Richard Williams

A bit of googling finds a hands-on at dpreview: Photokina 2018: Zenit and Leica collaborate on new 'M' and the site of the Russian design company that worked on the cosmetics: Проект фотокамера Зенит М (Google Translate in Chrome does a decent job). They were targeting 35+ year old men who remembered shooting (or their parents shooting) the Zenit E, which was a reference point for the design.

I hadn't heard of it before this thread.. Surely it's just a dressed up (or dressed down) M240 'designed in Krasnogorsk' in much the same way as the M10 variant 'designed by Andrea Zagato'? Leica M10 Edition Zagato The story behind the Zenit M is probably more interesting than the camera itself - presumably there's enough nostalgia in Russia for the Zenit brand to make it viable for Leica to do a production run (and use up some more M240 parts into the bargain). It reminds me a bit of the time Apple made an HP-branded iPod: Looking back at the iPod + HP

Removing video wouldn't really save any money (every $100 P&S/phone has this feature), and they've already catered to the 'less is more' crowd with the M262. I suspect the Monochrom isn't a huge seller, but perhaps this 'new' model, which seems designed to use up remaining M240 parts, heralds a switch to the M10 body across the range.

One of the posters in a thread about chrome-plated Leica 1 examples over on l-camera-forum mentions one 'that was covered with nickel plating presumably after the paint had been removed': Leica I A in chrome finish Might be worth posting in that subforum to get an opinion: Leica Collectors & Historica

Perhaps balsam separation?

This is my favourite 'fake': Man Discovers His $15 'Zorki' Camera is a $800 Leica in Disguise

The intriguing ones were always the cameras that everyone jumped on as 'fake', but turned out to be genuine Leicas with unusual features. Someone had a camera that was apparently a special order in unplated brass, and another poster had one that had been re-finished by stripping down to the brass. Of course there's no reason to doubt the authenticity of the camera in this thread - it's definitely a Leica III. Perhaps unmodified FEDs and Zorkis are now the rarities?!

The top and bottom plates are black paint over brass; the only question is whether the fittings are nickel-plated (as in earlier cameras) or chrome-plated (used later). That's a 1936 serial number, which is about when they made the switch: Black Leica iii's with Chrome Nickel tends to look a bit yellowish, but the lighting in these photos is quite yellow. The camera is a genuine Leica III (sometimes called 'Model F', not to be confused with the later IIIf from the 1950s). Neither of the descriptions in the poll is quite correct. It's certainly not a Leica II (sometimes called 'Model D'), which doesn't have a slow speed dial on the front.

I just count sprocket holes and use scissors. See: Leica IF, IIF, IIIFinstruction manual, user manual, free PDF camera manuals In the diagram on p29, trimming leaves 23 holes unpaired, which is what I aim for. And I usually carry one of these, so I have scissors anyway: Micra Multi-Tool | Leatherman

For the price people are asking for those, you could probably find a decent Summitar.

Whatever part you printed, you'd still need to attach it to the rest of the back, which is the tricky bit. For those of us without the required skills, I suppose the best thing would be to track down a local technician who is prepared to do something a bit out of the ordinary - fabricate the catch from sheet metal and secure it to the back, as the guy in Manila seems to have done. The photo on the Flickr thread isn't that clear, but would probably be enough for a skilled technician to work out how to do something similar. For now, I have a spare data back I managed to find at a good price. I was tempted to buy a parts body at a camera fair the other week, which was apparently trashed by battery corrosion but (unlike most of the broken F100 bodies you see on ebay) had an intact back.

Seems likely. They are a company that has sold both official and grey imports of various products, and so must get stock by various routes. But their grey stock is clearly identified as such (at least for cameras and lenses), and is of course normally genuine!

Makinon (Makina Optical), the third party lens maker, had a couple of K-mount SLRs I remember seeing listed in the 80s (though I don't recall seeing them in the shops). The Makinon Mk-V is a conventional SLR, similar to Cosina models of the time and quite possibly built by them. Makina Optical - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia The Makinon Mk-III is a bit of an oddity, and there's very little information on it online. Unusually for a manual focus SLR, it has a built-in flash: https://photoqueen.gr/image/cache/data/IMG1986-500x500.jpeg Here it is with a 'Porsche' badge: I Shoot Film It looks a bit like the Fujica ST-F (later copied as the Greatwall PF-1). However, the ST-F is a fixed lens camera.

I agree with Shun - there shouldn't even be a subtle difference between lossless compressed and uncompressed, the output should be identical. In the early dSLR days (about when the D70 was current) Nikon marketing speak muddied the waters by calling lossy compressed files 'visually lossless', but they stopped playing these games a long time ago. 'Lossless' should be exactly that in any recent Nikon dSLR. Around the time of the D300, the performance hit for 14-bit vs 12 bit was much higher than it is now, so it was worth using 12-bit to shoot faster. Today, with more recent cameras like the D800, I stick with 14-bit lossless like most of the other people in this thread.

Interesting discussion over on flickr about a technician who is able to replace the plastic catch on the F100 film door with metal parts (as it should have had in the first place): Nikon F100 Broken Door Lock | I Shoot Film | Flickr

Only Adobe knows the answer to that - perhaps some component of CC scans your computer (assuming you used it for both LR6 and CC) for the signatures of older software installations, and is too dumb to tell the difference between the standalone and almost identical CC versions of LR6. They only say 'you may be using', which covers them either way. Yes, they certainly should.

Adobe are probably more worried that Dolby could extract more money from them for every active CC subscriber who still has older (potentially infringing) versions of the applications installed.

I suspect that's the correct interpretation. Adobe are probably just calling it 'LIGHTROOM CLASSIC:6.0' to distinguish it from more recent versions of Lightroom CC. The perpetual licence version of LR6 wasn't called 'Classic' as far as I recall, and the letter specifically refers to 'older versions of Creative Cloud applications'. I suspect Phil has received this letter in error (maybe Adobe isn't very good at distinguishing between the perpetual licence and subscription versions when CC subscribers also have LR6). It would not be reasonable for Adobe to cancel a perpetual licence at their whim, since Phil apparently hasn't done anything to break its terms, and if they tried to pull a stunt like this I imagine they'd lose heavily if challenged in court, whatever their EULA tries to claim. But it's funny to see the usual suspects, for whom Adobe can do no wrong, defending a completely unreasonable decision Adobe quite probably hasn't even taken.

Nikon Europe also has a copy of the manual online: http://www.nikonsupport.eu/europe/Manuals/YIrdVGsET/F80_En_05.pdf

You can use that gadget with the F5 and F100 too, though the Meta35 dongle is more flexible and will probably be cheaper. Looks like the F6 must have an internal clock like the Canon and Minolta bodies, so no need for a data back like the MF-28 to provide timestamps.

How about a Canon P? One of the most affordable interchangeable lens rangefinders, and more modern than the screwmount Leicas that take the same lenses. The Canon P is A Beautiful, Functional 35mm Rangefinder Worth Shooting Today - Casual Photophile

Sounds like Nikon's claim about your camera was Fake News! With everything matching, you don't even have a fake serial number. Probably they've just flagged it as a grey import. Sometimes companies can be quite creative in their use of language to defend their import monopolies! The only kind of fakery that would make sense for a dSLR would be the sort of thing Dieter mentions - rebadging a closely related older or cheaper model (even then, you could easily spot it by checking the EXIF 'Model' tag). But both the D700 and the D850 are 'one of a kind' models. You could stick a D850 badge on a D810 or something, but it wouldn't pass even a cursory inspection.

There's no camera similar enough to a D700 or a D850 to make a convincing fake, so presumably the grey importer had tampered with the serial number as Dieter's link suggests. For many Nikon models, the EXIF serial number is in the same format as the number that should be printed on the body, so it's easy to check if there's a mismatch using something like Exiftool or Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer (this is certainly the case for the D700 and I believe it's also true for the D850). I think there are some other models where the internal serial number is in a completely different format that isn't obviously related to the one on the label, but I assume Nikon can look it up and check for consistency.

With the F5/MF-28 back you can have it both ways - you can choose in frame or between frame imprinting. There's also a simpler MF-27 back for the F5, which I think is like the F100's MF-29 - i.e., in-frame imprinting only, and no transmission of the timestamp to the camera's metadata recorder. The Canon and Minolta models that save metadata seem to have internal clocks - the meta35 page lists date and time as available fields without mentioning databacks.

I have this too, but only as a spare back (standard backs are hard to find). As a databack it's very limited. The F5 databack is much better - not only does it imprint data optically between frames (sorry Karim, I agree with Ed that this is a better solution), but it also communicates the date/time from its clock to the camera, which is then added to the rest of the metadata the F5 already stores digitally. Unfortunately, adding the F100 data back doesn't change the metadata the camera records; the timestamp isn't communicated, and the camera doesn't have an internal clock, so there's no way for it to store date/time digitally. Otherwise, both cameras store a pretty complete range of metadata, including exposure parameters, regardless of whether a databack is fitted.