|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 22, 2020 10:40:13 GMT -5
You have me at a disadvantage as I have nothing but Japanese cameras . . . still! To your point, the Topcon's Exacta mount does point to a Euro beginning.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 13, 2020 18:49:38 GMT -5
Wich brings me to wonder what exactly Kamkura designed zen wise as the base shape of the F body was already there in the SP and was inspired by Contax, or are we talking about the specific shape of the F pentaprism? If you haven't already see it, Nikon has a great writeup about the design and introduction of the F at Design philosophy of single-lens reflex camera Nikon F systemIn it is stated, "In February of 1957, the order was issued for prototyping 3 sets, signaling the start of the development of Nikon F." and outlines the design goals starting with the SP/S3 body and adding mirror box and pentaprism. I wish that the others had made a similar site about their camera development.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 13, 2020 18:32:06 GMT -5
Lesdmess you are absolutely right and i humbly bow my head for not doing proper research. My objective on this topic was mainly on the development of the aestetic features of (japan) camera design. Indeed the Pentax original set the standard on how most slr's would look and the form factor they would have in the many years to follow. There's this gap between the 1955 asahiflex and the 1959 H2 in my Pentax collection (mainly because to expensive :-( needed the funds for Nikon gear) that i wasn't aware of the Pentax original being that significant in camera history. Now i will have to buy one ;-) I know what you mean as I definitely have quite a few gaps myself. I have been on prowl for a Minolta SR2 for quite awhile now - their first SLR, to go with my first releases . . .
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 11, 2020 20:38:43 GMT -5
One of the first Japanese SLR's the 1952 Asahiflex was design-wise a simple copy of the 1939 German Praktiflex, designers Nebouyuki Yoshida and Rykei Suzuki didn't think anything more was needed to make pentaxes first SLR.The design was mainly form follows function with little regard to aestetics The 1959 Nikon F designed by Yasuka Kamekura was inspired on zen culture. The shape of the F would basicly be the shape of allmost every 35mm SLR save some minor styling details.Still the hexagonal body shape still bears the heritage of Contax on wich he Nikon rangefinders were besed. The story goes it was called the F because this was the middle letter of the word reFlex, chosen because the letter R didn't exist in Japanese and was unpronounseable by the Japanese. No doubt I am sure there maybe regional biases that would influence this and my own personal bias chooses the 1957 original Asahi Pentax. It seems Stephen Gandy agrees as stating, "The original Pentax was one of the rare pivotal designs which influenced millions of 35 SLRs. . . Millions of 35 SLRs would follow the general layout trail-blazed with the original Pentax" in their site at Pentax OriginalOne of the most obvious design consideration is what it would take to load film in each body. With the Pentax, you simply pop the film back and on the Nikon you would have to remove the back. This of course is due to the fact that to get to market ASAP, Nikon used the existing Nikon rangefinder body to the design. Don't get me wrong, the Nikon F was a significant design and became influential but you have to give credit where it was due. Afterall, before Pentax solved the viewfinder blackout problem with their instant return mirror, Nikon - and all others, were producing copied rangefinder designs.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on May 17, 2020 23:29:22 GMT -5
I don't know this camera but just as a general comment is that as I understand it mechanical shutter speeds are not that accurate. Specially one that hasnn't been tuned a number of years. I haven't tried them yet but I have seen smart phone aps that supposedly can measure mechanical shutter speeds relatively accurately via sound. There are even others with attachments that measure them even more accurately.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on May 16, 2020 12:35:08 GMT -5
These are rather low-resolution scans; anyone know a convenient way to get better scans for half-frame negatives? I use the nikon PB4 bellows in combination with the PS-4 slide copy attachement and an old micro nikkor on the D800, but i guess any make of bellows with slide copy attachement will work. I don't bother anymore with my minolta slide scanner nor the epson film scanner (though this can be used for large format film). The resolution of the D800 is higher than the resolution of 35mm film, the setup allows for fast working, a lot faster than any scanner with equal or better results.The set is very verstatile and allows for copying the full frame or enlarged parts of the frame. I believe these days there's even a much simpeker solution with the Nikon ES-2 Digitizer attachement. haven't tried it but as my set up works fine i don't think i need it. Below some slides from a 1977 performance my friends and i did (those where the days ) copied with this set up. As i focussed on the grain of the film, it becomes clear the shots aren't that sharp. I used my Coolscan 5000 to scan my half frame shots from my FT. It will scan two frames at a time. That the resolution of D800 (36MP) is higher then film probably is too broad a generalization. I can understand this opinion as I recall when the 3MP Canon D30 was introduced some pro said that it outresolves Imacon scanned 35mm Fuji Provia. Below I used my Pentax K20D(14MP) a D800 compared to my 4000dpi Coolscan on 35mm Kodak Techpan shot @ ISO25 and processed in Technidol of 12233 resolutionn chart taken with my manual focus Pentax LX and SMC Pentax M 50mm f4 macro under ideal conditions. Full res version -> Kodak Techpan 04-27 scan compareCrops on th left shows the full test target shot and 100% crops of the center from each scan. The large image on the right is a 100% of the center area using optical magnification with my K20D + autobellows. In this optical magnification, you can clearly see there is much more real detail unresolved using the D800 or Coolscan 4000dpi. Clearly the D800 cannot fully resolve this 35mm film therefore it's resolution is not higher then film. Interesting is that although the D800 creates more pixels then the Coolscan's 4000dpi, you can see that they are very similar in actual resolution achieved. BTW those are really cool vintage shots of slides! It is too bad that DSLR scanning does not have ICE - dust and scratch removal. Of course with higher res the dust and scratches become more evident leaving you with much post work. Below is a particularly dusty Kodachrome from the 60s that show D800 scanning compared to Coolscan's ICE - dust removal. This post work will easily exceed the Coolscan's scan time of about 50 seconds per frame. I know what you mean about poor focus because this Kodachrome slide was one of many I scanned on my Coolscan for a customer and all of his shots were out of focus. I had to prove to him it wasn't my Coolscan but that his slides were all out of focus using a 40X loupe. He couldn't believe it as he had previously projected them and thought they were all critically focused. Also, converting DSLR scans of color negatives is another problem altogether. Post work converting these to positives will be far more then the scan time. And even then it will not match the Coolscan+Nikonscan's quality. I've seen other's workflow and they are many minutes long per frame. I've tried a few myself and even with the Coolscan results as reference, I just can't see spending the time to work on each and every frame. And then you have to cleanup dust and scratches. This one of Kodak 160VC. BTW, the Olympus F series had adapters to use practically all brands of lenses long before todays digitals were even concieved. This is helpful as their native lenses are pretty pricey. I use a Nikon adapter on mine so I could use all my Nikon lens and accessories.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Sept 11, 2016 19:50:46 GMT -5
The Minolta XK was so far ahead of the pack. Not only is Minolta leading edge, but they were also only one of two Japanese companies - and one of a few worldwide, that actually made their own optical glass and lenses.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Sept 10, 2016 12:33:04 GMT -5
Since you don't have the XE-7, how about the film advance comparison between the Nikon F3, Leica R4, Minolta XD-11 and Olympus OM-1?
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Sept 9, 2016 19:51:03 GMT -5
Even as a parts only and not working condition a Nikon F with a plain prism finder + lens is a steal at that price. So if it works as good as it looks then you just won a lottery!
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Sept 8, 2016 22:16:46 GMT -5
Minolta and Leica started a collaboration beginning with the Minolta XE-7 and Leica R3 followed by the Minolta XD-11 and Leica R4. This gave Minolta access to the vertical metal shutters developed by Copal which they incorporated in both models. Prior to that - and after those two models, they reverted back to horizontal travel shutters on their manual focus cameras. I wonder if this is why they never made another manual focus model with a shutter speed of 1/2000 or greater because Leica didn't achieve faster shutter speeds till a few models later - assuming they continued to use the Copal shutter.
BTW, since you have them both, how is the film advance on the XD-11 compared to the R4?
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 20, 2016 10:58:31 GMT -5
My OM-1's and OM-2's were constant travel companions throughout the 1970's and later. I even design this canvas case to carry my compact gear. Air travel was more graceful back then! That is one very tidy case and still looks in great shape!
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 15, 2016 23:28:00 GMT -5
Just to be complete. I have all the other "pro" OM's from the M-1 to the 4t in both black and chrome as issued. I essentially collect the OM system. Cameras lenses and accessories. Great reason! I would like to see some shots of the collection and the M-1 in particular when you get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 14, 2016 11:46:00 GMT -5
No not an impulse buy for sure. Every time an OM-3t comes up I have to think long and hard. Hate to admit it but I have not put film through my OM-3. What is compelling about the OM-3t since you already have the OM-3?
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 12, 2016 22:34:03 GMT -5
Hi: I could get my OM-2 Spot/Program for only 30€, so I took it. First Impression is mixed, Film advanced is rough, not smoth like at OM-2 or Minolta XD-7. Hannes It would be unfair to compair to the XD-7. By comparison to the XE-7 and XD-11, practically all camera's shutter advance will feel like they need lubrication! The full stroke of the XE-7 is the smoothest and most effortless in my stable. But with the introduction of the OM's, all manufacturers redeveloped their lineup to more closely match the size and weight just like Minolta above.
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 10, 2016 23:58:58 GMT -5
I like the Minolta XK pretty well . . .
|
|