Jump to content

Philip Forrest

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Philip Forrest

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Mid-Atlantic region, USA
  • My Gear
    Filmos, Bolex RX5

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Most of the Deckel mount lenses for the Kodak Retina Reflex S are made by Schneider and are very good. Nothing wider than 35mm, if I recall correctly but some of the longer lenses are very unique. Not much is fast aside from the 50mm f/1.9. Konica lenses are usually outstanding and if someone were to be willing to spend the money to permanently convert something like a Zeiss Contax lens, then there is certainly a reason to do so for a Konica. The flange to focal distance is 4mm less than EF mount but if it were rehoused, there would be no problem. Konica lenses are insanely inexpensive. I
  2. A 110 deg. shutter would be amazing in a Filmo. I've even thought about having a new foil shutter custom made to decrease exposure. Phil Forrest
  3. Are there any letters with the number? They would tell you the month and year according to the CAMEROSITY production codes. Phil Forrest
  4. The REX4 is sold. Everything else is still available. Phil Forrest
  5. Derick is great to deal with, folks. I bought a few things from him here and there and just wanted to pass this on. Phil Forrest
  6. I don't want to deal with ebay and all the hassle/risk/fees. I'd rather keep it than have an ebay headache. I got this camera from a good friend and I feel that I don't want to take advantage of the low price I paid and make a big profit. I listed the issues it has and feel that it could use a CLA. I was in line to get it done by Bernie last winter. NOTE: as of 11:44 am EDT, the camera is tentatively sold. I will update with any changes. thanks all, Phil Forrest
  7. Selling my Bolex REX 4 simply because I need to work towards funding a car to replace my ancient, rusting 1972 diesel Benz (which also happens to be for sale locally.) I got a camera last year and it's been fantastic. I haven't had any time to get any film developed but I've shot 4x100 feet with it recently and have never had any jamming issues. The camera runs smoothly and steadily, pulling evenly for 44 seconds at 16f/s, and 32 seconds at 24f/s. There is no corrosion anywhere on or in the camera. That said, I think the original mastic light seal may be still there as it's hard, so
  8. I've been looking for any pre-EF mount Canon 24mm f/1.4 lens which I can afford, for close to twenty years. And I'm not a Canon shooter. If I ever find one, I'll get a New F1 body just to shoot this lens. Phil Forrest
  9. I love how 5222 tends to lay flat as well. I got a emails back from both Cinestill and Kodak. Cinestill said it was the real deal. Kodak said that Cinestill made a custom ordered cut in 120 width. So, if anyone wants to shoot this film in this width, the only to get it is through Cinestill, or a reseller, and they can charge whatever they like. Currently, that's $12 USD per roll. If I want Kodak in 120, I'll get it at $8/roll. If I don't mind "slumming" it with some of the excellent films from the smaller manufacturers, they start at about $5/roll, which is much more my speed. As fo
  10. I don't understand the cachet of shooting 5222 in a still camera, instead of other, better stocks. 5222 has great tonality and a wonderful adaptability, but it is quite grainy, as it's meant for motion picture, not still printing. 35mm Tri-X, in all of its iterations, is a much better film. I like, or liked, shooting 5222 because it was cheap. Now it's a hip, niche film for still shooters, who have no problem paying 5x what the film should cost, if it's repackaged by Cinestill. When I started shooting 5222 years ago, a roll of 36 exposures cost me about $1 USD. Even with an educational discoun
  11. I'm not sure about the validity of this film actually being real XX (5222/7222) with the same emulsion and the same base, but unperforated and much wider. I'm wondering if it is a custom cut or a recan of a custom run of 70mm done by Kodak. https://emulsive.org/articles/news/my-dream-come-true-kodak-eastman-double-x-film-now-in-120-format-available-from-cinestill-to-photographers-for-the-first-time-in-medium-format Hopefully it's the real deal AND it sticks around. Phil Forrest
  12. If you do it carefully and do it right, it will work great. You MUST take the whole shutter out of the camera, remove the shuttle (which has the claws), recheck about 5 times before you make the cut, then completely remove the appropriate claw and then file it down smooth, making sure to remove burrs. The shuttle pins need to be reinstalled correctly or you can get drag on the shuttle. The 70D mechanism is amazing in simplicity and reliability when properly lubed and maintained. Phil Forrest
  13. The D mount lens natively sits 5.3mm closer to the film plane than C mount. As a result, if you put a D mount lens on a C mount camera, you would be effectively putting an extension tube on it, making the D mount lens only able to resolve an image very close, if at all. In order to get a setup that gives you a workable image with some distance between camera and subject, you would probably need a D mount with a focal length greater than 25mm, the longer, the better. This doesn't say anything about how the image circle will cover your film plane, there may or may not be vignetting. Phil Fo
  14. Thank you for providing us all with such painful, personal details that had no bearing upon this overall thread. I'm sure Bernie and Julie had intended for their email to you to be shared with the world. Phil Forrest
×
×
  • Create New...