|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 14:25:40 GMT -5
A method I used for years before I finally broke down and bought a metal extractor from Freestyle was sort of similar to the lick method.
I would take an old library card or something similar -- a little pocket calendar card is usually about right -- but an expired credit card is sometimes too thick. I cut a strip about 3/8" wide off the card.
I take some scotch tape and cut off a strip to lay on top of the strip, and then use more tape to secure this piece of tape to the strip -- a small piece to the top of the strip, and a small piece to the bottom of the strip. Double-sided tape will work too. Just lay a piece down on the card strip -- about an inch and a half long piece.
I listen to the click also. When I hear the click, I insert the tape covered strip and push it in. You can feel the resistance after it gets pushed in a little ways. Then I slowly draw it out. More often than not, it will drag out the film leader with it.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 13:28:34 GMT -5
I was thinking about this topic some more yesterday and I actually sketched out a design. The big restriction, the way I see it, is being able to cram everything necessary inside the film cassette reservoir. If you restrict dimensions to that of a 35mm film cassette, you must also allow for the intrusions in the top and bottom of the cassette as well, so it can work with cameras at all. Batteries or a battery is an issue, probably occupying fully half of the available space. Plus there has to be room for a memory card. A micro SD card would do the trick, without occupying too much space. So anyway the tiny amount of space that's left has to house all of the electronics for the device. This might be a tall order.
You could have more than one of these cassettes. One for the old bottom-loading Leicas, for example. One for compacts. Etc. Below, I outline my thinking with regard to one that would fit most SLRs.
On the exterior of the cassette, there would be a slot where you push in the micro SD card to lock it in and push it again to release it. The battery would be located so that it can be removed for recharging and another inserted -- I'm thinking that, because of the battery's likely size, it would have to be located in the center of the cassette, to stay away from the top and bottom protrusions. There would be a small LCD screen on the exterior with necessary info to be displayed, such as ISO, frame count on the card, etc. Next to the LCD there could be small push buttons one could use to cycle through and set various command parameters. And there's gonna have to be a micro USB port, probably located on the top or bottom so it can communicate with a computer or whatever, if need be (like for firmware updates, for example), but also just so you can do things like download images directly from it without having to remove the card.
As for operation, I think the device could be set up to be "smart," that is, one could set it to "active" mode then insert it and once in place, whenever the shutter opens, an image is recorded. After the shutter closes, it resets for the next image. When inserting and removing the device, it would record those scenes as well, but so what? Just delete the beginning and ending waste shots from the SD card.
Now it seems to me that, once the ISO is set and the device is set to Active, then all normal camera controls would be able to control the way the image is recorded, even including TTL flash, as long as it isn't OTF TTL, that is. The reflective nature of the sensor would probably confuse the camera's OTF readings. What I'm getting at is you let the camera do all the work, the way it was intended to do. The cassette would just be recording images. It will know, for example, that when the shutter closes, it's time to save that image and get ready for another. You just set the ISO on the camera to agree with the ISO on the cassette and you just use the camera's on board meter as if there were film inside it instead of this device.
Heh, in one respect it would be like film. No chimping! You have to wait until you load your images onto your computer or tablet or whatever before you can see what you got.
Oh, and as far as different film chamber sizes, well, I think for the most part, most SLRs are gonna be close to each other. But what you could do is make it so that the extension that holds the sensor is held in place be a couple of set screws. You loosen the screws and you can slide the extension in or out such that the sensor fits perfectly over the film opening. I was also envisioning a piece at the end of the extension that is like a lip that curls in slightly to fit over the edge of the take-up reservoir, which would also be adjustable with set screws and which would act as a way of securing the extension from both ends.
When not in use, it comes with a plastic panel that will snap over the sensor, protecting it from dust, fingerprints, scratches, what have you.
So, yeah, I can see something like this happpening.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 12:37:44 GMT -5
Truls, I think you bought well. I find often the best way to approach buying a "pro" camera is to look for one that looks like it was bought by an amateur -- one who felt he or she needed the best, but then used it lightly. Yours seems to fall within that category.
One thing to keep an eye out for is the motor drive for that camera. It makes for a very nice complement, with good ergonomics. I know, because I briefly owned the outfit. I used to be a camera dealer in a previous life and I had a minty 9000 with motor for a while before I sold it. Never had any AF Minolta glass, though, so I didn't get the opportunity to try it out.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 12:27:35 GMT -5
Congrats on your good fortune. The Contax 139 is the only model I have even a passing familiarity with. I knew a guy who owned one and he loved it. He would also go on and on about the quality of the Contax lenses. What I remember most clearly about it is it had one of the smoothest film wind cranks I'd ever stroked. Made my A-1's stroke feel positively barbaric in comparison. These days I have one camera that I feel rivals the 139 in a buttery smooth winding stroke, and that is the Minolta MD-11 (MD-7 in Europe, MD in Japan).
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 12:10:06 GMT -5
Well now -- this is a very interesting, and a very long lasting, thread.
Let me first state that my first 35mm camera was a Canon. Like millions of others who bought a camera for the first time, mine was an AE-1. I enjoyed that camera, but within a year of buying it, I was beginning to feel the itch for something better, something more full-featured. And to me, the camera that filled that bill was the A-1. So I bought one. And I felt like I'd arrived. This was back in 1983 and the A-1 had already been out for about five years, but I didn't know or much care. To me, it was the ultimate. And in many ways, it was. I can recall watching TV commercials about that camera. Hexaphotcybernetic! Remember that mouthful? A word invented to describe the A-1.
But you know what? After I'd owned the A-1 for a few months I began to feel frustrated. I wanted more control and in this respect the A-1 falls somewhat short. There were two principle things I grew to dislike about the A-1: it's metering pattern and the fact that the lens aperture ring wasn't coupled to the meter. I was shooting almost 100% slide film, and because of slide film's very narrow exposure latitude, I had to be very careful with any extraneous light sources that might fall within the viewfinder frame. That was just plain annoying. And not having the aperture ring coupled to the meter meant I had to take my eye away from the viewfinder to check the aperture setting.
Right about that time I read a small review in Jason Schneider's column in Modern Photography on the Canon FTb. His description made me immediately curious. And the photo of the camera further aroused my curiosity. I'd never heard of an FTb, but I was determined to find out more. Within the month I had found one in a photo shop and I bought it -- along with an FL 35mm f/2.5 -- one of my all time favorite 35mm lenses, btw. As I became used to the way the FTb worked, I became more and more appreciative of its design. Shooting with it gave me a pleasure I had never experienced before. I was in control at last. But it was a very simple camera to operate with its match-needle metering and partial metering pattern. In fact, I quickly learned that its partial metering pattern was ideal for slide photography. I had so much more control over difficultly lit scenes. Plus, the camera had mirror lock up -- a feature I've come to regard as close to essential for much of the photography I was doing.
Well, as much as I loved the FTb, I soon learned some about the F-1. The original one, not the New F-1. I wasn't particulary interested in the New F-1 because it didn't have MLU, whereas the original one did. So I went to a camera show with the intent of buying an original F-1. I found a few, all of them were pretty beat up, and I finally decided on one that was probably the least beat up, but everything worked on it. And that camera cinched it for me. It had everything I needed. It had the same partial metering pattern as the FTb, which I had come to depend upon. Interchangeable focusing screens and finders -- even a motor drive option. Which I bought not too much later after buying the camera. I outfitted the camera with a plain matte screen because of a couple of the lenses I used often, for which the standard split-image microprism one didn't work well. That is, they were slow. But I quickly got the hang of focusing with a plain matte screen and my percentage of keepers with my slow lenses took a big step forward.
I clearly recall when the T90 was introduced. I had been shooting with my F-1 for a couple of years when it hit the market. I was quite impressed, and I wanted one. But I ended up never buying one. Until much later -- like a couple of years ago. I liked everything about the T90 except for two things: no MLU and the aperture ring was not coupled with the meter. These were reasons enough for me not to buy it back when it was available new. And the main reason why I finally bought one a couple years ago was just to have it. And its 300TL flash of course. The only FD-mount Canon that had TTL flash, btw. I can honestly say now that I really enjoy using it and that I can overlook its shortcomings. I never really understood why it was called "the tank," though. To me, the original F-1 was the tank.
There were two other FD-mount Canons that intrigued me: the EF and the New F-1. I had bought an EF back in the early 90s, used it for a while, then sold it. It was a very nice camera, but reminded me too much of the AE-1. More recently I bought another, just to have in my Canon collection. It sure is a pretty camera and what it does, it does very well. As for the New F-1, well, these days it's possible to pick up a copy for not a whole lot of money, so I bided my time until I found a good deal on one on eBay -- one with the AE Finder -- so I bought it. Now, this was the first time I've ever really held and operated a New F-1, and I gotta say that camera is probably just about indestructable. I didn't think a camera could be much more rugged than the old F-1, but I was wrong. The New one is even tougher. I know that, if I had to, I could drive nails with that sucker and it wouldn't miss a lick. Shortly after buying the New F-1, I bought a Motor Drive FN for it. Now, there's a combination for you. I can understand now why so many pros liked it, and I can almost forgive Canon for omitting mirror lock up on that camera. Almost.
Oh, and to echo Wayne's sentiment, I agree. The P is a beautiful camera. And I own one of them as well. It is my favorite LTM Canon, but it falls short of being my all-time favorite Canon.
I have to honestly say that, after having used most of Canon's best FD SLRs, that my favorite is still the Original F-1 -- the second version, to be specific, often referred to as the F-1n. The FTb taught me photography, but with the F-1 I got to explore it to the fullest.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 11:19:58 GMT -5
Very interesting reading, guys. Here in the States, the camera is called an N80 for some reason. I was first exposed to this camera when I bought a Lester Dine Dental Kit off eBay for way too cheap. The N80 was immaculate and I really thought seriously about breaking up the kit so I could keep the camera. But I didn't. I turned right around and put the kit back on eBay and priced it at what it was worth. Made a $230 profit off the deal. Not too shabby, but I missed that N80. I was browsing through the listings at the Goodwill auction site and found an N80 with a 28-105 AF-D lens and decided I was going to have that outfit. I mostly wanted the lens for my F4, but because that lens was attached to an N80, well, that just made me want it all the more. I sure didn't pick my kit up for as cheap as you guys did. Paid right at $100 for it. But I was glad to get it for the price because just the lens sells on eBay typically for about $150. So getting the N80 was just gravy. Here's mine: Hey Gene -- I see yours has the optional MB-16 battery pack attached. Let me know if you ever want to sell it. I'm interested. Can't find any on eBay ATM. Hrm . . . I see Gene opened this thread six years ago. Is Gene still around?
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 10:58:38 GMT -5
Mystery solved. Nikon had an S5200, but Canon didn't. However, one of these companies that makes cheapo crappy SLR-looking fixed-focus lens POS things that always come with a handle-mount crappy POS flash did name one a Canon S5200. Ripped off the Canon name and logo and the Nikon model number. See: www.auctionflex.com/showlot.ap?co=1&weiid=3097760&lang=EnI can't believe that 1) it made it to an auction, and 2) somebody actually bought it! Sorry, Stearman, but you did not buy a Canon and it is not an SLR. I hope you didn't pay much for it.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 9:54:21 GMT -5
It was reported that all Hong Kong production of disposable cameras has now virtually stopped, mainly due to the film shortages in 35mm, from closures by Fuji etc. With cinema now no longer requiring film in large amounts it looks like the tipping point for the future of 35mm film has passed now. Only B/W remains in regular production, colour film is going to be from existing stocks. Stephen. I certainly hope your prediction doesn't come to pass, Stephen. I like B&W well enough, but I've always preferred color, and slides at that. Pickings are getting slim when it comes to slide film. Fortunately, I really like the two flavors left that Fuji makes -- Provia and Velvia. As for C-41, the best I've ever used is Portra 160. So I can only hope that Kodak keeps it in production. Here's an article from April of this year by the BBC on the resurgence of film: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778I've seen this myself. There used to be a Texas Photo Forum until the owner shut it down about a year ago. And usually, once or twice a year, folks who were members of the forum and local to Houston -- several of us would get together and have a "film crawl," each time choosing some place scenic where we would just take our time, air out our film cameras, and in general just have a good time. Seems like every time we had a crawl, there would be one or two new faces who were either getting back into film or who'd never shot with it. Too bad about the forum shutting down. It was an easy way for us to discuss the details of setting up a crawl -- mostly it was deciding on a date where the greatest majority of those who were interested could participate. Too bad about the forum shutting down. I miss the crawls.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 4:09:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the tip, Stephen. I'll give it a try next time I'm in that situation. A question, though -- about how much airspace do you leave in your bottles before you put them in the freezer? Or if you're not using small ones, can you estimate what the amount of airspace should be? Thanks! Freestyle also carries Tetenal. The chems I show in the above links, I chose mostly because of their price and quantity. I figure most people who want to get started developing their own color films will prefer to start off small at a price that doesn't put too big of a dent in one's wallet. Once they gain confidence, they can move up in size. I've been happy with the Arista for E-6 and I don't have any complaints about the Unicolor, either. Hey Phil, We have a pro lab here in Houston that I've used often. They're the last pro lab left in this city, if you can believe it. I wish their prices were cheaper, but they definitely do good work. Plus, they do two runs a day, so you can have same day processing done. Wayne, of course digital is easier, but what's the fun in that? Film has this sort of excitement that comes from anticipation, even if it's just the same day. That is something that digital can never have, virtually by definition.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 7, 2015 19:25:21 GMT -5
You know, on this business of converting a film camera to digital -- short of the methods that Kodak and Fuji have used in the past, which are well beyond my skill level, I still believe that, one of these days, somebody is gonna come up with a way to use "digital film" in a film camera. Occasionally I see concepts that make a few headlines -- but they all seem to be more in the line of thought experiments than any sort of serious attempt to bring to market. This is nothing new, however. Not at all. I even invested in a company named Irvine Sensors back in 2000 because they had announced they were working on "digital film" technology. Only to spin it off, at which point their stock price promptly fell through the floor. I don't like to think about it. But anyway, in more recent years, I recall watching a video about a guy from the UK named James Jackson who was doing just this. He called his product the Digipod and it looks kinda like a small film cassette, but it fits in the film canister reservoir and has an extension that fits across the shutter opening. He was trying to raise funds for this device through a kickstarter site, but has come up short of his goal by a rather substantial margin. So it looks like his product, which he showed working on a Minolta X700 (I know because I watched it a couple years ago), is not likely to make it to market anytime soon. A pity. Here's a link with more information on James Jackson and his design: petapixel.com/2013/08/16/convert-your-old-film-slr-into-a-digital-camera-with-the-digipod/Considering all the tens of millions of perfectly good 35mm SLRs there are out there, too many of which are stuffed away in closets or otherwise collecting dust, I still believe there is a market for such a device. With regards to interfacing with the camera, I believe it could be designed to adapt, such that these interface impediments would be mostly nonexistent or easily overcome. Plus, it could be full frame! Oh well, something to hope for anyway. 15 years and counting . . .
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 7, 2015 14:46:34 GMT -5
Hi Folks, I'm new here, but I got a request to share how I develop my own C-41 and E-6 films. So I thought I'd share what I do here. Feel free to comment if you have questions or suggestions. For this procedure, you need a styrofoam box or cooler, bottles of the right size for the chems you'll mix, and an accurate thermometer. Don't skimp on the thermometer -- it's your most important tool for this process. First off, I realized I needed a way to keep the chemicals' temperatures stable, since this is the most important aspect of developing color films. The temps I tried to maintain were around 104F --- I'd have to refer to the individual chemicals to find out the exact temp, but that value is close. To keep the temps stable, I decided to use a styrofoam container to use for a bath to keep the chems' temps stable. For this I have a box that was used to ship steaks via mail-order. These boxes are packed with frozen steaks and dry ice to keep them frozen. The walls are quite thick -- about 2" all the way around. The interior is big enough to hold about a 12-pack of beer, to give you a rough idea of size. If you don't have one of these boxes, that's ok. You can also buy for cheap at your typical grocery store a styrofoam cooler designed to keep beer or sodas cold. Its sides won't be as thick, but they're thick enough to hold the heat in. So I start by running my sink's hot water until it's temp is about 120F. Then I add the chemical bottles to the styrofoam box and pour the hot water in. I remove the cap on at least one of the bottles, drop the thermometer inside and wait. As the water brings the temp up in the chem bottles, it will lose temperature. I've found that, by the time the chem's temps are about where they're supposed to be, the entire set-up has reached a temperature equilibrium very close to where I want it. I can then add either cold or hot water to the bath to get the temps exactly where they need to be. Once the chems' temps are correct, start the development process, following the directions for the specific chems you're using. I prefer to use a tank that I can invert for agitation, but use what you feel most comfortable with. Keep a close eye on the temp in the box or cooler and the temp in the bottles still in the bath. Sometimes, when I'm in the middle of a developing step, I find I need to bring the temp in the bath back up. I do this with a small drinking glass. I bail out water from the cooler and add the same amount of hot water to the bath. I do this until the temp is back up where it should be. Continue the developing process. If there's room in your cooler, rather than setting the tank down on your bathroom counter (or wherever you're doing this), place the tank in the bath so it will stay warm between agitations. If you don't have room, that's OK -- neither do I, and it hasn't affected the colors of my films. After you've finished all the steps of the process, following the directions of the chems you're using, open the tank, flush the film for the required amount of time, wipe the film down with a darkroom sponge, and hang the film up to dry. Enjoy! The chem directions will give you an idea of how much film you can reliably process. I've found that they're playing things conservatively. If you develop several rolls at a time -- so the chems don't have time to degrade from just sitting there -- you can usually get good results for more rolls than they recommend. You need to be the judge as to how many you can reliably develop. Also, I store my chems in plastic bottles. The bottles I use depend on the amount of mixed chemicals I have. For example, the E-6 chemicals I've been using mix up to one pint for each, whereas the C-41 chems mix up to one liter. So I buy bottles of the appropriate sizes at the market that might be used for tea or flavored water like Power Aid, etc. I drink the contents and wash out the bottles well. I then use a permanent marker, like a Sharpie, to indicate which chemical goes into which bottle. When I'm finished developing, I squeeze the bottles so there's no air left in them before I screw the cap down tight. This way you don't have to develop all your rolls at the same time. I've found that, if I wait until I have several rolls to develop at the same time, I can get the effective cost of developing down to as little as a couple dollars per roll. This sure beats processing costs that labs charge these days. I buy my chemicals from Freestyle. Here are links to the ones I use: E-6: www.freestylephoto.biz/1181-Arista-Rapid-E6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-PintC-41: www.freestylephoto.biz/10123-Unicolor-Powder-C-41-Film-Negative-Processing-Kit-1-LiterIncidentally, just in case you aren't aware, Freestyle is a great source for film as well. Good prices and an extensive selection.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 7, 2015 14:09:44 GMT -5
Hiya, leadmess,
Yeah, I'd be happy to give folks a rundown on my setup and procedures. I'll look for the appropriate forum.
Phil, I have my own website, so I can provide links to my pics from there -- which is what I usually do.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 6, 2015 18:15:16 GMT -5
Hey Dennis, yeah I'm real new here -- just joined a couple of days ago. Thins seem to be pretty quiet, but maybe we can do something about that, eh?
Anyway, good to be here and I look forward to future interactions.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 4, 2015 19:58:07 GMT -5
Oh, yes, I have, although I didn't do it deliberately. It all started when I decided to change systems from Canon FD to Nikon. Shortly after buying into the Nikon system, I bought an EOS outfit, ostensibly for my wife to use, so she could easily take good pics of our newborn daughter. And I slowly added to that outfit, eventually including an EOS DSLR that took the EF-S lenses. The years went by and I found that I really missed my old FD outfit, so what did I do? I bought back into Canon FD. And then there were a couple of other cameras I'd always thought were very nice, so eventually I bought them as well -- a Pentax KX and more recently a Minolta XD-11. I liked the KX so much, I added to the system, then came across a deal on an old Spotmatic with lens that I couldn't walk away from. And I added to that system. And then while all this was going on, I also picked up an old Canon rangefinder in LTM (M39) mount and added some lenses to it. And then there was this nice Bronica ETRSi outfit, which required that I outfit it with lenses as well. Most recently of all, I finally bought a camera I've been wanting for over 20 years -- a Pentax 67. Which, of course, meant that it would need some lenses, which I bought. Oh, and my most recent digital system camera now is a NEX 7. But I still have only the kit zoom that came with it. Although I've bought adapters for almost all my 35mm systems so I can use those lenses on my NEX. And like you I also own Tamrons. In fact, I think I have a pretty good assortment of Tamrons, such that with any camera that Tamron made an adaptall-2 mount for, I have a complete set of lenses for it. Most of my Tamrons are SP lenses -- the best they made -- and I consider them to be at every bit as good as OEM lenses. Having a good selection of Tamrons comes in handy when a person has so many lens mounts
So, let's see, not including Canon EOS EF-S, since it interchanges with EF, by my count I have ten different interchangeable lens systems. Funny, it doesn't seem like that many. And of course, I have lenses for each system. Hooboy.
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 4, 2015 19:15:28 GMT -5
Stephen, you might be right that the Canon lens was 1000mm, the only thing is Canon didn't make an FD 1000mm lens, nor did Canon make a 1000mm FL lens. Although Canon did build 1200mm lenses in both mounts -- but the FD was supposedly a very limited edition, designed only for Olympics use, none of which were sold, and they were all later converted to EF mount. But when it comes to a 1000mm telephoto, Canon did produce one. It is in the R-mount, which is the breechlock mount that preceded FL. It is interchangeable with FL and FD, but those R lenses with linkage for the camera won't interface correctly with an FL or FD camera. However the 1000mm f/11 R lens was preset, with no linkage between lens and camera. In fact, rather than using a focusing helical, it used a detachable bellows at the rear of the lens (the bellows is also used on the 800mm R). Optically, it is a very simple designed. An achromatic doublet -- two elements in one group. But as an owner of two telephoto lenses of similar construction (a 500mm f/5.6 and a 650mm f/6.3), I can tell you that such a design can achieve remarkably sharp and well-corrected results. The 1000 R is quite rare and worth a bundle these days. There is some information on it at the Canon Museum. See: www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/r/data/35-2000/r_1000_11.html
|
|