# Fun/intimidating to shoot with: Ricoh Singlex



## fjrabon (Apr 22, 2015)

It's the original Ricoh Singlex, which was basically made by Mamiya as a copy of the Nikkorex that Mamiya made for Nikon (things were confusing back then).

55mm f/1.4 lens seems pretty good, but we will see when we get these first rolls of film back.

Just finished getting her all up and running.  It's manual focus, manual exposure, in fact it doesn't even have a meter, so it's either use a hand meter, or use my intuition/sunny 16 calculations in my head to set the exposure.    The manual focus has a rangefinder like focusing aid apparatus that I think I sort of have the hang of, but I guess we will see.

It's kind of fun, and it's like lifting weights.  It really works out your "paying attention to compositions, framing, and exposure" muscle.  When I pick up my digital cameras after this, everything feels so much smoother.  It'll break you of the habit of being lazy with settings and composition in a hurry.  If you can shoot hesitation free, confidently, and correctly with this thing, shooting digital full manual becomes a breeze.    




FullSizeRender by franklinrabon, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

I am assuming it has a central split-image rangefinder, which would be pretty standard. A couple manual focusing tips that might not be obvious to people who grew up in the 80's or 90's...first, focus briskly from FAR and in to near...the rate of focus throw is faster this way than the reverse direction, and since the human eye is good at spotting difference, the faster and more quickly the difference appears, the easier it is to spot...difference! So, focus briskly, from FAR, to near, and when it looks good on the outer screen, STOP! Maybe do one tiny hitch backwards...and BOOM! You will likely be very, very close to perfect focus.

Now...perfect focus using a classical split-image rangefinder focusing aid in an SLR; the image is split, yes....so, aim the split-image patch at something that has a good, obvious, sharp or hard edge: the eyeglass frames...a finger, an ear...the wine glass stem the bride is holding up...and use the focusing system on a good, strong edge. And now, the "secret"...very useful in crappy lighting, or with a wide-angle lens with low magnification...*here's my secret focus tip*: focus as above, and then to confirm critical focus, move the camera up and down, up and down...if the edge in the split image finder patch "shimmies" as the camera is rocked up-and-down,up-and-down, you are NOT in focus...*if the image stays rock-steady...you are dead-on in-focus*. Even in very,very dim light, such as tripod mounted in a dim-light interior scenario, if you can get an edge, and then move the camera up and down, up and down, you can determine if there is "shimmy" to the split-image referenced target.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 22, 2015)

Thanks Derrel, great tips.  The exposure thing is what really makes me excited/nervous, I feel relatively okay about manual focusing with it.  If it's an important shot, I obviously just bring a light meter, but I find it thrilling for street shots to use my judgement and then do the exposure calculations in my head.  I'm also terrified everything is going to be wildly off exposure wise when I get the roll back.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

Reminds me of an old joke from the mid 1980's.

Young guy asks: "What's the right exposure for Tri-X?"

Old man says: "Whadda' ya mean, 'what's the right exposure for Tri-x?' *There are TWO of them!* f/5.6 at 1/250, and f/2.8 at one-thirtieth."


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Reminds me of an old joke from the mid 1980's.
> 
> Young guy asks: "What's the right exposure for Tri-X?"
> 
> Old man says: "Whadda' ya mean, 'what's the right exposure for Tri-x?' *There are TWO of them!* f/5.6 at 1/250, and f/2.8 at one-thirtieth."


yeah, TMax (like tri-x) is a pretty elastic film exposure wise, but I'm trying to not let that cause me to get sloppy, since that's half the point I picked the thing up, haha.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

Yes, Tri-X responds well to a lot of overexposure. SO do a lot of old-type B&W films.

In the mid- to late-1970's there was a guy who came up with a round, rotating paper exposure calculator. The idea was a big sales flop, but it had a great idea: Starting from a baseline of the Sunny Sixteen rule, apply an increasing e*X*posure factor for each decreasing light level. Learn the common situations you encounter, and learn their X value offset. I want to say a clear,moonless night is 32x...meaning Plus 32 "x", which means plus 32 EV or  plus 32 stops' worth MORE light than Sunny Sixteen.

I shot my first two years with meterless cameras made in the 1940's and 1950's, and didn't have a camera with a built-in meter until I was in my freshman year of high school. I relied on the Kodak film exposure diagrams in every roll, plus a Kodak pocket guide that I memorized some of the base scenes from.

As I recall, Fred Picker has a "Ultimate Exposure Computer", and it's on-line here: Ultimate Exposure Computer It could easily be updated/customized to the X-system. Fred's chart is an Exposure Value system with 29 different levels: the fellow with the X system had a better, easier to recall system.

So back to this *X-system* of Exposure Memorization
...Blast Furnace or Glass Blower's Glory Hole might be Minus Six X. (for the lolz)
Bright Sun on Light Sand or Snow would be MINUS 1 x
Sunny SIxteen is BASELINE.... ISO value at f/16, Shutter speed matching ISO as close as possible
Light Clouds, + 1x
Heavier Clouds + 2x
Overcast +3x
Heavy Overcast or Backlighted objects in Sun + 4x
and so on and so on....


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

Google : film box exposure chart - Google Search

Here are some of the classic Kodak "scene types", with exposures grouped by ISO levels, the old standards of 64 and 100; 200;400;800' and 3200

KODAK Pictures by Existing Light Tech Pub AC-61


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Yes, Tri-X responds well to a lot of overexposure. SO do a lot of old-type B&W films.
> 
> In the mid- to late-1970's there was a guy who came up with a round, rotating paper exposure calculator. The idea was a big sales flop, but it had a great idea: Starting from a baseline of the Sunny Sixteen rule, apply an increasing e*X*posure factor for each decreasing light level. Learn the common situations you encounter, and learn their X value offset. I want to say a clear,moonless night is 32x...meaning Plus 32 "x", which means plus 32 EV or  plus 32 stops' worth MORE light than Sunny Sixteen.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's basically what I do in my head. I've actually gotten more to the point now of knowing it based off common scenes and the settings I use, eg shadow of a building I usually shoot at f/8 1/250 ISO 400, then going out of the shadow is 3-4 stops, etc. 

I'm fairly intellectually certain I'm doing it right. I'm still often terrified that I somehow flubbed the calculations though, haha.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

I took this* Pocket Light Meter* snap earlier this evening, in an area shaded by a number of large buildings, and lighted by open sky-lighting.

Since the meter is set to 400 ISO film, and 1/400 to 1/200  represents 1x, we would continue to count the additional X factors or stops' worth of light this way, using the "old" leaf shutter era times of ;1/100 second for 2x; 1/50 second for 3x; 1/25 second for 4x, and 1/10 second for 5x, and then moving to 1/5 second would be 6x, or SIX EV more light than if it were sunny and daylight, instead of a late April, blue sky day at 7:19 PM in open shade, and metering off of lighter colored, gray concrete.


----------



## timor (Apr 23, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Reminds me of an old joke from the mid 1980's.
> ...


Well, Darrel is very helpful here. That's for sure. I just have one question, one consideration. Is your darkroom technology perfected enough, that you actually can develop TX for this ISO 400 ? Or, for that matter iso 200 ?
Yes TX has the latitude and you will get something on the negative, but I see in your picture different film, TMY, is Tmax 400. This is a thin emulsion film, nothing of the TX latitude, this one requires precise processing, from exposure to drying, it is much more advanced material. Don't use it. 
Another consideration is condition of the camera and lens, is the shutter precise ? If not, best light meter won't help. How works the lens ? Is the aperture closing properly ?


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 23, 2015)

timor said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


I have a friend who runs a lab in Atlanta, so I'm not particularly worried about darkroom tech at the moment.  

Shutter seems pretty precise, it's a copal square, which is generally regarded as one of the best square shutters produced, but we won't really know until I get my first batch back I guess.  

Aperture seems to close correctly, though it won't go to f/16.  But again, I guess we will see.


----------



## timor (Apr 23, 2015)

Try to shoot first roll on one aperture only, let say 8, changing only times. Bracket and see, which frame conforms or not to light meter readings.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 23, 2015)

My first 'real' camera was a Yashica rangefinder without a meter. I shot that thing, when I was in middle school, until the wire controlling aperture blades worn out and all the blades sorta hung straight down. In most lighting situations, I just use the meter to confirm or make minor adjustments to what my eyes tell me. You are right, going old school makes digital easier. Getting manual down to a science, quickly calculating exposure and being able to adjust semi-consciously in the background to changing light conditions, allow you to concentrate more brain power on composition and finer details of what you're shooting.  When you're of limited brain power, (speaking for myself), whatever you can free up is helpful.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 23, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> My first 'real' camera was a Yashica rangefinder without a meter. I shot that thing, when I was in middle school, until the wire controlling aperture blades worn out and all the blades sorta hung straight down. In most lighting situations, I just use the meter to confirm or make minor adjustments to what my eyes tell me. You are right, going old school makes digital easier. Getting manual down to a science, quickly calculating exposure and being able to adjust semi-consciously in the background to changing light conditions, allow you to concentrate more brain power on composition and finer details of what you're shooting.  When you're of limited brain power, (speaking for myself), whatever you can free up is helpful.


yes, I hate when I have to think about exposure in a conscious manner, but with the ins and outs of shadows that I've been doing a lot of in recently with trying my hand at street, I've had to think about it more.  My hope is that shooting with this thing will allow it to become so ingrained again, that it can slip to the back of my mind as a mostly unconscious process of shooting, like it is with most other things I shoot.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 23, 2015)

timor said:


> Try to shoot first roll on one aperture only, let say 8, changing only times. Bracket and see, which frame conforms or not to light meter readings.


I spent probably the first 15 or so exposures on pure test shots in a controlled environment, with varying shutter speeds and apertures and a constant light source on a grey background so that I can get a feel for how it exposes, the lens falloff, etc.


----------



## timor (Apr 23, 2015)

Keep good notes. Too many variables may cloud the analisys.
There might be very little troubles with optics. This is an excellent lens with bokeh you will love.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 23, 2015)

timor said:


> Keep good notes. Too many variables may cloud the analisys.
> There might be very little troubles with optics. This is an excellent lens with bokeh you will love.


Yeah, I took detailed notes of what every shot was shot at for the test shots (and also taking settings notes now that I'm shooting regular shots).


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 23, 2015)

My first camera was a Ricoh Singlex II, don't see too many of those or yours (typically I've seen the TLS model).

Mine is out of the line-up as far as actually shooting with it anymore (needs some repair/tinkering to get it back into working condition). Has seen better days but dragged that thing everywhere for years. Doesn't seem heavy to me because I'm used to heavy metal but like a lot of cameras from that era it's something of a tank.

I've found too that taking notes is good to have when you look at your results. Hope you enjoy your camera.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 23, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> My first camera was a Ricoh Singlex II, don't see too many of those or yours (typically I've seen the TLS model).
> 
> Mine is out of the line-up as far as actually shooting with it anymore (needs some repair/tinkering to get it back into working condition). Has seen better days but dragged that thing everywhere for years. Doesn't seem heavy to me because I'm used to heavy metal but like a lot of cameras from that era it's something of a tank.
> 
> I've found too that taking notes is good to have when you look at your results. Hope you enjoy your camera.


Yeah, I've been tinkering with this one for a while, and I think I finally have it in more or less working order.  Except the lens won't stop down to f/16.  But other than that it seems okay.


----------

