PatB

Yes, one would only be able to clean the peripheral lens in the rear group, not the individual elements, through the open shutter. This is where most of the dust seems to be. I would not attempt to open the doublet / triplet itself. Having cleaned the edge lenses in the front group, you really need to have it out to do it properly. It took a few times (pec pads and eclipse lens cleaning fluid) to get it crystal clean. The surface dust is not visible in normal light, even direct sunlight does not reveal anything, only under LED torch, and only at a certain angle. The torch itself was merely used to make sure no fungal growths or separation have started and the lens looks perfect in that respect. I would try it if there was a commercially available tool to do it (hence the post) but it sounds you would need to make a proprietary one and that process could be a can of worms. I might revisit the idea next time I send it for a CLA but will leave it for now. Thanks again!

Thanks. I also came across a post where someone recommended removing the front element and opening the shutter in bulb mode (could be locked with the locking mechanism round the shutter release) in order to access the inner side of the rear element for cleaning / the back side of the rear element is accessible from the film bay anyway. Slightly unnerving idea, imagine the shutter blades accidentally closing whilst you're 'poking' in there... I suppose it could do the trick

Hello All, I have a Rolleiflex 2.8f TLR camera and it's taking lens (a Planar) would benefit from cleaning. The front element was a breeze - all you needed was a rubber tool to undo the front retaining ring. It is now pristine. The rear element is a different story altogether. I can only see a fine, recessed locking ring between the rear lens and a tall collar that surrounds it. This design makes it impossible to use a traditional lens opening tools. A lens spanner is too bulky to fit in the slot between the lens element and the tall collar as there is very little clearance between them. I have seen the you tube clip showing how to create a Rolleiflex 75mm 3.5f rear lens opening tool but because that tall ring is there it would not work. It must be a different design. So has anyone successfully managed to get access to the rear lens element on a 2.8f? If so, what tool did you use? Thanks, All the best! Pat

AFD / "screw-drive" lens? These do not auto-focus with the FTZ adapter.

thanks for the replies and reassurance.

Hello All Z7 users out there, I've noticed that the XQD card inside the camera has been running rather warm recently; shooting RAW but not in bursts, just stills. Is yours warm to touch after being used? Thanks!

Reviving an old thread but I thought it would be interesting to note that I am testing a Selphy 1300 (a current model; brand new printer, brand new canon paper+cartridge set) and I noticed the same issue exactly. I have found some other posts across different forums, often unresolved, where people describe it as a faint, yet slightly darker, line about 15mm from the perforated paper edge. It looks like it is inherent to the printer's design? This is especially visible with lighter, solid colours, such as a sky and easily missed if printing darker colours or patterns.

I think that you should be looking at a Pe tax 67 if you like SLRs experience and want to have better reliability, rather than a Mamiya 7 because of its reputation for sharp and contrasty glass. I never got along with rangefinders, despite being lighter, quieter or having sharper lenses. I particulalrly didn't like the fact that you can only focus in the centre and have to reposition for the actual framing. Have you used a range finder camera before? It's also a question of what subjects you shoot. Mamiya 7 is less than ideal for portraits (limited close up) but excellent for landscape. If you do both, however, Pentax 67 would be a better option.

Hi All I've recently bought a second hand Ricoh GR II, from a reputable camera store. Unfortunately, I noticed a couple of dust spots (some spots, some rings) on the sensor; easily missed wide open but showing at closed apertures - f8 and above. The non invasive methods of (re)moving them have not worked so the camera would need to be opened to be cleaned it seems. I can easily return it, especially that the dust was not mentioned in the listing. The camera looks fairly new (under 1400 shutter clicks) and does not look abused in any way, it also came with a Ricoh leather case. The dust issue is fairly evident on the web and Ricoh themselves will clean the sensor or simply replace the whole sensor and lens assembly under warranty. However, some people say they experience no dust issues at all with their GR / GRIIs which makes me wonder if it is more of a design issue or incorrect assembly (QC) in the factory i.e. wrong installation of the rubber seal that surrounds the sensor. What's your experience? For those that have had dust and have opened the camera, was the gasket squashed or deformed in any way? If it was and once the dust was cleaned from the sensor did you try to correct the seal placement? Did the dust problem persist? Many thanks!

<p>The one you linked to is definitely a Contax 645: <br> (1/)250 - shutter<br> F.11 - aperture<br> M(anual) - mode<br> P(lanar)80(mm)/(f)2 [which is the widest aperture setting] - lens<br> 120 - film format</p> <p> </p>

Hi Robin, I've used both and choose to shoot zeiss due to their image rendering. Funny story actually, I had a set of zeiss lenses and due to frustrations with focus and modern focusing screens (before using the custom focus screen and magnifier) I sold off all of them and bought the same set of nikon af prime lenses. Sure the convenience and focus accuracy were great but they were lifeless in comparison. I got rid of the Nikon primes after two years later and got back to zeiss. I actually prefer the classic (zf) series to the overly corrected modern designs but that's not the poin of this thread. I think I will try the split focus screen next to improve things further. Thanks again for all your input.

Many thanks for your responses, I was suapecting that could be the case, I used a x8 loupe I had lying around and it only magnified pixels. I am pretty close with the canon s + dk17m but having been spoiled by older analogue equipment I know this potentially could be better. Perhaps I should consider a nikon k3 splitscreen or the equivalent from canon that focusingscreen.com in Taiwan offer.

<p>Hi All, <br> I've been using Zeiss glass with my Nikon DSLRs and while I've managed to set up a d700 perfectly (using a custom-made S-type focusing screen from Canon and a dk17m magnifying eyepiece) I was less successful with my d810 using the same solution - although it is now much improved over the standard focusing screen it is still not ideal. I realize the limitations may stem from a higher pixel count (12mp vs 36mp) and it seems that I get the most consistent and critical focus using live view. <br> I've been looking at other options and I am now looking at magnifying hoods. I am looking at 2.5x - 3x magnification and here's the question: is it possible to focus accurately (using a hood) at no magnification in live view on D810?<br> I suppose one could do without a hood if the object was stationary and there was time to zoom in, focus and zoom out but I shoot mainly portraits and this this is not really an option. I am becoming slightly disheartened by 35mm manual focus experience on modern DSLRs and even looked at Sony mirrorless as an alternative but the last time I checked (a7?) and was not convinced by the lag and lack of detail in the electronic viewfinder so a hood is my last hope! <br> Thanks, <br> Pat</p> <p> </p>

Thanks for your thoughts David. Checked in luggage is much cheaper than postage, for example, £65 for the 1st extra bag and £120 for any additional ones, up to 10 bags, 23kg each. Most size restrictions prevent taking anything over 90cm in length so the tripods are staying at home). For the price of one parcel I can have 3 23kg bags on the plane, hence the idea. It just leaves me with the question of the case.

<p>Hello All, <br> I will be looking at transport options for a trans-continental (UK to China) relocation journey. I decided on taking my existing portable setup of 4 Elinchrom Quadra ranger packs, some spare batteries, ringflash and basic modifiers so about 30kg worth of lighting equipment in total. It looks like the most cost-effective option for having additional bags is air travel, postage (+insurance) is prohibitively expensive. Having looked at baggage allowance the likes of pelican hard cases or ThinkTank manager 40 options are simply too heavy or too large (the latter case). I've been trying to come up with an alternative (I would like to pack everything into two bags ideally) and thought of getting a regular hard case bag, such as this<br> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aerolite-Hardshell-Luggage-Suitcase-Charcoal/dp/B019IGCFW2/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8<br> And purchase some dense foam from a local foam supplier to create custom inserts for all the equipment. I would also secure the bags with adjustable luggage straps. The size seems to meet the size specifications for check-in luggage and is much less heavy. <br> Has anyone tried a similar solution? Unless you can think of an alternative? It would be great to get some opinions on this? <br> Many thanks! <br> Pat</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the reply Martin. We are likely to be relocating for a couple of years. I generally stock up once a year or so so online orders would be fine. I don't want to abandon the analogue medium unless it's an absolute pain, like difficulty obtaining chemistry shipping restrictions. </p>

Hi All, It would be great if you could share your experiences with shooting film (film and film processing chemicals for BW availability)? Is it easy to obtain materials and chemistry these days? I imagine online ordering is the best way? I typically shoot tmax range from kodak processed in xtol. Many thanks! Pat

<p>Try Rodinal (or any Rodinal equivalents) in 1:25 dilution; grain will be larger than with most developers.</p>

Calvin, I urge you try higher dillutions with xtol. I was also about to give up on xtol until I tried 1+3 dillutions. More bite with all other benefits of xtol.

<p>The Sigma software is not as scary as people describe it in its current incarnation. <br> The camera is unique, I tested Dp2 Merrill it against the Quattro and decided to go with Merrill. Quattro files look rather generic where Merrill stands out; it is also more compact. I also enjoy the fact that it has a near 50mm lens - I can't stand 35mm focal length personally, it's neither here nor there, and there are no other offerings on the market. I am using it as a travel camera and couldn't be happier with a 2012 camera in 2016. As a side note, I use Nikon full frame for digital (d810 and d700 with zeiss glass for work) and medium format analog for serious shooting (scanned on a flextight scanner). <br> With current prices used prices, I'd say it is worth it. </p>

Thanks Jochen. I am looking at 20000mAh, 4.8A Output unit so I am hoping it will suffice.

<p>Thanks for the reassurance and suggestions. I think I will grab a power bank and a USB charger. Ending up with 4 batteries charged at home and then recharged from the bank on the go if necessary. </p>

Dear Dp2m users, Given the short battery life of these cameras has anyone used a powerbank to charge them on the go using a usb charger? I am not looking to power the camera using the power bank but only recharge a depleted battery, say, in my backpack while I am using the other and shooting all day with no access to mains power? An there any manufacturers or products you would recommend?

<p>interesting, thanks for that!<br> Les, these are exactly the questions I want to ask. We really don't need yet another overpriced, vintage-looking product... </p>

<p>bummer :(<br> "...we cannot now change our decision. Thus, we respectfully decline your proposals. "<br> more at:<br> <a href="https://www.change.org/p/save-instant-film/u/16328075?tk=xPVSxdXtRT1WTjf9FIrVL_OOgD0jbsKYS2P6Jwje9_Q&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email">https://www.change.org/p/save-instant-film/u/16328075?tk=xPVSxdXtRT1WTjf9FIrVL_OOgD0jbsKYS2P6Jwje9_Q&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email </a><br> <br> I am for one tempted to boycott Fujifilm. </p>