And now for something completely different.

Many of our members still have film cameras. And some even use them! This is for film junkies

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

And now for something completely different.

Postby gstark on Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:48 pm

My new toy. o.

Image
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22578
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Reschsmooth on Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:14 pm

Very nice. That shutter looks like it dwarfs the lens. Is that for you or the offspring?
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby sirhc55 on Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:46 pm

I had no idea that you were after a compact camera Gary. After discrete pics are we :rotfl2:
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12929
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby aim54x on Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:55 am

Very nice.....I'm guessing this is the one that you were talking about last time we met up.
Cameron
Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42
Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura Black
Scout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
User avatar
aim54x
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: Penshurst, Sydney

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby gstark on Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:00 am

Reschsmooth wrote:Is that for you or the offspring?


Me.

:biglaugh:

:biglaugh:
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22578
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby gstark on Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:03 am

sirhc55 wrote:I had no idea that you were after a compact camera Gary. After discrete pics are we :rotfl2:


Always.

aim54x wrote:Very nice.....I'm guessing this is the one that you were talking about last time we met up.


Yes. It's in very nice condition; bellows are fine, all of the movements and locks seem to be solid. It's a surprisingly solid piece of kit.

And the monorail is actually a double length. I don't know if that's how they originally came, but nice to have
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22578
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Reschsmooth on Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:38 pm

gstark wrote:
And the monorail is actually a double length. I don't know if that's how they originally came, but nice to have


4x5 macro goodness.
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Matt. K on Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:58 pm

No good Gary. You have to think before you use those olden day cameras. :shock: :shock: :shock:
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby phillipb on Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:46 pm

Matt. K wrote:No good Gary. You have to think before you use those olden day cameras. :shock: :shock: :shock:


Think before you use, not necessary.
Think during use, there's your problem.
__________
Phillip


**Nikon D7000**
User avatar
phillipb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Milperra (Sydney) **Nikon D7000**

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Matt. K on Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:46 pm

Hmmm. Never thought about that.
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:15 am

Scheimpflug beckons. Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Reschsmooth on Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:47 am

Murray Foote wrote:Scheimpflug beckons.


Trigonometry was one of the areas of Mathis in which I particularly sucked.
Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.


I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby gstark on Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:44 am

Matt. K wrote:Hmmm. Never thought about that.


That's what I thought. :)
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22578
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:52 pm

Reschsmooth wrote:
Murray Foote wrote:Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.

Reschsmooth wrote:
Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Reschsmooth on Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:03 pm

Murray Foote wrote:
Reschsmooth wrote:
Murray Foote wrote:Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.


I believe, in simple terms the lens plane is aligned to intersect where the plane of focus (assuming there is just one) and the film plane meet up. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that in reality.

Reschsmooth wrote:
Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).


I assumed you meant a medium format back to fit a 4x5, which cost up to about $60k or more. The primary advantage of putting this on a 4x5 compared to a MF camera is the ability to access the movements available.
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 pm

Reschsmooth wrote:
Murray Foote wrote:
Reschsmooth wrote:
Murray Foote wrote:Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.

I believe, in simple terms the lens plane is aligned to intersect where the plane of focus (assuming there is just one) and the film plane meet up. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that in reality.

Of course you only need it when you need it and it's been a long time since I've shot 5x4. However, I'm intending to purchase a 24mm PC lens so I'll rediscover the approach, though obviously the movements are much more limited.

Reschsmooth wrote:
Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).

I assumed you meant a medium format back to fit a 4x5, which cost up to about $60k or more. The primary advantage of putting this on a 4x5 compared to a MF camera is the ability to access the movements available.

I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Reschsmooth on Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:58 pm

Murray Foote wrote:I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.


Indeed, there are a number of MF digital backs that can fit onto a 4x5 and there are some view cameras that are specifically designed for digital, including a beauty from Linhof. I am reasonably confident that one would be disappointed with the results of a 50 year old lens with a MF digital back. But, I speak from a position of "dunno".
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby biggerry on Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:21 pm

^ speak english people, its like i stepped into another forum ;)

looks like some old camera... :roll:

now you have no excuse not to post a image in the 52 thread.. :rotfl2:


Congrads on the purchase Gary :up:
gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
User avatar
biggerry
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5899
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:00 pm

Reschsmooth wrote:
Murray Foote wrote:I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.

Indeed, there are a number of MF digital backs that can fit onto a 4x5 and there are some view cameras that are specifically designed for digital, including a beauty from Linhof. I am reasonably confident that one would be disappointed with the results of a 50 year old lens with a MF digital back. But, I speak from a position of "dunno".


I suspect the converse. A prime with no AF or VR and an external shutter only needs to be a simple design and some of these designs persist in modern lenses. The main difference I think would be that you would need to be more aware of flare due to lack of multicoating. It may well be though that large format lenses (of any era) are less sharp per square millimetre because they were partly relying on film size. Similarly, I would expect my 1937 Rolleiflex to be quite respectably sharp though it's never going to have any kind of a digital back.
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:15 pm

biggerry wrote:^ speak english people, its like i stepped into another forum ;)

OK, then.

The Good God comes, he triumps over the princes of every country. His bow is in his hand like the Lord of Thebes (Montu), puissant king, mighty in strength, who carries away the princes of wretched Kush, King Djeserkheperru (Horemheb), given life. His majesty came from the land of Kush, with the captives which his sword had made, according to his father Amun commanded him.

Now it's not everyday you get to read about a pissant king, is it?
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Matt. K on Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:03 pm

Murray
You're not drinking the lens cleaning fluid are you? :nono: :nono: :nono:
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby Murray Foote on Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:26 pm

... but it tastes so good....
User avatar
Murray Foote
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Ainslie, Canberra

Re: And now for something completely different.

Postby biggerry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:31 am

Murray Foote wrote:
The Good God comes, he triumps over the princes of every country. His bow is in his hand like the Lord of Thebes (Montu), puissant king, mighty in strength, who carries away the princes of wretched Kush, King Djeserkheperru (Horemheb), given life. His majesty came from the land of Kush, with the captives which his sword had made, according to his father Amun commanded him.

Now it's not everyday you get to read about a pissant king, is it?


:shock: :arrow: :arrow: :biglaugh:
gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
User avatar
biggerry
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5899
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney


Return to Film and Non-Digital Imaging

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests