Hobe Sound Bible College in Hobe Sound near Bridge Road. It’s absolutely the best, since tech is not their specialty. Picked up a gorgeous Olympus 35 RC with spotless leather case & strap, superb Pentax MX, and untouched Nikon SB-600 flash in its SS-600 case. After all the price discussion, they remembered that everything that day was half-priced!. …imagine my drive home!! Will grab some film & put these things little gems to work! :)
For battery replacement look for Wein cell. It seems to be standard LR44 coupled with resistor to lower the voltage to 1.35V. In my Yashica12 it works nice and gives the same results as app that I am using (Light me).
I DO shoot sports with my film cameras, I actually really like using my Canon A-1 and F-1 for shooting motorsports. I try to preselect as many settings as I can- with the A-1 I’m usually in full auto with 1/3 stop overexposure selected, with the F-1 I’ll preset my shutter speed and play with the aperture to get an acceptable exposure. I have power winders on both, and prefer a 200mm 2.8. These are versatile cameras. Attack, attack, attack. They will achieve any task you set before them.
Can u do a video of e6 in bnw. I just tried twice developing old Ektachrome 100hc 2005 in Rodinal 1:25 in 12mins in 20° , unfortunately came out all black. I'm thinking the film has issues, the previous time I did 1:100 Rodinal stand development, it also came out all black. Hoping for some advice, but I'm thinking the film has some issues.
Do you think the weight of the matte box plus the ND filter when screwed onto the lens (Sigma 24-70) can ruin the lens in the long run? I've been a fan of Freewell filters, and I'm currently using their magnetic variable ND. I'm wondering if upgrading to a matte box would be worth it.
A matte box doesn’t weigh enough to mess anything up. All depends on what you’re doing. Matte boxes are great for some things but they aren’t always needed.
After 50 yrs. Plus shooting film in Canon & Nikon SLR's, I've pulled the pin & dove into digital with a Nikon DSLR & 3 LENSES. Having learned from some excellent mentors how darkrooms & light meters work, digital was a leap! The lenses for the Nikon D3200 are very good, but the lens on the Canonet GIII 1.7 will make slides sharp enough for more than 100 inch enlargement for projections. It's probably just an opinion, but I like doing the processing myself, even when the computers in the DSLR try to do that for me. BTW: my film cameras are over 40 yrs. old & none of them has or needs a shutter counter!
I've been saying for many years that the Canon AE-1 is highly overestimated. The price people have been asking for this camera is absolutely insane. The issue with the OM2sp are batteries, this is a batteries eater. Other than that, it is a lighweight, small form camera and the build quality is excellent. It feels solid in the hands. The shutter sound is a bit weird, but once you get used to it, it's not a problem. The OM-2 is also a very good camera for film streetphotography and you have an ON/OFF switch for the meter.
It is, it’s a needle that gives you more of a range where as FM is a bit more specific. Also not sure what the breakdown is of exposure calculation. Could be 50/50 middle and outer whereas FM is probably 60/40. Not sure
@@graham_white Thanks. Just acquired an FM in Hong Kong and the shop owner told me that there are more functioning lightmeters in FMs than broken ones. I originally decided to buy a flathead F2, but that guy said it was easy malfunctioning and sometimes little stupid.
I think the issue which you noticed with the Minolta is known as subject failure. The metering pattern will affect how the subject failure manifests itself and if you used either camera regularly in those conditions you would automatically be able to adjust the exposure settings. For a number of years I photographed rock groups using a Rolleiflex SL35ME, not a particularly great camera but I had a 85mm f1.4 Carl Zeiss lens for it. The f1.4 aperture made focusing easy in the venue. I was just use to adjusting the exposure suggested by the metering system without thinking. Had I changed to another camera, there would be a period of adjustment. So you found the AE1 meter needed less or no adjustment in the conditions you used it. That is fine but there will be other conditions where you would find the Minolta better. They are both very capable cameras, the more you use any camera, the better you will get. Personally, I really like the Rolleiflex SL35E which I think has the best ergonomics of any camera, pity too many of them were unreliable, poor build quality on the pc boards, and much that I hate to admit it, the Canon A1 is a great camera too. But even a humble Praktica Nova can turn in fantastic work, more effort and perhaps you have to bow to some limitations (no light meter, but neither does the standard Hasselblad C500 series lol). The main thing is to enjoy your photography no matter what camera you have.
As a general rule, early electronic cameras were far less reliable than the mechanical cameras. The AE1 was pretty good to be honest but people overplay this point. The Nikkormat ELW had an autowinder in 1975 a year earlier than the AE1 (at least according to Mr Google). Anyway an autowinder is a poor man's motor drive and there were plenty of motor drive cameras before the AE1. The AE1 was in my opinion over priced at the time and still is, and not particularly a great camera. The A1 was a very good camera. It was well built and produced excellent results in challenging conditions. Quite hard to praise it too much as unlike the AE1 it was constructed to very high standards and had features that Canon's competitors could not match. It was so good that at launch people were prepared to pay twice the retail to get hold of one without waiting. Yes, demand completely outstripped supply. I love the Canon EF, that was a brilliant camera, especially at the time it was launched. However, compared to the AE1 it was probably a very expensive camera to make. The real success of the AE1 was all the cost reductions which gave Canon a very profitable camera and that profit was invested into marketing making a virtuous circle of camera sales and profits. When all said and done, I did enjoy the video.
I actually reccomend the ftb ql for enthusiasts. Its a real underated sleeper. Its easily the most reliable among all the FD mount cameras. Being full mechanical, no electronics, no capacitors to fail. The QL system makes it easy to load film. And the build quality is superb, way better than the ae-1/t-50. The light meter can use alkaline 1.5v batteries. The only complaint i have is its too heavy and the focus screen is clumsy to use. Bought mine in perfect condition 60$ easily the best value camera.
they are pretty cool and definitely not as popular with today's shooter. I almost picked up a pretty rare black canon ql Pellix the other day but it needed to much work.
I just recently gave my daughter my camera gear,a Nikon F2 w/35,50,1 05. Nikkors w/28 to 85 Tokina zoom,ass. filters after 35 y ears of casual and professional photography ,the F2 is a great camera.
I’ve never heard of them being radioactive unless there is a specific year and model they did that. You would have to do a deep dive but I’m 90% sure they aren’t
Im using 100mm Lee Filter system, its doingt the same function(albeit no magnetic) - but there are no flags or swing doors .. Matteboxes are matteboxes.. this is a nice very nice magmetic filmter system - thank for sharing anbd making the video..
Basically. There is a dial on the front with distances on it, so you turn it to the distance your subject is for focus. You just kinda have to guess how far that subject is from you.
Not really. It varies depending on the camera and how it’s setup. Usually a tiny square piece of black tape does the trick or some people do sharpie. Sometimes it can be cleaned internally but other times the coating is worn off and it can’t be cleaned.
Nice! The fg line is awesome. Compact and very capable. A lot of older users say the build isn’t as good as bigger Nikon bodies but whatever. Still does a great job when working
@@graham_white ya I know what the expert's say but it was my grandfathers and means a lot to me plus it's allot of fun and has good enough quality for me love it
@@graham_white also I am thinking about getting a Ansco Speedex 4.5 Special 120 Roll Film Camera how bad of a idea is that I shot about 7 rolls of film in my life all on auto on my fg-20
Very true. Most thrift stores around me have caught on and prices have shot up to where it’s not worth it since they are sold as is and no way of knowing if it works or not.
I really like the FTn, I’ve got one along with an F, F2, and F3 (amongst other non-Nikon film cameras). The biggest problem I’ve got with my FTn is the focusing screen, which is just a multiprism (no split prism). Some of the later ones came with split prisms, but I really like the look of the early ones. I did buy a replacement split prism screen on eBay, and will be having a local camera technician swap them shortly. The thing I like about the camera the most is how quiet the copal shutter is. It’s no Leica, but it’s considerably quieter than the Nikon F, F2, and F3. Not to mention that it’s a much lighter camera, as well. Overall, I’m glad I have it, and glad I have the one I have. It’s previous and original owner was a paleontologist who used it to photograph a bunch of museum specimens in the 70s, and then when he’d retired it from travel use used it as a macro rig in his own lab for years, so it’s got an awesome history
A quick search found me that on release a Canon AE-1P was probably $165 in 1981. I couldn't find a release price for the OM-2SP but the OM-2 in 1979 was listed for $515 for a chrome model. Might explain why the camera that handles nicer is less common, bet it sold way way less so theres less in the second hand market to find.
Your problem is to many adapters on a crop sensor. I would suggest trying a full frame. The Minolta adapter for full frame has no extra peice of glass and works great on my Sony full frames. I use pretty much all brands of vintage lenses on my Sony full frame with excellent results and many times as sharp or even sharper then modern lenses.
I shoot sony and use a Techart adapter (Sony E -> Leica M -> SR). No glass. Incredible results. If you’re shooting APSC, yeah, it will be a different focal length, so use a different lens if you need a 50.
Ya, all my Sony friends continue to show me their great results and it is tempting. I occasionally just use a dummy and like you said use a 35mm to get the 50. but you're still cropped in so you don't get full lens character and it's usually a 2.8 or 3.5 instead of a 1.4-1.8.
@@graham_white yeah thats very true, I suppose I mainly use them for photo so I can get away with some of the telephotos (100 2.5, 135 2.8, 200 2.8) on the Sony. Still, you’re right that they look much better on full frame when it comes to bokeh quality and DOF
I just do not get it ! I have used several analog Lenses for mirrorless cameras, I do not need adapters with glass to use those. I you need a "50mm" use a 35mm, what is the problem ! I stopped using my analog Lenses because because there is not data to the camera and I forget which Lenses I used. If a company make an adapter whit electronic contacts and you can set the adapter to tell the camera which Lens was used, then it will be great ! Did you know that it was Minolta that designed the Leica Elmarit R 24mm 2.8 Lens !
I also have used well over a dozen different brands and 4x as many lenses that don't need glass with an adapter. Canon FD and Minolta Rokkor are the only ones I have used where an extra piece of glass is required to adapt to Canon EF. Obviously, I could use a 35 instead of a 50 to adjust for crop. But you're still not getting the full character of the lens because you are cropping in. It is also not the same when you're using a 35mm 2.8 or 3.5 wide open as opposed to a 50mm 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 or 3.5. Anything I use old glass for is either broken down in the shot list or I label in post later, or you can usually tell what a 35mm or a 50mm looks like. I don't really need to know the exact aperture unless I'm checking sharpness or image quality. in which case, I write things down. And I did not know that about the Elmarit, I will have to look into that!
@@graham_white Oh, I thought you were using them on Fuji mirrorless ! But you can use Leica R Lenses with adapter for Canon EOS Cameras, which I did. A friend of mine who are engineer, he fixed (shortened) a Canon 1.4x teleconverter so I could use my Canon FDn 300mm 2.8 L on Canon EOS. Well, well, "character", I do not care much about that, too much hype and not much "go" ! I want the best possible Lenses I can get, not some with "faults".
I don't really understand your reasoning here. If the problem is just that your adapter is poor quality, why not just get a straight (glassless) MD - FX adapter? Or MD - LM and LM - FX adapters? If you must have a 'FF' view, then just get a cheap used mirrorless FF body with an adapter. If you must use Fuji, then I think you're being too restrictive, but you can splurge on a GFX and then adapt to that (and use the 35mm crop mode).
Well, first it’s my reasons it’s not like it’s an indisputable fact for everyone, just my preference with how I want to shoot so what makes sense to me won’t make sense for everyone. As I said in the video I could get a dummy adapter but then I lose a focal length so all the nice 50-58mm lenses become 85-95mm lenses which isn’t how I want to use them. I have debated getting a cheap FF body but then I’m investing into an entirely new system for 1 set of lenses. As I said I use a lot of different brand vintage glass and especially if I’m trying to do mainly video with these a cheap body probably won’t give my the dynamic range or quality I want. Photo would be fine. And same with a gfx. The video capabilities just aren’t quite there for the work I do to make that a viable option.
@@graham_white Bear in mind that other lenses you currently adapt with a speedbooster would also give better quality on a glassless adapter with a FF camera. But, yeah, to get the level of video capabilities you currently have with the Fuji wouldn't be cheap, so understandable why you wouldn't want to do that.
@@rustyroy5385 oh absolutely true. I used to shoot canon but Hybrid workflow just wasn't as good to me. It has gotten a lot better since I switched and I do like the new Sony FX series as well but idk. Also considered Blackmagic but right now just not sure which route to take or if its worth it at the moment.
You mean straight Fuji to Minolta? Which one are you using? Because I have so many different brands that I use like I said I usually just adapt everything to one canon EF mount since it’s easy to find adapters for more obscure old lenses and that way I’m not paying $150 for every different type of speed booster I would need. if I become committed to using the Minolta line in a more serious way or for more paid work I can see myself getting a straight Fuji to Minolta adapter. But like I said to spend $150-$200 on an adapter that is very limited as far as the variety of lenses I have isn’t something I can justify at the moment since I don’t primarily use those.
@@graham_whiteI adapt them to my a-6500 and use a cheap adapter off Amazon. It get some awesome results. My pfp was taken w the Sony and a Minolta 35-105 3.5 macro
When I switched to the Nikon Z system, I been dabbling in vintage glass and less than a year I have collected bunch of lenses and it's been fun playing with them. My favorite thus far is my Nikkor-S Non-AI 35mm f/2.8 - That to me personally has look that I can't seem to get from any other lens. Its so imperfect that its perfect. I love it! Haha. I never used Minolta glass, maybe it's time to get some. Right now I just got a Fujica film camera with a X-Fujinon 50mm 1.6 and that thing is really sharp and beautiful rendering. Love seeing your videos Graham!
The vintage Fuji lenses are great! Good reminder I need to go back and revisit them on my current setup. I do love my Nikon set on the Fuji, great look and just enough sharpness combined with that clean softer less clinical look. I think that’s my next vid. Thanks!
Dear Graham, i also was in this retro lens adapting swamp. I use my fuji all the way with takumar glasses and speedbooster(different brands). But they always was little bit loosy and bulky. Only one positive thing in speedbooster its little bit resolution(also "real" focal length). I am digging myself day by day but unfortunately i know answer from beginning. So i just bought FF.😢
I have a full takumar line and use them on the xh2-s frequently for paid gigs and they look fantastic. True occasionally they are a bit loose but not as bad as others I’ve had. But yes unfortunately FF is the ultimate answer
As mentioned in the video, the AE1 models can be fitted with an auto winder. The A1, on the other hand, can be fitted with a motor drive for even faster film advance and a better grip. The A1 also has the option of changing the focusing screen for various types of photography AND also allowing for cleaning any dust or dirt that may get behind the screen which can be distracting. Personally I’d go with the A1, but if you want more of an even better option, get a T90 which is considered to be the best manual focusing SLR ever made.
