|
Post by torontodon on Nov 29, 2014 17:33:15 GMT -5
Well son-of-a-gun. Even better, because I can get the sensor cleaned for less than getting the lens cleaned! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Nov 28, 2014 12:52:52 GMT -5
As an FYI follow-up to this discussion, I bit the bullet and bought an adapter for the Canon 135 mm lens so it would work on my Panasonic GF2. I went to e-bay for the adapter and picked it up for about $15. I figured I didn't waste too much money if the lens proved to be a dud. And received a nice surprise: It works. Actually took pictures with it.
The GF2 has a menu option you can set which basically tells the camera to continue working even if it can't make an electrical connection with a lens.
I shot a few frames at the grey sky at various apertures, from f/3.5 to f/22, and found it showed internal spots (fungus/dust) at f/22. But at f/3.5 to f/8 the spots weren't visible. So I now have the equivalent of a 270 mm f/3.5 lens, a heavy one 'cause the barrel is metal not plastic like those of the Panasonic lenses, which means I'll have to be careful I don't bend/break the camera's mount.
That's two of the three Rs: Reuse, recycle . . .!
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Jan 26, 2013 7:49:00 GMT -5
My youngest son, who's an artist, has just filled the garage with all his worldly possessions, as he moves from NYC to Europe. Among his possessions is a camera I had forgotten all about, my late father's Koni-Omega Rapid. This is a 120 interchangeable lens rangefinder. I had lent it to him years ago, then promptly forgot he had it, all the while wondering why I had a Koni Hexanon 180 mm f/4.5 lens in among all my other gear. I inherited the Koni after my father died. He was an avid amateur photographer and cinematographer (Leica, Rollei, Bolex). I can't remember when or why he got the Koni. I do remember (vaguely) shooting it, its unique right side pull/push film advance and its equally unique right-side outboard lens focusing wheel. It also had three (!) top-plate shoes, none of them hot. The camera's built like a tank - solid, heavy - a workhorse.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Jan 19, 2013 6:39:04 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think I'm going to have to edit the many reels down to just one containing many short clips; I can't afford to transfer all the reels to DVD. I found an old Mansfield "Portable Action Editor" - a rudimentary film editing system using a single small bulb and various mirrors to back project an image onto a small viewing screen (just like the old slide viewers). Now all I need to do is find a replacement bulb. Went to the local hardware store and found an appliance bulb which fit, but which doesn't work (wrong contacts). Good thing I don't have a pressing deadline; this could take a while. One more thing to add to my list of retirement jobs.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Jan 14, 2013 7:55:27 GMT -5
Among the many photos and albums I have acquired from both my parents' estates are many reels of movies. There's another collection of movies left by my wife's family. My father shot both 8 mm and 16 mm Bolex, although I do recall a small non-Bolex film camera he used back in the '50s (Bell & Howell?). I have no projectors, otherwise the question I'm about to ask would be irrelevant: How do I make stills from these films? I have no desire to spend gobs of money to have the films transferred to video/DVD, and I have no desire to invest in any single-use gear.
I have tried to use my Epson scanner, which has the ability to scan negs and slides, but it is really hit/miss. Sometimes I can get a discernible image, usually not. And even cranking up the resolution to some ungodly height, when starting with an 8 mm frame, even Kodachrome, by the time the sprocket holes are cropped out, the finished digital image is no prom queen.
Any thoughts? I'm going to check a place today that may have an old editing machine I can probably get for $10, one which will produce a 3x3-inch image using rear projection. That's likely the best I'll be able to do with the 8 mm stuff. The 16 mm films, which are very few in number, are another problem.
Frankly, I don't know why the 16 mm stuff survives. My father shot most of the footage in Africa back in the '60s. Some of it appeared on TV here in Canada, but in the process, the film was edited down and manhandled something awful. No dupes; original footage. I remember discovering the canisters and contents several years after dad passed away and finding them covered in mold, fungus, whatever. I had to toss them; they were unsalvageable. What remains are a few small reels.
I'm not after the movies, just stills, primarily of people. Any ideas how I might be able to capture stills from these movies? I have no macro lenses. Any ideas how I might be able to get better results from the Epson scanner?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Dec 19, 2012 14:11:59 GMT -5
It's toast! Checking out the lens - getting ready for a trip to NYC (my youngest son lives there) - and generally checking out my gear prior to Xmas, and I happened to catch the light just right as I was peering into the back element of the Vivitar. Gasp! Either major scratches or, more likely, something growing in there. I hadn't fired the lens in anger yet, and was thinking of taking it with me to NYC, so glad I checked and did some test shots. I would have been quite disappointed with the results and angry at having carried the weight. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Oct 3, 2012 15:54:07 GMT -5
In a previous post to this forum I mentioned the discovery of a box of photo stuff in the garage. Included in the mix was a '70s era Vivitar Series 1 200mm f/3.5 with autofocus module. A bulky lens because around its middle is a "girdle" containing the electronics and mechanisms which allows you to push a button on the girdle to make the lens autofocus, regardless of the camera brand.
An interesting solution to the problem of different AF pins on different camera mounts.
The lens I found has a Canon FD mount. That, in itself, tells you something about the lens' age. I'm trying to remember the last Canon SLR I used it on. F1? A1? T90?
Regardless, the old lens still works. Amazingly, so does the AF module. Three new AAA batteries and the focus ring spun into place. Manual focusing indicates all is well inside, although the focus isn't as smooth as a non-AF version, as the AF gears do not disengage.
I have an adapter and threw the lens on my Panasonic GF2, deked outside and fired a couple of frames. On the GF2, a Micro Four Thirds camera, the focal length doubles. So that makes it a 400mm f/3.5. It also makes for a totally unbalanced camera and puts significant strain on the mount/adapter. The only way to use this combo is to keep your hand under the lens at all times.
The first images were okay, so I tried a series of shots through the aperture range. That's when I discovered the lens' aperture lever had been jammed by the adapter's pin, and the lens was only shooting wide open. I removed the lens and carefully remounted the adapter, making sure the adapter's collar and pin arrangement were, indeed, moving the lens' aperture lever.
And today I took it out to test it on my granddaughter's cross-country track meet. The adapter mechanism was showing it's cheapness and the AF system was not enjoying the lack of contrast of an overcast and slightly foggy day. To wit: set the lens aperture, rotate the adapter collar and hold it in place with the left hand pinky finger while rotating the focus ring with thumb and forefinger. Not a way to shoot sports action. Abandoned the lens after a couple of shots and used an Olympus 40-150mm (80-300 equivalent) designed for the M43 format. No where near as sexy, but a lot easier to use.
Then a lady came by with a DSLR sporting a huge hunk of glass, and I was tempted to shout out "I'll see your 500 and raise you 1000," and haul out my very old Canon 500m f/8 mirror lens which is the equivalent of 1000mm on the GF2 . . . but then thought better of it because it would have taken time to transfer the adapter from the Vivitar to the Canon, and that would have meant missing shots of my granddaughter. Priorities.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Oct 2, 2012 8:14:27 GMT -5
Thank you, all.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Oct 1, 2012 6:48:22 GMT -5
Don't know if this is the correct forum, as this is a rangefinder lens . . .
I was going through some old stuff of my late father's and found his rangefinder Canon 135 mm f/3.5 lens. He used it with his Leica M3. I used it once, as I recall, but found it nearly unfocusable because of the tiny image in the viewfinder.
But it might work nicely on a Micro Four Thirds camera, with adapter.
Has anyone seen how this lens performs?
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Sept 30, 2012 6:44:49 GMT -5
The Tamron 80-210's a write-off. Now that I've cleaned the front and rear elements I can see fungus growing. Wonder if George the contractor would want this for his shelf . . . if not, perhaps he could use it as a hammer.
It's amazing, the difference in weight between these old lenses and current ones in my bag. Metal vs plastic.
The Minox and Berthiot lens are now up on eBay. Maybe I'll get a few bucks for each.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Sept 29, 2012 11:47:36 GMT -5
Batteries in the Vivitar, and the AF mechanism still works! That one's definitely a keeper.
BTW, Mickey, the dead Minolta SRT-101 (and I mean d-e-a-d) with 80-200 mm Soligor zoom (also kaput) were grabbed by the contractor into whose bin I dumped them. He though they'd look neat on a shelf. I hope the shelf is strong, 'cause that lens weighed as much as a tank. My shoulder gets sore when I think about how I carried that in my camera bag as a neophyte shooter.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Sept 29, 2012 7:54:18 GMT -5
When we began renovating the house about three years ago, a lot of "stuff" got moved into the basement storage area. Then, when that room got its turn, the garage became the dumping ground. I swear since then I've cleaned the garage out three times. Yesterday, I started heaving stuff from the garage into a dumpster, checking each box before throwing. One of the boxes contained photo gear, stuff I had decided I needed to make some decisions about, and had forgotten.
Almost all of it hailed from the late '70s or early '80s. How about a 200 mm f/3.5 Vivitar Series 1 lens with Canon FD mount? This is a lump of a lens with a rudimentary autofocus mechanism grafted onto it by Vivitar. Appears to be powered by 3 AAAs. Using an adapter, I mounted it on an Olympus E-PL2 and the lens delivered some decent images. Sonofagun! That's a 400 mm f/3.5 . . . Now to get some batteries and see if the AF mechanism works.
Also in the box was a 135 mm f/3.5 Canon rangefinder lens sporting a Leica mount. The lens looks okay. It must be an all-metal body because it's heavy. No adapter, so I don't know if the lens works; it was from my late father's collection.
Also my dad's was a Minox "spy" camera. It's a made-in-Germany model dating from the early '60s. Again, no idea if it works.
Then there was the 70-210 f/4 Tamron, another heavy lens with external AF mechanism, this one wearing an Olympus OM mount. No adapter, so I haven't been able to test it.
But - and I've saved the best for the end - there was a little round cardboard container with "SOM Berthiot" label embossed on it. It contains a diminutive lens that had me totally baffled. Screw mount of some sort, 25 mm f/1.8 . . . got me to thinking it was a projector lens. Close, but no cigar. It's a 16 mm cine lens my dad used on his Bolex movie cameras. The lens focusing mechanism is tight, not surprising since it hasn't been used in several decades.
Decisions, decisions.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Apr 29, 2012 7:29:27 GMT -5
I have a 7000i body on the desk beside me. I just sold two lenses to Sony DSLR owners (the mount and contacts are the same as Sony bought Minolta). I've seen this model (body) selling on eBay for $9, with some wishful thinkers asking a lot more. My camera has been sitting in a drawer for years, and I have no idea if it works. The lithium battery is long dead; I'm not going to buy another one just to find out. The 7000i had an SD-like card system for customization; I may even have a card kicking around, but can't remember how it worked. With my job I had so many cameras go through my hands, the 7000i was like a backup. Interestingly, I've never used a Sony DSLR and, since I've retired, probably never will.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Feb 29, 2012 12:24:52 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I got to handle so many different kinds of cameras for my job as a photo industry journalist . . . I have never had a favourite. I'm willing to suggest the one I just bought, a Panasonic Lumix GF2, may be close. It's small, lightweight, and you can change lenses. What's really great about it is the optional electronic viewfinder. It turns the camera into an electronic Leica M3 -- whoa, I mean that in terms of the way it operates, not in its build or quality. I guess I could say the same for the Olympus E-PL2 that's now gathering dust in my cupboard. I love the Nikon D700, but my shoulder still remembers the ache after carrying it and lenses around New York one weekend. I think if I had the money, I'd consider a D7000. Nikon's Expeed image processing system is incredible. What camera's in my bag now? An Olympus E-30. A good camera, but it's not may all-time fave.
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Feb 17, 2012 10:25:29 GMT -5
Yesterday, my youngest son and I were clearing out some junk and came across a batch of old camera gear I had forgotten about. Among the items there's a Leitz Synchronblitzer - a flash "gun" using bulbs - still in its original box (but without manual), and in what I'm thinking is near mint condition. I never used it. I bought it as part of a Leica M3 kit, back in the '80s, and thought I had sold it off with the M3. Apparently not. Surprisingly, there also was a second unit, this one from my father's collection, and it is well used. I'm no collector, so I'm selling the two as a package. $50 + shipping
|
|