Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]
Per my kitchen scales:
Brass Yashica Electro 35 CC - 1lb 4oz.;
anodized Aluminium Konica S3 Auto - 14oz.

Crap . . . that settles it, I am looking for replacements. ;-)

LOL - what does a GT weigh anyway? - just to the nearest
hundredweight...

750 grams. Compare that to a Nikon F6 at 975 grams, and a Nikon
FE/FM at 590 grams.

Hmmm:

Pentax MZ-S 520g, or 705g with vertical battery grip
Pentax MZ-3 410g
Pentax MX 495g
Pentax LX 570g

Good thing, given the number of them I carry around...

[SNIP]

Well . . . maybe I should keep one Yashica GT . . . . . . . .

Well, you can never have too many toys - err, tools. (On which note,
you should see my workshop.)

Tell me about it . . . I have cameras and camera parts laying around
everywhere. I actually need to clean off one desk in the office to do some
design work.

Yeah - there's just - only just - enough room on my desk to type this.
Lightbox on the dining table, pile of softboxes on the spare bed, only just
finished putting back together a clock in the small sitting room, paperwork
all over the floor in the large sitting room, apples to be made into dried
apple rings all over the kitchen, a suitcase only just unpacked from my last
trip in my bedroom, even before looking in the workshop or at my equipment
storage area. It _has_ been an exceptional week though...


I've actually wondered about getting the meter on the CC
recalibrated: I never use this particlular camera with anything
slower than 400, and it goes down to 25. I'd live without 25, or
even 25 and 50, if it gave me a meter that went to 1,000 (so I
could use 800 film) or better yet to 2,000 (so I could use 3,200
film pulled to 1,600).

On the GT, you remove the ISO dial, and there is an eccentric
adjuster. I think it might allow up to one stop of change, maybe a bit
more.

I don't think it is that simple on a CC, but I'm hoping there's a
variable
resistor buried somewhere inside.

The resistors are actually in the lens mount. It might be possible to
replace something with a variable resistor, and add another dial, though
that would be a big modification.

Hmmm, probably too much. I'd be content just to 'shift' the range and then
re-label the existing scale.

I actually though about putting a shutter speed indicator on the GT, but
getting some useful indication into the viewfinder would take lots of
work.

That would be a big job indeed, but if you cracked it I bet you could make
some good money doing it for other people.

[SNIP]

If I remember correctly, the LX uses an OTF meter that is a variation
of that uses in some Olympus models. I am not aware of any other
limitations that might close the shutter after a specific time, so it
should work as long (or longer) on exposures as my FE. If the
batteries are fresh, it might go even longer (funny that the FE and LX
use the same batteries).

Yes, that's right. Although there is a reading taken off the shutter
curtain before the exposure, as a 'guide' or for use in manual, that
reading is 'discarded' once you press the shutter in auto, in which case
the meter measures the light off the film and closes the shutter when it
thinks it has seen enough. This is very accurate, and of course takes
account of changing light too - even to the extent of letting you fire
multiple flash pops and hear the shutter close after it thinks it has
had
enough. For very long exposures the meter sensitivity seems to drop
too, mirroring film reciprocity failure surprisingly accurately.

This isn't actually something I do all that often, but the LX makes it
so
easy when I do.

I had a shoot-out style challenge from the other LX using professional I
know. I used my Sekonic L-358, some experience, and my Nikon FM.
Under highly variable changing lighting, there was almost no technical
difference from his images compared to mine. Of course, I think the
lesson here is that there is much more room for variation in longer night
exposures, or nightclub type of images, than in daylight. I think an LX
would be faster to react under brighter conditions, and my mostly manual
method slower and more prone to mistakes.

I use the LXs mostly in manual with a Sekonic L608 anyway, largely because I
shoot mostly landscapes with them and want to spot meter. The auto system
is very good though, and when I do use it, I'm always pleased with how well
it works.




[SNIP]


I use to do rangefinder shooting with a Leica M3, though it
unfortunately broke, can now costs more to repair than I paid for it
(just over a decade ago). I noticed Voigtländer just came out with a
Bessa-R3 . . . actually two versions with different viewfinders. Since
it is also an aperture priority camera, that might be a choice. The
new
price is near the price of a used M4-2. My main choice still looks
like an Xpan, though I am still not entirely sure. If I go the Xpan
route, I would likely sell off the Yashica GTs.

I hadn't seen the R3, sounds interesting.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/ All in Japanese, but nice images.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm Similar images, but
some english explanations.

Thanks - that really does look _very_ nice.


But still, I'd never use it enough to justify one, attractive as that
12mm
might be... Actually, I wish they'd do the 12mm in PK mount. It is
made in Nikon mount, and of course has to be used with MLU, but
would work fine on the MLU Pentaxes too - like my LXs.

That is easy, a Nikon to Pentax mount adapter would solve that. I think
the 15 mm is a bit nicer, since there is much less distortion.

Eeek! Don't tempt me! I have a Pentax 15mm, so can't imagine buying the CV
one, but that 12 would have a lot of entertainment value. Whether it would
pay for itself is another question entirely, of course.

I imagine taking the prism off an LX and putting on one of the caps designed
to protect the screen when the finder is removed, with a shoe fixed to this
cap to take the 12mm viewfinder - just because it would be so much fun
seeing people wonder what the heck it was...

(Of course, if the 12mm didn't obstruct the light path to the meter cell it
would make more sense to leave a prism on just so one could see the meter
readout, I suppose.)


I love my X-Pan, but remember how slow the glass is...

I don't remember if you saw the discussion and item, but there was a
Nikon to XPan mount sold on EBAY not long ago. It looked like some
sort of home built item, did not allow rangefinder coupling, but seemed
easy enough to copy.

I did, but thought it went for way too much money. I suppose if I wanted to
try something like that I'd get a lens mount off an extension tube, but the
X-Pan body mount would be the hard part: lot of work to machine one, with
tools I don't have. I suppose an experimental one could be knocked up with
an X-Pan body cap: they're only plastic, but pretty tough.

[SNIP]

I do some concert photography as well, though I try to stick to
being on the stage. I could definitely use the Yashica for crowd
control, if I need it. ;-)

I know you do - that's why I mentioned it. I like to shoot from the
audience perspective when it is possible (and safe!) to do so.
Also, I like to get a shot or two with the crowd in the foreground -
preferably with lots of hands in the air. OK, so it's a cliche...

Funny that the bands often like those. I am working on a live CD
package, and the band likes one of the crowd shots, though it was
on the scaffolding looking down at the band and the crowd. A little
bit of climbing, though the result makes the event look even larger.

"Hey, man, like, without the fans we're nuffin..."

Sometimes I tell these bands, artists and musicians are similar in that
they
can be stuck up assholes, though the big difference is that musicians have
groupies. ;-)

LOL! I'll remember that.

Actually, I sort of had a groupie once. It probably helped that the first
time I met her I was wearing black jeans, a grey turtle neck, and a black
leather jacket and so looked just like a photographer is 'supposed' to look.
She grew out of it within the year, but still shows up sometimes and
introduces me to her friends as "this is Peter [dramatic pause, silky voice]
he's a photographer" and then wonders why they never seem half so impressed
as she was.


I am working on a strange medium format construction. It
involves an Ilex shutter, Nikon 35 mm f2.8 shift lens, mounted
on a 6x9 body (likely masked down to 6x7, or similar). Until
that camera gets closer to being finished, I am not doing any
other project cameras.


Yeah, I've been following the thread in RPEMF on this with
interest. I'm wondering if I could try my Pentax 28mm shift lens
for the same thing.

Okay, easy and cheap test. Find a piece of ground glass, or even just
wax paper, or some textured semi-transparent material. Find an old
bellows off a folder camera, or make some small pieces of paper to
block side light. Hold the lens and old bellow about the distance of
the lens mount to film plane and view on the ground glass material.
That should give you a very rough idea of the image circle, and then
you can decide if you want to move onward.

I did that quickly after sending my last post. In terms of light circle
the
Pentax 28mm definitely covers 6x6, and looks like it might cover 6x7.
Given that the coverage it _needs_ to be designed with in order to do
11mm of shift on the 35mm frame isn't even quite enough to cover 645,
I'm guessing that while the light circle is big enough there's either
going
to be a lot of fall off or a big zone of poor sharpness between that
size
and 6x7. But still, it's looking promising enough to be worth some
more experimentation.

Okay, so maybe not technically perfect, but it sounds like it could
provide a unique view. Recall that in some wide images, a slight change in
the corners can help anchor the shot a bit, and provide some visual
stability. It can also concentrate viewer emphasis into the main area of
the
image. I just would avoid having too much really interesting at the edges
of a 6x7 frame.

Yes, a little gentle vignetting wouldn't be disastrous, I agree.


I sort of dismissed the Nikon 28 mm, since it is not as good fully shifted
as the 35 mm. It also is low distortion, but the 35 mm version is better.
Anyway, with all that viewing angle and a big piece of film, there is lots
of
room for interesting crops.


Wondered about using a miniature Speed Graphic, so I'd have a
Graflok back and a focal plane shutter all in one unit.

Several others mentioned it, though it would be bulkier, heavier, and
tougher to use hand held. The distance from lens mount to film plane
I have to work with is only 46.5 mm.

Agreed. I would be thinking of making a tripod camera, so
handholding isn't an issue for me.

In that case, forget using a shutter, and make a really simple mount to
body plate adapter.

Also, I already use mini-Graflok fitting backs on my technical camera,
so there are advantages for me in making something that uses them -
and the ability to choose between 645, 66, 67, 68 and 69 would
give me more options in terms of trying different lenses with different
circles of coverage. So we're not really trying to do the same thing,
even though it was your thoughts on the Nikon lens that got me thinking
about it.

Definitely different approaches. I was looking into a compact hand held
walk around camera. If I could afford (and justify) an ALPA 12, then I
may have never tried this approach.

Well, even though our reasons for wanting one are very different, if an Alpa
12 were cheaper I probably wouldn't be playing with this idea either. I
have a technical camera and lenses out to 38mm, so I know what wide is like
on a big(ish) piece of film, but I still really like the idea of just seeing
what I can do with the 28, since I already have it - and if it even half
works, it is a lot wider than anything (rectilinear) I have in MF currently.


I don't think the front standard would take the weight of the lens
all
cantilevered out of the front though, so I'd have to hack the body -
which is OK since I'd be using the lens' focusing mount.

Yeah, almost too much construction.

Well, not really. I am happy to use the ground glass for focusing, and
since the body is wooden anyway, all I need to do is cut it off at the
PK registration distance and make a flat front, and then make another
'box' front for the P6 distance. In fact, it becomes a universal back
to
which I can mount any lens I feel like playing with. (Not to mention a
digital back, since one for a Mamiya RB would fit...)

The only hard part then is sourcing the pink leather to cover the new
front with ;-)

Sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You think I'm kidding ;-)


Just need to find one with a working shutter but useless bellows
and front so it's cheap enough. Even if the lens only covered 6x6
it
would be seriously wide. Wonder if those FSU 35mm T&S
lenses would work too?

I think those might work better, since they are actually medium
format designs. However, the Nikkor is very good with almost no
distortion, which I hope to provide a nearly rectilinear image.

The 80mm one is basically a 6x6 standard lens, so it gives some shift
on 35mm, and the 65mm one is, I think, designed to give some shift on
6x6 so would probably cover 6x7 on this machine at least. The 35mm
(focal length) one I don't know about: that I think is designed as a T&S
lens for 35mm (format) only, but still, it might well cover at least
645.

My 45mm T&S and 55mm shift lenses for P6 are designed to give
movements on 6x6, so I'm _fairly_ sure they'll cover at least 6x7.

The Pentax 28mm shift that got me thinking about all this is very
rectilinear, like the Nikon. Which other PK lenses might have
coverage to spare I don't know, but it will be fun finding out.

There is that 30 mm fisheye lenses . . . could be a really unusual final
image. I think Bob M., or someone else, mentioned a Sigma 8 mm
fisheye covers at least 6x6, and a Sigma 15 mm might do the same.

I have one of those in P6 and it is full frame. Don't know if it would
vignette the corners on 6x7 - but if I build this beast no doubt it won't
take me long to try it and find out.


My full frame Pentax fisheye will presumably make a circular image on
6x6: I'd never build the camera just to get that effect, but if I build
it
anyway it might be useful with that lens just now and again.

Just for something unusual and different. I don't see using my project
camera that often, and with the 6x9 folder body for film transport, it is
only 8 images on each roll of film.


Come to that, wonder if my 45mm and 55mm shift lenses for 6x6
would cover 6x7 (surely) or 6x8/9 (maybe) if I made such a
body. Hmmm, it'd be easy enough to make two wooden box
fronts for it, one with a PK mount at the right distance, and
another
deeper one with P6 mount for the MF lenses.

I have a Kiev 88 / P6 to Nikon mount adapter. That was one other
possible route, for even more lens choices. The idea is a low cost
ALPA 12 concept. Shutter vignetting is the biggest issue so far.

I have a P6 to PK adapter too. However, I'm thinking that the throat
size of the 35mm format is probably going to casue vignetting if I try
to
use the P6 lenses that way, hence thinking I need a different
'lensboard'
front to try using them on the beast.

Just took a look at the adapter. I think the length of the adapter, and
change to smaller diameter at the rear, means vignetting is likely at
shorter
focal lengths. Longer telephoto lenses might be interesting, especially
the
180 mm f2.8 Olympia.

That's a 6x6 lens to start with: I have one in P6 mount and it's an absolute
stunner.


Now look what you've gone and got me doing...

Peter
(Wondering how much all this has to do with Nikon's new F6!)

I recently got an Ilex #3, though it seems I might only be able to do
645, or 6x6 with that. Unless I want to machine down the shutter, I
am not yet sure if it will be the best solution. The size is not too
large,
and going to an Ilex #4, or Ilex #5 would be a big step in size and
weight. Shutter thickness is another issue.

I found a Sinar behind the lens shutter for about $25, but it might be
way too large overall. That would work with a fabricated mount, but
even more complexity with that fabrication.

Oh . . . and to stay on topic of this thread, a Nikon F6 costs too
much to hack for other lenses.


Someone, somewhere, will want to put their Leica R or Contax Zeiss
glass on one...

No worse than someone putting that little pancake 45 mm onto an F5 . . .

I do sometimes put the Pentax 40mm pancake on an MX, can't recall inflicting
the indignity on an LX though.


Peter

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]
Per my kitchen scales:
Brass Yashica Electro 35 CC - 1lb 4oz.;
anodized Aluminium Konica S3 Auto - 14oz.

Crap . . . that settles it, I am looking for replacements. ;-)

LOL - what does a GT weigh anyway? - just to the nearest
hundredweight...

750 grams. Compare that to a Nikon F6 at 975 grams, and a Nikon
FE/FM at 590 grams.

Hmmm:

Pentax MZ-S 520g, or 705g with vertical battery grip
Pentax MZ-3 410g
Pentax MX 495g
Pentax LX 570g

Good thing, given the number of them I carry around...

[SNIP]

Well . . . maybe I should keep one Yashica GT . . . . . . . .

Well, you can never have too many toys - err, tools. (On which note,
you should see my workshop.)

Tell me about it . . . I have cameras and camera parts laying around
everywhere. I actually need to clean off one desk in the office to do some
design work.

Yeah - there's just - only just - enough room on my desk to type this.
Lightbox on the dining table, pile of softboxes on the spare bed, only just
finished putting back together a clock in the small sitting room, paperwork
all over the floor in the large sitting room, apples to be made into dried
apple rings all over the kitchen, a suitcase only just unpacked from my last
trip in my bedroom, even before looking in the workshop or at my equipment
storage area. It _has_ been an exceptional week though...


I've actually wondered about getting the meter on the CC
recalibrated: I never use this particlular camera with anything
slower than 400, and it goes down to 25. I'd live without 25, or
even 25 and 50, if it gave me a meter that went to 1,000 (so I
could use 800 film) or better yet to 2,000 (so I could use 3,200
film pulled to 1,600).

On the GT, you remove the ISO dial, and there is an eccentric
adjuster. I think it might allow up to one stop of change, maybe a bit
more.

I don't think it is that simple on a CC, but I'm hoping there's a
variable
resistor buried somewhere inside.

The resistors are actually in the lens mount. It might be possible to
replace something with a variable resistor, and add another dial, though
that would be a big modification.

Hmmm, probably too much. I'd be content just to 'shift' the range and then
re-label the existing scale.

I actually though about putting a shutter speed indicator on the GT, but
getting some useful indication into the viewfinder would take lots of
work.

That would be a big job indeed, but if you cracked it I bet you could make
some good money doing it for other people.

[SNIP]

If I remember correctly, the LX uses an OTF meter that is a variation
of that uses in some Olympus models. I am not aware of any other
limitations that might close the shutter after a specific time, so it
should work as long (or longer) on exposures as my FE. If the
batteries are fresh, it might go even longer (funny that the FE and LX
use the same batteries).

Yes, that's right. Although there is a reading taken off the shutter
curtain before the exposure, as a 'guide' or for use in manual, that
reading is 'discarded' once you press the shutter in auto, in which case
the meter measures the light off the film and closes the shutter when it
thinks it has seen enough. This is very accurate, and of course takes
account of changing light too - even to the extent of letting you fire
multiple flash pops and hear the shutter close after it thinks it has
had
enough. For very long exposures the meter sensitivity seems to drop
too, mirroring film reciprocity failure surprisingly accurately.

This isn't actually something I do all that often, but the LX makes it
so
easy when I do.

I had a shoot-out style challenge from the other LX using professional I
know. I used my Sekonic L-358, some experience, and my Nikon FM.
Under highly variable changing lighting, there was almost no technical
difference from his images compared to mine. Of course, I think the
lesson here is that there is much more room for variation in longer night
exposures, or nightclub type of images, than in daylight. I think an LX
would be faster to react under brighter conditions, and my mostly manual
method slower and more prone to mistakes.

I use the LXs mostly in manual with a Sekonic L608 anyway, largely because I
shoot mostly landscapes with them and want to spot meter. The auto system
is very good though, and when I do use it, I'm always pleased with how well
it works.




[SNIP]


I use to do rangefinder shooting with a Leica M3, though it
unfortunately broke, can now costs more to repair than I paid for it
(just over a decade ago). I noticed Voigtländer just came out with a
Bessa-R3 . . . actually two versions with different viewfinders. Since
it is also an aperture priority camera, that might be a choice. The
new
price is near the price of a used M4-2. My main choice still looks
like an Xpan, though I am still not entirely sure. If I go the Xpan
route, I would likely sell off the Yashica GTs.

I hadn't seen the R3, sounds interesting.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/ All in Japanese, but nice images.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm Similar images, but
some english explanations.

Thanks - that really does look _very_ nice.


But still, I'd never use it enough to justify one, attractive as that
12mm
might be... Actually, I wish they'd do the 12mm in PK mount. It is
made in Nikon mount, and of course has to be used with MLU, but
would work fine on the MLU Pentaxes too - like my LXs.

That is easy, a Nikon to Pentax mount adapter would solve that. I think
the 15 mm is a bit nicer, since there is much less distortion.

Eeek! Don't tempt me! I have a Pentax 15mm, so can't imagine buying the CV
one, but that 12 would have a lot of entertainment value. Whether it would
pay for itself is another question entirely, of course.

I imagine taking the prism off an LX and putting on one of the caps designed
to protect the screen when the finder is removed, with a shoe fixed to this
cap to take the 12mm viewfinder - just because it would be so much fun
seeing people wonder what the heck it was...

(Of course, if the 12mm didn't obstruct the light path to the meter cell it
would make more sense to leave a prism on just so one could see the meter
readout, I suppose.)


I love my X-Pan, but remember how slow the glass is...

I don't remember if you saw the discussion and item, but there was a
Nikon to XPan mount sold on EBAY not long ago. It looked like some
sort of home built item, did not allow rangefinder coupling, but seemed
easy enough to copy.

I did, but thought it went for way too much money. I suppose if I wanted to
try something like that I'd get a lens mount off an extension tube, but the
X-Pan body mount would be the hard part: lot of work to machine one, with
tools I don't have. I suppose an experimental one could be knocked up with
an X-Pan body cap: they're only plastic, but pretty tough.

[SNIP]

I do some concert photography as well, though I try to stick to
being on the stage. I could definitely use the Yashica for crowd
control, if I need it. ;-)

I know you do - that's why I mentioned it. I like to shoot from the
audience perspective when it is possible (and safe!) to do so.
Also, I like to get a shot or two with the crowd in the foreground -
preferably with lots of hands in the air. OK, so it's a cliche...

Funny that the bands often like those. I am working on a live CD
package, and the band likes one of the crowd shots, though it was
on the scaffolding looking down at the band and the crowd. A little
bit of climbing, though the result makes the event look even larger.

"Hey, man, like, without the fans we're nuffin..."

Sometimes I tell these bands, artists and musicians are similar in that
they
can be stuck up assholes, though the big difference is that musicians have
groupies. ;-)

LOL! I'll remember that.

Actually, I sort of had a groupie once. It probably helped that the first
time I met her I was wearing black jeans, a grey turtle neck, and a black
leather jacket and so looked just like a photographer is 'supposed' to look.
She grew out of it within the year, but still shows up sometimes and
introduces me to her friends as "this is Peter [dramatic pause, silky voice]
he's a photographer" and then wonders why they never seem half so impressed
as she was.


I am working on a strange medium format construction. It
involves an Ilex shutter, Nikon 35 mm f2.8 shift lens, mounted
on a 6x9 body (likely masked down to 6x7, or similar). Until
that camera gets closer to being finished, I am not doing any
other project cameras.


Yeah, I've been following the thread in RPEMF on this with
interest. I'm wondering if I could try my Pentax 28mm shift lens
for the same thing.

Okay, easy and cheap test. Find a piece of ground glass, or even just
wax paper, or some textured semi-transparent material. Find an old
bellows off a folder camera, or make some small pieces of paper to
block side light. Hold the lens and old bellow about the distance of
the lens mount to film plane and view on the ground glass material.
That should give you a very rough idea of the image circle, and then
you can decide if you want to move onward.

I did that quickly after sending my last post. In terms of light circle
the
Pentax 28mm definitely covers 6x6, and looks like it might cover 6x7.
Given that the coverage it _needs_ to be designed with in order to do
11mm of shift on the 35mm frame isn't even quite enough to cover 645,
I'm guessing that while the light circle is big enough there's either
going
to be a lot of fall off or a big zone of poor sharpness between that
size
and 6x7. But still, it's looking promising enough to be worth some
more experimentation.

Okay, so maybe not technically perfect, but it sounds like it could
provide a unique view. Recall that in some wide images, a slight change in
the corners can help anchor the shot a bit, and provide some visual
stability. It can also concentrate viewer emphasis into the main area of
the
image. I just would avoid having too much really interesting at the edges
of a 6x7 frame.

Yes, a little gentle vignetting wouldn't be disastrous, I agree.


I sort of dismissed the Nikon 28 mm, since it is not as good fully shifted
as the 35 mm. It also is low distortion, but the 35 mm version is better.
Anyway, with all that viewing angle and a big piece of film, there is lots
of
room for interesting crops.


Wondered about using a miniature Speed Graphic, so I'd have a
Graflok back and a focal plane shutter all in one unit.

Several others mentioned it, though it would be bulkier, heavier, and
tougher to use hand held. The distance from lens mount to film plane
I have to work with is only 46.5 mm.

Agreed. I would be thinking of making a tripod camera, so
handholding isn't an issue for me.

In that case, forget using a shutter, and make a really simple mount to
body plate adapter.

Also, I already use mini-Graflok fitting backs on my technical camera,
so there are advantages for me in making something that uses them -
and the ability to choose between 645, 66, 67, 68 and 69 would
give me more options in terms of trying different lenses with different
circles of coverage. So we're not really trying to do the same thing,
even though it was your thoughts on the Nikon lens that got me thinking
about it.

Definitely different approaches. I was looking into a compact hand held
walk around camera. If I could afford (and justify) an ALPA 12, then I
may have never tried this approach.

Well, even though our reasons for wanting one are very different, if an Alpa
12 were cheaper I probably wouldn't be playing with this idea either. I
have a technical camera and lenses out to 38mm, so I know what wide is like
on a big(ish) piece of film, but I still really like the idea of just seeing
what I can do with the 28, since I already have it - and if it even half
works, it is a lot wider than anything (rectilinear) I have in MF currently.


I don't think the front standard would take the weight of the lens
all
cantilevered out of the front though, so I'd have to hack the body -
which is OK since I'd be using the lens' focusing mount.

Yeah, almost too much construction.

Well, not really. I am happy to use the ground glass for focusing, and
since the body is wooden anyway, all I need to do is cut it off at the
PK registration distance and make a flat front, and then make another
'box' front for the P6 distance. In fact, it becomes a universal back
to
which I can mount any lens I feel like playing with. (Not to mention a
digital back, since one for a Mamiya RB would fit...)

The only hard part then is sourcing the pink leather to cover the new
front with ;-)

Sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You think I'm kidding ;-)


Just need to find one with a working shutter but useless bellows
and front so it's cheap enough. Even if the lens only covered 6x6
it
would be seriously wide. Wonder if those FSU 35mm T&S
lenses would work too?

I think those might work better, since they are actually medium
format designs. However, the Nikkor is very good with almost no
distortion, which I hope to provide a nearly rectilinear image.

The 80mm one is basically a 6x6 standard lens, so it gives some shift
on 35mm, and the 65mm one is, I think, designed to give some shift on
6x6 so would probably cover 6x7 on this machine at least. The 35mm
(focal length) one I don't know about: that I think is designed as a T&S
lens for 35mm (format) only, but still, it might well cover at least
645.

My 45mm T&S and 55mm shift lenses for P6 are designed to give
movements on 6x6, so I'm _fairly_ sure they'll cover at least 6x7.

The Pentax 28mm shift that got me thinking about all this is very
rectilinear, like the Nikon. Which other PK lenses might have
coverage to spare I don't know, but it will be fun finding out.

There is that 30 mm fisheye lenses . . . could be a really unusual final
image. I think Bob M., or someone else, mentioned a Sigma 8 mm
fisheye covers at least 6x6, and a Sigma 15 mm might do the same.

I have one of those in P6 and it is full frame. Don't know if it would
vignette the corners on 6x7 - but if I build this beast no doubt it won't
take me long to try it and find out.


My full frame Pentax fisheye will presumably make a circular image on
6x6: I'd never build the camera just to get that effect, but if I build
it
anyway it might be useful with that lens just now and again.

Just for something unusual and different. I don't see using my project
camera that often, and with the 6x9 folder body for film transport, it is
only 8 images on each roll of film.


Come to that, wonder if my 45mm and 55mm shift lenses for 6x6
would cover 6x7 (surely) or 6x8/9 (maybe) if I made such a
body. Hmmm, it'd be easy enough to make two wooden box
fronts for it, one with a PK mount at the right distance, and
another
deeper one with P6 mount for the MF lenses.

I have a Kiev 88 / P6 to Nikon mount adapter. That was one other
possible route, for even more lens choices. The idea is a low cost
ALPA 12 concept. Shutter vignetting is the biggest issue so far.

I have a P6 to PK adapter too. However, I'm thinking that the throat
size of the 35mm format is probably going to casue vignetting if I try
to
use the P6 lenses that way, hence thinking I need a different
'lensboard'
front to try using them on the beast.

Just took a look at the adapter. I think the length of the adapter, and
change to smaller diameter at the rear, means vignetting is likely at
shorter
focal lengths. Longer telephoto lenses might be interesting, especially
the
180 mm f2.8 Olympia.

That's a 6x6 lens to start with: I have one in P6 mount and it's an absolute
stunner.


Now look what you've gone and got me doing...

Peter
(Wondering how much all this has to do with Nikon's new F6!)

I recently got an Ilex #3, though it seems I might only be able to do
645, or 6x6 with that. Unless I want to machine down the shutter, I
am not yet sure if it will be the best solution. The size is not too
large,
and going to an Ilex #4, or Ilex #5 would be a big step in size and
weight. Shutter thickness is another issue.

I found a Sinar behind the lens shutter for about $25, but it might be
way too large overall. That would work with a fabricated mount, but
even more complexity with that fabrication.

Oh . . . and to stay on topic of this thread, a Nikon F6 costs too
much to hack for other lenses.


Someone, somewhere, will want to put their Leica R or Contax Zeiss
glass on one...

No worse than someone putting that little pancake 45 mm onto an F5 . . .

I do sometimes put the Pentax 40mm pancake on an MX, can't recall inflicting
the indignity on an LX though.


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I actually though about putting a shutter speed indicator on the GT, but
getting some useful indication into the viewfinder would take lots of
work.

That would be a big job indeed, but if you cracked it I bet you could make
some good money doing it for other people.

The problem is that these cameras go for very low money, often to people not
interested in spending much. Make an accessory item for a Leica, and get enough
customers to make a profit. Make an accessory item for an old fixed lens
rangefinder, and maybe a couple people might want that.

I figured out an internal viewfinder modification to greatly improve
rangefinder patch brightness and contrast in the Yashica. It is easy enough for
me to repeat this, though I doubt more than a few people would even want that
modification.

. . . . . . . . . .

I had a shoot-out style challenge from the other LX using professional I
know. I used my Sekonic L-358, some experience, and my Nikon FM.
Under highly variable changing lighting, there was almost no technical
difference from his images compared to mine. Of course, I think the
lesson here is that there is much more room for variation in longer night
exposures, or nightclub type of images, than in daylight. I think an LX
would be faster to react under brighter conditions, and my mostly manual
method slower and more prone to mistakes.

I use the LXs mostly in manual with a Sekonic L608 anyway, largely because I
shoot mostly landscapes with them and want to spot meter. The auto system
is very good though, and when I do use it, I'm always pleased with how well
it works.

Once someone gets a nice modern Sekonic meter, it is tough to trust any in
camera meter. Of course, if one looks at the Rollei 6008i with seven different
meters built into the body, how could anyone just use it in manual settings . .
.. just have to try and use that all that stuff.






[SNIP]


I use to do rangefinder shooting with a Leica M3, though it
unfortunately broke, can now costs more to repair than I paid for it
(just over a decade ago). I noticed Voigtländer just came out with a
Bessa-R3 . . . actually two versions with different viewfinders. Since
it is also an aperture priority camera, that might be a choice. The
new
price is near the price of a used M4-2. My main choice still looks
like an Xpan, though I am still not entirely sure. If I go the Xpan
route, I would likely sell off the Yashica GTs.

I hadn't seen the R3, sounds interesting.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/ All in Japanese, but nice images.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm Similar images, but
some english explanations.

Thanks - that really does look _very_ nice.

I wish they would have a rear view to show the viewfinder differences, though
these do seem quite nice. They would still be tough to use with a Noctilux, or
75 mm f1.4, and maybe the 90 mm f2.0, though with the possible exception of the
90 mm lens, those are expensive enough that if someone could afford those
lenses, they likely already have a Leica M rangefinder body.




But still, I'd never use it enough to justify one, attractive as that
12mm
might be... Actually, I wish they'd do the 12mm in PK mount. It is
made in Nikon mount, and of course has to be used with MLU, but
would work fine on the MLU Pentaxes too - like my LXs.

That is easy, a Nikon to Pentax mount adapter would solve that. I think
the 15 mm is a bit nicer, since there is much less distortion.

Eeek! Don't tempt me!

Oh . . . come on now . . . those adapter are cheap on EBAY! It is soooooo easy
to do that! ;-)

I have a Pentax 15mm, so can't imagine buying the CV
one, but that 12 would have a lot of entertainment value. Whether it would
pay for itself is another question entirely, of course.

I rarely use wider than a 24 mm, though my project camera might exceed that by
a bit. I actually like the 21 mm Voigtländer the best of the sample images I
have seen. There are a few skateboarder types doing photos for some of the
magazines using the ultra wides, like 12 mm and 15 mm. Outside of those uses,
not sure how a composition would work . . . maybe some unusual stage stuff for
musicians . . . jumping off amps, that sort of thing (anyone do that any more,
or do these just stand there and look at their shoes when they play) . . . . .



I imagine taking the prism off an LX and putting on one of the caps designed
to protect the screen when the finder is removed, with a shoe fixed to this
cap to take the 12mm viewfinder - just because it would be so much fun
seeing people wonder what the heck it was...

Of course, the used price, or new price, of a Bessa-L with a 12 mm is really
close. Considering that guessing focus is good enough, the lighter and smaller
Bessa-L could be dedicated to a 12 mm just as easily.



(Of course, if the 12mm didn't obstruct the light path to the meter cell it
would make more sense to leave a prism on just so one could see the meter
readout, I suppose.)

I think that is an issue with some of the Nikon bodies as well. Might need more
investigation to figure that out.




I love my X-Pan, but remember how slow the glass is...

I don't remember if you saw the discussion and item, but there was a
Nikon to XPan mount sold on EBAY not long ago. It looked like some
sort of home built item, did not allow rangefinder coupling, but seemed
easy enough to copy.

I did, but thought it went for way too much money.

I agree. While it is the only one I have ever seen, it would be cheaper to have
a custom one made at a machine shop.

I suppose if I wanted to
try something like that I'd get a lens mount off an extension tube, but the
X-Pan body mount would be the hard part: lot of work to machine one, with
tools I don't have.

I have machine shop access on a small level. The only thing I am not that good
with is cutting threads, so I would outsource any need like that. That part of
my current project might go that direction.

I suppose an experimental one could be knocked up with
an X-Pan body cap: they're only plastic, but pretty tough.

Old Nikon extension tubes, or wrecked bodies, are low cost items on EBAY. A
similar cut up and JBWeld might be good enough for a mock-up. Check your local
machine shop prices to find out construction costs. I have downloaded some
photos from that auction for reference.

I still want to get an XPan, so I might be interested in making an adapter.
Hopefully, my mom might get one for me for Xmas, but I am not so sure. Anyway,
just got some good work in, so at the end of that I might have enough profits
to justify getting a used XPan. I might have more questions for you in the near
future.



. . . . . . . . . . . .

"Hey, man, like, without the fans we're nuffin..."

Sometimes I tell these bands, artists and musicians are similar in that
they
can be stuck up assholes, though the big difference is that musicians have
groupies. ;-)

LOL! I'll remember that.

Actually, I sort of had a groupie once. It probably helped that the first
time I met her I was wearing black jeans, a grey turtle neck, and a black
leather jacket and so looked just like a photographer is 'supposed' to look.

You mean, like when Mike Myers on the SNL re-runs dresses up to do Sprockets .
.. . now we dance!


She grew out of it within the year, but still shows up sometimes and
introduces me to her friends as "this is Peter [dramatic pause, silky voice]
he's a photographer" and then wonders why they never seem half so impressed
as she was.

Last night, this friend of mine explained his job using very technical
terminology. The girl had a very confused look on her face. When she asked me
what I did, I told her I worked with silver halide sensitization . . . another
confused look, so I told her I was a photographer . . . she smiled . . .
anyway, I never thought of what I do as being glamorous, especially when I do
the lower cost jobs to pay the bills.


. . . . . . .

Okay, so maybe not technically perfect, but it sounds like it could
provide a unique view. Recall that in some wide images, a slight change in
the corners can help anchor the shot a bit, and provide some visual
stability. It can also concentrate viewer emphasis into the main area of
the
image. I just would avoid having too much really interesting at the edges
of a 6x7 frame.

Yes, a little gentle vignetting wouldn't be disastrous, I agree.


I sort of dismissed the Nikon 28 mm, since it is not as good fully shifted
as the 35 mm. It also is low distortion, but the 35 mm version is better.
Anyway, with all that viewing angle and a big piece of film, there is lots
of
room for interesting crops.


Wondered about using a miniature Speed Graphic, so I'd have a
Graflok back and a focal plane shutter all in one unit.

Several others mentioned it, though it would be bulkier, heavier, and
tougher to use hand held. The distance from lens mount to film plane
I have to work with is only 46.5 mm.

Agreed. I would be thinking of making a tripod camera, so
handholding isn't an issue for me.

In that case, forget using a shutter, and make a really simple mount to
body plate adapter.

Also, I already use mini-Graflok fitting backs on my technical camera,
so there are advantages for me in making something that uses them -
and the ability to choose between 645, 66, 67, 68 and 69 would
give me more options in terms of trying different lenses with different
circles of coverage. So we're not really trying to do the same thing,
even though it was your thoughts on the Nikon lens that got me thinking
about it.

Definitely different approaches. I was looking into a compact hand held
walk around camera. If I could afford (and justify) an ALPA 12, then I
may have never tried this approach.

Well, even though our reasons for wanting one are very different, if an Alpa
12 were cheaper I probably wouldn't be playing with this idea either. I
have a technical camera and lenses out to 38mm, so I know what wide is like
on a big(ish) piece of film, but I still really like the idea of just seeing
what I can do with the 28, since I already have it - and if it even half
works, it is a lot wider than anything (rectilinear) I have in MF currently.

Reasonable direction. If you are interested in the drawings I have worked out
in Adobe Illustrator, let me know. There are some sample images as reduced size
JPEGs at:

http://www.allgstudio.com/support_files/ two files called "PC-Nikkor" showing
basic layout.



. . . . . . . . . . .

The only hard part then is sourcing the pink leather to cover the new
front with ;-)

Sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You think I'm kidding ;-)


Just need to find one with a working shutter but useless bellows
and front so it's cheap enough. Even if the lens only covered 6x6
it
would be seriously wide. Wonder if those FSU 35mm T&S
lenses would work too?

I think those might work better, since they are actually medium
format designs. However, the Nikkor is very good with almost no
distortion, which I hope to provide a nearly rectilinear image.

The 80mm one is basically a 6x6 standard lens, so it gives some shift
on 35mm, and the 65mm one is, I think, designed to give some shift on
6x6 so would probably cover 6x7 on this machine at least. The 35mm
(focal length) one I don't know about: that I think is designed as a T&S
lens for 35mm (format) only, but still, it might well cover at least
645.

My 45mm T&S and 55mm shift lenses for P6 are designed to give
movements on 6x6, so I'm _fairly_ sure they'll cover at least 6x7.

The Pentax 28mm shift that got me thinking about all this is very
rectilinear, like the Nikon. Which other PK lenses might have
coverage to spare I don't know, but it will be fun finding out.

There is that 30 mm fisheye lenses . . . could be a really unusual final
image. I think Bob M., or someone else, mentioned a Sigma 8 mm
fisheye covers at least 6x6, and a Sigma 15 mm might do the same.

I have one of those in P6 and it is full frame. Don't know if it would
vignette the corners on 6x7 - but if I build this beast no doubt it won't
take me long to try it and find out.


Definitely a better solution would involve an RB67 back. Of course, that makes
the entire camera bulkier, though not too bad on a tripod. My hand held design
attempt would not be much larger or heavier than a 35 mm film camera, but much
larger film size. If it does work really well, a more modern design might be a
next step.

I have the Kiev 88 to Nikon adapter, but I am not sure what I want to do with
that yet. Vignetting by the shutter on the project camera would be an even
worse problem. I have tried some drawing manipulation to see how a larger
shutter than the Ilex #3 would fit, though it is tough to tell if using
something larger hand held would be tougher, or not ergonomic. Also, the even
larger shutters are not very fast on highest top speed, often only 1/50 second.

. . . . . . . . . .

Just took a look at the adapter. I think the length of the adapter, and
change to smaller diameter at the rear, means vignetting is likely at
shorter
focal lengths. Longer telephoto lenses might be interesting, especially
the
180 mm f2.8 Olympia.

That's a 6x6 lens to start with: I have one in P6 mount and it's an absolute
stunner.

Someone gave me a link that led to a nice formula to figure out the shutter
radius needed to avoid vignetting. I still am not sure if it is a good way to
do this, since the formula indicates an Ilex #3 would work with the PC-Nikkor
35 mm shift lens, though my informal test rig does not indicate the same
results. Anyway, for the larger rear element, and the rear element being even
further from the film plane, a larger diameter shutter is needed. Thus the
Olympia might work, but the shutter might clip the corners.



. . . . . . . . . . .

Someone, somewhere, will want to put their Leica R or Contax Zeiss
glass on one...

No worse than someone putting that little pancake 45 mm onto an F5 . . .

I do sometimes put the Pentax 40mm pancake on an MX, can't recall inflicting
the indignity on an LX though.

Peter

I just don't like the mini pancake lenses. They do not have enough gripping
area for ease of manual focus with my large hands. While there are some great
optical examples of pancake lenses, I have used very few due to the small
ergonomics.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I actually though about putting a shutter speed indicator on the
GT, but getting some useful indication into the viewfinder would
take lots of work.

That would be a big job indeed, but if you cracked it I bet you
could make some good money doing it for other people.

The problem is that these cameras go for very low money, often to
people not interested in spending much. Make an accessory item for a
Leica, and get enough customers to make a profit. Make an
accessory item for an old fixed lens rangefinder, and maybe a couple
people might want that.

Maybe, there's a bit of a Yashica cult, of course, but then I suppose it is
in large part driven by the low cost.


I figured out an internal viewfinder modification to greatly improve
rangefinder patch brightness and contrast in the Yashica. It is easy
enough for me to repeat this, though I doubt more than a few people
would even want that modification.

If it works for the CC and GX, I might want some details though... ;-)

[SNIP]

I hadn't seen the R3, sounds interesting.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/ All in Japanese, but nice images.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm Similar images,
but some english explanations.

Thanks - that really does look _very_ nice.

I wish they would have a rear view to show the viewfinder
differences, though these do seem quite nice. They would still be
tough to use with a Noctilux, or 75 mm f1.4, and maybe the 90 mm
f2.0, though with the possible exception of the 90 mm lens, those are
expensive enough that if someone could afford those lenses, they
likely already have a Leica M rangefinder body.




But still, I'd never use it enough to justify one, attractive as
that 12mm might be... Actually, I wish they'd do the 12mm in PK
mount. It is made in Nikon mount, and of course has to be
used with MLU, but would work fine on the MLU Pentaxes
too - like my LXs.

That is easy, a Nikon to Pentax mount adapter would solve that.
I think the 15 mm is a bit nicer, since there is much less distortion.

Eeek! Don't tempt me!

Oh . . . come on now . . . those adapter are cheap on EBAY! It is
soooooo easy to do that! ;-)

Hmmm - it's the cost of the lens, not the adapter, that troubles me. The
38mm Super Angulon XL still hasn't earned enough to pay for itself yet, and
the 12mm, even at half the cost, would surely take _much_ longer to pay for
itself.


I have a Pentax 15mm, so can't imagine buying the CV one, but that 12
would have a lot of entertainment value. Whether it would pay for
itself
is another question entirely, of course.

I rarely use wider than a 24 mm, though my project camera might exceed
that by a bit. I actually like the 21 mm Voigtländer the best of the
sample
images I have seen. There are a few skateboarder types doing photos for
some of the magazines using the ultra wides, like 12 mm and 15 mm.
Outside of those uses, not sure how a composition would work . . .
maybe some unusual stage stuff for musicians . . . jumping off amps, that
sort of thing (anyone do that any more, or do these just stand there and
look at their shoes when they play) . . .

Some landscape and city architecture I think can use the extreme
perspective, just for the juxtaposition of near and far - but it is an easy
effect to overdo.

The last musician I saw jump off an amp. (a speaker stack, actually) was
Francis Rossi. These young whippersnappers still can't keep up with those
old guys...

[SNIP]

I still want to get an XPan, so I might be interested in making an
adapter.
Hopefully, my mom might get one for me for Xmas, but I am not so sure.

Lucky you...

Anyway, just got some good work in, so at the end of that I might have
enough profits to justify getting a used XPan. I might have more questions
for you in the near future.

Any time!


"Hey, man, like, without the fans we're nuffin..."

Sometimes I tell these bands, artists and musicians are similar in
that they can be stuck up assholes, though the big difference is that
musicians have groupies. ;-)

LOL! I'll remember that.

Actually, I sort of had a groupie once. It probably helped that the
first time I met her I was wearing black jeans, a grey turtle neck, and
a
black leather jacket and so looked just like a photographer is
'supposed' to look.

You mean, like when Mike Myers on the SNL re-runs dresses up to do
Sprockets . . . . now we dance!

Errr - I've no idea what you're talking about...



She grew out of it within the year, but still shows up sometimes and
introduces me to her friends as "this is Peter [dramatic pause, silky
voice] he's a photographer" and then wonders why they never seem
half so impressed as she was.

Last night, this friend of mine explained his job using very technical
terminology. The girl had a very confused look on her face. When she
asked me what I did, I told her I worked with silver halide sensitization
.. .
. another confused look, so I told her I was a photographer . . . she
smiled . . . anyway, I never thought of what I do as being glamorous,
especially when I do the lower cost jobs to pay the bills.

No, I don't think it's particularly glamorous either, but I guess the
fashion end of it has that reputation.

The low cost jobs pay the bills... interesting. For me it's mostly the
other way round: the stuff I like doing ('art') pays less well, and the
bread and butter gets bolstered by better paying jobs that are less
interesting (studio stuff, interiors).

[SNIP]

Also, I already use mini-Graflok fitting backs on my technical
camera, so there are advantages for me in making something that
uses them - and the ability to choose between 645, 66, 67, 68 and
69 would give me more options in terms of trying different lenses
with different circles of coverage. So we're not really trying to
do
the same thing, even though it was your thoughts on the Nikon lens
that got me thinking about it.

Definitely different approaches. I was looking into a compact hand
held walk around camera. If I could afford (and justify) an ALPA
12, then I may have never tried this approach.

Well, even though our reasons for wanting one are very different, if an
Alpa 12 were cheaper I probably wouldn't be playing with this idea
either. I have a technical camera and lenses out to 38mm, so I know
what wide is like on a big(ish) piece of film, but I still really like
the idea
of just seeing what I can do with the 28, since I already have it - and
if
it even half works, it is a lot wider than anything (rectilinear) I have
in
MF currently.

Reasonable direction. If you are interested in the drawings I have worked
out in Adobe Illustrator, let me know. There are some sample images as
reduced size JPEGs at:

http://www.allgstudio.com/support_files/ two files called "PC-Nikkor"
showing basic layout.

Thanks - I'll have a look at those and maybe get back to you.

[SNIP]

Definitely a better solution would involve an RB67 back. Of course, that
makes the entire camera bulkier, though not too bad on a tripod. My
hand held design attempt would not be much larger or heavier than a 35
mm film camera, but much larger film size. If it does work really well, a
more modern design might be a next step.

The RB backs will fit the Grafic I was thinking of using - but certainly
that is bulkier than your folder idea.


I have the Kiev 88 to Nikon adapter, but I am not sure what I want to do
with that yet. Vignetting by the shutter on the project camera would be an
even worse problem. I have tried some drawing manipulation to see how
a larger shutter than the Ilex #3 would fit, though it is tough to tell if
using
something larger hand held would be tougher, or not ergonomic. Also,
the even larger shutters are not very fast on highest top speed, often
only
1/50 second.

That top speed does sound limiting. Would it be impossible to make the body
such that you could swap between a couple of different shutters? Accepted
that without a darkslide you couldn't do it mid-roll, but at 8 shots to the
roll, if you are going 6x9, that isn't much of a problem.

[SNIP]

Someone, somewhere, will want to put their Leica R or Contax
Zeiss glass on one...

No worse than someone putting that little pancake 45 mm onto an
F5 . .
..

I do sometimes put the Pentax 40mm pancake on an MX, can't recall
inflicting the indignity on an LX though.

Peter

I just don't like the mini pancake lenses. They do not have enough
gripping area for ease of manual focus with my large hands. While there
are some great optical examples of pancake lenses, I have used very few
due to the small ergonomics.


I quite like that little Pentax one, and don't find it _too_ hard to
handle, but I agree, the species as a whole can be more fiddly than it's
worth. The Pentax 40mm on an MX makes for a very compact outfit that easily
slides into a coat pocket.


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I actually though about putting a shutter speed indicator on the
GT, but getting some useful indication into the viewfinder would
take lots of work.

That would be a big job indeed, but if you cracked it I bet you
could make some good money doing it for other people.

The problem is that these cameras go for very low money, often to
people not interested in spending much. Make an accessory item for a
Leica, and get enough customers to make a profit. Make an
accessory item for an old fixed lens rangefinder, and maybe a couple
people might want that.

Maybe, there's a bit of a Yashica cult, of course, but then I suppose it is
in large part driven by the low cost.


I wonder if Mark Hama really gets that much work. Just cleaning a GT takes some
time, and the already low cost places limits on profits for that time.



I figured out an internal viewfinder modification to greatly improve
rangefinder patch brightness and contrast in the Yashica. It is easy
enough for me to repeat this, though I doubt more than a few people
would even want that modification.

If it works for the CC and GX, I might want some details though... ;-)

I don't know how similar the rangefinder mechanism is on those, compared to the
GT. The earlier Professional, and later GTN (GSN) are very similar. If I had
some images of the insides, it would be easier to tell. Just cleaning the
rangefinder optics makes a big difference.

. . . . . . . . . .

But still, I'd never use it enough to justify one, attractive as
that 12mm might be... Actually, I wish they'd do the 12mm in PK
mount. It is made in Nikon mount, and of course has to be
used with MLU, but would work fine on the MLU Pentaxes
too - like my LXs.

That is easy, a Nikon to Pentax mount adapter would solve that.
I think the 15 mm is a bit nicer, since there is much less distortion.

Eeek! Don't tempt me!

Oh . . . come on now . . . those adapter are cheap on EBAY! It is
soooooo easy to do that! ;-)

Hmmm - it's the cost of the lens, not the adapter, that troubles me. The
38mm Super Angulon XL still hasn't earned enough to pay for itself yet, and
the 12mm, even at half the cost, would surely take _much_ longer to pay for
itself.

I make the same judgements when buying equipment. The more expensive items take
longer to generate profits, though that is balanced against the ability to
expand offerings in my imaging capabilities. With the Xpan consideration, I
recently started discussions with a company that wants panorama images, though
I am not sure how far that will go, and they do not seem to be in any hurry to
ask for a formal proposal . . . we shall see.




I have a Pentax 15mm, so can't imagine buying the CV one, but that 12
would have a lot of entertainment value. Whether it would pay for
itself
is another question entirely, of course.

I rarely use wider than a 24 mm, though my project camera might exceed
that by a bit. I actually like the 21 mm Voigtländer the best of the
sample
images I have seen. There are a few skateboarder types doing photos for
some of the magazines using the ultra wides, like 12 mm and 15 mm.
Outside of those uses, not sure how a composition would work . . .
maybe some unusual stage stuff for musicians . . . jumping off amps, that
sort of thing (anyone do that any more, or do these just stand there and
look at their shoes when they play) . . .

Some landscape and city architecture I think can use the extreme
perspective, just for the juxtaposition of near and far - but it is an easy
effect to overdo.

When it looks too much like a gimmick, like many images when the Voigtländer 15
mm first hit the market, then the use is lost on the fad. I think it is tougher
to use super wide, than super telephoto, and probably why we see so few good
images from super wide lenses.



The last musician I saw jump off an amp. (a speaker stack, actually) was
Francis Rossi. These young whippersnappers still can't keep up with those
old guys...

Amazing how some with musical and entertainment talent can be so boring in real
life, or at interviews. The music world could use some more personalities.



[SNIP]

I still want to get an XPan, so I might be interested in making an
adapter.
Hopefully, my mom might get one for me for Xmas, but I am not so sure.

Lucky you...

Well . . . don't call me lucky unless I get one. At this point, I would be
happy with a nice meal and a lens cap. :-)



Anyway, just got some good work in, so at the end of that I might have
enough profits to justify getting a used XPan. I might have more questions
for you in the near future.

Any time!


"Hey, man, like, without the fans we're nuffin..."

Sometimes I tell these bands, artists and musicians are similar in
that they can be stuck up assholes, though the big difference is that
musicians have groupies. ;-)

LOL! I'll remember that.

Actually, I sort of had a groupie once. It probably helped that the
first time I met her I was wearing black jeans, a grey turtle neck, and
a
black leather jacket and so looked just like a photographer is
'supposed' to look.

You mean, like when Mike Myers on the SNL re-runs dresses up to do
Sprockets . . . . now we dance!

Errr - I've no idea what you're talking about...

http://www.gawth.com/~desolate/sprockets.html Just a short look into that
character . . . . .





She grew out of it within the year, but still shows up sometimes and
introduces me to her friends as "this is Peter [dramatic pause, silky
voice] he's a photographer" and then wonders why they never seem
half so impressed as she was.

Last night, this friend of mine explained his job using very technical
terminology. The girl had a very confused look on her face. When she
asked me what I did, I told her I worked with silver halide sensitization
. .
. another confused look, so I told her I was a photographer . . . she
smiled . . . anyway, I never thought of what I do as being glamorous,
especially when I do the lower cost jobs to pay the bills.

No, I don't think it's particularly glamorous either, but I guess the
fashion end of it has that reputation.

rant Blame that on the movies . . . people might think all those guys do is
hold down the shutter button to let the motor drive crank away . . . meanwhile,
the actor playing the photographer does not wait for any of the strobes to
reset, and just lets them stay on the modelling lights . . . you would think
movie people could at least get it right portraying photographers . . . /rant



The low cost jobs pay the bills... interesting. For me it's mostly the
other way round: the stuff I like doing ('art') pays less well, and the
bread and butter gets bolstered by better paying jobs that are less
interesting (studio stuff, interiors).

I was doing architectural interiors for quite a while, and it paid fairly well.
I also enjoyed doing that sort of work. The lower pay mostly refers to clients
on the fringe of needing a photographer, and there are many of those in San
Diego (unfortunately). I am not getting enough high paying jobs at the moment
to refuse doing lower paying work. What I would rather do is get more into
editorial (magazine) and advertising imagery, with perhaps more automotive
imagery thrown into the mix. Of course, that is an ongoing endeavour that takes
many contacts, and lots of effort.

The fine art end is enjoyable, and keeps me creative. That part barely pays for
itself, though it gets my name out more. Also, I need an exhibit history to get
into a Master's Degree program.



. . . . . . . . . . . .

Reasonable direction. If you are interested in the drawings I have worked
out in Adobe Illustrator, let me know. There are some sample images as
reduced size JPEGs at:

http://www.allgstudio.com/support_files/ two files called "PC-Nikkor"
showing basic layout.

Thanks - I'll have a look at those and maybe get back to you.


The EPS versions of these, including one side view not posted, have been
updated further. I have versions with mock-ups of a couple Ilex shutters, on
different layers to enable moving the parts around.


[SNIP]

Definitely a better solution would involve an RB67 back. Of course, that
makes the entire camera bulkier, though not too bad on a tripod. My
hand held design attempt would not be much larger or heavier than a 35
mm film camera, but much larger film size. If it does work really well, a
more modern design might be a next step.

The RB backs will fit the Grafic I was thinking of using - but certainly
that is bulkier than your folder idea.

The ALPA 12 sometimes uses an RB/RZ back, so I think an idea that included a
hand grip (or two) might work okay. Getting the balance right would be tough.




I have the Kiev 88 to Nikon adapter, but I am not sure what I want to do
with that yet. Vignetting by the shutter on the project camera would be an
even worse problem. I have tried some drawing manipulation to see how
a larger shutter than the Ilex #3 would fit, though it is tough to tell if
using
something larger hand held would be tougher, or not ergonomic. Also,
the even larger shutters are not very fast on highest top speed, often
only
1/50 second.

That top speed does sound limiting. Would it be impossible to make the body
such that you could swap between a couple of different shutters?

That is why I am trying to figure out how to get the Ilex #3 to work. Many of
those are 1/100, though some are 1/200, both of which are much more usable. I
am exploring the idea of actually modifying the Ilex #3 shutter, though at that
point it could only be used for the project camera, and never returned to
normal service. A Copal #3 would be a better choice, but substantially more
expensive.

I don't think 1/50 is too limiting. This would be for a 35 mm shift lens, which
works out to better than 21 mm (35 mm film comparison) equivalent on larger
film (6x7 or 6x9). If you also consider that there is no mirror, it will be a
bit heavy, and the shutter does not cause camera movement, then really slow
shutter speeds hand held should not be a problem.

Accepted
that without a darkslide you couldn't do it mid-roll, but at 8 shots to the
roll, if you are going 6x9, that isn't much of a problem.

That was sort of the idea. On the folder, it would be possible to leave the
door opening mechanism working, allowing for shutter changing, or some other
alterations. A darkslide would be another idea to consider, though I think the
shutter blocks light very nicely, so lens changes should not need a darkslide.

. . . . . . . . .

I just don't like the mini pancake lenses. They do not have enough
gripping area for ease of manual focus with my large hands. While there
are some great optical examples of pancake lenses, I have used very few
due to the small ergonomics.


I quite like that little Pentax one, and don't find it _too_ hard to
handle, but I agree, the species as a whole can be more fiddly than it's
worth. The Pentax 40mm on an MX makes for a very compact outfit that easily
slides into a coat pocket.

Peter

I have carried the Nikon FM in a coat pocket, and a Polaroid SX70, though it
was a large coat. The folder cameras also fit nicely into a coat pocket, though
my project camera would not.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[SNIP]
My large format is an ancient 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back.
Bellows aren't interchangeable so it can't be used with anything
wider than a 90mm. You can see why I can imagine a need to
hire 4x5 sometimes! Still, I might buy a cheap used one, since it
will equal only a few hires and be more convenient. Mostly if I
need movements I stay with MF and use my 6x9 technical
camera (or one of the two shift lenses I have for 6x6). I've just
bought a used 6x9 Arca-Swiss monorail with a bag bellows
which will give me much more extreme movements. The
technical camera will still travel with me for landscapes, but I
found I couldn't get enough shift with wider lenses on it for
buildings. This was already an issue with my 47mm, and when I
added the 38mm I knew I needed to look for something more
flexible - pun intended - to use it on.

I was looking into the Horseman 6x9 technical cameras, which
seem to offer an interesting used alternative. Even architecture
does not often require extreme movements, and a roll film camera
would work very well. The new Toyo 45CF is another choice,
mostly because it is very light and sturdy. Set-up is definitely
slower than a Sinar, but large format architecture photography is
rarely about being fast.

I would think the Horseman would have enough movements. My technical camera
is a (much) modified Century Graphic - which is light and compact and very
good for landscape where I might want a bit of front rise or fall and some
front tilt, but the fixed bellows and limited rise when using very short
lenses really mean it is a 'field camera plus' rather than being the equal
of a Horseman or a Master Technika. The 6x9 Arca monorail I got for
architecture but will also use it for some studio work, where I would
sometimes like more extreme swings and tilts than I could produce before
(except with my 5x7, but that just isn't a practical beast, and I may sell
it.)

Horseman make a nice 4x5 technical camera, but it is so new to be really
expensive, and rare on the used market. The Shen Ho, Toyo, and Toho low priced
technical cameras are all very capable. While not as quick to set-up as a
Sinar, or Arca Swiss, they are good values for low cost.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Gelling the lights is another issue, and I have a few models lined up
to try and experiment a bit. Of course, the experiments need to
wait on getting paying jobs completed, so I don't know when I will
try this out. A photographer named Martin Trailer introduced me
to the variable gels and filter on lens technique at a lecture we had
in college (1998). I still have the notes, but have yet to try some of
the things he did. He was big on getting effects done in camera, a
route I hope to continue.

I think I remember the theory of the technique, but I never tried it - maybe
not really all that relevant for my sorts of subjects.

One part is that you can use a contrasting colour on each, which can balance
skin tones, but changes the background colour. Another simpler solution is to
be slightly off the contrasting colour, and cause a colour shift. The easiest
area to experiment is white walls, or concrete areas. This also works better
with an off camera light, since the idea is to alter the background (mostly).
Definitely takes some experimenting to make it work effectively.

I agree about
getting as much as possible done in camera, rather than in post-exposure
processing.

It makes it easier in post, which saves time. That is largely the complaint I
have with direct digital, in that it almost always requires work in post to
prepare for press output.



[SNIP]
Incidentally, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, by way of
contrast with the Biogon, has a 120 degree circle - enough
for 6x12. Obviously it doesn't have quite the Biogon's
legendary performance, but it's certainly no slouch...

Though a much larger lens. It is a different direction, but the
focusing mount is expensive.

True, I hadn't hought about that since I use it on cameras with
bellows - if I was trying to put it on a project camera I might still
think about building a short bellows mount or a helix rather than
buy the focusing mount.

Calibration of focus distance is one issue. You could use a ground
glass, but when doing hand held shots, that method is sort of a
guess. It would also require a removable back, which means a
larger and heavier camera.

yep - I will have a ground glass if I go the Miniature Speed Graphic route
for this beast, and the lenses I'm thinking of using have focus mounts so
all i have to do is get the initial registration distance(s) right and I can
use their focusing scales. If I were to make a focusing mount though, it
would just be a matter of using the ground glass to calibrate it, and then
inscribe a set of useful distance markings.

It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I was
looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from folder bodies,
though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I stumble upon a cheap focus
mount, I still might give it a try.


. . . . . . . . . . . . .


I sort of thought of that from the beginning. It would be nicer to
have an RB67 back. The folder body is stamped and formed
metal, which is very compact and light. While the folder body is a
nice solution for hand held use, it is also slightly limited for more
flexible usage. If the folder works well enough, that can give me
feedback on creating a dedicated and more modern version. Also,
if the 6x9, or 6x7, is too large an area to give good enough results,
then I would to a smaller format, either panorama type, or 645.
So the first is mostly an experiment, but it might work well enough
to be the only needed solution.

Starting with an RB67 back, metal block construction, and all the
shutter and lens mounting, adds a large amount of complexity, and
time. That would be a bad way to start, because it might not get
done. I have seen many project cameras made from folder bodies,
so they are a good starting point. Costs are also lower with folder
bodies, much below even RB67 back prices. The only other
consideration was using Polaroid Automatic pack film cameras,
which might still happen.

Hmmm - the 'don't make it so complex that the prototype never gets built
idea makes a lot of sense to me. I know I can suffer from that syndrome!

The idea is that if you get into a tough technical hurdle, you might not make
it across.



Yesterday you and I were talking about photo groupies and our not believing
that what we do is particularly glamorous. Coincidentally, today I got an
email from a friend who's invited me to a birthday party she's having at a
nightclub in Brighton which included the following paragraph:

QUOTE

Carly is really exited about meeting a real professional photographer, she
doesn't get out much! She is so sweet and naive. She believes anything you
tell her, it's very refreshing. I'm sure you will have a very willing model
all night long, just don't get her drunk and make her take her clothes off!!
She would if asked, she got her pierced nipple out last time we went
clubbing 'cause some guy didn't believe that she has it pierced, and she
fell for it.

UNQUOTE

Well - whadya know. I've seen Carly's picture and she looks just like
everyone's idea of a groupie - right to the long blonde hair. I also know
her by reputation, and she's definitely not my type, but still, it is sort
of funny, and the timing of this email coming right after our writing about
the wild and exciting rock and roll lifestlyes we don't live...

Peter

Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that myth every once
in a while. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[SNIP]
My large format is an ancient 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back.
Bellows aren't interchangeable so it can't be used with anything
wider than a 90mm. You can see why I can imagine a need to
hire 4x5 sometimes! Still, I might buy a cheap used one, since it
will equal only a few hires and be more convenient. Mostly if I
need movements I stay with MF and use my 6x9 technical
camera (or one of the two shift lenses I have for 6x6). I've just
bought a used 6x9 Arca-Swiss monorail with a bag bellows
which will give me much more extreme movements. The
technical camera will still travel with me for landscapes, but I
found I couldn't get enough shift with wider lenses on it for
buildings. This was already an issue with my 47mm, and when I
added the 38mm I knew I needed to look for something more
flexible - pun intended - to use it on.

I was looking into the Horseman 6x9 technical cameras, which
seem to offer an interesting used alternative. Even architecture
does not often require extreme movements, and a roll film camera
would work very well. The new Toyo 45CF is another choice,
mostly because it is very light and sturdy. Set-up is definitely
slower than a Sinar, but large format architecture photography is
rarely about being fast.

I would think the Horseman would have enough movements. My technical camera
is a (much) modified Century Graphic - which is light and compact and very
good for landscape where I might want a bit of front rise or fall and some
front tilt, but the fixed bellows and limited rise when using very short
lenses really mean it is a 'field camera plus' rather than being the equal
of a Horseman or a Master Technika. The 6x9 Arca monorail I got for
architecture but will also use it for some studio work, where I would
sometimes like more extreme swings and tilts than I could produce before
(except with my 5x7, but that just isn't a practical beast, and I may sell
it.)

Horseman make a nice 4x5 technical camera, but it is so new to be really
expensive, and rare on the used market. The Shen Ho, Toyo, and Toho low priced
technical cameras are all very capable. While not as quick to set-up as a
Sinar, or Arca Swiss, they are good values for low cost.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Gelling the lights is another issue, and I have a few models lined up
to try and experiment a bit. Of course, the experiments need to
wait on getting paying jobs completed, so I don't know when I will
try this out. A photographer named Martin Trailer introduced me
to the variable gels and filter on lens technique at a lecture we had
in college (1998). I still have the notes, but have yet to try some of
the things he did. He was big on getting effects done in camera, a
route I hope to continue.

I think I remember the theory of the technique, but I never tried it - maybe
not really all that relevant for my sorts of subjects.

One part is that you can use a contrasting colour on each, which can balance
skin tones, but changes the background colour. Another simpler solution is to
be slightly off the contrasting colour, and cause a colour shift. The easiest
area to experiment is white walls, or concrete areas. This also works better
with an off camera light, since the idea is to alter the background (mostly).
Definitely takes some experimenting to make it work effectively.

I agree about
getting as much as possible done in camera, rather than in post-exposure
processing.

It makes it easier in post, which saves time. That is largely the complaint I
have with direct digital, in that it almost always requires work in post to
prepare for press output.



[SNIP]
Incidentally, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, by way of
contrast with the Biogon, has a 120 degree circle - enough
for 6x12. Obviously it doesn't have quite the Biogon's
legendary performance, but it's certainly no slouch...

Though a much larger lens. It is a different direction, but the
focusing mount is expensive.

True, I hadn't hought about that since I use it on cameras with
bellows - if I was trying to put it on a project camera I might still
think about building a short bellows mount or a helix rather than
buy the focusing mount.

Calibration of focus distance is one issue. You could use a ground
glass, but when doing hand held shots, that method is sort of a
guess. It would also require a removable back, which means a
larger and heavier camera.

yep - I will have a ground glass if I go the Miniature Speed Graphic route
for this beast, and the lenses I'm thinking of using have focus mounts so
all i have to do is get the initial registration distance(s) right and I can
use their focusing scales. If I were to make a focusing mount though, it
would just be a matter of using the ground glass to calibrate it, and then
inscribe a set of useful distance markings.

It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I was
looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from folder bodies,
though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I stumble upon a cheap focus
mount, I still might give it a try.


. . . . . . . . . . . . .


I sort of thought of that from the beginning. It would be nicer to
have an RB67 back. The folder body is stamped and formed
metal, which is very compact and light. While the folder body is a
nice solution for hand held use, it is also slightly limited for more
flexible usage. If the folder works well enough, that can give me
feedback on creating a dedicated and more modern version. Also,
if the 6x9, or 6x7, is too large an area to give good enough results,
then I would to a smaller format, either panorama type, or 645.
So the first is mostly an experiment, but it might work well enough
to be the only needed solution.

Starting with an RB67 back, metal block construction, and all the
shutter and lens mounting, adds a large amount of complexity, and
time. That would be a bad way to start, because it might not get
done. I have seen many project cameras made from folder bodies,
so they are a good starting point. Costs are also lower with folder
bodies, much below even RB67 back prices. The only other
consideration was using Polaroid Automatic pack film cameras,
which might still happen.

Hmmm - the 'don't make it so complex that the prototype never gets built
idea makes a lot of sense to me. I know I can suffer from that syndrome!

The idea is that if you get into a tough technical hurdle, you might not make
it across.



Yesterday you and I were talking about photo groupies and our not believing
that what we do is particularly glamorous. Coincidentally, today I got an
email from a friend who's invited me to a birthday party she's having at a
nightclub in Brighton which included the following paragraph:

QUOTE

Carly is really exited about meeting a real professional photographer, she
doesn't get out much! She is so sweet and naive. She believes anything you
tell her, it's very refreshing. I'm sure you will have a very willing model
all night long, just don't get her drunk and make her take her clothes off!!
She would if asked, she got her pierced nipple out last time we went
clubbing 'cause some guy didn't believe that she has it pierced, and she
fell for it.

UNQUOTE

Well - whadya know. I've seen Carly's picture and she looks just like
everyone's idea of a groupie - right to the long blonde hair. I also know
her by reputation, and she's definitely not my type, but still, it is sort
of funny, and the timing of this email coming right after our writing about
the wild and exciting rock and roll lifestlyes we don't live...

Peter

Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that myth every once
in a while. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]

I would think the Horseman would have enough movements. My
technical camera is a (much) modified Century Graphic - which is
light and compact and very good for landscape where I might want a
bit of front rise or fall and some front tilt, but the fixed bellows and
limited rise when using very short lenses really mean it is a 'field
camera plus' rather than being the equal of a Horseman or a Master
Technika. The 6x9 Arca monorail I got for architecture but will also
use it for some studio work, where I would sometimes like more
extreme swings and tilts than I could produce before (except with my
5x7, but that just isn't a practical beast, and I may sell it.)

Horseman make a nice 4x5 technical camera, but it is so new to be
really expensive, and rare on the used market. The Shen Ho, Toyo,
and Toho low priced technical cameras are all very capable. While not
as quick to set-up as a Sinar, or Arca Swiss, they are good values for
low cost.

Horseman tends to be expensive anyway. Shen Ho I don't know, but certainly
Toyos have always seemed like good value for money to me.

There was a Carbon Infinity on *Bay recently - went within hours via 'buy it
now' for about $2,900 - which struck me as bargain basement (though far too
much for me to plonk down on something I wouldn't use all that often.)

[SNIP]

Calibration of focus distance is one issue. You could use a ground
glass, but when doing hand held shots, that method is sort of a
guess. It would also require a removable back, which means a
larger and heavier camera.

yep - I will have a ground glass if I go the Miniature Speed Graphic
route for this beast, and the lenses I'm thinking of using have focus
mounts so all i have to do is get the initial registration distance(s)
right and I can use their focusing scales. If I were to make a
focusing mount though, it would just be a matter of using the ground
glass to calibrate it, and then inscribe a set of useful distance
markings.

It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I was
looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from folder
bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I stumble
upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be a lot of
fun.

Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of course, it ain't
cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor man's Fuji G617 is
tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but still not the other. A
lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited movement, which means they'd cover
6x17 and still have a bit of movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing
a rising/falling front.

Another pipe dream...

[SNIP]

Yesterday you and I were talking about photo groupies and our not
believing that what we do is particularly glamorous. Coincidentally,
today I got an email from a friend who's invited me to a birthday
party she's having at a nightclub in Brighton which included the
following paragraph:

QUOTE

Carly is really exited about meeting a real professional photographer,
she doesn't get out much! She is so sweet and naive. She believes
anything you tell her, it's very refreshing. I'm sure you will have a
very willing model all night long, just don't get her drunk and make
her take her clothes off!! She would if asked, she got her pierced
nipple out last time we went clubbing 'cause some guy didn't believe
that she has it pierced, and she fell for it.

UNQUOTE

Well - whadya know. I've seen Carly's picture and she looks just
like everyone's idea of a groupie - right to the long blonde hair. I
also know her by reputation, and she's definitely not my type, but
still, it is sort of funny, and the timing of this email coming right
after
our writing about the wild and exciting rock and roll lifestlyes we
don't live...


Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that myth
every once in a while. ;-)


Tricky balance between making ourselves look cool, and attracting too many
newbies into the industry... ;-)

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. But I
don't want anything bulky in a night-club - given that I'm not actually
working, just appeasing those friends who will expect pictures. I would
normally take my Ricoh GR1v, but it is sick - fixable, but not by Saturday.
So I emailed Robert White today: no GR1vs anymore (which I knew) but they
have a stock of GR10s, and yes, they could ship one to me to arrive by noon
on Saturday. It'll make a useful backup even when the GR1 is fixed - it has
the same lens, just fewer user options for control. At the same time I
looked on *Bay and found an auction for an R1 that was finishing in a couple
of hours, so I put in a low bid on it just in case, and got that too (the R1
is the one with the 30mm lens + 24mm pano. option.) So now I'll have two
'backups' to my GR1v, as if I don't already have a mountain of rangefinder
and other viewfinder camera options. To be honest, if it weren't for the
need for flash I'd have taken my olympus XA, but the flash is just too small
and too slow to charge on that, so I think of it as mostly a daylight
camera.

At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had some
very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and, better yet, a
Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss. The Arca has been busy in the studio
today - personal project involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables,
mostly lit by a single large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom
head in it, and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan,
and a number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Peter

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]

I would think the Horseman would have enough movements. My
technical camera is a (much) modified Century Graphic - which is
light and compact and very good for landscape where I might want a
bit of front rise or fall and some front tilt, but the fixed bellows and
limited rise when using very short lenses really mean it is a 'field
camera plus' rather than being the equal of a Horseman or a Master
Technika. The 6x9 Arca monorail I got for architecture but will also
use it for some studio work, where I would sometimes like more
extreme swings and tilts than I could produce before (except with my
5x7, but that just isn't a practical beast, and I may sell it.)

Horseman make a nice 4x5 technical camera, but it is so new to be
really expensive, and rare on the used market. The Shen Ho, Toyo,
and Toho low priced technical cameras are all very capable. While not
as quick to set-up as a Sinar, or Arca Swiss, they are good values for
low cost.

Horseman tends to be expensive anyway. Shen Ho I don't know, but certainly
Toyos have always seemed like good value for money to me.

There was a Carbon Infinity on *Bay recently - went within hours via 'buy it
now' for about $2,900 - which struck me as bargain basement (though far too
much for me to plonk down on something I wouldn't use all that often.)

[SNIP]

Calibration of focus distance is one issue. You could use a ground
glass, but when doing hand held shots, that method is sort of a
guess. It would also require a removable back, which means a
larger and heavier camera.

yep - I will have a ground glass if I go the Miniature Speed Graphic
route for this beast, and the lenses I'm thinking of using have focus
mounts so all i have to do is get the initial registration distance(s)
right and I can use their focusing scales. If I were to make a
focusing mount though, it would just be a matter of using the ground
glass to calibrate it, and then inscribe a set of useful distance
markings.

It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I was
looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from folder
bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I stumble
upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be a lot of
fun.

Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of course, it ain't
cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor man's Fuji G617 is
tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but still not the other. A
lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited movement, which means they'd cover
6x17 and still have a bit of movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing
a rising/falling front.

Another pipe dream...

[SNIP]

Yesterday you and I were talking about photo groupies and our not
believing that what we do is particularly glamorous. Coincidentally,
today I got an email from a friend who's invited me to a birthday
party she's having at a nightclub in Brighton which included the
following paragraph:

QUOTE

Carly is really exited about meeting a real professional photographer,
she doesn't get out much! She is so sweet and naive. She believes
anything you tell her, it's very refreshing. I'm sure you will have a
very willing model all night long, just don't get her drunk and make
her take her clothes off!! She would if asked, she got her pierced
nipple out last time we went clubbing 'cause some guy didn't believe
that she has it pierced, and she fell for it.

UNQUOTE

Well - whadya know. I've seen Carly's picture and she looks just
like everyone's idea of a groupie - right to the long blonde hair. I
also know her by reputation, and she's definitely not my type, but
still, it is sort of funny, and the timing of this email coming right
after
our writing about the wild and exciting rock and roll lifestlyes we
don't live...


Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that myth
every once in a while. ;-)


Tricky balance between making ourselves look cool, and attracting too many
newbies into the industry... ;-)

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. But I
don't want anything bulky in a night-club - given that I'm not actually
working, just appeasing those friends who will expect pictures. I would
normally take my Ricoh GR1v, but it is sick - fixable, but not by Saturday.
So I emailed Robert White today: no GR1vs anymore (which I knew) but they
have a stock of GR10s, and yes, they could ship one to me to arrive by noon
on Saturday. It'll make a useful backup even when the GR1 is fixed - it has
the same lens, just fewer user options for control. At the same time I
looked on *Bay and found an auction for an R1 that was finishing in a couple
of hours, so I put in a low bid on it just in case, and got that too (the R1
is the one with the 30mm lens + 24mm pano. option.) So now I'll have two
'backups' to my GR1v, as if I don't already have a mountain of rangefinder
and other viewfinder camera options. To be honest, if it weren't for the
need for flash I'd have taken my olympus XA, but the flash is just too small
and too slow to charge on that, so I think of it as mostly a daylight
camera.

At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had some
very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and, better yet, a
Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss. The Arca has been busy in the studio
today - personal project involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables,
mostly lit by a single large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom
head in it, and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan,
and a number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]

I would think the Horseman would have enough movements. My
technical camera is a (much) modified Century Graphic - which is
light and compact and very good for landscape where I might want a
bit of front rise or fall and some front tilt, but the fixed bellows and
limited rise when using very short lenses really mean it is a 'field
camera plus' rather than being the equal of a Horseman or a Master
Technika. The 6x9 Arca monorail I got for architecture but will also
use it for some studio work, where I would sometimes like more
extreme swings and tilts than I could produce before (except with my
5x7, but that just isn't a practical beast, and I may sell it.)

Horseman make a nice 4x5 technical camera, but it is so new to be
really expensive, and rare on the used market. The Shen Ho, Toyo,
and Toho low priced technical cameras are all very capable. While not
as quick to set-up as a Sinar, or Arca Swiss, they are good values for
low cost.

Horseman tends to be expensive anyway. Shen Ho I don't know, but certainly
Toyos have always seemed like good value for money to me.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=2594 Sells new about $625
http://www.kgcphoto.com/Reviews_&_Tutorials/shen-hao_and_lf_lenses.htm Short
review.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calibration of focus distance is one issue. You could use a ground
glass, but when doing hand held shots, that method is sort of a
guess. It would also require a removable back, which means a
larger and heavier camera.

yep - I will have a ground glass if I go the Miniature Speed Graphic
route for this beast, and the lenses I'm thinking of using have focus
mounts so all i have to do is get the initial registration distance(s)
right and I can use their focusing scales. If I were to make a
focusing mount though, it would just be a matter of using the ground
glass to calibrate it, and then inscribe a set of useful distance
markings.

It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I was
looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from folder
bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I stumble
upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be a lot of
fun.

The idea is just to graft together two folder bodies, which is very easy
construction. Some care needs to be exercised to ensure everything is aligned
properly, but there are no technical obstacles. The focus mount would allow for
a solid bellows, either high strength plastic, composite fibre, or aluminium.



Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of course, it ain't
cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor man's Fuji G617 is
tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but still not the other. A
lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited movement, which means they'd cover
6x17 and still have a bit of movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing
a rising/falling front.

Using two 6x9 folder bodies would work, and I think I have seen a couple done
that way. Of course, the focusing mount is still the main issue with these. It
would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a masked 6x9, maybe even
allowing some rise or fall.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that myth
every once in a while. ;-)


Tricky balance between making ourselves look cool, and attracting too many
newbies into the industry... ;-)

Hey, well I am almost a newbie. I graduated in 1998, though I started off doing
print design work. The photography work only really took off a little over two
years ago. I did have some stuff published in 1992, but I don't really consider
that a start to a career.



I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. . . . .

I get that all the time. Usually I just grab one of the Polaroid cameras when I
am feeling a bit lazy, or plan to do some drinking. Of course, with a little
P&S, you could always play Terry Richardson. ;-)



At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had some
very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and, better yet, a
Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss.

If you mean a 545, these things are all over the place used. I think the new
price is a bit much, unless you get a deal where they throw in lots of film
with it.

The Arca has been busy in the studio
today - personal project involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables,
mostly lit by a single large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom
head in it, and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan,
and a number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Accentuating the curve with the line. Think like a classical painter, and all
kinds of ideas come forward.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com