craig_andrew_yuill

<p>David, I still have a copy of the F-801S, which I bought way back in 1996. The sound that you describe is exactly the same one I heard whenever I started "shooting" with the camera when it had no film. I believe the suggestion that it is related to the automatic advance-to-Frame-1 feature is correct. No need to worry. Get a roll of film in that camera ASAP and experiment with it. It was my most-used camera from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s for a good reason, especially because it has good ergonomics, a great viewfinder, and great exposure metering. I have a roll of Ektachrome 100 in my fridge which I really should put into my F-801S and go out and use up. Have fun with it. If you put an AF-S lens on your F-801S, however, you will need to manually focus the lens.</p>

<p>My definition of "reasonably priced" very much depends on the lens. The types I am (generally) not talking about are ones like the very-cheapest lenses in their class (such as the 18-55 or 55-300 lenses). I am also not talking about lenses that sell for well over $1000, such as the constant f/2.8 zoom lenses, f/1.4 primes, and wide-aperture super telephotos. What I think of as reasonably priced lenses are lenses like the 50mm f/1.8, which can be found for around $250; the 70-300mm AF-S G lens that goes for around $500; or the 85mm f/1.8 that also goes for around $500. I know there are legacy-lens bargains to be found out there. I currently use an older AF 50mm f/1.8 lens. Copies of it can be found for $150 new, or under $100 used. It's a nice lens when stopped down, but is also prone to softness and flare when used wide open. The latest G version of the lens is supposedly better wide open, and I could upgrade to it if I find myself using my 50mm f /1.8 wide open a lot.</p>

<p>The one area, however, where the older lenses have the newer ones beat is construction. My 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF Nikkor is built like a tank. But my AF-S 16-85mm and 70-300mm lenses are constructed well enough for my needs, and I suspect for most people who buy them. And, optically, the 300mm f/4.5 has never been a stellar lens, which is one of the reasons I seldom use it. My 70-300mm is, overall, better when zoomed to 300mm. But if people would rather pick up and use bargain-priced legacy glass, then all the power to them.</p>

<p>Getting back to the original post - Nikon makes mostly AF-S lenses nowadays. Yes, I think it is entirely conceivable that Nikon cameras could eventually be built without the aperture-follower tab.</p>

<p>Well, my take on this is that there have been enough advances in optical designs and coatings that it is probably desirable to gradually update our older lenses. I have been most impressed by three newer Nikon zoom lenses I have recently gotten that were designed with digital cameras in mind. Unlike some good older film-era lenses, these newer lenses are sharp and contrasty wide open, and seem to be less prone to color fringing (in-camera correction notwithstanding). There may indeed come a time when Nikon will stop making any cameras with aperture follower tabs. I think Nikon put those tabs into the D7000 and D7100 to convince us reluctant film SLR users to finally switch over to digital by allowing us to use our legacy glass with some more functionality than was possible with the D70, D90, etc. (I wasn't prepared to spend around $2000 on a D300 for that privilege.) I have little doubt that if I was starting afresh I would buy only new AF-S lenses. I don't think I'd have any interest in putting an old 50mm f/1.8 or wide-to-tele lens on my cutting-edge digital camera when reasonably-priced (and supposedly better) AF-S versions exist.</p>

<p>A very-good wide-to-tele lens that I used to own was the Kiron 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8 varifocal lens. It was manufactured by Kino Precision, which I understand manufactured the 28-90mm Vivitar Series I lens others have enthusiastically written about. It had a very-similar design and specs compared to the Vivitar. My current 16-85mm AF-S Nikkor reminds me very much of that lens.</p>

<p>A cheaper wide-to-tele zoom, one that I still own, is the Tamron 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Adaptall-2 lens. It was quite good at the wide end, albeit best at the long end when stopped down a bit. Nikon produced a similar AF lens with aperture ring that could be used on your FE2. It was perhaps a bit sharper, and produced pictures whose colour was a bit cleaner than what the Tamron produced.</p>

<p>Jessica, I'm going to put forth the idea that your problem is the lens. I once had a lens sent off to be repaired under warranty. It came back with the inability to focus on far-away subjects. Whomever had done the repair, that person did not properly put the lens elements back into their correct position. It is possible in your case that the lens elements were put back incorrectly after a repair or service. You seem to be able to focus properly close up, where critical focus is most necessary. Take your lens in to get looked at by a decent repair service, or perhaps see if there are any OM-mount 50mm Zuikos for sale in your area. That might be cheaper than a repair job. It would be a good idea to see if your zoom lens also has this problem. Make sure you take test shots with it at various distances, including far away.</p>

<p>Sorry to read about your problem. Good luck with getting it resolved.</p>

<p>I have a C330f, the last version of the 80mm f/2.8, a 135mm f/4.5, and a 55mm f/4.5. The last version of the 80mm, identifiable by the multicoloured lens coating and a viewing lens that is different from the taking lens, is a very good lens with very good flare control and contrast. The version before that, which has identical taking and viewing lenses and a goldish lens coating is also good, but doesn't have quite the same flare control and contrast of the latter version. My copy of the 55mm f/4.5 is quite sharp, but prone to flare in bright light if steps aren't taken to control it. I seemed to have the most success with that lens if I used a polarizing filter on it and stopped it down 2-3 stops from the maximum aperture.</p>

<p>The C330f itself is built like a tank. The film winding is a bit noisy, but it is very quiet when you take a shot. One thing you might want to look at is the light seals on the back. Mine got gooey and crumbly. I replaced them myself using strips cut from black foam sheets found in a crafts store.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p>You might also want to look at <a href="http://www.bythom.com/Tamron-60mm-review.htm">Thom Hogan's review of the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro lens</a> that he posted on Oct. 19, 2012. He likes the Tamron 60mm as a portrait lens and for macro work that doesn't require edge-to-edge sharpness. It seems to be an unconventional macro lens that has some desirable characteristics when used the right way.</p>

<p>I had hoped to have developed another roll of film by now, but that hasn't been in the cards. Still, I would like to respond to some of the above comments.<br>

<br />I am indeed using the paterson plastic reel and tank system, the one with the wide top introduced in the 1980s. I tried using stainless steel reels and tanks a couple of times and had problems with them. I have no interest in trying them again. I used an inversion-with-a-twist agitation system when developing these rolls of film. I made sure that I rapped the tank a couple of times after each agitation period, to remove air bubbles. I don't think the problem is air bubbles, but who knows? I may have a go at using the "twisty" thingy rod for agitation, although I have read some sources that warn of getting development streaks along the length of the film using this technique. But I also used this method almost exclusively for the first few years I developed my own film. I cannot recall exactly why I switched methods.<br>

<br />The idea that these could be pressure marks intrigued me. I don't think that these could be such marks because I really only grabbed the film at the ends, not along the length of the film, where these blotches can be found.<br>

<br />I'll try adjusting how I load and agitate the film the next time I develop some and report back on my results.</p>

<p>I have returned to doing B&W film processing for the first time in several years. I decided to try using Kodak XTol this time around. I developed one roll each of 120-format Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Kodak Tri-X 400. In both cases, but especially the Acros 100, some negatives had blotches on one side of the film, especially in areas where there was medium density. I am not sure if the side was at the bottom of the tank, but I believe that might be the case. In both cases I did a pre-developer water bath, and used a 1:1 XTol dilution. The stop bath, fixer, and hypo clearing agent were all fresh. I use an inversion-with-a-twist agitation technique. I processed the Acros 100 for 10 minutes starting at 21 degrees celsius (70 fahrenheit). I processed the Tri-X for 7 minutes at a constant 24 degrees celsius (80 fahrenheit). When developing, I used 30 seconds of initial agitation and 4 inversions every 30 seconds after that with the Acros 100. I did only 10 seconds of initial agitation and 3 inversions every 30 seconds after that with the Tri-X. I noticed that the Acros 100 seemed to have this problem more than the Tri-X, although that might be more apparent because more of my Acros 100 shots contained a lot of clear sky in them.<br>

<br />I have done a fair amount of searching for an answer to similar problems faced by other photographers. Some have indicated similar blotches might be due to overagitation. Others have suggested that a water bath might solve the problem. I don't think I am doing anything different from what I have done in the past. I don't recall seeing anything quite like this on self-processed film when I used D-76, ID-11, T-Max, or HC-110 developers in the past. My initial thoughts are that since I did more agitation with the Acros 100, the problem might be with overagitation. I am hoping some with seasoned eyes might be able to give me some advice before I process my next roll of film. I would like to avoid seeing these in future.<br>

<br /><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zqoGNUEJ6cw/UEOrrBYpGiI/AAAAAAAAAf4/c0XQdBRBSqU/s480/Blotches.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>You mentioned architecture as one of the things that you shoot. Architectural photography often involves using wide-angle, super-wide-angle, and tilt-shift lenses. I'd say that a full-frame camera would probably be better for those lenses than a crop-sensor camera. If you have the funds you might as well go for the D800. It should record more detail from a scene than a D700 will, and has video capabilities, in case you want to do any video work.</p>

<p>The feel of a camera in hand is a very important feature that I think is often underrated. I am using a D7000 these days - it works well for me. But I think your reason for selecting the D5100 over the D7000 is very sound. You also have a camera that is smaller and lighter and has better video capabilities than the D7000. Enjoy it, and take lots of great pictures and videos.</p>

To the OP:

My wife bought me the set up

you listed, as an Xmas gift.

Both lenses are very good

consumer-grade lenses. The 16-

85 is very very good in the 16-

50mm range, and is good at the

long end. The 70-300 VR is

superb at the short end, and

sharper than I expected at the

long end, even wide open. If

you are careful with your

technique you should be able to

get very good photos when using

this pair of lenses. I haven't

used the specific Tamron or

Sigma lenses mentioned by

others so I have nothing to say

about them. I do, however,

sometimes use MF 24 f/2.5 and

300 f/2.8 Tamron lenses and get

very good shots with them on my

D7000.

<p>I have been trying a variety of different exposure, scene, and AF modes. That's arguably the best way to figure out a camera IMO. I suppose I am mainly using either the "green" mode, "no-flash green" mode, and A. When in A I tend to use the 9-point area AF mode. I alternate between matrix and center-weighted metering (the 75/25 weighting, which I typically preferred to use on my F801S). I am often disappointed with the points chosen by the camera in 39-point auto AF area mode</p>

<p>Richard, I have been reading the manual. But I find much of the info provided lacks detail. The document I posted a link to offers a much-better explanation of the AF and AF-area modes than the supplied manual. I'm still not sure I quite get how AF tracking works, and how to get it to work when shooting. I have been using AF-C lately rather than AF-S or AF-A. I don't mind paying some money for a publication or video, as long as it's not a virtual carbon copy of the manual. I regularly visit Thom Hogan's site, but have never read any of his books. I feel a lot better about buying such publications if someone has read it (or a similar one from the same author). I'll definitely consider Thom's book and the Blue Crane video. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago my wife very generously got me a D7000 kit with 16-85mm and 70-300mm as a Christmas gift. Overall, I really like this present. My previous experience with AF and digital cameras has been the F801S/N8008s and compact digicams. The D7000 is much more complex than any of these cameras. I have been gradually figuring out the D7000's AF system and exposure-metering system. I usually get well-exposed and properly-focused photos. But sometimes I get results that I'm not expecting, such as general image overexposure, or AF sensors selected (especially in 39-point mode) that are definitely not what I would have selected myself. I found the following resource has helped me determine which AF modes and AF-Area modes to use to get more-consistent focus - <a href="http://www.pixelfinesse.com/_docs/D7000_af.pdf">www.pixelfinesse.com/_docs/D7000_af.pdf</a> . I am hoping someone might be able to recommend any other resources that are good for explaining how to get the most out of the AF and exposure metering systems of the D7000.<br>

.</p>

<p>A local camera store just got the V1 yesterday. The battery was not charged so I could not see how it operates. But I was rather suprised by how large and chunky it is, given its sensor size. And I did not like how it felt in my hands. I also played with Olympus' E-P3 and E-PL3, and Sony's NEX-5N. I liked the feel of the NEX in my hands the best. It is ironic that the V1 has the largest body and smallest sensor of the lot, whereas the NEX-5N has the smallest body and largest sensor. The V1 does, however, have the built-in EVF that the others lack.</p>

<p>At this moment I am more impressed with m43 and NEX offerings than Nikon's 1 series. But I do think Nikon 1 is a system with a lot of potential, and I'll be keeping an eye on it.</p>

<p>I agree with what Kent above just said. I have recently been using my old Nikon FM2n and F801S cameras and enjoying them. I have had a chance to handle the D3100, D5100, and D7000. The first two, size-wise, are much more to my liking than the D7000, which I think is much larger than it needs to be. All but two of my lenses are non-CPU AI-S-mount lenses, which I would like to continue using in spite of the DX-sensor crop factor. Alas, the exposure meters of the D3100 and D5100 won't work with these lenses. Only the D7000 has the amount of compatibility I consider acceptable for my needs. I just don't want to lug around a camera quite that big.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan has repeatedly stated that many serious photographers want a digital FE2. Film cameras like the F801S and Pentax LX had features like sophisticated electronics, robust construction, and weather sealing. They also had film-wind/rewind mechanisms that took up a fair amount of room, yet they were relatively small compared to many of today's DSLRs. I see no real reason why a smaller D7000- or D700-like camera could not be created, other than the marketing people have decided that "serious" cameras must be big. A D7000 or D700 camera the size of the D5100 - I'd go for one of those.</p>

<p>I bought one several years ago based on recommendations from this site. I still have it, and use it from time to time.</p>

<p>The thing is built like a tank. It is pretty good optically. I found that my copy isn't particularly sharp wide open, and suffers from light falloff at the edges and corners. Stopping down to f/5.6 improves things quite a bit. At f/8 sharpness is about as good as it will get (good), and there is no light falloff in the corners. I have a couple of books by John Shaw, and his photos taken with this lens all seem to be at f/8. It looks like f/8 is the sweet spot with this lens.</p>

<p>I used this lens a few times as a long macro lens by adding extension tubes between the camera and lens. It works quite well for that purpose.</p>

<p>Experiment with it. Have fun.</p>

<p>Choose the one that has the best handling. The camera should be comfortable in YOUR hands, and should be easy to operate once you are familiar with it. If possible, try to get your hands on both models in a store, and try to play with them before making your choice.</p>

<p>BTW, have you thought about obtaining another E-30, or perhaps an E-620? You can still find new copies of both models.</p>

<p>Well, Walter says that Plustek scanners are not discussed here. So I'll discuss them.</p>

<p>I bought the Plustek OpticFilm 7600i with bundled Silverfast Ai Studio a few months ago. I have found it to be quite a good product. I have found it to be sharp enough to resolve film grain. Various reviewers have also been quite satisfied with the scans it produces. Luminous Landscape published the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml">Plustek 7600i review</a>. The full review, a PDF file downloadable from that page, is one of the most-complete comparison reviews of a film scanner I have read. The gist of the review is that it is slightly less good for 35mm scans than the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and better than the Epson V750. It cost me around $440 from B&H, with an instant rebate. Specials on that scanner show up every once in a while. This scanner, however, is 35mm only. I have pics downsized from 3600 dpi and 1200 dpi scans at <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/108906927203126877058">my Picasa Photo album</a>. This might give you an idea if you find this scanner to be worth looking at.</p>

<p>If you want a film scanner that will handle medium format film as well, there is now the Pacific Image medium format film scanner being sold at B&H for under $2000. Plustek is supposedly working on one as well. Another route you can go with is buy the Plustek 7600i and Epson V700 or V750. That combination will set you back far less than a Coolscan and will allow you to scan up to large format film.</p>

<p>There is no way I would spend the kind of money that discontinued Nikon Coolscans are going for. Sometimes a seller asks a reasonable price, but usually they go for far too much money. A Coolscan 5000, which cost $1500 in stores a few years ago was selling for $3000 on Amazon a few months ago. I did see a Coolscan 8000 go for around $1600 recently, which wouldn't have been too bad as long as the scanner was in good condition.</p>

<p>My dentist has a Nikon D700 and a micro 4/3s camera. He figured he would take the latter with him on a family vacation to Disney World because he just couldn't see himself lugging around the D700 on that trip. I have been recently using my old film SLRs, and have considered getting a DSLR. I handled a Nikon D7000 and an Olympus E-PL2 this afternoon. My, how SLRs have grown since the film days. I'm now thinking I'd prefer using the smaller micro 4/3s cameras.</p>

<p>But if I already had DSLRs, unless space or money was an issue, I think I'd add micro 4/3s gear to the collection to complement rather than replace it. I'm sure there will be times when each type of camera is more appropriate than the other. Use the best tool for each job.</p>

<p>If you want to read a review comparing the Plustek OpticFilm 7600i and Nikon Coolscan 5000 you mentioned, you can go to the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml">Plustek OpticFilm 7600i-Ai review</a> at Luminous Landscape and download the full review (which is in PDF format). The reviewer thoroughly compares the Plustek 7600i, Nikon Coolscan 5000, and Epson V750.</p>

<p>I bought a Plustek 7600i with the Silverfast Ai Studio software and Fujichrome E-6 IT-8 target for calibration. I bought it from B&H for around $430 (after an instant rebate). (Nikon Coolscan 5000s were being sold on Amazon at that time for $3000 or more.) I have been pleased so far with the results I have gotten.</p>

<p>Another site that has a lot of scanner reviews is <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html">filmscan.info/ScanDig website</a>. It is quite good, but I find them to be a bit too critical of Plustek scanners. Also, the Reflecta scanners they review are sold under the Pacific Image brand in North America.</p>

<p>Roman:</p>

<p>I ordered a few "Kodachrome" commemorative T-shirts from Dwayne's a few months ago. The shipping to Canada cost more than the T-shirts. Still, it might be worth looking into using a lab like that if processing plus shipping costs are less than what local labs can do. And I agree about UPS. I loathe them. I had an incredible amount of difficulty getting them to back off on a customs charge that shouldn't have been applied to an order.</p>

<p>Shun is right about the D7000. It does support AI-S lenses. I think it is the least expensive (new) Nikon DSLR to ever do this. That, along with the reportedly-excellent IQ, makes it the new Nikon DSLR of choice for me, although certain features of the D300S put that camera in a close 2nd place. Still, I'm keeping my eye on what's available used and biding my time. A Fuji S5Pro was listed for $700 yesterday.</p>

<p>I'm not as optimistic as the other responders about the condition of your colour negative film. I recently finished a roll of colour negative film that was purchased 6 or 7 years ago. I think it was either Konica or Fuji film. The resulting prints of photos taken at that time were okay, although the colour looked a bit weird. The new photos I took near the end of the film, however, seemed to be grossly underexposed, and had streaking. It seemed that the film had lost sensitivity over time. I would suggest trying a roll and seeing if the results are to your taste. If so, go ahead and use it. But for critical work you might want to consider fresh film.</p>

<p>As for where to start, you could look at the sites mentioned earlier. You might also look for scanning video tutorials via a site like YouTube. Search using an entry like "how to scan negatives" or "scanning negatives" to find sites and tutorials you might find useful. I have generally taken tips from such sources and done some of my own experimentation to do scanning in a fairly-consistent manner. You have to learn the features and limits of your scanner and software to be able to scan really well.</p>

<p>New film scanners are becoming harder and harder to find. But Plustek makes the OpticFilm 7600i that can be purchased from time to time from B&H for less than $450 with the Silverfast Ai Studio software. That scanner seems to be a scanner of choice for Leica owners who shoot B&W. I have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten when scanning 35mm colour slides and negatives.</p>

<p>Opinions are divided if the Epson V700/750 scanners are suitable for scanning 35mm film. But if you shoot medium- or large-format film, then they should do a pretty good job. There is a new film scanner from Pacific Image (aka Reflecta) that can scan film up to 6x9 size. It costs under $2000 at B&H. I have seen no reviews for this scanner, so I have no idea whether or not it is any good. By comparison, a current 35mm film scanner and a V700 would set you back around $1100 or $1200.</p>

<p>As for scanning and printing, I would only do that for special negatives. Scanning at a high enough resolution for printing takes time. And you will need to do some exposure/tonal corrections as well as retouching in software before getting to the printing stage. For every-day bulk printing it would be better to let a lab handle that.</p>

<p>Roman:</p>

<p>Yes, indeed, I am living in Canada. British Columbia to be precise.</p>

<p>Although prices of most photo gear and supplies here are competitive with U.S. prices, slide film is one of those things that is not. I had forgotten about buying in bulk, and I have never ordered film from an online retailer. I shall look into that.</p>

<p>As for Provia 400X, I have a roll in my F801S right now, and I used it to take some bird shots yesterday. I was pleasantly surprised by the results of Fuji Sensia 200 and Kodak Elitechrome 200 for this purpose. The 200-speed films seem to be no grainier than 100-speed films of several years ago. I have heard that Provia 400X is similar. I will look forward to viewing the results.</p>

<p>Still, I expended a lot of the roll on photographing something I had never seen before. Ducks and some type of fish that were about the same size as the ducks feeding in the same shallow water. The water had kind of a sludgy green colour to it, and there was a lot of debris floating on top of that. I think, especially with all of the motion going on, that my camcorder would have been a better tool for recording the scene. I kind of hate situations like that where I feel a need to record something and wind up expending a lot of frames on it even though my gut tells me the photos likely will not be aesthetically pleasing. A situation like this is where digital becomes more economical, and one reason why I'd like to get a DSLR. Still, I have been having fun using the film SLRs again, and I would like to continue using them. Thanks for your tip on the film.</p>