mikheilrokva

I'm very sorry, but can't throw my Contax II in any direction, it's a gift from my dad. I'd gladly do if it weren't though :mad:

I'd toss a rangefinder camera as well, such mistakes never happen while using SLR

I beg my pardon for the interference, but I firmly believe that a decent external meter is a must have in your case. Slides like precision so adjusting one stop can't be a universal rule that will lead you to perfect shots.

Not with that hideous appearance. Any effort to make a modern 35 mil camera is appreciated, but "Reflex" project looked much more appealing to me.

Quote wasn't mine, thought it was true. Thanks for enkindling.

It isn't "hard" to make Kodachrome film. It is hard to develop it: "By the mid-1980s the film [Kodachrome] had been largely outmoded by faster, cheaper, films from Fuji and others. The high technical threshold for making successful photos and the complicated developing process that once made Kodachrome’s final images so incredible and cherished now acted as a liability". If you're a professional, you are willing to pay designated amount of money to buy/properly expose/develop the film, but if you're a consumer (which is always in vast majority) you don't want much hassle. Demand for high grade product gets reduced and subsequently it dies. And mind you, there was still Ektachrome which was easier to handle. I'm surprised Kodachrome lasted until 20xx.

Hello all I have a question regarding Mino X-700's focusing screen. I'm interested in split screens specifically. As I have read, there are three screens that offer split focusing. P1 and P2 are horizontal, while Pd is diagonal. Now the issue here: My buddy has X-700 but he has hard time focusing because his eyesight isn't very good and quite frankly, border lines of the split image are hardly visible even to me (compared to Olympus screen). So I wonder if all three focusing screens are the same in those terms, or maybe some are better than the other? Also the annotation reads that P2 screen is for lenses with f/2.8 and faster. Does that means half of the split image turns dark with slower lenses like it is with OM system cameras? I know that manual focus Minolta isn't exactly a modern thing, but any help is appreciated.

I never found a small aperture problematic for my K-x, high ISO performance is above average. I have a cheap Tamron 70-300 and coma/aberration is much bigger of an issue than anything else.

And I just found amusing how people found glass bottles difficult to obtain in 2003. They are still around today in Georgia.

I think this is more of either 16-85 or 18-140 and I'd certainly take the latter since I found longer end of the lens rather useful last time I was abroad. Will it be the ONLY lens you take? A prime would be useful, wouldn't it? Or is it due to constrained luggage.

I load 35 mm bulk into cassettes with bare hands in total darkness. I need to get out after every third load or so. I don't have a bulk loader. I don't have life either, apparently :D

Loading 120 film in magazine is easy. Loading it in a "traditional" SLR (Kiev 6 for example) is torture. 35 mm is quite easy to load almost into everything. Except for first edition of FED camera which was a bottom loader, just like Leica it was copied from. I also find it relatively tricky to load in Minolta X570 and X700, they have weird sprockets. Surprisingly, the process is easiest on Pentax ME and similar cameras, they have an assembly of rounded rods instead of sprockets, you put the film inside and it automatically gets squeezed, no need to match perforation with sprocket teeth.

I've stumble upon "Ilford Pan 400" in store today. It costs 5$ per roll. I did some research and found it's some cheapo for second grade market. But has anyone here used it? How does it perform compared to HP5+, for example, or Fomapan 400?

That will never happen, because there will always be some b*tthurt crybabies who will hate objective criticism. Always.

Now that's something I'll never be able to do - can't obtain dev kits. But I found out there's one lab that develops slides here for 8$, so I'll give a try to couple of Velvia or Provia. And Ektachrome too, if it enters the market.

Just out of curiosity, are you actually doing a full six-step process?

If fuji eventually stops slide production, just like it stops every other film photography related product, it might be actually profitable for kodak to step into the market. Until then they might release a test batch or something like that to see how well it will sell.

Looking forward to return of Ektachrome, Fuji transparencies are just not that appealing to me :(

Everything comes at a price I reckon. And if that was a price to take me back to film, so be it.

True. None of my 35 mm lenses worked well with 2x crop sensor when I had one and neither are 35 mm Pentax lenses working with high resolution on my APS-C digital. Apart from Macro, of course, but even that lens performed substantially better on ME Super compared to K-x.

I wouldn't believe if someone told me they shoot FED 2 on Hawaii. Probably that's as far from USSR as that clunky piece of glorious Soviet steel can get.

Some people on some forums say that UFX is not entirely Kentmere - some batches are while others are not. I can't vouch for that, however. As for the grain, Acros 100 has little to no grain at all. I've heard Tmax 100 is that way too. Sadly they are pricy and Acros is gonna be out of production by the end of the year.

I have exhausted half of 100 ft bulk. The whole bulk cost 35$, it was expired in mid-2016 and kept in the fridge since I have acquired it last year. I don't have much to say, except it's probably the cheapest 35 mm BW film (after Fomapan) and it's Harman's production, so it's "almost Ilford". Here are two shots, both taken with Olympus OM-4, 50 mm f/1.8 lens (later issue) two months ago. This was shot at f/1.8 or 2.8, can't recall :( And this was shot at f/8, it's fairly sharp, but grainy as well: That film was developed at my local lab, they use Ilford chemicals (I think it's ID-11). No other info though.

And here's how it happened with me: My dad was an amateur at my age. Back then he shot black and white, developing and printing at home (still got whole equipment). He had "Sokol" camera, a rangefinder with a weight of SLR and rather unreliable automatics. Luckily it also had a Soviet copy of Tessar lens, 50 mm f/2.8 which delivered nice pictures so I was "hooked" from the early age. My first was a "FED" camera, crude Soviet copy of Leica, it cost 10$ back then. That was the time when Kodak Gold went for 1.5$, Proimage (sold as Profoto) - 2$ and Fuji Acros 100 cost a little more than 3 dollars. Labs developed for free. But I still wanted to try a digital, thinking I would save money and space . A few years later I went for my first digital, it was a point and shoot. And in 2010 I bought my first DSLR which was Olympus E-600 with two lens outfit. I added 35 mm f/3.5 macro later. I clicked for three years in a row and found myself dumb and lazy. It was then when I first reconsidered shooting film. I tried several machines - Contax II (wonderful, yet unreliable), Zenit 11 (clunky!), Nikon N80 (good and multi-functional, but it has that "digital" feel), Minolta 9000 (alas, Minolta's electronics turned out to be not so reliable), Kiev 10 (Bigger and heavier than any other 35 mm camera I ever held) and finally without even trying any Canon, I went straight to Olympus. I bought OM-1 from KEH for 100$ with standard 50 mm lens and immediately renounced everything else - it was stylish, compact, ergonomic and did I mention it also delivered wonderful images? Aye, it's completely mechanical and manual, but years of using Glorious Soviet Steel allowed me to shoot manual! I sold it a year ago (a dumb move, admittedly) just to get OM-4 with 28, 50 and 135 mm lenses outfit for 100$. It is my daily camera, 28 mm lens is good for streetjob, it fits in standard holster as if it was 50mm lens and if there's something more serious, I take other two lenses and a medium-size bag. But I'm still on the lookout for OM-1 or OM-2 that might turn up for cheap. Now that I think of it, if I got my hands on Canon A-1 (no way on AE-1!) or compact Pentax (ME or ME Super primarily) back then, I would never consider OM system. It just happened to be there when I needed something better than I already had. Right now film isn't cheap in Georgia, there are no high quality films here either, but there's still a lot of enthusiasts and hipsters who prefer to shoot film and buy all the stuff from Ebay. Oh and there's also a little sect of Lomography operating out here, so you could say the situation is much better than it was five years ago for example.

If (when) all the film cameras die from natural causes and the only 'new' machines will be F6 and FM-10, it might just as well signify the end of film as such. But I think some new cameras will emerge eventually. 29 here. I shoot film because I've found out that digital made me lazy and took away my thinking ability.