james_brand

<p>I took apart an Accutemat screen once. It was not a good idea. The glass screen must be only 1/32 of an inch thick. How I managed to get it all back together without breaking it is beyond me. I would not be eager to try it again!</p>

<p>I have bought many Hassablad and Nikon items from KEH and things have always been fine. Mail ordering $1,000 used lenses can be nerve-wracking, but their ratings are conservative and I was always happy with the condition. I never contacted them by e-mail, but I have had some phone conversations where the sales reps have steered me towards an item that better matched my needs (saved me some money by convincing me to buy a bargin qr plate and then the next time advised me against buying a bargin SWC due to scrathces on the glass).</p>

<p>I have noticed that their shipping costs are getting high for small items. Should a $6 lens cap cost more than $6 to ship it?</p>

<p>Ben,<br>

My SWC was way less than $3k.</p>

<p>Argh - Jonh beat me by 1 minute!</p>

<p>Lots of good answeres but I didn't see my favorite - a Nikon F with an plain un-metered prism. Might as well go for the whole manual film experience. I am also partial to the FM/FE2/FM2n/FM3a answer. But then again, if you are used to digital and want that experience but with film, then you cannot go wrong with a F100 or N80 - depending on your budget.</p>

<p>I see this is answered but I would just like to add something - I was once cleaning a screen and got some of the cleaning fluid in between the layers of the focusing screen. Apparently, a screen is made of a very thin sheet of glass (I would almost thing it was 1/32 of an inch) on top of the 'cut' plastic Fresnel lens underneath all in a metal frame.<br>

Taking it all apart was nerve-wracking to say the least considering I had just paid over $150 for it.<br>

I was able to get it all apart, cleaned and back together without a problem but I would never spray cleaning fluid directly on a screen again. I would spray it on a microfiber cloth and gently wipe after using a blower.<br>

Hope this helps someone.</p>

<p>Sorry for the double post</p>

Interesting. I have a hard time focusing with my D screen. I thought it was me. I prefer the split microprism screen that I have now. My eyes work better with the microprism.

 

Are the older screens interchangable with the new ones? They are so cheap, I may want to try a non Accute Matte screen for kicks.

I am in NY and think that a SWC is for me, if you get tired of it...

Nice! Another one of life's mysteries is solved.

Shana,

 

I have been reading your questions over the past several days and I am glad that you are being thorough in your research before making a decision.

 

Once concern I have with the advice given is the recommendation to get a bargain FM2n vs. an excellent FM10. KEH tends to be conservative in their ratings, but I am not sure how beat-up a bargain body will be. I have an FM from 1977 that is still running flawlessly, but when it does finally break, I am not sure if I will be able to find parts. The FM2n is newer, so perhaps repairing them is not a problem. I also owned an FM10 and I have to say that it is a nice camera for the price. Some criticize its plastic construction, but I never had any trouble with it. I finally sold it to a student who was just starting out and she is still using it today. The FM2n is definitely a nicer and sturdier camera, but when comparing a used 'excellent' camera with a used bargain camera, I might lean towards the 'excellent' one. You could always try the bargain FM2n and return it if it is trashed for the FM10.

 

As for the lens, I am a firm believer in using prime lenses when starting out. Primes are sharper than zooms and I think a fixed length lens makes one think more on composition. (the later is opinion, of course and not fact!) Traditionally, the lens to start out with was the ubiquitous 50mm f1.4 or f1.8. This is a very versatile lens, but I feel from experience that it is a bit long if it is the only lens in your line-up. I agree with Steve that a 35mm better captures the way I see the world. I traveled to Japan last year with two cameras - an Olympus Stylus Epic (fixed 35mm f2.8 lens) and a Hasselblad 60mm CF (which is the exact equivalent of a 35mm in medium format). I didn't miss the zoom at all and got some great shots. I did, however, miss my Nikon 20mm, but that is a different story. The point of all this is that you can go far with a 35mm prime. If you can afford the 35mm f1.4, go for it, if not, the 35mm f2 is only one stop slower and is much cheaper and lighter. Also, the AF primes have a decent throw and as you know from your previous questions, they work on manual cameras.

 

Lastly, I realy suggest starting with one wide angle lens. Get very familiar with the one lens and worry about other lens lengths when you have a specific need for them and when the funds are available. I went for years with a 50mm before wanting to go wider and getting a 20mm. Then I went several more years before I felt the need to get a longer lens. Perhaps you should just jump in, get a body and one lens and then wait a while to see what your preferences will be. Maybe after using the 35mm for a while you will realize that you want wider, say the 24mm you mentioned. But you never know- you might get into portraits and decide that the 35mm is wide enough and want a longer lens.

 

I hope this helps.

Am I doing something wrong? I have never been able to get a digital print out of an inkjet that comes close to the quality of a traditional darkroom print (and 8x10 and above). People seem to swear by cheap injets, and I don't get it. I rented darkroom space for a while to make large prints of my favorite color negatives and the quality is far superior to inkjet prints. True, I have a 4 color Epson C82 as opposed to a 6 color injet, but I have seen my friend's 6 color digital prints and was not impressed either. Inkjet prints tend to be less sharp have weaker colors and I can see the individual ink dots. Also, the inks fade a bit over a short period of time when displayed.

 

Color printing is not that hard to learn and I feel that it offers higher quality and more stable prints. I doubt that any scanner/ inkjet system can match a 4x5 negative with a traditional enlarger.

 

I am impressed, however, by 'lightjet' digital prints on photopaper - no grain if the source is a digital camera and no dots from the ink.

 

Can anyone provide further information that may make me rethink my position?

An odd question, but here is my response: I have a great lens that has a lot of vingetting and very soft at the edges- the Vivitar 17mm-35mm f4. I am not sure what series, but it is all metal with a AIS mount. I bought it new in 1999, so I imagine that it is still available. At 17mm, there is serious vignetting (any filter increases the vignetting).

I recently purchased an original F with a working FTn prism for about $150 and love it. It uses all Nikon lenses and is built like a tank (and looks like it has been through a war!) Manual is the way to go!

I put my N70 away and use my FM and F more often than not.

 

I was also thinking of getting a 24mm f2.0 and a 35mm f1.4- two lenses that do not have AF versions available. (Why there is no 24mm f2.0 AF-D is a mystery - no market for that lens?)

What size venue will the band be in? A small bar will have different requirements than Madison Square Garden.

 

I have two favorite lenses for concert work in small to medium venues- a 50mm f1.4 and a 80mm f2.0. The large apatures are very important. Zooms are tough because of their high minimum f-stops. The 80mm is a MF lens and the 50mm is an AF-D lens. The N6006 can meter with both types of lenses but you might be better off with all AF-D lenses. I was thinking of adding an old 35mm f1.4 for wide angle shots as the 28mm f1.4 is really expensive. There was also a 24mm f2 that should make a fine concert lens.

 

Some more tips for band photography- use the spot meter for better exposure acuracy (though the spot meter may not work with a MF lens on a N6006). I will also sometimes use an off-camera TTL flash (SB-28) with a -2 exposure compensation to fill in the really dark areas, but otherwise, I prefer to use the available light and a wide apature. Another good thing about the SB-28 is that it can work with really wide angle lenses (like 20mm -24mm), which is good for real small dives. I use Fuji NPZ or NHGII 800 speed film and love it. I don't have to push it with fast prime lenses so I can't say how it handle being pushed to 1600.

 

Basically, I recommend any fast prime lenses. Get lens shades if you plan to go into a mosh pit to get better shots of the bands. I have been knocked around quite a bit there. The rubber lens hood Nikon makes for the 50mm has help to protect my camera as well as the kids who have run into me!

 

If you have the good fortune to work in a really large venue, perhaps someone could offer their opinion on longer large apature lenses. I have often wondered what a 80mm - 200mm f2.8 would handle a professional rock concert...

I just bought a Hasselblad a year ago and I love it. If you have the means, I highly recommend getting one.

I bought my used 503cw with a CW winder. I find it to be very reliable. As for your other question, the winder is 'smart' enough to not fire when the dark slide is in place. When you push the shutter relase, the winder stops as soon as it senses that the shutter did not fire.

 

It is very clever- when you first attach the winder to the body, you can hear the winder make a small adjustment. Hassy says that the winder makes this adjustment to minimize wear between connecting parts of the winder and body. Whatever.

 

It also weight a lot. I don't use it that often for that reason. Soon after purchasing the camera, I bought the hand crank and now, I tend to leave the winder at home.

Jung, I have the same series E lens and guess what- it does the same thing. My father bought it new and it has been creeping for years. He put a piece of masking tape on the inner barrel and that seems to have helped.

Ok- I think I can help here. I am a serious amateur photographer and a loyal Nikon user. I purchased a FM-10 a few years ago as a back-up body and find it to be a great value.

 

I have to admit- as soon as I got camera home, the 35-70mm lens went into a drawer and has not come out since! I use the FM-10 as a spare body with my AIS (manual) and AF-D (auto focus) lenses (specifically, my 20mm 2.8 AF-D). The body is small and light which makes it a good spare. And for the price, I almost consider the body 'disposable'. I have had it for 4 years and if it broke tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear- I'd just get another one!

 

If you are just starting out, you don't need a camera that can drive tent pegs (does anybody for that matter?). The FM-10 can get you into the Nikon system for very little money. Buy the manual FM-10 now and when you are ready for another lens don�t get an AI/AIS lens- buy an AF lens. This way, should you ever want a body with more bells and whistles, the lenses you own will be compatible. I would recommend a 50mm 1.4 AF-D as a first addition.

 

What other system lets you put great professional optics on a cheap body? Do the Canon systems have the same degree of comparability? I think not!