neil_parker

>The original Nikon SLR came with a 58mm f1.4 Nikkor lens and that was Nikon's

"standard" lens all through the 1960s

Not true, the 58 1.4 only was sold for the F from 59-62, then replaced by the 50 f1.4.

However, this is all an academic argument. A 'normal' lens is one that gives you a pic that

looks 'normal' to you under a given circumstance, -purely subjective. 50 has become the

norm because we are used to seeing photos in that perspective.

Turn off 'smart quotes' or 'curley quotes' in word processor and you won't have this

problem. Or use TextEdit and format > 'make plain text'.

The MD-2 is not a rangefinder, it is a zone focussing camera. This makes no sense, you

spent $300 + for a 'noisy monstrosity' that won't even help focus the lens for you? Why

not use one of your 4 nikons? An FM would have been lighter and more logical for this

purpose.

Seriously, though, enjoy it and make some great pics. Maybe the journey is better than the

destination.

Vice grips and soft brass threads: a recipe for disaster.

While I can't picture this combination of adapters, I can recommend what usually works for

filters stuck together; push one surface onto a rubber pad of some sort (jar opener,

mousepad...) and push and turn against the other side with the palm of your hand.

Any tools designed to grip the ring is likely to distort it making it even harder to remove.

Whoops, you do have a 101mm lens. So that should match with the 101 rail, assuming you

have the right cone to go with it.

If set up right, you would manually focus first, then if you change your print size, you can

crank it up or down without going out of focus.

OK, that explains the rails, you have a D3, not a D2. The D3 'autofocusses' by having cam

rails and lenses that match. I.E. to a 101mm and 162mm lens, neither of which you

apparently have.

I actually faced this very problem many years ago with my D3 and found ways to resolve it.

First of all you may get a reasonable amount of usage out of it by using a wrong combo of

lens, cone and rail - experiment! or ask Harry Taylor. But the likely problem is not being

able to make a big enough enlargement, because of limits to the focussing range.

One solution is to try and find rails to match your lens, or vice-versa. But a much better

solution is to get a 'bellow extension' which mounts on the lens stage, and essentially

gives it all the focussing range of a D2 or D4, while giving up the autofocus. I think I got

mine from Harry maybe 10 years ago for $75. The specialized accessories not cheap, but

you might get lucky on ebay.

A good source of info is :<BR><BR>

<a href="http://www.classic-enlargers.com">Classic Enlargers</a>

<BR><BR>

Harry Taylor has specialized in these classic Omegas forever. I used these for many years

but that was long ago. I have a D3 in my garage, a different model that 'autofocused' with

cam rails.<BR><BR>

Regarding the lenses: the 50s are for 35 mm, pick whichever is the higher quality lens.

Lots of range of quality when it comes to enlarging lenses! <BR><BR>

The 90 should cover up to 6x7cm film, the 105 even bigger.<BR><BR>

Each different lens will need a different mounting plate or cone, in order to be able to

focus properly. The 50 would be probably on a flat plate or close to. The longer lenses

would need deeper cones to mount.<BR><BR>

It's not clear from you description the kind of lightsource. But if it has a big condensor

lens, then its a condenser head (what does it say on it?), and it may have a tray built in for

large VC gel filters. Otherwise you are stuck finding the below the lens type of filter

mount, which can degrade the image.<BR><BR>

When you say there are 2 different rails, I'm not sure what you mean, don't have a D2

handy. You can find a manual at classic enlargers.<BR><BR>BTW you should be aware

when looking for info that there are Dll and D2 enlarger and they are different models

Looks like shutter problems to me ('capping'), the D50 has a vertical shutter I believe. Is it

worse at higher shutter speeds? Back to nikon for repair (hopefully under warranty) ...

You should save as a TIFF or other non-compressed format such as photoshop format

(.psd). While saving it as a high quality jpeg is better than nothing, I still recommend TIFF.

But you don't say what editing software you are using, perhaps it lacks these capabilities.

You should NEVER resave a file as a jpeg, (unless it's for a web page), every time you

resave a jpeg, you give it an additional compression cycle and you destoy and forever lose

more detail, all files should be saved as a tiff or some other uncompressed format.

The only way to get files that small from an image that big is to highly compress it into a

jpeg, losing much detail in the process.

How about a thin F-mount extension tube? You could use the thinnest ring from a k-ring

set and that should space it far enough away from the body to mount the lens. However it

may not focus to infinity.

Check the lens diaphraghm, this is a possible symptom of a lens with oil on the metal

leaves, causing the aperture to stick open or closed.

BTW, your OM-10 uses S76 batteries which are still readily available.

... and BTW you will only get this indication and metering if you are using AF lenses on

your camera, you didn't mention which lenses you are using.

No metering with older manual focus lenses at all, you would have to rely on trial/error

and evaluating the histogram. (or separate meter)

Great camera, enjoy!

I always used to agree about databacks being a worthless item that could mess up your

pics, but then I got an MF-14 back with my F3...

The real useful part about the MF-14 is it has a great serrated thumb grip that really helps

balance the grip on the MD-4 drive, and for us old timers it gives a large readout of the

frame number so I don't have to get out my reading glasses to see what frame I'm on!

When i got my D200, I covered the cover with a palm pilot 'skin'. Simply a peel on self

adhesive clear sheet, trimmed to fit the monitor cover.

This keeps the cover clean, but I eventually removed it because it causes diffraction

rainbows that interfere with viewing, and traps dust underneath. I realized it was a bit like

wearing suspenders and a belt...overkill. I can't imagine losing the D200 cover as I can

hardly get it off myself without a prybar.

I don't think that's correct. You can mount the plain prism or waist level finders from the F

to the F2, and vice-versa if you remove the F name-plate. But I've never heard that you can

mount the meter-prisms. Besides, in the F, the power supply (batteries) are in the head, on

the F2 they are in the body, and there is a circuit to the meter head.

Thanks guys. That's a very interesting site Tony, you have quite a collection! I will try steel

wool on the pressure plate.

I see you have a 35mm Flektogon, do you have an opinion on the image quality of this

lens?

I recently inherited a really nice shape Exakta Varex IIa and a couple of interesting lenses; a 58mm f2

Zeiss-Jena Biogon, and a Schneider tele-xenar 135mm f3.5. I am quite interested in using this camera

and would like to resolve a couple of issues. This is an early IIa with 1/150s shutter speed.

I have already run a roll through and it seems to have accurate shutter speeds and no light leaks. The

lenses seem decent, although the biogon has some haze in it, which is apparently common in these

lenses. Would it be worthwhile having the Biogon cleaned? What kind of quality can I expect from a

good example of this lens? Or is there a preferable normal lens?

A problem is the pressure plate, it has a few spots of corrosion that scratch the film base. I helped it

somewhat by polishing with a pencil eraser and cleaning it with alcohol. Any tips on how to remove the

remaining corrosion without damaging the finish on the pressure plate?

Any recommendations for a good budget 35mm lens? I have seen Flektogons and Angenieux 35mm

lenses, what would be the best value in a 35mm lens?

"...I simply don't stand their yellow hazy rendition anymore."

If you are getting this result with a digital camera, you need to learn about white balance

and raw file conversion. If you are getting this result with negative film, you need to find a

better lab, or learn to scan and print properly. If you are getting this result with slides, you

might check to see if you are using a $5 uv filter, or clean your lens. Most AIS prime

nikkors are equal to or better than any comparable lens out there.

That's a bummer, but sorry, no one repairs digital point & shoot cameras, you will have

to replace it .

If I understand your question correctly (& I may not), the answer is convert. If you assign

AdobeRGB to an image that already has an sRGB profile assigned, there may well be

clipping or some other distortion in the histogram. It may be preferable to leave them in

sRGB to edit...and start scanning in AdobeRGB in the future.

And don't forget to factor in the weight of the laptop or image tank, card reader and cards,

extra batteries, charger :)

It's a zone-focusing camera, you will have to estimate the distance. No rangefinder on the

Nikonos cameras unfortunately.

And estimating distance underwater is different than above water.

Dan, if you are using HTML then you have to use it for everything including paragraph

breaks.

Just add a <P> or a couple of <BR>

Barb, I'm sorry, but a little toughlove is necessary here. You have not bought a wide-angle

lens, if someone has told you that, then you were conned. This is a wide angle adapter or

supplementary lens. You will never get anything but very mediocre images from it. And

they won't be 'wide-angle' attached to a 70-300 on your D50.

A real wide angle lens would replace the 70-300, not get added on the front as an

adapter. If you can return this item, you should. The descriptive phrase: ' 0.5x digital pro

lens deluxe super angle with macro highspeed autofocus' is a complete lie!

If you have the kit 18-55, then that is wide angle at the 18mm end, there are wider lenses

such as 12-24.