Getting a new piece of kit... possibly

[Ivan]

Was on the search for a new camera today... full manual style of course.

What i found:
Zenit E, KMZ made, Industar-50 lens
Shutter sticks on return and selftimer wind lever is missing.
Shop said they will try to fix the shutter in about a week or so...

If they get it working, the only things left to do are:
1: solar cell in the lightmeter
2: Helios 44 or some other nice lens (they have a Jupiter-11 with LTM42 thread...)

[Craig.]

One of the main reasons i couldn't use my SLR was because of the stuck shutter, i took it to acamera shop asked them how much to fix it, they said alot and would take a while, so i took it home, looked it over used the cap of a pen and gentley pulled the shutter curtain across, i heard the fammiliar click as it snapped into place and it was all fixed. So much for long and expensive. Working fine, i took it to another to make sure it was all ok and it was.
I'd suggest you try the same if thats the problem, just be very careful and gentle.

[Fozzer]

Was on the search for a new camera today... full manual style of course.

What i found:
Zenit E, KMZ made, Industar-50 lens
Shutter sticks on return and selftimer wind lever is missing.
Shop said they will try to fix the shutter in about a week or so...

If they get it working, the only things left to do are:
1: solar cell in the lightmeter
2: Helios 44 or some other nice lens (they have a Jupiter-11 with LTM42 thread...)

Hi Ivan...!

I've got exactly the same model... ...!
...complete with zoom lenses, filters, etc...

It's a Russian camera made in the 1970's...
Popular at the time.
A cheap(ish) TTL camera...a bit iffy nowadays...
Never gets used now...!

Probably better to spend a few Roubles on a Digital camera...no more expensive film processing... ...!

Cheers Ivan...!

Paul.... ...!

[Hagar]

I've got exactly the same model... ...!
...complete with zoom lenses, filters, etc...

It's a Russian camera made in the 1970's...
Popular at the time.
A cheap(ish) TTL camera...a bitt iffy nowadays...
Never gets used now...!

Snap, although mine is the fully manual model. My friend next door had the all singing & dancing version.

Well built with a decent lens but weighed about the same as your average house brick. I took some good shots with it but the biggest problem was the sliding catch on the case. This could fly open without warning thus ruining the film. I ended up securing it closed with sticky tape but I lost a lot of irreplaceable family photos before thinking of that.

Probably better to spend a few Roubles on a Digital camera...no more expensive film processing... ...!

Agreed. I can't be bothered with all that nonsense now. I wouldn't swap my digital camera for anything.

[Ivan]

One of the main reasons i couldn't use my SLR was because of the stuck shutter, i took it to acamera shop asked them how much to fix it, they said alot and would take a while, so i took it home, looked it over used the cap of a pen and gentley pulled the shutter curtain across, i heard the fammiliar click as it snapped into place and it was all fixed. So much for long and expensive. Working fine, i took it to another to make sure it was all ok and it was.
I'd suggest you try the same if thats the problem, just be very careful and gentle.

I have seen every corner of it in the shop (opened the back, tried out the lens and visually cheked the film advance. Even had the lens screwed off (actually for measuring the opening, as the shop assistant didn't know if it was a LTM39 or a LTM42 mount)

Shutter only sticks on return (using 'B' mode), and if you touch the speed selector the system sometimes catches and the shutter moves to its intended position.

@Fozzer
Im not at all impressed by the quality of a reasonable priced digital camera

[Fozzer]

Snap, although mine is the fully manual model. My friend next door had the all singing & dancing version.....

...I can't be bothered with all that nonsense now. I wouldn't swap my digital camera for anything.

You would not believe the numbers of cameras I've got knocking around the house still with un-devloped film in them...

..couldn't cope with all the expensive film processing, developing, printing, waiting, etc, at the time...  :'(...!

No such problems with digital cameras...much to Kodak's dismay... ... ...!

Cheers...!

Paul.... ...!

[Fozzer]

...@Fozzer
Im not at all impressed by the quality of a reasonable priced digital camera

Note Rifleman's, CraigL's, and Hagar's amazing photo's here...all done with a digital cameras.... ...!

Over to Rifleman, CraigL, and Hagar for the latest news... ...!

Paul.

Buy a Magazine. "Which Digital Camera", etc...!

[Ivan]

Digitals that i have experience with
Canon 520: lens size is almost the same as my FED-4, but when you look at the working part, it's as big as a perforator hole. Nice wideangle, but autofocus is 100% crap as it never gets the parts sharp that you want sharp. Flash too small to be useful (lots of noise on the images and bad detail at the moment you need it) and body size not suitable for my hands. Battery consumption is average

Dimage Z3: Takes better pictures than its 4 megapixel competitor (the canon), looks and feels like a camera, as it needs 4 batteries. Battery consumption: BAD even with flash off

And then the developing cost: plain awful. 40 euros for about 75 pictures.

Now compare this to my trusty FED-4...
No batteries needed as long as you don't use a separate flash unit
Ergonomy... not that bad actually if you have large hands. Controls are conveniently placed
Weight: yes it is quite heavy (1040 grams to be precise), but when you take your digital one, you should add the weight of the battery charger...
Image quality: stained glass shots and shooting lighted objects while in-the-dark are tricky (as you can't get the correct lightmeter reading), but overall it is as good as any digital.
Price for photo development: 0,20 cents a picture.

[Hagar]

It's obviously a matter of preference. Some people tell me traditional film cameras can take far better quality photos & they know far more than me on the subject. It really depends on the sort of photography you're interested in & what you want the photos for.

I don't class myself as a photographer, I just like taking photos. I can only say that most photographers I know have gone over to digital. The pros & serious amateurs use expensive DSLRs with even more expensive lenses but if they've been at it for any length of time they already have those.

An old friend of mine has been a photographer all his life & even did it for a living at one time. He recently asked my advice on a digital camera & his limit was

[beaky]

You would not believe the numbers of cameras I've got knocking around the house still with un-devloped film in them...

..couldn't cope with all the expensive film processing, developing, printing, waiting, etc, at the time...  :'(...!  

FYI: most photo-processing places nowadays will take those rolls of film and do the scanning for you; I take mine to CVS (nationwide 'drugstore' chain), for example, and if I request "no prints" they'll make up a disc for a pittance... between $2 and $3US. Certainly a good deal to preserve all those old mam- er, I mean, memories...

[Fozzer]

FYI: most photo-processing places nowadays will take those rolls of film and do the scanning for you; I take mine to CVS (nationwide 'drugstore' chain), for example, and if I request "no prints" they'll make up a disc for a pittance... between $2 and $3US. Certainly a good deal to preserve all those old mam- er, I mean, memories...

...I forgot to mention, the rolls of un-developed films in the cameras date back 35 years... ...!

...probably rolls of clear plastic by now... ...!
LOL...!

I think used, un-processed film has quite a short storage life..!

Paul.

[Craig.]

you'd be surprised Mr F.
Its worth taking it down to be developed, the place i used to get mine developed would only charge if the film could be developed, i had a number of rolls that were damaged and because they couldn't get the pictures off despite trying they didnt charge.
I know we have alot of old rolls of fill around, gonna have to get them developed at some point.

[Hagar]

...I forgot to mention, the rolls of un-developed films in the cameras date back 35 years... ...!

...probably rolls of clear plastic by now... ...!
LOL...!

I think used, un-processed film has quite a short storage life..!

Paul.

LOL Exactly the same thing happened to me. Thought I'd take a chance & had them developed. The photos came out but you can't see anything through a pink haze.

Still it's not a bad idea of Rotty's. Don't know how much they charge for doing that around here. I shall investigate but between $2 - $3 sounds a tad ambitious to me. More like 10 quid I reckon. Check out my link.
[quote]
COMPLETE FILM TO CD - STANDARD

1 - 40 EXP  

[beaky]

...I forgot to mention, the rolls of un-developed films in the cameras date back 35 years... ...!

...probably rolls of clear plastic by now... ...!
LOL...!

I think used, un-processed film has quite a short storage life..!

Paul.

You never know.. sometimes the frames towards the middle of the roll are useable, as the shelf-life of exposed film has a lot to do with exposure to air and humidity. And if they are pinkish or whatever, having got them in digital form already, you can tweak them to the point where they're not so bad. Can't cite an example offhand, but I've heard of very old  film being developed with acceptable results (acceptable meaning you can see what it is, at least).
Myself, I'd be dying to try it out of sheer curiosity, esp. if I couldn't recall what I'd shot!! Even if they wind up a little funky-looking, there might be some priceless shots in there...
Fozzer's Time Capsule...!!
See the Seventies, come to life!!
But on second thought:

Probably mostly pictures of food and fat women...

[Hagar]

And if they are pinkish or whatever, having got them in digital form already, you can tweak them to the point where they're not so bad.

I actually tried that with my hazy pink ones when I first got my new photo scanner. The results were disappointing, possibly due to my lack of skill with the graphics editor. It's all very well having expensive software but you have to know how to use it. I've had amazing results with some of the others. After a few simple tweaks they print out far better than the originals ever were. That's why the digital camera is so much better for my purposes.