OFFICIAL I HAVE A NEW (FILM RELATED) TOY THREAD!!

I have just bought a Zenith 35F from a charity shop for £5. Apparently this uses the same Minitar 1 lens the LCA uses. It has an aperture of f5.6 if you set 100 ISO, f8 at 200 and f16 at 400 with a fixed 1/125s shutter speed.

I also picked up a Pentacon 200mm f3.5 which had an m42 to Minolta 7000 adapter. A Slik monopod was my third buy, which is spring loaded and could probably do some damage if misused.
 
john.margetts said:
I have been very well behaved recently so I thought I aught to treat myself - three "new" cameras. First, a FED 35A rangefinder camera that works well in manual but only sporadically in automatic mode, then, continuing a Ukrainian theme, a Kiev 35A folding camera that works fine (apparently rather unusual) and finally a Ricoh 35 Flex leaf shuttered SLR (rather like a Zeiss Ikon Contaflex) which also works well.
Click to expand...
I have run test films through two of these - the Fed and the Kiev. I am quite pleased with both. The Kiev has a slight light leak when shooting towards the sun but it is OK most of the time.

As is usual with old cameras, the test film has acted as a magnet for any dust inside the camera due to the small amount of static electricity formed as the film unwinds from the cassette and again as the film unwinds from the take-up spool. The test films came out rather dusty, but the cameras are now clean inside.The are also tram-lines on the Kiev film. I cannot tell if this is the camera itself or if I got some dirt in the cassette felt.

Three from the Fed 35A:
Fed 35A (4).jpg Fed 35A (6).jpg Fed 35A (10).jpg
Two from the Kiev 35A:
Kiev 35A (3).jpgKiev 35A (5).jpg
 
Last edited:
Three more form the Kiev. The middle one shows the main problem with this camera. The camera chooses thyme shutter speed but does not tell you what speed it has chosen. Here, the speed was too slow fora hand-held shot.
Kiev 35A (7).jpg Kiev 35A.jpg Kiev 35A (9).jpg
 
Manwithacam said:
I have just bought a Zenith 35F from a charity shop for £5. Apparently this uses the same Minitar 1 lens the LCA uses. It has an aperture of f5.6 if you set 100 ISO, f8 at 200 and f16 at 400 with a fixed 1/125s shutter speed.

I also picked up a Pentacon 200mm f3.5 which had an m42 to Minolta 7000 adapter. A Slik monopod was my third buy, which is spring loaded and could probably do some damage if misused.
Click to expand...
Here are some pictures. Any thoughts on what the three contacts are for on the back of the lens?WP_20181213_17_33_09_Pro%20(2).jpegWP_20181213_17_31_29_Pro%20(2).jpegWP_20181213_17_35_22_Pro%20(2).jpegWP_20181213_17_23_21_Pro%20(2).jpeg
 
john.margetts said:
I have run test films through two of these - the Fed and the Kiev. I am quite pleased with both. The Kiev has a slight light leak when shooting towards the sun but it is OK most of the time.

As is usual with old cameras, the test film has acted as a magnet for any dust inside the camera due to the small amount of static electricity formed as the film unwinds from the cassette and again as the film unwinds from the take-up spool. The test films came out rather dusty, but the cameras are now clean inside.The are also tram-lines on the Kiev film. I cannot tell if this is the camera itself or if I got some dirt in the cassette felt.

Three from the Fed 35A:
View attachment 140248 View attachment 140249 View attachment 140250
Two from the Kiev 35A:
View attachment 140252View attachment 140253
Click to expand...
Is it my imagination or are the tramlines in different places in different photos? If the problem is wwith the film cassette I would have expected the tramline spacing to be constant. :thinking:
 
Peter B said:
Is it my imagination or are the tramlines in different places in different photos? If the problem is wwith the film cassette I would have expected the tramline spacing to be constant. :thinking:
Click to expand...
The main tramline is consistently in the same place. There are secondary tram-lines that seem to come and go. I am not sure if that is relevant. If the film gate was scratching the film, I would expect that to be consistent as well. Any road, this is a camera for the collection rather than for using. I doubt that I shall put another film through it.
 
Peter B said:
Prakticas like the PLC2 and VLC2 had fancy electronic contacts that allowed for open aperture metering, instead of the stop-down metering of the cheaper models. You can see this at the link http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Praktica_PLC_2/PLC_3
Click to expand...
Thank you. That's something I haven't come across yet. I don't have a PLC2, PLC3 or VLC2 yet. I'll have to watch out for one of those.

The adapter didn't fit at all on my Sony A380 (yes even my digital cameras are old) and on my Dynax 5 I couldn't fire the shutter.
 
Last edited:
Great cameras - spawned my love for 6x6 square format and TLRs.

Be careful with the never-ready case, as the leather clasps/attachments may be weak or dried out and could cause the camera to tumble. The hood unscrews relatively easily to allow screen cleaning; they really benefit from this (sometimes they have not been cleaned for 60 years!)
 
freecom2 said:
Great cameras - spawned my love for 6x6 square format and TLRs.

Be careful with the never-ready case, as the leather clasps/attachments may be weak or dried out and could cause the camera to tumble. The hood unscrews relatively easily to allow screen cleaning; they really benefit from this (sometimes they have not been cleaned for 60 years!)
Click to expand...
The screen isn't too bad, but I will give it a clean, this one is only 49 years old. It works well on all speeds although B doesn't close the shutter when you release the button, it waits 20-30 seconds. Everything looks good on the case apart from a mark on the front where Cash Converters put a sticker and it's taken the top off the case, the black colouring
 
Hi All,

I’m The proud owner of a Praktica Super TL - my very first film camera leading to thoughts such as ‘so I’m stuck with this ISO for the whole reel of film?!’ and ‘where’s the histogram on this thing?’. Just waiting for an obscure battery to replace the Cold War thing that was inside. Hopefully the meter still works... if not, Sunny 16, right??
 
stevelmx5 said:
How many LF cameras do you need? ;0) I'll be sending Stephen's Chroma on to you this week too, maybe you can do some comparison s***s between it and the Intrepid?
Click to expand...
Ah but i'm only borrowing thé chroma;)

I might share my comparisons / opinions on all 3 outfitts including thé tachihara:)

There again i might not:exit::D
 
stevelmx5 said:
How many LF cameras do you need?
Click to expand...

Well, it used to be said that you should have a second body for colour; and it's still advised that you should carry a spare. On that basis, 4 cameras in each film size that you use...
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Hi All,

I’m The proud owner of a Praktica Super TL - my very first film camera leading to thoughts such as ‘so I’m stuck with this ISO for the whole reel of film?!’ and ‘where’s the histogram on this thing?’. Just waiting for an obscure battery to replace the Cold War thing that was inside. Hopefully the meter still works... if not, Sunny 16, right??
Click to expand...

Hi Tom, welcome to the past :D. Sunny 16 is probably a bit optimistic in our climate, sunny 12 is more realistic, or you could look at getting a light meter or a light meter app for your phone.
Main thing to remember is not to chimp the back of the camera;)
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Hi All,

I’m The proud owner of a Praktica Super TL - my very first film camera leading to thoughts such as ‘so I’m stuck with this ISO for the whole reel of film?!’ and ‘where’s the histogram on this thing?’. Just waiting for an obscure battery to replace the Cold War thing that was inside. Hopefully the meter still works... if not, Sunny 16, right??
Click to expand...

:D Ah many guys use a digi and film...problem solved.
 
Testing out this beauty with a view to purchase. Also comes with 3 lenses, a motor drive and a BIG rechargeable flash. I may just keep the camera as seen here and move on the rest.

Olympus OM2n by Dave Green, on Flickr
 
1st one , is it a tree ?
2nd one look spot on sharp
3rd one , sadly you missed the focus point
4th one , much better just about got the focus

Good first try , mabe use F8 or F11 if you have enough light

You dont say waht aperture you were using ?

May have been better posting this in the Film photo section ?
 
Last edited:
F1.2 said:
1st one , is it a tree ?
2nd one look spot on sharp
3rd one , sadly you missed thr focus point
4th one , much better just about got the focus

Good first try , mabe use F8 or F11 if you have enough light

You dont say waht aperture you were using ?

May have been better posting this in the Film photo section ?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. Yep it's some deadwood - wanted to try some close-up. 3rd shot was wide open (1.8) and pretty close so wouldn't be surprised if I missed focus - but I don't think the lens is that great wide open either.

I can't remember what aperture/shutter speed I was using - usually my camera tells me!! I supposed I have to take a notebook with me :eek:

You're probably right about posting in a different forum but these were test shots from a 'a new (film related) toy' so I thought there was some relevance! :p
 
F1.2 said:
How can it be bad scans ? (I also had to take photos of the photos with camera phone to upload them!).
Click to expand...

The mini lab machine will be scanning the negs and then printing them, usually everything will be set to auto and you can clearly see some grain reduction at work - hence the slight watercolour effect and lowered resolution. The negs themselves will have a lot more detail/latitude within them.
 
FruitFlakes said:
The mini lab machine will be scanning the negs and then printing them, usually everything will be set to auto and you can clearly see some grain reduction at work - hence the slight watercolour effect and lowered resolution. The negs themselves will have a lot more detail/latitude within them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight. It seemed like some had much less grain than others, which didn't make sense but I suppose some will have received more noise reduction than others. Also the softness I mentioned on some of the other photos didn't seem like missed focus; they had a specific quality - watercolour effect, like you say, which now you've mentioned it I do recognise from when I've gone overboard on noise reduction when post processing digital images.

It's odd as well because one of the grainiest images was the cat, which I really liked the effect of! Surely you choose a film knowing and presumable accepting (or wanting) the level of graininess that comes with it...
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Thanks for the insight. It seemed like some had much less grain than others, which didn't make sense but I suppose some will have received more noise reduction than others. Also the softness I mentioned on some of the other photos didn't seem like missed focus; they had a specific quality - watercolour effect, like you say, which now you've mentioned it I do recognise from when I've gone overboard on noise reduction when post processing digital images.

It's odd as well because one of the grainiest images was the cat, which I really liked the effect of! Surely you choose a film knowing and presumable accepting (or wanting) the level of graininess that comes with it...
Click to expand...

It looks like your shot of the cat was underexposed then the lab boosted the exposure, which has amplified the noise. Looking at the black car next to it you can see how the exposure has been increased in general across the frame.
 
stevelmx5 said:
It looks like your shot of the cat was underexposed then the lab boosted the exposure, which has amplified the noise. Looking at the black car next to it you can see how the exposure has been increased in general across the frame.
Click to expand...
I can see why people go through the rigmarole of developing their own film. You lose quite a lot of control of your images in a lab.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I can see why people go through the rigmarole of developing their own film. You lose quite a lot of control of your images in a lab.
Click to expand...

With neg film it's best to over expose than under expose. So if you are not sure if your exposure is correct then just open up a stop for belt and braces......as the film can take at least 5 stops over.
For positive film it's the other way around and some guys just stop down 1/2 a stop under to what they think is the correct exposure.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I can see why people go through the rigmarole of developing their own film. You lose quite a lot of control of your images in a lab.
Click to expand...

It's more likely at the scanning stage that they've increased the exposure as the film would be developed using standard timings unless you requested pushing/pulling. I always recommend FilmDev.co.uk as they turnaround dev/scan within a few days and will also take advice regarding how you want the images scanned/sharpened which helps you develop your own preferences. Alternatively, just get the film developed and pick up your own scanner to control it entirely.
 
excalibur2 said:
With neg film it's best to over expose than under expose. So if you are not sure if your exposure is correct then just open up a stop for belt and braces......as the film can take at least 5 stops over.
For positive film it's the other way around and some guys just stop down 1/2 a stop under to what they think is the correct exposure.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I'd heard somewhere that with digital it's better to overexpose and film it's better to underexpose.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
That's interesting. I'd heard somewhere that with digital it's better to overexpose and film it's better to underexpose.
Click to expand...

The other way round; digital can/does give blown highlights yet allows recovery of shadow detail. Transparency film is the same. Negative film won't blow highlights, but too little exposure and nothing will register on the film.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
That's interesting. I'd heard somewhere that with digital it's better to overexpose and film it's better to underexpose.
Click to expand...

Well if you can't get some sort of picture within a tolerance of 8 stops (with neg film) then there is something wrong with the camera.....this site shows it's better to over expose than under, of course film does like the correct exposure and doesn't mean to always over expose by say 3 stops to make sure you get a picture unless your in some low light situation and can't properly get an exposure meter reading.
https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top