|
Post by raybar on Jul 29, 2017 12:27:22 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, that was from "SLR Notebook" by Herbert Keppler, Popular Photography January 1991.
Selling something for a quarter of what it cost to make it was the genius of communist economics.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 3, 2017 15:42:42 GMT -5
Thanks for all your 3D photos. Much appreciated. And (appreciation)2 for doing it all a second time. Let's hope that (appreciation)3 won't be necessary.
The few pictures I've posted here through Photobucket are still displaying, but I suppose it's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 25, 2017 21:46:37 GMT -5
I have bought several things from KEH. Always a good experience. Never sold anything to them.
When i worked in a camera store (late 1970s), we bought used gear for no more than half what we thought we could sell it for. That sounds like we were doubling our money on used things, but we weren't. Not at all - - Everything went through the repair shop for a check which cost money. Most things were sold with a warranty, and there were warranty repairs, which cost money. Some things didn't fetch the price we hoped they would. And some things never sold at all.
So, for a quick sale, but at a low price, offer it to a dealer. For a better price - probably but no guarantees - sell it privately or on a site like eBay.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 18, 2017 20:38:55 GMT -5
My worst such experience was with a store rather than eBay. They charged my credit card within hours after I placed the order, but I never received the item. Instead, I got a series of excuses about why they couldn't tell me the tracking number - - the real reason being that they hadn't shipped. And so on. Turned out the store was going out of business, didn't have it in stock, and couldn't get any more merchandise from the distributor. The bank reversed the charges and the distributor sent me a little present as an apology.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 26, 2017 17:21:28 GMT -5
Yes, I am also reminded of the Flatiron Building. This building in San Antonio is the Emily Morgan Hotel, which, if you believe such things, is the third most haunted hotel in the world. www.mysanantonio.com/lifestyle/article/San-Antonio-s-Emily-Morgan-Hotel-is-the-third-6582426.php#photo-3783949 Both the Flatiron and the Morgan have a "pointy" corner. The angle between Broadway and Fifth Avenue at 23rd Street in New York, where the Flatiron is located, is only about 25 degrees, which gives the building its distinctive look. I almost couldn't believe my eyes the first time I saw it. But I got used to it - lived nearby at 6th Ave and 16th Street for a while. The angle between East Houston Street and Avenue E in San Antonio , where the Morgan is located, is about 60 degrees. Not so pointy as the Flatiron, but still pointy enough to catch the eye.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 23, 2017 15:42:50 GMT -5
Here's a quickly done hand held shot (sorry, no time to do it properly right now) of the four Canon EX lenses, 35, 50, 95, and 125 (left to right). Note how small the 50 is, and how large the 125 is. Behind the lenses are an EX Auto with a 50mm mounted and an EXEE with its lens removed. ---------- I think I know what's coming next and I still have my first one, bought 12 June 1972 from Minifilm in New York along with a used 135/2.5.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 23, 2017 10:01:08 GMT -5
Canon also released a 125mm lens for the EX cameras, the EX125/3.5.
Perhaps it made the lenses less expensive, but it did nothing for functionality. I found lens changes slow and cumbersome, the camera isn't any smaller or lighter than a normal SLR, and the lenses can't be used on any other camera.
So, like the fixed Pellix mirror, I think the "fixed rear elements plus interchangeable front elements" system was something that someone was bound to try, if only to show that it wasn't a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 22, 2017 19:01:51 GMT -5
Still i hope somebody somewhere enjoy's my 3D efforts, i thought it would be nice as i've seen a lot of camera sites with interesting info on cameras but don't think this 3D approach has been done before. This one member, at least, enjoys and appreciates your efforts very much. Thank you for your time and effort. I also don't recall seeing 3D on other camera sites. ---------- Regarding the Pellix - - I think the fixed mirror was one of those things that someone was bound to try, if only to show that it wasn't actually a very good idea except perhaps for specialized applications.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 20, 2017 11:46:44 GMT -5
Option 1 - - develop the film yourself (nothing to it for an old army photographer) and run the negatives through your scanner.
Option 2 - - Google knows where all the labs are.
Question - - In your first post you said you don't do digital. But if you will scan negatives (or have it done by a lab), you will be going from film for shooting to digital for printing. Why not shoot digital in the first place?
I was the last person I know to switch to digital - - not because I opposed digital, but because the early digital cameras had absurdly low resolution. But when digital resolution was high enough, I got a Canon SLR (which takes all my EOS lenses) to give digital a try. And I've never looked back. I still shoot film occasionally with my old cameras. But that's just for fun. Mostly, and always for serious work, I shoot digital.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 14, 2017 12:07:13 GMT -5
I started using Canon with the F-1 in 1971, shortly after it was introduced, and never felt inclined to switch to another brand, even when working in a large camera store and becoming familiar with all the major brands available at the time. The Canonflex, 12 years earlier, however, just wasn't "ready for prime time" (as you said). My primary objection to it was the bottom mounted wind level, although I suppose that someone had to offer such a design, if only to prove that it was a bad idea. I shot several rolls of film with a Flex when I first got one, and it works fine, but the "standard" 35mm SLR layout is obviously superior. Here's an article (top of the list on a Google search) that details all the other problems (and a few good points) with the Canonflex: www.cameraquest.com/canonflx.htm
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 8, 2017 12:46:47 GMT -5
The F3 came onto the market a few months before I quit the camera store and entered "The Industry," as we call it, assuming that everyone in the world knows we mean the Hollywood entertainment industry. Naturally, just becoming available, the F3s were in short supply and our large but local store only got two of them, hand delivered by the Nikon rep a few days before the official availability date. They went into the vault, not to be touched (or stolen !) ahead of time.
Both of those cameras, and several more, are already reserved by regular professional customers weeks before they arrived. But we had a parade of strangers coming through the doors desperate to buy one the moment they were available. One man even offered to pay 10 or 20 percent (can't remember exactly) above list price if we would sell one to him "now," a couple days early. I'm reminded of this every time a new iPhone hits the market and people are camped out in front of the Apple store as if their lives depend on getting the new model immediately. And there was the guy who got the first iPhone sold in a New York Apple store, opened it on camera (local TV news) and dropped it on the ground. Oops.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 5, 2017 22:12:23 GMT -5
I enjoy shooting my old cameras from time to time, and developing the film, and all that. But most of the time, and for anything serious, I use current or very recent digital equipment. For macro I use the Canon 100/4 and I can add extension tubes if I must (rarely). The only use I still have for bellows is playing with old glass for fun. Like these (which I've posted before) - - -
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 4, 2017 14:27:07 GMT -5
Nice job. I look forward to the next ones.
Took me a minute to find them, but I knew I had glasses . . . Somewhere. Red and blue, not red and green, but they seem to do the job.
The whole 3D thing, which got such a push here in Hollywood several years ago, comes and goes without acheiving any long term success. We happened to be getting a new (and long overdue) "home theatre" system at the time, so we got a 3D capable system, along with a couple DVDs to try it out. We had great expectations. But, really, although it works well, the 3D effect adds little to the movie viewing experience. It's still more of a gimmic or a marketing ploy than anything worthwhile, and the 3D fad has quietly faded away. Maybe it will succeed some day with a full "virtual reality" setup.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 9, 2017 22:51:34 GMT -5
Here's a brief article from CinemaTechnic in Hollywood California. cinematechnic.com/resources/avoiding_fungus_damageThey suggest direct sunlight (which contains lots of UV). As a last resort, you could try exposure to X-rays. Perhaps your dentist has a sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 31, 2017 18:44:22 GMT -5
I have a Canon SL-1 which is listed at the Canon site "as the world's smallest and lightest digital SLR camera." I got this for hiking because a little pocket camera really isn't good enough, and my 5D is too big and heavy to carry around for hours. www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/dslr/eos-rebel-sl1-ef-s-18-55-is-stm-kit It has the modes you want on top where a film camera would have the shutter speed dial - shutter priority and aperture priority - plus full manual, full auto, and a bunch of "basic" modes like portrait, landscape, sports. etc. that choose settings automatically.
|
|