Olympus OM system.

Old films like to be overexposed, it is a universally known fact, but from my little experience I can say that they all react differently. For example, a ten year old unrefrigerated Superia 200 worked just like new exposed at ISO 100, while five year old unrefrigerated Superia 400 gave worse results set at ISO 250 than it did on box speed. Yes, weird. Considering Superia generally likes to be overexposed even if it's still not expired. Kodak Gold 100 on the other hand, that was expired only three years ago and was kept in freezer gave such grain that unexpired Ultramax 400 looked way better. So you can never be sure what's going on. I would try to post-process them. The second picture looks best to me, lower ones have too much cyan (that's exactly why I don't like Fuji's cheaper films, C200 for example) and the first is obviously yellow. Try checking R/G/B channels of histogram, to be on the safe side. But of course it's just my personal view on the subject of matter.

I don't know which is which, but the uppermost picture looks best to my eyes. But they all have some sort of fogging or overall tone, which should be corrected during post processing. By the way, they look quite good for a 17 year old film. Perhaps stopping down to 5.6-8 would give better results than shooting it at open aperture, who knows. Experiment a little, 17 rolls is a terrific amount.

S16 is a nice rule to use, like everybody stated already, but you can also download an exposure meter app on your mobile device, that's how I measured exposure for my Bronica. All frames turned out well even in most challenging situations.

I think it's the first sign of reducing the production. But can also be my paranoia. I've read about that comparison in some article a few weeks ago actually. As for my personal opinion, Ektachrome looks more pleasant to my eyes than Fuji peers. In fact I prefer Kodak because it's got colors from my childhood (there were no Fuji films out here) and I want Ektachrome to return badly so I can run a few test rolls of slide films first time in my life. Hope I'll live long enough.

Kodak is either having difficulties with production, or sees no demand for Ektachrome ATM. But hold on a minute. Is Velvia discontinued now? I know they are killing off C-41 products, but E-6 too? P.S. Velvia/Provia are historically known to have better resolution than Kodak peers. So they better do something about that if they are releasing anything at all

If I was an inexperienced or a lazy lad who doesn't want to fiddle with three different liquids I would. I believe historically monobaths were designed for extreme conditions where time and storage was of the essence.