andrew_pike1

K-14 is just about the hardest film developing process out there. You'd be in your darkroom for a VERY long time, and what with how Kodachrome is so tedious and finicky, you'd probably come out with a ruined roll. Best way to do it is to put it in a machine and press "go" or something.

 

You can't develop it, but I'd bet that some Kodachrome Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) prints would look quite nice. At least you can print it, but leave the processing to some guy at Dwayne's.

Honestly, you people are all acting very immature, arguing about wheather or not Canon is better than Nikon or vice versa. Canon and Nikon are the two beheamoths of the camera industry. They are on equal ground as far as I'm concerned, and a buyer could go either way and still get great pictures. The one thing about Nikon that to me makes it more attractive than Canon is the mount. Wheras when it changed from MF to AF, Canon abandoned the FD mount for the EOS mount, Nikon stayed with the F mount on all of it's cameras. You'll be able to mount a 50mm f/2 lens from 1959 on the F6 (admittidly after modifying it to AI) and still take great pictures. Can't do that with Canon (or anyone else for that matter). That is what makes Nikon attractive for me.

 

Enough of this statistical "who sold more than who" talk also. In the end, it dosen't really matter.

 

But, if you still want to argue about it, go start another thread. This one is about the F6.

Mani-

 

You're exactly right-the F6 is neither like the F5 or the F100. As I stated above, it's more a nice mesh between the two, with a few new features and improvements thrown in. As to the interchangable viewfinder-my guess is that most people never really used the other ones, and it was a lot cheaper to manufacture a camera without the provision than one that did. There's acutally an accessory (the DR-6) that allows right-angle viewing that attaches to the eyepiece, so they a least tried to emulate one of the finders for the F5.

 

It's a "new breed" of F-line cameras. I personally like it, as it has a great many advantages over my current F100. I'll probably sell that and upgrade.

 

I'm not so sure about the pricing. Nikon may realize that the demand for a pro 35mm SLR is shrinking, so they may well not slap a two grand price tag on it. Probably more like $1,500. Enough to make a profit, but not so much as to scare people away.

Ellis- You've gotten to use one? Tell us about it. How does it handle? What's the meter accuracy like? Vibrations? AF speed? Please, tell us everything you know.

The F6 sounds like a "convienient ergonomics of the F100 meet the best features of the F5" type of camera. I really wanted a 3D color matrix meter and mirror lock up with my F100, as I shoot flowers and needless to say color is important, but didn't want something as big and heavy as the F5 cracking my rib bones as I walked. The F6 is the perfect union of these two. I wouldn't be surprised to see the F5 and F100 be discontinued after a few months.

 

Other features, such as the ability to have color matrix metering with AI lenses once you tell the camera the focal length and maximum aperature of teh lens are really exciting.

 

Some features that were on the F5 were removed, but you didn't ever really see anyone with the other availiable finders except the multi-meter that came standard. The slower advance rate may be troubling to some, but they can buy the battery pack and get an additional shutter release as well. The batteries bug me too, but the number of rolls they listed (15) were done when the camera had a VR lens and all the power-sucking bells and whistles on that would drain any type of battery fast.

 

If it's as silent as they say this will truly be an amazing camera. A Nikon that sounds like a Leica. Imagine it. It also has a rear LCD panel that will display lens, exposure, and film information, as well as well as the current AF setting. It also comes with date imprentation standard. 41 custom settings! Improved meter algorithims! I could go on and on and on about all the new great features that are introduced with this camera, but then again I'd take up too much space.

 

After reading the statistics I must admit I am quite impressed. I was initially skeptical about the lack of interchangable viewfinder and slow advance rate, but the other features more than make up for these. The F6 is suitable to carry on the prestigious torch of what many consider to be the best line of 35mm cameras in the world.

 

Can't wait to get my paws on one.

This F6 of yours dosen't sound like a suitable replacement for the F5. It dosen't have the features associated with the single-digit F-line cameras. All of them had interchangable viewfinders and featured the most advanced features Nikon had at the time of manufacture. This F6 should also match if not exceed the F5's frame rate. Typically, Nikon aims to improve existing products, not compromise on them (at least with the professionally aimed F-line). If anything, this F6 is probably a replacement for the F100, as it sounds similar to it, but is more advanced. And by the way, the F100 has a metal body, not plastic.

 

Except for "monobloc", your French-English translation was fine.

 

On the other hand, I had my doubts as to weather Nikon would ever introduce another F-line professional camera, what with digital sucking up all the R&D money and all. It's great news if it's true. It shows that Nikon hasen't forgotten about all us dedicated 35mm film users.

 

Merci beaucoup monsieur pour le tres bien nouvelles!

I'd bring some Velvia 50, Provia 100F, and Kodachrome 64. You might want to drop the Velvia, as it is a bit too punchy, especially if you'll have people in your pictures. In that case, take Provia, as it has great colors and fine grain. Kodachrome 64 is nice, too, even though it's 2/3 stop slower than an ASA 100 film. That shouldn't present much of a problem, though. Or, there's always Kodachrome 200, but it is a bit too grainy for my tastes.

 

If you want to record the colors you saw, then in my mind there is no substitute for Kodachrome. Nothing is as life-like (or lasts as long after processig, for that matter). You'll get good colors from it, and I highly reccomend it.

 

Have fun!

In general, automatic cameras only work properly when they have film loaded into them. Once you put some in the camera, it is my guess that it will work fine.

 

On another note...

 

-"I just got an N2020..."

 

May I ask why? It's so outdated that most people (read: "Most") wouldn't give it a second thought, much less buy one. Nostalgic value maybe? It was Nikon's first sucessful AF SLR.

Color Slide: Kodachrome 64, Fujichrome Velvia 50.

 

Color Negative: Don't have much expierience with these, but I really liked Agfa Vista 200.

 

B&W: Ilford FP4 Plus.

 

B&W Slide: Agfa Scala 200x (then again I really don't have much of a choice there do I?).

D-series AF Nikkor lenses have a chip in them that enables the lens to send distance information about the subject to the camera so that it is factored into the matrix meter reading. Really a helpful feature with flash. Not sure how it affects existing-light photography, but I would venture to say that it probably "wraps" the metering area around the subject, improving the overall meter reading. I've never tried a non-D lens, so I wouldn't be able to tell you if you're missing anything.

I see. So, it rather is like in a zoom lens. The farther the front of the lens moves from the aperature blades, the amount of light hitting the aperature blades decreases, thus lowering the effective aperature. Because macro lenses have such greater focusing ranges than other fixed-focal length lenses, the effect is much more pronounced.

 

As with my Nikkormat EL I used a 55mm f/3.5, the effect was less apparent, so I was suprised at first when I saw the aperature go down as I focused.

 

Thanks a lot.

I just got the AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D lens for my birthday on

the 7th and took it out to the arboretum for some fun.

 

One thing that surprised me was that when I looked through the

viewfinder of my F100, I found that as the focus went in and out,

the maximum aperature got smaller and larger. The closer it focused,

the smaller it got. I was under the impression that only zooms

suffer from this, not single focal length lenses.

 

Why is this happening?

No, you cannnot use a Fuji mailer to get Kodachrome film processed. It states clearly on the mailer that it is for E-6 film ONLY. It will most likely be returned to you if you put K-14 film in it. If your are going to process Kodak film, you must use Kodak mailers, as the one place in the country that process Kodachrome will only accept orders through Kodak.

I generally use Velvia 50 for flowers and such, as I like the eye-popping color, but if I want realistic colors or I know I'll be shooting two subjects on the same roll (namely people, as Velvia has horrible skin tones), I become partial to Kodachrome 64. The film has a particular "look" to it that you just can't get with any other film. Though less saturated then Velvia, Kodachrome is still a very good film. In fact, before Velvia came along, Kodachrome was the gold standard. Processing is a pain, though.

 

Also, if I want a little bit more speed, I'll use Provia 100F. Fine grain with reasonable color saturation. A good film.

 

My reccomandation: Try a roll of each of the films that I have mentioned. You'll see that each has it's own applications. It will then be up to you to decide which you like best.

 

Good Luck!

I've never used the A&I or the Adorama mailers, but I have used the Fuji mailers and have had my Kodachrome done by the PK36 mailers through the photo store.

 

In general, the Fujichrome mailers are the cheapest, at about $3.50 per 36 exposure roll. Compare that to the $8.88 it costs me to get a roll of E-6 processed at the local photo store. I use them to process my Velvia and Provia and have found that the quality is pretty good, but the top two slides almost always come back very dusty. If you have some canned air though, this shouldn't be a problem, as one blast gets rid of it all. You have to wait about two weeks to get your film back, but the wait is justified by the sheer cheapness of it.

 

When I drop off my Kodachrome film at the photo store, they get it processed the same way as you would if using a Kodak slide mailer. I don't know about this new facility in Kansas where all current Kodachrome film is being processed, but my slides always came back with very good quality from the old New Jersey facility. Never tried it for Ektachrome or other E-6 film. The Kodak PK36 slide mailers are about $5 more expensive for a 4 pack than the Fuji 5 pack. So, unless you have Kodachrome film to process, it makes the most sense to use the Fuji mailers.

 

As a side note, Fuji does not offer a print mailer, only slides. Many people consider print mailers to be a waste of time, as the quality is the same as a minilab, but you have to wait much longer to get them back. I personally wouldn't bother with it.

 

Also, you'll have to factor in the price of a pane of 60-cent stamps ($12.00), as that is the postage rate for two ounces, how much a loaded mailer weighs.

 

If you're looking for an economical solution to film processing then this is it.

I use the Fujichrome mailers and send Provia regularly to Phoenix for processing from Cleveland, and my slides always come back perfect. Wyoming to Denver is a shorter distance, so you shouldn't have any problems.

Here's a link to the Kodak page announcing it's discontinuance.

 

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/catalog/kodakProfessionalTechnicalPanFilm.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.21.24.18&lc=en

Yes, you can scan Kodachrome. I do it all the time with my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo. They do often times come out with a bluish cast to them though, however, nothing that Photoshop can't fix. I just love the colors.

 

As to the other two color myths, I have never developed my own film or used the zone system.

 

Kodak Dektol develpor, though primarily a paper developer, can be used to obtain incredible contrast and micro-fine grain (RMS of 3!) with Technical Pan film. Most people use Technidol, though, as it is the primarily reccomended developer. Too bad really that Kodak is cutting it.

 

Well, that's my two cents worth.

It will not work. Black and white and color films are developed in completely different processes. C41 is a very hot process that utilizes different chemicals than black and white. You will not get a suitable image (or any image at all). It would be a waste of chemicals, time, and film. It would be easier just to get your local lab to just process the negatives and not make any prints. It is usually quite cheap, too. My local lab does it for around $2.50 per 36 exposure roll. Again, do not try it.

No. The combined value of an N90s and an F3 is way more than the value of a single F5, much less one that is heavily used. If you really want the F5, sell the two bodies to a retailer for cash and then buy a new F5. You'll probably find that you have money to spare, what with the way the prices of 35mm SLR's are going.

 

Personally, I wouldn't get rid of the F3. Even though it may look like less of a camera than the F5, it is still a great body. One of the best MF cameras that Nikon ever made, in fact. I think they still sell the high-eyepoint version new.

 

The N90s is still pretty good, but not quite as good as an F100 or the F5 in my opinion. The biggest advantge of the F5 is the 3D color matrix metering. It has a 1,005 pixel sensor in the pentaprism that reads the colors in the scene so that they are taken into account in the metering. No more 18% gray!

 

So there you have my opinion-keep or sell the F3, sell the N90s for cash, and then buy a new F5. Maybe a nice new lens with the money to spare.

 

Again, DON'T DO IT!

If it is X-ray damage, then why are there signs on the scanners saying that they will not harm photographic film?

I don't think that it could be underexposure, as all of the negatives had the sypmtom to some degree. Then again, it may not have been the X-ray machines either. If it wasen't the X-ray machine, then I don't know what did it, as it couldn't happen at the airport, because we took the train. Here is an example of what I mean.<div></div>

For a few weeks at my local camera store they were giving them out free as part of some kind of Nikon promotion, but the guy said that after a certain date I would have to pay for it, so I guess it depends.

Well, I just got my negatives back from the lab, and when I scanned them, my pictures did indeed look terrible. The worst ones looked similar to a sepia toned black and white picture, but even the best still had a brownish cast to them. Thank God for automatic color correction in Photoshop Elements. Next time I'll have to invest in a lead lined film bag.

I went on a trip to Washington D.C. last week with my Father. We had

a great time, and saw a lot of things that we didn't get to the last

time we were there. However, as no one in Washington considers

themselves unimportant enough to not be attacked, almost everywhere

you go you have to go through a metal detector and have your bags

scanned by an X-ray machine. The X-ray machines had labels on them

saying that they weren't harmful to photographic film, and there was

obviously no negotiating with the guards, so I had to put my camera

bag through the machine a total of seven times. It was ASA 400 speed

Color print film (Fujicolor Press 400.) Has the repeated exposure to

X-rays ruined my film?