It depends on the brand of the cell. Some of them have enough long life ("enough" for me is 1 to 3 months, sometimes even more.)
They are really cheap (here, cheaper than silver cells), easy to find, and come in packages of 6, 8, 12 cells.
Thus, for me they're a great solution
I never understood why they didn't just do some advertising.
You mean 33% more shots per roll, right?
You asked for 1.35v "silver oxide" or "lithium" batteries. They can't be done because it would be going against chemistry...
The voltage of the cells is a consequence of the kind of cell itself, that is, the substance used for electrolyte, and electrodes.
See: "Cell potential"
Silver cell reaction:
View attachment 324591
This gives 1.56V. (aprox). This is part of the chemistry of the cell itself. You can create a 1.35v cell using other materials (and thus, other reactions), but if you want a "silver oxide" cell you'll get 1.56V.
The chemistry of regular lithium batteries give approx. 3.0V.
Well... There's a photo store, a 10 minutes drive from where I live, and they do have Kodak Gold 200 in 135. About $9.8 per roll. There's plenty in stock . Or you can order it from an online store.
Maybe we have it easier on this part of the planet earth...
or it may just represent someone getting familiar with some of the principles found in a "Fairly Modern" film SLR.The mechanism shown on the video is the film advance lever, counter, and bottom mechanism found in the Pentax P30. Moreover the rewind knob is exactly as in the P30/P50 models.
This means the forthcoming camera will use a vertical shutter, just like the P30. The parts for cocking the shutter are visible on the underside of the camera.
Shutters are still in DSLR's, so I wouldn't have though the shutter assembly would be a problem. I suspect the expertise that needs to be developed is in things like the film advance, tensioning and frame counter mechanism.
I have both M42 and K mount lens, a new K1000 would be nice.
...
The quality jump from 35mm to 645 is more dramatic than from 645 to 67.
...
(3) "We can’t even get film for the cameras we have": Are you sure of this? Currently you can readily buy film in the following formats:
110
135
120
220 (shanghai GP3)
127 (some custom manufacturers)
620 (same)
Minox 8x10 film is sold bulk (roll form) for you to fit into cassetes.
The only important format that is conspicuously absent is 126. Then there's Disc film which is a generally hated format...
But zone focusing, no? I almost never shoot in bright sun. That means guess work and poor focus more than offsetting larger negatives, unless maybe I carried a separate rangefinder but that's another piece of gear and kind of defeats the purpose.Try a 6x9 folder sometime. Pretty compact and nice big negative (or slide).
I don't understand why the used prices for nice MXs are way less than K1000s, but I'm happy about that.
Yeah I know. I always thought that was pretty stupid.Some Photography course require that the student show up equipped with a K1000. A MX will not technicaly meet that requirment, even though it has the same capabilities, and is as "Manual" as the K1000.
645 to 6x7 is something I wouldn't do. 35mm to 645 - not worth it for the difference in weight of the camera, slower lenses and other restrictions a MF SLR imposes. 35mm to 6x9 is enough a difference to make it worth it to me, as a 6x9 neg is twice the size of 645.The quality jump from 35mm to 645 is more dramatic than from 645 to 67.
The battery can be made of whatever works. My point was/is that surely someone can do it and isn’t.
Honestly this community frustrates me at times.
Sad we can't like posts...Honestly this community frustrates me at times.
That’s just relativism and meekness. But perhaps the meek shall inherit the earth?As someone ELSE said though, silly debate. Use what YOU prefer, for whatever reasons, even if it's just "I just plain LIKE this one." That's my reason for shooting 4x5 - I just like doing it, even though the quality from my 6x7 negs is pretty much indistinguishable to me. (My 4x5 kit is actually a lot smaller and lighter than my RZ 67 one though, considering the lenses!)
Goosfraba. Now repeat after me: goosfraba. There you go.
"waaaaaaa we can't get film for the cameras we have".
We are in the lucky position of having cameras that work. The problems with supply of film are not something the Ricoh/Pentax have any control over. The main reason we cannot always obtain film when we want to buy it is because demand has skyrocketed. Said demand means more people wanting to use film which means more people wanting to buy cameras. And this is where Ricoh/Pentax comes in. They probably have faith in the film manufacturers getting their acts together with increased production and stable availability of colour as well as B&W film by the time their proposed new camears appear.
Pentax kept all their blueprints. The fellow in the video states this. Ricoh also made fine cameras but may well not have kept their blueprints. There's this common assumption that all manufacturing companies keep old blueprints....why should they? We know, because we've been told, that Canon didn't. I know Sony, Kenwood and Yamaha at least did not for their cassette decks (because I've asked). Sankyo didn't for their cine cameras though they did keep spare parts until early in the 21st century. There is no reason why Ricoh or any other manufacturer should have kept blueprints for discontinued products. None whatsoever. We can be thankful that Pentax did.
Honestly this community frustrates me at times.
"we want new film cameras".
Kodak launch cheap, Kodak branded film camears
"No, not like that. Bring back Pentax or Nikon"
Pentax announce they're working towards manufacture of new film cameras
"NO, not like that you're owned by Ricoh now"....."I demand a 645"...."I demand a 6x7"...
Surely this is good news whether you personally want to purchase the end product or not? And if Pentax don't succeed, perhaps someone else will step in their place. All the bother over Pentax now being owned by Ricoh....such is the case for many companies these days. It matters little, if at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?