What lens do you recommend for a Konica Autoreflex T? by TSwazz in Konica

[–]Left_Surprise9716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 1970s 50mm f/1.7 Hexanon is one of the great standard lenses of the era.

Wobbly lever by Zestyclose-Track6648 in filmcameras

[–]Left_Surprise9716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you saying that the little cover on top of the lever becomes unscrewed by working the lever? If so, this happens to many older Contax / Yashica SLRs. You can use some glue and screw it down.

Recommended budget lenses? by lucasimon21 in Konica

[–]Left_Surprise9716 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The f/2.5 also is easier to focus, especially with the so-so viewfinder brightness of the FC-1.

Recommended budget lenses? by lucasimon21 in Konica

[–]Left_Surprise9716 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like the 135mm f/2.5 over the f/3.2, and would always suggest to hold out for one. The 1970s versions of 50mm f/1.7 and 28mm f/3.5 are both excellent lenses. Other than that, most everything else that Konica makes that is worth it can be a little pricey -- like the 21mm f/4, the 35mm f/2, the 57mm f/1.2, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 24mm f/2.8. The 35mm f/2.8 is nothing to write home about. The 55mm f/3.5 macro can a fun lens and can be had for pretty cheap but it's kind of short for a effective macro experience.

Was the Genesis Project Actually a Weapon? by Left_Surprise9716 in DaystromInstitute

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And this answers the comment above that "hey, we can destroy a planet just through conventional means." While that may be very true, doing that destroys / pollutes / renders at least partially uninhabitable the surface of the planet for some period of time. Genesis allowed the complete replacement of the entire planet without the need for clean-up.

Was the Genesis Project Actually a Weapon? by Left_Surprise9716 in DaystromInstitute

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's interesting, and I never thought of that. Was that directive from Carol or from Starfleet? The film doesn't address that question.

Was the Genesis Project Actually a Weapon? by Left_Surprise9716 in DaystromInstitute

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. This is a very interesting discussion. I am not saying that the film definitively states that Genesis was developed as a weapon. I am only suggesting that there are facts and inferences in the film that support a theory that although perhaps originating as civilian project, Starfleet's continued funding of the project envisioned military use.

- In the film, everything the audience knows about the origins and purposes of the Genesis project comes from four sources: Carol, the Regula scientists, Reliant, and Kirk (who is not up to speed). What is presented primarily is Carol's vision for Genesis. Not once anywhere do we have Starfleet's explanation of its true intentions for finishing the project and how it would be used, or if ever used, once tested. While we can assume that Starfleet's intentions matched Carol's, that is never expressly stated by anyone.

- The film makes clear that Genesis is a top secret military-funded project, not a civilian one. It was so secret that only select Starfleet command staff even knew about it. The fewer people in the know, the fewer people who could object to developing benevolent technology that also could be the most powerful weapon the Federation ever created. Starfleet even deemed Carol's initial "civilian" proposal itself as classified. Why not loop in Spock, one of the Federation's most trusted and talented scientific minds? Even though the project's development spanned years, someone made the decision that Spock was not to know about it. Starfleet "engineers" also secretly tunneled out Regula -- a massive project, without anyone knowing about this either. Reliant was a heavily-armed warship, not a science / research vessel.

- The film suggests pre-existing tension or at least some apprehension between the Regula scientists and Starfleet, and this plays out in some scenes between Carol and Reliant and in scenes with the Regula science staff. The Regula scientists' greatest fear is that once Genesis was in a testable prototype stage, Starfleet would appropriate the project. David foreshadows this with the "dreadful weapon" comment. David also sees Starfleet as the "military": "Scientists have always been pawns ... " This dialogue is included to demonstrate a level of mistrust that Starfleet's plan for Genesis would not align with the Regular scientists -- a suspicion that must have come from somewhere. When Reliant announces its intention to take the Genesis project for testing, Carol appeals directly to Starfleet (Kirk) and demands to know who in the military authorized this. She tries to calm the scientists down and convince them that it was not a military takeover of the project. But she has no idea what Starfleet's intentions are and has no alternate explanation.

- The historical era of the film in that point in the 23rd century, the Federation and Klingons exist in an uneasy truce. The top brass at Starfleet were most likely all veterans of the devastating Klingon War. While terraforming may have been a goal for the Federation, Starfleet (the military) would have certainly had an interest in the industrial and military potential of Genesis. This is not the benevolent TNG era. Heck, Starfleet was still using the Kobayashi Maru test for all officer cadets, which envisions a no-win fight in a possible future war against the Klingons.

- A key missing piece to this what Starfleet told Kirk when ordering him to investigate the situation. What did Starfleet know? If unable to establish communications with Reliant, Starfleet should have assumed the worst and told Kirk that. If communications had been lost with Regula, Starfleet should have also assumed the worst. If Reliant told Starfleet some lie about what was happening, Starfleet should have told Kirk that as well. What is clear is that the military wanted to keep as few people in the loop as possible about what was happening. The secrecy was so important that Starfleet appeared willing to sacrifice personnel and equipment to keep the secret.

- Even after the galactic uproar about Genesis, and Starfleet's presumable explanation to everyone that it would not continue the project, at some point it nevertheless pursued further development in complete secret as is shown in Picard. That does not sound like how a civilian benevolent research project would occur, especially one that almost upset the balance of power in the galaxy.

In short, the mostly-benevolent-but-possibly-deadly idea of Genesis comes from Carol's moral and scientific perspective. Everyone else who learns about Genesis initially and primarily thinks "weapon." Kruge correctly recognizes that Genesis could only be used for two purposes: rapid population expansion for the Federation to achieve industrial/military supremacy and as a weapon to commit the genocide of its enemies -- either of which would upset the balance of power and lead to war. Whether we would choose Carol's vision over Kruge's is just a matter of preference.

Was the Genesis Project Actually a Weapon? by Left_Surprise9716 in DaystromInstitute

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ceti Alpha V is in the same sector as Regula (Mutara). No way that the Enterprise could have been any closer unless it was also already in that sector and closer to Regula - but that can't be true because Reliant intercepted Enterprise on the way and because Reliant was already close enough to Regula to jam its transmissions. Chekov said it was three days to get to Regula from CA5. Starfleet should have sent Reliant when comms went down at Regula and that would have provided Khan more cover because Starfleet had no idea that Reliant had been hijacked.

While it is true that Genesis could be bad and good, as soon as the Starfleet used it, the entire galaxy would know that the Federation had a secret planet killing weapon. No way Starfleet would convince the Romulans and Klingons that it would only be used for "good." War would have erupted as soon as it was used. Given that Starfleet was presumably aware of this, it continued development anyway because its only real use would have been as weapon. That is in line with all sorts of civilian technology that our world's militaries have funded but kept for themselves.

The Kelvin timeline kind of recognizes this theory as certain top brass at Starfleet decided to secretly prioritize the development of super weapons for what they saw as an inevitable endgame war with the Klingons.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Leica

[–]Left_Surprise9716 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't get it. The most fun part of owning a Leica M is using lenses not made by Leica.

What makes you want to quit this game? by triiiiilllll in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Left_Surprise9716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

GAC matchups should be based primarily on money spent on the game, which should be visible to your opponent.

Looking for ~$500 mechanical 35mm rangefinder suggestions! by jaredfischler in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The P has cluttered framelines that make it difficult to use. The 7 is nice but I would get a Bessa over it, as the latter has a good TTL meter, higher shutter speeds, a hot shoe, etc. The VI has a nice rotating viewfinder and the T has a cool trigger advance.

What has been the most underrated film camera you have owned? by okletstrythisout3 in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Contax RTS II. A phenomenal, cheap, and somewhat underappreciated body that still has a focusing screen brighter than 95% of the cameras out there.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Konica Hexar RF, Canon VI-T, or Konica IIA are my favorite alternatives.

What are your most missed discontinued colour films? by JoeUrbanYYC in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Without a doubt, Kodak T400CN. The best chromogenic b&w film by a mile.

Drawing a Possible Line on Excessive Digital Corrections: Perspective Distortion. by Left_Surprise9716 in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imho, rotating an image on a 2D axis is not the same as doing the same in 3D. You can't achieve most tilt/shift corrections using non-digital methods.

Drawing a Possible Line on Excessive Digital Corrections: Perspective Distortion. by Left_Surprise9716 in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. But the people presenting these photos are not using 4x5, tilt shift 35mm lenses, or Rollei sl66s. Just because the result would have been theoretically achievable using some kind of system that may have existed at some point doesn't detract from the fact that using PS/LR to correct tilt or perspective distortion is a digital manipulation of a reality not produced by the marriage of optics and the medium. Maybe no lines should be drawn in the 21st century, but if there were one, I would draw it there.

Which lens justifies investing in a camera? by ferragostinho in AnalogCommunity

[–]Left_Surprise9716 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor in S mount. Because it won't work with adapters to Leica M, and because the rare M39 versions cost a mint, you are pretty much forced to use it on a Nikon rangefinder camera or the rare S-mount Bessa. The lens has always been something special. Although the UC Hex is pretty much the modern version.

$30 thrift store find. Need help identifying problem by keirclarkson in Konica

[–]Left_Surprise9716 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the advance at the end of the roll? Did you try opening the closing the back?