Topic: Halloween weekend

[Pete_R]

Kicking off with a Contaxfest

2 x 139, taken with a RTSii and a 25/2.8 Distagon. Kentmere Pan100 in Ilfosol 3.

[Kai-san]

Funny; I've got 8 Contax cameras, but none of those. Maybe I'll get an RTSIII one day when I have nothing else to do. 

I went to the beach some days ago in a rainy fog with my Pentacon Six. Today I shipped it off to Russia to get it fixed, the counter does not reset. It has served me well for many years, so I'm not complaining.

Pentacon Six / MC Vega 28B / Ilford Delta 100 in Adox FX-39 II

[Francois]

Here are a few taken with my new contraption: the DX-Pan (https://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg138697#msg138697)
Since taking those, I painted the interior flat black, modified the viewfinder so that it would be more precise and made a new lens mount that more easily reaches infinity (it's really much better).

[Bryan]

Nice job on that camera mod Francois!  How are you focusing it, do you have a scale? 

These are from Arizona last month.   Leica IIIc using a Leitz Elmar 5cm f/3.5 lens in the first shot and Leitz Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5 for the last two.  Kodak Panatomic-X expired 3/1963, developed in Kodak HC-110 dilution B.

Rocking Mannequin by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

1951 Studebaker Commander Starlight by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

1949 Ford F1 by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

[Pete_R]

Funny; I've got 8 Contax cameras, but none of those. Maybe I'll get an RTSIII one day when I have nothing else to do. 

I wouldn't bother with an RTSiii. Too complicated, prone to failure and mostly unrepairable.

If you only have the later, Kyocera era, models, then try one of the earlier ones. The 139 and the RTSii are my favourites. I do like the RXii though.

[grit]

Took the 4x5 to a pumpkin patch! HP5+ in DD-X.

[Francois]

Nice job on that camera mod Francois!  How are you focusing it, do you have a scale? 

It's scale focused (guestimation). But since the lens' largest aperture is f/6.3, it turns out that it's pretty easy to get things into relative focus.
Also, my top shutter speed is only 1/100, so small apertures are a must.

[irv_b]

Couple of lunchtime shots a few weeks back with the repaired C33 and Fuji Acros

[Kai-san]

Funny; I've got 8 Contax cameras, but none of those. Maybe I'll get an RTSIII one day when I have nothing else to do. 

I wouldn't bother with an RTSiii. Too complicated, prone to failure and mostly unrepairable.

If you only have the later, Kyocera era, models, then try one of the earlier ones. The 139 and the RTSii are my favourites. I do like the RXii though.

All my Contaxes are Kyocera products, I've got no bad experience with mine. The only Kyocera models I haven't tried are the RTSIII and the ST. The reason for getting the RTSIII would be the vacuum back, not much else. The RX and the N1 are my faves in the 135 SLR line. The focus assist in the RX is very helpful in difficult light situations, I use that a lot.

[Francois]

I was happy for a long time with just my regular run of the mill Yashica FR.
I do need to fix that broken gear in the frame counter...

[Pete_R]

The reason for getting the RTSIII would be the vacuum back, not much else.

Vacuum backs are very misunderstood. People think they will improve sharpness - they don't. What they do is to keep the film flat but given that very few lenses have a completely flat plane of focus you're just as likely to make sharpness worse as you are better. To have any benefit you would need to be photographing completely flat subjects with a process lens and a setup that ensures the film plane is absolutely parallel with the subject. Beyond that, they're a complete waste of time.

[ManuelL]

Love these portraits Irv! One day I'll have to learn how to convince other people into letting me take their picture. 

Mine is from the forest, Agfa Super Isolette, Ilford FP4+.


Fern

[Kai-san]

The reason for getting the RTSIII would be the vacuum back, not much else.

Vacuum backs are very misunderstood. People think they will improve sharpness - they don't. What they do is to keep the film flat but given that very few lenses have a completely flat plane of focus you're just as likely to make sharpness worse as you are better. To have any benefit you would need to be photographing completely flat subjects with a process lens and a setup that ensures the film plane is absolutely parallel with the subject. Beyond that, they're a complete waste of time.

I'm pretty sure Zeiss design their lenses to give an optimal result on a flat surface, be it film or sensor. Luckily I'm free to decide what to waste my money on.

[Pete_R]

I'm pretty sure Zeiss design their lenses to give an optimal result on a flat surface, be it film or sensor. Luckily I'm free to decide what to waste my money on.

Sorry Kai, didn't mean to offend. Merely stating some facts as I see them. Unfortunately, even Zeiss haven't made the perfect lens yet. I've tested some of my (Zeiss) lenses using Roger Cicala's methods and you might be surprised how curved the field is in some lenses.

Zeiss C/Y 35mm f/2.8

[Francois]

From my design experience, I often believe that (in general terms) there is a wide margin between a useful invention and something that has been made to show a technical prowess.
And the vacuum plate in the Contax is a prime example of that.
Is it complex? yes.
Does it produce the flattest film possible? yes.
Will it show the best a lens can deliver? probably.
Will you see the difference in lab tests? probably yes.
Does it change anything when out in the field with objects at various distances? probably not.

Personally, I feel that, especially towards the end, Contax was trying to impress the crowd with technical marvels. I know the vacuum back and the in-body autofocus for manual focus lenses really impressed me. But in the end, these things weren't really necessary or as good as they could have been. (though I'd love to try out that autofocus body just for fun)

[Pete_R]

Personally, I feel that, especially towards the end, Contax was trying to impress the crowd with technical marvels. I know the vacuum back and the in-body autofocus for manual focus lenses really impressed me. But in the end, these things weren't really necessary or as good as they could have been. (though I'd love to try out that autofocus body just for fun)

I see the problem as Kyocera and Zeiss not really working together. Kyocera wanted autofocus lenses, Zeiss said no, so Kyocera came up with the AX with in body focusing. Problem is, some lenses rely on internal floating elements to get the best performance and, if you rely entirely on the in body focus, you lose that benefit so some lenses performed less well on the AX than on other bodies. But what else could Kyocera do if Zeiss was not prepared to make auto focus lenses? I think Kyocera wanted innovation to try and keep up with the game and the AX auto focus and the vacuum back were two examples of them trying to innovate but they ultimately failed and withdrew from the market. Maybe if they and Zeiss worked more closely and concentrated on quality rather than gimmicks, the collaboration might have continued.

[Francois]

It probably would...

But now all you can reliably get from Kyocera are components, Ryobi tools and ceramic kitchen knives...

[AJShepherd]

I still find it hard to see a picture of a pumpkin patch without thinking of Linus faithfully waiting for The Great Pumpkin to arrive every Hallowe'en!

[Francois]

Yeah, that was a fun cartoon.

[John Robison]

The reason for getting the RTSIII would be the vacuum back, not much else.

Vacuum backs are very misunderstood. People think they will improve sharpness - they don't. What they do is to keep the film flat but given that very few lenses have a completely flat plane of focus you're just as likely to make sharpness worse as you are better. To have any benefit you would need to be photographing completely flat subjects with a process lens and a setup that ensures the film plane is absolutely parallel with the subject. Beyond that, they're a complete waste of time.

Well that sucks.
Sorry, couldn’t resist the obvious pun.

[astrobeck]

Great weekend as always.
I've been a slacker as far as posting and sharing, but I am still wasting film.
I think I've got the Ricoh sorted that I've been talking about in the other thread, so hope to have something to share from it soon.
In the meantime...here's a close up of some wire made with a Zenit 122 with Arista dunked in caffenol.
Helios 44m-4 lens.   I collect old farm wire...yeah, weird I know.