kirk_fisher

My standard travel kit is the 17-35 and the 70-200 (with 1.4TC)I just never cared for the 28-70 - not wide enough for those sweeping scenics. I do have the 45 2.8p - either for my backup body or for those times when I just can't/don't want to take the other two. For me, covering the wider end of the focal length range was the priority.

Enjoy!

Diff than F100 - oh yeah. The ergonomics are (for me) much better. More logical layout,

better/closer access to settings. Fits the hand better than F100, obviously an individual

thing, but also a bit intangible. The F100 was never "wrong" for me, but the F6 is just that

much more "right" in the way it handles and feels. Cannot speak to the battery life since

only half a dozen rolls so far. It is NOT as quiet as a Leica RF, the Nikon literature/hype is

off there. But quieter than F100 definitely.

The F6 is very impressive. I've owned a variety of Nikons but never the "top of the line". Always coveted and F4 but the F5 was too bulky for my needs. When the F6 was announced I started selling and saving, figuring it would be the last 35mm body I'd ever buy. Not willing to invest comparable money into a digital SLR at this point. The F6 does not disappoint. I came from an F100 and there is a world of difference regardless of what you may read elsewhere. This ain't no F200. It falls to the hand like no other camera I've had, very solid, very quick to learn, feels incredibly solid. There isn't one aspect of this camera that doesn't "make sense" to me. I will happily wallow in the dark ages of film for the next 10 years with this camera. It's really that good, IMO. Time will tell re: price and reliability,etc. but I'm so happy with the F6 that I couldn't care less what digital offerings come out for quite some time.

Depends on which 80-200 you have. My old 80-200 AF-D would fit in either an F3x or the F2. The new 70-200 AFS VR kind of fits into the F2 - I can close the flap but the lens sticks up about an inch, I'm considering the F4AF since it's deeper. The F6 is probably a bit too short for the bigger zooms. Domke lists the inside dimensions, and there is some "give", but lens caps, filters, etc. add to the length.

I've got a 105 2.5 and now a 300 4.5 EDIF, both of which are great.

The aggravation is in the floppy built-in lens hoods. Some samples

are nice and tight, snap into and stay in place. Mine extend just by

turning them down or taking them out of the bag, and then are loose

as a goose, too easy to slide them back and forth. Anyone know if

these can be tightened up, either by a service center or home-made?

Thanks!

I've always loved the FM2, now the FM3a for their compact size and

reliability. But with flash and/or long lens, they're almost too

small. So I usually add the MD-12, primarily for the additional grip.

Just found www.photoequip.net. They make a nice grip that still

allows access to the film rewind button and keeps the tripod socket

centered. Anodized aluminum and plastic, very well designed and the

ergonomics feel pretty good. And much smaller/lighter than the MD-12.

Worth a look if you want some extra grip without the

size/weight/expense of a motordrive. Just IMHO.

Laura,

Either one are great cameras. I've owned the FM2 in the past, recently got the FM3. I can discern no difference between the two re: build quality, handling, etc. I'm sure you know the features of both. I like the aperture priority mode, fill-flash button and film window and DX coding. The only thing it took getting used to was the match needle metering - I was so used to the diodes of the FM2. However, I love the FM3 more. I got it with the 45/2.8p and it's rapidly becoming my favorite setup - I tend to grab it now before the F100. Depending on how much flash work you do, and whether you'll use the aperture priority auto mode should probably be the deciding factor. You can't go wrong with either, but my vote is for the 3.

Recently purchased a 300/f4.5 EDIF AIs lens, good shape, early serial

# but front glass is spotless, blades, etc work just fine. However, a

bright light source does reveal internal dust. Is it worth

sending/taking it in to have cleaned after 12-15 years? Anyone sent

old lenses to Nikon for this, or just do it locally? I have a Nikon

authorized facility in town.

Many thanks!