Damn, you beat me to it :)

I usually stay the hell away from these silly threads but this one is just too funny.

Yeah, saw it yesterday in an Email from Leica News & Rumors :)

:thumbup:

Excellent :thumbup: But you really need to dump those crappy C/V’s and get a proper Leitz lens. :)

Here's a link to a PDF of the Kodak Signet 35 User Manual. (It was scanned in two parts.)

I eyeballed some measurements of the lens and K10 body using a small (150 mm) plastic ruler so I wouldn’t exactly swear by their accuracy but they may be close enough. I did the same on five other lenses that happened to be handy and didn’t see any notable discrepancies -- all showed a distance of roughly 11mm from the base of the lens to the top of the Aperture Lever Shield. (If I’m understanding the problem correctly, I seems to me that this distance measurement is the only one that matters since it indicates just how far things are actually sticking into the lens socket on the camera body.)

Something that might be worth mentioning is that for the lens to seat properly, when first inserted, the Aperture Lever Shield has to clear that little ledge with the contacts (green arrow, 1a). If the “ALS” on your copy is too wide it could be the source of the problem but I really doubt that that’s what’s happening.

One last thing, you asked how I liked the lens overall and, well, I wrote a rather half-assed review on eBay back in 2011. I did give it four stars, however, to be absolutely honest, IMO it’s really only a so-so lens. If you can’t the thing to work, you can probably find a better alternative.

Anyway, I’m interested like the others in how this turns out.

(Download)

I have a copy of this lens. It mounts perfectly on both my K10D (see top photo below) and K20D bodies. The K10D, K20D and K-7 all share same “KAF2 mount.”

In short, I haven’t a clue as to why you are having problems so perhaps, as blackest suggests, you should have some qualified person look at both your camera body and lens to see if there’s something broken or otherwise amiss. What I do know, however, is that the “extra flange thingy” which you and others have speculated about is a normal feature of this particular lens (second photo below). It is not a problem so don’t go grinding it off or anything :)

I used a dedicated conversion kit from Hejnar Photo to swap out the clamp on my 327RC2. It is excellent and IMO really the best way to go by far. This will work with a 322RC ball head as well if that’s what you’re looking to do.

This may be irrelevant given your “short list” but heck, I’ll mention it anyway: I have a Pro-1 and for a desk top printer, it is one big son of a gun :). All three Canons are pretty much the same width; however, the “-1” is about one inch taller, three inches deeper, and weighing in at a few ounces shy of 61 lbs., roughly 18 lbs. heavier than either the “-10” or “-100.”

Yeah, I figured as much :)

Going back to your original topic, there is an Ethol technical paper (of sorts) which has a brief section devoted to LPD. The discussion is general, a bit superficial even, but it does give the manufacturer’s recommended dilutions for both the powdered and liquid forms. This probably doesn’t give you any more info than you can get off the can already :) but I thought I’d point it out if you haven’t come across it before.

LOL, you picked up on that too.

To be fair, the author makes some generally valid, if shopworn points, but it’s pretty clear her target audience is that subset of photographers yearning to be small time entrepreneurs. I mean, why else would she sum up her discussion:

“Think about this before you make any major purchase:

Is it going to save you money?
Is it going to help you make more money?
Is it going to save you time?”

Then the kicker. If shelling out those big bucks on a new full frame body won’t save you money, etc. etc.; wouldn’t it be wiser:

“… if you spent that money on photography education instead? What if you do indeed buy a new camera, but just go up a model or two? Save yourself $1000-2000, and invest that in some courses, ebooks, or maybe even go on a photography tour? Which is going to advance your photography to the next level more – a full frame camera body, or actually learning and doing photography?

And, (Ahem) Ladies & Gents, you’ve come to the right place …

What’s not to love here :) :)

Firstly, I'd say stick with HP paper in this case, and on pages 33 -- 34 of the OFFICEJET PRO 8500 User Guide there is a list of types the device is designed to use. Of these, you might want to try “HP Advanced Photo Paper, Glossy.” This is an instant dry paper that should give you the classic “photo look” if that is what you’re after for your copies. (I used to use this stuff all the time with my now-retired HP Pro B9180.)

As to whether or not you’ll get acceptable dupes by simply copying the originals directly or scanning to your desktop/laptop and printing from there is something I think you’ll need to check out for yourself. I have no experience with this HP all-in-one and off the top of my head the only reason I can think of for scanning them would be if you have some problem with color, contrast, whatever, that can’t be solved with the printer’s firmware (and, of course, you have some photo processing software already installed on your computer). There may be someone here besides yourself who actually uses the same model printer and can give you specific tips or instructions.

...not to mention the risk of water damage. There’s a whole lot a water used to put out a fire.

Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to be standing anywhere near this guy when he does his “smooth panning.” :)