Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,732   Posts: 1,515,288   Online: 887
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,971
    I'll betcha Marty Forscher could have done it with his eyes closed and both hands behind his back! :@)
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    Why not by a Pentax LX for your lens. Very nice camera.

  3. #43
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    246
    Images
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Hikari View Post
    Why not by a Pentax LX for your lens. Very nice camera.
    They probably are great cameras and I wouldn't mind a chrome body but then I'll want adapters for my 24 and 105 Ais lenses to the LX. I thought i was clear in my original post that I want to stick to one body and this IS the camera building modification forum.

  4. #44
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by declark View Post
    This is the camera building modification forum.
    By Jove you do have a point!
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #45
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,806
    Images
    1
    While this of fun to do its not experimental photography. I have the 50/1.4 Takumar M-42 mount and bought an adapter to mount it my C/Y bodies. So is using it on my RTSII any more experimental than using my 50/1.4 Planar on my RTSII? No, of course not.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  6. #46
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    246
    Images
    79
    Richard did you chose the Takumar for cost or other reason as Contax should have a stellar 50 f1.4?

  7. #47
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,559
    They probably are great cameras and I wouldn't mind a chrome body
    A chrome LX- hmmm....could be an interesting project. LX's only came in black, except for the rare LX2000 and gold-plated ones.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #48
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    246
    Images
    79
    Lxdude you caught me. I was going to edit out the "chrome" in my post but the server was doing maintenance at the time. I was confusing the LX with the MX, ME bodies which I suspect are very similar to Nikon FE, FM bodies. Pricewise the LX + 50 1.4 ~= Nikkor 50mm f1.2 which still would be my first choice if money was no object.

  9. #49
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,559
    The MX an ME bodies are superficially similar, but much smaller. They're the smallest 35mm SLR's I know of. The MX has a horizontal cloth shutter where the FM's have vertical metal, and it has a huge viewfinder like an OM-1. The ME is all-auto, all the time; the ME Super has manual speeds changed by push-buttons; both have a vertical metal shutter. The finder is really nice, somewhat smaller image size than the MX. The one thing that turned me off the FM's was the viewfinder, which I didn't like with glasses.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,291
    Quote Originally Posted by declark View Post
    I hear a lot of good about Pentax 50 / 55 mm lenses in regards to bokeh. Never been too crazy about Nikon's 50's. Currently have an Ai 50 f2 that is good, but still am intrigued by something faster and smoother. The 50 Ais f1.2 is an obvious but expensive option. I have machine shop access and for about $100 I could make a run at adapting a Takumar. I know that there is about a 1mm diff in flange to film so I would have to try removing about this much material to get infinity focus, just wondering if anyone else has tried a similar mod. I would like to use this with my F3 so not interested in getting another body to carry and it sounds like a fun project. Any suggestions...? Thanks.
    For that same $100 you can get a Pentax body and decide if you like the "bokeh". When you are done, you will have a camera and lens that is saleable, instead of a butchered piece of crap that no one will want.

    If you must machine something, just make a new mount to go on the Takumar rather than hacking the original mount. What about the aperture actuation?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin