neil_parker

It's normal, low dispersion glass (ED) is more sensitive to temperature variations and focus

can vary in temperature extremes. ED lenses are designed that way.

Some people find the DW3 useful for framing a low angle of view, but it is hard to focus

with and the image is small for framing purposes, To focus at all, you have to flip up the

magnifier and get close, and it's not as easy to focus with as the regular viewfinder.

A hassy has a much bigger view! ... and is square, so you don't have to worry about

vertical shots, which are about impossible to do with the waist level finder.

You can also shoot with out a viewfinder and get much the same waist-level ability,

without the magnifier.

My verdict is it's only useful under limited circumstances: horizontal low angle shots,

where framing and focus aren't critical.

Which is why I have one for sale...

Have you tried it? I've had good luck using ICE on Kodachromes on my 5400 v1. But I

realize the II is a bit different.

Adam has it right, Nikon already makes this camera, the D200. You want a traditional

aperture ring? Mount an AIS lens. You want a traditional shutter dial? The thumb wheel is

close enough and actually easier to use because you don't need to move your hand to use

it. Yearning for the feeble meter display of the F3? You're crazy:).

It's close to an F3 in size and weight (much smaller than and F3+MD4) & mostly metal

construction. Priced lower in current bux than an F3 when it was introduced. I prefer that

nikon spends their research capabilities on providing a similar camera with full frame and

interchangeable focusing screens, that would give a bigger brighter view like the F3, better

high ISO quality, and allow one to tailor the screen for the kind of lenses you use. (and

give me back my 20 & 24). If they made a retro F3D you can bet it would cost close to the

5k that a leica M8 costs, simply because IMO very few would buy it.

When VW made a retro bug, they stuck the engine in the front. Stuff changes...

Wait a few years until image sensors become a cheap commodity, you can then buy a

chinese sensor insert for your F3, that's why I'm keeping my passel of old nikons. :)

The old style cap will fit the HN-3 hood assuming your fingers aren't too large, although a

center pinch cap or a tupperware lid would be more convenient. The inner opening of the

hood has threads or ridges that grip the cap well.

Here's a pic of it mounted on a 35 1.4.<div></div>

Looks like shutter capping... my F3 was doing that, it happens at high speeds >1000s and

faster. Time for a CLA.

Not really, any time you change the filtration density that will change the exposure. But I

seem to recall that some of the dedicated 'multigrade' heads could compensate

automatically.

Sure, it works great. You will have to test on your specific combination of color-head,

paper and negatives, it's unlikely that there will be any guide that will apply directly to

your setup.

I did this myself back in my darkroom days with a Chromega head and multigrade and

polycontrast papers. The chromega, as best as I can remember, had dichroic filtration

calibrated 0-130. To add contrast I would add magenta filtration, a 'normal' neg might

require 30-60 cc, (somewhat of a guess, my 2 omegas have been collecting dust for a

number of years now). A flat/underexposed neg might go over 100, once or twice I had to

add a magenta CC gel in addition to the max. dichroic filtration. On very rare occasions w/

contrasty negs I might dial out all the magenta and start dialing in yellow. Cyan was always

at 0).

A drawback to this process is that you have to compensate the exposure as you add or

subtract filtration density.

"Nikon, AFAIK, doesn't offer any fast (f2.0 or faster) primes at all that equate to 35mm on

a 1.5 crop. Sad."

Kevin, I'll call you on that one, there is the 24mm f2, which equates to 36mm on my D200.

A great, compact lens that makes a nice handholdable setup. It's manual focus (like the

leica lenses) and reasonably-priced used. But to tell the truth, I usually find myself using

the sub-sandwich size 17-55 f2.8, because its convenient and so damn good.

Minor correction to shun's answer; pre-AI lenses can be mounted and used on the F3 (w/

stop-down metering) by flipping up the follower tab on the lens mount.

Promaster camera? Never heard of such a thing. I've seen promaster lenses and they were

bottom of the barrel quality-wise.

Toss it and buy a used nikon would be my best advice :). It's unlikely you will be able to

adapt a nikon lens to it. And this zoom is probably worth more than the camera and a bag

full of promaster lenses.

Dave, its been a couple of years or so and I don't recall the focus throw, but that may well

have contributed to the problem. But for me the 5.6 aperture, causing split prism

blackout, and dim overall focussing, was the real roadblock. When using MF, especially in

an action situation or low light, I very much depend on a split prism. This has worked well

for me in races and concerts, as long as I am using a faster prime. This was a case of using

the wrong tool for the job.

Also my eyes aren't what they were 30 years ago when I got my first SLR. It's like learning

photography all over now with a DSLR and an AFS lens.

I agree with the last few comments. I owned one previously and it was a wonderfully sharp

lens, well made like all older MF Nikkors. The constant aperture is a plus for manual

exposure cameras. But it was a bit of a disaster for me handling-wise.

I could never focus it fast enough or accurately enough in any action situation, tons of

fuzzy pics when I tried to use it for a foot race I covered. No tripod mount, and hand-

holding was just plain clumsy, because it's very front heavy and the only way to grasp it is

by the one-touch zoom ring. It was impossibly clunky to hold on any body without a

motor/grip, and barely tolerable on my FM2/MD12 combo.

I replaced it with a 180 f2.8, which resolved all these problems.

Mark, no offense & maybe it's me, but I can't make heads or tails out of the navigation of

your website. I am interested in your results, but after the 3rd 404 or incorrect link, I gave

up. How about a direct link to the conclusions?

I was interested in your 85mm tests also, but had the same problem w/ links that went

other than how they were labeled, and no clear progression to the conclusions.

A bit cheap and cheesy I think. I bought the 3 compartment set to use in my 802 satchel.

It is unflexible: i.e. permanently sewn together so you can't adjust the compartments, the

bottom is not sewn, so the foam dividers fall out easily, and the bottom is unpadded. I

find it useful only when using small bodies/lenses in the bag.

I bought a Safrotto bag, which is a chinese copy, a larger version for holding gear and a

laptop, and the dividers were actually much better quality than the domke original.

The way to pick between and FE2 and an FM2n is to choose which features of the the

camera is most important to you.

FE2 features Aperture-priority automation, some TTL flash capability, and a meter readout

that shows a scale of shutter speeds on the left side of the screen. More 'informative' than

the red LEDs in the FM2, but harder to read in low light. The FE2 is useless without good

batteries.

The FM2 is strictly manual operation and will function without a battery, losing metering

only.

Both great cameras that use the same accessories. I've owned both and kept the FM2n, I

prefer the red LED metering for low light work. The FM2 was in production much longer

and may be easier to get repaired if necessary.

I've had the original 5400 since they came out (there is now a 5400 II), it's a fantastic

scanner, as far as resolution, detail and color is concerned, I have no complaints, other

than it is as slow as molasses (The II is faster, but has lesser build-quality). Never any

problems with it, and hopefully that remains true, as now that Sony has purchased the

Minolta/Konica photo business, it seems unclear who, if anybody, would service this.

Some people have reported problems with these.

The Nikon scanners also have a great reputation, and are fast. Presumably Nikon still

services them, although nikon has dropped much of their film-based hardware.

I am not familiar with this camera, but I thought that digital P&S cameras use a leaf

shutter, so should sync flash at any speed.

It's a slide duplicating camera. Back in the days before powerpoint, folks gave

presentations with title slides made on such a unit. Using kodalith masks and color filters,

one could make special effects slides, with text and bullets etc. These are bulky

standalone units, with magazines for bulk 35mm film. Quite expensive back in the day.

Sorry, no clue if they have any value or market these days.

Doesn't your computer have a search function? I bet it would be quicker to find them that

way than to read your manual or post a question. :)

It's the viewfinder/focusing screen. The D70 and other digital nikons (& other brands) have

screens that are bright and optimized for AF use, they lack the 'tooth' to accurately

manually focus a lens, especially a fast lens with no margin for error. I have the same

problem with my D200, which has a better viewfinder than the D70. I believe that the

smaller size of the view compared to 35mm is part of the problem also.

I can achieve focus by using the green light in the viewfinder, but not consistently or fast

enough for a situation where I am trying to capture images from people who are moving.

It's a bit depressing to use my F3 and then return to the D200, it's like going from

cinemascope to TV. Some people recommend the Katzeye screen, a replacement focusing

screen optimized for manual focus.

The 17-55 is a great lens for events, and general photography, I love mine. But you have

to ask yourself; is it wide enough, or long enough for the photojournalism you are doing?

I notice many journalists carry two bodies, one will have the 70-200, the other will have

12-24 or some other wide lens, like the 10.5. Their goal is to either get dramatic closeups

of a distant subject with the telephoto zoom, or get in real close for a dramatic wide-angle

shot. The 17-55 will be compromised for either kind of shot, instead it is more of a jack-

of-all-trades super normal lens.