Richard Williams

Unless the sensor self-destructs. A lot of sensors had to be replaced when they 'corroded'. Early on, Leica just replaced failed sensors with the same part. Later, they developed a replacement that didn't suffer from this problem, and for a while the replacement was free (no longer). I would only buy an M9 where there's good evidence it has the later sensor (which a specific firmware version or dated paperwork may indicate). Otherwise, the M240 is a safer choice, and not much more expensive.

That's a similar situation to 43mm, the breakpoint between 0.5 and 0.75. Though oddly enough I have a couple of nominally 0.75mm Hoya 43 filters that work fine on a 0.5mm lens without binding or damage. I guess in this particular case the tolerance is sufficiently loose for them to be compatible, but I wouldn't count on it elsewhere.

Looks like B+W 86mm filters have a 1.0mm pitch, whereas Hoya 86mm filters have 0.75mm: https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/C1x9LZAkTES.pdf https://a4.pbase.com/o3/94/6094/1/88780957.v9VvaL1G.Hoya15.jpg

Did you compare tif file sizes with those from M-P 240 (compressed)? I'm guessing that there's some other explanation for the size difference than compression - it's supposed to be lossless (like a zip file) in both cameras, so there's no reason not to use it. I think the earlier sensor has marginally more pixels (about 0.2%), so file sizes won't be identical even if all else is equal.

Is this a possible symptom of the shutter issue that led to some of these cameras being recalled?: Notice to users of the Nikon D750 digital SLR camera of newly added affected product serial numbers (Updated) – Nikon Service Advisory - Nikon Hong Kong Ltd. Technical Service Advisory for Users of the Nikon D750 Service Advisory https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000006489&sitecode=en_GB&ctry=GB&lang=en_GB

The F100 doesn't have a clock (unless you count the clock in the optional MF-29 data back, which is separately powered by its own batteries). It does retain settings between AA battery changes, however. I guess you could check if (e.g.) a custom function setting is preserved in the faulty camera when the AAs are taken out and replaced.

I would try the existing lens for yourself on whatever digital body you buy before deciding one way or the other. Meanwhile, check out what others have done with the 20 f/3.5 on various cameras here: Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 UD/AI/AI-S

Note that this lens is even more vintage today than it was a decade ago when the question was asked.

The Summitar is an f/2 lens - perhaps you have a Summarit?

I expect the fakers didn't pay any attention at all to matching up with the real aperture, they just copied the engraved sequence from an Elmar. But the fraction of a stop difference wouldn't make much difference in real use world use, at least with negative film. And who knows how far out from spec the shutter speeds are on a camera like this?

It's a Zorki 1 (D), made in the Soviet Union around 1953-55. Originally chrome, it has been re-painted in black with fake Leica engravings and the 'wood-grain' cover added. The lens is a collapsible Industar, also re-finished with fake engravings. Hope you didn't pay too much!

The Leica M6 Platinum 'Sultan of Brunei Silver Jubilee Edition' is described on these pages: Leica M6 Sultan of Negeri Brunei Darulsalam Silver jubilee GOLD Edition with gold plated SUMMILUX-M 1:1.4/50mm, 1992 Leica M6 Sultan of Negara Brunei Darussalam Platinum Edition with Diamond & Platinum-plated SUMMILUX-M 1:1.4/50mm, 1995 Various special editions were made for the Sultan, some in gold and others in platinum. A few even had diamonds on the top plate! As above, you need to talk to a specialist at somewhere like Westlicht. You might also post here (but they can't give valuations): Leica Collectors & Historica

After a lightly disguised Leica M240 appeared with a Zenit badge, perhaps the next time Leica needs to shift some old components we'll see the 'Zorki M'?: Hands on: Zenith M review | TechRadar

It looks like this also happened to the photo.net time machine, as we are all replying to a thread from 2013 like it was yesterday.

At one point he wrote an 80 page brochure for Leica: https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf It's the same sort of stuff you'll find in his own books and in his contributions to the later Laney Pocket Books, but restricted to the then current lenses.

Some EXIF information is displayed by photo.net, but only if the image is viewed in a certain way. For example, if you look on p3 of this gallery by Marcin Nowotny: Marcin Nowotny | photo.net and click on the thumbnail of a Lisbon tram line street image, you see an enlarged version of the image, but no EXIF data. But if you click again on the title of the image, 'Lisbon', you see this: Lisbon | Photo.net which displays some camera settings at the bottom of the page. This presumably isn't all the EXIF data in the image, however. If you have permission to download an image, you could look at in a desktop EXIF viewer, or feed a direct link to the jpeg to an online viewer like this: Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer Many images on photo.net don't have any useful data. Sometimes this may be intentional, but I think in a lot of cases it hasn't survived the editing process (e.g., you may see Adobe metadata, but no camera settings).

Leader out is/was available as a service centre mod for the F5 and several other cameras: Leader-out modification

I don't know if this is common elsewhere, but several major dealers in the UK will sell your gear for a commission (say 20%). The downside is you don't get anything until they actually sell it on to a customer.

If you have reason to believe they are radioactive, then I'd suggest not risking it. Eyes are particularly vulnerable and, as you say, they'd be very close to the source of radiation (at least if the eyepieces are hot).

It's the only one I've heard of, apart from the protoypes that were engraved "Summitar*". They switched to (minimally radioactive) lanthanum in the Summicron from around 1953, so their experiment with thorium was pretty short-lived. Interesting that this lens seems to be hot at both ends - if (as is often claimed) they used lead glass in a rear element to protect the film, it doesn't appear to be doing much. I suppose the lens is hotter than when it was made, due to the accumulation of more radioactive daughter products in the thorium series (assuming the thorium was free of them to start with).

You Nikon upgrade options are really just the F6, F100 or F5. Can't argue with the F6, except for the price, maybe 3x a decent F5. The F100 is for me the sweet spot - cheaper than the F5 (though the gap has narrowed) and does everything I need in s substantially lighter package than the F5, with much of its performance. But it's not perfect - like other Nikons of its era, the synthetic rubber covering on the F100 has a tendency to become 'sticky', and the otherwise high build quality has one significant weakness - if the plastic catch on the film door breaks then (unless you have a skilled technician who can fabricate and attach a new catch) you need a new back, which can be hard to find. The F5 has a lot going for it - you're not likely to have problems with its build quality, which is even higher than the F100, including a metal door catch. And although the rubber can become detached and 'bulge' in patches, it is perhaps less prone to the 'stickiness' problem (or at least, there seem to be fewer reports of it happening). The AF is quick and reliable. You get a very fast motordrive and AF motor for 'screwdriver' lenses, and you can remove the prism and replace it with a waist-level, magnifying or action finder. It has a more sophisticated meter than the F100 (though I've always found the F100 meter very reliable). There are (to me) a couple of minor disadvantages compared to the F100 - AF points are less visibly highlighted in black rather than red, and there seem to be more control locks than necessary (even to turn the camera on). But the really big difference is size and weight. The F5 is very noticeably heavier, especially when you insert its 8 AA batteries (that's about 240g in batteries alone if you use something like Eneloop Pro, though you can halve that with lithiums). If you don't need the vertical grip, or the ability to burn a roll of film in 5 seconds, you're lugging around quite a lot of extra weight and bulk that may not help you get better pictures. The F5 was designed at a time when (e.g.) sports shooters needed maximum speed from a film camera. Now that this sort of photography has gone almost entirely digital, and film tends to be used in a more considered away, the large and heavy F5 is perhaps a less attractive option than some of the other high quality alternatives, and prices are relatively low. Lens compatibility of any of these three cameras is better than your N90s - you can use VR, and G lenses work in all modes. Electonic aperture 'E' lenses aren't compatible with any of them. Only the F6 can use iTTL/CLS flash.

I had no trouble finding a good one (though, as with other pro gear, there are 'heavily used' examples out there) and it's been fine since. The zoom action is perfectly normal. There are of course quite a few reports of stiff zoom action online, but it's always hard to get an idea of how common a gear problem is from anecdotal evidence since people tend only to post when something fails, not when it works normally. One repairer claims the design makes it vulnerable to certain kinds of impact damage: [NRC in Taiwan] Four design drawbacks of the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens @ NRC in Taiwan :: 痞客邦 :: But to put this in perspective, Lensrentals did a survey of which lenses failed most frequently back in 2013, when this model was current: Lensrentals Repair Data: 2012-2013 The Nikon 24-70 G doesn't feature at all, though they must have carried it at the time, so presumably it did better than the lenses they do list. The equivalent Tamron and Canon 24-70 zooms are on their list, as are two other Nikon f/2.8 zooms.

Next!

Does the banding extend into the sprocket area of the negative, or is it entirely within the frame?

Only if you use a raw converter from Adobe or another company that fully supports DNG input. Nikon doesn't, so this solution won't make your files compatible with NX2. On the other hand, NXD is pretty good these days, and they've restored control points.