jose_angel

I think there are differences, I found some AF screens better than others. Despite of its brightness, some AF ones are good, some are ugly for manual focusing. Cannot say about the F8008s.

Oops, lapsus mentis. You are right, I have just checked the original literature; 6 elements for the 50 and 7 for the longer Apo Rodagon N lenses. Yes, I had to check several times the fall off issue, I was surprised, too.

My eyesight is not the best so I find quite difficult to manually focus with this cameras (in general, with almost all AF screens), so I have to rely on the electronic rangefinder confirmation dot which slows down the operation quite a bit. And I wonder if there is a split image replacement screen for this camera. if I recall it correctly, it doesn't.

The Apo Rodagon N is a seven(?) element lens (I think my 85 and 105 are 8 element lenses, not sure), my reference lens. The Componar C and Trinar are cheap triplets. The Componon is a 6 element lens. All the images focused wide open and printed at f8.

I don`t want to bore with loads of images, just one more to compare vignetting and contrast (same order, Apo Rodagon N on top, Componar C in the middle, Trinar at the bottom. The three prints scanned in the same pass): Sadly I don't have the small ringed Componon print, which was surprisingly good, although -I try to remember- with a big fall off at the corners. I also keep some prints with longer lenses (85 and 105, -looking for the benefit of the "sweet spot"-), but I had to change exposure, so there are noticeable variables on them ... since then, I'm less prone to use longer lenses with small negatives. Maybe the 85, but only to have better working space.

Now, an off center crop, same order (Apo Rodagon N, Componar C, Trinar):

So I printed the same image using several lenses (Apo Rodagon N 50/2.8, Schneider Componar C 50/2.8 and Rodenstock Trinar 50/4), just changing the lens on the lensboard and re-checking focus. Exposure times were modified for the f4 lenses. (Another interesting lens on the test was a small ringed Schneider Componon 50, amongst others, but I don't find that print). Here are center crops, first the Apo Rodagon N, then the Componar C and then the Trinar:

Very interesting. I have to agree with Rodeo that is hard to tell differences between lenses, so time ago I performed my own tests. I have found some of that prints; sadly I used to use "useless" prints to focus while printing, so I lost some of them. Anyway, I can show what I have (I think I have posted this images in a previos thread). The prints were made on a perfectly laser (Versalab) aligned Durst, onto an Ahel easel (modified to be adjustable for alignment). Same paper (Ilford MG RC, 8x10"), same exposure (RH timer), all processed at the same time. Focused using a Peak or a Magnasight (or both, very likely). The scan has been made at 1200ppi, straight from the scanner in JPEG. --- First, the full image:

Arthur, I use 50mm lenses quite often. I still keep many of them. IMHO both options are right. Differences: -The main advantage is that the AFD is noticeably smaller, sort of the 24/2.8 AFD you already have. Better if you like to go with a smaller package. -The AFD focus slightly faster, but although the AFS is slowish, in the (my) real life, I don't find it to be issue at all. When I want to shoot fast I just took a 2.8 zoom. I use 50mm lenses just to run lighter&smaller. -The AFS "is" an IF design (-just put a filter on it-). No moving barrels, no open gaps. With the hood, it is even more compact&protected (the hood on the AFD is that outdated design that punish the front (moving) barrel). Drawback; size and weight gets bigger. Similarities: -There is not huge advantage on the focus rings, both are annoying for fine hand focusing, maybe the AFS has a slightly wider focus throw while the AFD a more positive grip. Again, not an issue at all, I rarely focus manually. -Both focus up to the same distance, not too close. I always miss a shorter lens to focus closer. -Both have that plastic feeling, although on different designs. I prefer the AFS, looks nicer, maybe. -Image sharpness and bokeh are almost the same, splitting hairs better on the AFS. Not enough to make a choice in this respect. - So, given that the F6 is AFS technology, if I were buying again, my choice would be the 50/1.4 AFS G. Since then, my AFD versions get unused inside the closet. If you want to save money, the 50/1.8AFD is a cheap, supersharp option. I used it a lot up to the advent of the AFS version, despite its ugly bokeh.

Dead yellow roses. D850 + AFS 24-120/4

Metz 45CT-4, I mean.

Looks like the only source is the Kevin Bjorke`s one, which is certainly inconclusive. I have read many comments about this topic, always without a clear, proven answer. Most if not all Speedlights are in the 5v range, it should mean something. I have also used CT-4s on my F3 for years, mostly with the Metz adapter (very likely the voltage is reduced), but also thoughtlessly via cable, no issues, but I cannot tell if the circuit has been working stressed. I have used them too directly via cable and hot shoe adapter in other cameras, without problems (Mamiya 6 and other Nikons) All my other flashes (including high power studio strobes) are in the 5v range.

I wonder if Shun took the image with the VR on.

Luis, great rainy scene. I too like to take rain photos, you nailed the effect here. --- Mmmm, should have been more careful with focus... A friend likes to decorate used jars in this way. Nice. D850 + AFS 24-70/2.8

Took this image for desktop background on my laptop. D850 + AFS50/1.4

Just to add that they also lack a dedicated AF-ON button... ;)

I understand your point, but... It seems that Canon's plans were (are) to stop making EF products, focusing all their power on the new RF system. Obviously it is too radical, I suppose it have bothered many users who have felt abandoned with their expensive EF equipment, without any other option than to think on buying new gear, even more expensive, but not for that reason more productive. I think Nikon may be more "conservative", but the goal is the same ... the longevity and compatibility of the F-mount has been a double-edged sword that has kept its clientele but also made them lose their leadership in the market. As you say, they want to keep both systems... just to make them survive. But I bet they hate to spend one more dime on other than Z. This time they made the biggest mount ... they no longer want smallish and longish flanged mounts ... with the z mount they could even use a larger format than FX! (but this is another topic ... :))

Personally, film is to enjoy film... developing, darkroom, wet prints, etc. It doesn't make sense (to me) to shoot film in order to have digital files. Any digital camera will do it better. Shooting bigger will give you better digital files, but still bad in comparison with a current digital camera. Back in the eighties I had a Pentax 67, I now keep a RZ. For those "times with family friends going out stuff a 3 day trip etc" I just take a 35mm film camera, maybe a folding 6x6, 6x9... or a digital, but never a studio camera like the RZ (or a P67 if I still had it).

IMHO, the Z mount is a different system. I think it is not practical to buy "Z" thinking on using F-mount lenses. The FTZ is a marketing aid to jump into the z system, rather than a really practical solution. Sort of like using AiS lenses on AF cameras.

I remember some people asked for it many years ago, as well as to eliminate pop-up flashes from "advanced" cameras, amongst others. I think NIkon actually listen to customers, but it seems to take decades to put the ideas on the manufacturing line :)

The Opemus 6 is a great design to be used with current LED bulbs. And you can perfectly use warm light (2700-3000ºK) versions, from almost any wattage. Just think on the printing times you like, and buy the power needed to achieve such times. You may want to have several bulbs, to be used with thin or dense negatives. As Rodeo says, a 19watt bulb seem to me too much brightness, unless you plan to print huge sizes on the wall. This enlarger is a small one (although the lamp housing is normal). I think you don't need more than a (normal sized) 5 watt bulb to print 8x10" at 10 seconds (well, some people like short times... I need at least ten seconds for "fast" burning/dodging procedures).

The image came out directly from the phone, the glass is actually clearer over a pure white sheet of paper.