RaymondC

I have a RB67 which I really enjoy and then I had a thought about the P67. For those situations when you are taking maybe portraiture handheld it might be quicker to use? Like to know your views on that. I guess now if one wanted all that ease and efficiency they would just use digital right. Film is more for slowing down etc and I do like my RB67. For those times with family friends going out stuff a 3 day trip etc ... using the RB67 or such camera like the Hasselblad 500CM might be slower and the P67 more efficient or in those situations you think one should just shoot digital? I am rebounding around and going around in circles. I guess in the film days we didn't have digital and the P67 was that only option for a efficient 35mm film SLR camera on steroids with all that familiarity but now we have all these digital tools. 6x7 to some pros also suited their publication requirement and the P67 was the only one all the way back in the film days other than going slow and big like the RBs/ Like to hear your thoughts. Cheers.

It seems like manual is more predictable. I usually do use manual flash now anyway and in the past. I've just thought of more automation because I recalled one time I was at a large dinner party the camera would often underexpose the ambient light, also if the ISO is set to auto there is an upper limit maybe ISO 400 so I could not get more ambient light for the hall or dinner room hall. I usually shoot in manual anyway with landscapes on a tripod. Testing with a dark corner of the sofa ie to represent low light. Today, I set the e3 setting to 1 second for the min flash speed. I also set the auto ISO minimum shutter speed to way down. So with aperture priority: No flash - 1/20, F2.8, 400 Auto ISO TTL flash - 1/40, F2.8 400 Auto ISO (quicker shutter speed) Shutter priority: No flash - 1/15 F3.2 400 Auto ISO TTL flash - 1/15 F4.5 400 Auto ISO (aperture closed more down) Manual camera: No flash 1/20 F2.8, ISO 400 (not auto ISO) TTL flash 1/40 F2.8 ISO 400 (not auto ISO). (quicker shutter speed). TTL flash sounds like it cares about the main subject and less about the ambient light so the ambient may get underexposed.

With lockdown I got to think of things and try things out to educate myself. I haven't used flash often but I have read stuff about it and then I left my flash for months before even taking it out. I've started playing with my softbox and then I tried bounce flash today. Question: sometimes we are told to underexpose the ambient light by a bit and then fire the flash. I've been able to do this in M exposure mode and then manual flash output. When I want a bit of automation, I set my camera to A (aperture priority) with a -1 EV exposure compensation and then I turn my flash on either manual flash output or TTL flash, my camera's shutter speed changes. Why is this and when people want to underexpose the ambient light by a bit and then fire the flash what do they do? Cheers. Edit. Part of the issue might had been my flash shutter speed in the settings. I dropped that right back. I have a 1/30 speed in aperture priority mode it stays at 1/30 with manual flash power output. Once I switch my speedlight to TTL flash my shutter speed changes to 1/60. Why is this?

Thanks for that. After a bit of detective work, the person I found desaturates the film scans and pulls back the clarity, It is her editing than the film.

I will play around with it .... I might do a 1/2 stop overexposure, I will try +1EV but not for every frame to see how it is like. I scan and print myself. I only ask the lab to develop only. I have 2 rolls of Portra 400 and 1 roll of Portra 160 and 1 Ektar 100, all in 120 format. I use a Sekonic 758 Cine light meter .... Overall, I am still preferring slide film, less leeway, what you shoot is what you get. The reference is what is on the film. Been interested about this ... since people overexpose their film by 1 stop and get muted colors which is what they enjoy something like the below link .... How to Shoot Fuji Pro 400H Film » Shoot It With Film

Is this a new trend more recently nowadays? Did people consistently overexpose their color negative film back in the film days? I shoot mainly with color slide film myself but with the 1 or 2 rolls ie Kodak Gold 400 and Fuji ProH 400 I rated them at 200 the color is more muted / pastel like. Did people largely did this in the film days? For me I might prefer box speed but it is a bit creative. Cheers.

FWIW I picked up my first manual lens, NIkon 35mm F2.0 Ai. With my D600 using the AF confirmation dot in the viewfinder wide open at F2.0 it's not that sharp, it needs maybe a stop closed down. This isn't about pixel quality, you can see the difference on the camera's back LCD. Compared to my 50mm F1.8 AFD, it is better wide open. Not sure about the 35mm F2.0 AFD however. I generally agree if manual is not required the modern lenses are better. In terms of a manual lens not that much offerings now other than maybe something like Zeiss?

If you just want a seamless efficient set-up and that is compact. Maybe just pick up a used mirrorless body and see how it goes, you won't lose anything if you pick up a good deal. If you don't like just sell it. Any camera from the year 2013 are superb anyway for amateur photography and if compared to film - I say that being a film photographer. Pick up your most used prime lens and have a go. I have thought and thought about travelling and wanting it compact. My travels are more travel based and photography is takes position number 2. My D600 was just bulky, on the plane, on the bus and train, around the city, around the tourist attractions. Sure it is more comfy but it has a decent physical size to it. I can understand if one was going away to do just photography or photography is number 1. Myself I just broke down and got a Ricoh GR and a Fuji X-T1. By myself I guess I just complain to myself but the turning point for me was when I was with family who actually encouraged me to bring more stuff and I was silly to listen to them. I took my 18-35, my 70-200/4 and my 50/1.8, a speedlight thinking I could get all these awesome portraits of the family and even at night time to combine HKG / Guangzhou, Taiwan night photography of a buzzling city with flash hahah. I was even silly enough to take my dSLR, my F100 for slides and my FM2N for b.w film after a few days I resorted to just one body and one lens. The disadvantage I find with a D3000 and D5000 dSLR is that it is still a bit more chunkier than a mirrorless but also you don't have so much lenses to choose from and if you want everything compact as well. The most compact prime is maybe the NIkon 35mm DX F1.8 giving you a 50mm equiv. Your manual lenses I don't think they would meter with it.

Yep but many professional photographers and not paid photographers would swap to a lighter camera body away from their work, or if they are not engaging in serious photography paid or pleasure they resort to even a compact camera or even just their phone. I know locally someone who was a full time wedding photographer, when he takes time off with his own family he took his Sony RX100 but after a while at the time he said he was selling that and just used his phone. One time he did take his Nikon D700 and a UWA zoom but he said he couldn't took a handful of photographs with his family trip it wasn't worth it to carry that set-up with him. I know someone else who used to do weddings, won some accolades also a photo judge and now the president of the NZIPP NZ wedding portraiture assoc thingy, she now is doing more higher end higher paid portfolio shoots. Anyway their family went to Japan for fun, they took family photographs they were pretty much just off the phone it looks like maybe with a compact Fuji, she's a Fuji X Ambassador she uses Fuji X and also the Fuji GFX medium format. The family shots were not well lit, wireless flash to the side with a small softbox either 10 inch or whatever. Prior to Fuji she used to use full frame Canon.

Like the vast majority travelling to cities and towns, film isn't too much an issue. Carrying film or even additional lenses you just cart it around at the airport. Into the hotel or motel you can then pack a smaller kit outside with you .... Many people just shoot a few rolls a day, I do half a roll prob why I shoot with medium format what I do. The film, you can store it in the fridge in your room ..... OTOH if you are going on a dedicated photography focused trip it would be a lot different.

I have not travelled to the USA but with Europe and Asia I've not seen any x-ray damage for myself. Sometimes I have for eg .. flew from NZ to Singapore and then to Malaysia and then to Thailand and back to Singapore and then back to NZ. I don't use checked luggage. Since you have mentioned about digital. Myself as a Nikon film user (FM2N) and a D600 digital user. If I wanted to compact like my FM2N then it is not even the Z Nikon series. The Z lenses are not that compact and while the camera body is around 650g it is just that bit more chunkier but the Z series have better ergonomics, maybe they were designed for that SLR user in mind. So for myself to go compact it is really Fuji APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, I just went for Fuji b/c the sensor was a bit larger but the camera body was the same weight and dimensions as long as I stayed away from the big / fast zooms. The Fuji F2 prime lenses are quite compact like the 23/2 and 50/2 and now they have a even cheaper XC 35/2; those are the FF equivalent to the 35/50/75 lenses. They also make a 40mm ish equiv pancake F2.8, also a 28mm eqiuiv. 43mm filter threads if I am not mistaken. Edit, there is a equiv 24mm, the 16 F2.8 is the more compact one under the Fuji line up. There is also M4/3 but to me Fuji are quite compact enough with the right lenses. Sony A6000 is yet another but I found their lens options were better than Nikon for DX, I felt that Sony had more lens options for their full frame cameras, also if one was concerned about being compact, they wouldn't want to use full frame lenses on their A6000 series camera.

I agree. One time I was convinced that the focus was a bit off, while on holiday in Tokyo I went to the service center only to be told later on the same day that it was within spec. I calibrated AF fine tune on 2 primes but the zooms was a bit more complicated to do. Kinda just accepted it, not every-time one can use live view before taking the shot. Even my old mirrorless without the mirror is quite liberating. The mirror is simply not there, one less factor to deal with.

Yep, last year instead of a Z6 or Z7, I got myself a used Fuji X-T1 16MP with a kit lens, the vertical grip and 4 OEM batteries for $300US. For this hobby when I am doing local photography I could just use my F system. Instead with a bit more I could had gotten a X-T20 which I think has 24MP. For me it seems like the Z are a replacement of a newer cousin of the F. Viewfinder very nice, it is full frame. I don't do action photography but I guess eventually that would be supplied by the Z series. I am pretty much over paying brand new prices for photographic gear. All my current series F lenses were also used. My last new item was maybe the D600 in 2013 and maybe 2010 the new lens was the 35mm F1.8 DX.

Yes for sure a Z6 is even a bit cheaper than a D780. I was thinking about the entire dSLR line up. Maybe there will be a time eventually when the D3000 and D5000 series have price equivalent replacements with Z cameras that informally disestablishes F mount gear.

Thanks for that. I hear them say, other lenses can be adapted, focus peaking, better focus modes for video work etc ... At the end of the day for me, I pretty much stick with native lenses, I shoot still images; call me old fashioned hahah. Well OK, I hear they say the lenses are better but is that criteria as big as they make it out to be? I accept they are better but does it suddenly make F mount lenses inferior now. Surely the bulk of the customers are not gonna use lenses in manual focus and retrofit other format lenses and vintage lenses. Also with the EVF and OVF, I have tried the Z6 and I have been impressed with it over some of the other mirrorless I have tried. This thing with EVF and OVF is kinda the thing that you just adapt to your tools right? Plenty of people were happy with OVF and still now. Shrugs ....

I don't have the NIkon macro lens but you may want to double check. The lens might not allow you to shoot at F2.8 at all distances. I think it depends on the distance you are to the subject. Ie the focus distance. [uSER=6244224]@OP[/uSER] for the lenses. As someone else noted it depends what you are into and maybe they would be the same equiv lenses to your F100? When I shot with my D70 and now with my D600 and also with my F100 for myself, I prefer a super wide zoom for my landscapes and cityscapes in a big international city and then I often pair that up with a nifty 50mm F1.8 or the NIkon 35mm F1.8 DX lens with the D70. Alternatively I may switch the 50mm equiv to a 35mm equiv for something wider.

I've had a think about this lately. For myself I haven't got a Nikon mirrorless. If I am confronted the decision; like if my dSLR broke down, I might just pick up another used but newer dSLR body. I can see that mirrorless have definite advantages but I do seldom of that and things like eye detect focus I don't see myself really need those features. Althou mirrorless does make the camera body a bit more compact they are still more dedicated equipment than a holiday / street camera. Maybe mirrorless at a point will be so price competitive and they move away from dSLRs that decision is made for us by the manufacturer if one wanted to buy new. What are/were you reasons for mirrorless? Cheers :)

Pretty much with the Nikon DX cameras right ... FWIW today, I went and played tourist in my own town, we are out of lockdown. I did the cable car and a walk around the garden and into the city. I had with me my Nikon D600, 18-35 and my 70-200 f4. I am large a scape photographer. I used to have a 80-200 f2.8 so I know what it is like. I think that certain companies focus on full frame because that is where the money is and that is all they can manage. A lot of that casual shooter market have gone with phones, and those that still want a dedicated camera maybe that market isn't large enough. The ones that might wanna downsize are those maybe who demand a good kit of fast lenses f2.8 zooms and they outside for extended times like travel, street, documentary so they are not the ones that goes out for an hour or two and call it a day. Like I know a person who goes to Myanmar and does documentary and street photography, he went from a full frame Canon with 3 L f.2.8 zooms to a M4/3 set-up. Some of full frame customers are those who use FF at home but when they are on holiday they downsize it to a manageable size like 2 relatively compact lenses or 2 primes or maybe 1 kit lens and 1 f1.8 prime lens that means they can shoot FF on holiday. They of them might be unlikely to want to cart 3x f2.8 lenses on travel outside 10hrs a day and do it with full frame and juggling the partner, kids maybe the in-laws.

With the lockdown I have been thinking and also looking at my film scans. I don't plan to pay for drum scanning and with a flatbed for 120 format, film isn't as clinical or sharp as digital, nor with APS-C. How long is the piece of string ... When I go back to my shots, nearly always it doesn't matter if the camera was a full frame or not, I've even used kit lenses that was v good in daylight. It's reached the point that does it matter if it is full frame or not, does it matter if one doesn't even own a full frame camera? Some professionals get the job done and that is it right without thinking so much about the gear and what is the absolute best. I've also heard the advice of dust spotting to 50% view magnification, if one is not going to end up printing it why the need to go the full way ...... For myself and some others, at the end of the day they are just images shared online or printed out at a modest size and that is right. Most are also prob just fun and hobby rather than a dedicated trip out just for photography and then printed at a A2 size and beyond .....

Yeah with phones now improving now, maybe low light is an area they are not quite there yet. For casual travel type shots low light after dinner, with the touristy casual night markets, light shows, food markets, festival markets etc etc ... Handheld. There are the 20mm and the 24mm FX Z primes but again, it is the position of paying for a full frame lenses and carrying a full frame lens if they only will ever use it on a Z50. Many might want a Z50 for a smaller size and here we are trying to use it with a full frame lens.

For my use the Z50 doesn't seem to the better camera for "landscapes, travel and family photos". Nikon Z's is more geared to full frame. Z50; for snapshots fine but if one wanted some dedicated wide fast lenses for low light say, a evening night market, or a evening walk after dinner outside it's not so much a rounded product.

I had a D70 repaired by Nikon that was showing ERR. I had printed circuit boards replaced and a aperture control unit.

Hi, I was just playing around with my RB67 in particular. Perhaps I am used to my dSLR with the modern lenses and took it for granted. I've been checking the focus of my RB67 with a thin piece of ground glass at the back of the camera on the film plane and verify that my viewfinder is in sync. Long story short nothing wrong with my camera. 1. Are the film era lenses especially wide open not quite as sharp as modern lenses today with the aperture wide open? 2. Is it a tough ask to shoot 6x7 medium format at a rather close distance by extending the bellows out and shoot the aperture wide open and expect eg ..the eyes to be in focus and not the eye lashes ....? So maybe I've been expecting the camera to meet my expectations rather than adapting myself to the camera ..... Even with modern digital cameras they use live-view or teethered to a computer screen right .... Keen to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

The AF and AF-D will connect and still take a photo with the D40, D3000 and D5000 series but it won't autofocus. You can always manually focus every time and it will take the appropriate photo. The D just means distance for the flash I think. I have used my 35-70 non D lens with my D600. D600 so yes it does autofocus it has the screwdriver thingy on the lens mount. I haven't had much issue with flash but I don't use much with flash .... in some cases yeah probably. With the D40, D3000 and D5000 you need the Nikon AF-S lenses and I think AF-I or something? And the equiv 3rd party lenses. Sigma is called HSM technology.

With my 35-70mm non D I have added 3 files here, original RAW converted to JPEG with no editing. I reset my edits with Lightroom. I also deliberately showed one image with flare to show the effect. Dropbox - Shared1 - Simplify your life