Who in the heck uses a motor winder/drive on a film camera these days?

[Helge]

Chainsaws and weed whackers need a starter cord, so why wouldn't gasoline-powered cameras need a power winder too?

That’s actually not a half bad idea.
Gyro stabilizers that screwed into the tripod socket was a thing for a time with film cameras.
You could probably make a very uncomplicated one that works with a cord started gyro.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My brother faced the challenge of industrial photography where huge equipment caused even the floors to vibrate. He had a similar problem shooting from helicopters with their constant vibration. That was back when 4x5 sheet film was the commercial standard for getting images published. So in those cases he shot his Linhof 4X5 Techilka handheld with RF focus, mounted on an expensive Kenro gyro device, which he rented as needed. The crispness of the result was amazing.

 

[Helge]

My brother faced the challenge of industrial photography where huge equipment caused even the floors to vibrate. He had a similar problem shooting from helicopters with their constant vibration. That was back when 4x5 sheet film was the commercial standard for getting images published. So in those cases he shot his Linhof 4X5 Techilka handheld with RF focus, mounted on an expensive Kenro gyro device, which he rented as needed. The crispness of the result was amazing.

Sure you don’t mean Kenyon and not Kenro?
Anyhow gyros could be films answer to the various forms of IBIS. Would allow slow speeds down to at least 1/15 of a second to be handheld.

 

[Huss]

Sure you don’t mean Kenyon and not Kenro?
Anyhow gyros could be films answer to the various forms of IBIS. Would allow slow speeds down to at least 1/15 of a second to be handheld.

hmm, I guess film Leica Ms already have IBIS then.

 

[Helge]

hmm, I guess film Leica Ms already have IBIS then.

With a bit of handholding from Lady Luck, perhaps? Likewise, with most TLRs. Or that would be human body stabilization.
HuBrIS.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A human can't hold a camera stable enough under those vibration conditions, certainly not long enough for a large format indoor exposure of sufficient quality to be commercially acceptable. Yeah, I once made a handheld 8 sec exposure with a P67 good enough for the newspaper. I just happened to be nearby during an evening car accident melee; and newspaper standards are just about as funky as it gets. Got the point across, sorta remotely barely good enough, that's all.

 

[Helge]

A human can't hold a camera stable enough under those vibration conditions, certainly not long enough for a large format indoor exposure of sufficient quality to be commercially acceptable. Yeah, I once made a handheld 8 sec exposure with a P67 good enough for the newspaper. I just happened to be nearby during an evening car accident melee; and newspaper standards are just about as funky as it gets. Got the point across, sorta remotely barely good enough, that's all.

1/15 is right on the edge of possible if you use all the tricks in the book.
Next step is resting the camera or hand on a steady surface. Then 1/8 and 1/4 is possible.

 

[Cholentpot]

1/15 is right on the edge of possible if you use all the tricks in the book.
Next step is resting the camera or hand on a steady surface. Then 1/8 and 1/4 is possible.

I've done 1/4th with the camera prefocused, mirror locked up, strap tightened up and my body wedged against a tree. Photo was acceptable. Works better with wide lenses.

 

[Huss]

Worst lenses ever for hand held pics are mirror lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Worst lenses ever for hand held pics are mirror lenses.

They make little donuts in the unfocused areas and that is the main reason I never bought any mirror lenses.

 

[lxdude]

Worst lenses ever for hand held pics are mirror lenses.

I disagree. I have a Tamron 500mm mirror lens, which I wanted instead of a refractor 500mm, because it's light enough and compact enough to carry around, and I find it easier to hand hold than a long and heavy lens. There's a technique to using it that helps avoid blurring. Of course, a monopod is better than hand-holding either one.

 

[lxdude]

They make little donuts in the unfocused areas and that is the main reason I never bought any mirror lenses.

That's part of the challenge!

Everything in photography has a tradeoff- film speed vs. grain, larger negative size of medium format vs. its bulk and weight, etc. Mirror lenses have limitations, but those can often be overcome.
To avoid donuts, I avoid bright background highlights. I put the sky behind the subject, or use a subdued or even-toned background. If for example the sun is glinting off water, I choose a different position to shoot from. That's not ideal, but it's usually fine. I use my Tamron 500mm a lot for distant subjects, so the background is often for me not a problem to begin with.
There are limitations compared to a refractor, but bottom line, I have the lens with me, so I get the shot I otherwise wouldn't. I would seldom carry a bulky and heavy refractor long telephoto. And I mainly wouldn't carry one because I wouldn't own one, because they're too dang expensive for me to afford.
My lens gives nice results. Yes, it's limited to one aperture, and sometimes gives busy false-detail bokeh and the aforementioned donuts. Contrast and resolution are not the equal of good refractors, but I didn't expect them to be. The images are still high quality. When shooting distant subjects (i.e. at or near infinity), atmospheric haze and heat shimmer, when present, cut resolution and contrast no matter the lens used.
I see the shortcomings as challenges, and my lens only cost $136, in great shape, in its original case with the original O/R/Y/ND-4 filters, Nikon AI and Minolta MD adapters, and the SP 2X teleconverter. A PK adapter cost another $20. For that, there's much to like, and little to complain about. I've noticed that good refractor long telephotos are rather more expensive...

 

[Helge]

They make little donuts in the unfocused areas and that is the main reason I never bought any mirror lenses.

The contrast is low too as with all cassegrain scopes.
You need an incredibly (impossibly) steady hand to get sharp shots.
You basically need a tripod.
When you have admitted to that, you might as well get a telescope, and when you’re carrying all that equipment to begin with you might as well just get a long, cheap reflector and get much better contrast and color.
Shooting with long lenses is never gonna be a spontaneous thing, and not something you were gonna bring with you on a whim.

 

[xkaes]

A lens of any given focal length will need a tripod at the same focal length regardless of if it is reflective or refractive.

And both reflective and refractive lenses vary in contrast -- which can be controlled/enhanced if needed.

Mirror optics are great when you want/need to save space, weight, cost. If you can afford the price, size, awkwardness, and weight of a 1,000mm f8 refractive lens, good for you. I'll stick with my Vivitar 800mm f11 and Honeywell 1250mm f10.5 CATS.

 

[Helge]

A lens of any given focal length will need a tripod at the same focal length regardless of if it is reflective or refractive.

And both reflective and refractive lenses vary in contrast -- which can be controlled/enhanced if needed.

Mirror optics are great when you want/need to save space, weight, cost. If you can afford the price, size, awkwardness, and weight of a 1,000mm f8 refractive lens, good for you. I'll stick with my Vivitar 800mm f11 and Honeywell 1250mm f10.5 CATS.

True. And that is why the advantage of the weight and space saved will be lost.
Inconvenience comes in tiers and plateaus. It’s not a linear scale.
Once you are over a certain size/weight you need a big bag.
Next step is needing a car.
A few kilos and cubic centimeters make little difference if you are over the “drag in a bag” limit. Likewise with a car.

A long, skinny and slow doublet telescope (say 90mm element, and ca. 1000mm FL will only be a bit slower than a mirror lens (matters little when you’re on a tripod).
Produce better IQ.
Weigh about the same and will not be that much longer than the tripod to carry. In fact a fat short cassegrain will probably feel more cumbersome.
You’ll never have problems with collamination, temperature adjustment, dew or veiling.

The limiting element will be the atmosphere or “seeing” in astro speak.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would seldom carry a bulky and heavy refractor long telephoto. And I mainly wouldn't carry one because I wouldn't own one, because they're too dang expensive for me to afford.

That is a good reason, unless you can run really fast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

True. And that is why the advantage of the weight and space saved will be lost.
Inconvenience comes in tiers are plateaus. It’s not a linear scale.
Once you are over a certain size/weight you need a big bag.
Next step is needing a car.
A few kilos and cubic centimeters make little difference if you are over the “drag in a bag” limit. Likewise with a car.

A long, skinny and slow doublet telescope (say 90mm element, and ca. 1000mm FL will only be a bit slower than a mirror lens (matters little when you’re on a tripod).
Produce better IQ.
Weigh about the same and will not be that much longer than the tripod to carry. In fact a fat short cassegrain will probably feel more cumbersome.
You’ll never have problems with collamination, temperature adjustment, dew or veiling.

The limiting element will be the atmosphere or “seeing” in astro speak.

Having a car is important, as Ed Weston said, "There is nothing worth photographing more than 200 yards from the car."

 

[Sharktooth]

Anyone giddy with excitement after getting a "new" toy under the tree? .... anyone?

 

[gone]

as Ed Weston said, "There is nothing worth photographing more than 200 yards from the car."

Haven't owned a car in 3 or 4 decades, so I go with "on my eBike, nothing is worth picking up on the side of the road unless I can lean over and grab it". You would not believe me if I told you what I have found on the street or the side of the road, including a new $100 bill just laying there on a 'frisco sidewalk years ago. This was back when a $100 bill was actually worth $100.

The thread here has me cruising eBay again for another n8008s camera. Its built in motor drive made a world of difference when it came to getting shots that I otherwise would have missed w/ a manual advance camera.

 

[Huss]

I disagree. I have a Tamron 500mm mirror lens, which I wanted instead of a refractor 500mm, because it's light enough and compact enough to carry around, and I find it easier to hand hold than a long and heavy lens. There's a technique to using it that helps avoid blurring. Of course, a monopod is better than hand-holding either one.

What’s the technique? Carry around a sack of rice to place it on?

 

[Huss]

Anyone giddy with excitement after getting a "new" toy under the tree? .... anyone?

I got a used/like new Cv Ultron 28mm v2, but don’t think I’ll keep it. Amazing optically, but… it’s just so ugly to look at! I have other 28s which are great optically and nicely designed so this shouldn’t be a hard decision for me.

 

[Sharktooth]

I got a used/like new Cv Ultron 28mm v2, but don’t think I’ll keep it. Amazing optically, but… it’s just so ugly to look at! I have other 28s which are great optically and nicely designed so this shouldn’t be a hard decision for me.

I was thinking more along the lines of a new-to-you winder or motor drive, to stay faithful to this thread.

Nevertheless, a little overgiddiness never hurt anyone, so no harm done.

 

[benveniste]

Don't judge me . . . . unless you have film to sell me.

 

[Huss]

I was thinking more along the lines of a new-to-you winder or motor drive, to stay faithful to this thread.

Nevertheless, a little overgiddiness never hurt anyone, so no harm done.

I have a malfunctioning Pentax Winder MX sitting on my desk. Not sure why it doesn't work. No signs of corrosion.
Also have a Leica Motor Drive M (the latest version) which I never use.

 

[ericB&W]

That's part of the challenge!

Everything in photography has a tradeoff- film speed vs. grain, larger negative size of medium format vs. its bulk and weight, etc. Mirror lenses have limitations, but those can often be overcome.
To avoid donuts, I avoid bright background highlights. I put the sky behind the subject, or use a subdued or even-toned background. If for example the sun is glinting off water, I choose a different position to shoot from. That's not ideal, but it's usually fine. I use my Tamron 500mm a lot for distant subjects, so the background is often for me not a problem to begin with.
There are limitations compared to a refractor, but bottom line, I have the lens with me, so I get the shot I otherwise wouldn't. I would seldom carry a bulky and heavy refractor long telephoto. And I mainly wouldn't carry one because I wouldn't own one, because they're too dang expensive for me to afford.
My lens gives nice results. Yes, it's limited to one aperture, and sometimes gives busy false-detail bokeh and the aforementioned donuts. Contrast and resolution are not the equal of good refractors, but I didn't expect them to be. The images are still high quality. When shooting distant subjects (i.e. at or near infinity), atmospheric haze and heat shimmer, when present, cut resolution and contrast no matter the lens used.
I see the shortcomings as challenges, and my lens only cost $136, in great shape, in its original case with the original O/R/Y/ND-4 filters, Nikon AI and Minolta MD adapters, and the SP 2X teleconverter. A PK adapter cost another $20. For that, there's much to like, and little to complain about. I've noticed that good refractor long telephotos are rather more expensive...

If you look around can find some good lenses for not too much.
I've bought recently a Sigma 300 mm f4 AF-apo Macro, is sharp, i paid 180 eu.in perfect condition apart some little minimal scratch on the hood ,
then bought the 1,4 Sigma teleconverter about new for 100 eu, so to have a 420 f. 5,6,
the quality loss is unnoticeable , focuses at 1,2 meters so is good for macro too with a small tube.
The Ttamron mirror is a good lens too and has a good contrast to be a mirror but the donuts can spoil
the background in some image and i find the sigma more steady than the mirror .