helimat wrote:
It seems as such. Thanks for the update, I guess I'll be initiating a return.
Honestly I think the meter is the least important part of the camera.
I was using mine for weeks without a meter before the battery adapter came in. I was actually surprised that the meter was accurate!
If the viewfinder is nice and clear - not hazy or with debris like I've seen with a lot - and the shutter is good, and the price was right, then I'd be inclined to keep it.
helimat wrote:
It seems as such. Thanks for the update, I guess I'll be initiating a return.
Obviously it depends on how important a functioning meter is to you but, if you do return the camera and buy another, there’s no guarantee that the replacement’s meter will be any better. The seller described the meter in my FT as “working”, which it is in the sense that the needle moves up to a numerical value in bright light. I don’t feel, however, that he was being dishonest because I think it’s unreasonable to expect a seller to check the accuracy of a meter in a camera that’s more than 50 years old and which requires a special adapter as a substitute for an obsolete mercury battery.
---------------------------------------------
Desmolicious wrote:
Honestly I think the meter is the least important part of the camera.
I was using mine for weeks without a meter before the battery adapter came in. I was actually surprised that the meter was accurate!
If the viewfinder is nice and clear - not hazy or with debris like I've seen with a lot - and the shutter is good, and the price was right, then I'd be inclined to keep it.
Totally agree that the meter is the least important part of the camera. I was going to return the FT I purchased because the meter and self-timer were faulty. It turns out that the self-timer is fine—it was the operator who was faulty. But, as you say, a clear viewfinder, a good shutter, and a decent price are what matter, the meter is really secondary. Since the FT meets the viewfinder, shutter, and price criteria, I’ve decided to hold on to it as a backup for the FV I bought to replace it. I never imagined that I would say this but I enjoy using the Pen F cameras almost as much as I do my M4.
Desmolicious wrote:
Honestly I think the meter is the least important part of the camera.
I was using mine for weeks without a meter before the battery adapter came in. I was actually surprised that the meter was accurate!
If the viewfinder is nice and clear - not hazy or with debris like I've seen with a lot - and the shutter is good, and the price was right, then I'd be inclined to keep it.
---------------------------------------------
genji wrote:
Obviously it depends on how important a functioning meter is to you but, if you do return the camera and buy another, there’s no guarantee that the replacement’s meter will be any better. The seller described the meter in my FT as “working”, which it is in the sense that the needle moves up to a numerical value in bright light. I don’t feel, however, that he was being dishonest because I think it’s unreasonable to expect a seller to check the accuracy of a meter in a camera that’s more than 50 years old and which requires a special adapter as a substitute for an obsolete mercury battery.
---------------------------------------------
Totally agree that the meter is the least important part of the camera. I was going to return the FT I purchased because the meter and self-timer were faulty. It turns out that the self-timer is fine—it was the operator who was faulty. But, as you say, a clear viewfinder, a good shutter, and a decent price are what matter, the meter is really secondary. Since the FT meets the viewfinder, shutter, and price criteria, I’ve decided to hold on to it as a backup for the FV I bought to replace it. I never imagined that I would say this but I enjoy using the Pen F cameras almost as much as I do my M4....Show more →
Thanks for your thoughts guys, but I'm sorry, I'm inclined to disagree. I paid a premium for a 'Mint, fully operational functional as intended' camera. They also went out of their way to specify that the meter 'works properly.' The fact is, I could have saved some money by purchasing a clean one that had a meter issue disclosed. I haven't given up though! I'll send this one back, and at some point I'll come across another one. I certainly enjoyed putting a roll through it, and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
That being said, if the seller offers a partial refund instead, I'd be inclined to keep it & use it as is.
Thanks for your thoughts guys, but I'm sorry, I'm inclined to disagree. I paid a premium for a 'Mint, fully operational functional as intended' camera. They also went out of their way to specify that the meter 'works properly.' The fact is, I could have saved some money by purchasing a clean one that had a meter issue disclosed. I haven't given up though! I'll send this one back, and at some point I'll come across another one. I certainly enjoyed putting a roll through it, and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
That being said, if the seller offers a partial refund instead, I'd be inclined to keep it & use it as is.
Black Edition Intrepid... very "rustic" experience so far.
Normally I'm a buy once cry once kind of person, but thought budget would be the way to go with 4x5 to start. I think this is a little too budget. Lens board wouldn't fit until I filed some of the edge off of it (only a sample of one, so it may be the board was a little out of spec), though that Fotodiox adapter also wouldn't fit without additional "customizing."
beardedspoooon wrote:
Black Edition Intrepid... very "rustic" experience so far.
Normally I'm a buy once cry once kind of person, but thought budget would be the way to go with 4x5 to start. I think this is a little too budget. Lens board wouldn't fit until I filed some of the edge off of it (only a sample of one, so it may be the board was a little out of spec), though that Fotodiox adapter also wouldn't fit without additional "customizing."
beardedspoooon wrote:
Black Edition Intrepid... very "rustic" experience so far.
Normally I'm a buy once cry once kind of person, but thought budget would be the way to go with 4x5 to start. I think this is a little too budget. Lens board wouldn't fit until I filed some of the edge off of it (only a sample of one, so it may be the board was a little out of spec), though that Fotodiox adapter also wouldn't fit without additional "customizing."
I just hope things go well when the film arrives.
Oooohh, the black edition looks very nice. I've been considering trying 4x5 too. I already have a Nikkor 90/8 for my 6x17 camera that I could adapt. I have a 3D printer, so I have been looking at the Standard Camera 4x5 plans and considering making it a project to build one.
grahamgibson wrote:
Oooohh, the black edition looks very nice. I've been considering trying 4x5 too. I already have a Nikkor 90/8 for my 6x17 camera that I could adapt. I have a 3D printer, so I have been looking at the Standard Camera 4x5 plans and considering making it a project to build one.
If you have the means and ability to do so, I'd suggest making your own. The Black Edition makes for a very nice picture. In real life, I think it's more DIY feeling than you'd expect it. Fit and finish seems to be a little lacking, and it doesn't have any of the charm something like a Speed Graphic would have. For the money, worth it. But I find myself wishing I had spent more for something a little nicer. But I haven't made any pictures yet. I may not care anymore if the pictures turn out.
beardedspoooon wrote:
Haven't gotten into developing color myself yet, just got my film back.
...
Nikon F6, Lomochrome Purple
The look certainly "works" for some images. Got me intrigued enough to try it (potentially one roll with a purpose of shooting the Color Chart decoding the color shifts, developing a LUT, etc). But after a quick research it turns out that they simply swapped the Green and Blue channels in that emulsion. Did not have to even bother with real Purple.
Can be quickly done in PS with Channel Mixer. Shooting regular film and applying the swap kills 2 birds at a minimum cost.
SergeyT wrote:
The look certainly "works" for some images. Got me intrigued enough to try it (potentially one roll with a purpose of shooting the Color Chart decoding the color shifts, developing a LUT, etc). But after a quick research it turns out that they simply swapped the Green and Blue channels in that emulsion. Did not have to even bother with real Purple.
Can be quickly done in PS with Channel Mixer. Shooting regular film and applying the swap kills 2 birds at a minimum cost.
I did that with a digital pic and it came pretty close. What's weird is doing that with one of my film scans doesn't seem to do the trick. Kind of a one or two trick pony anyhow.
beardedspoooon wrote:
I did that with a digital pic and it came pretty close. What's weird is doing that with one of my film scans doesn't seem to do the trick. Kind of a one or two trick pony anyhow.
So far I have tried on quite a few scans (not DSLR scans) of a variety of emulsions (Kodak and Fuji) and they all look to my eye as good as it gets. The only thing , beside the Channel Mixer, I had to do is to apply a Cyan shift (+10-20) towards Blue to have the Sky and blue water look less "fake".
BTW, The CM based "conversion" method works equally well on slide film scans.
Kind of a one or two trick pony anyhow. 
