wayne_cornell1

Last I saw the price on the cameras you mention were coming down. Recently picked up a near mint FM body for $110. A year and a half ago your were talking $200.

The Nikkormat FT3 is a very nice camera--built like a tank. That's the problem--it also is heavy as a tank. I love the feel of that body but a FM or later would be more practical.

Someone mentioned the 43-86mm zoom as a dog. A lot of them fit that catagory. But I had a high sn 43-86 that was a super lens with great sharpness and contrast. Wish I had kept it. Another lens that is terribly inconsistant in quality is the old 35-135mm MF zoom. If you got the right on it was great. But there are some that are very soft. I had a MF 35-135mm that wasn't anything to brag about. I have an AF 35-135 that produces great pictures. I don't use it much because it's heavy but they aren't worth much on the market so I keep it around because I know it produces great results.

My vote goes to the N90s. I keep mine around just for it's MF lens capabilities. Better than the F100 in that regard, in my opinion. Also, you can use the TC-16A teleconverter on the N90s that gives you a certain amount of autofocus with some Nikkor MF lenses.

Vadim:

 

I didn't mean to imply the Kiev workers were lazy. Actually, I think your assessment of the problems with metals is probably accurate. I have a number of FSU cameras, including quite a few rangefinders. The ones with simple knob film advance seldom cause trouble. The ones with lever advance have a lot of problems. Invariably the trouble has to do with metal parts in the lever advance mechanism that either break, bend or shift out of proper alignment.

The Kiev 19M is a lower cost version of the Kiev 19 with a lot more plastic used in the housing. The meter operates much like the Nikon FM, with LEDs showing over and under exposure. The Kiev (Arsat) f2 normal lens isn't bad but the mechanical operation will never be confused with a Nikon--any Nikon. I haven't used the Kiev 19 but my 19M which was purchased like new has what I consider a very rough and awkward film advance and the frame spacing varies. Quality control also swings wildly--especially in the 19Ms produced since the breakup of the Soviet Union. You get the feeling workers who are getting paid irregularly probably don't have their hearts in their work. If you can get one for $25 it might be worth it just to play around with but I wouldn't recommend either camera as a person't primary user. Also, the lens off my 19M fit my FM ai mount. The same lens from a Kiev 17 (Nikon Mount) wouldn't engage the FMs meter coupling correctly.

I've never used the FM10 but the lens quality is more important than the camera body, as far as I'm concerned. I can't tell any difference between the quality of photos taken with my FM and F100.

 

The af lenses will work on manual cameras the only problem is they have a shorter focus "throw" and the focus ring doesn't have as much resistance as on the manual lenses. But it's a good way to go if you might go with an af body later. Given the declining prices for used Nikkor lenses I would go that route rather than after market lenses. The prices of the aftermarket lenses are tempting but very few can measure up to their Nikkor counterparts.

 

On wide angle lenses you will get a variety of opinions. I used to believe the 35mm lens was the best for starters. Now I would go with the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor. It covers a lot of territory but it is possible to control distortion if necessary. To me the 28mm is an odd focal length--not that much to be gained over 35mm. That's probably why 28mm tend to go for less money used than other wa lenses. That's the main positive for that lens--price. If I could only have one lens for a camera, however, it would be a 35mm wide angle. In a lot of respects it's more "normal" than a 50mm.

I paid $170 for mine in like new condition. Great lens but the price seems high on the one you are looking at.

Can't beat the E series lenses for price and performance. I would choose almost any of the E models over an aftermarket lens.

Once you get up to the 1950s you won't find many lenses that weren't coated-Japanese, German, Soviet, whatever. Most uncoated lenses were pre-war (WWII).

Yes, it's another baby picture. But when your first grandchild is a

natural poser, what better supject for my FM shooting available

light with Kodak High definition film.<div></div>

The only reason I used the Arsat was I had it on hand and wanted to see if I could find a good use for it. I can use my AF Nikkors on the FM but wanted a standard lens with the longer MF focusing throw.

 

You are correct about Russian quality control--spotty to say the least. I wouldn't go out actively pursuing the equipment but if you run into a Kiev at a garage sale for ten bucks, it might be worth a try if only for the lens.

Recently I picked a nearly-mint FM body and wanted to get an MF

normal lens for it. Was going to get the f1.8 E Series 50mm which is

relatively cheap and very sharp. Then I decided to first see what

the lenses on my two Russian Kiev Nikon copies could do.

 

The F2 Arsat 50mm on the Kiev 17 camera is a dead ringer for the old

ai Nikkor f2 and has the standard ai coupling. Trouble is, the Kiev

lens stand off too far from the FM body and the coupling notch won't

engage the FM pin.

 

The lens on the Kiev 19M looks more like the Nikkor E series and fit

the FM perfectly. The phot shows that the Arsat is a pretty decent

lens, too. The Kiev 19M is still being made and you can often picked

up the entire camera like new for about fifty bucks. Problem is the

19M body is heavy, awkward and the film advance is really clunky.

But at least the lens has found a good home on my Russo-Japanese

special.<div></div>

A used Ansco Pioneer 620 when I was about eight years old. Found one on Ebay a while back.

Now that's a trick worth the price of admission if it works. I assume the F100 senses the notch and thinks it is at roll end.

At the time I was a photographer for a local newspaper and we didn't have any communication with the "big time" reporters and photographers who followed the candidates so I have no idea who the photographer might be. Like you say, it's been a long time. Might not remember even if I knew then.

Shot this with a Nikon FTN and probably a 135mm Vivitar (preset)

lens. Couldn't afford the Nikkor. Notices the member of the national

press corps with a Nikon F and what looks like a 35mm lens. Scanned

off an 11x14 with the "pearl finish" so some sharpness lost.<div></div>

To argument on film v. digital goes on. Both have their place. But I do disagree with those who claim the ability to shoot lots of pictures at a minimum cost with digital makes for a better photographer.

 

Several years ago I was a newspaper editor. Our photographers were all twenty-something and were equipped with the newest technology--film cameras with power winders. When they went out on assignment their philosophy seemed to be, "if I point the camera in a specific direction and hold down the shutter release long enough, I'm bound to get one good photo." Well, they were wrong. They seldom came back with any photo better than run-of-the-mill. Because they had plenty of film and could shoot fast they never thought about actually "composing" a photo. They had never had to deal with trying to get it right in a single exposure.

Shooting lots of film (or digital photos) will never make you a better photographer unless you take some time to anaylze the situation and THINK before you push the button.

The Russian Jupiter 12 (35mm f2.8) and Jupiter 8 (50mm f2) can be excellent lenses in both Contax and Leica Thread Mount. The only problem I have encountered with them is inconsistancy in quality although most of the problem come from how they were handled by their former owners rather than manufacturing. The nice thing about the Contax mount lenses are they are very cheap. The LTM models seem to command slightly higher prices. I have a Kiev 4A (Contax II) That can hold its own from a sharpness standpoint with any rangefinder manufactured during that period.

Although the FE has a battery, you can't "restart" it--electroniclly at least. Something mechanical may be jammed. It may not be anything serious but replacing the batteries won't fix the jam.

Drove one in 1965. Never recovered.<div></div>

I have found my 35-135mm af Nikkor works especially well on MF bodies. The focus throw is long enough to give you some manual precision.

Amen to what is stated above. Especially if you have the FTn meter finder, just use it as a manual advance and enjoy. The cost and hassle of finding a motor drive that isn't worn out and having it tuned to your camera isn't worth it. Had a black FTn with 36 exp motor back in the seventies. Wish I still had it even though it could be cranky at times. Motor drives didn't really hit stride for the average user until the F3

Everready cases are for people who never use their cameras

>YOU GUYS, TRY TO LOAD A FILM INTO A LEICA M. You will know how lucky you are with Nikon film loading system. The hardest film loading system in a 35mm camera is Leica IIIa, b, c, d, e, f, g.

 

Loading a bottom loader (Leica) seems to be a lot like loading film on wire reels for development vs. plastic reels. Some folks take right to bottom loaders (or wire reels) and some never seem to get the hang of it. Personally I've never seen what the big deal is.

 

Loading a manual advance Nikon: Put in the cassette, pull the film across and hook in the take-up slot. Advance on frame the turn your rewind crank until there is tension on the film before closing the back.

Bet I can do it in 15 seconds or less.

>It costs hundreds less than an F100, which isn't much better than an N90;

 

I disagree with your assessment to a point at least.

 

I have an N90s and the F100 and since getting the F100 I have thought seriously about selling the N90s. It's not that it isn't a great cameras, it's just that the F100 has faster focus, is more quiet and (for me at least) a little more "user friendly." Of course there's a pretty good price to be paid for the difference. If I couldn't afford the F100 I wouldn't have any qualms about the N90s.