wpb
Well-known
"The website states it’s ECN-2 chemistry. I assume i can send that in for development anywhere?"
ECN-2 is like C-41 processing but includes a pre bath to remove the black carbon remjet layer on the film as it was intended to be run in a motion picture camera. You can have this film developed at a place that develops motion picture film. Any C-41 processor that uses roller transport processing will be covered in the remjet after the roll goes into the developer and they will not be happy, as it will leave marks on every other roll until the racks are pulled and cleaned. You can process C-41 in a tank and dip-and-dunk type processor and then remove the remjet before or after processing with either a prebath or film cleaner after processing.
ECN-2 is like C-41 processing but includes a pre bath to remove the black carbon remjet layer on the film as it was intended to be run in a motion picture camera. You can have this film developed at a place that develops motion picture film. Any C-41 processor that uses roller transport processing will be covered in the remjet after the roll goes into the developer and they will not be happy, as it will leave marks on every other roll until the racks are pulled and cleaned. You can process C-41 in a tank and dip-and-dunk type processor and then remove the remjet before or after processing with either a prebath or film cleaner after processing.
Boil the glass, then drop into cold water. I never would have believed the J8M had the elements that it did in the middle triplet until doing this. The actual formula of this J8M was not to be found in any book. The actual formula was changed half way through the production run, I boiled an early one and a late one. It might be the same case for Minolta, might not. The site author does not seem to "just make stuff up", and it is hard to know what sources they came upon. Minolta could have changed the formula during the production run, has been done before.
Recently someone on LUF published the original hand-drawn prescription for the Leica 5cm F1.5 Summarit. Most people believed that it was "Just a coated Xenon". The optics were changed, the curvature was different. Someone could have measured the difference ages ago. Years ago I found the early Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 were very different from the later lenses, starting somewhere around 1952. The diameter of the optics and internal fixtures are about 1mm less than the later lens. I've never seen this published, except here on RFF.
The 4 element in 3 group Sonnar formula lens is a 1-2-1 configuration. The lens on the 16-II is a behind-the-shutter lens.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
According the owners manual (available for the Minolta 16MG from https://www.butkus.org/chinon/minolta/minolta_16mg/minolta_16mg.htm), page 5, the lens is cited on page 5, "Major Specifications", to be
Rokkor TD 20mm f/2.8, 4 Elements in 3 Groups
Similarly, the Minolta 16QT manual (https://www.butkus.org/chinon/minolta/minolta_16qt/minolta_16qt.htm) says that camera has a
Rokkor 23mm f/2.8, 3 Elements in 3 Groups with a 48° angle of view.
Earlier Minolta 16 camera models don't seem to have an official lens type/design statement in their instruction manuals, but it looks like Minolta changed the lenses in the Minolta 16 line fairly often.
G
zuiko85
Mentor
Boil the lens!? Yikes, I’d have to disassemble a camera again. But might do that some day. That camera sits unused in a box now. I don’t know how they put the middle element in the lens body, just that it wouldn’t drop out or be pushed out by a gentle push of a q-tip. Suppose it could be a shrink fit. The way I miked the middle element was depth to lens front and back and then subtract both from overall length. Close as I could tell it was about 1.3mm, less than 1/16 inch at center of concave element.
To Godfrey, yes, there is a lot more information in some of the manuals, don’t know why the 16II manual is so sparse.
Whatever the lens configuration, I have no complaints about the 22mm resolution, it is a sharp little optic for sure.
About the Minox lens, I have a IIIs and that Complan is a sweet lens. I read somewhere that it is easier to optimize a lens for one fixed aperture. That, and the curved film probably helps. But I don’t enjoy loading those delicate cartridges. Feel like they are going to break if I look at them crosseyed. All my Minox cartridges have the little nubs to hold on the caps so at least I don’t need to tape them.
So many cameras, that is really bad for someone like me with crazy ADD. The type who doesn’t do OCOLOY. More like one camera, one lens, …….for maybe one day…..
Maybe.
Got to go finish that roll of Pan F in the Kiev, always need two rolls to make developing worth it.
To Godfrey, yes, there is a lot more information in some of the manuals, don’t know why the 16II manual is so sparse.
Whatever the lens configuration, I have no complaints about the 22mm resolution, it is a sharp little optic for sure.
About the Minox lens, I have a IIIs and that Complan is a sweet lens. I read somewhere that it is easier to optimize a lens for one fixed aperture. That, and the curved film probably helps. But I don’t enjoy loading those delicate cartridges. Feel like they are going to break if I look at them crosseyed. All my Minox cartridges have the little nubs to hold on the caps so at least I don’t need to tape them.
So many cameras, that is really bad for someone like me with crazy ADD. The type who doesn’t do OCOLOY. More like one camera, one lens, …….for maybe one day…..
Maybe.
Got to go finish that roll of Pan F in the Kiev, always need two rolls to make developing worth it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
All the plastic moulded Minox cassettes are like that. Only the brass cassettes need tape.
Walter Zapp's biggest problem in designing the original Minox cameras, pre-WWII, was getting a lens of adequate quality. Those cameras had an Anastigmat which was just barely good enough.
Post-WWII, one of the Leica optical engineers was assigned to work at Minox. It was his design that became the Complan. The first version was a five element design, with the rear element in contact with the film to ensure absolutely, positively that it was in the right position, but that design was abandoned because of too much film scratching. A more traditional four element design replaced it and that was the standard Complan lens, with the curved pressure plate, until about 1974-1975. Then, in an effort to reduce costs of manufacture, a flat film plane lens was computed and became the new Minox lens, paired with a flat pressure plate.
Some people say the Complan was a bit sharper. I've shot an awful lot of film with both and have never seen much difference, but my personal favorite Minox cameras are a Minox B, a Minox C, and a Minox IIIS all with the Complan.
Supposedly, the Minox Complan 15mm f/3.5 lens is one of the sharpest lenses ever made for a production camera, with corner/edge resolution up and over 230 lp/mm on high-rez recording film, matching pretty near to the center resolution. Truly amazing what you can do with a teensy little lens ... it's diameter makes a US dime look huge!
G
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlminoltamisc.htm
I found a great site for the Minolta information- including a reference stating the lens is 3 elements. I also downloaded the Minolta 35 manual in Japanese that shows the cut-away view of the Minolta 5cm F2 Super-Rokkor.
I've seen this lens called a 7 element in 4 group design, same layout as a Summitar, and I've seen it labeled as a 7 element in 6 group design. I also know there were two versions of the lens, one used 40.5mm filters the second uses 43mm filters. Maybe Minolta changed the design?
On the lens in the Minolta 16-II: Cooke Triplets are shown with thick front and rear elements, a thin middle element- Neblette Photographic Lenses. 3 element, 4 element, change during the run- I don't know. Remember that the 90mm F4 Elmar changed to a Triplet design late in the run, new glass made the change possible.
On destructive testing, I remembered what I did. Not boil, put into the Toaster Oven on a metal tray and cooked it. Then used tongs to drop into cold water. Wore gloves. Like when we made glass marbles crack in the center. I've never seen documentation on the formula of the later J8M that I split apart. The diameter of the optics are larger than the J8. The middle triplet is not at all like the earlier J8M lenses. I would not do this for many lenses, but it was interesting. I have a bizarre wartime CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar that has a rear "LOOKS LIKE" Doublet in place of the regular triplet. BUT- I found documentation on that design, and the SN of the lens is not in Thiele- the block is missing.
I found a great site for the Minolta information- including a reference stating the lens is 3 elements. I also downloaded the Minolta 35 manual in Japanese that shows the cut-away view of the Minolta 5cm F2 Super-Rokkor.
I've seen this lens called a 7 element in 4 group design, same layout as a Summitar, and I've seen it labeled as a 7 element in 6 group design. I also know there were two versions of the lens, one used 40.5mm filters the second uses 43mm filters. Maybe Minolta changed the design?
On the lens in the Minolta 16-II: Cooke Triplets are shown with thick front and rear elements, a thin middle element- Neblette Photographic Lenses. 3 element, 4 element, change during the run- I don't know. Remember that the 90mm F4 Elmar changed to a Triplet design late in the run, new glass made the change possible.
On destructive testing, I remembered what I did. Not boil, put into the Toaster Oven on a metal tray and cooked it. Then used tongs to drop into cold water. Wore gloves. Like when we made glass marbles crack in the center. I've never seen documentation on the formula of the later J8M that I split apart. The diameter of the optics are larger than the J8. The middle triplet is not at all like the earlier J8M lenses. I would not do this for many lenses, but it was interesting. I have a bizarre wartime CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar that has a rear "LOOKS LIKE" Doublet in place of the regular triplet. BUT- I found documentation on that design, and the SN of the lens is not in Thiele- the block is missing.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
"Then used tongues to drop into cold water." I figure that should be "tongs." LOL
Yes- you are correct... But on the other hand, would have kept me quiet for a while.
I did an Ebay search for the Minolta 5cm F2- and found a very early one that needs cleaning, total cost with shipping of $140. The 127th made- SO, I will give it a cleaning when it comes in and find out if it is a 7/4 or a 7/6 or something else. I want to see if it is different from my later version. I bought a Schneider Xenar from a Karat, wartime, coated optics. Opened it up to find it was a 5 element design- was a surprise. Was not marked "Xenar-Special" that some were.
Lenses are like Russell Stover chocolates, never know what you are going to get until biting into it.
neal3k
Well-known
I bought a Yankee Clipper II developing tank a few years ago and have developed a lot of 16mm and 110 format film in it. I like to just use the reel and put it in my Patterson tank, especially for color when I want to invert. It fits fine and works well that way.
They are still available there for $20 + shipping.
They are still available there for $20 + shipping.
Arash
Established
Thank you all for all the good information.
I Can't possibly quote everyone here and have a coherent post!
To summarize:
I have a plain old Minolta 16.
So... 60mm lens in 35mm equivalence and a close focusing distance of 6' at F11 (really too bad, because I see using this camera mostly for candid closeups and not distant scenes - but still tbd until I have actual experience with it!)
The first roll, which had been in there since the 70's came out black.
I bought a 110 cartridge with Fuji iso 200 that's only 20 years old and managed to load that film into the M-16 cassette. The results from that will be known in a few days. High hopes! Although ISO 200 would not have been my first choice
Perhaps I'll limit making a fool of myself to one forum at a time
Thank you for that information. I am far from developing my own film yet, let alone a nonstandard type. I noticed that Film Photo Project does recommend an online source for processing this film. Hope I haven't just wasted $35...
You read my mind. If I'm loading 16mm film anyway, might as well play with a couple of different models. But I'll first wait for any sign of encouragement with this one! I do hope this format will be a good introduction to developing my own film.
Thanks again.
Now to re-read this thread again and see what I missed. Something about boiled eggs for breakfast....
I Can't possibly quote everyone here and have a coherent post!
To summarize:
I have a plain old Minolta 16.
So... 60mm lens in 35mm equivalence and a close focusing distance of 6' at F11 (really too bad, because I see using this camera mostly for candid closeups and not distant scenes - but still tbd until I have actual experience with it!)
The first roll, which had been in there since the 70's came out black.
I bought a 110 cartridge with Fuji iso 200 that's only 20 years old and managed to load that film into the M-16 cassette. The results from that will be known in a few days. High hopes! Although ISO 200 would not have been my first choice
Perhaps I'll limit making a fool of myself to one forum at a time
Thank you for that information. I am far from developing my own film yet, let alone a nonstandard type. I noticed that Film Photo Project does recommend an online source for processing this film. Hope I haven't just wasted $35...
You read my mind. If I'm loading 16mm film anyway, might as well play with a couple of different models. But I'll first wait for any sign of encouragement with this one! I do hope this format will be a good introduction to developing my own film.
Thanks again.
Now to re-read this thread again and see what I missed. Something about boiled eggs for breakfast....
Shafovaloff1
Well-known
I have designed and built a "slitter" that works with 120, 620 and 35mm film. Mine is not the only one and someone on Ebay has been providing product for several years now. So, there is film available for the 16mm format so long as perforations are not a requirement. However I purchased some color negative film which Colonial Photo processed for me but the remjet prevented their continuing the processing service. I have had good results with them and they are very reasonable if you need something done. Typically I get processing and have them send scans in positive form. When in a pinch for a cassette you can operate by loading in the dark using only a tak-eup spoll on one side and put black tape around the door edges. Works in a pinch.
FYI
FYI
Arash
Established
So glad RFF is back - and so much better!Happy to post that this Minolta 16p is still working!
The 110 film i had loaded had surprises for me - frame lines etc, but it worked well enough as a test roll.
The camera is unusual enough that people just can’t help having fun in front of it!
I’ve since purchased a close up lens No1 but it seems not to fit this version of the minolta 16 - unless I’m doing something wrong. If anyone needs it, you’re welcome to it. What does the correct closeup lens for the Minolta 16p look like?!
Arash
Established
Any ideas on how to adapt that clues up lens flter meant for later models of the Minolta 16 to fit the 16-p?