# Finally jumped on a camera...



## JonA_CT (Apr 15, 2016)

I posted awhile back asking about a Pentax K1000 as a first film camera, and after communicating back and forth with the woman who owned it over about 8 e-mails, we could never make a deal happen. I kept monitoring Craigslist, and ended up finding this...




Minolta XD-11 and goodies by jwa04, on Flickr

It's a Minolta XD-11 with 50mm F2, 35 mm F2.8,  75-200 F3.8, 2x teleconverter, 2 flashes, a couple of rolls of film, and a nice messenger bag. I probably overpaid a little ($160), but everything is in good working order, the glass is all clean -- no scratches or fungus or anything. 

I'm really excited to get out this weekend and shoot through the two rolls of film it came with, and you'll be happy to know that my first step will be RTFM  . 

Any suggestions for how to get started? I figure things that don't move is a good start, haha. I'll also be looking for film suggestions -- I have a local lab that I'll be confirming will do 16 bit scans today, and I believe they still do true B&W film too.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 15, 2016)

I'd check the mechanicals first.  Open the back, look into the back and trip the shutter. Do you see light coming through the lens?  Then on to the shutter.  Do the slower speeds seem consistent with the marked speed?  You can pretty much tell up to 1/30th.  Between that and 1/125, you can kind of tell by watching the light through the camera.  Higher than that you're just guessing whether it's accurate unless you have a tester of some sort.

Does the aperture close down when fired?  Is it quck and snappy?  Can you remove the lens and make the aperture work manually?  Does it appear to function?  Are the blades clean or covered with oil? Is the actual aperture even all around?

Hold the lenses up to a bright light.  There's going to be some dust, there always will be.  But check for fungus and deep scratches.  Minor dings and cleaning marks on the front element are meaningless.  Anything major on the rear element is cause for concern.  Do the aperture rings function properly?  Do the zoom and focus rings do as well?  Does the zoom ring suffer from 'creep'?

Does the camera synch properly with the flash units?  As above, look through the back and fire it with a speedlight on the camera in a dark room.  Do you see the entire frame opening with the flash through the back?

Are the flash battery contacts clean and shiny?  Or does the battery compartments look like there's some corrosion going on?

Get a magnifying glass and inspect the light seals.  If they're missing parts, you may have some light leaks.  Replacing them can be a DIY project if you're willing to locate some new seals, dig out the old ones and have the patience to install the new ones.  Well worth the time and very satisfying as well.

This is what comes to mind right now.  I'm sure there's more.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 15, 2016)

I think $160 for all that is a good and fair price considering condition, nice glass too. That is a great camera with Leica helping them out, as noticed with their R4 body. I would use one of your rolls for testing out how to load the film unless your totally confident in doing it. Keep the back open on one load test to gain an understanding of how it works mechanically, paying attention to how rewind lever advances, how the film grabs the teeth on the sprocket, etc. Just don't rewind the film all the way back in, yeah you ruin a roll but you can use it for testing other camera's if you buy any more.  

For black & white film, the Ilford HP5+ 400 works very nice. For Color, Agfa Vista 200 seems to be a favorite among many (cheap too) but I have yet to use it. The Fuji Superia Xtra 400 seems ready available. Probably wouldn't hurt to ask the lab were your taking it and see what they offer. If your shooting black & white, I recommend a Hoya yellow filter. You really just need to do some reading on the different film available and try them, take notes, and you will have a better idea. I just got some Fuji Superia Xtra 800 back and I am pleasantly surprised how much I like it. I am loading the Xtra 200 which I believe is the same as the Agfa Vista 200. 

I like to shoot B & W mainly and I seem to have settled on the HP5+ for what I do. I noticed a pleasing difference in contrast when I finally used a yellow filter. I also have a red and green one but have not had the opportunity to use them, will this summer when I go to the local botanical gardens.


----------



## spiralout462 (Apr 15, 2016)

Congrats on the "new" kit!  Film has made me enjoy photography much more, again.  Have fun with it!


----------



## limr (Apr 15, 2016)

Nice!! I agree that $160 is a fair deal for everything you got. I also second everything that Sparky said (well, to be honest, I'm sure the flash stuff is important to, but I never use flash, so I personally would skip that part  )

I love Tri-X but after the price hike, I've been using HP5, which is a great film, and honestly, not really much different from Tri-X anyway. If you want a lower ISO, there's also Fp4 ISO 100 from Ilford.

For that first roll, don't take anything that you're really excited about because if turns out there _is_ something wrong with the mechanics or light seals and that first roll is botched, then you won't be so disappointed. After all the years of shooting film and using old cameras, I recently made that mistake with the Contaflex I had. I had some shots that I was super excited about, and when I developed the film, the entire strip was black (which meant completely blown out images) except for a few weird, abstract blurry double exposures. Turns out there was an issue with the shutter that wasn't apparent when I was just dry firing it. 

But do try to shoot a variety of things with different settings so you can get a sense of how it handles (and test those faster shutter speeds) and how the lens renders at different f-stops.

Edit: Oh, and take notes of settings for each frame. I'd suggest sticking to one lens per roll until you've tested them all, but if you do change lenses for different shots during the same roll, definitely note that down as well. 

Have fun shooting!! I'm excited for you


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 15, 2016)

Enjoy your new camera. Like mentioned earlier sacrifice one of the rolls that came with the camera. Use all the lenses,flashes and have it developed. Keep note of exposure,lens and such in case problems arise you may be able to trace the cause. Have fun.


----------



## Dave442 (Apr 15, 2016)

I like how the Vivitar lens sheet says "close focusing", from back before the Marketing people found that throwing Macro on there sold more lenses. 
Should be a fun little package. 

I would start with one lens, the 50mm, and use that for the first roll, get used to it and the camera. If you have a DSLR you might take that along to compare meter readings. It looks like a teleconverter was included, not sure how well that will work on that zoom. 

I always liked the raised red alignment point on the Minolta lenses, never had to look at the lens to put it on.


----------



## terri (Apr 15, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Enjoy your new camera. Like mentioned earlier sacrifice one of the rolls that came with the camera. Use all the lenses,flashes and have it developed. Keep note of exposure,lens and such in case problems arise you may be able to trace the cause. Have fun.


^^   This.  

I also agree with everything Sparky suggested, but as Lenny mentioned some things won't show up until you get the camera loaded and take 'er out for a spin.   Keep a notepad of every exposure, the lens used, etc., and don't worry if all you're doing is walking around the yard or up and down your street.   Important subject matter comes later, all you're interested in right now is looking at your negatives after using all the lenses, and checking your exposures.  

I don't think you overpaid, especially with all those lenses and everything looking clean, like you said.    Whatever film you choose, you might want to stick with it for several rolls while you put each lens through its paces.   You want to get familiar with what to expect from a film, too, before changing.

This is a learning curve, but also an exciting, fun part - take your time, and enjoy!!!


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 15, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> I think $160 for all that is a good and fair price considering condition, nice glass too. That is a great camera with Leica helping them out, as noticed with their R4 body. I would use one of your rolls for testing out how to load the film unless your totally confident in doing it. Keep the back open on one load test to gain an understanding of how it works mechanically, paying attention to how rewind lever advances, how the film grabs the teeth on the sprocket, etc. Just don't rewind the film all the way back in, yeah you ruin a roll but you can use it for testing other camera's if you buy any more.
> 
> For black & white film, the Ilford HP5+ 400 works very nice. For Color, Agfa Vista 200 seems to be a favorite among many (cheap too) but I have yet to use it. The Fuji Superia Xtra 400 seems ready available. Probably wouldn't hurt to ask the lab were your taking it and see what they offer. If your shooting black & white, I recommend a Hoya yellow filter. You really just need to do some reading on the different film available and try them, take notes, and you will have a better idea. I just got some Fuji Superia Xtra 800 back and I am pleasantly surprised how much I like it. I am loading the Xtra 200 which I believe is the same as the Agfa Vista 200.
> 
> I like to shoot B & W mainly and I seem to have settled on the HP5+ for what I do. I noticed a pleasing difference in contrast when I finally used a yellow filter. I also have a red and green one but have not had the opportunity to use them, will this summer when I go to the local botanical gardens.



Thanks for the tips! I'm hoping to get to the lab tomorrow and see what they have. I figured that might be a good place to start. Since I was given a few free rolls of film anyways, making sure I know how everything winds makes a lot of sense. 



spiralout462 said:


> Congrats on the "new" kit!  Film has made me enjoy photography much more, again.  Have fun with it!



Thanks! I'm hoping it'll make me think a lot more before I click the shutter button, and that should definitely be a good thing.



limr said:


> Nice!! I agree that $160 is a fair deal for everything you got. I also second everything that Sparky said (well, to be honest, I'm sure the flash stuff is important to, but I never use flash, so I personally would skip that part  )
> 
> I love Tri-X but after the price hike, I've been using HP5, which is a great film, and honestly, not really much different from Tri-X anyway. If you want a lower ISO, there's also Fp4 ISO 100 from Ilford.
> 
> ...



I was figuring I would start by just using the 50mm for a few rolls -- my original thoughts were that I was only going to buy a 50 anyways. The note pad tip is great too. As someone who doesn't remember taking film photos with anything other than a disposable, I probably rely  too much on EXIF data to take notes for me. 

I'm guessing I'll never use the flash either...I have a hard enough time dialing in flash on the digital camera while chimping. 



MartinCrabtree said:


> Enjoy your new camera. Like mentioned earlier sacrifice one of the rolls that came with the camera. Use all the lenses,flashes and have it developed. Keep note of exposure,lens and such in case problems arise you may be able to trace the cause. Have fun.



Thanks!



Dave442 said:


> I like how the Vivitar lens sheet says "close focusing", from back before the Marketing people found that throwing Macro on there sold more lenses.
> Should be a fun little package.
> 
> I would start with one lens, the 50mm, and use that for the first roll, get used to it and the camera. If you have a DSLR you might take that along to compare meter readings. It looks like a teleconverter was included, not sure how well that will work on that zoom.
> ...



Thanks! By comparing meter readings, you mean plugging the same settings into my DSLR and seeing what the meter says? The meter in this camera is very different than what I'm used to!



terri said:


> MartinCrabtree said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoy your new camera. Like mentioned earlier sacrifice one of the rolls that came with the camera. Use all the lenses,flashes and have it developed. Keep note of exposure,lens and such in case problems arise you may be able to trace the cause. Have fun.
> ...



Thanks!

I really appreciate all the great advice I've gotten on TPF -- even if I don't post much, I've learned so much by looking at lots of photos, seeing critiques, and reading the answers to all the questions posted each day. I'm grateful to have a resource like this.


----------



## xenskhe (Apr 16, 2016)

JonA_CT said:


> Any suggestions for how to get started?



1. Put the 35mm on it and carry it everyday.
2. Shopping list:
change bag (you can load a Paterson tank under a duvet in a dark room if you don't have a bag),
30 meters of Fomapan 100,
5x reuseable 35mm cassettes (e.g Kood),
Watson loader (initial bulk load in darkness, then 35mm cassettes loadable in daylight),
masking tape,
scissors,
10ml plastic syringe,
Rodinal,
Tetenal,
vinegar (mixed very dilute with water for your stop bath),
dishwasher rinse aid,
Paterson tank (System 4),
digital thermometer (e.g kitchen type with the spike),
plastic 1000ml jug
2 x 500ml flasks (or recycle screw top cola bottles etc)
disposable gloves x20,
safety goggles,
wooden clothes pegs,
A4 display folder with the PET inserts to store your cut neg strips.

Use a bedroom alarm clock/radio for a development timer.


----------



## cgw (Apr 16, 2016)

Check the condition of the light seal at the film door's hinge. If sticky or missing, you'll need a new one. Thin adhesive-backed craft store sheet foam(black)is all you need. Easy DIY fix. Main cause of light leaks in many 35mm SLRs.

Looks like a clean, low-rollage kit. Nice camera+glass.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 22, 2016)

Update?


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 22, 2016)

Finished the first roll of film this week -- gonna try to get it to the lab tomorrow, and then we will see!


----------



## timor (Apr 22, 2016)

JonA_CT said:


> Finished the first roll of film this week -- gonna try to get it to the lab tomorrow, and then we will see!


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 22, 2016)

Cool. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2016)

JonA_CT said:
			
		

> Finished the first roll of film this week -- gonna try to get it to the lab tomorrow, and then we will see!



Hope for still-serviceable light seals in the camera....the thing is old enough that the seals might not still be light-tight. There's really nothing wrong with the three lenses you got with this kit--all three are perfectly capable lenses for a 35mm film kit. Speaking of 35mm, the 35mm focal length is one of my favorites for general walk-about use, as well as for environmental portraiture.

The thing about the 35mm lens length is that it may be used from close-in, to get a bit of deliberate foreshortening of legs and arms and limbs--without also being "weird" in terms of how it makes things at the corners of the frame appear. On FF or film, a 35mm lens also covers roughly one foot left to right for every foot distant from the subject at social photography distances, so it's easy to mentally learn the lens's natural field of view.

The tele-zoom was a well-regarded lens when it was current,and it's the fixed maximum aperture f/3.8 model, so that is nice--to be free of concern that as the lens is zoomed that the effective aperture might be changed. When it was made, that Vivitar lens was coveted by many people!


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 26, 2016)

Got the roll back today -- I'm really not all that pleased with the scans from the lab. They are very small and low quality (all under 1mb). I called them after I got home and they told me that they won't do any higher quality than that. I guess I'll be finding a mail-order lab after all.

Now -- lots of noise in these pictures...some weird marks too. Me? The film? The camera? The processing? I'll put a couple below, and all 23 frames in their glory in a link below. I took pictures of stupid stuff to finish up the roll, so only mild judging please 

EDIT: Oh, and it just occurred to me that flare in the pictures is probably caused by the filter on the lens. Need to buy a lens cap and get the cheapie UV filters out. 





0000593_0000593-R1-033-15 by jwa04, on Flickr




0000593_0000593-R1-037-17_1 by jwa04, on Flickr




0000593_0000593-R1-E009 by jwa04, on Flickr

First Roll of Film


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2016)

Looks like under-exposure on your part, and weak scanning, with plenty of DUST from a sloppy lab with sloppy procedures. "some" of the images, especially the brightly-lit outdoor shots, appear to have decent exposure. Your lab's scanning work looks poor, to say the least.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 26, 2016)

Poor processing aside it appears the camera is functioning well. I would go out with a real light meter or another camera with a trusted meter and shoot a roll. Oh........was that some expired film?


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 26, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Looks like under-exposure on your part, and weak scanning, with plenty of DUST from a sloppy lab with sloppy procedures. "some" of the images, especially the brightly-lit outdoor shots, appear to have decent exposure. Your lab's scanning work looks poor, to say the least.



Thanks for the feedback!

It's actually really "enlightening" (couldn't help myself) to get the prints back. I almost never use the center-weighted metering option, and it's clear to me after looking at the pictures that I definitely need to slow the shutter speed down if inside and pointing anywhere near a window. Something to put into my notes.

I'm also wondering how old the film was...Kodak Max 400. I'm guessing it's probably been expired for awhile, with whatever effect that might have.


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 26, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Poor processing aside it appears the camera is functioning well. I would go out with a real light meter or another camera with a trusted meter and shoot a roll. Oh........was that some expired film?



Yeah, I'm guessing the film wasn't new, but no idea how old. My wife tossed the box so I can't check.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 26, 2016)

Well, expired film could be the problem. B&W seems to hold up better but I think color can shift or get funky. You probably should try with a fresh roll.

What is interesting is that the one of the post in the shade on the front porch is better, and the one of the meter is perfectly clear and sharp. So I can't figure out how it could have been dust or scanning when that one is clear. But it depends where you had this done, in my area drugstores have always been the worst.

To me most of these look like a good bit of graininess from exposure being off. I'm not sure why the first one of the white fence looks fine and the second one not so much. And the one of the cute baby in the pink, in that indoor existing light which probably was low light, the graininess is much more noticeable. That's the one where I see what looks like dust/lint - the small white marks.

I'm not sure what you mean about slowing down your shutter speed. You might benefit from doing some test shots, take more than one photo of something varying the exposure - meter the scene, vary the exposure by a stop, write down what you did and see what you get.

I've done that w/B&W if the meter was fluctuating because the light varies sometimes and I wanted a good quality negative to work with. I had to tell them to NOT adjust, otherwise they'd adjust and all of them would look the same on the proof sheet! And see how much they charge for a proof sheet, might be worth getting one along with the scans if you're not having prints made.

My starting point and where I reset my cameras is usually f8 and 1/125, then I go from there and use the meter readings to adjust and set the camera.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2016)

Yeah, I wondered about the film. With the high cost of lab chemicals, and the relatively low demand for film processing, I believe there's never been a time where it's more likely that an average lab will try to "go one more day" between doing what they _know they should_ do, and what economic necessity causes them _to actually do,_ wether that be replacing chemicals, filtering the solutions, cleaning dust, etc,etc..

I agree--you might very well be getting some flare from that inexpensive UV filter.

All in all, this was a good test though--camera seems light-tight, apparently the frame spacing is decent, and you did okay--AND you shot some FILM and got it developed! All in all, a big win here!


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2016)

I agree that the film might have been expired, at least a bit. It not only results in more grain and some color shift, but there's also a loss of contrast that you'll see in some of the underexposed ones.

I might also differ and say that there miiiiiiight be a slight leak along the top. It's clearer in some shots than in others, and it's very very faint in some, but especially in the ones taken outdoors, you can see a regular sort of fuzzy band along the bottom of the frame and up the left corner. In the portrait-oriented shots, look on the left side of the frame. Maybe check the seal along the top of the back door and along the hinge.

Honestly, for your first roll, getting used to both the camera AND the film at the same time, I'd say you did pretty well!


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 27, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Well, expired film could be the problem. B&W seems to hold up better but I think color can shift or get funky. You probably should try with a fresh roll.
> 
> What is interesting is that the one of the post in the shade on the front porch is better, and the one of the meter is perfectly clear and sharp. So I can't figure out how it could have been dust or scanning when that one is clear. But it depends where you had this done, in my area drugstores have always been the worst.
> 
> To me most of these look like a good bit of graininess from exposure being off. I'm not sure why the first one of the white fence looks fine and the second one not so much. And the one of the cute baby in the pink, in that indoor existing light which probably was low light, the graininess is much more noticeable. That's the one where I see what looks like dust/lint - the small white marks.





Derrel said:


> Yeah, I wondered about the film. With the high cost of lab chemicals, and the relatively low demand for film processing, I believe there's never been a time where it's more likely that an average lab will try to "go one more day" between doing what they _know they should_ do, and what economic necessity causes them _to actually do,_ wether that be replacing chemicals, filtering the solutions, cleaning dust, etc,etc..
> 
> I agree--you might very well be getting some flare from that inexpensive UV filter.
> 
> All in all, this was a good test though--camera seems light-tight, apparently the frame spacing is decent, and you did okay--AND you shot some FILM and got it developed! All in all, a big win here!



I really had high hopes for this lab -- I'd much rather support a local business than mailing it somewhere else. When the last big camera shop/photo lab closed here maybe ten years ago, a few of the employees of that shop opened the place that I went to. Really there should have been a few signs that should have let me know not to expect much -- it's in Olde Mystic Village which is a glorified touristy strip mall set up to look old, the shop is filled with half Mystic, CT t-shirts and half custom framing options, and the guy that I spoke with both times doesn't seem to know anything other than the fact that they do indeed develop film there. I also asked him about the scanning option when I dropped it off, and he seemed to think it was a weird request.

I've learned my lesson. I'll find a mail-in lab that's hopefully not across the country.



limr said:


> I agree that the film might have been expired, at least a bit. It not only results in more grain and some color shift, but there's also a loss of contrast that you'll see in some of the underexposed ones.
> 
> I might also differ and say that there miiiiiiight be a slight leak along the top. It's clearer in some shots than in others, and it's very very faint in some, but especially in the ones taken outdoors, you can see a regular sort of fuzzy band along the bottom of the frame and up the left corner. In the portrait-oriented shots, look on the left side of the frame. Maybe check the seal along the top of the back door and along the hinge.
> 
> Honestly, for your first roll, getting used to both the camera AND the film at the same time, I'd say you did pretty well!



So many noob mistakes on this roll -- anything that is out of focus or has motion blur is because my fat finger went a little too far on the shutter when trying to meter. I think that's the hardest part. The meter isn't super bright, and it works in a way that I'm not used to. I may end up shooting the next roll Aperture priority, although I'd rather get the exposure right myself. This is one of those places my DSLR use has caused bad habits -- I shoot in manual mode 90% of the time, and about 90% of that time, I have the ISO capped and set to AUTO. I think if nothing else, using a film camera will make me think about exposure much more. 

I totally see the banding you are talking about, and the light seals are definitely tacky and kind of gross. I'm not afraid to replace them myself, and it looks like there is quite a bit of information on the web for how to do it. My plan is to order a kit and replace them before I shoot another roll, although I'm pretty impatient so who knows 

Again, I really appreciate all of the feedback. I knew that you all would have the answers for me when I looked at those scans last night.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 27, 2016)

Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ JGood21967@aol.com


----------



## cgw (Apr 27, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ JGood21967@aol.com



DIY with thin adhesive-backed foam for about a buck a sheet. Seal kits are over-priced and really not necessary since the hinge seal is the key to nearly all leaks and also the easiest to replace. Seals along the length of the door are light-tight with or without seals. Mirror bumper is optional. Instructions online.It's not neurosurgery. Have done several and all patients survived.


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 28, 2016)

cgw said:


> MartinCrabtree said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ JGood21967@aol.com
> ...



Again, I'm quite an inpatient chap, so I went and bought some sticky foam and gave it a go. I used a toothpick (well, several) to get the old light seals off, and then some rubbing alcohol and some q-tips to get the sticky residue off and to clean the surface for the new foam.

Before: 



Untitled by jwa04, on Flickr

After:




Untitled by jwa04, on Flickr

Everything seems to seal shut quite nicely, although it's a bit more snug then it was before. I threw a roll of Ilford HP-5 in it. I'm excited to get back out with it.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 28, 2016)

Sounds like it's time for some more photon hunting.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 28, 2016)

Jon, you should give serious consideration to developing developing at home.  B&W is quite easy and cost effective. Probably less than $100 to get started with new hardware and significantly less on Craigslist (used).


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 29, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> Jon, you should give serious consideration to developing developing at home.  B&W is quite easy and cost effective. Probably less than $100 to get started with new hardware and significantly less on Craigslist (used).



My initial thoughts were that I would use this camera almost exclusively as a B&W platform, although I do love the way some of the color film renders. I think I will once I'm consistently getting good exposures -- need to limit the variables for now. Part of it it easing into the process too -- my wife saw my work station (foam, rubbing alcohol, x-acto knife, etc) and rolled her eyes and sighed, haha. I can't imagine what a developing tank, changing bag, and chemicals will bring from her. Not that it will stop me...


----------



## cgw (Apr 29, 2016)

The new foam will compress and making closing smoother. BTW, you might try removing the foam from the channels along the length of the body. It functioned more as protection from dust and moisture than light. I've never bothered to replace it in numerous older Nikons with no ill effect. Nice job on the hinge seal.


----------

