Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alan7140

  1. ...via a back road, this scene caught my eye as a quintessential Tasmanian rural winter scene, looking towards the aptly named but poor imitation of the 'real' Table Mountain in the distance. Pentacon Six with 2,8/180 lens, 15-year-old Fuji Acros film, Rodinal 1:50.
  2. Last year Pentacon Sixes in good order were late AU$100's to mid $300's with some as dear as mid AU$500's with late MC lens, now they start at late AU$200's and the sky's the limit. e.g. (and this isn't even a late model - 1970's single-coated 50mm f/4 lens on an early '80's body at best)
  3. Although surely the demise of Trabis was celebrated, not mourned? People would definitely breathe easier as a result. I also doubt remnant examples of that dreadful machine would be increasing at the rate Pentacon Sixes are at the moment. Many are now being priced at the same levels as Hasselblad.
  4. Scenery as spectacular as it gets. Love those rock formations.
  5. I owe industry from behind that wall for all my Pentacon Six gear and lenses - without the DDR that camera would never have been built, as was proven when production ceased almost as soon as the wall came down. The last Pentacon Six cameras were made in early 1990, as was the case for their Carl Zeiss Jena camera lenses. Despite their poor reputation (largely, I would suggest, as a result of being on the "wrong" side of the Western propaganda machine), the Pentacon Six is without doubt the camera system I have enjoyed the most to use over all those I have owned, Hasselblad included. Maybe it's because they're quirky and a bit temperamental, maybe because I no longer have to use the cameras for income-making work, but whatever the reasons I actually have more fun with them than I ever did with their more technically correct and precision-built Western counterparts.
  6. Half the fun is using a medium format camera that needs no batteries, I reckon - probably trade off the ETRS for a good old S2? Maybe I'm just a bit of an odball, but I sort of expect that many more who gave up B&W darkroom in favour of staring at a computer monitor will find getting back into the darkroom as addictive as I have, and not at all as dismal as we all seem to remember slaving under safelights to have been. (Actually, Dallas, add the Bronica S2A to your list of possibles - they're pretty cheap at present on ebay.) Personally I also prefer working in the square - I never warmed to 645, and hated that my workplace in the mid-'70's changed from Hasselblad to Mamiya M645 and Pentax 6x7, and therefore I traded my 'blad in for an M645 outfit to remain compatible with at least some of the studio's camera equipment, and which was a camera that I actually grew to despise. Horrible, tinny, flimsy little thing that started to rust from under the paint within a year, and not having interchangeable magazines made matters even worse. The lenses were OK, but nothing to get excited about, either. I also never thought much of the Pentax 6x7 - heavy, bulky, and my boss as a left hander insisted that the awful wooden accessory grip fitted to the left side of the camera remain permanently in place, which made the thing almost impossible for me to use. The Pentacon Six is a positive lightweight midget compared to that Pentax (and it sure is obvious that the Pentax copied the Pentacon Six concept; in fact the name Pentax was bought from Dresden KW/Pentacon who had copyrighted it during the Zeiss West/East Germany Zeiss trademark disputes of the 1950's; Pentax comes from PENtaprism/conTAX - as I think I've mentioned here before. Pentacon had previously opted for PENTAprism/CONtax as their name out of the two choices in order to keep their Zeiss Contax roots more obvious).
  7. Agreed, Hasselblad prices have gone silly, and I do have some regrets at having sold off my outfit - in late 2009, I think) - but financing digital acquisitions demanded by my work at the time meant unused equipment had to go, and I'd only used the 'blad two or three times in three years, so it drew the short straw. At the time I could see nothing but doom for film, anyway, as from a money-earning perspective at the time, no-one wanted anything on film. Occasionally a cheap Rollei SL66 appears on the market these days (amongst a crowd of overpriced hopefuls) - it was never a popular camera, but it was very well featured with bellows focusing, lens tilt and a mount that enabled lenses to be mounted in reverse for macro photography as standard. I noticed a few of the Rollei lenses appearing on ebay recently modified for for Pentacon Six mount as well as some with Arriflex mount modification, which points to low demand for the Rollei SL66 system itself and therefore the possibility of a bargain popping up. You might put that on your list of considerations as well - the lenses are undoubtedly just modified versions of the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses, so end results will be in the same ballpark. Of course their unpopularity at the time means they're pretty rare today - the follow-up Rollei SLX/6006 system was more Hasselblad-like, but they bring higher prices these days. The only TLR I'd really consider is the Mamiya C330, or its less featured sibling the C220, but they're no longer cheap, and personally I never liked using them - again, Mamiya seem to enjoy making awkward-to-use cameras. By far the worst camera I ever had to use (at my first job) was the awful Mamiya Press. Yes, it was versatile in being able to use several different film format backs, but it really took the prize for being the most horrendous thing to use in an actual working situation. If ever there was an anti-ergonomic design, this piece of crap was it. Rollei TLRs are way overpriced in the fashion of collecibles like Leica, although you could consider an Ikoflex for less money, but both these are old designs. There is another camera I've looked at over the years, namely the Fujica GW690 (90mm lens) and GSW690 (65mm lens) rangefinders, nicknamed "Texas Leica" for their large physical size (and 6x9 format). The original version G690 and G690BL came as an interchangeable lens camera with a choice of lenses (50, 65, 100, 150 and 180, from memory), but the later GW and GSW were fixed lens cameras. If you want a larger-than-life 120 film format camera with the convenience of rangefinder simplicity, it's hard to go past one of these. They, too, are rather rapidly gaining in price, from the mid $200's a few years ago to over $600 for a good one these days, and more for the GSW690.
  8. At the moment I'm absolutely besotted with the cantankerous, temperamental, idiosyncratic Pentacon Six cameras and their Carl Zeiss lenses, so any recommendations might end up being biased towards that system. I simply love using the camera more than just about anything I've ever used before - although many will call me crazy for even suggesting that given the lengthy list of shortcomings the experts will reel off at the slightest mention of the name. In contrast, and while it has taken three examples of each to end up with a good camera, as far as 35mm goes I always used to, and now still do swear by the Olympus OM1 and the Minolta SR-T 101. there are literally dozens of these available on ebay in good working order at around $60-$120 for a body only, and maybe $30 or $40 more with a standard lens. The dodgy areas appear to be the meters, and of course the unavailability of the original 1.35v mercury button cells that used to power those meters. There are substitutes, and I've found them to operate well enough with plain 1.5v LR44 Alkaline cells, or better yet with more stable silver oxide versions. Both cameras are accurate enough, the Minolta can also be adjusted by changing the position of two tabs located under the base-plate, although, as mentioned, getting one that works in the first place is very much the luck of the draw. Get lucky and you can have a pristine 35mm camera and a wide, normal and moderate tele lens for around the $200-$250 mark, which is almost a joke when considering what these things cost, even second-hand, when film was still the means of taking photos. As far as processing goes, Paterson tanks complete with two reels are available new for around US$30, chemistry is easily available in economical 1 litre bottles, and bulk 30m rolls of film and daylight loaders are also available. My materials supplier since 1983 has recently been increasingly turning his business over to supplying film-related product; you can get an idea of just how undead film is by having a look at his site for the sheer variety of choice that exists off-the-shelf/in stock here: Photoresource Eventually I suppose some manufacturers will start producing film cameras again, but with the huge numbers of good second-hand gear that fell out of use when digital hit still surfacing on ebay, it might be a while yet before new gear becomes a viable thing to manufacture again. Unfortunately they'll never manufacture the Pentacon Six again - that was a permanent casualty of the Soviet collapse, and Pentacon itself was sold off and dismantled as a company by 1990. As the highest serial numbers reached were around the 205,000 mark (which includes the several thousand around #185,000 that were sold as chassis to Exakta in West Germany as the base for the Exakta 66), there really aren't going to be that many available into the future, particularly given their reputation for being rather delicate in construction and tricky to repair - if you can even find someone to repair them.
  9. Hopefully things will get easier as more either return to film, or try it for the first time and get hooked on the difference in everything about it, from technique to end result, when compared with shooting digital. There is no doubt that there is a movement underway of people using film - it is evident both in the steadily increasing prices of old film equipment on the second-hand market, through the increasing groups and posts on various places on the Internet, to to the reintroduction discontinued film products by various manufacturers, most recent being Fujifilm's announcement that they'll be re-releasing Acros 2 in the next few months, barely a year after deciding to discontinue the original Acros 100 ISO B&W film, which is pretty much an admission of perhaps having misread the potential market for the product. I know that I am thoroughly enjoying using film again and that it has re-ignited what was a waning passion for photography, and for that I am very grateful. I also know it shows in both my photographs and demeanour, as a friend recently commented on one of my photos posted online: "I can tell you're happy by the way you post these days. It's brilliant."
  10. Hopefully there'll be some interest in this Analogue Club along with a few posts as well. I've been back with film (monochrome only) for over two years now, and for me it's been the best thing I've done for a long while, having completely reversed what was a declining interest in taking photographs, which I had initially thought was just a natural thing after nearly 50 years of being involved professionally, but has since been proven to have been caused by a boredom and disenchantment with the digital methods having taken over, and the predictability and expense of both the outcomes and the incessant update cycles of both camera and computer equipment that has resulted. Having recommissioned my dormant darkroom and bought a virtual barrow-load of film cameras from 35mm through to a half-plate Thornton Pickard, including a bunch of pristine lenses to suit (and all for less than the cost of a single pro digital body), I have an equipment arsenal that will outlast me with nothing further to buy than film (after I get through the dozens of rolls in the freezer left over from when digital became mandatory in the industry), and fresh photographic paper when and as needed (which costs less than plain cotton-rag inkjet paper), and therefore I'm all set for a film-based retirement. Meanwhile my digital outfits have been gathering dust, other than when I use the Fuji to photograph my film cameras and lenses to illustrate posts on my equipment the Internet, or the Sigma sd Quattro H to photograph the negatives to post the images online. I have now settled on the somewhat quirky Pentacon Six cameras as my go-to system , and somewhat enjoy the intrigue of why there is always a question in the back of my mind when I am using them as to whether they're working correctly or not (everything is pre-1990 in manufacture, after all). However the results continue to please me greatly, and that is no doubt helped by being familiar with the medium through having spent the greater part of my career using nothing but film, and most of all B&W film. Unfortunately I have discovered that the conversion of film negs to digital and the reduction in resolution through resizing for the Internet is not at all successful in transmitting what an actual photographic print from the negative actually looks like, an idea of the appearance of the finished article can be obtained. However, and almost inevitably, interpolation accentuates the graininess of the image often to a ridiculous degree, which is partially why I am sometimes reluctant to post. However, that aside, I welcome this subset club of Fotozones and hope that it does attract at least a few participants. Last Friday I escaped the dreary cold of the fog shrouded valley in which I live to take a day's drive up into the Tasmanian Midlands town of Ross, and once again came away amazed that I'd managed to spend a day with my camera and yet only shoot 10 frames on one film, most of which I was perfectly happy with. The difference between that and the now over-shot barrage of images that a normal digital shooting day routinely involves is obvious, and it's a working style I far prefer, carefully composing and calculating each shot before pressing the button, rather than "shooting around the shot" and leaving a headache of editing in front of a computer monitor to follow. Again, low-res copies, but here are a few that I took, mostly with the extraordinarily good and flare-free Carl Zeiss Jena 4/50 lens on a Pentacon Six body and expired Ilford 400 Delta Pro film. There's nothing in Australia to beat the Tasmanian mid-winter light on a still, cool day, and nothing like the silvery glow of B&W film to to justice to that light. Church Street, Ross, without the summer hordes of tourists: Ross Uniting Church: 1836 Ross bridge: Overgrown sign at the Scitch Thistle Inn: And one for good measure - the next morning the fog still hadn't lifted in New Norfolk, but that, and freezing temperatures were not enough to stop hardy Tasmanians holding the usual Saturday morning street market, even if attendance was below par:
  11. All I can say is that I've been back on the film trails for well over a year now, and I have yet to be disappointed with any of the results, save when there has been gear failure (which is only to be expected - all my cameras are over 30 years old). I think that this is due to the fact that I am forced to carefully consider every shot before pushing the shutter button - film is a tangible expense, for the Pentacon Six it is around AUD $1.00 every time the shutter fires. So in the 12 exposures of my last film I considered six of the shots worth posting on various forums and social media. Six out of twelve shots in total. A full day's shoot in just 12 shots. Not many digital sessions would result in that sort of a ratio.
  12. I'm so glad I've returned to film, perhaps yesterday provided the clearest explanation to me for this yet. I had modified my adapted lens hood for the Carl Zeiss Jena 4/50 Flektogon that had been vignetting, and with one frame left on the film I walked 1km from where I was parked, saw the scene below, took just that one last exposure, and returned to the car for the drive home. When you do this, and the shot turns out exactly as you envisioned, there is way more sense of accomplishment and satisfaction than finding the shot in a cluster of dozens of digital files that you bashed off to "make sure" that you had the shot (not to mention not knowing that I'd also defeated the vignetting until I'd processed the film - although that was a result of a camera limitation as the Pentacon only shows 51x51mm of the 55x55mm image in the viewfinder). I guess that's it for digital and I for good - I can hardly remember the last time I got real satisfaction from a digital shoot like I got from this shot.
  13. Alan7140

    Wentworth House

    Wentworth House (formerly "Inverhall"), built in 1833, Bothwell, Central Tasmania. Pentacon Six, Zeiss 4/50.
  14. The Original AC/DC 1973 Tour Bus. Quite 'armless, really. 😏😬🙄
  15. So the new chassis I installed into the non-functional Pentacon Six I had also failed to work properly at 1/125th second after a few actuations. This is the most common cause of a Pentacon Six failing, apparently, and the fix requires a major strip-down which I might tackle in the future, but meantime an ebay seller I've bought from before who has proved to be 100% trustworthy in both descriptions and working condition of the goods he sells came up with a workshop-overhauled Pentacon Six body with a serial number from the most recent production run (1989-90) and I bought that instead. So with two near-mint and identical-looking Pentacon bodies I thought I could start carrying both, each loaded with a different ISO folm, but as the ISO reminder dial on the cameras is extremely easy to bump off setting, and a spare Pentacon Six faceplate from the dead camera at hand, the obvious solution was to make the two visually different. A few hours and some paint later, and the two can be told apart at a glance. That's a good thing about these cheap old cameras - you can mess about with them without worrying about the consequences.
  16. I have vague memories of them under construction, but wasn't truly aware of them until they had been standing a while when I started a daily trip into RMIT in 1971. By tram or by train I passed directly by them, either in a tram or exiting/entering Flinders St Station.
  17. A bit before my time - the Gas & Fuel Corp buildings blocked the view of St Paul's and almost everything behind from the mid '60's through to them being demolished for Federation Square, which was finished in 2002, I think. They were the feature in the view from the south throughout most of my time in Melbourne, and were still there when I left. This is closer to what I saw coming in from the south:
  18. Alan7140

    Canyon Sussuapara

    This also looks incredible. Nice series.
  19. The D3 was only here temporarily, but it was the first time I had seen and hefted a D* Nikon since acquiring the medium format Soviet & DDR cameras, and I was genuinely taken aback at just how awkward and heavy the D camera was, not to mention how much more complicated, with all those buttons, screens and plethora of menu options obfuscating the reason for the thing's existence, namely taking photographs. I think we maybe forgot too quickly and easily how simple the actual taking of photos used to be without Nanny Digital taking control.
  20. Whatever the reason, it's a complete shift from the traditional Olympus philosophy on photographic gear.
  21. I just thought the comparison with actual film cameras which have been the object of so much derision for their size and weight over the past couple of decades was interesting, what with the actual machines at hand to weigh on the same set of scales, and not some advertising company's imaginative ones.
  22. I just thought the comparison with actual film cameras which have been the object of so much derision for their size and weight over the past couple of decades was interesting, what with the actual machines at hand to weigh on the same set of scales, and not some advertising company's imaginative ones.
  23. Good luck with that camera, Dallas, and enjoy the safari, although my first thought as a longtime Olympus fan was - "WTF, Olympus?" As happens I have a bunch of cameras on my table at the moment: A Minolta SR-T 101 with 58/1.4 lens was my first serious 35mm camera, identical to the one in the middle. My second camera 8 years later was a jewel of design and compactness, a much loved Olympus OM-1, exactly like the one at front right. Olympus won me first with the size of the camera, as well as the size of the lenses. Everything was small and light, but performed easily as well as the Minolta. My last digital purchase was a Fuji X-T2, almost identical in size to the X-T1 pictured at front left. Take away the L bracket and that camera is roughly the size of the 35mm Minolta camera, but a lot lighter - with battery but without lens it weighs 505gm. It got me away from the stupidly big and heavy Nikon D* bodies such as the hulk at back left, weighing a full two thirds less. For comparison purposes in the photo, my first medium format film camera bought in this digital era was the Kiev-60 pictured in the middle rear. Built like a Russian tank it reminded me of the D* Nikons in size and weight - it weighs 1250gm without lens. I have migrated since to the physically smaller and somewhat lighter Pentacon Six cameras, and which deliver superb medium format picture quality as can be expected. A Pentacon body without lens weighs almost exactly the same as the Minolta SR-T 101 with 58/1.4 lens - both are around 1030gm. The OM-1 weighs 730gm with 50/1.4 lens. The Nikon D3 without lens but with battery is just under 1500gm. You can see where I'm going with this. The published weight of the m4/3 Olympus E-M1X body with batteries and without a lens is 997gm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's as near as damnit equal to the weight of a medium format Pentacon Six film camera body, about a quarter more than an OM-1 with battery and a standard 50/1.4 lens attached, and just a third less than a house-brick Nikon D3 instrument of torture with battery and no lens. I repeat WTF, Olympus? 🙄 "Beast" seems an apt description, Dallas.
  24. Not meaning to sound repetitive, but that skyline is totally unrecognisable as being the same city I grew up, lived and worked in between 1964 and 1995.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.