Still waiting for my F7!

[Andrew Garrard]

Sorry, had to brace myself to reply to Ilkka. :-)

 

Nikon cannot improve by making products worse but seeking for ways to make everything better.

 

Well, there's a segment of the market for whom cheaper and lighter are desirable.

 

Taking out features or making them worse is just a path to a free fall like we see with the D3400. The answer is is to make things better, to motivate people to buy.

 

So Nikon should only ever make a D5x?

 

This means improved viewfinders (not the atrocity of a pentamirror which is always fuzzy) by improving the optics (improved coatings, sharper lenses, alternatives to the LCD overlay which makes the image less clear, improved and user interchangeable focusing screens; Katz eye have shown that a considerable improvement is possible) and offering accessory EVFs or interchangeable ones at the top of the line.

 

I completely agree with what Nikon should do... for the D810 successor and D5 successor. I'm highly suspicious of the suggestion that user-replaceable focusing screens should be a priority for the budget end of the market unless it's really zero cost to the manufacturing: I suspect the number of D5x00 users who've ever replaced the screen is near zero. I'm alarmed you've found a pentamirror "fuzzy"; it's certainly darker than a pentaprism, but bear in mind I was discussing an FX camera aimed at the D5x00 upgrade market, and at the same aperture I'd be surprised if an FX pentamirror wasn't as bright as the D7200's DX pentaprism; I had no complaints about my pentamirror-based Eos 500 (which is very light for a 35mm SLR), although I've never owned, say, an F75. Yes, an FX pentaprism is the gold standard, but like gold it's expensive and heavy.

 

If Nikon do not push harder to make things better, then others will take their business. They cannot do well by competing in who makes the worst viewfinder; it would only embarrass them and make them and DSLRs look bad in their greatest area of strength.

 

If Nikon do not make an affordable and light camera, they will cede the market to the A7 series even more so than they already have. Does anyone know how the current D610 is selling? That's not to say that they shouldn't add improved technology to the higher-end (and heavier) models. Honestly I'm not sure that there has to be a correlation between weight and cost (hence the cost of the Df) - I can imagine people paying a premium for a camera made mostly from carbon fibre. But there are only so many SKUs that it's practical for Nikon to produce and for the market to accept.

 

Live view AF and wireless technology are where Nikon is currently weak. They need to get the wireless control and image transfer work fluidly and reliably. Also they need to implement something like Canon's dual pixel AF (if I'm not mistaken, several manufacturers have related patents, including Sony and Nikon, that could lead to an implementation).

 

No argument. Nikon obviously had this running (with the Aptina sensors) in the 1 series. For so long as Nikon are using Sony sensors that Sony can already offer PDOS on, they should take advantage of it. Nikon are also weak on video - which may not be the priority for people in this forum, but does affect many customers (and would be more relevant if the bar wasn't currently so low).

 

This is an important area because a lot of people now are used to holding the camera at arm's length, for better or worse, and live view is their first contact with how the camera works. If the live view of a Nikon they try looks delayed and poor quality in low light, and live view AF hunts and can't follow a moving subject, they will buy a Canon instead, even if Nikon offered great AF during viewfinder shooting.

 

I'm not sure I agree with why (especially if sales staff were ever in a situation to explain how to use the camera - or if Nikon's marketing material covered it), but I do agree that they need to fix it. :-)

 

And the pentamirror viewfinder will ensure they won't be attracted to using it. So it is a dead end trying to sell these cameras in the store. Canon is improving their already dominant market share because they've got these things sorted out and their live view experience is quite good.

 

I think I'm going to agree to differ on a pentamirror. But I maintain that an FX pentamirror doesn't give the experience of a DX one (as with a pentaprism), and I was talking in the context of a camera that's only slightly more expensive than the D7200.

 

Make it better, not worse. That is the only way Nikon can to some degree get back some of the market share they lost.

 

It may be how they get consumer confidence. It's certainly what the flagship(s) should do. I don't believe that making expensive cameras with features that most customers don't need is going to increase market share (regardless of whether there's a pentamirror!) I love that there's a D5, that I can aspire to owning the big superteles, that Nikon have a path to some next-gen features. But there's no way I'm ever going to buy a D5x. I'm not suggesting making a product worse for the sake of it (although arguably making it lighter when the mirrorless market is already lighter is not "worse") - I'm suggesting that Nikon might be pricing themselves out of the "please upgrade to FX glass" market, which matters because they've done an awful job of actually making a full DX lens set.

 

The D3400 is probably going to be discontinued since they stripped it of features in the last upgrade, which is totally disrespectful to the customer.

 

That's a bold prediction, although I agree that not all the feedback (especially about the flash) has been positive. If it means Nikon can make it for less money, good luck to them - some people will buy the cheapest DSLR they can get, and if Nikon can cut costs in their base model, that's a good thing for their market share. Removing the AF motor in the D40 was a similar decision. Will prospective D3x00 customers care? Do Nikon really want people to step up to a D5x00 anyway - and if so, does not having a budget D3x00 that you could buy for other family members cause a problem? Maybe Nikon really can't compete at the D3x00 level in terms of costs (since mirrorless cameras are simpler) - but they have to have an entry model somewhere.

 

The D5600 in my opinion looks quite good, but is too cheap and depends on large volumes and Nikon should try to make a push at the 1000-2000€ classes to make people motivated to buy a more expensive model.

 

The D7200 is pretty convincing as a $1000 camera. The D500 is, of course, lovely (from my experience with a hired one) - but arguably it's very much a speed specialist (possibly for birding, given the reach) and shouldn't be the obvious "DX prosumer" body in the way that a D7200 is. The reason I'm suggesting pushing an FX body nearer to the D7200 price bracket is that Nikon really seems to want people to buy FX lenses, and people are buying A7 series cameras.

 

Getting wireless to work well and reliably, adding built in GPS, support for radio remote flash, a tilting touchscreen, dual pixel AF or whatever Nikon develops to compete with it, 4K, improved viewfinder coatings, Multi-CAM 20k, solid state batteries (?), XQD to solve the effects of a small buffer etc. there are so many improvements Nikon could add to the D7200's and D610's successor and take back market share from Canon.

 

Does that mean getting rid of the D750's market position? Admittedly, I suggested changing what that model is intended to do, but all these features add cost. That effectively means no "affordable" FX body. In a D7200, that list would seriously eat into D500 sales. Nikon should absolutely do all of these things, but I can't imagine that it's practical to do them all in every camera model.

 

I think although most users use the viewfinder AF for still photography, the fact that Nikon's live view AF is retarded and they can't make a reliable consumer level wifi are embarrassments which Nikon should fix as quickly as possible.

 

There I'm not going to disagree at all. :-) I really promise I'm going to get that feature survey done soon, too!

 

They can also make a lot of improvements in the high end. Look at WT-6 reviews at B&H photo-video. Compare to WT-5's reviews. What happened there? The WT-5/6 should also plug directly on the D810's successor, if possible.

 

Both wireless connectivity and wireless flash should be integrated into the camera body, not relying on a fragile dongle that'll get lost and leave sockets exposed. Eye-Fi isn't perfect (and it's hopelessly slow even just as an SD card), but at least it sits inside the body and can transfer raw files...

 

Studio shooters want wireless tethering now, and the D5 isn't a studio camera. Offer interchangeable focusing screens at the high end and maybe interchangeable viewfinders.

 

I've come around to the drop-in EVF option idea. :-)

 

Um, I've run into the 10K character limit (again). So I'll split this in two.

[Andrew Garrard]

Second half of essay:

 

Make the D810 faster by adding XQD support and focus better with Multi-CAM 20k. There are numerous ways in which Nikon can make the user experience better at all levels of their camera lineup. They should never be in a situation where a camera is replaced by something worse.

 

Oh, absolutely. But what's "worse"? The D800 was slower than the D700. The D4 didn't quite match the high ISO performance of the D3s (arguably); the D5 doesn't have the low-ISO flexibility of the D4, let alone the D810. Nikon historically made some significant advances at the cost of a few small steps back. Canon have been more incremental - the 5D2 is universally better than the 5D, the 5D3 is universally better than the 5D2, the 5D4 is universally better than the 5D3. Canon appear to include their previous models in the competition, where Nikon don't so much. But note that I'm not suggesting selling a D610 successor (or I'd have called it a "D650") - the D610 is remarkably capable for what it is, but that's costing money and weight. If you want to get people to switch to FX so they'll buy big glass (and not just from Sigma), you need an FX camera that appeals to a DX user. The D610 isn't competitive with a D7200 in many respects already; why not lower the price of entry with a body that's still a big improvement on a D5x00 but which carries less of an unwarranted premium?

 

On the lens side Nikon still has no AF-S 135mm prime, there is no modern fisheye for FX (circular or full frame), lots of people are asking for a longer PF lens, and so on. They can do so much to change user perception of their brand and products, and show who is the boss.

 

Absolutely. Incidentally, I'd love to see a PF mid-zoom, largely so that it could be made collapsible. If you want people who are used to a compact camera or smart phone, Nikon's 24-70 (or even 24-120) isn't going to appeal. The Tamron (and I suspect Sigma) 24-70 lenses are better, but a quality zoom on a body that fits in a coat pocket would be significant.

[Andrew Garrard]

No, there aren't. Though when I looked I realized that newer Nikon lenses (G as well as E) have 10 contacts but every current DSLR has only 8. Obviously, Nikon is preparing for something.

 

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2251907 - I believe Joseph that they're for the teleconverters.

 

Still recall the shock I got looking through that tunnel-view finder in the D70. But I doubt most users of the consumer-level Nikon DSLR realize that the finder is a pentamirror and not a pentaprism.

 

Oh, absolutely (assuming you came from a full frame body - my first SLR was an Eos 300D, so I grew up small and dim). I'm not particularly suggesting that Nikon market a pentamirror FX body as an advantage - but it would cut costs and certainly cut weight. Just as I see absolutely no reason, given the number of current lenses that aren't AF-S, for Nikon to bother with an aperture following ring (which is a dust/water ingress point) and an AF motor. The high end of the range should absolutely continue to offer those features, and I for one will pay for them, but there's no need for everyone to. Nikon's lens compatibility back to the 1960s isn't the advantage it needed to be before Nikon mostly matched Canon's lens range. Assuming they make an AF-S 135mm (or leave it to Sigma) of course.

 

Whether or not a low-end no-frills FX camera body at around $1200 makes sense is for Nikon to decide.

 

Absolutely; I'm in no way qualified to say whether this would sell. But it appears that Nikon could do with some ideas, so I'm happy to muse and defend my reasoning even though I have no vested interest in it at all.

 

how about an updated F6? Perhaps a F6S!

 

Oh. In the font I'm viewing this in, I thought you suggested an F65. I was about to give you a slow hand clap. :-)

 

Maybe. I have no idea if a big 35mm camera would sell. Somebody at the beginning said the F6 is out of production.

 

I said it, but I wouldn't assume I have any inside knowledge. Given that cameras, like most things, tend to go through a production line, I'd have to think that Nikon made enough to last them a long time ago and any new ones are from the most recent run. I'd be astonished if the retail rate of the F6 justified an ongoing production run. But I could always be wrong.

 

I will just keep my posts limited to 3 lines. I talk to much anyway.

 

I'd try that, but all my editing efforts are spent trying to cut myself down to three images for Nikon Wednesdays. And at least a picture is worth a thousand words...

[rossb]

Well I made the round to look over a Leica but it was fruitless. I guess I am going to stay a Nikon film guy going forward. Which basically means I will keep shooting my FM2n.

[Andrew Garrard]

Since this is a whimsy thread anyway, Ross - are you able to give any thoughts as to what you did/didn't like about the Leica? I'm interested to know how an FM2n user found one. Possibly other than having the world's stupidest film loading system of course (and yes, I've mis-loaded a Rolleiflex).)

[Dieter Schaefer]

Ross - are you able to give any thoughts as to what you did/didn't like about the Leica?

You can find some more detail here: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/leica-m6.5497096/page-3#post-5545566

Possibly other than having the world's stupidest film loading system of course

Have to agree on that one; annoyed me to no end having to take off the bottom plate and then fumble to get the film in somehow, someway. The idiocy with having to take the bottom plate off continues to this day with the digital M Leicas in order to access the battery and the SD card.

[Andrew Garrard]

Oh yes - thanks for the link, Dieter.<br />

<br />

And the bottom loading is annoying. The "having to trim the film so it'll go in the take-up spool" is just insane. (That may be mostly the M3 - I don't know if it's necessary on current Leicas.)

[Dieter Schaefer]

having to trim the film so it'll go in the take-up spool

That's only for the screw-mount (LTM) Leicas; it is not necessary for any of the Ms. Thankfully, I never had to deal with loading an LTM Leica.

[rossb]

Andrew I was able to take a quick glance at a M6. It was a sold camera but they let me glance at it. No experience with loading the film but it looks like in the field it would be hard. My issue is that it has poor eye relief and with glasses you need to shove the camera into your face and glasses to see the frameline with a 35mm lens on a .72 magnification camera. I have literally 1 minute experience with the camera. As far as I know there are no m6 or mp cameras within a days drive of my house so a good look seems impossible. That rangefinder patch seemed like a fast focus system and the quiet shutter would be nice in public places.

[rossb]

The M6 has a nice size and solid feel. The film advance is smooth and awesome. The rangefinder would be great with b/w filters and make the cp useless. The top shutter speed means a 1 or 2 stop nd in the bag and possibly stacking filters. I see some good and bad in all that. Focusing and viewing a scene with the Nikon and a red filter is not the greatest but it still works. 80% of my photos have a filter involved. Because I am light challenged a lot obviously no filter saves you 1 or more stops.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks for the feedback, Ross - good thoughts. I concede that my experience shooting with IR filters has been pretty painful with a DSLR (and I don't really dare stare through the finder in case I get the sun in the view and accidentally fry my retina). On the other hand, I have done the thing of taking a photo with the lens cap on with a rangefinder (I've only done that with an SLR when there was an IR filter on it and I wasn't expecting to see through the prism anyway), and grad filters with a rangefinder are very hit and miss. Swings and roundabouts.

 

Since I think it was mentioned earlier here, I gather the site has just had an update to formatting rules (which means double newline gives you a paragraph break, but also means all our previous HTML formatting is now human-visible). There's a thread in the site help forum.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Itching for a Leica - get an R6 (or better R6.2). Not really sure if that's stepping up from an FM2N or stepping down;)

the finder in case I get the sun in the view and accidentally fry my retina

And with a film Leica M, create some nice pinholes in the cloth shutter at the same time. Can't believe it took until the digital M to change to a metal shutter. When did Leica get to be from the being in front to being way behind the times?

[rodeo_joe1]

"When did Leica get to be from the being in front to being way behind the times?" - As soon as Zeiss got hold of one and made a few design improvements. It's just a shame that titanium foil wasn't an option for Zeiss Contax in 1932, and they ended up making the world's squeakiest shutter.

[rossb]

I afraid I do not know about eye damage with infrared filters or infrared photography. I believe photoshop has an infrared thing for color or digital b/w. Photoshop cannot do that much with B/W film which suits me well.

 

I think the Leica M cloth shutter has been one of it's popular selling points because of the quiet sound. The pin hole thing in the shutter is just something you deal with if it's actually a problem..It seems like there was a thread on it and you had opposing views about it's validity. I do not know myself but you can get a new cloth curtain. I think one of the things that attracts me to the Leica is they are repairable. Even the M3 can still be reparied with new parts.

 

In the beginning Leica was ahead of everyone until the Nikon F camera's and then Leica has just been sitting in the back seat. Leica appeals to many but for various reasons that are sometimes hard to understand.

 

I cannot just toss out thousands and buy one not knowing if it is for me so my plan is to just forget it and shoot my Nikon FM2n. The Leica R6.2 does not appeal to me. I am not looking for a Leica label and was just wondering if the rangefinder would be a good system for a family oriented photographer. If the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder would have stayed in the game that might have been a good choice. Not sure as I have not actually seen one except in a cabinet. It's gone anyway.

[Dieter Schaefer]

It seems like there was a thread on it and you had opposing views about it's validity.

I did? I can't recall and given the way the site is currently set up, can't easily find that particular thread.

 

My personal experience with Leica is that they need to go back for service or repair quite regularly. My Nikons never did.

If the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder would have stayed in the game that might have been a good choice.

Never handled one but from what I've read, it appears to trump anything Leica. Except the shutter sound (which I didn't find all that great on a Leica anyway).

[rossb]

Leica can be serviced for sure and it's not cheap. Last year my FM2n had a broken rewind handle and I sent it in for a repair, CLA and to install a FM3a focus screen (I suppled a new one) and to calibrate the light meter to it. It cost $48.00 plus $8.00 shipping. The screen at BHPhoto was about $35.00. The point is the Nikon does not need service hardly at all and it's cheap if you do depending on where you sent it of course. I sent it to Garry's Camera at Garry's Camera.com. He repaired a couple Minolta's for me over the years and always did a great job.

[rossb]

I like the quiet shutter of the Leica but it's not that important or anything to me. I am not doing sneaky Pete photos out in the streets.. I sort of thought that my Granddaughter (5y/o) would let me take more photos of her if the camera was quiet. Or maybe not. She just got signed up for ballerina class so I will take photos of her spinning around and trying to stand on her tip toes. She is tall, thin and beautiful so she might be a good ballerina.

[rodeo_joe1]

"In the beginning Leica was ahead of everyone until the Nikon F camera's" - Try telling that to those photographers that shot Rolleiflexes, or any other camera that took a decent-sized piece of film.

 

35mm film is (or was) just a convenience, no matter how good the lens or well-engineered the camera. Even with today's T-grain emulsion improvements it gives second rate image quality compared to medium format and most digital cameras. A Fuji 67 is just as quiet and quick to use as a Leica, but twice as sharp.

 

One of the most emotive, beautiful and famous pieces of photojournalism "Migrant Mother" was shot with a clunky 5x4 behemoth of a camera. And apart from HCB I can't think of a single other photographer that shot exclusively with a Leica.

Edited March 10, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

[Andrew Garrard]

And with a film Leica M, create some nice pinholes in the cloth shutter at the same time. Can't believe it took until the digital M to change to a metal shutter. When did Leica get to be from the being in front to being way behind the times?

 

I've not shot a digital M; I'm interested to know how loud they are. My Bessa R's metal shutter is quite noisy for something that doesn't have a mirror to flap, although it be fair it doesn't have as much body to offer soundproofing as my D810 does. One reason I liked shooting a Rolleiflex is how quiet the leaf shutter was. Of course, I was standing right next to a table where people were trying to concentrate (they knew I was there, but that's not the same as being in their line of sight).

 

I afraid I do not know about eye damage with infrared filters or infrared photography.

 

The issue with IR filters on an SLR is that the eye's iris doesn't know to close down when you're looking at the sun because the amount of visible light in the finder is almost nothing (you can just about see bright lights through my R72) - so you get the heat of the sun going through a wide-open iris. It's a pain to frame and focus, especially with the reduced sensitivity making live view a very poor option; my shots last summer were mostly 10+ seconds at quite high ISO. Of course I'd avoid that if I had the IR filter removed from my D810, but I don't shoot enough IR to justify that. I might get my Eos 300D converted some day. For a rangefinder, the IR filter is no worse than not putting the lens cap on and leaving the camera lens up in sunlight. I've not really investigated, but I guess some mirrorless cameras that default to shutter open might have the same problem, but burning out the sensor?

 

A Fuji 67 is just as quiet and quick to use as a Leica, but twice as sharp.

 

Yes. Likewise the Mamiya 6 and 7. Again, the leaf shutter helps.

 

I believe photoshop has an infrared thing for color or digital b/w. Photoshop cannot do that much with B/W film which suits me well.

 

Photoshop has some colour channel tweaks to emulate Kodak's false colour IR emulsions, I think - the "look" that people get when shooting with infrared (or possibly with an infrared DSLR). It can't process actual IR data that wasn't there in the first place - hence the fight between an external IR-pass filter and the IR blocking filter in a camera that causes long exposure times unless you get your sensor stack modded. Photoshop can do tone mapping, re-toning (if sepia/selenium prints are your thing), and the same range of sharpening and blurring that you can do with any image source, starting with a scan of a mono print. I've certainly done this to try to make XPS2 a little less contrasty. As with a digital sensor used at high ISO, the amount of processing you can do does depend on a combination of grain size and the amount of data captured by the scan, though - you pretty much need to drum scan some large format, slow film if you're going to match the dynamic range of the best current digital sensors. (Nikon need to move past 14-bit encoding, by the way; sensors are starting to beat that!)

[Dieter Schaefer]

And apart from HCB I can't think of a single other photographer that shot exclusively with a Leica.

I certainly can't claim even a modicum of knowledge in that arena, but somehow the name Garry Winogrand comes to mind. Quite a few famous photographers shot with Leicas, but "exclusively" will cut that number down substantially.

 

One name that will forever link Leica and Nikon though ought to be David Douglas Duncan, celebrated by Leica and certainly deeply involved in putting Nikon on the map.

35mm film is (or was) just a convenience, no matter how good the lens or well-engineered the camera

I think we should bury that hatchet forever as the success of the 35mm format can hardly be argued away. Photography would not be where it is today without that "inconvenient" convenience Barnack created a little over 100 years ago.

A Fuji 67 is just as quiet and quick to use as a Leica, but twice as sharp.

Yet never caught on as much as the 35mm rangefinders did. Somehow the phrase "good enough for the task at hand" comes to mind.

I've not shot a digital M; I'm interested to know how loud they are.

See/listen for yourself: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjM95HxhMzSAhWBLmMKHexkBXUQtwIIMDAD&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=370etpEmh5o&usg=AFQjCNGC7ebxmSBwz6aEaSSxLRyOhek-zA&sig2=zLXadMA27GNxEGk7_JWCmQ

(If I post the direct youtube URL here, it includes the video right here, which I take is a violation of PN's TOS (as I didn't take the video myself). So why create a MEDIA link to begin with?)

 

As a side note: my mirrorless Sony A7 despite not having to flap a mirror is not much (if at all) quieter than my Nikon D810.

One reason I liked shooting a Rolleiflex is how quiet the leaf shutter was.

Fire a Rolleiflex SL66 in public and watch everyone in your vicinity run for cover;) (has a focal plane shutter that can do 1/1000s).

Edited March 10, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[rossb]

Well I hope the F7 does make an appearance. The Leica was the first 35mm camera out there and it is looking like it will be the last 35mm camera. Edited March 10, 2017 by rossb

[Andrew Garrard]

And apart from HCB I can't think of a single other photographer that shot exclusively with a Leica.

 

I like the theory that HCB only used one lens because have you seen the cost of other Leica lenses? - but as a Nikon ambassador I'm inclined to think they'd have had an issue with his attachment rate. At least McNally keeps Nikon's flash department solvent on his own.

 

I think we should bury that hatchet forever as the success of the 35mm format can hardly be argued away.

 

Absolutely. I've read a photography book in which every image looked fine, but two were clearly sharper than the rest - and they were later described as being from a 'blad. I've been to a Wildlife Photographer of the Year where one image was clearly softer than everything else around, and it was the one that had been shot on Astia rather than with a DSLR. (And yes, I know I'm about to have a discussion about why my DSLR images appear soft!) Other technologies have advantages, but 135 film is clearly "good enough" (and there's no doubt that a decent 35mm is more portable than a 120 roll camera). As is, of course, the output of a cellphone camera, and certainly of a 1" sensor like the RX100's. It's only us perfectionists that want more!

 

Now I'm curious why the SL66 needed a focal plane shutter (other than, I suppose, to have a fast exposure at full aperture). Off to research... :-)

[Dieter Schaefer]

why the SL66 needed a focal plane shutter

Interesting question. Unique setup with lenses that lack a focusing helicoid (focusing was via the built-in bellows that also allowed tilt), could be mounted in reverse (most, not all), and could be made cheaper without the need to incorporate the leaf shutter (the fact that the camera sold for substantially more than a 'blad negated that advantage). And providing a reliable1/1000s in those days (1966) was something of a feat too (the earlier 'blads had focal plane shutters too but they proved to be the weak link in their design). So a bit of a distinguishing feature from the 'blads of the time too (Hasselblad returned to offering focal plane shutters in 1977 offering 1/2000s), even though the 1/30s sync speed was a severe disadvantage of that choice (a few lenses with leaf shutter were available though). I read somewhere that going with a focal plane shutter it was easiest to achieve a combined film advance and shutter cocking in a single stroke. I never even held a 'blad so my knowledge on how that is accomplished there is non-existent (but those of the time did not have an instant return mirror as the SL66 did).

[rossb]

I held a Hasselblad in a store one time. It was really neat actually. However chasing the Grandkids around with one would not generate much in the way of photos in my hands.

[rossb]

I am just a family snapper but I go hiking every week. This week I did not because I went camera shopping. I did not get a camera and I missed my hiking. I regret my decision and plan to take that with me going forward. Today after I type this I am going to go cycling. I will ride 35mile today and will not be taking a camera. The cell phone of course but I am not going to stop for a photo unless I see a Buffalo or something extraordinary on the road. Anyway my son gave me some Street Pan 400 and here is a snapshot using that in the High Peaks at Pinnacles National Park where I hike. Anyway this is kind of the look I enjoy. Lots of grain, contrasty. Shot with a Nikon FM2n and a 50mm lens with a red filter. The bird is pretty clear but only because it has a 10 foot wingspan. Obviously a 50mm is a poor choice for a bird picture. But like I said I am a family snapper and not a landscape guy or a bird snapper. Still I enjoy the photo. Street Pan 400 is Agfa surveillance film from back in the day and brought back to life because Bellamy Hunt the Japan Camera Hunter wanted to do it.