Matthew Currie

Yes, and remember that the meter's ASA scale and the filter factor conversions do the same thing, but the ASA dial goes in 1/3 of a stop increments, which might get you closer to the right setting than the full stops of shutter and lens, as well as allowing you to forget the compensation once it's set for the roll of film.

I have three FTn's and though I don't use them nowadays, I converted them long ago to run on silver oxide battery voltages. It's not that hard to do, if you don't mind opening the thing up. Attached is an illustration of the inside of the meter head. You must peel off the leatherette and under it are four little screws to remove the sheet metal top. I recommend "Aleene's Tacky Glue" for re-attaching the leatherette, as it allows you to adjust placement before it dries, is durable, but also can be removed again without damage. You need to compare the camera's meter reading to that on some reasonably accurate meter, remembering that this is a center-weighted meter, so whatever scene it's aimed at should be pretty even. I set my Nikon and a known-accurate Minolta on a tripod, both with the same focal length lens, aimed at an evenly lit beige wall. Adjust the sensitivity first, because that affects the meter test position. After that, set the meter test position. Once this is done, you can use silver oxide or alkaline batteries (alkalines go low before they go dead, but the voltage check will tell you when they're not OK). Because the positive contact with the batteries is on the side rather than the end, you cannot use o-rings on smaller cells as you can on some other cameras, but you can use conductive rings, or if you're careful, tinfoil. It used to be possible to get the correct sized batteries in silver oxide, but I have not seen them around recently. You can still get the big ones in Alkaline, though, I think. I haven't plumbed the internet recently but if you can find the original size in silver oxide, they will last for a few years. If you're reluctant to open up the meter, I'd recommend using the LR-44 sized hearing aid batteries, which are pretty close to the correct voltage, along with conductive rings. Just be ready to replace them every few months. As an alternative, you can also use higher voltage batteries, and offset the ISO. I don't even remember which direction you have to go to offset it, but my recollection is that it's about 2 stops, and for a mid range film ISO there should be enough adjustment range. On this meter, though, the battery check is not affected by ISO setting, so you'll have to guess for that.

I'm not sure how your measurement is figured, and am quite willing to go with "I don't understand how decibels work in reality" as well, but as I read the instructions for both the meters I used, my measurements seemed correct. Remember that the measurement here was the maximum level of a very brief noise, taken right at the source. It would be what you hear if, without a lens on, you held the camera right against your ear. Decibel measurements are often used as a relative, rather than absolute, measure, because the scale is logarithmic. A ten decibel change is a tenfold change in perceived sound. On the digital meter, one sets the range, and a sound that falls within a few decibels of the set range is reported as a number. On the analogue meter, one sets the range, and decibels at that number will register as "0" on the meter. Both meters roughly agreed, except that the briefest sounds did not register on the analogue meter, resulting in a clear win for the quiet mode. Of course the main issue here is relative noise of the different shutter modes, so the absolute number is less relevant, I think. But as I read it, normal conversation level is somewhere around 35 DbA. And a camera firing can certainly be heard over that. The digital meter's instructions note that it cannot measure below 50 DbA, which suggests that if one placed a camera on the seat of your motorcycle while it was running, the meter would detect the camera but not the motorcycle. Not to belabor the point too much further, I would note that at least one other tester has come up with similar numbers: https://www.robertallen-photography.com/blog/how-loud-are-nikon-dslr-camera-shutters Anyway, I'll leave it there. My measurements were rather crude, the meters involved less than professional, taken right at the source, and weighted in a way that ignores some frequencies, and considers only the momentary quantity of sound pressure and not the quality of the sound. Going by that, I'd choose quiet mode in church if I had to use a DSLR, and a handheld pocket camera with the sound turned off if I didn't.

Taking this a little further and likely further than it ought to go, I tried measuring this on a D7100 with a sound meter (inexpensive Radio Shack one) To begin with, it's not entirely consistent, and the volume of the sound depends much on the lens. So I tried taking the lens off, and measuring at the lens hole, and it's pretty close to a wash. I actually have two meters, one digital and one analog, and the digital one suggests that the sound is pretty much the same for all modes. But the analog one favors Quiet mode by quite a margin. It may be that the duration of the maximum sound level is so brief it does not register on the meter, but the analog meter tallies better with the subjective evaluation of the sound. With the meter set at the 90 DbA range, which presumably means that 90 DbA will register as zero on the meter, the S mode gives about 90 in a single noise. The Mirror Up mode gives a low reading for the first sound, and 90 or so for the second. The Live View gives multiple noises, close to 90 entering LV, and then the shutter makes nearly 90 on its first sound and about half that on its second. So even if you can conceal the turning on and off of LV mode, you end up with a louder shutter. Q mode gives you two noises, but both are about half that of a single shot. Putting the lens back on damps all the sounds, but they stay about the same relatively. with Q mode winning. Interestingly, when I metered a couple of my old F's, they came out pretty nearly the same as the D7100 in both analog and digital readings, despite the subjective sense that they make quite a clatter. The sound is different, but the level is about the same. If you can afford the lack of features, my old D3200 is considerably quieter, especially in Quiet mode. The mirror on this is very well damped.

Although there's little difference in the total sound from the various options, there is a difference in when and where it occurs. A large part of the noise you get from an SLR comes from all the operations happening in rapid sequence. In the situation above, if shots are not continuous, I'd suggest "quiet" mode (that's the "Q" on the shutter mode dial). In this, the mirror return does not occur until you let go of the shutter button. This means that you can point and shoot, but you have the option of dropping the camera into the pew, or between your knees, under your jacket, etc. before letting the mirror return, or just waiting a little to keep the sounds separate. Or course it only works in single shot mode, and only if there's some time between shots. It also suppresses the focus beep if you're using single servo focus. There's not a lot of difference here, but there's some, and it might be enough. Mind you, as SLR noises go, the D7200 and 7100 seem pretty quiet compared to what I used to use. An old F will scare the horses, and when you fire a Konica T3 people will turn around to see what you dropped.

Been terribly lazy about posting recently, but I just got back from Tanzania, and met this amusing little guy....

On old manual, non-G setups, that lever is essentially binary. When viewing, it's all the way open and then some, with a spring allowing for some error, and when shooting, it's all the way out of the way, not even in contact with the lens. So even a slightly bent one may continue to work. But I once made the mistake of mounting a used lens without that little screw on an old F, and it was a lesson learned. I was able to take the back off and disentangle it, and on the F it's made of brass which you can unbend. But of course on a digital camera with no back it's a different story. So I'm careful to check any old lens before I use it now.

In my case the camera itself is close enough to that point, 10 years old, nearing its shutter life expectancy, with print worn off the buttons and an internal malfuction that makes it no longer work in manual mode unless you squeeze in just the right place, etc., so I don't worry much. It rides in the car and goes on some trips when traveling extra light. The batteries still hold a charge and before swelling a little they were already pretty tight, and they have not swelled further, so they will stay. I wouldn't recommend it for more demanding uses.

I have a couple of Watson third party batteries for my D3200, and they have swelled a little. They're still good, and I was able to sand them down a little to fit better, and they have not continued to swell, but they did swell enough to prevent them from falling out. I'd definitely keep an eye on batteries if you leave them in.

Just a quick note, that although it is recommended, it is not necessary to set a lens to 5.6 on the Nikon F's FTn meter head, which has a retracting spring. A possible selling point for the F if one is switching lenses a lot in a hurry.

If you want the plain prism look and don't need the F system accessories the Nikkormat might well be a better choice. Same lenses, only one battery, and threaded viewfinder. Much of the advantage of the F, such as accessory finders, bulk film and Polaroid backs, is of little importance now.

Couple of final notes. Plain prism finders are hard to find, especially the later ones with round eyepieces. If you need any eyepiece accessories such as dipoters or magnifiers, stick with the circular one on the Ftn finder. It's the smaller of two thread sizes (bigger starting with the F3 HP). Depending on which version you have, the 55/3.5 may have a compensating aperture. The first versions of this lens, made when most meters were external, compensated for the loss of light when focusing close. It messes up TTL metering and must be compensated for. Chances are if it is contemporary with the camera it will be a later uncompensated version but it would be a good idea to check. Here's a list of what serial numbers fit what versions: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro. I have a later pre-AI "PC" version and concur with Ben Hutcherson above. Great lens.

I second the idea of cycling the shutter many times. Those old cameras can sometimes regain much of their accuracy. If you go on line, I think you may still find somewhere the info for recalibrating the FTn meter for modern batteries. It's not all that hard, requiring that you open it up, and adjust two little variable resistors. One adjusts the exposure itself (comparing with a known good meter) and the other the battery check needle, and they slightly influence each other. I did mine many years ago and they worked very well. I found the old 1.4 lens all right on black and white, but it seemed a bit less satisfactory in color, and I much preferred the lagter 50/2 AI. The older 50/2 was also supposed to be very good, and with less distortion. I would not overlook the 55/3.5 either, though, which was a decent normal lens. Don't forget too that if you can't manage the meter recalibration, you can probably compensate enough by fudging the ASA setting. The main problem here is going to be keeping track of the battery condition since the battery check does not change with film speed, so it will be out of adjustment. Alkaline batteries are not optimal but they will work. Or, you can get conductive rings to put on smaller batteries and use those instead, which gives more of an opportunity for silver oxides. Just remember that because this finder's battery contact is on the side of the cell, you can't just use O-rings as you can on some other cameras. You need a conductive ring. In a pinch you can use aluminum foil.

Just for informtion, Exiftool (also the more windows-friendly Exiftool GUI) also returns fine tune information.

A matter of taste, I guess. It's been a while since I used my F3 and its predecessors, and had only a couple of odd lenses that were automatic but uncoupled, but I would not have liked a locking DOF preview. I'd rather push the button to meter and let go to focus and shoot. I do miss having a true mechanical DOF preview on digital cameras.

Not much chance of beaches for a while, but a nice downpour or two is likely to occur soon enough.

I haven't shot film for some time, and have resisted adding more to the pile of film cameras, which continues to be overstocked despite my having given away a bunch of them. But there was this Nikonos III in good but shopworn looking condition for cheap, and I just couldn't...you know. I've never had a working Nikonos before. Probably won't run much film through it, especially with the underwater season dramatically over for a while, but there it is.

I sold a whole slew of cameras some years ago including a black body Leica II with a nice lens, and a few other goodies, but I think the one I regret most in a way was the Sept I had what appears now to have been a rather rare example of the Sept half-frame still/movie camera/projector, because it had the film cassettes and it still worked. I never got around to using it. Oh well.

A small note. I'm not sure how it was done everywhere, but I long ago had a Canon APS film camera. I had assumed that the three print sizes were different sizes on the film itself, since I thought the whole point of APS was this new flexibility through film encoding and all. I was surprised to find that, just as with some 35 mm. cameras, the different print sizes were just crop instructions to the processor. Wide prints were cropped horizontally, narrow ones cropped vertically with wider spaces between them. No more or fewer pictures would go on the roll, whatever sizes you chose. The camera itself was very nicely made, a solid little all metal body. Unfortunately the very compact body did not make up for the smaller negatives and the expensive film and processing, and it appears that very few of the touted features of APS were used by most processors anyway.

A quicky shot in lousy light, but here's my nephew Gabriel, at a concert last night. A member of the group "The Moanin' Frogs," consisting of six college music professors off on a summer frolic, playing each of the six sizes of saxophones from sopranino to bass. He's the alto.

My wife had the AFS-VR version, and when my far lesser 55-300 became too frustrating, I sprung for the new 70-300 AFP (the FX version). So I was able to race them using the same camera and same targets. Though the old AFS was pretty decent, and focused relatively fast and well, the new AFP surpassed it in several ways. First, it focuses approximately twice as fast, and second it's measurably sharper, especially at the long end. Compared to the 55-300 with its relatively poor long end quality and abysmally slow AF it was no contest, of course, but my wife liked it so much she replaced her AFS with one too. We both use these with DX cameras (D7100 and 7200). I have heard that the DX version is also quite good but the FX is supposed to be a tiny bit better as well as a tiny bit faster. We opted for this one in part because of the on-lens switches, which the DX version lacks. I suspect there are few other lenses that deliver as much for the price.

An osprey nest pole near Brandon, VT, which gets used every year. Today I happened by during the changing of the guard. (Nikon D7100, 200-500)

Mommeee! Daddy dropped my worm!

Just a quick note because people often mention the old 80-400 D lens, and if you have not used one you might be tempted to wonder "how bad could it really be?" given its current price. I have one (or access to one that my wife used to use but does not any more). Optically, though it gets pretty soft at the long end, I think it's not perhaps as awful as some people make out, but its AF is not just slow, but dead slow, to the point that it is essentially worthless for action. It actually is measurably the slowest AF of any Nikon lens made. You might as well be focusing manually. It's too bad, as it's a nice size for carrying around, despite also having one of the least useful tripod feet ever made.* On film, it sort of made sense, but for any digital camera that allows cropping, any good 300 blows it away. The 200-500 is indeed pretty big and heavy, but if you can carry it, you can use it surprisingly well, because its VR is superb. *tripod foot note. I've seen some of these lenses sold without the foot at all. Unlike the 200-500 and others, the foot on this cannot be used as a handle, so if you're hand holding it it makes sense to take it off. Maybe they tossed it.

Buebirds are such good parents. I count at least three little beaks inside. Well done!