f6 meter coupling lever modification

[Andrew Garrard]

He meant the guy who modified the lens put in a lousy aperture scale for the ADR. The original aperture scale is still there. So in the case of the F6 the secondary aperture scale on AI/AI's lenses serves no purpose. And yeah Ben, the thread is about the F6 and Pre AI lenses.

 

Sorry, I meant it's nice to see what aperture you selected through the viewfinder. Which you obviously can't, for an NAI lens on the F6. Arguably I suppose it means that it would be nice to have the AI-style secondary aperture numbers on a lens that doesn't have an AI ring - and that AI makes them redundant. (Well, more redundant - on the F6 and dSLRs you'd have to set the maximum aperture, which you can't - but also don't have to - on the F5.)

 

I was trying to suggest that adding the second ring of numbers is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it's the F6's "fault" that it can't make use of it. Which isn't to say that it can't be done badly.

 

Edit: For my education, is the "NAI" terminology just "f-mount but not AI or later", or specifically "pre-AI"? That is, does "NAI" imply bunny ears and an aperture lever stop-down, or would an F-mount lens with no mechanical interlock with the camera at all (as with a couple of my tilt-shifts) rightly be called "NAI" too?

[BeBu Lamar]

Sorry, I meant it's nice to see what aperture you selected through the viewfinder. Which you obviously can't, for an NAI lens on the F6. Arguably I suppose it means that it would be nice to have the AI-style secondary aperture numbers on a lens that doesn't have an AI ring - and that AI makes them redundant. (Well, more redundant - on the F6 and dSLRs you'd have to set the maximum aperture, which you can't - but also don't have to - on the F5.)

 

I was trying to suggest that adding the second ring of numbers is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it's the F6's "fault" that it can't make use of it. Which isn't to say that it can't be done badly.

 

Edit: For my education, is the "NAI" terminology just "f-mount but not AI or later", or specifically "pre-AI"? That is, does "NAI" imply bunny ears and an aperture lever stop-down, or would an F-mount lens with no mechanical interlock with the camera at all (as with a couple of my tilt-shifts) rightly be called "NAI" too?

 

On some of the Pre AI lenses if you mill the aperture ring right it would look fine except that you can't put a nice secondary aperture scale on it unless you have Nikon original parts to do the modification. However, for use on the F6 exclusively the secondary aperture scale has no use. If you want to read the aperture on the lens (like I do) you can read the main aperture scale. If you want to read it in the viewfinder then the F6 does display the aperture with its LCD in the viewfinder. I do think including the ADR in the F5 makes it costs more but I prefer the LCD to the ADR on the F5 as it would be more consistent. I do like the ADR but I dislike the fact that you read the aperture at diffferent places depending on the lens used..

For what it's worth I do think Nikon made the F6 to have an F5 caliber camera but cost less to make and can be sold for more.

If the aperture ring is milled out to make it AI then F6 can display the aperture with its LCD.

Edited September 19, 2019 by BeBu Lamar

[Andrew Garrard]

On some of the Pre AI lenses if you mill the aperture ring right it would look fine except that you can't put a nice secondary aperture scale on it unless you have Nikon original parts to do the modification. However, for use on the F6 exclusively the secondary aperture scale has no use. If you want to read the aperture on the lens (like I do) you can read the main aperture scale. If you want to read it in the viewfinder then the F6 does display the aperture with its LCD in the viewfinder. I do think including the ADR in the F5 makes it costs more but I prefer the LCD to the ADR on the F5 as it would be more consistent. I do like the ADR but I dislike the fact that you read the aperture at diffferent places depending on the lens used..

For what it's worth I do think Nikon made the F6 to have an F5 caliber camera but cost less to make and can be sold for more.

If the aperture ring is milled out to make it AI then F6 can display the aperture with its LCD.

 

Yes - but on the bodies with a aperture direct readout (which - well, it's a hole in the prism housing, I don't know that it adds much to the cost... more if they'd added an LED so you can see it in the dark, or OCR to automate it) you know what the aperture was set to directly (if you're using whole stops). The AI ring only gives you an aperture offset (except on the few bodies that use the AI-S lens speed index post), so the F6 and dSLRs only give you the actual aperture if you explicitly tell them the lens maximum aperture in the menu. Which is fine, but mildly more tedious if you're switching lenses than just reading a value through the ADR.

 

Surely you can always still read the aperture in the "normal place" - the ADR is a bonus, so there's no "different places by lens" problem? Well, unless you count decoupled lenses like my Mitakon 4.5-5x macro, with the aperture at the front.

 

The F5 certainly needed updates. I could well believe the F6 as is cost less than it would have done if it had been based on the F5 philosophy with the same technological improvements; it may have been as much about the rich amateurs wanting a new F100 rather than something F5-sized, though. The F6 was competing with the Eos 1v (which has way more AF points), not the D2 series, though.

[BeBu Lamar]

Yes - but on the bodies with a aperture direct readout (which - well, it's a hole in the prism housing, I don't know that it adds much to the cost... more if they'd added an LED so you can see it in the dark, or OCR to automate it) you know what the aperture was set to directly (if you're using whole stops). The AI ring only gives you an aperture offset (except on the few bodies that use the AI-S lens speed index post), so the F6 and dSLRs only give you the actual aperture if you explicitly tell them the lens maximum aperture in the menu. Which is fine, but mildly more tedious if you're switching lenses than just reading a value through the ADR.

 

Surely you can always still read the aperture in the "normal place" - the ADR is a bonus, so there's no "different places by lens" problem? Well, unless you count decoupled lenses like my Mitakon 4.5-5x macro, with the aperture at the front.

 

The F5 certainly needed updates. I could well believe the F6 as is cost less than it would have done if it had been based on the F5 philosophy with the same technological improvements; it may have been as much about the rich amateurs wanting a new F100 rather than something F5-sized, though. The F6 was competing with the Eos 1v (which has way more AF points), not the D2 series, though.

 

When I said different places I meant with the F5 if I use AF lenses I can read the aperture in the LCD but if I use AI lenses I have to read it at the ADR.

[FPapp]

There's no way an F7 would make money. I'd vaguely like to see Nikon licence the mount details to a third party who might be able to manufacture a less refined camera - just as a completist, I'd still like to see a body that can handle every lens ever, from NAI invasive fisheyes to AF-P and E aperture, ideally with the mechanical AI interlocks to do the FA-style shutter priority trick. I'm not sure I'd buy one, but I'd like to know it existed. To be honest, I'd be as happy with it as a dSLR, but I'm assuming film.

 

There are plenty of things that could be improved about the F6 (I've never seen one, but as I understand it). I'm not sure a colour LCD would help without needing a dSLR-like battery, but there's always eInk. The matrix meter and AF systems have been updated a lot since the F6's day. Certainly menus could be a little more user-friendly, and the whole thing could probably be made a bit thinner. The number of people who'd pay for one for genuine benefits over an F6 has to be small - if Nikon want a collectors' camera, they could just put a different shell on F6 parts, as Leica do.

 

The F6 is definitely a better "rich amateur" camera than the F5, which is arguably a better workhorse. The F6 (even used) is still silly money (which I define as "more than a D700"), so I never looked seriously at one. If an F7 were to appear, I somehow doubt F6 owners would be selling theirs.

 

Truthfully, I'd be really thrilled if Nikon would simply write a firmware update to make the F6 fully compatible with the AF-P and E aperture lenses.

 

The Firmware of the F6 is updateable, but it has to be done at a Nikon service center. Nikon actually did issue one firmware update to the F6 already. mine has been updated!

[ben_hutcherson]

Truthfully, I'd be really thrilled if Nikon would simply write a firmware update to make the F6 fully compatible with the AF-P and E aperture lenses.

 

The Firmware of the F6 is updateable, but it has to be done at a Nikon service center. Nikon actually did issue one firmware update to the F6 already. mine has been updated!

 

I have been saying this for years.

 

I don't see Nikon making any new non-E high end lenses. I'd love to have a 24-70 f/2.8E, for example, and could probably splurge on one, but its lack of compatibility with film holds me back. I'm fine with an f/4 standard lens on digital since I can boost the ISO without much consequence. On film, every stop helps, and it's not possible to get a Nikon f/2.8 lens that covers this FL range with VR(fortunately at least we have that available in two generations of the 70-200 f/2.8).

 

My D600 and D800 both picked up DX AF-P support with a firmware update, although both do lack the ability to turn off VR on lenses that don't have a physical switch. I don't pretend to know what's involved in writing firmware, but I'd like to think it's only a matter of the F6 just not knowing what to do with these lenses, and needing to be told.

[FPapp]

I have been saying this for years.

 

I don't see Nikon making any new non-E high end lenses. I'd love to have a 24-70 f/2.8E, for example, and could probably splurge on one, but its lack of compatibility with film holds me back. I'm fine with an f/4 standard lens on digital since I can boost the ISO without much consequence. On film, every stop helps, and it's not possible to get a Nikon f/2.8 lens that covers this FL range with VR(fortunately at least we have that available in two generations of the 70-200 f/2.8).

 

My D600 and D800 both picked up DX AF-P support with a firmware update, although both do lack the ability to turn off VR on lenses that don't have a physical switch. I don't pretend to know what's involved in writing firmware, but I'd like to think it's only a matter of the F6 just not knowing what to do with these lenses, and needing to be told.

 

Well, for what it's worth, a lot of the reviews I've seen of the 24-70 f/2.8E haven't been favorable. It seems a lot of people are saying they like the G version better. I recently picked up a "like new" used copy of the 24-70G for about a third the price of the E. I'm happy with my decision. VR would be nice, but on a fast zoom in this focal length range I can live without it! Plus the lens is fully compatible with my F6!

 

A while back when I was shopping for a telephoto zoom, I was torn between the Sigma 150-600C and the Nikon 200-500. I chose the Sigma, and one of the reasons was because I could use it on my F6. I sent Nikon Japan a letter telling them why I chose their competitors lens but I don't think they really cared one way or the other.

[ben_hutcherson]

Obviously there are collectors who are photographers, never said there weren't. I frequently see their fine images posted. It is a question of priorities - flexibility to use lenses across a variety of newer cameras than they were designed for, or original condition.

 

So, Sandy, still sticking to this even though we can all read plain as day what you wrote?

 

I'm sick of crap like this from a moderator of this site no less-unfortunately the moderators seemingly answer to no one on here.

[ed_farmer]

So, Sandy, still sticking to this even though we can all read plain as day what you wrote?

 

Are REALLY going to argue that Sandy doesn't think that someone can be both a collector and a photographer? That's the path that you want to take this conversation down? Sandy isn't the problem here . . .

[Andrew Garrard]

Let's take a breath and move on, or let Ben and Sandy discuss it offline (or lock them in a cage...) - I don't think offence was intended, but nor should we be dismissing that modifying the lenses isn't always the preferred option.

 

Thick skins, everyone - this is the internet.

[ShunCheung]

A while back when I was shopping for a telephoto zoom, I was torn between the Sigma 150-600C and the Nikon 200-500. I chose the Sigma, and one of the reasons was because I could use it on my F6. I sent Nikon Japan a letter telling them why I chose their competitors lens but I don't think they really cared one way or the other.

No offense, but I am quite sure that Nikon doesn't care about the opinion from people who would like to use modern lenses on the F6 or for that matter any film body. Film SLRs is the distant past for Nikon. Electronically controlled aperture is current and the future. In fact, the emphasis is shifting to mirrorless nowadays. There is no way that Nikon will sacrifice the future for the past.

 

Incidentally, you can use the 200-500mm/f5.6 E on your F6. The only issue is that your aperture will be stuck wide open at f5.6. To me, it would have been a non-issue since I rarely stop down that lens anyway. In particular, on the F6, you won't have ISO 1600, 3200 readily available so that most likely, you want as wide an aperture as you can get.

[ben_hutcherson]

No offense, but I am quite sure that Nikon doesn't care about the opinion from people who would like to use modern lenses on the F6 or for that matter any film body. Film SLRs is the distant past for Nikon. Electronically controlled aperture is current and the future. In fact, the emphasis is shifting to mirrorless nowadays. There is no way that Nikon will sacrifice the future for the past.

 

Shun,

 

Unfortunately I'm afraid that you are more than likely correct, but it doesn't stop me and a few others wishing that the one remaining film SLR would get the ability to use the newest and best lenses.

 

I agree that chances of any more non-E pro lenses being released are slim to none, but as you correctly point out most of these lenses are at least good enough wide open that it isn't as big of a handicap as-say-using a G lens on an old body that will always put it to the smallest aperture.

[FPapp]

No offense, but I am quite sure that Nikon doesn't care about the opinion from people who would like to use modern lenses on the F6 or for that matter any film body. Film SLRs is the distant past for Nikon. Electronically controlled aperture is current and the future. In fact, the emphasis is shifting to mirrorless nowadays. There is no way that Nikon will sacrifice the future for the past.

 

I know from Nikon's response they don't care!

 

Incidentally, you can use the 200-500mm/f5.6 E on your F6. The only issue is that your aperture will be stuck wide open at f5.6. To me, it would have been a non-issue since I rarely stop down that lens anyway. In particular, on the F6, you won't have ISO 1600, 3200 readily available so that most likely, you want as wide an aperture as you can get.

 

I know I can use the 200-500 wide open, but what about other E lenses? For example the 28mm f/1.4E or the 105mm f/1.4E, I might want to stop down smaller than f/1.4! Heck, if I'm shooting a roll of T-Max P3200 with the 200-500mm I might want to stop down a bit as well!

 

It's nice that Nikon has kept the F6 as a current product for those who want an awesome film camera, but it really annoys me that they haven't made it compatible with all current lenses. Would it be acceptable if the D850 couldn't use E lenses with full functionality? I think not!

[rodeo_joe1]

It's also compatible with the Nikon CLS flash system.

Another minus point there then.

RJ - were you worried about the F6 or F5?

I'm not worried about any camera that uses an outmoded and inferior medium to capture its photons.

 

I just think that if you have the mindset to use film, then why look for a camera that provides a digital-like interface? The only thing that tempts me to use one of my F2s or the F3HP is a mixture of nostalgia and a desire to get back to basics while handling a nicely-made piece of machinery. The plasticky looking and feeling (although it has a metal top-plate) F801s doesn't have that temptation; even though I know it'll deliver the same or better IQ and has a more reliable meter.

 

So on no level can I personally see the appeal of an F6. Because if I want all mod cons, then the D800 or one of my other digitals will deliver in spades. Plus I can use pre-AI lenses, and almost any other lens ever made, on my little Sony MILC with a suitable and cheap adapter. With no risk of damage to camera or lens.

 

I'm sick of crap like this from a moderator of this site no less-unfortunately the moderators seemingly answer to no one on here.

Crikey! Calm down Ben.

I didn't read anything particularly offensive in what Sandy originally wrote. I'm sure he was just trying to distinguish between collectors that never use their cameras, and those of us that actually take a picture or two when we're not posting here.

 

As someone with far too many film cameras (some on display) that I really have little intention of ever using again, and therefore falling into the non-user/collector camp. The jibe is taken, but in good spirit, and with no offense felt.

[Andrew Garrard]

RJ: Generally I have to agree about 135 film. I've used film relatively recently (although usually a 120 roll) where the spectrum of what I'm capturing doesn't map well to colour filters - most notably for bluebells, although Nikon's colour rendering seems to have improved. There's something to be said for shooting monochrome with a colour filter, if you don't want to be limited by Nikon's filtering (and absent a dSLR with a heavily-trimmed sensor stack making it mono). Since I shot digital before I really shot a 35mm SLR, I'm not particularly nostalgic about the format - and, while I have one film body with dedicated dials and don't have a problem using it, I also don't feel nostalgic about doing so. Would I be interested in owning an FM3a for a different experience? Maybe, but absolutely not enough to buy one. I'm as likely to want to shoot film for the sake of shooting film - although a little less since HIE got discontinued; if doing so, I'd rather have controls I'm used to.

 

The problem I have with the F5 is that it was so early in the adoption of the new control mechanism - the dials are a bit hard to access, everything is a bit chubby, things aren't as easy to reach as you'd expect. It's not plasticky, though. The F6 is, I'm sure, much more refined - and if I could have got one for the £200 I spent on my F5, I might have been interested.

 

I would like to go film shooting again at some point - but probably with a 5x4 or larger. I've never used one, and it would probably be good for me. That said, I barely have time to shoot with my dSLRs these days, so I'll keep my GAS under control. I should probably sell that Bessa R, though.

[rodeo_joe1]

There's something to be said for shooting monochrome with a colour filter

Those words probably include 'limited', 'tiresome' and 'boring'.

 

I've recently been digitally copying some of my old colour negatives (see last and this week's Nikon Wednesday for examples). The colour I'm getting is miles better than any darkroom colour print I ever produced. However, some shots just didn't and still don't work in colour, and a straight monochrome conversion is very blah. Using the colour filter effects in Photoshop during B&W conversion is amazing, and exceeds anything I've ever seen from just using a camera filter. It can turn almost any shot into a worthwhile picture. Which a simple R25, K2 or whatever camera filter couldn't.

 

As for your bluebells - I entirely agree that the selection of filters used in Bayer arrays is poor. A technically great achievement to get such sharp cutoff between colour bands, but that's not what the eye does dear Sony/Kodak/Fuji researchers..... sorry, where was I?

Ah, yes, bluebells. Definitely a job for the Hue/Saturation tool, and a tweak of the magenta hue slider.

 

BTW, my advice is not to get seduced by film. She's a cruel mistress that won't repay your attentions. Film will definitely turn around and kick you in the nuts by inventing a new and unexpected way to screw up what might have been one of your best pictures.. ever!

Edited September 19, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[evan_bedford2]

I should say also that I've meant to call and ask Nikon US about it, since I sincerely would like to have my F5 and F6 done, but am afraid I've missed my chance. I wonder if it's a matter of it being the same part on both cameras and Nikon only offered on the F6 from now-depleted stock for the F5. That's purely speculation on my part, though.

 

Here's the answer I got from Nikon Canada: "I understand your frustration. The F6 is a current model that is still serviceable and all its parts available. Unfortunately the part required to perform this modification is from a much older model that is no longer supported and its parts are no longer available. This leaves us unable to provide the modification service outlined in the manual."

 

I subsequently asked what the older model might be, but haven't heard back yet. And who knows? Maybe Nikon USA still does the modification (they haven't got back to me yet on that, either).

[evan_bedford2]

 

BTW, my advice is not to get seduced by film. She's a cruel mistress that won't repay your attentions. Film will definitely turn around and kick you in the nuts by inventing a new and unexpected way to screw up what might have been one of your best pictures.. ever!

 

One big advantage of film is that you can pop a non-rechargeable lithium battery in the camera when you're in an arctic blizzard, and you know that the device has a better chance of working than a digital with its rechargeable lithium. (the two types of batteries are at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to cold weather hardiness).

 

I've also read that the f6 has been thoroughly tested in very cold conditions.

[evan_bedford2]

I came across this page: Nikkor AI conversions DIY | Photographs, Photographers and Photography

So if I get an f6, I'll probably take a file to my PC-Nikkor. As for my Olympus 24mm shift with the Leitax adapter for Nikon, John White said he would probably be able to adapt that (easier sending an adapter through the mail than the whole lens).

[rodeo_joe1]

One big advantage of film is that you can pop a non-rechargeable lithium battery in the camera when you're in an arctic blizzard, and you know that the device has a better chance of working than a digital with its rechargeable lithium. (the two types of batteries are at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to cold weather hardiness).

 

I've also read that the f6 has been thoroughly tested in very cold conditions.

Now you're reaching!

A battery grip would be a good idea in such conditions, and most will take AA sized cells. Also, the camera might work, but the film will become brittle and likely to tear. It'll be more prone to static-discharge marks as well in sub-zero temperatures and low humidity.

 

Maybe somebody can do a digital v film shootout next time they're on a polar expedition?

So if I get an f6, I'll probably take a file to my PC-Nikkor.

There should be no need for that. I've used two styles of 35mm P-C Nikkor and the latest 28mm f/3.5 P-C. None of them collide with the plastic AI follower tab, although one of the 35mm versions comes very close.

Edited September 20, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[Andrew Garrard]

Those words probably include 'limited', 'tiresome' and 'boring'.

 

So... you don't have an opinion? :-) I do shoot more than 99% digital, and some of it gets converted to mono.

 

I've recently been digitally copying some of my old colour negatives (see last and this week's Nikon Wednesday for examples). The colour I'm getting is miles better than any darkroom colour print I ever produced. However, some shots just didn't and still don't work in colour, and a straight monochrome conversion is very blah. Using the colour filter effects in Photoshop during B&W conversion is amazing, and exceeds anything I've ever seen from just using a camera filter. It can turn almost any shot into a worthwhile picture. Which a simple R25, K2 or whatever camera filter couldn't.

 

Oh, indeed. But if you're after a specific spectral response, you may get it better from a monochrome backing than via the Bayer colours - if you know what you're looking for. To be fair, I've only really done this with LPR astronomy filters (for which the sensitivity of digital is useful anyway) and for IR (where Bayer is separately useful for some of the range). But certainly mono conversions with control over the filter contributions are easier to tune.

 

As for your bluebells - I entirely agree that the selection of filters used in Bayer arrays is poor. A technically great achievement to get such sharp cutoff between colour bands, but that's not what the eye does dear Sony/Kodak/Fuji researchers..... sorry, where was I?

Ah, yes, bluebells. Definitely a job for the Hue/Saturation tool, and a tweak of the magenta hue slider.

 

Well, yes, but then the sky looks funny. And I could select regions of the image, but... As I said, this particular case does seem to have improved a bit recently, whether due to conversion software or a filter change.

 

BTW, my advice is not to get seduced by film. She's a cruel mistress that won't repay your attentions. Film will definitely turn around and kick you in the nuts by inventing a new and unexpected way to screw up what might have been one of your best pictures.. ever!

 

Seduction would involve me at least doing something with the decade-old film in my fridge. I suspect there are still times when it's the right medium, although they're relatively few and far between these days - and as I said, the 35mm form has a disadvantage when larger areas are available. But thank you for the warning. :-)

[FPapp]

One big advantage of film is that you can pop a non-rechargeable lithium battery in the camera when you're in an arctic blizzard, and you know that the device has a better chance of working than a digital with its rechargeable lithium. (the two types of batteries are at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to cold weather hardiness).

 

One big advantage of film is I can shoot with my F2 in an arctic blizzard (or any other kind of weather) and I don't need a battery of any kind to take pictures!;)

[evan_bedford2]

On a whim, I thought I'd try attaching my two shift lenses to my f100. The PC-Nikkor 28mm f4 slides freely past the aperture mechanism on the f100 with less than 1/10mm to spare. But it seems to work just fine in manual mode and stopped-down metering. And the Oly 24mm shift with the Leitax adapter fits with absolutely no danger of touching the aperture mechanism. And on the +++ side, the very unwieldy Olympus glass is better balanced and has a better overall ergonomic relationship with the f100 than it ever had with my OM-4ti or my Nikon Df or the Sony A7s I used to own. So I'm now quite sure that an f6 will be on my Christmas list...or perhaps even in my halloween goody bag.

 

On the arctic blizzard stuff, yes, I may have been exaggerating slightly. However, I have been reduced to cursing twice in the past, on long hikes at about plus-5 degrees Celsius, when in one case, several batteries for a Sigma DP digital refused to work, and in the other case, when the shutter mechanism for a Mamiya 6 refused to work (typical magnet weakness and linkage lube issues, as I later learned). So the extensive testing of the f6 in cold conditions really puts my mind at ease.

[evan_bedford2]

...ah, but the prism housing on the f100 blocks the full shift on the Oly (not on the Nikkor, though). Such is life.

[rodeo_joe1]

Well, yes, but then the sky looks funny.

Huh? Why would a hue rotation of the magenta channel affect a cyan/blue sky?

 

I believe the 'Bluebell Problem' is strongly related to the IR content of incident light. In overcast conditions bluebells are rendered blue IME. It's only in direct sunlight that they turn purple or magenta. And in dappled sunlight they're a mixture of both.

 

The natural dyes in flowers can do very strange things with light in their Darwinian pursuit of fertilisation. Makes me wonder what they did before Darwin invented natural selection.

 

Another example was a deep orange-coloured flower I tried to picture the other day. It insisted on saturating the red channel until I reduced the exposure to the point of looking like the proverbial black cat in a coal hole etc. Maybe an auxiliary IR cut filter is the answer? But then if the IR or UV is re-radiated in the visible band, what can you do?

Edited September 20, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1