dante_stella

<p>If a 17-35 has been sitting for a long time, it will squeak when the motor turns. Before you even power up the camera, turn the focus ring. If you hear a squeak, it's probably just because it's been sitting. Mine has been doing that for six years. I think Rockwell attributed this to dust.<br>

If it keeps squeaking through use, it might have a failing AF motor. <br>

As with many things Nikon, if you send it in they'll be happy to charge you $350 (or whatever a Class C is now) to replace the motor (need it or not). The good news is that it's a fixed price, and they'll fix whatever else you want at that point. If you get a deal, it may be worth it to send the lens into Nikon, have some preemptive maintenance, and get the 6-month (IIRC) repair warranty.</p>

<p>Second the 45mm f/2.8GN. I use it with an F3 and an MD-4. Makes a heavy but flat package. Also a great lens for people used to the Leica/Konica focusing direction. Bokeh is fine with any version. Sharp where it counts, dreamy in the backgrounds. Snaps into focus very quickly.</p>

<p>Why don't you try the AF fine tune function if your body has it? It makes a huge difference.</p>

The first straw fire was the endless speculation about what the M8 would be. Then there was

a second straw fire that was a body of "technical" complaints (filters, coding, etc) by people

who had never used it and likely were simply ticked off that the camera was so expensive

(well, given Leica's pricing tactics, the camera will not be getting any cheaper). Now that

those two brushfires have burned out, it's really not any more noteworthy than an M7.

Quick question - do B+W filters (such as a 486) rub on the front element of

this lens? I recall using Hoyas with this the last time I had one, but I can't

remember if I doubled the filter ring or not.

It is rare that Hexar AF autofocus gets out of synch. It's locked into the camera's frame and it uses two channels to correct its own errors. In fact, I have never heard of a focus miscalibration (I guess you could always abuse the hell out of it). So I would submit that the exercise is a waste of time...

 

...BUT if you are having misses with off-center subjects where you initially focused on the off-center subject, locked the focus, reframed, and shot, you need to replace the shutter switch. Your cereal box test wouldn't reveal that problem - if the camera is in a fixed position with the 0.8m box in the middle of the crosshairs, it would end up focusing on the box in the center - whether or not the focus lock was working.

 

I would test it by doing off-center framing of one box at 2m, repeatedly. You don't even need to use film. Aim, focus, hold the button lightly, bring the camera to where you can see the focusing scale, and press the button. If the lens is on infinity before you press the button all the way in or if moves to infinity when you fire the shutter, your shutter button is the problem.

Have you ever shot the ASPH versus the AF Hexar? The AF Hexar automatically corrects its focus for spherical aberration.

There were at least two versions; you have the earlier one. The later version omitted the

screws on the front barrel because Nikon went to a clip-in hood.

Um... you're the one who's making the camera shoot 37 and 38. If this is turning into a

problem, you can use the little nub that is on the strap buckles to press the rewind button

when the camera reaches 37.

 

The Hexar winds on less than other cameras when you load it. Usually, frame 38 is pretty

easy to get. Pulling more film out while loading should, as a previous poster said, obviate

the problem.

 

The other problem might be that the optical sensor is getting confused.

I know exactly what you are talking about. It actually started with firmware 1.01.

 

-- What's the back focus at 5 feet?

 

-- Is it worse with screw-drive lenses?

 

-- Does the camera miss on "can't miss" targets - say something that is three times the

width and height of the center bracket?

 

-- Is the problem invisible at infinity?

 

...but I'm sure people will blame it on you anyway.

Edward - I'm aware of what the standard screen is like - very bright, unable to show DOF

accurately and very difficult to focus manually, even when using the DK-17M. It's the classic

example of sacrificing manual focusing for brightness. The opposite is the classic D screen

for the F3 - pebbled glass with no fresnel, not the brightest but having tons of "bite" and

capable of focusing even wideangle lenses.

 

In my experience, the ERF is not a great solution - the sensing areas (like the AF zones) are a

lot bigger than the brackets, and the focus detection system seems to grab whatever is

closest within the sensing area.

Can anyone tell me from personal experience whether or not the matte surface of Katz-Eye screens is

better for manual focusing than the matte in the stock B or E screens for the D2x? I was looking at the

split-screen possibility, but Rachael Katz informed me that there is now an all-matte screen available. I

would really like something like the old D screen, something with "bite."

 

Also, does anyone know if the matte surface is usable for manual focusing in the Kodak 14n or SLR/n

(similar finder to D100)?

 

Any thoughts on the extra brightening treatment?

<p>...tends to transcribe old notes from old cameras late at night. Shows many

signs of not getting enough sleep. Occasionally exhibits a hacking cough from

TF4 fixer. The fact that he sold his M3 but kept his Hexar RF shows that he has no

soul.</p>

<p>It's really strange finding this thread when I was trying to pick up a cached page

from my site to check something (thanks, guys, for inviting me to the party).

The site occasionally goes down (and it is down today).   When you get

into no-bandwidth-limit hosting organizations, things can occasionally get flaky.

I can't get it up to 100% reliability without going to something a lot more

expensive (the monthly bandwidth use is, well, a lot).  And considering

that this site is not making anyone any money (except for people who occasionally

rip off parts of it for eBay listings), it will always have those glitches.</p>

<p>Between school and now, I have leafed through just about every major photographic

"authority" site.  They all have their various defects: endlessly repeating

rumors, building destructive superstition in photographers, being subservient

to businesses that sell equipment, acting as factory mouthpieces, and attempting

to be kingmakers within particular manufacturers' lines.  I think that

in a lot of cases, web sites do a <em>disservice</em> to photographers by causing

them to agonize about issues that don't really exist and to endlessly spend

money on brand new products they don't need.  Of course, reading my Mortensen,

I guess this has been going on since 35mm cameras were invented.</p>

<p>My site – which at least attempts to avoid those faults –

undoubtedly has its own: typos and occasional factual errors (which I fix as I learn of

them), occasional miscalculations (despite so much calculus in my lifetime),

and (I'm sure) the fingerprints of INTJ-style thinking.  Those – and

the site also appears to be written in HTML 1.0.  If you like it, I'm glad to have

entertained you. If you don't, that's sad to hear, but I won't lose too much sleep over

it.  I have fun

working on the site, and I enjoy photography. 

If you're into collecting or if you are a hard-core historian, I can point you

to better sites for that kind of thing.</p>

<p>On to some specific points:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>– This F3 "cloth" shutter thing is the result of imprecise writing:

the sentence

(currently) reads "The F3 (whose shutter design is essentially an electronically-

controlled

Leica-style cloth shutter) has a MTBF of 150,000 exposures between

failures." 

This is slated for a change in the next version to make it more clear that

this is a comparison of the basic <em>mechanical</em> designs (rolled-up flexible

material in distinction to

bladed mechanical shutters) rather

than the actual material. I am pretty familiar with F3s, having used them for several

years.</p>

<p>– The 50/1.4 Nikkor in M39 (or Nikon RF mount) is optimized for close-

range

use.  I know this both from reading about and using one for four years. 

Don't confuse this with the Nikon SLR lens or the reissue that came out with

the 2000s reissues of the S3 and SP.  Those lenses have nothing in common

with the original rangefinder lenses.</p>

<p>– My discussion of the Nikon RF prototypes is in fact backward. 

It is one of several edits to that page that will be entered shortly. 

Assuming, of course, that the site comes back on line!</p>

</blockquote>

The directions are wrong. It never writes a file called "scanner.icc" (at least not in 8.52).

 

The ICC process in Vuescan *IS* exceedingly unfriendly and unclear. For starters, the

program should include a description of how the program integrates (if at all) the ICC

profiles.

 

1. I don't believe that calibrating a film scanner and calibrating film are really separable

processes - because the same IT8 data underlies both. You are calibrating a system. If

you calibrate and apply both film and scanner using the directions, you end up with really

screwed up results.

 

2. How could you ever calibrate for film when it is impossible for the program to ignore

its built in profiles? Even when the film parameter is set to "ICC profile," the built in film

types skew the results. And when one is calibrating Kodachrome, does one set the film

type to Kodachrome or generic slide? It makes a big difference.

 

3. What is the purpose of printer ICC profiling if it never influences the on-screen result?

 

4. Why does Vuescan prevent you from using your calibrated monitor profile? On a Mac,

Vue Scan should be looking in the ColorSync profiles for options, not its own directory.

Even then, if you copy your monitor profile into the Vuescan folder, you can't see it.

They sent you a picture of the first fixed-lens model. The two tipoffs are the lack of flash

shoe and the lack of sliding lens hood.

Has anyone had a bottom strap lug shear its mounting screw on a Mark III? Anyone know

how much Fuji charges to fix this? Yes, I know, call... but it will take an hour of interrogation

to find out and I'm sure this is not the first time this has happened.

Return it. It might only be dirty in the frame counter - but it'll be expensive to fix either way.

Sounds like there is grit on the camera body's AI/AIS aperture coupling. Try working it back and forth with your finger to free it up. You may need to have that part cleaned.

1. Actually, this resolved itself. What did the trick was pretty simple. Leave the flash on overnight, 10 full-power flashes, and voila!

 

2. Testing with a flash meter, the "ready" light comes on a couple of seconds before the thing is fully charged (faint noise stops). I figured this out when I was testing with a flash meter. The recycle times were shorter than the manual said they should be. I was suspicious of the statement in the manual that recycling times were shorter with rechargeables and doubly so now. I bet all they did was test recycling time by watching the light.

 

3. The SB-28DX's Auto sensor is pretty accurate - generally within 1/3 stop of a Sekonic L-358 (shot against an 18% grey wall).

 

4. That said, D-TTL seems to have a pretty strong bias toward underexposure. I tested the SB-28DX against the SB-800 in this mode (on the 14n), and both wanted +0.7 stops compensation. The SB-28DX on the D2x did the same thing. But the SB-800 on the D2x worked fine at 0 compensation.

Ok. I'm stumped. My SB-28DX is operating at about half of its full

flash capacity - meaning that I am getting underexposures at very

short range. This is at exactly the same setting I have been using

it at for the last two years. The only difference is that it was

outside in 32 degree (F) weather for about two hours.

 

I tried it with two cameras.

 

I tried it in A, M, and D-TTL modes. In the automatic and TTL modes,

I am getting underexposure warnings. In manual, the range is way

down.

 

I tried changing the regular exposure comp (D2x and Kodak 14n), flash

exposure comp (Kodak 14n), and the SB-28's own comp (both cameras).

Nothing.

 

The only thing I can think of is that the cold did something to the

capacitors and that they need to be re-formed (like you would on a

Metz 45 after letting it sit for a long time).

 

Has anyone else had this problem?

 

Ideas?

Um... That wasn't my Hexar. It's still sitting on my desk. Someone might have "borrowed"

my page on it.

The little tab I am referring to is a piece of a $30 acrylic focusing screen, not part of the camera. If the screen gets messed up, I am not going to lose any sleep.

 

There are no dedicated screens. They don't make manual focusing screens for the D2x, but they do for the F6.

These are supposedly the same chassis; can you put an F6 focusing

screen (say, an L) into a D2x? I am not opposed to clipping off the

little tab if necessary.

 

Dante

Um... there is no comparison between a Metz 45 and an SB-28 in power (the SB-28 in the

real world is about GN30 in meters vs. a true GN45 for the Metz). I am quite sure of this

having used an SB-28DX extensively with an F5 and a DCS 14n and having measured the

outputs on a Sekonic.

 

You need a Metz 45CL-3, a 346/2 AF Nikon Module, and an SCA 300A connector. It will

run you under $150 (total) on Ebay.

 

Dante

Does anyone know who at Nikon USA is the supervisor in charge of lens

repairs? I got to pay $461 for a Class C repair and my high-end AF-S lens is now making

its third trip to Melville for a problem that was identified the first time I sent it in.

 

Thanks.