Bruce E

Joined on Sep 24, 2020


Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

2manylenses: And here I thought it was a copy of a Minox compact 35, whodathunkit...

there is a soviet copy of the minox 35 - kiev 35a, almost same size and layout

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2021 at 21:24 UTC

one of the most important cameras? hardly, its role in the lomography movement/aesthetic notwithstanding - there are too many more important technical and artistic happenings in the history of photography.

back when it was originally produced it seems like it was fairly priced relative competing point and shoot type cameras. the auto exposure and long speeds make for some flexibility, and the layout and angle of view is actually pretty good for one-handed, discrete, shoot from the hip use.

i had one purchased second hand and used it for a few years until the body shell literally started to fall away in chips - did not drop it, the material just started to sort of disintegrate. technical results until that point were actually pretty good - decent exposure and sharpness, no leaks or streaks other than slow mo blur.

revival price seems steep for what it is

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2021 at 21:22 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LiNGo0: Besides the Leica M10, are there any true rangefinder digital cameras? Surely there must be an alternative. It's a shame Epson stopped making them.

Alternative to Leica depends on what aspect of rangefinder photography matters.

The lenses can be mounted on many of the mirrorless digital cameras.

Direct optical viewfinder is uncommon - only on certain Fujifilm models and Pixii. Maybe not quite the Leica experience. Or mount an optical finder from Cosina- Voigtlander, Leica, Zeiss, or maybe Ricoh for a bigger/brighter view (but no parallax compensation, focus or exposure indication)

Rangefinder focus - maybe that is only on Leica digital. Does it matter? It had its place on film cameras. With digital the electronic focus is more sensitive.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2021 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

PhotographyIsWayOverrated: Anybody knows why even the previous selenium models (i.e. L-398 & L-398M, before the 2006 switch to silicone photocells) still work today? I have one from 80s and - unlike any other selenium meter - it still works very well. Was it better sealing (I think selenium photocells degraded form moisture) or just better photocell growing? All the other selenium meters from that era are either completely unreliable, mis-calibrated or just dead, L-398 just works.

i have used weston, spectra, and gossen selenium meters of comparable age which were still functional, others which suddenly lost sensitivity. seems random sampling, maybe how they were used and stored over time

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 20:09 UTC

clearly this was once a really hot camera.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2021 at 19:52 UTC as 78th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

David Franklin: I don't know about the actual longevity of this tripod. Most people may not know that, years ago, ALL Gitzos were sold with a lifetime warranty. I bought two "Giant" (goes up to about 12 feet tall with center column) aluminum tripods in the 1970's. After 50 years of very hard, rugged professional use, thrown around in vans and planes with very heavy steel light stands by dozens of uncaring assistants, they both work about as well as when I bought them. How does that sound for ever-lasting? I never did have to send them in for repairs, so I don't know if they would still be fixed for free. There may have been a change in policy, especially so because, if I am not mistaken, Gitzo was then made in Switzerland, and the company itself may have actually changed somewhat with their new location, but it would be an understatement to say that I am extremely pleased with them. It is an epic understatement that there are few photo related tools that one can count on for 50 years after purchase.

Gitzo was French company until acquisition by Vitec almost 20 years ago, and production shifted afterwards to Italy - for over 10 years it has been all in Italy.
I have a few of the classic aluminum tripods (different sizes for different uses) , some acquired from previous owners and over 50 years old and with signs of heavy use. They have proven to be reliable and serviceable, though some parts are expensive.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

naturalMark: I have the Laowa 7.5mm for micro-4/3, which I bought 2 months ago. It should be a great lens, well-built, smooth focusing ring. I do not mind the full-manual control. BUT -- there are 3 fundamental flaws (does anyone else have these issues?) -- the vignetting is horrible, at least 3-4 stops in the corners, requiring 25% cropping, so the lens is really functioning as a 10mm (20mm equiv); the aperture ratings are misleading, e.g., changing from f/2 to f/2.8 does not double the exposure time on any of my camera's meters -- the lens is really closer to f/2.5, not f/2; the distance scale on the manual focus ring is completely inaccurate and cannot be used, for example, for focusing at infinity for night photography. So the lens is really not usable as advertised! A real shame...

I have one of these, happy with the results on a Pen F, and not noticing the level of corner fall off you report. Mostly using it in the 2.8 to 5.6 range where it supposedly is at its best. I got to like this approximate field of view with a 15mm Voigtlander on 35mm film cameras, appreciate that both are compact and light weight so easy to carry along even when ultra-wide framing is not anticipated.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2021 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: There are plenty of good reasons why instant cameras went from "exciting new technology" to "obsolete." Those reasons are well documented for anyone who wants to do a web search.

Despite that, there are ALWAYS a few bold souls who crave obsolete technology. You can see that in the revival of vinyl records and the current strong interest in film cameras among some. The real question is whether there is sufficient interest to sustain any business selling very expensive cameras and very expensive film for a product that most consumers have already rejected.

I wouldn't be shocked to see a kickstarter program for "Project VHS" someday, because there are probably a few people who crave video tape machines too. And some enterprising group will create a product to cash in on that. Some people will always crave whatever isn't popular because they march to their own drummer.

Good to see the references to artists who used he SX-70 and other Polaroid formats,, straight up and manipulated images, motivated by the quick availability of the print and its unique visual qualities. The SX-70 and many other Polaroids were mass market products, so many or most people who used these were not experienced photographers or artists - but they benefited from relative ease of use and unmatched quick delivery (no waiting days, months, even years to finish the roll, and then drop off and pick up from the printer!). Many blah prints, but that is true of images from more conventional media. Not cheap per print, but neither was some of the conventional photo finishing. Now many more people are taking digital pictures, with nearly instant sharing and automation that delivers more uniform technical quality. But not necessarily better pictures.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2020 at 22:24 UTC

A really neat and unique camera. Although the same lever is used to fire the shutter and wind the film, these are separate actions, not simultaneous as stated in the article. When the shutter is already cocked the lever rests close to the camera body - similar to the winder on many 35mm cameras, except it is on the front (like an Alpa) instead of on the back. The shutter is fired by pressing the lever slightly towards the back of the camera - which is probably unique to this design. After firing the lever comes out to rest a bit away from the body, and the film is wound by pressing the short stroke towards the body, returning to the cocked position. So firing and winding is a quick double stroke on the same lever, and really usable even with gloved or cold hands.

The mentioned 45mm lens is apparently rare, and it is not certain if the 28mm was ever produced - it may have just been catalog-ware. Nikon later produced a really excellent 28mm lens suited for underwater only.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2020 at 22:33 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

morinor: Great! Now you can utilize all those Zeiss lenses... Oh the lens is build in!
Another way to stole from some the money. A smartphone or a tablet paired with any camera can do the same job and even better as even the screen can be larger. The camera can also be more capable and have more lens options. For certain you should try hard to select camera, lens, smartphone and SD to match that price.
It seems like the smartphone trying to attach a more capable camera on the reverse. It will have the same fate especially with this price.

built in (not interchangeable) lens is a cost saver - no need to buy more lenses, just work with the one that is included. with other cameras you end up spending more on lenses than the original camera. with zeiss lens prices the savings will pay for the camera in no time - maybe just a couple of lenses not purchased.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2020 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

lattesweden: My vintage cameras already have working meters so not a product for me, but it makes me happy that this type of accessories are made so that those cameras that don't have built in meters or broken meters can continue to work.

DIGISIX is a nice meter, though mine goes though battery sort of quickly. Rugged - survived some encounters with water.

The Lime is planning a metal housing, a more sophisticated display, and I like the integration of the dial *instead of up/down buttons) - so seems worth the the relative price.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2020 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: "...smartphone took a much better picture of a campfire scene on the beach than a professional photographer using a professional camera..." according to "A team of engineers, data scientists and content creators..."
It is proof smartphones shoot better pictures than professional camera

'Smartphone took a much better picture than professional photographer using a professional camera'

That is a very smart phone, or was another photographer using the phone to take the picture? Was this photographer a better photographer, at least for this situation?

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2020 at 20:23 UTC
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12