Seagull
Sigrid Jakob
doesn't touch on):
-what's the synch speed?
-is there a recommended film speed?
wcm...@attglobal.net
The synch speed should be whatever you choose to use, I think. it's not
a focal plane shutter, so you shouldn't have any problem.
Just use the film you normally use for medium format. I prefer Ilford
FP-4 Plus, HP-5 Plus, and Kodak Tmax 400.
Mr. Pookywinkel
leaf shutter. Leaf shutters with X flash sync, will work with any speed.
radi...@means.net
> Yes, that's true, the flash sync speed is any speed you choose. It has a
> leaf shutter. Leaf shutters with X flash sync, will work with any speed.
Let's not make assumptions until we look at the facts! Although leaf
shutters are SUPPOSED to do this, my manual for a Seagull-type camera says
1/60th! Perhaps they cannot guarantee it working with higher speeds, or
perhaps the person who wrote the English version copies the info from some
other source.
John
Mr. Pookywinkel
higher speed with your electronic flash, say 1/300th of a second?
Richard
leaf shutter at all speeds. Just keep in mind the slower your shutter
setting the different effect on the photo. If you shoot at 1/2 second
the flash will go off while the shutter is open but any movement after
the flash is done may still be exposed on the neg. So do not expect
some kind of perfect flash shot just because a leaf shutter "syncs" at
all speeds. I have never had a flash sync problem with my seagull up
to the high 1/300.
As for film, any will work, the camera is not a limiting factor for
this. I have used a whole range of color negatives films, slide films
and b&w films from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Agfa and even some Chinese
brands like Fuda. Have fun, but remember Seagull glass can range in
sharpness and quality. I bought and tested three used ones (I live in
China) before I finally settled on one with great sharp glass (one was
garbage and one was only ok.) but at the cheap prices here (sometimes
as low as $10 if you do not care about cosmetics) I could afford to buy
and test and trade back the poorer ones.
In article <FX%g4.2230$eX.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Sigrid Jakob" <ja...@bc-p.com> wrote:
> I've just bought one, and have a couple of questions (which the
manual
> doesn't touch on):
>
> -what's the synch speed?
> -is there a recommended film speed?
>
--
ri...@asla.com
(CHANGE "asla" to "asia" to send email)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
FLEXARET2
I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
which is which? Please write back.
M.W.R.Ng
I have a Seagull 4B 6x6 TLR. I usually use Ektarchrome 100HC slide film
with it.
It comes with a mask to convert to 645 format
It produces superb picture especially at f8 and f11.
The contrast is lower at full aperture f3.5 but is still very acceptable
and certainly usable.
I had it new since 1985 and it is still in as new working condition. I
paid US$50 for it.
I think it is one of the best beginer 6x6.
Many of the picture taken by this camera were printed on the "People's
Magazine" in China
read by more than 1 billion people.
As far as I know, both Seagull 4A and 4B use the same Haiou 3.5/75
coated lens.
I heard people said the lens was East German Optics or copy.
The lens is of 3 groups 3 elements Cooke Triplet design, the predecessor
of the famous Zeiss Tessar
which is 3 groups 4 element
The differences between the two models are in the film winding and
focussing mechanism.
The 4A is more advance and is a little bit dearer.
I hope the information help you
Richard
=David-M=
>
> from: flex...@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 1-20-2000
>
> I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
>
> Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> which is which? Please write back.
>
I have heard rumours but no facts.
radi...@means.net
Fact: In the late 1970's they were in wholesale catalogs with both versions.
I worked in a store and bought one, which was much more advanced that the
current ones. It was called a Pearl River.
John
Richard
do look more advanced and have better winding mechanisms.
I also heard from many here in China, and from my looking at them (but
I have never used one), that the Pearl River cameras are garbage and
that they are not the same as the Seagull.
In article <j4Hh4.198$3h1....@news7.onvoy.net>,
--
Richard
the 4B had the better lens with one more element. But holding and
comparing the two the 4A looks like a better built camera and you would
think it has a btter lens. As I mentioned in another post in this
thread, I had a great 4B and when I've heard of others liking their
Seagulls it was almost always a 4B and the sharpness of it's lens. I
also mentioned I bought and tested three of them, all used. The
ungliest and oldest one had the best and sharpest lens. Maybe the
newer ones are not as good? Perhaps newer ones are not built with same
care? (And thus focusing plane was off?) When it comes to Chinese
cameras, unfortunately consistency lacks through the years of
production and models of cameras. But that's why they are cheap. if
this is a big concern some people should consider spending the extra
money for Yashica 124 or a Minolta Autocord.
In article <20000120014421...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
flex...@aol.com (FLEXARET2) wrote:
> from: flex...@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 1-20-2000
>
> I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
>
> Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> which is which? Please write back.
>
--
Philip Wang
from Guangdong which is close to Hong Kong. Usually Seagull cameras are
better cameras than other brands from China - especially true 10 or 20
years ago.
- philip
radi...@means.net wrote:
>
> > LEXARET2 wrote:
> > >
> > > from: flex...@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 1-20-2000
> > >
> > > I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
> > >
> > > Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> > > which is which? Please write back.
> > >
radi...@means.net
> I have read that he 4B have better lenses than the 4A, although the 4A
> do look more advanced and have better winding mechanisms.
>
> I also heard from many here in China, and from my looking at them (but
> I have never used one), that the Pearl River cameras are garbage and
> that they are not the same as the Seagull.
Hmmm. I've seen them all, including my current non-export "China" or "Great
Central. And with NO JOKE intended, they all look alike to me.
John
=David-M=
>
> > LEXARET2 wrote:
> > >
> > > from: flex...@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 1-20-2000
> > >
> > > I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
> > >
> > > Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> > > which is which? Please write back.
> > >
> > I think its a myth that any of them come with a 4-element lens.
> > I have heard rumours but no facts.
>
> Fact: In the late 1970's they were in wholesale catalogs with both versions.
> I worked in a store and bought one, which was much more advanced that the
> current ones. It was called a Pearl River.
>
Ive haerd all sorts of differening rumours. Some say the 4A-1 is the
only one with a 4-element lens. But the ones I've seen were 3-element.
FLEXARET2
It is possible to have a 6x6 TLR with a three element Cooke triplet
type lens which will yield sharp photos. Most of us are inclined to believe
that the 4 element Tessar type lenses are sharper. This may not always be the
case as the precision with which the lenses are made and aligned
have much to do with it.
I think that the Seagull 4A (which is the deluxe Rolleiflex style with wind
crank) comes more frequently with the 3 element taking lens,
but is also less commonly available with a 4 element lens.
I would like to know if this is true and how would one know the difference when
examining the camera. Somewhere (?) I have an
instruction booklet from the Seagull 4A mentioning this.
radi...@means.net
> I think that the Seagull 4A (which is the deluxe Rolleiflex style with
wind
> crank) comes more frequently with the 3 element taking lens,
> but is also less commonly available with a 4 element lens.
> I would like to know if this is true and how would one know the
difference when
> examining the camera. Somewhere (?) I have an
> instruction booklet from the Seagull 4A mentioning t
I believe there will be something in the lens engraving. For example, my
"China" TLR has a lens marked SFJ-3. If it were a four element version, it
would probably be SFJ-4.
John
Richard
history of copying in the manufacturing industry of many, many items.
The Seagulls were copies of the Rolleiflexes in the first place.
Seagull is from Shanghai and Pearl River is from Guangzhou. Pearl
River is known for fairly poor glass while Seagull at least has the
potential of having fair to good glass. Both can be inconsistent in
the quality area. Which, again, is why they are so cheap. But get a
hold of a good one and you've got an excellent camera at a great
price.
In article <HJYh4.60$HO2....@news7.onvoy.net>,
--
radi...@means.net
" > radi...@means.net wrote:"
WRONG! I was replying to something that he said, but anyway inrespnse to
this:
> Not surprising that they look alike. China has a long (recent anyway)
> history of copying in the manufacturing industry of many, many items.
> The Seagulls were copies of the Rolleiflexes in the first place.
> Seagull is from Shanghai and Pearl River is from Guangzhou. Pearl
> River is known for fairly poor glass while Seagull at least has the
> potential of having fair to good glass. Both can be inconsistent in
> the quality area. Which, again, is why they are so cheap. But get a
> hold of a good one and you've got an excellent camera at a great
> price.
Still wanting to know more about my "China" TLR made in the Privice of
Hubei!
John
David Foy
(I think) was/is made with dies which Minolta sold to them after that camera
went out of production. I haven't looked at the Chinese TLR's -- any chance
they're made with Japanese dies? Do they resemble the Minolta Autocords or
MinoltaFlex?
--
Hitting "reply-to" won't get a reply past the spam blocker, so please
reply to: dfoy (at) marketactics (dot-com)
David Foy, Calgary
"Philip Wang" <pwa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3887BF9A...@home.com...
> Pearl River is another brand. Seagull is from Shanghai, Pearl River is
> from Guangdong which is close to Hong Kong. Usually Seagull cameras are
> better cameras than other brands from China - especially true 10 or 20
> years ago.
>
> - philip
>
> radi...@means.net wrote:
> >
> > > LEXARET2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > from: flex...@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 1-20-2000
> > > >
> > > > I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
> > > >
> > > > Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> > > > which is which? Please write back.
> > > >
> > > I think its a myth that any of them come with a 4-element lens.
> > > I have heard rumours but no facts.
> >
> > Fact: In the late 1970's they were in wholesale catalogs with both
versions.
> > I worked in a store and bought one, which was much more advanced that
the
> > current ones. It was called a Pearl River.
> >
> > John
radi...@means.net
> I have been told the Seagull 35mm which looks identical to the Minolta
SR101
> (I think) was/is made with dies which Minolta sold to them after that
camera
> went out of production. I haven't looked at the Chinese TLR's -- any
chance
> they're made with Japanese dies? Do they resemble the Minolta Autocords
or
> MinoltaFlex?
The later Seagulls seem identical with the X-70' etc, even down to the acute
matte type screen. It is pretty certain that there was some Japanese help in
getting THAT production line set up.
But I've seen the older ones that are sort of like a Minoltsa SrT, and there
is no comparison.
John
men...@pc.jaring.my
>shutters are SUPPOSED to do this, my manual for a Seagull-type camera says
>1/60th! Perhaps they cannot guarantee it working with higher speeds, or
>perhaps the person who wrote the English version copies the info from some
>other source.
The newer WWSC 120 manual mentions sync at all shuttle speeds.
men...@pc.jaring.my
>
>Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
>which is which? Please write back.
There are quite a few generations of Seagull TLRs around. I only know
the following though and I think it is a good start...
Forget about the 4Bs - they are quite old and have a knob for film
advance. The model to avoid if you're buying a Seagull now.
NB: the different lenses mentioned below refer to the taking lens. All
the viewing lenses are 3G3E design.
Now with the 4As. These have Chinese characters for Seagull on the
front of the camera. The 4As use a crank for film advance. One model
has a 3G3E (3 groups 3 elements) lens and the other a 3G4E (Tessar
copy) lens. If my recollection is correct, the manual mentions the
4A-103 as the 3G3E model and the 4A-1 as the 3G4E model. Check the top
of the camera for the prefix to the serial number to find out which
model you actually have. I have a 4A-103 and found it to be quite
good. This generation of 4A-1xx have strap lugs similar to a
Hasselblad's (ie. not the slit type that you can thread a strap
through, unlike that of the WWSC 120 below. I have not idea what you
call this design).
The latest generation is the highly rated and sought after WWSC 120.
Again there are at least 2 models. Build quality is a bit better than
the previous generation 4As in having a smoother focusing action and
slightly better finish. Rolleiflex they definitely ain't. They're also
mainly black and come packaged with a strap in a very cool looking
shinny black box with Frech blue satin lining (Has to be seen to
believe. Absolutely first class presentation. Even the F5 doesn't come
in such a nice box). There is some changes to the gearing in that you
are not suppose to change the shutter speed setting after you've
cocked the shutter or you'll wreck the gears (the 4A-1 and 4A-103
didn't have this). This BTW is not mentioned in the manual. (Actually,
on mine, after you've cocked the shutter the shutter speed CAN be set
until 1/30 at which point there will be great resistance. Don't force
anything and I'm trying to get into the good habit of setting the
exposure before cocking the shutter). Anyway, with the latest
variation (I think) of the WWSC 120, the lens type is engraved on the
rim of the lens. eg. 3G4E for 3 groups 4 elements so it is easy to
tell. The 3G4E model apparently HAD an 'S' logo (? Super) on top and
the 3G3E model a V logo (? Value ). However, I just bought what think
is a latter modification of the 3G4E model in that it has a V logo on
top but now has a lock on the shutter release (Just like a Rolleiflex)
:-). The model used for illustration in the manual of the WWSC 120 is
the 3E4E model with the S logo. The 3G3E WWSC 120 is unchanged and
doesn't have a shutter release lock. If you come across a WWSC 120
that doesn't have the lens type engraved on the lens, identify your
lens type by the V or S logo. BTW, my WWSC 120 has a tag calling it
the 4A-107.
Lastly, there is a gold plated edition of the WWSC but I haven't
examined this in detail because it costs about 3 times the price of a
used Rolleiflex with the Scheider Xenotar lens. What a joke.
That's all. BTW, remember that the parts that fall out of a Seagull
represent some of the best in Chinese engineering. :-)
whalan
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Javier Henderson
>
> where can i buy one?
Calumet sells new Seagulls.
-jav
radi...@means.net
> >I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
> >
> >Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> >which is which? Please write back.
>
> There are quite a few generations of Seagull TLRs around. I only know
> the following though and I think it is a good start...
>
> Forget about the 4Bs - they are quite old and have a knob for film
> advance. The model to avoid if you're buying a Seagull now.
This does not me that ALL knob wind TLR cameras are no good! In fact, the
simple design may be better! There is less to break, and no spacing
problems, unless you wind too much! My "China" is a dual format knob wind,
and it is fine.
> That's all. BTW, remember that the parts that fall out of a Seagull
> represent some of the best in Chinese engineering. :-)
Anyone know of any factory websites or where photos of the factory can be
found?
John
=David-M=
>
> I've injected a comment or two. John
>
> > >I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have yet to use.
> > >
> > >Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or the 4B - do you know
> > >which is which? Please write back.
> >
> > There are quite a few generations of Seagull TLRs around. I only know
> > the following though and I think it is a good start...
> >
> > Forget about the 4Bs - they are quite old and have a knob for film
> > advance. The model to avoid if you're buying a Seagull now.
>
>
TLRs ever made. Its really just as good as crank wind and is a lot more
reliable since less strain is put on the gears. What is essential is
'auto-stop' so you dont have to peer through a red window. That REALLY
slows you up.
Mike Simanyi
www.calumetphoto.com, select "Index" on the left side of the page, then "Medium
Format" and "Seagull".
I just picked up my first roll of film - Kodak 160VC - and wow! I'm blown
away! It is almost impossible that this lens quality is available for $140.
As a little bit of background for you, Photo Technique magazine has included the
current Seagull TLR in their "25 favorite cameras" for the last two years. The
most recent selection was on the newsstand about two months ago and prompted me
to try the camera.
It is fully manual, so you'll need a light meter. I did read some complaints on
this ng about light leaks, but now that the test roll came back looking so nice
I know that isn't a problem for me. Perhaps the problem came from the back not
being properly secured (there's a small latch the has to be properly seated in a
small indentation on the back of the camera), or perhaps that person wasn't
loading / removing the film properly. All I know is that I am thrilled with the
results.
Have fun with it.
Mike
MLZ
My photo friends couldn't believe the
shots I got from my Seagull either. the 8x10s
I printed myself look silky smooth and very
sharp, much more pleasing than similar shots taken
using my 35mm Canon gear. Yes at $140, you
saved enough to shoot hundreds and hundreds
of more rolls!
-----------------------------------------------
=David-M=
>
> My photo friends couldn't believe the
> shots I got from my Seagull either. the 8x10s
> I printed myself look silky smooth and very
> sharp, much more pleasing than similar shots taken
> using my 35mm Canon gear. Yes at $140, you
> saved enough to shoot hundreds and hundreds
> of more rolls!
>
A 6x6 TLR should be able to produce a crisp 16x20. Can the Seagull?
MLZ
Well, I put the "silky smooth" first didn't
I? And I said "more pleasing", rather than
"sharper".
The first thing people notice is the smoothness
(better tonality) in the prints from Seagull as
compared to that from a good 35mm gear. Never
done 16x20 myself. But if Seagull outperforms
35mm gear at 8x10...
I might add that at wide open, Seagull's simple
lens will give obvious fuzzy corners.
David Johnson
=David-M= wrote:
> MLZ wrote:
> >
> > My photo friends couldn't believe the
> > shots I got from my Seagull either. the 8x10s
> > I printed myself look silky smooth and very
> > sharp, much more pleasing than similar shots taken
> > using my 35mm Canon gear. Yes at $140, you
> > saved enough to shoot hundreds and hundreds
> > of more rolls!
>
> Any good 35mm camera can produce a crisp 10x8.
> A 6x6 TLR should be able to produce a crisp 16x20. Can the Seagull?
The way I read MLZ is that the Seagull produces good images at a low
price, NOT that it necessarily produces good medium format standard
images.
I have heard Leica and Contax owners rant and rave about their superior
image quality at $2k+/lens but my 25 year old used Mamiya 645 with lens
that I bought for $550 will blow their images into the weeds (I have
used a Leica. I know there are other reasons for using Leica but if
your primary reason is image quality, I suggest going to medium
format.).
In other words, I read MLZ as saying that if you are only after image
quality, one would be better off spending $140 for a Seagull than $500+
for a 35mm SLR.
This is what I do: use 35mm where fast handling and convenience are more
considerations than image quality. I used medium format when I can take
my time and where image quality is the top priority.
Someday I am getting a large format field camera for when I need REALLY
good image quality and I
have a lot of time to shoot.
David Johnson
=David-M=
the quality you need up to about 11x14.
A 6x6 TLR will be of no advantage (in fact a disadvantage because of its
fixed lens) unless you enlarge to 11x14 and greater.
I guarantee you could not tell which camera took a 10x8 A NIkon or a
Seagull.
Buzz
=David-M= wrote:
I would absolutely have to disagree. I have used Leica and Nikon for my 35mm
needs and I love them (Nikon mostly) for my action shots and when I need to
get a shot and then get out of the way (I have a 2 year old daughter..medium
format if very difficult).
I can sit and look through the photo album and say 35mm....medium
format...35mm....medium format to every photo shot. And so can my "nonmedium
format" user friends. I just think there is a difference.
I guess that "all the quality you need up to about 11x14" is a rather
subjective comment. I can tell a huge difference between my medium format
pics...even my old folders. I have a darkroom and I process everything
myself in the same manner and have been doing the same thing for years. Don't
get me wrong...I am not bashing the 35mm equipment...but there is a
difference. It shows up when you use the grain focuser on the eyes!
There have been some who would say that the Holga's and old plastic lensed
cameras beat 35mms..please don't think I am on that bandwagon. I have never
held or used a holga or diana....baut doubt a plastic lens would beat a modern
multicoated corrected 35mm lens. Seagull....don't know, never shot one. I do
use an aweful lot of olde folders and 20-30's plate camera's....And I still
can tell.
Buzz
Richard
for as little as $10!! Before you go buying one new from Calumet I
recommend checking out eBay. Both 4A and 4B models, in good condition,
have been there lately for as little as $40.
Rich
richs at mail SPAMMBLOCK dot com
In article <86aelox...@cartero.kjsl.com>,
Javier Henderson <jav...@kjsl.com> wrote:
> whalan <whalanN...@pol.net.invalid> writes:
>
> >
> > where can i buy one?
>
> Calumet sells new Seagulls.
>
> http://www.calumetphoto.com/
>
> -jav
>
radi...@means.net
> =David-M= wrote:
>
> > MLZ wrote:
> > >
> > > My photo friends couldn't believe the
> > > shots I got from my Seagull either. the 8x10s
> > > I printed myself look silky smooth and very
> > > sharp, much more pleasing than similar shots taken
> > > using my 35mm Canon gear. Yes at $140, you
> > > saved enough to shoot hundreds and hundreds
> > > of more rolls!
>
> >
> > Any good 35mm camera can produce a crisp 10x8.
> > A 6x6 TLR should be able to produce a crisp 16x20. Can the Seagull?
>
> The way I read MLZ is that the Seagull produces good images at a low
> price, NOT that it necessarily produces good medium format standard
> images.
>
at least as often as I do my other MF stuff. It produces good MF images,
probably as good as the holy Yashicamat. However, some of them have
foibles, namely spacing problems that may cause problems.
They are VERY much like some Japanese cameras from the early 1950's. Lot's
of tin work and hand assembly. These are from the older Stalin-era
factories, many of which have closed down.
John
radi...@means.net
> This is nonsense. A good 35mm camera and lens will easily produce all
> the quality you need up to about 11x14.
> A 6x6 TLR will be of no advantage (in fact a disadvantage because of its
> fixed lens) unless you enlarge to 11x14 and greater.
> I guarantee you could not tell which camera took a 10x8 A NIkon or a
> Seagull.
Heeeeeeeeere we go again.
Using the SAME FILM, the larger negative will ALWAYS beat the smaller one in
terms of tones, even in a 5x7! NOt lines per MM or whatever, but tonal
gradation.
As one person said before in this endless haggle. If film size doesn't
matter, then why do the goverment fit spy planes with cameras using 9x9 inch
film? Why not stick a little Nikon on the bottom of the plane?
Sadly, most of the claims of equal quality come from folks who only shopot
35mm and perhaps have never made a print in a darkroom.
John
Mr. Wratten
> Using the SAME FILM, the larger negative will ALWAYS beat the smaller one in
> terms of tones, even in a 5x7! NOt lines per MM or whatever, but tonal
> gradation.
> As one person said before in this endless haggle. If film size doesn't
> matter, then why do the goverment fit spy planes with cameras using 9x9 inch
> film? Why not stick a little Nikon on the bottom of the plane?
As someone who has used 9x9 inch aerial chromes (color infrared), I have to say
that the reason aerial photographs are taken on large film stock is lines per
mm, not tonal gradation. I needed to zoom in to an area of the 9x9 inch chrome
covering a few square miles (I don't remember how many, but it was most of a
small city) that was about 5x5mm, and the detail was so fine that it showed
individual cars and even people on the sidewalk! It is the detail that the
large format captures that matters to users of aerial photos, not the tonal
gradation.
Jim
David Johnson
=David-M= wrote:
>
> David Johnson wrote:
> This is nonsense. A good 35mm camera and lens will easily produce all
> the quality you need up to about 11x14.
> A 6x6 TLR will be of no advantage (in fact a disadvantage because of its
> fixed lens) unless you enlarge to 11x14 and greater.
> I guarantee you could not tell which camera took a 10x8 A NIkon or a
> Seagull.
What you say is ABSOLUTE nonsense. I have a fairly complete Nikon
system and
a few Mamiya lenses. I can with 100% accuracy tell which were taken
with the
Nikon and which were taken with the Mamiya with 8x10's. The difference
is
obvious to anyone with reasonably good eyesight. Have you ever actually
made
prints from medium format
and compared them to 35mm? I have. I shoot both 35mm and medium
format. I can
usually tell the difference even in 4x5 prints, not always, but with
about 80%
certainty (MF is superior). By 8x10, I can tell with 100% certainty
which is
MF and which is 35mm unless really bad technique was used with MF. An
8x10 has
a lot of subtle details visible with MF. 35mm is lacking in these
details. I can
go to a newsstand and tell you with reasonable accuracy which covers
were shot
with 35mm and which were taken with something larger. It isn't hard to
see by
anyone with reasonably good vision. You go ahead and try it. You will
see some
covers that you know could not possibly have been taken with 35mm.
The only time 35mm even comes close to medium format in 8x10 is with
VERY sharp film
and quite bright lighting. Try shooting Tri-X in 35mm and MF under any
lighting conditions.
Make 8x10's with both and try to tell me you can't tell the difference.
If you can
say you can't tell, you need your eyes examined.
David Johnson
radi...@means.net
> > This is nonsense. A good 35mm camera and lens will easily produce all
> > the quality you need up to about 11x14.
> > A 6x6 TLR will be of no advantage (in fact a disadvantage because of
its
> > fixed lens) unless you enlarge to 11x14 and greater.
> > I guarantee you could not tell which camera took a 10x8 A NIkon or a
> > Seagull.
>
> What you say is ABSOLUTE nonsense. I have a fairly complete Nikon
> system and
> a few Mamiya lenses. I can with 100% accuracy tell which were taken
> with the
> Nikon and which were taken with the Mamiya with 8x10's. The difference
> is
> obvious to anyone with reasonably good eyesight.
Thanks for commenting on this (continuing) drivel coming from 35mm users who
apparently visit this group to find evidence proving that their "minature
format" really is just as good as MF .
I own a Chevy Geo and go to the Porsche group for the same reason. I'm
convinced that my one litre engine with three spark plugs is JUST as GOOD as
the bigger Porsche ones and my car can go JUST AS FAST (under certain
conditions, such as when going downhill.)
There are plenty of areas where a 35mm system can do stuff that MF can't.
But when it comes to film size and it's inherently better quality, these
clowns who make claims like the above need to wake up and smell the fixer!
:)
John
Rolfe Tessem
I just received one of these from Calumet that I ordered out of
curiousity. The box is indeed very cool -- better than the one Leica
provides :-). The engraving on the lens is : "3-G 3-E" followed by
SA-97. Looks like a copy of the Rolleiflex T model.
Is the four-element model a myth?
--
Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
ro...@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014
whalan
<jav...@kjsl.com> wrote:
>whalan <whalanN...@pol.net.invalid> writes:
>
>>
>> where can i buy one?
>
> Calumet sells new Seagulls.
>
> http://www.calumetphoto.com/
>-jav
Lim Meng Shi
>curiousity. The box is indeed very cool -- better than the one Leica
>provides :-). The engraving on the lens is : "3-G 3-E" followed by
>SA-97. Looks like a copy of the Rolleiflex T model.
>
>Is the four-element model a myth?
Not a myth as I own a 4-element model (3G-4E on the lens) of the WWSC
120. That is one of the problems with buying this camera sight unseen
- you either end up with the 3-element model because the seller
doesn't know enough about the variation or you end up with a model
with other elements (ie. dust or dirt) inside the lens. :-) The 3G4E
model is generally a bit more expensive and places like Calumet may
not stock it. I have seen nothing in most ads to suggest that they
know about the different models.
Always inspect this camera properly first before buying. Set the
shutter on bulb and aperture wide open. Then cock the shutter and look
through the taking lens with the film back open to check for any
contamination. Also, never adjust the shutter speeds after you've
cocked it.
Ted Llewellyn
I may be going to Bejing soon, and I was wondering what a new Seagull would
cost, and whether it is possible to get quick (like next day) processing of
120 film (contact sheet only). I may even want to buy the film there, and
avoid the problem of the airport x-ray machines even more. I use a lot of
Fuji NHG II 800, and even the carry-on x-ray machines make me a little
nervous. After Bejing, we'll be going somewhere more remote (itinerary is
vague right now) but we'll end up in Guangzhou (I know I spelled that wrong;
where the American Consulate is that they process the INS work for adoptions).
Is it possible to get such processing work done there?
Thanks,
Ted
Richard <ric...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I live in Beijing and I find them used (glass in good condition though)
> for as little as $10!! Before you go buying one new from Calumet I
> recommend checking out eBay. Both 4A and 4B models, in good condition,
> have been there lately for as little as $40.
> Rich
> richs at mail SPAMMBLOCK dot com
> In article <86aelox...@cartero.kjsl.com>,
> Javier Henderson <jav...@kjsl.com> wrote:
>> whalan <whalanN...@pol.net.invalid> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > where can i buy one?
>>
>> Calumet sells new Seagulls.
>>
>> http://www.calumetphoto.com/
>>
Lim Meng Shi
>cost, and whether it is possible to get quick (like next day) processing of
>120 film (contact sheet only). I may even want to buy the film there, and
>avoid the problem of the airport x-ray machines even more. I use a lot of
>Fuji NHG II 800, and even the carry-on x-ray machines make me a little
>nervous. After Bejing, we'll be going somewhere more remote (itinerary is
>vague right now) but we'll end up in Guangzhou (I know I spelled that wrong;
>where the American Consulate is that they process the INS work for adoptions).
>Is it possible to get such processing work done there?
I think it would be very difficult to get good 'pro' level 120 films
in China because of the cost. They have a locally made 120 film (as
illustrated in the Seagull manual) but I doubt the quality is good. I
think it is best to bring your own films and ask for hand-checking.
I'm weary about the quality of film processing over there but I'll let
others with actual experience comment.
utgar...@my-deja.com
men...@pc.jaring.my wrote:
> >I have a Seagull reflex model 4A, which I have
yet to use.
> >
> >Which model has the 4 element lens the 4A or
the 4B - do you know
> >which is which? Please write back.
>
> There are quite a few generations of Seagull
TLRs around. I only know
> the following though and I think it is a good
start...
>
> Forget about the 4Bs - they are quite old and
have a knob for film
> advance. The model to avoid if you're buying a
Seagull now.
>
to the taking lens. All
> the viewing lenses are 3G3E design.
>
> Now with the 4As. These have Chinese characters
for Seagull on the
> front of the camera. The 4As use a crank for
film advance. One model
> has a 3G3E (3 groups 3 elements) lens and the
other a 3G4E (Tessar
> copy) lens. If my recollection is correct, the
manual mentions the
> 4A-103 as the 3G3E model and the 4A-1 as the
3G4E model. Check the top
> of the camera for the prefix to the serial
number to find out which
> model you actually have. I have a 4A-103 and
found it to be quite
> good. This generation of 4A-1xx have strap lugs
similar to a
> Hasselblad's (ie. not the slit type that you can
thread a strap
> through, unlike that of the WWSC 120 below. I
have not idea what you
> call this design).
>
WWSC but I haven't
> examined this in detail because it costs about 3
times the price of a
> used Rolleiflex with the Scheider Xenotar lens.
What a joke.
>
fall out of a Seagull
> represent some of the best in Chinese
engineering. :-)
>
screen fresnel lens focusing aid in the
viewfinder. I don't know if this is now standard
but it is a BIG improvement over previous Chinese
TLR models with only a plain ground glass
viewfinder.
utgar...@my-deja.com
I checked the lenses on my WWSC 120 purchased through Calumet
Photographic. The lenses are marked Haiou but without the markings
listed in your post. The f2.8 viewing lens is marked SA-96, the f3.5
lens is marked SA-92. The only other marking is the 5 digit serial
number (no letters) on the viewing hood.
>
>Any suggestions as to how to determine the lens construction per the
SA-92 and SA-96 numbers?
>
The english language owners booklet suggests that the f3.5 lens on my
camera is the standard 3 group, 3 element lens- but also indicates the
(ledgendary and mythical?) 4 element lens is produced.
>
Re: flash sync...the WWSC 120 instruction booklet gives flash sync as
between 1/60 and 1/125th of a sec., though when I purchased the camera I
checked sync and found the lens shutter open when the flash popped at
1/300th as well as all others.
>
My camera also has a fresnel lens with a split field, spot focusing
area.I don't know if this is now standard, but it is a BIG improvement
over the plain ground glass viewfinder screen. The British magazines
never mentioned this feature on a WWSC 120.
>
Popular Photography (May 1972) published a review of the Seagull 4A as
well as the 35mm DF, the medium format rangefinder model 203 and the
35mm rangefinder model 205. The only camera I ever examined was the 4A.
The review did an excellent job of pointing out the strengths and
weaknesses of that model.
>
FYI: the August 1997 Camera Shopper, issue 77 had an article on the
Pearl River and Seagull 35mm SLR cameras.
>
Calumet Photgraphic's website still lists the WWSC 120 camera (as of
02-20-000 on their site.
Rolfe Tessem
> >
> Calumet Photgraphic's website still lists the WWSC 120 camera (as of
> 02-20-000 on their site.
I purchased one through their website only a few weeks ago. I've run a
few rolls of RDP II, NPS and NPH through the camera and performance
seems very good when stopped down to normal working apertures. To be
honest, I haven't really checked to see how it performs wide open since
I'm normally shooting at between 5.6 and 11. Build quality is quite
decent -- about the same as a Yashicamat, I'd say. All in all it looks
like a knockoff of the Rolleiflex T.
=David-M=
It does NOT have 4-element lens.
I am astonished at the prices people are paying for these.
Rolfe Tessem
$140.00 new doesn't seem out of line to me. Or are you talking about
used prices?
Rolfe Tessem
>
> MLZ wrote:
> >
> > My photo friends couldn't believe the
> > shots I got from my Seagull either. the 8x10s
> > I printed myself look silky smooth and very
> > sharp, much more pleasing than similar shots taken
> > using my 35mm Canon gear. Yes at $140, you
> > saved enough to shoot hundreds and hundreds
> > of more rolls!
> >
> Any good 35mm camera can produce a crisp 10x8.
> A 6x6 TLR should be able to produce a crisp 16x20. Can the Seagull?
Yes, at least when used stopped down a couple of stops.
FLEXARET2
The Seagull is a bird of another color.
A few years back I purchased a New in Box Seagull crank model TLR.
I checked through about 30 cameras, all with obvious defects until I picked the
one I have.
I have yet to use it, but just now compared the image on the finder screen to
what a ground glass at the film plane will deliver. Ths film plane image was
crisp and sharp at infinity setting. The finder image not so sharp as it didn't
quite reach infinity.
Then I noted the fresnel screen was positioned wrong in over the ground glass
with the ring side up. Most cameras have the ground glass on top and the
fresnel under it with the ring side up in contact with the dull side of the
ground glass.
I plan to do some careful alignment of this finder and then take some photos.
Based on my experience, my opinion is that where these cameras have had poor
quality control, the end product was not as good.
Even a three element triplet (well made) is capable of sharp photos.
I once made a test of "New" Airesflex cameras one with four element Nikkor
optics and one with three element Coral optics. The results were about the
same.
I intend to align my camera and then expect good results from it.
However, I think these cameras are worth no more than $50 each, hardly
$140 .. for many reasons.
- Sam Sherman
Lim Meng Shi
>The WWSC 120 I purchased from Calumet has a split
>screen fresnel lens focusing aid in the
>viewfinder. I don't know if this is now standard
>but it is a BIG improvement over previous Chinese
>TLR models with only a plain ground glass
>viewfinder.
This has been available since the 4A-1 model (ie the predecessor of
the WWSC 120). I think the 4B's don't have this.
Lim Meng Shi
>well as the 35mm DF, the medium format rangefinder model 203 and the
>35mm rangefinder model 205. The only camera I ever examined was the 4A.
>The review did an excellent job of pointing out the strengths and
>weaknesses of that model.
The rangefinders sound interesting in either format. I wonder if
they're still in production. With the current 'craze' in RF, I hope
they would re-introduce an M mount compatible RF :-)
Lim Meng Shi
>It does NOT have 4-element lens.
>I am astonished at the prices people are paying for these.
There are both 3-elements and 4-elements models available (as per my
previous post). You just have to know what you're buying (especially
mail-order) as they're cosmetically almost identical and the seller
might not be well versed in the differences.
BTW, my WWSC 120 manual makes no mention of a Cooke triplet lens but I
noted that this is mentioned frequently in some British Photo Mags. Is
there a possibility that there are different export models built to
the importer's specs and target price range?
Klaus Werner
format RF (6x6 and 6x4.5) bellows folding camera!! I think it was Chinese - I
took lots of photographs. But the range finder mechanism was very fragile and
after roughing it a bit it didn't work any more. Unfortunately, I lost it
....
Klaus
In article <38b67912...@news.jaring.my>, men...@pc.jaring.my says...
>
>>Popular Photography (May 1972) published a review of the Seagull 4A as
>>well as the 35mm DF, the medium format rangefinder model 203 and the
>>35mm rangefinder model 205. The only camera I ever examined was the 4A.
>>The review did an excellent job of pointing out the strengths and
>>weaknesses of that model.
>
radi...@means.net
> I remember buying mail order in the 1970s (in Germany) a rangefinder dual
> format RF (6x6 and 6x4.5) bellows folding camera!! I think it was Chinese
- I
> took lots of photographs. But the range finder mechanism was very fragile
and
> after roughing it a bit it didn't work any more. Unfortunately, I lost it
> ....
These were available for $59 in the US, aboug $17 in China. They had front
element focusing, which softened the image if under about 6 ft.
John
radi...@means.net
wewe4
cool. The newer Seagull MF and 35mm versions with big bold
Helvetica SEAGULL in front looks ugly.
zhou ling
The camera model you are refering to is
Seagull 203.
-----------------------------------------------
On 23 Feb 2000, Klaus Werner wrote:
> I remember buying mail order in the 1970s (in Germany) a rangefinder dual
> format RF (6x6 and 6x4.5) bellows folding camera!! I think it was Chinese - I
> took lots of photographs. But the range finder mechanism was very fragile and
> after roughing it a bit it didn't work any more. Unfortunately, I lost it
> ....
> Klaus
>
> In article <38b67912...@news.jaring.my>, men...@pc.jaring.my says...
> >
> >>Popular Photography (May 1972) published a review of the Seagull 4A as
> >>well as the 35mm DF, the medium format rangefinder model 203 and the
> >>35mm rangefinder model 205. The only camera I ever examined was the 4A.
> >>The review did an excellent job of pointing out the strengths and
> >>weaknesses of that model.
> >