John D

<p>I don't post much here so at the risk of getting flamed I feel compelled to add something. I am a Nikon shooter and have been since F3 days. I have lots of lenses which keep me loyal even though I often chafe at many of Nikon's idiotic policies. I had a D800 and I really liked that camera but it killed my neck and back after a couple of hours. I also have had Nikon DX cameras for the reach aspect. Really like the D7200. Along the way I have bought Panasonic 4/3s stuff some of which is pretty good and tried a Sony Nex 6. The menus, which you were dipping into constantly drove me nuts. I sold it. Then came the a6000, finally a capable easy to use very good camera with the right lenses. I still have that camera and it is my walk around camera down in southern Utah.<br>

Now to the dumb stuff. I felt an overwhelming curiosity about the Sony full frame stuff. I picked up a used <br />A7R, thinking a return to 36mp might be good. I was wrong. In my estimation this is a camera which should never have been released. Shutter shock is a real issue. The Sony menu choices do not really deal with the capabilities of the camera in enough detail but who likes menus? Focusing with non Sony lenses is a chore but can be accurate although you better be using a tripod.<br>

After two weeks of frustration I sold that camera at a loss and felt good to be rid of it. I'll stick with the D750 and the D7200 for any kind of serious photos.</p>

 

<p>I got brave with an old very sticky Sigma 14mm 3.5 lens. I had bought it cheap since it was so very sticky. I tried mineral spirits to no effect and finally resorted to lacquer thinner. It works like a charm. It is also nasty stuff. I figured you could never let any seep into the lens itself so I used a cloth wipe which was rather rough, like from a denim scrap, but did not get it very wet. The result after several treatments with plenty of time between them for drying was a nice mat finish which has never again become sticky. I do suspect that if you were to use too much on a rag you could easily ruin a lens so if you get brave enough to try this be careful.</p>

<p>Regarding the Sigma lens, I have the older one which winds up at 4.5 on the long end. I bought it to haul off on a European Cruise with a D300. I was not interested in the macro capability but I wanted something which did not break the bank and also did not wind up at 5.6 on the long end. The lens was and is a decent performer for me. I had previously had the 17-55 f2.8 but had sold it with my D2x. I am now using the 17-70 on my D7000 and am happy enough with it that it is still there. I have found nothing which would do what I want a general purpose lens to do which would replace it. Would I like a bit more reach, of course, and a bit wider too but we have to make compromises. I would jump on the 16-85 if it wasn't 5.6 on the long end and 3.5 to start with. Is the 17-55 better, undoubtedly, but it lacks reach. I have paired the Sigma with another Sigma, the 10-20 for my D7000 go anywhere kit. If I need more reach I either use my 180 2.8 or the 150 Sigma which also gives great macro. Given all that I would sure try bfore buy if I could.</p>

<p>Perhaps further explanation is in order. I have been using a Micro lens. The 100mm f4 to be specific. F4 may just be borderline for seeing a darkened rf patch with some frequency. I also now wear tri-focals which I did not have to use 30plus years ago. When Canon abandoned the breech lock mount for auto focus I abandoned Canon. I am well aware of the camera I have and I do understand the light meter function. The camera I am using is 1980 Lake Placid marked. It was my wifes camera. I sold mine many years ago. I do not have to get used to anything of this nature. Focus is pretty easy any more and digital is way superior to film in almost all 35mm applications. This camera is of little importance. I was just curious about it and decided to try it after many years of sitting idle, the camera, not me. I will also use it some with the 50/1.4 to see if the same obscuring occurs so often. I have just sent some film off for processing so it will be interesting to see what comes back.</p>

<p>My, what you do forget, I had asked a question about servicing an F1 and some kind soul sugested just going ahead and making some photos with it, which I have done. First off, the batteries recommended, the 675s do work. The meter is pretty good. I shot color negative stuff and it is surely accurate enough for that. I think I would want an external meter for E6 stuff though. <br>

What has surprised me is the viewfinder. The finder itself is pretty good. Nice and bright in daylight and not too bad indoors but the focusing is another story. I remember now missing lots of hurried shots many years ago. I anticipate the same thing all over again. The focusing screen is the E type which was the laser cut variety. I find that half of the rf spot is unuseable much of the time. I am focusing by trying the surrouding microprism collar and that is questionable. The ground glass itself is not too bad though. I suspect a different screen would help. What do those who use these beasts regularly recommend? I see some for sale on the big auction site but thought I would ask before I spend money for something which is no better than what I already have.</p>

<p>Michael, I like your suggestion. I have advanced the wind lever and fired off the shutter a couple of times and all seems in order. Wind on is smooth and the shutter sounds about right. I did not try the slow speeds though. I took a look at the writeup that Phillip mentioned and it provides solutions I am not quite ready to tackle unless I get really desperate. The 675 battery sounds workable and cheap enough that it is surely worth a go. A roll or two of film at this point is not likely to do any damage since all the parts which should move are doing so when you exercise the camera. Low speeds are probably best tested with film anyway. Thanks for the advice, folks.</p>

<p>Thanks for the speedy responses. I had somehow forgotten Essex. Must be old age.</p>

<p>I will cast yet another vote for the Sigma 10-20. More than adequate at that range. Also the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is pretty good. I put mine on the D7000 to use until I found a really good general purpose lens. It is still there. Covers the classic 28-105, of course. I do wish it was a bit wider but the 70 end of it gives a bit more reach and does not send you to 5.6 for wide open. It also does color close to Nikkor rendering and appears to be well built.</p>

<p>I am thinking about resurecting a stored F1. It is the older variety and the one with the Lake Placid Olympics from 1980 logo on the front. My wife and I both had F1s at that time. I later sold mine but we kept this one. It shows almost no signs of wear or brassing. It has been sitting in a drawer for a number of years since we went digital a long time ago. Every once in a while I get an itch to shoot some film and since I have the 100mm micro for this camera I may give it an outing to make some flower photos. My question is who do you folks use to do a CLA on these old cameras. I am less concerned about the built in meter but I have read that they can be recalibrated to use other than the mercury batteries. So where do you send it. The old repair guy I used to use here (along the Wasatch front) is long gone.</p>

<p>I am using the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 on my D7000. It is the previous iteration of the lens mentioned above. I had bought the lens to use on a D60 which my wife appropriated and she had a different preferred lens so the Sigm sat in drawer for a while. I did not find the kit lens acceptable so dug out the Sigma and have used it a lot since. I have a 10-20 Sigma for wide stuff but the 17-70 is actually a pretty good lens. I think the 17-55 Nikkor is undoubtedly better but I like the 70mm long end and the fact that it goes no lower than 4.5 on the long end. 5.6 is pretty restrictive and keeps me from getting the 16-85. I think you will not be disappointed with the Sigma.</p>

<p>The same bug bit me. I bought a 4AM from Fedka and it arrived the other day. No lens yet though. I picked up a couple of 50s from the big bay but they are in transit somewhere. Camera seems to operate just fine. Film advance a bit rough but shutter appears to be accurate. My understanding is Fedka will stand behind what they sell so I felt somewhat safer buying that way than taking my chances from overseas. A roll of film will tell the tale but need a lens so I wait for the mail to do its thing. Hope the lenses are not too bad. </p>

<p>As of 930 Tuesday morning I am still getting the same error Bad Gateway. </p>

<p><strong>When trying to place a classified add I get the 502 server Gateway error. It first occurred around 5 my time, MDT, and I am still getting it at 1030</strong></p>

<p>The 28-105 is a pretty good lens. I use mine now on a D700 and will till the folks at Nikon decide to make a suitable general purpose lens for that camera. If you can find one for a reasonable price snap it up</p>

<p>I suppose this comes under the heading of dumb questions but here goes anyway. I am out of the MF business. Sold the lot but still have a Bronica S2, low mileage, and the bellows for that camera which are pristine. My question involves the bellows. First what might it be worth any more? what I can get for it comes immediately to mind. <br>

Some fellow advertised as wanting this item and wants to modify it to use with a SLR. I don't care what anyone does to the bellows any more but I really would hate to see some guy go off on a wild goose chase, here again, what do I care comes immediately to mind.<br>

The pressing issue is what is the old thing worth. Think I purchased it about 1970 or so and mostly it has lived in its box since then. <br>

Any help appreciated. Thx John</p>

<p>Right now it is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I have the 24-70 and it is a great lens but for me not a carry everywhere hunk of glass. Sometimes it's a 24mm f2.8.</p>

I have used it on the D3. It is a pretty nice lens, and not real big. You can pick one up used for not too much money. It is sharper than the 24-120 but the additional reach of the later is often worth the trade off. I own both and the 28 does indeed have a useful close focus feature. You should probably check Bjorn Rorsletts site (my spelling may be off) but check Nikon Links.

I envy you the trip. I do not normally post here but think that your photos are a great display of what the M8 is capable of doing. Thanks for showing us and let us see some more when you get a chance. John

I took an Alaska cruise in Aug 06. Debated between the 300 f4afs and the 80-400. The 300 won. It is sharper and focuses much faster. I wished for more. I got by, since the 300 is very sharp and I took lots of photos betting on the law of averages for sharp shots. Take the big guy and one of the converters. You will also want a lens for shipboard walkaround. I took the 17-55 it is just fine. Wife had a 24-120 on her D70. You don't need a long lens for Glacier Bay. You will need a long lens for whales and for Denali if you do the Park.

 

We were on Holland America and saw only one eagle in Ketchikan. But a long lens is a must for wildlife. Also, you will get wet, plan on it and take whatever precautions you deem necessary. My defense was a baggy wind breaker which I could put the camera under and zip up.

My cruise photos are still up on Pbase. You can have a look here. http://www.pbase.com/dahlstetphoto/profile

There are several galleries, appropriately named. Have a great trip

I thought I had corrected the e-mail call sign but the note appears not to have gone through. E-mail should read timyzik@comcast.net. Sorry for any confusion. John

Tim Isaac has had such a guide made in China, (where else?) and is offering it

for sale. I am sure the info is available on RFF and the Leica user group but

I have not seen it here. You can contact him at timzik@comcast.net. Looks like

a professional job. It is a bit pricey for a piece of plastic but beats the

cost of Leica coding. John

Mine is in the ever so careful hands of Fed-Ex. Trouble is that I can not yet get delivery info. Bummer

It is, after all, your money we are talking about here, right? If you made a hasty decision that is all too common. You are not obligated to follow through if you don't honestly want the item in question. Eat a bit of crow and admit the mistake. Your honor is not in question here nor is your honesty. The seller still has the lens and is out nothing. Just my take based ont he information available. John

Edward's response, above, is the one which makes the most sense. Start off with one lens and for your own sanity and in the interest of some flexibility the 17-55 is the lens to have. I also use it for a very high percentage of my photos. Other lenses can come later as you figure out what your interests are. Nothing like starting at the top. But since the film is "free" take lots of pictures and make lots of mistakes. I also urge you to read the manual. If you did not get one then download it. Do not expect to pick this machine up and instantly make stunning photos. Read the book. Also consider getting another perhaps easier to understand book, Thom Hogan's is the best, in my opinion, since the manual can be a bit turgid. Above all enjoy the experience. John

Your experience is similar to mine with this repairman. I sent an M6 to him on 23 July and subsequent e-mails were not answered. I was told that he does not respond to them and my experience bears this out. Three weeks ago I did receive an e-mail from him stating my camera had been CLA'd and sent back to me (I had paid in advance). The return took another week with UPS ground.

 

In all fairness, the camera is in better condition than it was. Works much smoother and the VF is much clearer. My old 'cron no longer has a catch in the focus adjustment and it is cleaner than it ever was.

 

Here comes the "however" I find the lack of communication frustrating and will not use this repair source again. DAG has a host of loyal customers which is all to his credit but I will find someone else next time. John