|
Myths
Apr 11, 2017 14:52:24 GMT -5
Post by johnbear on Apr 11, 2017 14:52:24 GMT -5
Oh well daveh, we'll just have to disagree on that one.
Captain Eugene Andrew (Apollo 17) was the last man to walk on the moon and also one of the first?
|
|
|
Myths
Apr 10, 2017 18:16:35 GMT -5
Post by johnbear on Apr 10, 2017 18:16:35 GMT -5
Nikon F serial numbers - yes I can understand how this seemingly logical observation can become crystallised into a "fact" that isn't true. Others are more wildly in accurate.
The Topcon Unirex claim is less forgivable. According to the top search result from Bing - "the Unirex is one of the first SLR's with full aperture CdS exposure metering" and was introduced in 1969.
The 1963 RE Super was indeed the first, followed be the likes of the 1964 Topcon Uni, the 1966 Minolta SRT101, the 1967 Nikon Nikkormat FTN, and the 1969 Praktica LLC, and so on. Something cannot be one of the first six years later.
The problem is, these inaccuracies get repeated, modified, and information becomes corrupted. Thankfully, I've notice this particular claim is not as prevalent as it once was.
|
|
|
Myths
Apr 9, 2017 17:17:43 GMT -5
Post by johnbear on Apr 9, 2017 17:17:43 GMT -5
Does anyone know any popular myths about camera models; incorrect facts that are perpetuated on copy cat internet sites, and generally accepted as true?
The sort of thing I mean is stuff like:
* the Petri 7s was used by professionals,
* the Nikon EM meter doesn't work unless there's a film loaded and wound to frame 1,
* the Topcon Unirex was the first SLR with open aperture metering,
* the Yashica TL Electro X was the first camera with viewfinder LEDs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 19, 2017 17:31:07 GMT -5
Conan - Yep, I used Brasso, and it took a lot of rubbing, but they eventually gleam and it feels like the effort was worth it. Fortunately it's the sort of mindless task that can be done while watching TV. I think the material is aluminium.
PS: kind comments appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 17, 2017 6:48:54 GMT -5
Thank you for your kind comments. It's a way of keeping my brain alive ... and trying to immortalise knowledge which is disappearing rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 17, 2017 6:45:26 GMT -5
Always sad when someone passes, and I feel for those he left behind.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 16, 2017 17:58:14 GMT -5
John (the other John) It seems just you and I are interested in the mysteries of this camera. I've been talking to one of the editors at Camera-Wiki, and he's located some patents for Minolta systems which suggest the Hi Matics (7s, 9, and 11) may have some form of step-less auto exposure, and a CLC type method of favouring metering of the foreground (via the cell being off the axis of the lens). Rather than explain it here, I've put a link to the Hi-Matic page on my website. Minolta Hi-Matic 7s
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 15, 2017 4:21:04 GMT -5
I often wonder if these people ... are just hoarders who rather take their stuff with them in the grave then selling below the (un-realistic) price they had in mind. I think that assessment is totally spot-on. I see the same cameras listed month after month on eBay. They never get a bid, but the price never drops, and then one day they stop being listed and you wonder if the seller has decided they would rather dispose of the item than offer it at a lower price?
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Mar 14, 2017 12:43:25 GMT -5
I've posted this question on another forum, but am not getting any comments. I thought I'd try here. I have two questions. 1. Page 34 of the instruction manual includes a graph of the automatic exposure aperture and shutter speed selection profile. Assuming this is accurate, it suggests intermediate apertures and shutter speed values are invoked: there are only four EVs at which the profile intersects standard stop combinations: • f/2 @ 1/30th for EV 8, • f/5.6 @ 1/60th for EV 11, •f/11 @ 1/125th for EV 14, and • f/22 @ 1/250 for EV 17. I'm not sure what to make of this - it seems an unlikely profile for a wholly mechanical camera? I think if the Hi-Matic was capable of setting intermediate values, this would have surely been something worth mentioning in the literature. 2. The camera has a CLC meter. According to Minolta's explanation of the CLC in the SR-T 101, the Contrast Light Compensator (CLC) circuit allows the identification of discrepancies between the two cell readings, and if there is little contrast, those readings are averaged. However, where there is more significant disagreement, then the CLC compensates to reduce underexposure of shadows, or other dark areas, and minimises the influence of particularly bright regions. The problem is, the Hi-Matic has just one cell, so how can it possibly detect and compensate for contrast? Thoughts and insights appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Feb 13, 2017 10:25:09 GMT -5
Thanks for all your suggestions, but I think I'm going to go with ...
... a little Leica D-Lux 109.
I currently use an old Digilux 1, and am generally very happy with it. We've been together for about 15 years now. The D-Lux is, in many ways, the modern counterpart, so I'll be sticking with the familiar while not spending an obscene amount of money. I know I could probably get something with a similar specification for less money, but I kind of like that little red Leica badge.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Feb 3, 2017 9:14:13 GMT -5
Try Milly's Cameras (cameramill.co.uk) for a UK based supplier. Otherwise Aki Asahi (aki-asahi.com) Japan is really good, doesn't cost much more, and offers a greater selection.
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Jan 31, 2017 10:13:55 GMT -5
I find myself the beneficiary of a stroke of good fortune, and am considering buying a new camera. What I would like is something that (operationally) resembles a 35mm SLR, in so much that it has interchangeable lenses (although I would settle for a good fixed zoom), and simple aperture/shutter priority exposure controls, rather than loads of menu accessed program modes. Obviously, I want it to be of very good quality. I don't really want a big clumpy DSLR ... something a little more discrete.
Being a bit out of touch with modern cameras, and I'm not familiar with what's available. I'm struggling because the sales blurb usually focuses on the features I don't want, rather than the old fashion things I do want. A Leica M (?), despite being a rangefinder, seems to fit the bill, but I'm morally a touch uncomfortable with the notion of splashing-out that sort of money for a casual use camera.
Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Jan 15, 2017 18:01:46 GMT -5
I predict that eventually mobile phones will become obsolete ...... When mobile phones started to become popular, I thought wrist watches would become obsolete (stopped wearing mine), but look what's happen ... they (watches) have got bigger, more expensive, and become objects of desire (for many). On this basis, I predict future cameras will be jewel encrusted Leica M variants, worn as status symbols. The Rolex DTLR could just happen!!!
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Dec 27, 2016 14:14:08 GMT -5
A few weeks ago I'd seen this Agfa Super Silette (Apotar lens) on eBay for £200 (Gulp!!). To my amazement ... someone bought it ... for £200 ... plus £15 postage (sending it would have cost £2.85). I feel sorry for the poor sucker who parted with £215. The same seller currently has some 1940/50s Box Brownies ... such as a six-20 model c ... listed as "Edwardian" cameras (1901 to 1910).
|
|
|
Post by johnbear on Dec 22, 2016 10:51:21 GMT -5
Final thoughts ...
Search eBay for Graflex Graphic 35, and you should find a number of magazine adverts offered for sale, which the sellers claim to be from 1958 publications. One example is a pre-Christmas advert, indicating expected stock availability in 1959. Add to that the listing of the Graphic 35 in 1960 UK and USA camera magazine "guides to new cameras", and it all points towards the Graflex 35 having been available until the Jet 35 replaced it in 1961.
This satisfies me, since I originally could not understand why Graflex seemingly abandoned push-button-focus in 1957, and then re-introduced it in 1961. If the Jet was introduced when stocks of the Graphic 35 had been exhausted, it makes more sense that the replacement model perpetuated the system.
As for Kowa having made "later" Graphic 35s ... well those nice people behind the Graflex Journal say ... No, absolutely not! All those websites that claim this seem to have omitted one very important word ... "Century". The later Graflex Graphic "Century" 35 cameras were made by Kowa.
I appreciate that I am possibly one of a handful of people who care about when this camera ceased production, or who made it, but my interest is really more to do with correcting copy cat statements, which when you stop and think about them, are nonsensical.
|
|