OT: In case your Minolta camera quit

[Frank Bemelman]

Because you probably have appreciable barrel distortion at one end of the
range and appreciable pincushion distortion at the other end. Go photograph
a brick wall. You'll be surprised!

Just took 2 pictures, with some brick in it.
http://www.franktechniek.nl/PICT0159.JPG
http://www.franktechniek.nl/PICT0160.JPG

Both from the same ~$350 camera, no tripod.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

Just took 2 pictures, with some brick in it.
http://www.franktechniek.nl/PICT0159.JPG
http://www.franktechniek.nl/PICT0160.JPG

Both from the same ~$350 camera, no tripod.

And I should add, I just took 2 pictures, not more.
And had 3/4 of a bottle of wine, and one irish coffee.

Anti-shake feature does seem to work...

 

[Joerg]

Hello Frank,



That one shows the distortion that MC mentioned, look on the sides,
especially the right side.


That photo is too busy with non-geometrical stuff. Hey, you shall not
park a fiets in a flower bed....

And I should add, I just took 2 pictures, not more.
And had 3/4 of a bottle of wine, and one irish coffee.

Anti-shake feature does seem to work...

Hope it was good wine. What's the old Dutch saying? Du pain, du vin, du
hoofdpijn? (Bread, wine and headache)

Regards, Joerg

 

[Frank Bemelman]

Anyway, the camera is one thing. The collection of lenses a serious
photographer typically has boils down to something like this:

16mm fish eye, never had one :-(
28mm wide angle
50mm for portraits (a really good one)
28-70mm for hiking trips
70-210mm for wildlife
250mm for serious scenery and wildlife (lots of $$)
500mm for mountain hikes

For portraits I want a bit more than 50mm, 75mm
perhaps. Just to make the face a bit more 'flat'.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

Hello Frank,




That one shows the distortion that MC mentioned, look on the sides,
especially the right side.

Show me a regular 35mm lens that doesn't Distance was
about 20 meters.

That photo is too busy with non-geometrical stuff. Hey, you shall not
park a fiets in a flower bed....

As most photos are, but yes, I couldn't find a good brick wall
quick enough. Still, it is not bad for a 1:12 zoom factor lens.
I bet you can't even get 1:12 zoom ratio lenses for 35mm film
camera's. Too expensive/heavy to make. Of cource, it had some
charm, owing a 35mm camera - it allowed you to have a hobby and
collect lenses, and carry them around to show off. Don't forget
to use lens tissues as often as possible, as it adds to the
ceremony of changing lenses. With a few dozen of Cokin filters, a
sleeveless bodywarmer with many pockets to store all your film
canisters, and it start to look pretty darn good

Hope it was good wine. What's the old Dutch saying? Du pain, du vin, du
hoofdpijn? (Bread, wine and headache)

At 2.98 euro a bottle it would not surprise me. But it tasted
okay, 13.5% - very dark red, I don't expect a headache.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Hello Frank, [snip]

And I should add, I just took 2 pictures, not more.
And had 3/4 of a bottle of wine, and one irish coffee.

Anti-shake feature does seem to work...

Hope it was good wine. What's the old Dutch saying? Du pain, du vin, du
hoofdpijn? (Bread, wine and headache)

At 2.98 euro a bottle it would not surprise me. But it tasted
okay, 13.5% - very dark red, I don't expect a headache.

My general rule of thumb is 13+ percent. Then the likelihood of added
stabilizers is nil.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

For portraits I want a bit more than 50mm, 75mm
perhaps. Just to make the face a bit more 'flat'.

Ever looked at the old Japanese Ukiyo-E prints of red-haired foreign
barbarian (Dutch) traders?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Keith]

For portraits I want a bit more than 50mm, 75mm
perhaps. Just to make the face a bit more 'flat'.

"Portrait" lenses are typically 85-100mm (for 35mm cameras). I'm looking
for a fast one (F1.8 or F2) for something close to affordable money. I
bought an F2.8 135mm for cheap, but the faster lenses still go for big bux.

 

[Keith]

Hello Keith,


Sometimes you can have the film developed and a CD made. The best ones
will not just contain JPEG but also the full bitmaps. That's really
nice. It usually only adds a few Dollars and when they run a promotion
the CD can be as low as $1.

Yeah, I've run into that. The promos are either double prints, new roll,
or CD free. I'm not happy with the quality where I've gone so far though.
A local camera shop will develop 24exp. film only for $4. I've found that
most prints these days are digitized anyway so the CD should be next to
free.

 

[mc]

"Portrait" lenses are typically 85-100mm (for 35mm cameras). I'm looking

for a fast one (F1.8 or F2) for something close to affordable money. I
bought an F2.8 135mm for cheap, but the faster lenses still go for big
bux.

For what camera?

One of the more interesting things on the market now -- thought not the
cheapest -- is that one of the Zeiss lenses, 80/1.8 I think, originally made
for Contax, is being issued in Nikon (manual focus) mount. Apparently, with
the discontinuation of Contax, Zeiss had a lot of lens elements already
made, and they were able to change the lens mount to Nikon manual (AI).

 

[mc]

"Portrait" lenses are typically 85-100mm (for 35mm cameras). I'm looking

for a fast one (F1.8 or F2) for something close to affordable money. I
bought an F2.8 135mm for cheap, but the faster lenses still go for big
bux.

By the way, the Sigma 90/2.8 macro is excellent and is very sharp at
infinity; it's not just for macro work. So is the later 105/2.8. I have
three of these... 90/2.8 for Olympus, 90/2.8 for Nikon AF, 105/2.8 for Canon
EOS... accumulated over about a 15-year period as I moved from one system to
another.

 

[Keith]

For what camera?

Canon FD (FTb, in particular).

 

[Michael]

I am certainly know expert. But I remember our photo class where the
school had a few cameras to be loaned out. I used my father's old Agfa
but others wanted to try the new stuff. In case someone desired to have
the Mamiya the teacher requested to be really careful with that one.
When she mentioned what it had cost our jaws dropped. Maybe there were
different category models.

Regards, Joerg

Mebbe the class Mamiya was a larger format than 35mm? I know the Mamiya RB-67
(Hasselblad 500C wanna-be) was expensive, compared to the non-pro 1000DTL (which
cost $168.00 when I bought it, in 1968). The pro 1000DTL was a black-body w/
1.4 auto lens and cost ~$40 more (IIRC), whereas non-pro had some chrome, lots
of matt aluminum, and a 1.8 auto lens.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Mebbe the class Mamiya was a larger format than 35mm? I know the Mamiya RB-67
(Hasselblad 500C wanna-be) was expensive, compared to the non-pro 1000DTL (which
cost $168.00 when I bought it, in 1968). The pro 1000DTL was a black-body w/
1.4 auto lens and cost ~$40 more (IIRC), whereas non-pro had some chrome, lots
of matt aluminum, and a 1.8 auto lens.

A friend has a Mamiya that's definitely high end. I think it uses
2-1/4" wide film, or perhaps the metric equivalent.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Joerg]

Hello Michael,

Mebbe the class Mamiya was a larger format than 35mm? I know the Mamiya RB-67
(Hasselblad 500C wanna-be) was expensive, compared to the non-pro 1000DTL (which
cost $168.00 when I bought it, in 1968). The pro 1000DTL was a black-body w/
1.4 auto lens and cost ~$40 more (IIRC), whereas non-pro had some chrome, lots
of matt aluminum, and a 1.8 auto lens.

You are probably right. I vaguely remember that I was at times the only
guy coming into the dark room with 35mm film and some of the folks
frowned upon that. That Mamiya certainly had cost more than that, IIRC
they told us it was the equivalent of a nice used car.

BTW, for anyone interested there was a story in today's paper about a
group dedicated to keeping film alive and here is their web site:
http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php

Regards, Joerg

 

[Joerg]

Hello Spehro,

A friend has a Mamiya that's definitely high end. I think it uses
2-1/4" wide film, or perhaps the metric equivalent.

That's almost certainly 60mm rolls of film. Must be quite difficult to
buy these days but there are web sites dedicated to those topics.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Rich Grise]

Hello Jim,


Same here with the little Nikon. 3x optical and another 3x digital. But
the old Minolta runs circles around it with a 500mm on there and it sure
looks more intimidating. The quality of some of those aftermarket lenses
is so superb, the little digicam lenses just can't do that. Take a shot
of a structure with many vertical and horizontal lines plus sun
reflections off of them. Then do the same with a film camera and a top
notch architect's lens.

But you have to wait so long to see the pictures! )-;

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jim Backus]

Hello Folks,

Sorry for multi-post but it initially went to the wrong NG.

We have a Minolta X-300 film camera. Long story short this spring it
quit. The meter circuit was ok but no shutter and when pressing the
shutter the meter display would disappear.

Well, it was an electrolytic cap in the bottom of the camera, 220uF/4V
and really tiny. It actually leaked out. Took a while to find one that
would fit into the small cavity. Since some of you may experience the
same problem here is the part number:
United Chemicon APXC4R0ARA221MF60G (220uF/4V)

Mouser has these. I bent up the leads and slipped off the plastic SMT
carrier, then soldered it to the little flex. Be careful with those tiny
screws for the bottom lid (two different types). Don't lose them.

Now this old X300 contains a RoHS compliant capacitor

Thanks - I've got an old Minolta 300 that probably has the same fault.
I've not looked at it. Is is easy to get at the offending component?

Reply by email if you wish ... despam the sig line.

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jim,

Thanks - I've got an old Minolta 300 that probably has the same fault.
I've not looked at it. Is is easy to get at the offending component?

It is really easy. Turn the camera off, remove batteries and place it
upside down onto a white towel in case a screw falls down. You don't
want any of these to disappear in the carpet, it's unlikely to ever find
a spare.

Remove the four little screws and black plastic bottom cover. Now you'll
see an electrolytic on the side. That's the one. Note which side is plus
(on mine it was towards center of the camera). Carefully unsolder the
capacitor. It helps to bend down the flex with a tooth pick so each leg
comes off without applying heat for too long. Replace the capacitor with
the type I mentioned. I bent its legs inwards and stripped off that
little black SMT carrier to make it even smaller.

Place cover back on. The smaller screws with machine thread go inside,
the longer ones with the coarser thread on the outside (those are a bit
tougher to turn).

That's it. It took me an hour to find a suitable cap, a few days for
Fedex to get it here and about ten minutes to actually do the repair.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Robert Latest]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:57:13 GMT,

That's almost certainly 60mm rolls of film. Must be quite difficult to
buy these days but there are web sites dedicated to those topics.

This type of film is abundant everywhere. It's THE standard for studio
photography.

robert