Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"harry" wrote in message
... Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot. So, probably next to not a lot. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with
a digital array instead of the film? Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Richard" wrote in message news "harry" wrote in message ... Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot. So, probably next to not a lot. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with a digital array instead of the film? Brian Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive. |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones.
Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote: Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with a digital array instead of the film? Brian Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:21:26 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones. Brian Nope. Medium (6cm x 6cm) |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with a digital array instead of the film? There have apparently be a few attempts at doing a kind of digital film replacement unit, but has usually turned out to have a number of unexpected difficulties and complications getting it to work in a variety of cameras. One of the first problems to deal with is the spacing between where the film can goes and where the sensor needs to be is not a standard distance. Then there is the need to provide feedback to the film advance detection systems that count sprocket holes etc - again with sensors in a variety of places. Then there is the difficulty of keeping the sensor clean. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought. Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on problem. Does this really affect anything? It does with the motor wind built into lots of the more recent film SLRs. The reality is you would probably have to build multiple models to fit various cameras, and even then you would not get all the features of a true digital camera like being able to check and review what you have just taken immediately. (although a wireless link to a phone could make up for some of the limitations and actually add some capabilities the digital SLRs don't have like a remote viewfinder) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought. Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on problem. Does this really affect anything? Brian The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100 lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago. -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 17:41, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot. So, probably next to not a lot. I had several Canon cameras ... you could change the back for a 'data back' allowing you to superimpose numbers & text onto negative as pic taken. Feasible to evolve that to a fullframe digital sensor ... but why would you want it ? Camera software has come on amazingly since 35mm days, to get that you need more modern lenses and the new electronic bodies - so market to sell 'digital' conversion is very very small. Plus manufacturers have a vested interest in selling new product - they would rather you buy a new camera. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it. Check eBay for what they are fetching. I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is available. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC, Robert wrote:
On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it. Check eBay for what they are fetching. I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is available. I was curious to see if you can still get APS film - no; discontinued in 2011, although there are still labs who will print from them. APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like the MiniDisk. The panorama mode was really rubbish, just a very severe crop of a single frame. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
In article ,
Halmyre wrote: APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like the MiniDisk. Eh? Minidisc was brilliant. For certain things. Mainly pro or semi pro use, as well as replacing the cassette. -- *Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film. As long as your camera has manual or semi-auto settings (ie that you don't just use auto-everything mode all the time) then you can learn the principles of photography more quickly and much more cheaply with a digital camera. (*) With film, very short or very long shutter speeds mean that the rule "double the aperture and half the shutter speed gives the same exposure" is no longer true - and with colour film the effect is different for the various colour-sensitive layers, so you get a colour cast. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film. If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a digital camera? |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"dennis@home" wrote in message web.com... On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote: "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film. If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a digital camera? No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 21:27:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message web.com... On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote: "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film. If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a digital camera? No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras. But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed selected as ISO which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain or noise. I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 19:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote: Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay. These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic, high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records. You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally? |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally? Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/ reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:14:31 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote: You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally? Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/ reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round. NT |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
|
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
|
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote: You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally? Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/ reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do and some more. If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-) Most people won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible. |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 26/11/2016 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote: You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally? Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/ reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do and some more. If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-) Most people won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible. Most people cannot:- 1. Drive an F1 car 2. Become PM (or President) 3. Win any lottery 4. Take really good photos, no matter how expensive the camera. |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible. been riding since I was 16 no accidents but I must say they are handy for spare parts like my new liver ...tee hee |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera. Are these things worth anything at all now? Or just junk. Nope. Some photo degree courses still require possession ofa 35mm film camera. I still have my Pentax MX that I bought 2nd hand in 1986, well used with nice brassy corners and a dent in the pentaprism. It's been around the world, spent 2 years in Fiji, all across the Pacific and through South America. A pair of 1,5V silver oxide cells last for ages. Accepts all the pre-digital pentax lens (M42, K, Ka, KaF). And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25 (RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it. You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod because it reads the light bouncing back off the film and just shuts the second blind when enough light has hit the film. Has the whole range of changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange in 1997. for home-developed B&W, it's just too valuable to sell. I might get a Pentax K1 (full frame) which looks like it could be the Pentax replacement for the LX and I can use all my lenses. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
Students
Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths. The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus. Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote: Students Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths. The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus. Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio. The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras. There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a recording and can usually be turned off entirely. My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages of doing so. |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 11/24/2016 2:51 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote: On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote: Students Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths. The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus. Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio. The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras. There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a recording and can usually be turned off entirely. My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages of doing so. In some countries, I believe the "sound" is a legal requirement to discourage covert photography. |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
In article ,
DerbyBorn wrote: and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different 'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1" lens on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which made for problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which type of camera might be in use. If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera. -- *Out of my mind. Back in five minutes. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
: In article , DerbyBorn wrote: and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different 'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1" lens on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which made for problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which type of camera might be in use. If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera. Also "Angle of View" is easily visualised in ones mind. |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length. |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"Graham." wrote in message
... *Equivelant* !! The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length. !!!!!!!! *EQUIVALENT* !!!!!!!! |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. . In article , Richard wrote: "Graham." wrote in message ... *Equivelant* !! The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length. !!!!!!!! *EQUIVALENT* !!!!!!!! You mean the ****er can't spell? Probably using Word and because he has it set to US English, has learnt to ignore the squiggly red lines under misspelt words altogether. Well, it takes a special kind of fool to post an irritated spelling correction with a novel incorrect version of the spelling. Bit like having a flashing neon "Kick me!" sign on his back. |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
"Graham." wrote in
: *Equivelant* !! The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length. I realise that - but only the generation that used 35mm SLRs will be able to visualise the effect of the lens. It is a reference to an out of date "standard". Yes I can usually spell - equivalent |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 28/11/16 10:34, DerbyBorn wrote:
"Graham." wrote in : *Equivelant* !! The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length. I realise that - but only the generation that used 35mm SLRs will be able to visualise the effect of the lens. It is a reference to an out of date "standard". So is horsepower Yes I can usually spell - equivalent -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post. |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT 35mm SLR camera
On 11/23/2016 9:34 PM, Andrew wrote:
And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25 (RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it. You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod because it reads the light bouncing back off the film and just shuts the second blind when enough light has hit the film. Has the whole range of changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange in 1997. Except for reciprocity failure. I loved my Yashica electro 35 cc for the same reason. But with its lowest film speed setting 25 ASA, you couldn't increase the exposure with K II (which IMHO was the finest colour film ever made, 25 was never as good). It needed a couple of stops at 20 seconds, IME. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
35mm plugs | UK diy | |||
Maxxum 7, 35mm film camera shutter repair. | Electronics Repair | |||
Meter tails bigger than 35mm | UK diy | |||
Which is the best 35MM hinge boring bit? | Woodworking | |||
Blum Hinges and a 35mm bit | Woodworking |