Analog film photography and cameras

Nah no problem, I could discuss cameras for hours! (although I'm in work at the moment)

To be honest, there isn't much difference between the two, both have auto settings, similar lenses etc. Looking at the Flickr images for the MJU, it seems to give standard c41 a little vintage saturation but subtle, not as much as xpro does, but I'm yet to use the camera myself so I don't know any of the little quirks it may have. The XA2 is handy for different lighting situations as its internal lightmeter decides the shutter speeds, leaving you to simply set the ASA and focus (pretty much why I use it for redscale). The XA/XA1/XA2/XA3 cameras also have handy attachable flashes that don't affect the size of the camera drastically (a good choice for taking a camera on a night out). The XA first model is a rangefinder, and is a lot more expensive and desirable.

i have a yashica T4, only put a couple of rolls through it how much are they worth?

Check completed listings on Ebay. They're worth few bobs, because of the optics (body is shite, though) - quality wise they can deliver the same Contax T2 can.

So perhaps some old Minotla Hi-Matic F or G (38mm)? But they're viewfinders.

A bit larger than what I'm looking for, plus like you say they're viewfinders.

The only thing that outs me off the XA range is the fact that they don't have a flash, this was the only thing that I thought let down my UW&S, plus the fact that it's made out of cheese.
The I've seen the mju in the flesh and they are a nice size, I think I might possibly go for one.
Also, I had a look for the mariner but couldn't find any on sale, I think they've been replaced by the Amphibia. It says the Amhibia has a 28mm lens, does this mean that it captures more than the UW&S which has a 22mm lens (thats what it says next to the lens so I assume that's its size) ?
I also reckon they're overpriced as I read a review by someone who said they, like the UW&S, used to sell for around a quid

The XA range do have flashes, but often don't come with them if you buy off Ebay, they are fairly cheap though. As I said in my previous post, they aren't obtrusive to the camera either, they just make the body slightly wider as opposed to top mounted hotshoes on SLR's for example.

The difference between 22mm and 28mm is very little, and considering the compared prices..

The Amphibia, looks like a flashier case than the plain one I got with the Mariner, but from the looks of it, it's mostly cosmetic and the camera inside is separate to the sports finder on the case anyway. Give it a go if you can get one for cheap!

I've put a bid on an Amphibia but it's a low one so fingers crossed. Don't want to spend more than a tenner on somthing that was until quite recently worth less than half that.
I've also gone for the mju, mainly for the fact that it has a flash built in. It was £16 so it's not the end of the world if It doesn't work out, just chuck it back on the bay and try an XA2
Cheers for your help Concrete Island

edit. there's an XA2 that has 32mins left and no bids, comes in original boxing with a flash too, might put in a little last minute bid on that too

*Originally Posted by **CYOA
*"It's of a coal-man cycling back after a day in the mines looking absolutely wrecked but completely stalwart and resolute. He may or may not be carrying sacks of coal! Any leads?"

"Coal Searcher, Going Home" by Bill Brandt perhaps?

flickr.com/maxkeys

thats me

Some XA pics (yes I know it has a light leak)

*Originally Posted by **CYOA
*"It's of a coal-man cycling back after a day in the mines looking absolutely wrecked but completely stalwart and resolute. He may or may not be carrying sacks of coal! Any leads?"

"Coal Searcher, Going Home" by Bill Brandt perhaps?

I thought for a second that was it but then got denied by a Google Image search.

It was similarly high-contrast but the miner was actually riding not pushing and it was side on.

I think I probably made the image up..

Cheers for the various efforts from people so far though!

Just taking a break from my bolt-hole (darkroom) and came across this thread. I have to say I have had a long standing love affair with the XA's - up until last year I had around 9 of them but now have the XA I bought 30 years ago when they first came out and an XA2 & XA3. They are all very rugged - the XA & XA2 went with me every where during my time in the Royal Marines and took a real beating but never once had a problem.

I have the A11 & A16 flash units but they are not up to snuff - better off with a candle or a Zippo.

For low light stuff I use the XA3 with either Neopan 1600 or tape over the DX codes on a roll of Tri-X and shoot at 1600.

Good info on the XA range

The official Olympus UK repair centre for XA's - they have secondhand in the Shop section too.

I like this image.

Just got my MJU-1 in the post, gonna go on a ride now and take some fliks.
Hopefully I'll be able to get shots to rival my vivs, these are some the last photos I took before it died:

Thems some nice blue tones, what film did you use?

@Sorethroat those images have a real nice quality to them
I love the way film shows that makes me feel all nostalgic
Hope you get some good shots from the Olympus Mju you should they are great little cameras
+1 To the Yashica T5 lens quality amazing !

@ concrete island the film is fujichrome tungsten T64 that's been cross-processed. Loads of the photos that weren't taken in bright sunlight came out too dark, i think this film's meant to be used in super bright artificial light conditions.

@ Stix, cheers! I wish that camera hadn't broken because I'd only shot about 6 rolls before it packed up. Although as I write this it's completely taken apart in front of me and I reckon I've found the problem and maybe fixed it with the help of Gorilla Glue.

All tungsten films are designed for long exposures, not bright lighting. Fuji was more flexible in their recommended shutter-speeds than Kodak was.

And under bright light too right?

no reciprocity (or not until you get to really long exposures)
:sighs and remembers hours in cold car studios working the exposures back to 1 second for B&W polaroid to shoot 10x8 64t, as this was the only way to judge exposeure without factoring reciprocity:
halcyon days.

Yes and no. It was designed for candle-lit rooms, as well as flourescent-filtered lighting. Bright was best of course, but the design gurus figured that normal film could be filtered to give good results in very bright lighting. But tungsten film was truly designed for low, artificial lighting. Hence the lack of high shutter speeds on the Kodak efforts.

Ashley are you actually Wikipedia in forumenger form?

I think I follow, so it makes things look normal under indoors low light conditions, this on the right track?

Also I've totally fucked my Vivitar now, glued a wrong bit, it won't go back together and accidently cut off a bit that lets you wind the film in.

I'm still available for camera repairs

@CYOA

I attained LRPS (means nothing really) in 2002, but have been photographing people since 1982. I've only ever used manual cameras, so had to learn about different films for different applications.

Seempulls... :)

Turns out I glued the right bit, the bit I cut off is insignificant and now I've got it back together and it's working again. Very happy

does anyone have any experience of getting B&W films developed using a postal service? (mailing them to the processing lab)

ideally looking for somewhere cheap, not bothered for quick turnaround or anything?