neal_shields

<p>Why do I "bad mouth Nikon service"?<br>

First because I am an OLD man. My customer service expectations were formed in a different time. Not stocking a part that was used in a lens built (my lens was much older) as late as 2006 seems to me to reflect an attitude about customer service that those making major purchasing decisions should know about.<br>

Second, Nikon continues to tout durability and reliability in their advertising, not features and disposability which seems to be current expectations from the majority of the market.<br>

Third, I can't get loose. I will have to deal with Nikon's lack of customer service for the rest of my life. We just have too much Nikon product to convert. I will of course NEVER buy a Nikon product that isn't part of an exsisting system. I have Fuji point and shoots (2) and Leica binoculars etc. But, we now have a D-700 and lenses, if we have to move away from the Nikonos system we will probably house the D-700 a $4000+ investment which will lock us even more into the "Nikon system"<br>

Speaking of the "Nikon System" when I purchased the D-700 the almost new top of the line flash that I have brought her for her F4 was incompatiable.<br>

My wife's lens is an optical miracle, a lot of blood sweat tears and resources went into making it and it has been used very little to consign it to the dust bin because a foil label balled up, seems to me an environmental sin.<br>

This in and of itself would not be enough to get my dander up (if I still have dander at my age), but it is just another in a long chain of disapointments. My wife's F4 shutter blowing up at 12.5 months and my being told it was because she loaded the film wrong when 3 minutes worth of googleing showed the rest of the world didn't know how to load film in that camera either.<br>

The biggest disapointment that this comes right on the heals of, is that I own TWO Nikonos RS cameras which Nikon says require an annual service to replace the "O" rings. The RS with the 13mm lens is probably the finest underwater still camera made. They not only will not service my camera any longer but won't even sell the "O" rings to independent repairmen!! To much trouble for them. Those camera bodies only were $3500 each and the 13mm lens about that again. We vacation once a year and have had the system about 10 years. Say 12 weeks use for roughly $20,000.<br>

When the shutter on one of the RS cameras failed in the Solomon Islands recently we lost ALL our underwater photos for that vacation. Nikon service said they wouldn't fix it. The independent service site said he couldn't fix it without new o rings to put it back together with. It turns out that the shutter had a small piece of dirt stuck in the blades and is working fine now. But if it fails it is a boat anchor and it is more likely to fail because I can't get the annual service that is designed to prevent if from leaking.<br>

If you don't understand why I am not a big nikon booster, you must be a LOT wealthier than I am or a whole lot younger or both.<br>

I realize there are people out there who have never had a problem and I genuinely hope you and they never have, but I would think the smart money would bet that way based on my experiences.</p>

<p>Neal</p>

<p>Fixed it.<br>

The problem was that the glue holding the depth of field scale came loose. The depth of field scale is a thin metal foil. When one end came lose as the lens focused it rolled that end up into a tight coil like a rolled up dollar bill. Once it got big enough it locked between the moving barrel and the stationary one.<br>

To get it out, I came in from the front of the lens. Do NOT as I did take out the screw near the auto/manual focus locking button. Trust me on this everything falls down into the lens and it adds 20 minutes to the repair.<br>

To start from the front, loosen the locking screw off the stationary nose cone. Leave the screw on the very end of the extendable part of the lens alone. Unscrew the nose cone with will reveal a ring nut which also has a locking screw and two holes for a spanner wrench. Remove the ring nut.<br>

Remove the rubber focusing collar.<br>

Remove the ring nut under that.<br>

Carefully remove the Manual/Auto ring. The release button mechanism will come with it.<br>

Carefully pull the remaining focusing ring foward and you will have a slot that you can pull the depth of field scale out through. If it isn't ruined it will be.<br>

To salvage the depth of field scale (mine was obviously not salvageable) you would have to do much more extensive disassembly. You would have to start removing things from the camera end as the remaining barrel comes off from that end. (it could be5 minutes work or 5 hours) <br>

At that point the Ebay advice would probably be better.<br>

You can not do even this simple operation without an extensive set of good screwdrivers and a spanner wrinch.<br>

I hope no one else experiences this as Nikon won't fix it. (I authorized $200 for repair). I am supprised they didn't even bother to ask if I wanted it fixed without the DOF scale. I guess they can't be bothered.<br>

The paper work that came back with it said: "Parts no longer available. We have recieved your product and approval to repair it. Unfortunately, our technicians have determined that the parts needed to service your product are no longer available due to the age of your product. We are returning it to you un repaired, and you will not be billed for the service. Sincerely, Nikon Service". Mighty nice of them not to bill me for the "service".<br>

Although my lens is the non "D" version which is an electronics upgrade mechanically it seems to be identical to the "D" version which they made through 2006!!! <br>

It is really lucky that I didn't buy the lens in 2006, I would really be bent out of shape.<br>

By the way, this was not a grey market lens. My wife purchased it. The next one certainly will be. I can't see the point in paying the extra money if I have to fix it myself anyway.<br>

For those who might be wondering why I sent it to Nikon in the first place when old camera repair is a hobby. The answer is that these tasks are many times easier when you have a manual and exploded diagram. It keeps you from doing work you don't need to do and if you need a part is is right there.<br>

Neal</p>

<p>I got my wife's 105 2.8 Micro back from Nikon. It doesn't appear that they even bothered to open it up. This suggests that the irreplaceable part is the depth of field label which has come lose and gets caught in the focus works and binds. (The extremely expensive and space consuming part that they couldn't be bothered to stock. I suspect you could store thousands in a jellybelly tin.)<br>

Anyway, I have a new "honey do" on my plate. She doesn't want the new lens, because reviews say it is hard to macro focus. She wants ME to fix this one. (Note: I collect cameras and she has seen me make working cameras out of shoe boxes full of parts purchased from closed camera repair shops, so I can't plead lack of ability (like Nikon successfully did.))<br>

Typically, I find that when I tear into something I haven't worked on before, I end up doing twice as much work as necessary.<br>

If anyone knows a link showing disassembly procedures for this lens or where I might find an exploded view, it would be greatly appreciated. (Does anyone know off the top of their head if there are screws under the rubber grip band??}<br>

I would really like to salvage the label, so the idea of prying out the plastic window and pulling the label out with pliers is not my first choice, (although it is probably the safest).</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Neal</p>

<p>After hearing about Nikon destroying the F2 parts it almost sounds like they are deliberately trying to force people into new models. You could say that you didn't have enough space to store them but why not sell them? <br>

This seems like a business model that is more and more dividing businesses into two groups: those who concentrate on building long lasting relationships and those who concentrate on the profitablitabillity of individule transactions. I think Nikon has transitioned to the latter.<br>

In my case it may work. We may replace my wife's lens with the new model with image stabilization, although the micro function is said to be difficult to focus.<br>

The new lens is $110 cheaper as a grey market model, ($779 vs $889) but I will lose the ability to send it back to Nikon USA for service. How long do you think I am going to wrestle with that delemma?<br>

I figure if I buy grey market, that by the time I Nikon refused to fix something that is broken, I will have saved enough money to cover the difference between what it would have cost to service and what it will cost to replace it.<br>

Still I don't like consigning a $700 lens to paperweight duty when a $20 part and $100 of labor would have fixed it.<br>

Why would I ever buy another Nikon product? For those of you younger than I, this should be a lesson. Camera systems are like the old "Roach Motel" comercial. Once you check in, you can never check out. To sell all my Nikon equipment and convert would break most third world countries.<br>

To those of you that have never had a Nikon shutter failure, you must have better Joss than I do. Of 5 battery dependent Nikons that we have purchased new (8008, F4, Nikonos V, Nikonos RS, and a D-700) two have had catistrophic shutter failures. That is a 40% failure rate. If you take the 6 months old D-700 out of the calculation that is a 50% failure rate and that does not include 3 lens failures. The first two lens failures occured shortly after the warranty period and we were able to pay to get them fixed.<br>

The only explaination I have is that we both work full time, vacation once a year, and have extensive other camera systems, (large and medium format) plus two Fuji E-900 knock around cameras. I suspect that maybe the fact that our cameras sit months at a time with no use may be part of the problem. Maybe the grease hardens and causes the failure.<br>

However, I just saw an ad for the new D-7000 and one of the main things that they tout is a shutter that is: "tested for 150,000 cycles in severe conditions to prove precision and durability".<br>

You couldn't prove it by me,but it helps justify my attitude that when I buy one I should expect it to work for many years in amateur use.</p>

<p>My bad. I said vertical when I meant horizional. As near as I can tell, Nikon went to the fragile shutters so they would have bragging rights for the fastest focal plane shutter. In all my years I have never needed an 1/8000 of a second shutter but I have needed a shutter that works everytime. We took 30 rolls of underwater film on our last vacation with something stuck in the blades. None came out. After I realized the blades were stuck and Nikon said they didn't service them anymore I gave it a gentle tap while the shutter was triggered and It works fine now.<br>

For me, it will be F2s and the M6 for 35mm as long as they make film and Sinar 8x10 as long as I can coat my own. I will never go to cameras that sacrafice reliability and durability for convenience.</p>

<p>Honestly, I expect to be able to repair the lens myself when I get it back. I am just getting lazy and old. (I have rebuilt a Zeiss Contarex Distigon so I bet I can fix this one.) Besides that with the amount of money I have spent (I won't say invested) on Nikon equipment why should I have to search for some indendent repair company to fix what is a minor problem. The screw holding the depth of field label came lose and got into the works.<br>

Having been in the manufacturing business for a LONG time, I am familuar with the concept of a final lifetime buy before you take the tools out of service. Being out of parts for a 10 year old lens ( and a 10 year old camera) tells me that they just don't care a lot about customer service or that they are using a LOT more parts than would be expected if their cameras are as reliable as they say.<br>

In the case of my TWO Nikonos RS cameras, none of the independent facilities have any of the "O" rings that must be replaced periodically as an "annual" service and because these are not available, they don't dare take a camera apart to try to repair something because once disturbed they may not seat again. Body only, these cameras retailed for $3500 about 10 years ago!!!<br>

I started out with an F, then an FTn, and have now transitioned to an F2 ( my wife is the one that uses battery dependent auto focus cameras.) I consider the F2 to be one of the finest 35mm reflex cameras ever built. (I LOVE my M6 but it has a real shutter.) You can't break an F2, so replacement parts aren't an issue. I have about 5 F2s and one was in military service for about 30 years. Just like the energizer buney it just keeps going and going. <br>

It just seems to me that with every new Nikon model, reliability goes down dramatically and service goes down even faster. <br>

I couldn't help but note that when you call them one digital camera is so un-realiable that it has it's own "press 3 for service".<br>

To me the irony is that Nikon warns people not to buy grey market cameras because they won't service them and 4 out of 5 times I have tried to get service from Nikon, I get this kind of response. <br>

They did fix my wife's F4 after she ran about 30 rolls of fill through it but it was 30 days over a year old when the shutter blew up and we had to pay several hundred dollars to fix it. We were told we didn't know how to load film!!! My first 35mm camera was a "brick" (Argus C3) and I was able to load it without the shutter blowing up.<br>

I guess my big problem is I feel betrayed. After growing up on Fs with verticle cloth shutters that REALLY did go 250,000 cycles, the new attitude and the fragile as glass horizional running shutters just disapoint me greatly. I feel like I have lost an old and valuable friend.</p>

<p>Neal</p>

<p> "Parts no longer available"<br>

How long do most of you expect to keep a camera system? <br>

For the second time this year Nikon has told me they no longer stock parts to service (underwater) or repair my equipment. <br>

This time is was a much loved 105 micro that had something come loose inside the lens. We are not professionals so our equipment can get quite old with very little use. This lens was probably about 15 years old. Although it was purchased for use with an F4, we are currently using it with a D-700. I thought that was what the "Nikon System" was supposed to be all about. I.E. A system that could grow with you, not one that became obsolete periodically.<br>

I suspect this is a generational thing. I was sitting drinking coffee the other day at my club (doesn't that sound pretentious?) and a young man at the next table asked me if my lap top was one of those "old Thinkpads". It was still under the factory warranty but to him it might as well have been a Model A.<br>

All in all, if I pay several hundred dollars for a piece of photo equipment, I expect to be using it for the rest of my life. (The now obsolete underwater camera system was in the $9000 range 10 years ago and this lens was in the $500 range from about the same time.)<br>

It strikes me as odd that the generation that talks so much about environmentalism, doesn't have any trouble with use it for a couple of years and toss it technology.<br>

Neal</p>

<p>I did in fact send it in to Nikon Torrance regularly for service. One of my problems is they will no longer service that camera that was released in 92 and discontinued about 10 years later although the continued to sell NOS after they stopped manufacturing. They also will not supply the parts so no one else can do the periodic service either. Yes this is a 10 year old camera but I like many divers go once a year and shoot about 20 rolls of film per trip. From the standpoint of what their marketing would lead you to believe, this is basically a brand new camera. <br>

Beyond that the F4 shutter that blew up was not to the 15th roll of film.<br>

I suppose that if Nikon marketed their product differently, I might feel a little different about my experiences but at least for most of my life their marketing has been focused on reliability and the ability to continue to build a camera "system". Not only do I have a camera body that they no longer support but I have very expencive lenses that they no longer make a body of any kind to fit! </p>

<p>Yes, we could buy a housing and go digital with all the operational inconvience that entails compaired the RS but should I really have to? Did their marketing 10 years ago lead anyone to believe that if they spent over $10,000 on one of their camera systems that the WHOLE system would be obsolete in 10 years?<br>

Maybe I just expect too much for my money.<br>

Neal</p>

<p>I totally agree and will of course do that next time. We already had a battery of tests that we always run everytime before going underwater including a TTL test to be sure that circuit is working. Normally I would have run the extra roll of film threw before leaving but life through a bunch of issues at us right before we left.<br>

It does puzzle me however that on of Nikon's major claims to fame and something that they feature in a lot of their advertising is the reliability of their shutters. I still own my orgional Nikon F with the horizional running cloth shutter and I own my own shutter speed tester. I would bet my bottom dollar that I could take that camera out right now with never a roll of film through it in the last 10 years and the shutter speeds would be accurate plus or minus 1/4 F stop.<br>

It just seems to me that Nikon sacraficed reliability to get braging rights on fastest focal plane shutter when they went to the horizional runing bladed shutter from the vertical curtain shutter. <br>

How often do any of us need 1/8000 of a second shutter speed unless we are photographing a nuclear bomb test?</p>

<p>In my defence, the first time I had a brand new Nikon shutter fail it blew up completely so the failure was obvious. In this case everything worked and sounded fine, no error messages etc. It just wasn't exposing the film.</p>

<p>P.S. Is everyone else good with spending that much money on a camera and being told 10 years later that it is no longer supported with service or parts?</p>

<p>Now for the second time in my life I have had problems with shutters on a Nikon SLR with less than 200 rolls of shot film. Last time the shutter on an F4 blew up after about 20 roles of film and this time the shutter on an RS (underwater SLR) stuck. It sounded fine, the mirror was going up and down etc. It just wasn't opening. <br>

We lost ALL of our vacation underwater pictures. (Although the RS is old we only use it about once a year for about 20 dives a year, so total use is minimal).<br>

After getting 20 blank rolls of film back, I worked the camera and gave it a gentle tap with the shutter depressed (on the B mode). The shutter fired and has worked fine ever sinse.<br>

I have been told by a independent camera repairman (Nikon no longer repairs this $5000, 15 year old camera) that there was probably a hair or fleck of film in the shutter track and it is no more likely to fail in the future than any other camera.<br>

Anybody else had this problem with Nikon shutters, digital, film or otherwise and if so did it re-occure?<br>

I just spent a fortune on a D700 for my wife and as near as I can tell it has exactly the same shutter. Really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, but once you start with a brand and invest a small fortune in lenses, I can't see any way to jump ship. <br>

Note: before you say it. I have been loading film in cameras sinse a Leica 3f was current production and no, we didn't touch the blades.</p>

<p>Neal</p>

Do you just want a print of a negative that has already been developed or do you have an undeveloped negative that needs developing?

 

If it is the first, it should be easy to find a photo studio that can make you a print, or scan it.

 

If it is an aerial it isn't likely to have more information on it than a flat bed scanner can resolve.

If it is like other MF cameras with removable film backs, the dark slide has to be inserted before the back will come off.

Near and far.

 

Many of the landscape photos that you see are taken with a view camera. A view camera allows you to focus on 3 points at the same time. This is done by shifting the relationship of the film or sensor to the plane of the image. Usually using "tilt".

 

That means that us usually focus on the foreground and the tilt the lens to focus on the background.

 

You will just frustrate yourself trying to replicate this effect with a normal camera.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/movements.shtml

Yes, and I don't think they are unique to the Medalist. Unfortunatly,I have my old cameras stored and can't get at them right now to be sure. I suspect that any single sided metal holder will fit.

 

Mine are not for sale.

 

Hope you find some.

So would I. I have done some lens testing and it was a great deal of trouble and I still didn't get definitive results. I used very fine grain film capiable of resolving over 80 lp/mm and the lenses were still probably better than the film.

 

The FBI study rates 200 ASA 35mm film at about 16 meg so you can see what sort of chance you have with a 10 meg camera. Zeiss who makes lenses for digital cameras still uses film to test lenses and is getting up to 400 lp/mm resolution to film with some of their lenses.

 

Minimum you will need a good gray scale with about 20 steps and an "air force" test target.

 

Get 40 focal lengths away and put the camera on a tripod, light the targets at 45 degree angles and release the shutter with a cable release or the self timer. If you don't have mirror lock up on that camera, ( and I don't think you do) all bets are off as mirror shake will be way more than enough to mask any differences.

 

I have also used a 40 power loup to look at the aerial image directly and have seen things like comma by focusing on lights, stars etc at greater than infinity but these were very old lenses and modern lenses should be corrected to the point that those aberations would not be detectable in that manor.

 

You can build an artificle star by punching a very small hole in a piece of tin foil and puting a light behind it. Then you only need to be far enough away to get to infinity focus. I just used a bare light bulb on a grain silo that is about 4 miles from my house.

 

Good luck and tell us what kind of results you get.

If you took it out of the camera in total darkness and put it in a light tight can, you should be able to take it to any custom lab and they can process it.

 

Drug stores need it in the cassete so they can pull the leader out and feed it into their machine.

 

I suspect it was the film company and not the camera's fault. It sounds like the film was not attached to the reel properly and just came off at the end of the roll. That happens sometimes but shouldn't.

I purchased a Contarex off the auction site that had this same problem. The owner was crossing the an eastern european border back in the late 60's and the border guard tried to unscrew the lens from the body with out pushing the release button.

 

On that lens there were four threads. The one known is that when everything stops the outside ring has to be up.

 

I tried trial and error but if it was almost there, I would mark it and very carfully take it apart and put it back together 90 degrees from where I started. You can work it in that way.

 

I saved a bundle on the camera but would never do that again. It was a real pain.

Ebay item # 110119815210

 

is a completed listing which is from a reputable seller and is under $300. I would suspect it would meet your needs nicely.

 

However on your budjet you are going to have to know what you are looking atto buy on Ebay.

 

You probably need a "top rangefinder" with a graflox back (universal back) and about a 135mm lens. Many older ones won't have x sinc on the shutter but if you get a top rangefinder Crown with the origional lens you should be good to go.

 

In many cases someone will have left batteries in the rangefinder and they will have ruined the mirrors but you can still ground glass focus. If it hasn't been used in a long time the slow shutter speeds will be very very slow.

 

I suggest you study up on Graflex.org and learn everything there is to know about Crown Graphics and then go shopping.

 

You might check with Midwest Photo Exchange but I already looked and they don't seem to have anything on their site in your price range.

 

With true large format landscape work ala Arizona Highways, (tack sharp forgrounds and tack sharp peaks in the distance) you need a lot of tilt and a lens with a lot of coverage. (go to

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info

 

if you don't understand that statement.

 

If you want to do that kind of photography, you can't even get close for $500. A good wide angle 90mm with an image circle that would cover 5x7 would cost almost that much. I think most people would have considered this one a bargin:

 

Ebay item #140113722300

 

 

 

The Graflex is a "press camera" and doesn't have a lot of movements and the factory supplied lenses usually don't have much coverage.

Yes but I would have shot Kodachrome and would today.

 

Kodachrome has a look that closely aproaches dye transfer. There is nothing else like it.

 

I can never get it stright but some films add the dye in the development process and some films have the dye in the film and bleach out the unwanted dye in development.

 

Kodachrome is one way and everything else is the other.

 

Because of that it is more expensive and harder to develop.

 

It is going away fast so shoot some while you can and you will be able to tell your grandchildren about color photography that would knock their socks off.

Note: use it while you can and research it so you understand the difference. It is a completely different process than other slide film which is why it gives colors that inspire songs.

I am not aware of any other film mentioned in a 60's song except Kodachrome.

 

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Kodachrome-lyrics-Paul-Simon/929E50784B2FAFBB4825698A000B5995

go bu a contact cleaner pin and use it often.

 

B&H has 3 different ones from $13 to $17

 

Go first class.

Lots, unfortunately many of my cameras are packed up right now so I can't get to them to check. It strikes me that the Retina Reflex is a good example as were most of the Zeiss 35 mm reflex cameras (Contaflex). I assume that the mirror blocks the light, the shutter closes, the mirror flips up and the shutter fires. I can't remember if these cameras have an auto return mirror or the mirror stays down till the film is wound.

 

The main advantage of this design is the flash sinc at all speeds. The disadvantage seems to be reliability. Most of my examples don't work or the slow speeds are way off where as much older cameras with focal plane shutters work fine.

http://www.gulfstream.com/g550/

Unless you are contact printing, what is the advantage of large format without movements? At 300 dpi comercial prints, you can capture way more detail with your RB67 then the printer can use with anything under an enlargement measured in feet.

 

I shoot 8x10 and make B&W contact prints and have almost given up on 4x5 color because of the difficulty of getting a print that justifies the medium.

 

The FBI study puts 35mm at about 16 meg so do the math.

 

For the type of work you are doing the biggest advantage of large format would be the tack sharp foregrounds that you could get from using a lot of tilt.