|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jul 10, 2007 6:26:54 GMT -5
Sun Widenet wide-angle adapter and Wide View accessory finder for NZ$ 8.50+NZ$3.00 P&P. purchased off our local online auction site here in NZ. The vendor said it could be attached to the standard lens of a 35mm circle-eye EE cameras, such as Canonet, Yashica Minimatic C or S, Petri Pro Seven, Canonet QL 17, 19E, Minolta Hi-Matic 7, Petri Seven S, Ricoh 35 S, Minolta Uniomat EE cameras featuring 55mm, 52mm or 49mm screw-in type filter mount. He wasn't lying. I don't think it detracts from the Hi Matic 7's looks, but maybe I suffer lens envy: I already value the big glass look of the Minolta's fast 45 lens over my less 'serious' looking Yashica J. Structurally, the adapter is very well built, optically, I'm not so sure. I think I'll be stopping down setting it on infinity and maybe looking for a nice hood. At best it appears to widen the 45mm length to make it the equivalent of a 35mm. Still, I get to add another impractical, inconvenient piece of equipment to the camera bag for the price of a 'meal' at the local hamburger franchise. Michael 'Just one step closer to that AE interchangeable lens rangefinder' Toohey
|
|
|
F3 HP
Oct 13, 2007 18:48:30 GMT -5
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 13, 2007 18:48:30 GMT -5
Congratulations. I'm just a little green, having long given up my F3 in a period of traveller's poverty.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 7, 2007 17:34:34 GMT -5
Bob, the other posts have answered two of your comments: I'll post some images as soon as I get some film and I'll get some film when I stop buying bl**dy cameras so that I can afford to import some 127 film from the States.
Frugal photographer is now selling made in Canada Bluefire Murano 160 colour print film in 127. They also sell the magic 4X4 frames that fit into 35mm projector carts, so I really want to get some respooled E6, which is available from various sources. Efka 100 B&W also seems to be sold at varying prices. Shipping costs are the big killer down here in NZ.
Peter, your point about mechanical excellence in the pro level Rollei is well taken. I remember reading an interesting article about what 2nd hand cameras to go for. The writer argued that one must balance the extra cost of a real pro camera against the amount of work that it has already done. His point was that if you had a very limited budget, you might be better of with a consumer camera which, while not built for the same longevity as a pro model, might still have only done a fraction of the work that it was built to withstand. A cheap 2nd hand pro camera, however, might be thrashed to within an inch of its life. Hence, my 2nd hand 124G (previously owned by an elderly gentleman) might literally have done only a roll or two, whilst my brassy f3 could have seen thousands of rolls. I must say that the F3, battered as it was, continued to perform brilliantly. I bought it from a reputable pro shop (and it wasn't particularly cheap) which, I think, was instrumental in its reliability.
In the end the 124G did go beyond the call of duty. It flew out of my (left open) backpack as I pedalled furiously through down town Brisbane at a great rate of knots. Bang! Doh! Brakes! Tears! Well, that hefty Yashica eveready case did its work. The lightmeter was totalled and the focus plate dented (the camera had hit the deck on the front-right top corner) but apart from a focus action that dragged at one point (thanks to the dent) the Yashi continued to take photos perfectly. The damage to my psyche was unrepairable, however. Every time I used my once-perfect TLR, lovingly bought and cherished by an elderly gent, I felt awful. I gave it to a friend in the end, chastened and determined to be more careful.
All 44A Yashis have the 3 element Yashikor, while the 44 might have a 3 or 4 element Yashikor. The good news is that no 44 or 44A have turned up with the reputably horrible 3 element Yashimar Tri Lausser lens. This info comes from an article found on the quite interesting 127.org site. It is interesting that some users actually prefer the simplicity of the 44A over the fancier 44 and the baby Rollei, finding it a very useable camera.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 7, 2007 2:07:48 GMT -5
You probably;y don't all need to see yet more pictures of a Yashica 44A. I am, however, inordinately proud of my new Yashi, I reckon its the prettiest wee camera in my (modest) collection. So here you are: 44 & 44A and baby Rollei owners seem a particularly proud bunch, and the net abounds with words and pictures relating to these dinky TLRs , but I still wasn't prepared for just how small a 4X4 TLR really is. No photo does them justice because one simply upscales the 44 in ones mind until it reaches 'normal' (6x6) proportions. I don't have a 6X6 to phptpgraph the 44A against, but maybe this Leica-sized 1953 Toyoca 35 will prove useful for scale. The 4X4 TLR is a lovely handler: so small that it can be held and triggered with one hand while the other shades the lens. I have owned a Yashica Mat 124G before and the 44A somehow feels higher quality, despite beeing the budget model. Even the lens cap feels luxuriously solid! I've never ever handled a real Rollieflex, but if these were poor man's Rolleis, then the real thing must be a wonderful instrument indeed.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 7, 2007 1:46:33 GMT -5
Congratulations.
Have also seen Kenlock lenses come up in typical amateur kits down here in NZ.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 26, 2008 15:53:41 GMT -5
Peter, not too rigourous at all. If not for you, my gaff about the 50mm would've gone uncorrected. As for the 135, well, I haven't got the 'right one' yet. If your lens #4 is a 1969 MC, mine ain't, since it has the rubber waffle grip rather than the milled/knurled grip. I've included some photos. You'll see it isn't prestine by any means, is fact it could be described as a 'beater'. But the glass is clear and that's all I care about, so the dings and scuffs can be worn like honorable scars from the battle. Thank you for the kind comments about the pics, BTW. I have to admit that the 2nd film through the XE was much less inspired, with no 'keepers'. Some of this can be blamed on the Vivitar 85-205/3.8 which has proved disapointing so far (I see a Rokkor 200/4 in my near future). But unfortunately a lack of inspiration/ and poor technique is also in evidence Part of the inspiration for the tomato pic came from seeing some truly inspiring work on these pages, so thanks guys and gals. There is an element of the virtual camera club about this board that I like very much.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 25, 2008 15:22:24 GMT -5
Peter, thank you for your comments. I admit to hoping you'd notice the post, both for your scepticism (which I'm aware of) and your knowledge of all things ROKKOR. Firstly, you've picked my blunder. I was too lazy to go and check that 50mm even though a little alarm bell rang when I wrote 'PF'. It is, in fact, an MC ROKKOR - PG 50/1.4. (#3250325). Very stupid mistake when trying to provide useful info. Doh! Secondly, the 135 is a TELE ROKKOR - PF (i.e. it has 6 elements in 5 groups, for non minoltians). I'd say it's the 3rd from the right in your photo, & the model introduced in 1969, according to Dennis' amazing list. It has the aperture ring at the body end and a stop down button mounted between that ring and the body. (BTW, I also have another 135 Minolta lens, but it's a bit of a dinosaur, even by my standards, a ROKKOR TC 135/4 pre-set). Thirdly, perhaps I unconciously chose the title 'try out' rather than test so that I could defend myself in this debate. I agree with you that slide film would be the most appropriate way of testing a lens' performance, but I really don't claim to be testing these lenses in any rigorous or repeatable way. Instead, I've tried 'em out in the field, using the most commonly available film (ISO 200 print, available in any supermarket - for the moment, at least) and shooting the kind of subjects I enjoy working with. There are plenty of variables with print film, whether scanned or printed, however, from a purely personal point of view, I've limited these to some extent by using the same small town lab and lab technician as I use for all my films. Thus, I figure if I see something I like, the lens used is probably a part of te equation. I admit that telling whether a Nikkor AIS 50/1.4 is 'better' than a ROKKOR - PG 50/1.4 is impossible using my rather sloppy methodology, but I can tell which lenses I can really rely on (the ROKKOR primes), which are useable (most of my Paxette lenses) and which are better left on the shelf (the awful Tri-Lausar on my Toyoca 35). p.s., *sigh* does this mean I have to look for an XD to join? I took the XE ot for another trip, this time to a waterfall (I can bore anyone with my excessive love for waterfall pictures). It is just lovely to handle. My only reservation is the lack of mirror lock up or prefire. I'll soon find out if this is a problem on my 1sec exposures. If it is, the old SRT101 will continue to find its way into my bag. Oh, and I've just finished cleaning my 'new' $11 ROKKOR: an MD Zoom 35 -70mm 1:3.5. (#8029743). This is the 2 touch zoom with 1:7 - 1:4 macro, accessed by pressing a button on the zoom ring. It seems nicely made but not tank-like (polycarbonate lens barrel). Any thoughts on this lens, Peter?
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 24, 2008 14:43:25 GMT -5
I assume this was C41 film, in which case the brightness (or otherwise) of the images is probably more to do with the scanning than it is with overexposure, since most C41 films will take several stops before there are any problems. Provided you don't underexpose the information will be there on the neg. I'm betting these lenses will really sing with 100 chromes behind them as you say - then you're in total control of what appears in the final result! Thanks for making a very important point that I hadn't really thought about. The film was C41, processed in my local small-town lab and scanned directly to disk by them. There is much more info on the film, and even on the scans. I used to be a big E6 fan, feeling that the personal control and saturated colours were more than compensation for the more demanding latitude. I have been seduced by the convenience of C41 and scan, but I do still hanker for my Ektachrome. There is a good E6-capable pro lab about 20 miles from where I live. I think the Rokkor quality will send me there. For those who are as impressed by the edge to edge sharpness as I was, I now understand just hw cruel this 1 April, 2006 wheeze really is. www.rokkorfiles.com/digital.htmOh, if only. Mickey, I'm very pleased that Jeff enjoyed the trip. I'm an old cycle tourist and have ridden many miles around the South Island. It's great for cycle touring -and photography- because the scenery keeps changing. The changeable weather can be a bit of a problem though.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 22, 2008 20:30:02 GMT -5
Thank you Mickey. The camera loves her almost as much as we do. I'm gonna brag, she's also a top student and has artistic ability by the bucket load. I'm very proud.
So, Peter what do you call words that are not palindromes, but which are made up completely of simmetrical letters, and so can be reversed in the mirror to spell a new (often nonsense) word. eg., Maw - WAM (and vice versa); That - TATH; Totota - ATOYOT; Yamaha - AHAMAY and (from the camera world or Frankie Coppola epics) Vito - OTIV
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 22, 2008 13:26:40 GMT -5
Thanks Roy and Peter for the positive endorsement.
Peter, it is the edge to edge sharpness which impresses me with these Rokkor primes.
This may be just in my head, but lenses of this performance level do make me search for slower film. The performance so near to wide open give me the confidence play in that area and (I think) make the most of the SLR's benefits.
It was interesting to use AE in an SLR for the first time in seven years. I feel that in certain conditions the XE tends to overexpose. The tomato on the table for example. Grey day, dark grey subject, a lot of reflection. I'll probably use the exposure comp dial a bit more, the only drawback being there is no viewfinder info to remind me it's on. Doh!
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 22, 2008 0:20:54 GMT -5
Having scored a new body (XE 7) and handful of 'new' lenses, it was time for a try out. The chap who sold me the 135/3.8 wrote me that it was his favourite lens and admitted to having used it so much it has got quite sloppy. He swore that this didn't affect image quality, & I agree. I'm no computer imaging genius, so I hope my crops give an idea of what is going on. I have straightened a couple of images, and darkened the one of my daughter (difficult lighting for any camera), other than that, no digital darkroom fiddling was perpetrated. All photos were taken on the XE7 on AP. I didn't record aperture and speed (I'm lazy) but you'll see that a few are pretty wide open from the DOF. My daughter eating a peach 135/2.8 Rokkor No problem here Dill heads in full bloom. 135/2.8 (I think!) top right top left coffee break 50/1.4 PF Rokkor, pretty wide open, on a tripod. Watching for business, Valentine's Day. 135,2.8 No BBQ today. 35/2.8 W Rokkor Tomato in the rain. 135/2.8 IMOHO, all three lenses out reolved the Fuji 200 colour print film that I used. If I want/need sharper results than this, I need ISO 50 and/or MF. The Bokeh on the 135 and 50 is just wonderful. I am more than happy with my shift to Rokkor glass.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 13, 2008 14:52:48 GMT -5
Taken late in a mild winter last year. Some of the Kaikoura mountains from the inland route. Fuji 200 print, accidently overexposed by about one stop and brought back with a grad-grey filter in the digital darkroom. Phenix 70-210 zoom on a Minolta XG-9. Cropped to try and improve my dodgy composition (cropping is for farmers *sigh*) I like the hand tinted look. Purely accidental. Feel free to comment/critique
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jan 17, 2008 2:44:49 GMT -5
Walker, drunk or sober, I never lie: all my photos are keepers; I've never busted up a perfectly good camera trying to fix it and if I found a minty Leica IIIc on a flea market stall for ten bucks I'd conscientiously tell the vendor what he had on his table. Yeah, right.
But it WAS fun to get the X-processed film. Funny thing is, a couple of months back I recalled setting up the tripod for those shots of the umbrellas in the rain and wondered what happened to them!
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jan 10, 2008 20:58:06 GMT -5
My mother came round to visit the other day and brought with her a pack of prints & a funny story. She'd found a film that she couldn't recall exposing, it was ISO100, which she hasn't used for years. She took it to her local shop and sent it away for processing with instructions to just throw it away if it didn't turn out. The lab called back a few days later, very apologetic. The film had been E6 and they'd processed it as negs! They'd done the best they could, threw in a roll of Superia 200 & free processing and done the whole job for free. Nice guys. Well, the film turned out to be one of mine, which I must've left at Mum's when we stayed with her 4 years ago. It was a roll I'd exposed in China circa 2003, when I'd been playing about with a Phenix (sic) DC701 and a bunch of Phenix zooms and Seagull primes. I never bought slide film in China (no E6 processing in my locale), so the film was either packaged in the wrong can or it was one I brought with me from Australia. So here goes: 5 years old ISO100 E6 film, airport X-rayed at least twice and cross processed by mistake. I think the results are kind of fun. Feel free to critique, 'coz my feelings won't be hurt on this one! Monsoon in Nanchang Phenix 28-70 zoom (I seem to recall) mounted on a Manfrotto 190 tripod, looking down from our bedroom onto the campus gate. LuShan (Mt Lu) Phenix 70-210 Lakeside Lights and Fountains, Nanchang. Weird Colours! Something wide, either the Phenix 28-70 or a 24mm Seagull (probably the former) A Barhopping Irishman in China Mike & I were out boozing and smoking and telling lies. He graciously posed while I tried out the Seagull 1.4/50 prime. I think the X-processing combines well with the Bokeh of the Seagull (which tends to be more Bokeh than focus at 1.4 ) I've always meant to try cross-processing. Now I'll definitely give it anther go. It was great getting to try it for free though.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Nov 24, 2007 5:24:55 GMT -5
Bob, thanks for the info about Neat Image.
I too cherry pick features from different programs. I agree about the sharpening in Picasa. If there is too much detail, it just looks awful. Likewise the colour correction, which often seems to end up too pink.
|
|