Remarkable honesty
Gould 0738
I've discovered a particularly honest camera shop in the Seattle area.
My 35mm Contax SLR began behaving badly in the middle of a photo shoot
yesterday. It seemed that nothing could be done to stop the film from
automatically rewinding each time the shutter was triggered. Worse, this was
the second time in the last few years I'd experienced this problem. Last time,
a local camera shop "repaired" it, for about $150.
The Contax was originally purchased, barely used, from Kenmore Camera. I
thought I'd investigate the cost of upgrading to a newer model, or at least
buying a cheap "back-up" body of some type that would accomodate my set of
Zeiss lenses so I could keep working while the Contax languished in the shop,
again.
Kenmore Camera had a nice, used Contax with some whiz bang features. $600.
After disclosing the current problem with my present Contax, I asked the
salesperson whether they would allow something on trade. I detoured to the rest
room while he showed my somewhat battered old veteran to his boss.
After emerging from the rest room, I was relieved in more ways than one.
"Your camera's all fixed, sir!" said the salesperson.
"What?!"
"Yeah. There's a little tiny spot on the bottom of the camera, and if you find
something small enough to press in on that particular spot, it will reset the
computer. That's all you really needed all along. Here, I'll show you exactly
where that spot is. If this ever happens again, just take the end of a paper
clip or something and you can reset this yourself. I'll bet you had to change
your batteries just before this happened, right?"
"Right."
" My boss said that once in a while an extremely low battery situation will
trigger the situation you were experiencing."
Wow. I was all ready to trade in my old camera and spend a few hundred bucks or
so on the upgrade. They could have said, "Gee, we're really sorry but since
your camera isn't working we'll just have to take it in for parts and we'll
give you $25."
Five minutes after I left the store the camera could have been up for sale,
(button pushed), for at least a couple of hundred dollars.
So instead of making a sale, they made a customer. Wise move.
So wise, in fact, that I "rewarded" Kenmore Camera and celebrated my good
fortune with the purchase of a new 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. They still made a
deal, after all.
I thought I'd pass the word along to any rec.boaters in the Puget Sound area:
you'll encounter remarkable honesty at Kenmore Camera. Wish they were a little
closer to my house.
(There were about six salespeople working there on Saturday, all were busy, and
there was still a lineup. Easy to see why.)
Señor Chile Mas Grande
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
news:20020629155534...@mb-cn.aol.com...
Larry W4CSC
Mavica from some nice Jewish boys at 21st Century Camera in Brooklyn
some time ago. They delivered what they said they would at the price
agreed to with excellent fast service and threw in the nicest leather
camera case made for it I ever saw. They also had the lowest price in
the huge camera shopper, too. "For you, we've got suuch a deal! Oy
Vay!" He sounded exactly like Georgie Jessel....(c;
Let's plug their webpage, while we've found an honest one....
KENMORE CAMERA
18031 67th Ave Ne Kenmore WA 98028
425-485-7447 or toll free 1-888-485-7447
Open Monday - Friday 9:00-7:00, Saturday 9:00-5:00 PST
There.....that's better.
Ok, which marine dealer or manufacturer would like our loyal
attention??.....(c; Sell us a new boat! Pfat Chance, eh?
On 29 Jun 2002 19:55:34 GMT, goul...@aol.comspamkill (Gould 0738)
wrote:
Larry
Mike Niemela
could trust to repair my old Rollie. The last place I took it want big
bucks just too look it over and tell me what was wrong. When I told
them I would not part with the lenses they lost all interest in
"repairing" it.
I'll menton your post when I take the camera in.
Best
Mike N
Lloyd Sumpter
> Most boaters have a camera or two aboard.
>
> I've discovered a particularly honest camera shop in the Seattle area.
>
>
<SNIP>
>
> I thought I'd pass the word along to any rec.boaters in the Puget Sound
> area: you'll encounter remarkable honesty at Kenmore Camera. Wish they
> were a little closer to my house.
>
> (There were about six salespeople working there on Saturday, all were
> busy, and there was still a lineup. Easy to see why.)
Thank you. I like rewarding the Good People since everyone seems to
take great delight in punishing the Bad Ones.
It's true that word gets around, though. There's an auto mechanic here
in Vanc (Silva Automotive) that's the most honest and knowledgeable I've
ever found. He doesn't advertise at all, his shop is WAY out of the way,
but he's always packed with business...
Runs With Scissors
> I thought I'd pass the word along to any rec.boaters in the Puget Sound area:
> you'll encounter remarkable honesty at Kenmore Camera. Wish they were a little
> closer to my house.
Cool.. I have a great old Honeywell Spotmatic with a jammed
shutter. Haven't used it in at least a year... I seem to have gone
digital.
Dan
--
I shoot for the moon, but sometimes I hit London
-- Werner von Braun
Gould 0738
>shutter. Haven't used it in at least a year... I seem to have gone
>digital.
>
>Dan
I'm looking forward to the day when digital cameras can produce the type of
resolution available from silver film. It's probably right around the corner.
There doesn't seem to be anything digital and affordable that will accomodate a
range of interchangeable lenses, either.
Why I worry about quality is beyond me, really. Most of my published photos
appear
in black and white on newsprint. Doesn't exactly call for high resolution.
The short lens issue is a big one, though.
It's almost impossible to take good interior photos on a boat with anything
longer than a 28mm lens. A 15mm works even better, (providing the camera can be
kept on plane with the horizon) and I've yet to see a digital camera with a
"wide angle" setting adequate for the job.
They may be out there. Some of these digital cameras are thousands of bucks,
and I can't say I've ever seriously looked at one in that price range. The
$300-500 variety are basically just glorified Brownies
(and if you can recognize that reference you're not exactly young anymore.) :-)
HLAviation
>There doesn't seem to be anything digital and affordable that will accomodate
>a
>range of interchangeable lenses, either.
Depends on your definition of affordable. There are digital plates available
for 4x5 format and digital backs available for Hasselblad and other medium
format cameras.
>It's almost impossible to take good interior photos on a boat with anything
>longer than a 28mm lens.
I learned long ago that to do quality interior and architectural work requires
a large format camera. I used to do a lot of it with a 4x5 monorail camera
with a 6x7 120 back on it. The swings, tilts and shifts allow you to get the
shots you want in smaller areas without the distortion. You can get into a
Calumet rail, a decent quality 90mm (135 mm on a 4x5 =50mm on 35)lens, a couple
of sheet film holders and a roll film back for around a grand. I'm not sure
what the digital plates cost now.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Harry Krause
>>Cool.. I have a great old Honeywell Spotmatic with a jammed
>>shutter. Haven't used it in at least a year... I seem to have gone
>>digital.
>>
>>Dan
>
> I'm looking forward to the day when digital cameras can produce the type of
> resolution available from silver film. It's probably right around the corner.
You'd need a minimum of five megapixel resolution for a crisp 8x10. It's
available, but expensive.
>
> There doesn't seem to be anything digital and affordable that will accomodate a
> range of interchangeable lenses, either.
Canon has a new model out that takes the same lenses as the standard
range of Canon SLRs, but the camera is around $2000.
> The short lens issue is a big one, though.
> It's almost impossible to take good interior photos on a boat with anything
> longer than a 28mm lens. A 15mm works even better, (providing the camera can be
> kept on plane with the horizon) and I've yet to see a digital camera with a
> "wide angle" setting adequate for the job.
Even the new Canon, previously mentioned, takes a wide angle lens and
"adds" some mm to it because of issues I won't get into here. A 28 mm
lens becomes a 35 mm, and so forth.
>
> They may be out there. Some of these digital cameras are thousands of bucks,
> and I can't say I've ever seriously looked at one in that price range. The
> $300-500 variety are basically just glorified Brownies
> (and if you can recognize that reference you're not exactly young anymore.) :-)
My first camera was a Brownie that shot some weird size of roll film.
With big flashbulbs, too.
Larry W4CSC
pictures on the beach. There were two cameramen. One was Mr.
Professional Photographer with cameras, light meters, carry bags, and
tripods wearing one of those photojournalists vests with all the
pockets stuffed with stuff. The other photog was one Alfred E Neuman
with his disposable Fuji camera hanging from a string around his goofy
head. When you flipped over the page, there were two pictures taken
by the two photogs of a beautiful girl in a tiny bikini standing by a
pier. Of course, the pictures were identical......(c;
Larry
Don White
About 15 years ago I traded one third of a tandem truckload of gravel
for an old Yashica-D twin lens medium format camera that shoots 2" x 2"
negatives on 120 film.
More awkward to use than my Minolta SRT 200 SLR, but the quality of
print is better.
Speaking of the Minolta...my shutter speed was diagnosed as being off at
slow speeds and on the fast speeds.
Not sure if it's worth the trouble to have it repaired.
Harry Krause
One of my Brownies shot 120, maybe the Brownie Starflash. But one of my
Brownies shot some oddball film, I think.
The Russians are making a knock-off of that Yashica, sells new for a
couple hundred buckeroos.
I'm playing around with a Nikon 885, a digital camera. It takes decent
photos if you don't need giant enlargements, but I still like a 35 mm
SLR better.
HLAviation
>About 15 years ago I traded one third of a tandem truckload of gravel
>for an old Yashica-D twin lens medium format camera that shoots 2" x 2"
>negatives on 120 film.
Oh my, if that had 2,8 Carl Zeiss lenses on it, it was worth more than a load
of gravel.
>More awkward to use than my Minolta SRT 200 SLR, but the quality of
>print is better.
Much better.
>Speaking of the Minolta...my shutter speed was diagnosed as being off at
>slow speeds and on the fast speeds.
>Not sure if it's worth the trouble to have it repaired.
No, just run a bracket set on a grey card & a MacBeth color card so you know
how to compensate for the exposure. Rerun a bracket set every hundred rolls or
year whichever comes first.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
HLAviation
>couple hundred buckeroos.
The box wasn't what made that camera worth while, it was the optics available
for it, personnally I prefered the Rodenstock on the Rollie, but the Zeiss on
the Yashica is also first rate, especially the f2,8 80mm.
TLR cameras in general are a dime a dozen, there's only a few that are
valueable, and the Yashica with the 2,8 is one of them. To be honest though,
I've never checked out any Russian optics. They had a hell of a laser program,
so the technology is in the country, whether it made it into their photo
industry is the question..
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Don White
Was this lens considered respectable?
I'll drop into my camera store for the cards to try the bracketing
and advice on how to do so.
HLAviation wrote:
>
> Oh my, if that had 2,8 Carl Zeiss lenses on it, it was worth more than a load
> of gravel.
>
Mike Long
different spool. Somebody sells it respooled for those that like using
the older cameras.
Nikon's new 4500 promises to be a nice camera. The Canon G2 is also.
Both are priced between $720 & $800. The Olympus E20 is also
excellent, albeit at a premium price. Nikon's new 5700 will compete
with Olympus.
Wide angle lenses are a problem. More objectionable than the size and
weight of good quality wide angle attachments, is the flare. You have
to use some sort of shielding device (hand's okay) when the sun is in
an unfavorable position. 4 mp or above is okay for outstanding prints.
Mike
Runs With Scissors
>>shutter. Haven't used it in at least a year... I seem to have gone
>>digital.
>>
>>Dan
> I'm looking forward to the day when digital cameras can produce the type of
> resolution available from silver film. It's probably right around the corner.
Well, I mostly take snapshots. The Spotmatic takes awsome pics for a 30
year old camera, but it's bulky and delicate, and the manual focus/zoom
makes it difficult to use for spur-of-the-moment shots. The digicam
(Olympus D-510z) works fine for 98% of my uses.
> Why I worry about quality is beyond me, really. Most of my published photos
> appear
> in black and white on newsprint. Doesn't exactly call for high resolution.
I can't STAND when newspapers/magazines take a digital or scanned picture,
and blow up the zoom so much that the image gets pixelized. Don't
publications hire photo editors anymore?
> They may be out there. Some of these digital cameras are thousands of bucks,
> and I can't say I've ever seriously looked at one in that price range. The
> $300-500 variety are basically just glorified Brownies
> (and if you can recognize that reference you're not exactly young anymore.) :-)
Hey, I recognize the reference, and I'm just around 30... but really, most
point-n-shoot cameras, film or digital, are just glorified Brownies.
--
Beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The
danger already exists that the mathematicians have made covenant with
the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.
-- St. Augustine
Calif Bill
of memory and time to write it required. Some professional digital cameras
are in the range, as the portrait photographer does not mind the wait. The
Lexar Media stripes the data, so you have multiple eeprom's being written at
one time, just more cost. Plus the cost of energy to run the camera and
write the Flash memory. Some will use the 1" mini hard drives. Is the
reason that most portables are lower in definition.
Bill
"Harry Krause" <harry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afp9tv$cso$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
HLAviation
>Was this lens considered respectable?
>
>I'll drop into my camera store for the cards to try the bracketing
>and advice on how to do so.
The Grey Scale is cheap, the price of the MacBeth might shock you=;) They might
have one you can walkoutside and use and shoot the roll of film for them to
develope. Shoot E-6 chrome film and process normal so you can see the real
uncompensated result unless you are used to reading negatives. Any time you get
prints they've compensated for errors. C-41 gives you about 2 1/2 stops
latitude where you can print generally acceptable results, chromes you can tell
1/4 stop.
HLAviation
>and blow up the zoom so much that the image gets pixelized. Don't
>publications hire photo editors anymore?
Nope, desk top publishing ended that proffession. Any idiot can do layout now.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Harry Krause
That would be it.,..627...thanks...and I agree with your comments about
digital cameras.
Skipper
>> I can't STAND when newspapers/magazines take a digital or scanned
>> picture, and blow up the zoom so much that the image gets pixelized.
>> Don't publications hire photo editors anymore?
> Nope, desk top publishing ended that proffession. Any idiot can do
> layout now.
"Desk top"? "Proffession"? Yep, any idiot can do layout now.
--
Skipper
HLAviation
>> layout now.
>
>"Desk top"? "Proffession"? Yep, any idiot can do layout now.
>
Yeah, it used to require a bit of skill, making half tones and litho stips to
the right size and orienting them onto the master sheet, now it's all drag and
drop and a click of the mouse.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Harry Krause
One can drag, drop and click all one likes, but if one doesn't have
artistic ability, skills and experience, whatever one designs will look
like crap.
We still use illustrators, typesetters, graphics artists, et cetera,
because our clients demand professional-looking final product, not
crapola from the amateur hour.
Calif Bill
left in the woods on a hunting trip, Mom still complains. The quality of
the pictures is still great. Both the clarity and the lifespan of those old
B/W films. I think the 627 was 120 on a different roller package.
Bill
"Harry Krause" <harry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afru04$68b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...