Author Topic: I just picked up... (Read 842160 times)

Francois · « **Reply #3350 on:** March 22, 2018, 02:26:42 PM »

Aerochrome was pretty darn cool.
Do you plan on using it with a yellow filter or doing something more funky?

Bryan · « **Reply #3351 on:** March 22, 2018, 03:28:16 PM »

Quote from: Francois on March 22, 2018, 02:26:42 PM

Aerochrome was pretty darn cool.
Do you plan on using it with a yellow filter or doing something more funky?

I'll probably shoot it with a yellow filter using my Bronica ETRSi so I can get 15 shots.

cs1 · « **Reply #3352 on:** March 23, 2018, 05:14:01 PM »

I recently developed a pressing need (that's the FW's custom term for "I couldn't resist G. A. S.", right?) to get a Zenza Bronica SQ-A. I've had my eye on a medium format SLR for some time and I particularly liked the Zenza Bronica ETRSi, however, I came across this Zenza Bronica SQ-A which is in superb condition (it looks like it's hardly been used). It came with a film back for 6x6 and one for 6x4,5, the Zenzanon 80mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/3.5 as well as a lens hood that fits both, and the waist level viewfinder. Having both backs makes this a very versatile camera. The light seals of the film backs look superb (I've read that a lot of SQ-As have trouble with light leaks there). I'm looking forward to trying this beauty tomorrow.

Bryan · « **Reply #3353 on:** March 23, 2018, 05:37:27 PM »

Nice one cs1, I wonder if the lenses and backs are compatible with the ETRSi. Everything looks very similar.

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #3354 on:** March 23, 2018, 06:24:10 PM »

Unfortunately they are not compatable with the Etrsi.

Mike

cs1 · « **Reply #3355 on:** March 23, 2018, 07:29:51 PM »

As Mike already pointed out, they aren't compatible. I'm going to look for the 150mm or the 200mm, they look like they're really nice. As soon as I've recovered from this acquisition...

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3356 on:** March 27, 2018, 07:34:34 PM »

Picked this up for $0. Originally, it would have been around $17 on Amazon, however, since I ordered it for "same-day delivery" and they delivered it too late (this morning), they reimbursed me for the purchase. I also picked up (on the same order) 4 books, Vonnegut, Kerouac, Hemingway.

SLVR · « **Reply #3357 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:06:23 PM »

congrats on the SQ-A. It was my first medium format SLR and I loved the thing. It's pretty light and compact, the lens is fantastic and quite fast. I've owned 2 so far and both were fantastic cameras. Guard that WLF and that advance crank with your life. Those are the most desirable parts and always in constant demand and command high dollar.

Enjoy

cs1 · « **Reply #3358 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:18:07 PM »

Thanks, SLVR. I just replaced the light seal foam that seals the mirror when it's in the upper position which was quite a fiddly thing to do. But I'm glad that it's finished now. The light seals on the film backs are like new. I shot one film with the 6x6 and one with the 6x4.5 back and both are without any leaks (though it was really sunny). Why are the cranks and the WLF so high in demand? I thought that the SQ series (except for the SQ-Am) came with them by default? I just managed to get a Prism AE viewfinder for 50 € which is quite a good price if I'm not mistaken (it hasn't arrived yet). It looks quite used on the outside but the prism etc. look ok. The seller is willing to take it back if it doesn't work so no worries there.

Miguel, nice set of filters. Looking forward to shots where you use them.

I also like the Burberry (?) strap, very classy.

SLVR · « **Reply #3359 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:53:43 PM »

a lot of pros back in the day ditched their WLFs for metered prisms. The WLFs got lost or never stayed with the camera when it was sold on. Same with the cranks, people will put the grip on the SQ-A which has a frame advance lever built in. You need to remove the crank in order to use it and the crank again gets lost.

Nowadays people want to shoot with a WLF instead of a prism so WLFs usually demand a high price for culty cameras like the SQ.

I find that etrs WLFs though are cheap. Don't know quite why.

cs1 · « **Reply #3360 on:** March 27, 2018, 09:29:39 PM »

Then I'm glad that the WLF and the crank are still there. It's such an enjoyable experience to shoot with the SQ-A. Though the lenses are really heavy (the build quality is brilliant) the camera feels well balanced and is just a joy to use. However, it's not a discrete camera, that's for sure. It loudly yells "Hey! I just released the shutter!" at you every time you push the shutter release. There's no doubt about when it successfully fired.

It's a very "force feedback" sort of experience.

SLVR · « **Reply #3361 on:** March 28, 2018, 08:05:00 PM »

If you get a prism a lot of people think that it's a video camera. I didn't seem to get as many people bothering me with the prism. Though no one really bothered me at all with the SQ-A in general.

cs1 · « **Reply #3362 on:** March 28, 2018, 08:24:29 PM »

I got the prism viewfinder today and it's in a good condition. I mainly got it for the 6x4.5 back because I think that it's a real pain to take portrait oriented photos with the WLF. But apart from that I absolutely prefer the WLF.

Francois · « **Reply #3363 on:** March 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM »

WLF are definitely a pain if the camera doesn't have a rotating back...

cs1 · « **Reply #3364 on:** March 29, 2018, 05:17:44 AM »

You can't rotate the back on the SQ-A. But I can live with that. I've read that some people complain about some features of the SQ-A regarding the back. For example that you can't release the shutter without film in the back (only on multi exposure mode) or that the back will only come off if the dark slider is inserted. However, I think those are actually useful features and I can't see the negative sides of them. Not having a rotatable back is the only minute downside.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3365 on:** March 29, 2018, 05:56:17 PM »

Picked up 5 rolls of Neopan 100 and a 10-stop filter from Tiffen. Hopefully, there's good weather this weekend so I can try it out. Also, a question regarding long-exposures... Wondering if stacking a contrast filter on top of it would be worth it to bring out any sort of clouds/sky detail, even if blurred.

cs1 · « **Reply #3366 on:** March 29, 2018, 06:30:05 PM »

Stacking filters would make me worry about reflections between the two filters. If you do it, I'd probably screw on the color filter first and then the ND filter. However, I've never tried it myself so I don't know what your mileage will be. Theoretically the color filter should work normally because the ND filter shouldn't change the colorisation.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3367 on:** March 29, 2018, 06:36:56 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on March 29, 2018, 06:30:05 PM

Stacking filters would make me worry about reflections between the two filters. If you do it, I'd probably screw on the color filter first and then the ND filter. However, I've never tried it myself so I don't know what your mileage will be. Theoretically the color filter should work normally because the ND filter shouldn't change the colorisation.

Thanks! I guess that, in the words of Satish, "It's film, so just experiment and love it"

cs1 · « **Reply #3368 on:** March 29, 2018, 07:05:41 PM »

Quote from: MiguelCampano on March 29, 2018, 06:36:56 PM

Thanks! I guess that, in the words of Satish, "It's film, so just experiment and love it"

I guess that that's the way to go about this.

Francois · « **Reply #3369 on:** March 29, 2018, 08:36:49 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on March 29, 2018, 06:30:05 PM

Stacking filters would make me worry about reflections between the two filters.

I've done the stacking thing before and it's not as bad as it seems. But even with supposedly neutral filters, the color balance does go out the door. But in B&W it doesn't really matter. All you'll get is slightly softer results, though I can't be sure if my experiments' fuzziness was caused by my tripod moving in the breeze or the filters.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3370 on:** March 30, 2018, 12:22:48 AM »

Quote from: MiguelCampano on March 29, 2018, 06:36:56 PM

Quote from: cs1 on March 29, 2018, 06:30:05 PM
Stacking filters would make me worry about reflections between the two filters. If you do it, I'd probably screw on the color filter first and then the ND filter. However, I've never tried it myself so I don't know what your mileage will be. Theoretically the color filter should work normally because the ND filter shouldn't change the colorisation.

Thanks! I guess that, in the words of Satish, "It's film, so just experiment and love it"

Just for the record, my actual words were, "a 10-stop ND filter?? Just shoot at midnight on a new moon night!"

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3371 on:** March 30, 2018, 12:29:51 AM »

Quote from: Indofunk on March 30, 2018, 12:22:48 AM

Quote from: MiguelCampano on March 29, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: cs1 on March 29, 2018, 06:30:05 PM
Stacking filters would make me worry about reflections between the two filters. If you do it, I'd probably screw on the color filter first and then the ND filter. However, I've never tried it myself so I don't know what your mileage will be. Theoretically the color filter should work normally because the ND filter shouldn't change the colorisation.

Thanks! I guess that, in the words of Satish, "It's film, so just experiment and love it"

Just for the record, my actual words were, "a 10-stop ND filter?? Just shoot at midnight on a new moon night!"

Hell no, you know who I'm calling.

SLVR · « **Reply #3372 on:** March 30, 2018, 04:29:12 AM »

re: color shift. There are some 10 stop filters that cause more color shift than others. Just something to note. I can't say for certain if this one has shift or not.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #3373 on:** March 30, 2018, 05:01:49 PM »

Ignore the camera for a moment, it's the lens you need to concentrate on here. The venerable Meyer Optik Orestor 100/2.8, made around 1970 in Gorlitz on the border with Poland, just down the road from Dresden. If you don't know the lenses, well, tough, 'cos they're quite difficult to find in M42 in good condition. The one in the pic is the first one I had, back in 2005, and which I stupidly sold. The replacement was fine for a long time though first the auto pin went, and then finally the aperture blades themselves - for quite a while I only used it wide open anyway.

But I've just found another that was going cheap (relatively) with perfect functionality but trashed coatings. Fortunately it is the same model so when It arrives I will have some satisfying fun unscrewing the lens units and transferring them, swapping them over. A ten minute job on account of the ultra logical design of Meyer's lenses.

Yes, they are better than many of the 35mm Zeiss lenses of the period. Here's an example of why I like it:

100717_acr_13 by Sandeha Lynch, on Flickr

And another, both on Acros and a Pentax body:

100710_acr_21 by Sandeha Lynch, on Flickr

Francois · « **Reply #3374 on:** March 30, 2018, 09:11:08 PM »

I know Zeiss weren'gt always considered the best in the business. For a long time Hasselblad used Kodak lenses on their cameras because Zeiss lenses were "not good enough"... how things have changed

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #3375 on:** March 30, 2018, 10:20:16 PM »

Early on yes, but in the screw-mount era most aficionados of German cameras I know pull for Zeiss, I guess on the basis of a couple of excellent lens designs. It's just that they weren't all so very good. Meyer was considered a minor player, but as ever, #2 tends to work harder. And optics apart, if you ever dismantle a Meyer and a Zeiss 50mm there's a huge difference in how quickly you can put them back together again.

Francois · « **Reply #3376 on:** March 30, 2018, 10:46:23 PM »

It's the same when taking apart a camera. So far I've had great success with everything made by Minolta, some minor struggles with Nikkor and hell with a Minox...

Bryan · « **Reply #3377 on:** April 01, 2018, 08:37:13 PM »

I've had bad Leica GAS lately but this should help. I sold off all my Pentax K1000 kit and a few other items for this. Everything functions properly on the Leica IIIf, it just has a few cosmetic issues with the leather. Based on the serial number this one was assembled in Canada but it still says made in Germany. I did buy it from a seller in Canada. The Chico flash works but I have not tested it with film yet, just need to figure out the proper synchronization number for Press 25 bulbs. I have had the Weston Master light meter for a while now, it's model 715 made between 1939 and 1940. Surprisingly the light meter is still accurate.

Leica IIIf by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Francois · « **Reply #3378 on:** April 01, 2018, 09:58:50 PM »

You can use B mode for this.
Press the button and release as soon as the bulb has fired. That should do it

EarlJam · « **Reply #3379 on:** April 01, 2018, 10:42:22 PM »

When I was a kid, there was something magical about flashbulbs. I wish I had saved some, and a flashgun, when I had the opportunity. There's an older thread on RFF that might be helpful; see https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54159

The 1955 edition of the Leica Manual lists the following synch settings :

#5 / 25 / 0 bulbs:

Black-dial: 1/30: 16; 1/40: 11; 1/60: 8; 1/100: 8; 1/200: 4; 1/500: 3.5; 1/1000: 2 .

Red-dial: 1/25: 14; 1/50: 11; 1/75: 6; 1/100:4; 1/200: 2; 1/500:1; 1/1k: 0.

Bryan · « **Reply #3380 on:** April 01, 2018, 11:19:14 PM »

Quote from: EarlJam on April 01, 2018, 10:42:22 PM

When I was a kid, there was something magical about flashbulbs. I wish I had saved some, and a flashgun, when I had the opportunity. There's an older thread on RFF that might be helpful; see https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54159

The 1955 edition of the Leica Manual lists the following synch settings :

#5 / 25 / 0 bulbs:

Black-dial: 1/30: 16; 1/40: 11; 1/60: 8; 1/100: 8; 1/200: 4; 1/500: 3.5; 1/1000: 2 .

Red-dial: 1/25: 14; 1/50: 11; 1/75: 6; 1/100:4; 1/200: 2; 1/500:1; 1/1k: 0.

Thanks Earl, I’ll have to try a few of those numbers, it sounds like M bulbs are not ideal for focal plane shutters so a slower speed like 1/50: 11 may work well. I have several boxes of Press 25 bulbs to play with. The sound and smell of the bulbs do bring back childhood memories for me.

EarlJam · « **Reply #3381 on:** April 03, 2018, 07:54:33 PM »

Turns out my last roll of TMAX 100 was the last roll of 35mm B+W in the freezer. Freestyle's warehouse is about a 20 minute drive, so I decided that it's time for my annual-ish replenishment run. I haven't used Foma or Bergger films before and took the opportunity for something other than Kodak or Ilford stock, and thought I'd give TMAX 3200 a try as well.

SLVR · « **Reply #3382 on:** April 03, 2018, 08:05:59 PM »

very diverse haul you got there. My only advice regarding foma would be to save your best stuff for foma 200. The 400 isn't a favorite of mine but the 200 is really a nice film.

cs1 · « **Reply #3383 on:** April 03, 2018, 09:02:47 PM »

I both like Fomapan 100 and 400. I'm curious about the Bergger. Looking forward to your results.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3384 on:** April 04, 2018, 12:35:20 AM »

Quote from: EarlJam on April 03, 2018, 07:54:33 PM

Freestyle's warehouse is about a 20 minute drive

and I thought *I* was lucky working right next door to Adorama!

EarlJam · « **Reply #3385 on:** April 04, 2018, 09:38:39 PM »

Quote from: SLVR on April 03, 2018, 08:05:59 PM

very diverse haul you got there. My only advice regarding foma would be to save your best stuff for foma 200. The 400 isn't a favorite of mine but the 200 is really a nice film.

Quote from: cs1 on April 03, 2018, 09:02:47 PM

I both like Fomapan 100 and 400. I'm curious about the Bergger. Looking forward to your results.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to using the new-to-me stocks. If nothing else, it will be an interesting test to see if my eye is discerning enough to detect the differences in results.

02Pilot · « **Reply #3386 on:** April 07, 2018, 04:35:35 PM »

There are some things you just can't resist...

I mean, look at it. I have exactly zero need for it, but I couldn't walk away. I haven't decided whether to leave the aesthetics as-is or do a full resto. Mechanicals are working well after a quick clean-and-lube, and the glass is nice and clean. Test roll will go in today.

zapsnaps · « **Reply #3387 on:** April 07, 2018, 04:44:40 PM »

02Pilot: what a looker! I have considered one before, but walked away, which I later (& now) regret. Would love to see the results of the first roll you put through it.

cs1 · « **Reply #3388 on:** April 07, 2018, 05:03:11 PM »

It's looks stunning. Also looking forward to the photos that you're going to shoot with it.

Francois · « **Reply #3389 on:** April 07, 2018, 10:15:19 PM »

And mechanics wise, it's one of the rarest shutter mechanisms there is.

02Pilot · « **Reply #3390 on:** April 08, 2018, 02:44:50 AM »

Quote from: Francois on April 07, 2018, 10:15:19 PM

And mechanics wise, it's one of the rarest shutter mechanisms there is.

Yeah, that was part of the appeal. It's really a fascinating mechanism. Fairly simple, seemingly quite robust, and reasonably smooth (once I got it cleaned and lubed, anyway). For those unfamiliar, it's a rotating blade shutter. There are two overlapping discs with wide pie-shaped cutouts. Setting the shutter speed varies the position of one, opening or closing the gap in the disc. The actual rotation speed in constant regardless of the setting. Speeds range from 1/1000 to 1/20, plus B and T; no slow speeds is the trade-off. The hump on the top of the camera is necessary to accommodate the shutter discs.

Bryan · « **Reply #3391 on:** April 08, 2018, 06:21:34 AM »

It sounds like a movie camera shutter. Most of my Bolex cameras have a similar shutter that allows you to adjust the size of the opening.

02Pilot · « **Reply #3392 on:** April 08, 2018, 01:47:57 PM »

Quote from: Bryan on April 08, 2018, 06:21:34 AM

It sounds like a movie camera shutter. Most of my Bolex cameras have a similar shutter that allows you to adjust the size of the opening.

Could be - I have no experience with movie cameras, but I can see how the design would be useful in that application, rotating continuously rather than once.

mikec · « **Reply #3393 on:** April 08, 2018, 01:56:53 PM »

The Mercury II Model CX is one of my all-time favorite cameras. I picked up one about six years ago for a few bucks on ebay and shot many rolls of film with it. I liked the camera because of its unique features and because, even with the half-frame format, the images were excellent and capable of considerable enlargement due to the good resolution of the Tricor lens. In the company's post-war advertising campaign, much was made of the reliability and accuracy of the Mercury's shutter which an independent testing lab had shown to be superior to Leica and Contax. Soon after I got my Mercury I did some recon on the web for information about the history of rotary shutters and put what I found into a post on the subject on my blog.

02Pilot · « **Reply #3394 on:** April 08, 2018, 02:18:02 PM »

Interesting stuff in that post, Mike. Never realized the Robot used a rotary shutter. Thanks for posting it.

Francois · « **Reply #3395 on:** April 08, 2018, 02:59:50 PM »

The thing i wonder about is the why there weren't more cameras that use this type of shutter?
With a bit more engineering they could have fitted slow speeds. And since it freely rotates, it should be a very smooth operation.

mikec · « **Reply #3396 on:** April 08, 2018, 03:11:19 PM »

I think the main issues with rotary shutters are size and inertia. That big hump on the Mercury was needed to accommodate a pie-shaped opening in the shutter disk that would cover the 35mm half-frame format. A shutter of this type using the Mercury strategy for 35mm full-frame would have been gigantic. Regarding inertia, it takes some clever engineering to get the rotary shutter moving and then to stop it after the proper interval. Maitani's solution regarding inertia was to use exotic materials and ultra-miniaturization of components. Movie camera shutters generally operated at one or two rather slow speeds and were thus small and simple.

Francois · « **Reply #3397 on:** April 08, 2018, 08:59:31 PM »

The big advantage of movie camera shutters is that they don't need a break that can support thousands of actuations. Also their small size makes them put less stress on the parts.

If I were to design one, I would probably put a half geared spindle on one of the discs or a friction mechanism that would activate an air brake (paddle type) at the end of the run.

Bryan · « **Reply #3398 on:** April 08, 2018, 10:12:32 PM »

Quote from: Francois on April 08, 2018, 08:59:31 PM

The big advantage of movie camera shutters is that they don't need a break that can support thousands of actuations. Also their small size makes them put less stress on the parts.

If I were to design one, I would probably put a half geared spindle on one of the discs or a friction mechanism that would activate an air brake (paddle type) at the end of the run.

The Bolex shutter must have some kind of break on it because it always stops in a closed position. If that didn’t happen you would have a very over exposed frame between each shot.

I have always wanted a Mercury II, now O2Pilot has me thinking about it again. I just sold a bunch of stuff so there’s plenty of cash burning a hole in my PayPal account.

Francois · « **Reply #3399 on:** April 08, 2018, 10:47:08 PM »

Quote from: Bryan on April 08, 2018, 10:12:32 PM

The Bolex shutter must have some kind of break on it because it always stops in a closed position. If that didn’t happen you would have a very over exposed frame between each shot.

I think this is a common feature on all movie cameras. My Bolex has it. My Brownie has it. My Canon has it...