mikheilrokva

That's what I usually do - shoot in aperture priority. And if I want some closeup shots, I go as low as f/8, or even more. But I wanted to dig deeper into the matter. It was a bad idea.

Frankly I'm not sure why I shoot medium format. I know why I shoot film - I'm trying to improve myself by limiting my frames, by trying to think over each composition, each shot. But I don't know what's with medium format gear... I bought mine because it was ridiculously cheap. It's hardly comfortable (a cumbersome box with shutter release in the worst place ever), heavy (all of my 35mm gear - Olympus OM-4 with 50, 28 and 135 mm lenses, 90 degree viewfinder and a teleconverter weigh less than my Bronica ETR with only a single lens) and expensive to use (34 cents per 120 format frame as opposed to 18 cents per 35 mm), not to mention scanning cost. And yet there's something about the way the final results look. Every time I decide to sell my MF, something is holding me back.

It certainly helps. However, I'm afraid now I have a cone of confusion in my head :oops:

It might be pretty simple to someone professional, but I'm not a pro, so I still have some questions about the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of the statements below: I know that "extension tube" is just a hollow tube which sits between the body and the lens and allows you to make closer shots. Sort of cheap option for macro shots. Have done it with M42. I also know that "teleconverter" incorporates an optical element, sits between the body and the lens and allows you to amplify lense's focal length by 1.4x, 2x or whatever it is, while minimum focal length remains the same. So theoretically one could use a t-con instead of a tube for closeup shots, at certain level (also have done it once or twice with Olympus OM). I know both items do bad things to light, meaning actual working aperture is also multiplied and for example, instead of f/2 min. aperture you get f/4, need longer exposure and so on. But what happens to DOF in this case? If I set the aperture at 2, but light passing through it is equivalent of f/4, will the depth of field also be same as f/4? I understand that buying a dedicated macro lens is the best option since they produce good edge-to-edge sharpness of the image which isn't achievable in other cases, but I'm asking out of curiosity, so please don't dodge my question and don't tell me to go and buy a macro lens :D

To take something like that, I should first travel to somewhere with windmills. Sadly I can't do that. Thanks for the response. I like the effect, but the sky isn't dark enough for my taste.

Well, guess you'll have to stick with handheld meter. Can't go wrong with that! Weak and overly complicated electronics are such a turnoff for otherwise nearly perfect system. People around the net are talking that AE-III is the most reliable metered prism. Too bad it won't work on old bodies. One bad thing with modular machines like ETR is that electronics are scattered throughout the body, lens and the prism, which means you can never be sure what's faulty unless you have a second set of items to replace and test.

Check this century-old thread: Bronica ETRs have intermittent shutter misfires Try to check the camera with different lens attached, if that's an option. Also without the magazines. I think your problem will be similar to the one described there.

What original poster has posted here is indeed an expanded spring and it works like a charm on my ETRC as well, when I don't have a proper battery. But meter reading is same whether I use alkaline 4LR44 or four pieces of LR44. Must be a thing with alkaline.

I'd still be careful Sir. Some people say it fogs the film. Others say it doesn't. Some say autofocus isn't reliable as well as automatic exposure system. But it's worth mentioning that some of those are 645Zi and others are simple 645. I hope someone more qualified will show up and spread a light on this matter.

AFAIK autofocus isn't exactly working on infrared film. But I might be wrong. As for the sharpness, if stop down beyond f/8, you should be fine in most situations (street, landscape) thanks to deeper dof. Wouldn't recommend aperture priority or anything automatic at all. Because I doubt it can work properly with so much light cut-off thanks to IR filter

Here people are dropping various options and in the end it was a completely different issue: AE II Prism problem.. Help | Bronica | Flickr Looks like metering electronics is a weak spot of otherwise nearly perfect 6x4.5 LEGO toy.

To me as a non-professional, it's just testing out something new while having a benefit of less grain than it would appear on 35 mm neg.

Thank you Sir. Aye, I'm not a macro shooter, but then again I don't have people to photograph either so I might just pass both opportunities. Now if it was a wide angle lens, I'd gladly pay for it, it's handy for architecture and streetjob.

I have ETRC with AE-II finder. The meter is off. Way off. In other words if I use ISO100 film, I have to set finder's sensitivity at 800. That's three whole stops. And in dimmed light I have to add one more stop. So I'm just using a hand-held meter. I have disassembled the prism and found that photosensitive cells (there are two of them on either sides of eyepiece) have some kind of rust/fungus or whatever that killed off its sensitivity. Of course your issue is different from mine, but what I'm trying to say is that it's better to use an external meter. These things aren't exactly long-lasting. At least I've got mine for 10 dollars, much cheaper than a regular prism. P.S. I'm using the same setup in terms of batteries, although I'll be surprised if single 4LR44 cell will fix the problem.

Now that's a true 'other half'. Lucky you. My spouse despises all of my gear. What bothers me is a fact of Delta 3200 being rated ISO1200 and TMZ - ISO800. I wonder if it will attain results at least similar to Delta without being pushed... Either way we'll learn soon enough. I just keep hoping for 120.

Hello I have a chance to get either Zenzanon 100 mm f/4 (macro), or 150 mm f/3.5 for my ETR. They both are "MC" (so yes, not so good), cost the same and no, I can't get them both neither for financial, nor for physical reasons (my shoulder starts to hurt under Bronica). I'm not much of a portrait or macro shooter. So I'm having a hard time choosing. It might also happen that I won't buy any of those two and stick with my standard 75/2.8 in the end. But still I'd like to know which lens is better. Thank you M P.S. I forgot to mention. They cost of both would be a bit more than equivalent of 55$

That's what I'm doing to myself right now actually. However it doesn't seem to work on him. He's a bit... um... "different".

We bought 100 ft bulk of Kentmere and split it in two. Let's just say we're not buying it again. And Acros is his favourite film.

Thank you. I'll try to look him up somewhere. What bugs me is that normally OM cameras lock up the mirror when batteries are dead. This one, however, shoots as if there's nothing wrong at all, even with completely empty battery compartment. So I guess es, it's PCB

Ohh I'm afraid you're several years late! He switched to film after years of using digital. The end.

I think you should give it a shot. After all, it's something you love.

You'd be lucky if someone could actually understand the meaning of it out here. People in local lab said I'm one of a few who knows what C-41 is. That's Georgia for you :D

You'd make a lot of money if you had photography classes. A lot of people, including myself would pay you to get knowledge.

I guess I'll be fine with GAF. Either way I can't buy rodinal and other fancy liquids so I'll have to do with D-76, so no need for high end tanks.

Nikor? The shiny metal tank? Is there a big difference between plastic and metal tanks fuction-wise? I bought Gaf tank due to its adjustable reel. Didn't know 120 format developing was available out here.