Here are a few samples from the Fuji GA645Zi zoom. This medium format camera is the third and final model in the Fuji GA645 series, and the only one with a zoom feature, but only at four focal lengths, 55mm, 65mm, 75mm and 90mm, there are no in between settings. So far the quality of both the lens and camera seem very good. I'm in the process of testing it out right now, and have only...
Here's a quick comparison of the resolution between two excellent fixed lens cameras, the Olympus 35 SP, and the Fuji GW690III. Both cameras have the same aspect ration, and about the same coverage and depth of field, that's why this comp will have some value if you want to know the quality you'll need for large print sizes. Of course there are other differences between the two films sizes other than just resolution potential, but this is just a quick write up until I dedicate a post to the subject.
The Olympus 35 SP has a 42mm lens, and uses 135 cartridge film, known by hobbists as "35mm" film, which isn't actually 35mm for the imaging area, but that's for another post. Image area is about 24x36mm
The Fuji GW690III has a 90mm lens and uses 120 roll film, with a size known as 6x9, but it isn't actually 6x9cm, that's also for another post. Image area is about 56x83mm
Both lenses are widely known to be extremely sharp, and have very similar coverage areas; the Fuji would be about 40-41mm converted to 135 format, so it's at a slight disadvantage for this comparison.
To sum up the two images quickly; I'm actually surprised...
This amazing 1928 photo, probably taken by San Francisco Photographer Christopher Helin, shows “the new” (1928) Marmon 78 roadster in San Francisco, Ca. (most likely along the First Unitarian Church at the intersection of Franklin and Geary Streets, and around the corner from the Van Ness auto row).
I purchased this 5×7″ glass plate negative from a collector in …
As a follow up to this film, I thought I'd try out a roll of Kodak Vision3 film, sold byCineStill as CineStill 50D when the rem-jet layer is removed. This removal process adds odd characteristics to the film, like forming red halos and tinged borders around dark to bright transitions; check out the shots below to see what I'm talking about.
CineStill 50D Xpro is actually Kodak Vision3 50D 5203 color negative film, which has a coating called 'remjet' for use in motion picture cameras; however, Cinestill has removed the coating so it can be developed in standard color print C-41 chemicals. Kodak Technical info here.
Kodak touts its Vision3 50D as the worlds finest grain film. Characteristics...
Just a quick post to show the amazing quality of the lens on a Kodak Autographic Special No. 1 that's north of a century old. The lens is a triplet of Zeiss origin, sometimes marketed as a Baush and Lomb Kodak Anastigmat, or Kodak Zeiss Anastigmat.
I have a bunch of these Kodak folding cameras from the turn of the century to the 1930s, and all of them have shutter problems, so plan on getting that fixed if you want to use one for walk around snaps.
The Kodak No. 1 cameras take commonly available 120 film today (6x9 size), as they did way back in the day using wooden spools with metal ends, but they will work just fine with modern film using plastic spools. Beware of the Kodak No. 1-a, it takes a completely different size film that is no longer available, and it's often listed alongside the no. 1.
I used Kodak Portra 400 for this image, with the aperture set to F/22, at 1/10 second. My camera shows some signs of a light leak, see the reddish blotches along the left bottom. Once I get that, and some other issues fixed, I'll do a proper review and get it posted.
I see more resolution in this 6x9 negative...
It's April, (in 1918), and time for some spring cleaning, and maybe to replace your worn out stove with a new Detroit Red Star that can fry a thick steak in just 20 minutes!! How about a One Minute washing maching, bench or floor model, (see it in color here), and some One Minute Cleanser? The two electric sweepers brands look to be "America" and maybe "Hoover" although it's hard to tell. I see a couple of clothes wringers at the sides of the image, and a floor scrubber too.
Believe it or not, this exposure probably took about half an hour. I'm guessing (based on depth of field) F/22-32 with an ASA of around 10-20 in what was probably a dimly lit room. My own exposures with 5x7 film at ASA 100 in similar lighting are about 8 minutes at F/32-45.
This image comes to us as a 5x7 glass plate negative...
equals a typical digital camera in 2018. At least in resolution, but ok, maybe not in ease of use.
I took this shot while testing a folding pocket Kodak 3A camera out a couple of years ago. I used Kodak (Verichrome Pan ASA 80) 122 Roll film that expired in 1971, but probably made in 1969, almost 50 years ago! You get six 3¼" x 5½" pictures on a roll, (the same area as a 4x5!!), and I bracketed the shots so I'd be sure and get a good one, however, that wasn't really necessary as all the images turned out pretty good. The shot above was made at F/32, with a one second exposure time. The sunny 16 rule puts my exposure about four stops longer than normal, and 'normal' being about 1/15s at F/32 with ASA 80 film.
I think I used Ilfosol 3 developer around 4-5 minutes in a tank. It's expensive to do just one roll at a time, with the film about $25 a roll (a few years ago, now it's around $50-100 a roll depending on age), and developer, stop bath and fixer about half that, so about $5 a picture; save money and get the kodak combination back and use fresh 8x10 sheet film. After cutting you'll get three shots, (which allows small try developing), that's what I'm doing now, and costs about $3 per shot.
I'll be doing a review of the Kodak 3A in the near future; it's quite a camera, especially when you get one with a good lens like the (Zeiss) Kodak Anastigmat, or Tessar types.
The image above was scanned on a Epson V700, which does a pretty good job, but there is more detail in the original. Unfortunately, I don't have a good scanner that will accommodate the large 3¼" x 5½" negative. I could cut it in half, or take a partial using a digital camera and macro lens, but I think I'll wait and show that in the review.
The resolution in the long expired film negative is about what you'd get with a good 24mp digital camera and top quality prime lens today, not bad for a camera from the silent film era.
I purchased this roll of CineStill 800T Xpro quite a while back, and finally found a good time to use it, which is at night with a lot of lights. It's tungsten balanced film, with a color of 3200k, (same as incandescent light bulbs), so if you use it in daylight without a filter, you'll wind up with very bluish images. It has an odd characteristic of forming red halos and tinged borders around dark to bright transitions; check out the shots below to see what I'm talking about.
CineStill 800T Xpro is actually Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 color negative film, which has a coating called 'remjet' for use in motion picture cameras; however, Cinestill has removed the coating so it can be developed in standard color print C-41 chemicals, see the info below from CineStill...