Jump to content


Member Since 23 Mar 2012
Offline Last Active Apr 14 2012 01:28 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: M42 Lenses ..... Which Camera To Match?

14 April 2012 - 01:16 PM

Something you may want to try are the Fuji (often Fujica) st series.
I have a collection of M42 fit cameras, ranging from a Zenit B, Praktica LLC and MTL5b, but my favourite is the Fujica ST705. Beautifully made and Open Aperture metering with the correct lenses (Just bought an Adaptal2 M42 Fujica mount. Not cheap but worth it,) this camera feels really good to use. Never liked the Pentax Spotmatic. No real reason, just don't. Same as I liked the feel of the Samsung NX10, but not the Panasonic G2. The latter's a good camera, but I hated the feel of it.

Fujica ST705

Nearly all M42 mount lenses will fit on nearly all M42 cameras. There are a few lenses that protrude too far into the throat of the camera, but they're mainly early rangefinder lenses.

I actually have a couple of 35mm EOS cameras and have successfully used a wide range of M42 lenses on them and have never had the problem of focusing to infinity. If your lenses came from a rangefinder camera, the smaller flange depth (of the rangefinder camera) may explain the problem.

In Topic: Mid-format Film-negative Scanner

25 March 2012 - 12:46 AM

QUOTE (photoDerek @ Jan 20 2012, 04:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I need a scanner for mid-format negatives in which light is beamed from one side through the film and registered digitally on the opposite side. What is the terminology for such technology so that I can search for it. What I don't want is document scanner technology in which the light source and digital registration is on the same film side, with a white background reflecting the light on the opposite film side. Anyone?

It's called a transparency adapter/head. With canon scanners, just look for the letter "f" at the end of the scanners model number LiDe 8800f for example - which I own. Scans 35mm and 120/220 format. Been replaced by the LiDe9000f.

The Epson v500 though v750 are the same. At least I think the v500 can scan 120. I used to own an Epson 1250, which could scan everything upto 5x7 film/plates. Putting cling-film on the platen allowed me to make some very nice fruit slice scans.

Finally, there are some dedicated 120 film scanners. Unlike 35mm (where prices start at 100) these are really expensive - in excess of 2000. Unless you're a professional (or just rich) a flat-bed scanner is the best option.

In Topic: Is Anybody There?

23 March 2012 - 11:52 PM

I would love to have a darkroom. Just one problem. The chemicals give me Migraines. Took a course in Photography and ended up having to quit. One day in the darkroom = 3 days with migraine.
Didn't affect me when I was in my teens (Member of the school photographic club - been a keen photographer ever since.)

BTW FiZZ: Digital doesn't suck. It's just a different way of obtaining the same results: A Satisfying photograph. I have a facsimile of the first copy of Amateur Photographer. And people were complaining about the new "roll film" ruining photography. "What is wrong with wet plate?" Bet some of them were complaining about the introduction of the dry plate too. (Just noticed he posted that in 2007. Only 5 years ago... Oh well things have changed a lot since then. CS6 beta is massively quick, even compared to CS5.5)

+/-4 stops is bad what ever medium you use. But I've recovered images that were at least that bad using photoshop. You just need patience, and try using a mask(s). A good graphics tablet helps too.

In Topic: Converter's

23 March 2012 - 11:25 PM

QUOTE (djj1947 @ Mar 10 2012, 06:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Love to get a longer lens for wildlife but pocket is empty,so would it worth getting 1x4 converter or stick to a 2 times converter,
or wait,

Take it you mean a 1.4x as in 30+ years I've never seen a 4x converter (I actually own a Vivitar 3x converter - M42 fit.)

For best quality, the 1.4 would be better, but a 2x converter would give only slightly worse results (assuming that they are from the same manufacturer.)

An alternative - one I actually use - is to buy second hand. As well as collecting camera (20+ inc 7 35mm SLRs) I have a large collection of lenses, everything from a pentacon 29mm though to a Alpex 200mm. I use mount adapters for my Samsung NX10 which gives the lenses a 1.5x factor. Just to put it in context, I bought a Vivitar Series 1 135mm f2.3 (Konica/AR fit) for just 8 from a local charity shop. Add 20 for a KAR to NX adapter and I've got a superb sports lens - Think how much an f2.3 200mm lens would cost for a Nikon or Canon: 4 digits? I spent 30 inc postage (for the mount.)

You didn't say what camera you've got, but Nikon and Canon sell M42 adapters, and most EVIL/CSC cameras have a large range of adapters available. You just need to ensure the lens has manual stop-down of the aperture.

FYI, I have an M42 adapter for My EOS 650 and Rebel (EOS1000). And I use Most of my cameras (that I can actually get film for,) though I do prefer the Samsung. No development costs...

In Topic: Problem With Photos In Vista

23 March 2012 - 11:04 PM

Bit late, but you didn't need to upgrade to Win7 from Vista.
I use Vista64 and have no problems like you describe. I think this is because I use a card reader to transfer the files from the cards, not by connecting the camera to the computer via USB cable.

It may be a bit of a pain to remove the sd (or cf) card from your camera and put it into a reader, but it has several advantages.

1: Your camera is restricted to what ever speed the manufacturer has set the USB port to (most are USB 2.0 HS, but some are USB1.1). On the otherhand, you can change your reader to the latest USB3 and get a speed increase. My Class 10 SDHC used to DL at 14MB/s (usb2), with the new usb3 reader (and usb3 ports on the new computer) I get 20+mb/s. Which is noticeable with 25MB raws.
2: You chose where to save the files. I set up a folder for each days shooting (yyyymmdd CameraType) with a sub folder for the raws. That way I know where and when each series of photos was taken.
3: You don't drain your camera battery. Not all cameras can recharge via USB. Which is a pain.

My guess is that it's the software you're using that's causing the problem. And you might still get it with Win7.