Minox 35GT not happy, thoughts on this?

[Xmas]

Hi Ben

If you look at the MTFs for late triplets and double Gaussian lenses there is not much difference.

The very high refractive glass and the better matching of dispersions possible reduces the difference.

With a slow film test chart and heavy tripod you will have trouble telling apart at /5.6 until you cheat and look at back of print.

Good thing we still have PanF?

Noel

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hi Ben

If you look at the MTFs for late triplets and double Gaussian lenses there is not much difference.

The very high refractive glass and the better matching of dispersions possible reduces the difference.

With a slow film test chart and heavy tripod you will have trouble telling apart at /5.6 until you cheat and look at back of print.

Good thing we still have PanF?

Noel

I'll second the blessing for PanF. I shed a tear when PlusX died, but I'd really cry if PanF ever dies. I don't shoot much of it, but when I do I almost always like the results over any 100 ISO film. Tmax is nice and the grain is super-fine, but PanF has a "better looks" to it. Just my opinion of course. As for the lenses on the Minox 35's? I think that coatings, type of glass and a pretty ridged lens mounting system all contribute to the very good results from a simple lens design. JW[/I]

 

[fotoobscura]

While I'm here and have a lot of attention from compact-a-philes, I'm looking to buy an XA4 Macro and/or a Ricoh GR1v.

Thanks

 

[benjiboy]

Hi Ben

If you look at the MTFs for late triplets and double Gaussian lenses there is not much difference.

The very high refractive glass and the better matching of dispersions possible reduces the difference.

With a slow film test chart and heavy tripod you will have trouble telling apart at /5.6 until you cheat and look at back of print.

Good thing we still have PanF?

Noel

One of the main reasons I originally bought the 35 G.T. Noel is a test report I read in the now defunct S.L.R.Camera Magazine that said that they had to test the 35mm minator lens three times because the results were so good they were unbelieveable.

 

[John Wiegerink]

One of the main reasons I originally bought the 35 G.T. Noel is a test report I read in the now defunct S.L.R.Camera Magazine that said that they had to test the 35mm minator lens three times because the results were so good they were unbelieveable.

That must be the twin lens to the one on my beater Minox EL. I do know that the other Minox 35's I have, while very good in the lens department, are not as sharp as that old EL's lens. All lenses are not created equal, even if the name is the same on the front. Just sample variations I guess, but when you get a good one keep it. JW

 

[John Wiegerink]

While I'm here and have a lot of attention from compact-a-philes, I'm looking to buy an XA4 Macro and/or a Ricoh GR1v.

Thanks

I've tried several Oly XA's, including a brand new one my wife bought me when they first came out and never thought the results were as good as the scale focusing Oly X series cameras so I dumped them. I will admit that I always wanted an XA4, but never came across a good deal since they are rather hard to come by. Never owned a Ricoh GR series either, but might if one falls in my lap. JW

 

[pentaxuser]

What was the interval between your last film in Xtol which I presume was perfect and this one? How do you store your Xtol? In winebags mine keeps beyond 8 months. We are back to the alleged sudden and total death story of Xtol again.

I am amazed that there was nothing there at all i.e. not even a hint of edge markings or image. That really is sudden and complete death.

I'd have favoured fix before dev but you rule that out completely and who am I to argue.

If on the other hand your last film was developed OK a week or two back then if it were me I'd be tempted to question if there was the slightest possibility that I had fixed first.

I don't wish to insult your intelligence but I recall another thread where for several pages the OP insisted he couldn't have possibly used fix first then had an "epiphany" and said that that was the cause

pentaxuser

 

[fotoobscura]

Pentaxuser,

I like your style, ala wine bags. I use accordion containers for most of my chemistry. In theory if I get *most* of the air out of them and keep them in a dark place at a modest temperature, the chemistry should last a very, very long time. Perhaps the mileage varies on Xtol, I don't know.

I agree with you completely and am glad you are also surprised at the complete exhaustion of the developer as I was. As I've previously written, I was stunned that there weren't even traces of a latent image, especially with a long development cycle (9.5 minutes @ ~26-27C). It is 'near' impossible for me to fix then develop. #1- I use colored containers that aren't even the same shape and have very large D and F lettering on the tops, #2- I've been developing film for 20 years and am fairly consistent at it now Finally, fixer doesn't smell like developer.

I went through my development spreadsheet and in April I shot a roll of tm400@1600 with this bottle of Xtol and I reported that roll as being "thin but printable". So from April to July it lost everything.

And that's just the way it is.

It's the developer.

Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Accordion containers are the worst choice possible. They are impossible to clean properly, and they are made of material that leaks air!

 

[fotoobscura]

Have had great experience with accordion containers but thanks for clarifying your opinion.

 

[Trask]

Buy some white vinegar in 1 liter glass bottles and use the vinegar 1:3 with water to rinse your fruits and veggies -- stay healthy. Rinse the bottle very well, then use to store fixer or whatever. Yes, the bottle is usually clear, but I prefer to keep my bottles in a space like in the cabinet under my sink, where it's dark anyway.

Alternatively, buy a bottle of Irish Cream, drink it slowly, then rinse the bottle and use it for developer etc. These are heavy, extremely dark glass bottles -- ain't no light getting in there.

 

[AgX]

What is so special about the Minox 35 lens?

-) it is a Tessar type

-) it does not even have barrel focusing, but front element focusing

 

[John Wiegerink]

What is so special about the Minox 35 lens?

-) it is a Tessar type

-) it does not even have barrel focusing, but front element focusing

Tessar type.................Yup!

Front element focusing................Yup!

I don't know the answer to the "special" part, but it works and works rather well. JW

 

[Dr Croubie]

What is so special about the Minox 35 lens?

-) it is a Tessar type

-) it does not even have barrel focusing, but front element focusing

I always thought that front-focussing Tessars gave worse performance than full unit-focussing ones?
(at least up close, although there'd be no difference at infinity)

 

[AgX]

At least that is what the engineering literature says.


On the other hand that floating element focusing in later lens designs, aiding the barrel focusing, shows that inner-lens movement as such is not necessarily a bad idea.

It was the front-element focusing ability of the triplet, or rather modified triplet as the Tessar, that made the design of small and simple leaf-shutter cameras possible, as actuators to the shutter were not hampered by, even long, barrel movement or required complicated mechanism. I see this as the merit of front-element focusing rather than image quality.

Lens performces should be checked by tests on targets or side-by-side test on real scenery over a wide range of focusing distances.

 

[benjiboy]

Buy some white vinegar in 1 liter glass bottles and use the vinegar 1:3 with water to rinse your fruits and veggies -- stay healthy. Rinse the bottle very well, then use to store fixer or whatever. Yes, the bottle is usually clear, but I prefer to keep my bottles in a space like in the cabinet under my sink, where it's dark anyway.

Alternatively, buy a bottle of Irish Cream, drink it slowly, then rinse the bottle and use it for developer etc. These are heavy, extremely dark glass bottles -- ain't no light getting in there.

No, buy a bottle of Irish Whisky, drink it quickly and you won't care about storing your chemicals.