Showing posts with label m42. Show all posts
Showing posts with label m42. Show all posts

Monday, October 08, 2012

uncooperative cat photos

cat!

I haven't posted cat photos here in a while. These photos may give some idea of why his modeling career hasn't really taken off. Something about not sitting still for the camera, I think. Anyway, these are mostly test shots for a new lens I got in the mail today, a Fujita/Juplen 35mm f/2.5, made circa 1957 or so. It's an early example of a retrofocus design, and one of the earliest Japanese M42 lenses I've come across. Plus it just looks cool, and has a handy push-button lock thingy on the preset ring. You'll probably see more photos taken with this lens here in the near future. Maybe more cat photos, or maybe something that knows how to sit still for half a second, like a leaf or a statue or whatever, even if they're nowhere near as adorable as he is. D'awwwww....

cat!

Monday, February 21, 2011

yellow crocuses

yellow crocus

More photos of the same crocuses I showed you 3 weeks ago. (The ones I posted a couple of days ago are different.) More flowers this time, but they aren't actually much bigger and many of the flowers haven't opened yet. The ones that do open promptly tip over flat on the ground as their stems can't bear the weight. I blame the lack of sunlight and warmth, although it's true that I blame many things on the lack of sunlight and warmth. I'm often right, though.

yellow crocus

FWIW, these were taken with a vintage mid-60's German lens I found at Goodwill earlier today. (Steinheil Auto-D-Quinaron, 35/2.8, in M42 mount, if you're really curious.)


yellow crocus

yellow crocus

yellow crocus

yellow crocus

yellow crocus

yellow crocus

Thursday, May 01, 2008

notes to self, photo edition

One of my many bad habits is that I spend an inordinate amount of time surfing the net on the ol' Crackberry. If I have a spare moment, or I'm bored, or nobody's looking, or nobody I know is looking, or nobody I particularly like is looking, or I generally just feel the inclination, I tend to whip out the BB and start Googling about. It's convenient, but it's really not the best web browsing experience you could ask for, so often once you've found a page you want to bookmark it for future reference with a 'real' computer. Adding it to the BB's bookmarks isn't too useful; if there's any way to sync its bookmarks with those on a host machine, I've never seen it, and I'm not sure that would be useful anyway. I've figured out how to post to del.icio.us from the BB, but the process is rather inconvenient. What I've found works best is to just mail page addresses to another (non-BB) email account.

So the other day I thought I'd go through and organize my pile of emailed links. I soon realized most of them were photo-related, and those alone made for a rather substantial list. Once I had that list formatted up half-decently, I thought, hey, I've put some work into this, I might as well share the result. I'm not sure it'll be useful for anyone except me, but hey, it might be...

Friday, January 11, 2008

testing... 1... 2... 3...

tanner springs

So this is another batch of test photos, taken at Tanner Springs with yet another old film camera and a variety of lenses. This time the camera is a Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL, which I picked up at Goodwill for $10.

tanner springs

The top two photos were taken with an Auto Sears (= Ricoh / Tomioka?) 28mm f2.8. This is my first lens that wide, and I think I rather like it, so far. You might've noticed the overexposed stripe down the second photo -- it turns out that's the fault of the camera, not the lens, as the same thing showed up with other lenses.

Here's the culprit, which I only noticed after getting this roll developed:

hole in shutter curtain

Yep, there's a little hole in the shutter curtain. You can see a square area where a previous repair was attempted, probably with a square of gaffer's tape or something similar. It probably just got old and fell off, so I may try it again, or I may try some black fabric paint, which seems to be the preferred approach out on the interwebs. Yes, I realize the camera only cost $10, but the light meter works, which is really quite unusual for a camera of that age.

So here are the other test shots, and let's all agree to ignore the weird shutter artifacts, ok?

The next 3 are with something called a Kitstar 135mm f2.8. I gather "Kitstar" was/is the store-brand private label for the Kit's Cameras chain. So who actually made it is anyone's guess. I'm kind of curious, though. Part of the fun of this antique camera stuff is trying to figure out where stuff came from, and when.

I don't know that Kitstar-branded lenses are overly well-thought-of by those in the know, but these pics turned out decent enough. Maybe I'm just not good enough at this, and it would be clearer whether this is a good lens or not if someone else had been behind the camera. It wouldn't exactly surprise me.


tanner springs

tanner springs

tanner springs


Ok, so the next two are with an Oreston 50mm f1.8, from Meyer Optik of Görlitz, East Germany. This wasn't the top of the line 50mm lens out of East Germany, although it was the top of the Meyer product lineup, and I gather some people out there consider it a "sleeper". Again, its' hard to say one way or the other based on the current evidence.

One thing I can say about it, though, is that it certainly looks cool. I've got the early chrome & black "zebra" version. It's a fairly big chunk of metal for what it is, but it still comes off looking rather sleek and sophisticated. As far as lenses go, I mean. I'm not entirely sure how important it is to look fashionable, if the only other people who'll notice are fellow camera nerds.

Incidentally, the lens's "home town" of Görlitz sounds like an interesting place. Unlike most German cities, it wasn't bombed during WWII. After the war the eastern half of the city, on the east bank of the Neisse river, ended up in Poland, and is now known as Zgorzelec. These days the two halves get along fine, at least if Wikipedia is to be believed.

tanner springs

tanner springs


And a couple with the Auto Sekor 50mm f2 that came on the 500 DTL. I've already got a 1000 DTL with the slightly faster 55/1.8 Auto Sekor, so I suppose it wasn't absolutely necessary to get this camera & lens. But I figured they might be subtly different somehow, or something, plus you can't go wrong for $10. Plus... well, it's a sickness. I think at one point I promised I'd only buy one lens per focal length, and that I'd stick with just one M42 body, and various other rules and regulations trying to maintain some modicum of self-control. A lot of that's fallen by the wayside over time. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing, but hey. I kept thinking I needed a hobby, and now I've got one, for good or ill.

tanner springs

tanner springs

Thursday, December 27, 2007

assorted sunrises & sunsets

Yet another batch of photos from my ongoing geek-out over old cameras. It's kind of an inconvenient time of year to take up a new hobby, since you can only take so many photos of dark-n-gloomy winter stuff before it gets prohibitively depressing. At least the sun still rises and sets, and occasionally it's even visible.

Not a big fan of winter, I have to say.


So more than anything these photos are test shots, just to see what my various bits and pieces and widgets can do. But I figured, hey, they turned out ok, so I might as well share a few of them. I mention this mostly in case you're wondering why I took so many photos of the same thing. Ok, I was also trying to use up various rolls of film so I could get them processed. Once you're in digital-land, you forget what a pain film can be. And that's before we get to the cost of film, developing, and scanning. In the long run it's probably cheaper to just shell out and get a DSLR and use the lenses on it instead. I'm sure I'll do that eventually, but right now I'm waiting until the end of January to see what goodies arrive at the big PMA 2008 trade show.

Updated: This isn't my first batch of sunrise photos, by any means. It just occurred to me to go rifle through the archives, and -- surprise, surprise -- I was stuck doing sunrise photos last December, just like I am now. Earlier, in October '06, I posted some photos from the preceding January. More recently, here are sunrises from March and October of this year. I never seem to end up with any during the summer, mostly because I'd have to get up too damn early, and in the summer there are lots of other things to take photos of that don't require you to be awake at such an unnatural hour.




So first, here's a recent sunrise, taken with a Pentax Spotmatic SP + Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5. Mostly Mt. Scott, with bits of Mt. Talbert and the South Waterfront district.

sp-scott3

sp-scott5

sp-scott4

sp-scott2

sp-scott1




A couple of Sears TLS photos, the first with the standard 55/1.4 lens, and the second with a monstrous Vivitar 75-260mm zoom lens I found at Goodwill. I'd be exaggerating if I said it weighs a ton, but I wouldn't be exaggerating by all that much.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the construction crane photo. Everybody badmouths old zoom lenses all the time. I'm sure technology's improved and so forth, and a present-day equivalent would certainly be a lot lighter and smaller. But this particular lens, or at least this particular photo, seems reasonably sharp. Sharp enough to use on the interwebs, at any rate.

After buying the lens, I was surprised to discover it's a T4-mount lens. I was playing with it and twisted a ring at the base, and the M42 bits at the end came off in my hand. WTF!? Turns out that was actually a good thing, since the lens's aperture mechanism wasn't working correctly, which might be why I got such a good deal on it. Turns out flaky aperture stuff is a congenital defect among T4 lenses, but the problem area is inside the body-to-T4 adapter, not in the lens itself. So buying a new adapter makes everything peachy keen again.

tls2

tls1




A batch of sunrise photos, this time with a Mamiya 1000 DTL + Vivitar 135/2.8 telephoto lens. These are from a few minutes later than the Spotmatic+Takumar pics, so already the sky's a bit different. Note to self: If you want to compare & contrast two similar lenses, try taking photos of something that generally stays the same. Sunrises and clouds don't count.

mam-scott4

mam-scott3

mam-scott2

mam-scott1




More pics from the Mamiya, this time with the stock Auto Sekor 55/1.8 lens.

mam2

mam1




And last but not least, a couple of Argus C3 photos.

argus1

argus2

Thursday, December 20, 2007

riding the tram with an old camera

Portland Aerial Tram

So I rode the tram again the other day. The thing's about a year old now, and the novelty's worn off. Normally I wouldn't have bothered to ride it, much less post photos of it, but I was taking another old vintage camera for a spin, and the real point of this is to show off the results. So let's just agree we've all done the obligatory collective eye roll about the tram, and another eye roll about the whole South Waterfront thing.

Portland Aerial Tram

The camera I used is an old Argus C3 Matchmatic, which was made between 1958 and 1966. If you've never seen one, you'll want to go look at the photo. There really isn't anything else quite like it. Two-tone leatherette and a bunch of shiny gears, and shaped almost exactly like a brick. Some people call it ugly, but I can't agree. As soon as I saw one on the antique store shelf, I went "ooh, cool" and decided I had to have it. I basically got it because it looked cool, and because it's a bit of vintage Americana. I'm no chest-thumping flag-waving patriot type, of course, but in the camera world, buying American is a form of rooting for the underdog. As is buying anything that isn't Japanese, German, or Russian, come to think of it. In addition, Arguses are cheap and plentiful, and (supposedly) relatively easy to fix if they break, and they don't break all that often. That's a desirable trait in a 40-50 year old camera.

Portland Aerial Tram

I didn't get it thinking it would actually take decent photos. It doesn't exactly look like it would, does it? I figured I'd run a roll through it out of curiosity, and I suppose also on the principle that I'm a camera user, not a collector, and I don't buy things just to put in a display case or whatever. But surprisingly, I actually like the results. A while back I saw an interesting comment about this, to the effect that it's a rather inconvenient camera to use, so there must be some other reason Argus sold millions of them, and kept making them from 1939 all the way to 1966.

Portland Aerial Tram

The standard lens on a C3 is the Coated Cintar, 50mm, f/3.5, which is what I've got. Not everyone realizes the C3 is an interchangeable lens camera. Despite its popularity, only a handful of lenses were ever marketed for it. Possibly this is because changing lenses is a bit of a chore. First you have to unscrew and remove the gear that couples the rangefinder to the lens. Then you unscrew the lens itself, and put the new lens on in its place. When putting the coupling gear back on, you have to take care that the rangefinder and lens are in sync, so that infinity on one means infinity on the other. Otherwise your focus will be all wrong, and you won't know it until you get your photos back. There's a short but apparently complete list of Argus lenses here, and photos of a couple of the more common ones here.

South Waterfront from upper tram station.

There's surprisingly little info on the net about the C3 lens mount, and I've never seen anyone selling an adapter to use Argus lenses on other cameras, despite the vast availability of cheap Arguses with perfectly decent lenses. So here's what I've been able to figure out. The screw thread is quite narrow -- I measured it at 34-35mm, although as a pre-WWII American design it might not be metric at all. 1 3/8" is just shy of 35mm, so that might be it. I didn't get a good read on the thread pitch, but it looked like it was greater than the usual 1mm. I've seen the lens registration distance (i.e. from the back of the lens mount to the film plane) given at 40mm, which is big for a rangefinder, but on the small side for an SLR. If 40mm is right, the only digital cameras you could use lens on and get infinity focus (assuming an adaptor existed) would be Four Thirds SLRs from Olympus, Panasonic, & friends. Oh, and a Leica M8 would probably work too, if you're made of money and actually plan to use the M8 instead of squirreling it away in a vacuum-sealed display case or something. So that might be a problem, but I noticed that the Cintar, at least, is so narrow that you can actually slide the whole back end of the lens into an M42 screw mount. So with a bit of mechanical skill (which I lack), one might be able to cook up a recessed lens adapter, hopefully without requiring mirror lock-up.

I also haven't seen adapters to put other lenses on Arguses. You'd lose rangefinder coupling, naturally, but it'd still be fun to stick a long telephoto or zoom or fisheye (for example) on the front of an Argus and see what you can do with it.

South Waterfront from upper tram station.

It's worth noting that next year marks the 70th birthday of the Argus C and C2, the C3's predecessors, and 2009 is the 70th birthday of the C3 itself. That'd be a great opportunity for the nice folks at Cosina Voigtlander to do one of those historical reproductions like they do. In recent years they've issued Bessa cameras in Leica screw mount, Contax & Nikon rangefinder mounts, M42 SLR mount, and most recently Leica M bayonet mount. Doing an Argus C3-mount Bessa could be a logical extension of that idea. Well, if you could convince enough people to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a new and rather more convenient camera (with a warranty) instead of an old $15 Argus. I'm not holding my breath, I just think it'd be kind of cool, that's all I'm saying.

Downtown from upper tram station

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

assorted accidents & experiments

argus multiple exposure

An accidental multiple-exposure photo, taken with an old Argus C3 Matchmatic I picked up a while back. This wasn't on purpose (and is quite easy to do by accident on a C3), but I rather like it. I have a bunch of 'normal' Argus pics too, which turned out better than I expected. I'll try to post some in the next day or two, or so.


pomegranate & xmas lights

A while back I read something about using out-of-focus Christmas lights to create a nice blobby background. I thought I'd give it a try, and although it came out on the underdone side, I still rather like the effect. The foreground is just a pomegranate I had handy. It's the background I really cared about. In the end it's just an experiment, after all.


macro candy

A sorta-macro shot using an EL-Nikkor 75/4 enlarging lens. I picked the thing up really cheap, as it came attached to some sort of old industrial line-scan camera I can't make heads or tails of. I really ought to get an adapter ring to convert the EL-Nikkor's 39mm thread (the standard enlarger lens mount) to 42mm, so I can use it on macro bellows. And/or get a helicoid & extension tube setup so I can use it like a normal M42 lens. And/or get some additional adapter rings so I can mount it reversed, either on the bellows or the helicoid.

In any case, first I just wanted to see whether the EL-Nikkor takes decent photos or not. It seems to do OK, at least OK enough for me to spring for some of the gadgetry I just mentioned.

The candy, meanwhile, is a raspberry-filled chocolate from Denmark, which we bought at the annual Scandinavian festival at PSU a couple of weeks ago. The company's website is here. I highly recommend the Creamy Raspberry. Actually I highly recommend everything that contains raspberries, come to think of it.


UV landscape

I've posted a few UV photos here before, but they were all taken with my compact digital camera, not with film. So I thought I'd try it with film for comparison, since there was still a big question mark about whether I was really seeing UV or not. Digital sensors are bad at UV, we're told, and UV is incompatible with modern zoom lenses, with their 21st century optical coatings and all those glass elements, some with their surfaces cemented together with rather uv-opaque substances. My little digicam seemed to do it anyway, so I figured I ought to take a film photo or two for comparison. This definitely came out brighter than the usual digital image, but I didn't test both with all other conditions equal, so this is at best an unscientific comparison. I can at least say it looks pretty similar to what the digicam takes, which gives me a bit more confidence that it's seeing what I think it's seeing.

This was a ~1 second exposure, at f/1.4, handheld, because I was too lazy to go across the room and dig out the tripod and cable release. So I'm actually surprised it's as clear as it is. Did I mention this was just an experiment?


pinhole experiment m42

I also got the notion to try making a pinhole "lens" for one of my old SLR, which involved a few seconds of work with a piece of tinfoil and a needle. You can also buy the things premade, with precision laser-bored pinholes, and the results are no doubt a bit less fuzzy. And maybe I'll buy one at some point. But homemade is kind of fun too.


The moon.  Honest.

Now here's one that just failed completely. I bought a T-mount adapter to hook an M42 camera up to a telescope, but I haven't figured out how to get things in focus yet, try as I might. This is supposed to be the moon. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Godless Communism at Tanner Springs

Tanner Springs (Helios-44)

A few more photos from Tanner Springs Park, once again taken with that "antique" film camera I bought a while back. This time around I used an old Soviet Helios-44 lens, complete with "Made in USSR" stamped on the side. The lens actually came on a Zenit-EM camera, a special edition complete with MOSKVA 1980 Olympic rings. How cool is that? The Zenit needs a little TLC though, so I unscrewed the lens and used it on my main M42 camera instead. Whatever else you say about the Soviets, they did rather well in the optics department. Ok, ok, technically the Helios-44's a clone of an earlier Zeiss Biotar, but hey. It's a good cloning job, at least.

A newer version of the Helios-44 is still in production, it turns out, and the manufacturer will sell you a shiny new one for just $43 plus shipping from Russia. Or if you'd just like to see more of what this baby can do, Flickr's got a pile of pix here.

Tanner Springs (Helios-44)

Tanner Springs (Helios-44)

Tanner Springs (Helios-44)