jose_angel

It must be a cheap manufacturing, if not, I wonder about the permanence of their sales department :p Or maybe it's just a flag lens, with no other purpose than to fill pages of photo magazines and forums... Anyway, I like that Nikon do things like e.g., the F6, Df and now a lens that Nikon users have always wanted and envied from other brands (sadly, I suspect we will keep wishing... ).

PX625, PX13 or MR9. To make it short, good original batteries were made out of mercuric oxide, so they are currently banned. Also, the meter worked with a STABLE current of 1.35 volts, so you must find an option which keep this current into a correctly sized housing (battery). Sadly, there are no perfect available choices; but there are solutions, more or less elegant. Search in google for "PX625 battery conversion" and will find all kind of ideas. I`d go for the non-destructive ones. Some are expensive. Thanks God yours is a mechanical shutter camera. Use an incident hand held meter, as many people do with rangefinders. I prefer it to some built-in meters.

Mike, not sure if I understood you correctly. Don't know the Z series, my X100F show the "actual" brightness of the resulting shot (if it can be said this way) in the EVF, but I cannot set it to a brighter view unless I increase the brightness of the viewfinder via menu settings. I can also see increased brightness overexposing the image (via exposure compensation wheel), but it should be set to the right exposure to get the shot. In the other hand, the screen can show a small portion of the image at a higher magnification and brightness if I override the AF or use the manual focus ring. It actually "helps" to focus or to check focus under difficult conditions, but I`d say its not a perfect feature (too much noise, low resolution). - BTW, the "reality" of the image on either the EVF is actually cancelled when I order prints at the shop. I find really hard to get the right results, it doesn't matter how much calibrated the system is... at the end, I find printers are not calibrated to the same standards, or, as the operator told me the last time, the printer have somewhat automatic contrast detection, framing, resizing, etc. which looks to actually override everything. I am rarely getting the results I'm looking for since the digital era.

I would say the EVF topic includes two sections: First, the sharpness, the delay, the artificially increased luminosity, etc. Another, for me also very important (perhaps even more), the electronic medium that must be activated to be used and result in a screen that looks very different from a direct or "real" vision. For whatever the reason, comparatively, this may seem a barrier to unprofessional use, and maybe, an obstacle to spontaneity. Well, I think that in the same way we moved from film-based media to digital media, we can now switch to the new EVF tool. Actually, it may be a minor change. And the final product will be closer, I guess. Cameras (or technology) force aesthetics by the way they are used (e.g., wet plate images actually look different than Leica ones), so at the end it will simply modify the aesthetics of the images by a bit (this change will surely please the majority ). For those of us who still live in the cave, this is just another added concern. And cost increases it, of course.

Shun`s point is dead on, it´s like watching thought a HD TV. I wonder if it will change the way I visualize the scenes... nothing bad, I guess.

The viewfinder thing. It keeps me permanently undecided about the way to go. My Fuji X100F have a hybrid system. From what I have read, its EVF is considered "reasonably" good, but by far I prefer the OVF. I find the EVF quite useful, even necessary, to get certain shots (maybe 5-10%, most of the times because the low ligh), but I still hate it. If I were buying a Z6/Z7 (never tried them), I`d need -at least- a weekend trial period before taking a decision. If not, no way.

"If I were to go for a DX second system... " Funny, Fuji is having me at this moment; I hesitated to buy the X-Pro series for its big size, so I went for the X100. Now, I find it to be quite small; if it were smaller, I`d have a problem to hold it! Again, same as you, I'm on the limit of the diopter range. First I thought the range was small, but is my eyesight that is getting really short. I wish the X100 were made by Nikon... what I really miss is the user interface! (controls and menu).

I'm currently shooting the F version, and same feeling; the AF is not fast enough to my liking. But, is there a fast enough compact AF camera? Manual focus cameras are faster but no AF. You can switch to manual focus but very likely most shots will appear unsharp. Better to use a big DSLR (of course older models don't have great AF too), but the compactness is then lost. So at the end, I find the X100F a "reasonable" compromise... not for fast shooting but good for IQ and convenience (perfect size, great optic system, the hybrid/OVF is wonderful... ). My main complain is about menu and controls... too much buttons, some a bit awkward to use and in the wrong place, and a not so nice menu system. But still, a great camera.

I love how she has developed those gray hairs on his face. As one acquaintance said, dogs are people like us ... :)

Mmmmm, here in southern Europe they ask more than 300 euro (340 USD) for the FTZ, near 3500 euro (4000 USD) for the Z7. I wonder if they really want to sell cameras (I mean many cameras, not a few of them in certain countries). Obviously, it provokes a decline in camera sales. I don't think smartphones are the only culprit. Very likely, intermediaries, profit margins or taxes are. Something is wrong around here.

Very bad news. It means lower quality, higher prices, less options, at best.

Just to keep things in topic... I think I shoot b&w film just to get the "real thing" from an end product point of view. Right now I'm working on 6x9 contact prints on FB paper that I cut with filigree scissors, leaving a thin white border, like it was a century ago. Its not only the image, but the whole thing that is also perceived. Lens reproduction defects (aberrations) are right to produce some feelings or sensations. Brian`s first image produce on me sensations, even being taken recently, this kind of look transports me to a past time. Well, I´m not an expert, but I think specialized editing software provide almost endless possibilities when processing to monochrome images. I`d say any good, resolutive lens is "enough"; bokeh, contrast, vignetting, uniform resolution, field flatness, etc. are desirable characteristics for almost every lens, despite of shooting b&w or color. Instead of the lens, I`d search for the right editing software.

Andrew, my "microcontrast" lens is a Summicron M 35 ASPH (latest film version). It has a distinctive sharp look overall. The "soft" lenses I like are the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM mount (which I use with a M adapter), I find it sooo soft up to f2.8 or just soft up to f8. Plenty of focus shift, not a forgiving lens, somewhat vulgar image wise, but I like it for certain use. The other is the classic original Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 that I like so much. As mentioned, this lenses are used almost exclusively for b&w (film) shooting. If I think of color, I now take a digital camera (Nikon or Fuji) with current lenses (in the past it was mostly with chromes and Nikon lenses). Don`t ask me why, I rarely get b&w digital images. Sometimes in the iPhone... I know it`s nonsense. The only "non digital" lens I (scarcely) use for colour work (so digital), is the 85/1.4 AiS. Maybe because I don`t have an updated version.

Well, I like to shoot with a certain lens because the micro contrast, and I always use it with b&w film... I think I have never used it with color. Also, I like to use two extremely soft lenses with b&m film as well, because the low contrast and bokeh they provide. Never used them in color, too. I'm realizing that when I shoot color I use to go with digital modern lenses, and that "clinical" look. Very occasionally I take the fastest MF Nikkors with digital, to get that soft wide open "bokeh" color images; but unconsciously, I tend to assume that color is digital with sharp modern lenses and b&w is film with "character" lenses. Funny, never considered it before. But I suspect you're referring to another topic...

Photo.net has never been strong in LF. Some new shooters maybe started to join discussions here but I think they use to migrate fast to more specialized forums. Others joined photo.net after joining the mentioned LF site (as is my case). In fact, I always wondered why you were not there... :) About the renewed interest on film, I think it is just wishful thinking. At least in my surroundings, film based image is a one try kind of hobby. Very few people like it in its whole.

From what I see in the photos and description, it is a pretty simple flash with no TTL or automatic mode, so I understand it is a fully manual flash. It should work in the RZ, either -as AJG mentions- on the lens barrel via PC cord or directly on the hot shoe in the camera body (not so convenient because the hot shoe is on the side). You can also use a hot sync to PC adapter, I personally like this way. BTW, the description is quite misleading with such list of cameras included because the flash looks to lack a dedicated circuit, so it only works in manual mode and should work this way any camera with a hot shoe. Users say instructions only came in english and chinese.

Here a RZ user. Most people use the 110 just because it`s the fastest lens and with good standing. It`s also small in comparison. A 90 is also right, better if it suits your working space. Or maybe you want a 75mm better. IMHO you don't need 110 150 and 180. I`d go with 110 and 180. Or 90 and 150 in the RB. An intermediate focal length is redundant to my taste. I prefer to adapt my vision to the kit I have, usually a short, a standard and a short/medium tele. Long lenses in MF have their issues... minimum focus distances are sometimes annoying, so I think people tend to force the perspective getting closer with shorter lenses. About the motorized back; it is a nice accessory, but unless you were shooting many rolls per session I don't see the point of using them. And the 6x8 one seem to me a bit of a craving item, the 6x7 to 6x8 increase seem negligible to my taste and is another gadget to carry.

Fuji X100F (very likely with the 50mm converter)

Just to add that fastest apertures *use* to be far from optimal, so the OP should notice that it may result on some added image softness, too. --- BTW, when I read things self related to the ability of the user to hand hold, "II have a very steady hand so that's not really the problem"... (no pun intended), I use to believe that the main problem actually is camera shake, that is, a slower than the proper shutter speed. Post a sample pic; let us know your settings to tell where the problem is.

The RZ is the evolution of the RB. Electronic shutters are a great thing, better than mechanical ones for the task, but mechanical ones still keep (at least) *one* important advantage. You must weight pros and cons of each technology. At least in my surroundings, there is no service for older cameras, it doesn`t matter mechanical or electronical. If I had to send it for servicing or repair, for sure cost will be high enough to make it not worth it.

(I`m using it for years, either a LED spot placed on the subject or a laser pointer pointing at it... but mostly when shooting LF cameras). It`d be certainly useful, but for sure this assistant lights will be highly problematic in most touristic places. If not, it will be quite hard to have a clean pic of whatever, where lots of people are projecting their red spots everywhere. For sure it will be prohibited in many places. ... BTW, great to see Nikon decided to consider the D850 a "serious" camera... nice to check they have returned to the *perfect* pro camera design since the F6 (short body, full pro handy controls, no pop up flash, etc.). :)

As used to be, proper negative development should match a paper with a contrast grade #3 (smaller formats). But notice that a roll film could contain images taken at very different conditions, so each image could need a different EI and development time. Also, it`s matter of taste, some will prefer a contrastier or a flatter picture of a given image... so I don`t know how are your images taken for scanning, I think you should start with recommended times (manufacturer`s) and check if it suits your taste. In the same way you adjust contrast/curves, you need to use different traditional techniques to get similar results... paper grades are just the first step. Digital processing is great just because complex wet darkroom procedures are made so easy, that is, dodging/burning, split contrast control, masking, etc. can be easily performed to get similar results. I stopped using hybrid processing time ago, but my feeling was that my V750 asked for *softer* negatives than my enlargers. But again, I don`t know how are you developing your films. The images look fine.

Well, I wonder if anyone other than me in the world waste such load of time at the computer trying to resolve a quite stupid and simple problem. After this time, I have learned that I have a sum of issues related with my Mac computers, amongst others. First of all, Apple force X100F users to upgrade to OS 10.12 "Sierra" to read X100F`s RAF files. I`m on 10.11 "El Capitan" with no possibility of upgrading my Intel Core 2 Duo laptop. Great. Also, looks like X100F`s RAFs are mostly "welcomed" in uncompressed files (that is, more than 50Mb), so archives are too much big for say, "non-recent" computers. Compressed RAFs are not read by almost all (if not all) the software I have checked. I have kept my main image working station (an "old" top powered IMac) running Snow Leopard, and it manage image files (say, up to aprox. 24Mp) like silk... no delays, fast, reliable. Of course I blocked all software upgrades to keep this computer working like a charm. My other Macs have been upgraded to Apple recommendations, and it turned extremely slow, even with some crashes from time to time. I checked Apple have filled my HDs with "great", useless (to my taste) "features" (let it here), mostly bells and whistles, getting worst with each update. Thanks Apple, I know you need to sell new computers. This way, the Fuji`s raw converter "by Silkypix" become exasperating. Same for other apps like Affinity and others. They are a big step back in fluency compared to my Snow Leopard station. Funny, the great Nikon auto management software still work with "foreign files" on my OS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" (the mentioned iMac), while not on the 10.11.6 "El Capitan". Thanks again. "Photos", "Preview", and another auto download facilities are either lacking capabilities or "exceeding" (?) them, with no good naming capabilities, and making lots of (silly to me) hidden archives here and there that insanely eat loads of space. So at the end, I found my best (and only) way using the "Image Capture" facility on Mac, making the transfer manually. And to avoid a bigger mess, I`ll have to stop shooting raw (I`m with Ed, I`m used to work with Nikon raw files). Don, thanks God I have to agree with you... after a couple hundred images, I have noticed to my pleasure that the X100F produce very nice jpeg images. Also, the 24Mp files are big enough to edit with reasonable good results to my needs, so for the time being I`ll shoot jpegs (somewhat frightened, maybe). With whatever, it`s quite a fun to shoot with this little camera. Love it. Thank you all very much for your help.

Chazfenn, thanks for your input. I`ll have a look. The Fuji rep advised me not to look for "older" apps which were clearly outdated; even so, I downloaded almost everything from the Fuji official site, searching for something usable... bad luck, only the raw converter worked on my computer (obscenely slow, btw). -All- other apps were unusable. Again, I`m running OS X v.10.11.6 on an Core 2 computer plenty of RAM, so nothing weird here. Anyway, I`ll try to follow your suggestion.

Ooops, my excuses, I explained it bad. I wanted to mean that I`m used to Nikon workflow, so I expected (wrongly) to find something similar with Fuji (that is, using a Fuji camera with some kind of Fuji software). I never thought that I could develop Fuji raw files using Nikon software. I`m surprised Fuji doesn`t offer competent viewing and processing software. The camera surpassed my expectations, but I think they should offer (at least) some kind of transfering application, and any basic raw viewer as well. Just a rant. The way you propose is perfectly fine, but I find it way far from the convenience of using the automated system offered with Nikon cameras (I mean, transferring, viewing and editing software, for free). Don, I can`t open mine. So I checked it, and I cannot find the X100F in the apple list of supported cameras. Hope to be wrong. Spearhead, thank you. The system you linked only disable the app in a device per device basis. After several hours (OMG!), I found another way; "Image Capture" let to disable all apps, or to select another one for all downloads. Ed, looks like yours is the way to go. Instead of "Preview", I`ve found another app in my Mac, "Image Capture" that also works. The problem with it (like with Preview or Photos) is that it`s impossible to identify the images shot in raw, unless shooting along with jpg ones (by comparing the names (!).