Jump to content

orsetto

Members
  • Posts

    1,481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

890 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ben_hutcherson posted a nice summary of how the non-AI, AI, and AI-s lenses couple to their respective generations of camera body. I would only add that the "upgrade" to AI-s ended up being a wet firecracker during the film camera era. Pretty much no Nikon cameras that anyone cared (or still cares) about actually utilized the AI-s features fully. Other than the fussy, flaky, ill-fated FA camera that AI-s was invented to accommodate, there aren't any classic-era film bodies that strictly require the AI-s linear aperture lever for full practical functionality. The FG and 301-401-501 don't often fall into the category of beloved sought-after cult classic Nikon models, but they are perhaps the only ones that make any use of the AI-s focal length lug (mounting a tele lens will shift their AE metering to favor faster shutter speeds). The EM (and some of the above) are the only bodies that read the fixed max aperture lug near the rear element of both AI and AI-s lenses (it affects their autoflash metering, and program mode of the models that have program exposure). Many film and digital Nikon SLRs do "detect" an AI-s lens via the depression ground into their silver bayonet mounts, but then don't do anything much with that information. The convoluted FA design with its linear aperture requirement for program mode was simplified almost immediately into the FG system of "instant stop down" program metering. So unless you're a masochist babysitting a ticking-time-bomb Nikon FA, or a heavy user of auto flash metering with the two or three film bodies that couple with rear element lugs, you can safely ignore AI vs AI-s: just buy whichever version you can find at the best combination of condition and price. For 95% of Nikon film bodies, the most significant factor is pre-AI/non-AI vs AI/AI-s. if you have an AI body, you'll need AI or AI-s lenses for broadly compatible mounting and meter coupling. If you have a pre-AI camera model, you don't need to even think about it: all manual focus Nikkor lenses have the "rabbit ears" that couple with pre-AI meters. The big gray area of "gotcha" territory comes into play only with pre-AI lenses that have been hacked with aftermarket (non-Nikon) modifications for "AI compatibility". Nikon itself once provided a conversion service that swapped the old aperture rings for a genuine new AI aperture ring (as seen with the 28mm lens pictured earlier). Older pre-AI lenses updated with this genuine Nikon AI ring are safe to use on any Nikon film or digital camera body. Unfortunately Nikon's supply of genuine AI conversion rings was depleted decades ago, so a great many pre-AI lenses have been "unofficially" hacked by their owners or independent techs. The majority of these Frankensteined lenses omit a crucial modification to make them safely mount on many of Nikons DSLRs, because its a lot of extra work and wasn't even on the radar during the film era when most were hacked. These very common "partial AI" lenses are fine to use on most Nikon film cameras, but should be avoided if you plan to also use on Nikon DSLR (unless the seller explicitly states and shows the lens has a "EE-Minimum Aperture" post carved on its aperture ring). If unsure, stick to later AI/AI-s lenses, or lenses that have the genuine Nikon aperture ring update (two engraved sets of aperture numbers, and perforated rabbit ears). Other potential considerations would be the handful of lenses which were optically changed in the migration to AI-s, differences in operational feel, and the AF-D lens paradox. Some lenses like the 28mm f/2.8 got completely revised optics when they moved from AI to AI-s, others (mostly teles) were put in somewhat smaller barrels and/or got built-in lens hoods. The AI-s lenses all have much shorter focus ring travel (from close to far) than the AI or pre-AI: some photographers prefer this, others do not. The screw-drive AF and AF-D lenses can be an interesting alternative if you want to share lenses between manual focus and (some) autofocus Nikon cameras. They are all AI-s by nature, coupling mechanically to manual AI bodies and electronically to AF bodies. However:, they lack the old rabbit ears that couple to the old pre-AI film camera meters. Nikon provides dimples on the aperture ring showing where rabbit ears can be optionally installed if desired, but I've never actually seen an AF lens that was modified that way. You can still mount an AF-D lens on a pre-AI camera, but you'll need to use less convenient stopped down uncoupled meter mode. Same applies to the small handful of manual focus Nikon Series E lenses sold for the EM/FG: these are AI-s but have no rabbit ears.
  2. The Konica Autoreflex T series has its own design charm, and most of the Hexanon lenses are superb (tho a lot harder to find now than other brands). But be warned: for better and worse a T2 or T3 is essentially just a Nikkormat FT with a different lens mount and shutter priority AE. The good: Konica has a rugged metal body like Nikkormat, and shares the same indestructible Copal Square mechanical shutter. The body design is arguably more aesthetically pleasing, and the shutter speed control is in the traditional top deck location preferred by most photographers. The AE system was years ahead of its time as an SLR feature, and very convenient. The bad: the Konicas use the same obsolete CdS meter electronics as Nikkormat, which is often completely dead or wildly inaccurate. If the CdS meter does still work, you'll find the Konica AE system is a one trick pony: the camera is meant to operate in AE at all times (manual meter mode is kinda hacky). Unlike the Nikkormat FT2/FT3, the Konica meters need a pair of odd size long discontinued mercury batteries. Modern substitutes can be made to work, but not easily due to the uncommon size and tricky battery compartment. The Konica T3 is one of my favorite cameras ever but I rarely use it due to erratic meter and hacky battery issues. The fantastic 50mm f/1.4 Hexanon works great adapted to mirrorless digital, so at least I can enjoy the lens. If you have some Konica lenses, the best surviving body to use them on is the later TC. Not as nicely built as T2 or T3, with a smaller range of shutter speeds (1/8 - 1/1000 + B), but the smaller lighter plastic body is convenient, the viewfinder is brighter and the meters often still work well. Nice underrated "user" camera.
  3. In the world of vintage film cameras, its sometimes a good idea to respect a particularly specific run of bad luck with a model or two: it might mean that camera is just not a good prospect for you, no matter how wonderful it may be on paper or how popular and reliable it is for other people. Decades after they were made, Nikon FE and FM have a better than average rep for durability and reliability, but a small stubborn percentage do seem to pop up with film advance issues. More often than not it is due to some crud that can be cleaned away easily, or releasing a stuck pawl, after taking off the bottom plate. Sometimes it requires a deeper repair dive, which as with many other common cameras is not cost effective vs just buying another example and crossing your fingers. Since you have been burned twice by the normally reliable FE, and another time by the similar EL2, perhaps take it as a sign to try something else. If you are comfortable with the sleek Nikon AF film bodies, you can take advantage of their (usually) better pricing and availability, their excellent modern meters that use common household batteries, and the ruggedness of peak early models like the N8008s/F801s (which does meter with manual focus AI lenses and has an upgraded viewfinder, AF, and shutter over the slightly older N8008/F801). Drawback with AF film bodies is they have no split image or microprism focus aids in the finder, so MF lenses can be tricky to focus unless you get the screen changed out (possible with 8008s/F801s if you can find a compatible screen). NOW is the time to buy one or two of them. Long forgotten and invisible to film hipsters because it wasn't "retro" enough to pass as street jewelry, the 8008s/801s has recently been "rediscovered" by more practical film shooters so prices have gone from "almost free" to "skyrocketing". Despite all the whining posts re the dearth of any decent film stocks worth shooting, we seem to be at the probable peak era of cultural fascination with film cameras. Rising prices and scarcity of legendary vintage models with "classic looks" have shifted the craze toward once-disparaged electronic AF bodies: they're becoming sought after. The other option would be getting your FT3 properly serviced despite the unappealing cost. Its a dead reliable design aside from the CdS meter (which is found dead as a doornail or wildly inaccurate just as often in comparable Canon bodies like the FTb, you got lucky with yours). Or perhaps look for the earlier FT2: exactly the same as FT3 but manual indexing (not a big deal at all) and far more common. If you REALLY want to roll the dice and test your luck one final time with the compact Nikons, get the original FM (mechanical sister to the FE). These have the newer gallium meter cells with LED display that almost never fails or dies unless the camera was abused. You'd still run a slight risk of the lockup issue you've run into with previous FE and EL2 bodies, but this seems much less common with the FM. The later FM2 is a questionable choice today given the ludicrous price premium over original FM. Almost no one has a definite absolute use case requiring the 1/250 flash sync speed pr 1/4000 top shutter speed: these features in 2024 are "wants" not "needs". The one big advantage is ability to easily upgrade the focus screen to the ultimate K3 that came out later for FM3A (the most overpriced overhyped Nikon ever, eclipsing even the deadly "original F with plain prism" cult for wacky obsession). The "gotcha" with being able to upgrade the FM2/FE2/FE screen? Good luck finding a K3 at a reasonable price (or any price, really). With the K3 unobtanium as an accessory, its more practical to settle for the older cameras with K or K2 (or leapfrog the manual focus era altogether and jump straight into a Nikon AF film body with brighter screen).
  4. The FT3 is designed for the silver oxide but usually does equally well with alkalines unless they've tapered their voltage from age. Try swapping the silver batteries from one of your other cameras to be absolutely sure the misread isn't battery related. If it still reads about a stop off, consistently, there are two possible causes. One would be the AI ring snagging at f/16, potentially meaning the ring is also misloading the maximum aperture when the lens is mounted. Another possibility: in my experience: even a perfectly functioning Nikkormat FTn, FT2 or FT3 will have an odd tendency to read about 2/3rd to a stop off from any other Nikon camera (or other brand). All of my Nikkormat meters consistently underexpose by about 2/3rd stop. So despite the AI ring issue, the meter in your FT3 may actually be reading just fine within its typical variance. Whatever the underlying cause, as long as your FT3 meter error is consistently reading one stop off, you can easily compensate by setting a film speed that counteracts the error. If its underexposing by a stop, set the ASA ring to 100 instead of 200 for your roll of Kodacolor Gold. Lots of old cameras require fudging the film speed setting, even back when they were new: meters can vary quite a bit while still being "accurate".
  5. This is another aspect of focus screens for medium format reflex cameras that can be very confusing to those who did not come of age back when they were in common daily use. While most of the focus screen chatter archived in discussion forums revolves around replacing the often dim dull standard screens of typical Hasselblad and Rolleiflex cameras, specific info re focusing aids like split image and microprism usually pertains to 35mm SLRs. These focus aids tend to perform noticeably better in 35mm SLRs, with their eyelevel prisms and wider-aperture lenses. Nikon, the leader in focus screen options, offered a staggering array of microprism and split image configurations optimized for different focal lengths, maximum apertures, and specialized photography tasks. When implemented in medium format 6x6 etc reflex TLR and SLR, focusing aids that were reliable wonders in 35mm SLRs fall somewhat short. Microprism spots, on average, are much harder to interpret. This is specially so in the Japanese camera brands that offered it for their systems: Mamiya, Bronica, etc seemed to just recycle the focus spots from 35mm format screens. The split image or microprism aren't usually scaled up to be proportionate to the larger format screen, resulting in small hard to interpret splits or micro-shimmer, both of which are also muddied by the slower f/2.8 or f/3.5 lenses. AFAIK, only Mamiya offered split and micro variations optimized for different lens apertures or focal lengths for their TLRs and SLRs: these are now super rare and hard to find. Then we have the ubiquitous gimmick of "split image surrounded by microprism donut collar" popularized in late '70s cameras, which enabled Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Pentax to pretend they offered "the best of both worlds" without the mfrg expense of a true interchangeable focus screen feature in their midrange 35mm SLRs (so users could choose what worked best for them: pure split image, pure microprism, or pure ground glass matte). This usually resulted in compromised, near-useless microprism functionality, where the microprism ring ended up just being an ugly distraction cluttering up the screen. When this dubious design is carried over to medium format cameras, its even more ugly and compromised (why on earth Hasselblad users compete on eBay to pay upwards of $500 for the split/micro Acute Matte D screen is beyond me: I tried one several times over several years and found the micro collar hopelessly unusable). The single most useful focus aid ever offered for any camera was exclusive to the Miranda DX3 35mm SLR: this was composed of a microprism dot surrounded by a microprism collar. Together, they could be used as one huge bright microprism aid, as you might expect. But in a novel twist, the center dot and ring also worked together to form a huge extra-bright split image that worked at any 360 degree angle! Wonderful concept that unfortunately died with the DX3 camera, Miranda's last ditch attempt to remain viable after the Olympus OM-1 upended the entire 35mm SLR field. The only medium format microprism focus aid I've ever seen that was truly helpful is the one built in to the old optional Hasselblad "bubble" screens. These were standard Rolleiflex-style dim ground glass matte, with or without a checker grid, which had an enormous microprism spot taking up the central one-third of the screen. Since it was so large, it often brightens the entire center subject enough to make focusing a breeze, and the built-in bubble magnifier makes the shimmering microprisms clearly reveal the exact point of focus. Oddly underrated today, they are probably the fastest easiest to focus screens available for 6x6 Hasselblads, aside from the recent Rick Oleson adaptions. Unfortunately nothing similar was or is available in Rolleiflex TLR size. All of this is subjective, of course: each photographer will prefer a different compromise. Broadly speaking, the most useful quality in a medium format focus screen is the "snap" or contrast in the overall plain matte portion of the screen. This is often more quick and easy to focus than the split image in the center, and crucial during the many occasions the split blacks out in low light. Compared to other currently available new options, the recent Oleson screens seem to offer the best plain matte contrast, so unless one absolutely needs the utmost blindingly bright screen I would probably default to the Oleson. For the longest time, he did not offer these for Hasselblad because Hasselblad requires a tricky metal frame, but 3D printing has now allowed Hasselblad owners to easily accurately reframe the Oleson screen. I'm going to try this alternative soon, hoping to dispense with my bright but funky Acute Mattes. Re fresnels: today this is a bit of a red herring, often irrelevant when replacing old screens with new tech screens. Separate fresnel plates came about during the original frosted ground glass era, as an add-on to reduce central hot spots and even out screen brightness to the corners. The fresnel does nothing to increase brightness, it just spreads it out more evenly across the screen. Up until roughly the late 1950s, most camera reflex screens were a sandwich composed of actual glass matte plate and a glass or plastic fresnel plate (and sometimes a third condenser plate added for Nikon, Canon, etc). By the late 1960s, advances in plastic molding led to the now standard single-piece focus screen with matte top surface and the fresnel pattern embossed on the bottom (any focus aids or grid lines are also molded in). The modern replacement upgrades sold today for Rolleiflex etc typically replace the entire original ground glass sandwich in the camera with a single plastic screen. The fresnel is embedded and finely etched in all of them, so there isn't really a "choice" of fresnels to concern yourself with (Hasselblad's nonsensical marketing blather about "superfine" fresnels in their Acute Matte notwithstanding). Aside from choosing your preferred brightness, contrast and focus aid compromise, the only screen "gotcha" you need to look out for is installation variations between various cameras. Most of the time, a new screen will replace the entire vintage screen system in your camera, but there are a few exceptions where you might need to retain a top cover glass or the original fresnel plate. You might also need to recycle exiting shims or add some that come with the new screen. Dedicated vendors like Maxwell or Oleson will supply this alert and special instructions when you order a screen for a camera model with such requirements.
  6. Two failed camera bodies? You've had an unusually bad run with the Nikon AI coupling!! It almost never fails like that on most classic AI film cameras. The only coupling issues I've ever experienced were with the goofy AI-retrofitted Nikon F2 DP-11 or DP-12 meter prisms: these use an entirely different inverted coupler/track which is more vulnerable to impact damage, bending, or seizing. Re aging eyes: I recently had best-laid plans disrupted by vision changes myself. My myopia had been fairly stable for the past decade, so I decided to splurge and track down diopter correction lenses for all of my dozen classic Nikon film cameras. This took all of 2021 to acquire at a cost of about $150, since I needed the somewhat rare 0 or +0.5 diopters. This made all my Nikons much easier to focus, until they suddenly began getting blurry again a few months ago. To my vast annoyance, I was diagnosed with rapid-onset cataracts in my viewing eye: after corrective surgery all my diopters will be useless, and they're difficult to resell so thats $150 and a lot of acquisition effort wasted. While I didn't like the plastic feel or handling personally, the viewfinder of the FG really is stunning: the most enormous I've ever seen (a bit larger than even the huge Olympus OM or Pentax ME finders). A shame Nikon couldn't find a away to upgrade nicer bodies like the FM, FE or F3 with the FG finder: its so much larger, brighter and contrastier than those it almost embarrasses them. This alone might be worth the risk of FG reliability issues in your case: if you don't pay too much and get at least a couple years use from an FG, just discard it if/when it breaks. I don't remember the viewfinder of the N2000 or N2020: it may or may not have been carried over from the FG. The built-in motors and crude plastic bodies were a big "no" for me during the film era, although I did rather like the later more-refined N8008 (which is now finally getting the respect it always deserved: prices seem to be going up sharply).
  7. Once out of their warranty period, the 18-55 kit lenses retain so little cash value they essentially become disposable. So no, proper professional repair won't be cost effective unless your friend just happens upon a really good repair shop that just happens to have a spare bayonet and is willing to replace it for almost no money. That being unlikely, I'd recommend simply buying a second hand replacement from eBay or another marketplace. These are very common plentiful lenses, very inexpensive to replace vs repair. The VRII version typically sells for approx $90 in mint condition, the identical earlier non-VR can often be had for $50. The non-VR that came bundled with my Nikon D40 nearly twenty years ago still works flawlessly: they are surprisingly durable unless they take a tumble off a loaded tripod as happened to your friend. Tracking down a spare lens bayonet for a DIY repair would be cheaper still, but require great care not to disturb or damage the electronics and ribbon cable when swapping the bayonet. OTOH, these internals may have already been damaged by the fall from the tripod. Given the inexpensive cost of a total replacement with this particular lens, it makes more sense to do that than waste time/effort trying to repair one that may have suffered hidden damage in a fall.
  8. If you cannot get this Nikkormat FT3 to work for you, and want to replace it with another classic era manual Nikon body, I would suggest you look for something other than an FG20. The FG series were great little cameras in their day, with fantastic huge bright viewfinders, but they haven't aged well and many are developing electromechanical issues today. Instead, look for a Nikon EL2 (autoexposure sister of the FT3) or the first generation Nikon FE (autoexposure) or FM (manual exposure). These three are affordable, easy to find in good working condition, and notably more reliable than the smaller EM/FG bodies. The FE2/FM2 are also good choices but much more expensive due to their cult followings: if you don't need 1/250 flash sync or 1/4000th top shutter speed, the earlier FE/FM are identical and much cheaper.
  9. The automatic indexing (AI) mechanism senses the widest aperture of the mounted lens, the smallest aperture just follows along for the ride. So you may not really have a significant problem as long as the system is still correctly recognizing the maximum aperture when you change lenses: you may just have the minor inconvenience that it won't let you set a smaller aperture than f/16. Not perfect or proper, but still quite usable for most normal photos (many Nikkor lenses only go to f/16 or f/22 anyway, and f/22 or smaller will trigger diffraction issues diminishing sharpness). Compare meter readings of your FT3 against your other cameras, aimed at the same subject, over the range of f/1.4 thru f/16. If your FT3 reads close to your other cameras, it is accurate up to the point it won't move past f/16. You can use it normally and not worry about having it repaired. If your FT3 readings are significantly different from your other cameras, something is more deeply defective in the meter coupling so you won't be able to rely on the meter. You could still use your FT3 unmetered if you use another camera or a handheld accessory meter to get light readings: just transfer the settings to your FT3. Alternatively, check if your Nikkormat read error is consistent with varied lighting and shutter/aperture settings: if it is reliably off by one or two stops, you can easily compensate by setting a false film speed to fool the meter into correct readings. The Nikkormats are wonderfully sturdy cameras, but unfortunately if they break down they are almost never worth the cost of repair. They are very tedious and tricky to disassemble for servicing compared to other Nikons, which means technicians must charge higher labor fees for repairs than most Nikkormats are worth today. The final FT3 is scarce and somewhat collectible, worth the repair cost if you intend to keep it for many years. But if you don't have a special feeling for it, I'd sell it and look for another that works properly. Do note these older Nikkormats often suffer from dirty or corroded internal electrical meter coupling rings (carbon resistor): this can also cause inaccurate, jumpy or dead meter readouts. Probably half the surviving Nikkormat FT series bodies suffer from this malady, and/or CdS meter cells that have worn out. The Nikkormat meters either work fine, or are way off/unresponsive. Other than the meter, Nikkormats are almost indestructible and as rugged as an F/F2.
  10. Those appear to be custom made from raw materials, similar to what Rick Oleson currently does but apparently employing a more labor intensive process resulting in more brightness. The website confusion stems from a combination of language translation and MagicFlex trying to obscure the fact that they do sometimes accept returns/refunds if the customer is sufficiently strong willed (hence the offerings of "slightly used or B-stock" screens). As I noted previously, decades ago during the original BriteScreen era a couple of vendors did commonly recycle the original camera maker screens for their product: they would modify existing screens to be brighter but did not usually fabricate their own screens from raw materials. The option of buying raw materials from China to establish a custom independent focus screen business was a fairly late development, which came toward the end of BriteScreen dominance and made Rick Olesons first and second generation of screens possible. His later and current screens involve a secret sauce of custom mfrd raw materials enhanced by proprietary patents he licensed from the estate of the BriteScreen founder. Bill Maxwell screens are highly unusual made-from-scratch items, which partly explains their extraordinary high price. Unless his production process changed recently, AFAIK each Maxwell screen is individually crafted to order from fairly fragile materials, not the usual mass produced China-sourced fresnel sheets that form the basis for all other camera-brand and independent screens. Acute Matte is the random outlier in the mix, developed in the mid-1970s by Minolta as a selling point for their then-new XD-11 luxury 35mm SLR. AM is radically different from any other screen concept: instead of a textured surface capturing a viewing image, the entire AM screen is composed of tiny cones or microprisms that funnel a type of aerial image directly to the eye. This is notably brighter, and wonderful when implemented in 35mm SLR eyelevel prism finders. When used in larger cruder medium format waist level viewing systems, problems arise. it can be difficult to consistently identify the correct focus plane vs what seems to be the focus plane. Many Hasselblad photographers soon complained of more frequent missed focus with the Acute Matte, prompting Hasselblad to install split image focus aid versions as standard in their newer cameras (vs plain Acute Matte). They also developed the Acute Matte D update to dampen the aerial image issues, but it isn't dramatically more successful than the older Acute Matte in this regard. Both D and non-D have a tendency to trap moisture from the air between their thin layers, causing characteristic cloudiness or fresnel stain rings: not a fun discovery in your $500 screen when it happens. Hasselblad enthusiasts have developed a near-comical cult for the D version in recent years, but few photographers can truly verify the D as significantly reducing their missed focus issues. Acute Matte "is what it is" and a tad overrated: bright as the sun, but a pain to focus accurately/quickly. Many of us 'blad users take advantage of the easily interchangeable screen feature to swap back to the old type screen in good outdoor light: its more instinctive and quicker. Acute Matte (D or non-D alike) can give you a headache when you're in a hurry to nail precise focus. Minolta cut a deal in 1988 to give Hasselblad the medium format exclusive on Acute Matte, so it was never available in sizes for other camera brands: only Minolta 35mm SLRs and Hasselblads. So Acute Matte is irrelevant if you don't own a 'blad. Vintage customized BriteScreens, current Maxwells and perhaps the MagicFlex fall somewhere between standard construction matte screens and Acute Matte high tech: they can be super bright, don't have aerial parallax issues, but can still stumble a bit in focus ease. You really do need to try different screen techs and settle on the one most suitable for your eye/brain coordination. None is perfect in every aspect.
  11. Had no idea another aftermarket focus screen specialist had entered the scene: its been a closed circle of Oleson and Maxwell for at least the past 20 years. Upon checking this new "magicflex" website, I have a strong suspicion you would not find a significant difference between his screen performance and your Maxwell, but if you can afford the risk to experiment it may be worth a try. How long have you been using a Rolleiflex, or any other vintage medium format reflex camera? If you are relatively new to them, it can take quite awhile to develop an instinct for focusing them quickly and/or accurately. Especially if you were previously using an AF camera or a 35mm SLR with reasonably modern screen: the magnified shielded eyelevel prism experience (and faster f/1.4 - f/1.8 - f/2.0 standard lens) can be quite a bit easier to manage. Since you have been somewhat disappointed with each of the screen alternatives you have tried, be aware you might be chasing a unicorn that does not exist. All medium format focus screens entail a compromise or tradeoff, which interacts with the visual sense parameters of each individual photographer's eyes. If you are hoping for a screen that is bright to the corners but also has a definitive, predictable "snap into focus" performance: you may never find one. If you do, you may discover performance annoyingly variable depending on the subject and environmental lighting. Back in the heyday of film when Rolleis, Mamiyas, Bronicas and Hasselblads were in wide professional use, there was one primary aftermarket screen vendor: BriteScreen. This company would purchase the camera maker screens in bulk, polish and coat them via proprietary means, and resell them at a premium. The screens were very bright indeed, but often harder to focus than the standard dimmer ground glass. This disparity between increased brightness vs ability to decisively "snap into focus" persisted thru several generations of screen technology and continues today: you cannot have your cake (brightness) and eat it too (snap). After a period of years, business for BriteScreen began to wane. Hasselblad owners migrated in droves to the new Hasselblad-branded Acute Matte screens, no longer interested in third-party alternatives. Mamiya and Bronica upgraded their standard screens to a brighter contrastier version: not as bright as Acute Matte or BriteScreen, but a good enough compromise that most owners did not feel an urgent need to replace. Ditto 35mm SLR mfrs, who had also stepped up with significantly better standard screens (i.e. Nikon K3 and the custom version of Acute Matte fitted to Minolta 35mm cameras) Bill Maxwell then appeared and almost immediately cornered the market for premium Rolleiflex TLR screen upgrades. BriteScreen eventually folded, and its owner unfortunately died some time afterward. During most of this era, Rick Oleson became the default budget or midrange alternative for those seeking a nicer screen that cost less than their entire camera. For many years, he sold a decent screen roughly comparable to the newer native screens sold with later-model cameras. These screens evolved over time depending on supply chain shifts: when Oleson could source improved plastics, his screens got incrementally better (and somewhat more expensive). A few years back, Rick Oleson acquired the rights to the final BriteScreen tech from the estate of its inventor, and began supplying his current screens which most people seem to feel offer the ideal compromise of brightness, snap, durability and affordability. These are less bright than the pricey Maxwells, but certainly bright enough for almost any normal use case, with reasonably good contrast/snap. So if you were disappointed by the Maxwell, and only liked the Oleson slightly better, I'm afraid you're out of options. My suggestion would be stay on the Oleson screen and learn to like it: chances that the new MagicFlex will be any better are fairly slim. At the prices asked, it appears MagicFlex is aiming for the Maxwell market and probably offers similar performance. I'm highly dubious of MagicFlex claim to have achieved the holy grail of blinding brightness AND high contrast snap. Perhaps search other photo forums and Reddit to see if anyone has purchased a MagicFlex and can personally rate it vs Oleson and Maxwell. Re Acute Matte: this is not an option for Rolleiflex or any other medium format camera. The AM screens are sized specifically for the drop-in screen compartment of Hasselblad bodies, which is barely the size of a 6x6 film frame. Most other brand cameras require a larger screen size to mechanically fit, Rolleiflex TLRs even larger due to their parallax correction feature. Fun fact: the Rolleiflex screen size is so large that it was trendy to buy and cut down the huge Mamiya RB/RZ67 screens as a budget alternative (this was such a popular idea that it wiped out the worldwide supply of modern Mamiya screens, leaving many Mamiya users stranded and furious). In any case, the Acute Matte is not a miracle cure: it is super bright, but displays odd viewing artifacts (rainbows, blobs, patterns) depending on eye position at the finder. Its also much harder and slower to focus than standard screens, even the ones with a split image aid. When using the slower wide angles like 40mm or 50mm f/4 Distagon, the Acute Matte becomes near useless for focus and is merely a bright framing device. The standard issue screen that came in the final run of Mamiya TLRs and RB/RZ runs rings around the Acute Matte: not quite as bright, but much better contrast and no artifacts. My understanding is the most current Oleson screen is somewhat improved above that standard: if you found that unsuitable, that leaves only the MagicFlex to audition. If that doesn't make you happy, you'll have to choose the best compromise among available screen types.
  12. It depends on your use case: the 105 and 150 are similar in some ways, different in others. Your primary photography preferences would favor one or the other. The 105mm in 645 or 6x6 format, like 127mm in 6x7, is considered a "long normal" or "studio" lens. Bronica offered 105mm for both their ETR and SQ systems, Mamiya had 105mm for their 6x6 TLR and 110mm for their 645, Hasselblad had their legendary 100mm, and so on. This focal length offers a slightly flatter perspective and longer working distance than the standard 75/80 "normal" lens, while maintaining fairly close focusing ability: often ideal for a range of studio tasks. These lenses are often better corrected for distortion and other aberrations as well: the usual 75/80 entails a slightly retrofocus optical compromise to clear the large SLR mirror. The 105mm also pairs nicely with a 50mm wide angle as a versatile small kit for travel and street work. Choose the 105mm if you feel your photography would benefit from these features over your "normal" 75/80. Do note, however, the Bronica ETR 105mm is fairly uncommon (discontinued early on): available examples will be quite old and should be tested thoroughly upon purchase for shutter, aperture and glass integrity. The 150mm is easier to grasp: its simply the bog standard "portrait focal length" offered by every 645 and 6x6 camera system. It gives more flattering perspective for human subjects than 75/80/105 (tho care must still be taken when moving in close). Rather annoyingly, most 150mm lenses have close focus limitations due to the built in leaf shutter, which kind of defeats the purpose of a portrait lens. So if you plan on a lot of head-and-shoulders work, you will need an extension tube to get close enough. The 150mm pairs nicely with a 60mm wide-normal as a two-lens field kit. Some photographers prefer 200mm as a dual-purpose portrait + landscape-detail lens over the more common 150mm. In the ETR lineup, the 150mm f/3.5 is the oldest version, replaced by later iterations of an updated (but slower) f/4. If you'd like the newest possible example, look for the 150mm f/4 PE.
  13. EDIT re the Nikon Df and split image focus screen: aside from the metering changes needed to accommodate such a screen, I should have mentioned the more significant conflict with the AF display overlay inherited from the D600/D7000. This came up in discussions during the old DSLR days when aftermarket geniuses like KatzEye were offering K screen upgrades for the D3, D700, D300 etc. The AF targeting display doesn't play nicely with the optical split image/microprism center aids. While an individual owner would understand and work around this messiness if they had such a screen custom installed, it would have been a marketing headache for Nikon with a production camera. In a special model with split image screen, the AF target overlay would need to be deactivated/omitted, which might be perceived as an unacceptable downgrade by buyers who wanted to use both AF and manual optics. Or Nikon could probably have made the AF targets more user-customizable at some expense, but they'd still look funky with the split when operational. Such a feature paradox would be a tough marketing challenge, likely why they didn't do it in the end. You could spin such a camera as manual-optimized with an AF option, or omit the AF altogether, but it would be tricky: the mfr would need to tolerate a low volume halo model. Stressed out Nikon of 2013 was far from king-of-the-world Nikon of 1973: in no mood for such a gamble. Retro-styling the D600 to retain existing Nikon customers tempted by the Fuji X system was the safer bet. Understandable, but disappointing.
  14. Re the electronic rangefinder: the revelation that Nikon (and perhaps other AF brands) reduce the precision when non-AF lenses are mounted was first mentioned here by one of the really plugged-in Nikon experts (I don't remember who). It was later verified by some photographers known for their work with manual Nikkors. AFAIK, this only applies to lenses with no electronic contacts, tho I suppose its possible the module was programmed to do the same when it detects a totally manual but electronic coupled lens like the 45mm pancake of 2001. Dumbing the module down for expensive specialty lenses like the PC-E series seems counterproductive: I imagine those get the precision rangefinder mode, but perhaps not? Maybe the precision mode is simply unfeasible when AF is disengaged? Haven't checked the Dandelion scene in awhile: the idea is nice but I don't have the chops to pull off the extensive hackery required for my favorites like the 35mm f/1.4 AIs. Sources for the chips in Nikon format seem to have dried up: they're on backorder everywhere I checked tonight. Canon seems more available.
  15. Shhhh! Saying that out loud around does not go over well! Those who love the Df seem to really love it, either despite the quirks or because of them: they'll politely listen to fair criticism, then usually dismiss you as a knuckle dragging heretic. I thought it an overpriced hodgepodge of missed opportunity when new, but for the right price I'd consider a used one just to try the bespoke sensor and some other features. The biggest issue with the Df was Nikon's lack of guts in delivering on the initial concept: offering a DSLR take on the Leica M9 (a body optimized for legacy lenses and fans of classic designs like the FM2). Alas the overall camera market had begun its precipitous decline, and Nikon got too spooked to spend dwindling resources on something so niche that wouldn't share significant parts with their mainstream models. Instead of a camera truly optimized for manual focus, we got a tricked out D600 with retro styling, semi-retro controls, the ability to safely mount and meter pre-AI lenses, and the unique D4 sensor. Everything else was off-the-shelf Nikon midrange AF DSLR, which undermined the whole point. For the rather high introductory price, it was a bit anticlimactic to those anticipating a "digital FM2". Especially disappointing was Nikon's refusal to at least compromise on the viewfinder: it was a specialty camera for a niche market that would have understood and welcomed an emphasis on legacy. All the other Df quirks and D600 derivations would've been taken in stride if the thing had the FM3a updated split/micro K focus screen. But this would have required reworking the metering system to account for the split image focus aid, perhaps simplifying or dropping the matrix meter for center weighted. Nikon apparently thought such a meter change would be perceived as a downgrade, or too expensive a parts revision for just one model. So we got what we got, take it or leave it. Piling on, the Sony A7 mirrorless upended the FX camera market right around the same time, offering both the sensor frustrated Canon EOS AF users wanted and the manual-focus improvements desired by legacy Nikkor glass fans, plus ability to mount nearly any random lens one cared to adapt. Any chance the confused Df had was blown into the weeds: in retrospect, Nikon would have been much better positioned if the Df had a proper K focus screen after all. They could have owned the small but adamant segment who dislike electronic viewfinders, and would pay a premium for a superior manual-focus OVF. By being over-cautious Nikon lost potential sales at a critical time, when they desperately needed a distinctive bridge model to tide people over during Z mirrorless development.
×
×
  • Create New...