ashwin_kittur

I was hoping to find a New York City based processor that might

provide a free photo CD (i.e. scans) when you get your film processed

and printed by them.

 

I think a recent issue of Pop Photo has an article about a place that

offered the free CD along with the service but I can't find my copy to

check the name of the place. Most of the places I have found charge

$7.00.

I have an FM, which obviously is not an FM3A, but it has similar eye relief. I wear glasses so when I bought the F3HP, it was a real awakening. At first, I used to rotate between the FM and F3HP, using the former for more candid work when portability was a plus. But gradually, I find myself grabbing more and more for the F3HP due to the ease of composition with the high eyepoint finder. If I had a choice between F3HP and FM3A, my preference would be for the former.

Wow - a lot of good responses. It's funny I have found myself debating the same question. I compared an F100 and an N80 at a local camera store. The N80 was great, but the F100 put a smile on my face the second I looked into the viewfinder.

 

I am still leaning toward buying a F100 as (1) it's an awesome camera at the current used market price (i.e. great viewfinder, fast AF, rugged build) and superior in these respects as a camera to anything I can get in the digital realm at that price at this point in time; (2) I don't derive a lot of pleasure from the digital work flow process i.e. working on a computer is too much like my day job;-) (4) my main goal is getting good equality prints for posterity and film is still economical for me to do this since my volume isn't that high.

Daniel,

I never quite understand these shoot-outs between film and digital I see on the internet. It seems to me that the digital image is a first-generation output from a digital camera but at best, a second generation output from a film camera. Wouldn't it be more comparable to compare two prints from the two different media? I am not asking this in a defensive manner - I am genuinely curious.

Thanks,

Ashwin

I saw an archived review from Pop Photo on the Nikon F3 from the very early 80s on the net. I was surprised how detailed, analytical and critical the review was. They actually completely disassembled the camera! In comparison, the current Pop Photo review articles seem quite cursory in comparison.

 

At a local magazine shop here in New York, I've noticed that the mainstream UK photo mags tend to have a lot more articles on technique than their US counterparts. They also review cameras and gear etc, but seem to strike a better balance between pushing the latest gear and discussing photography itself.

In terms of overall durability, I would still give the nod to the FM2/FE2/FA/F3 - I will take the denting and brassing over cracking any day. Though some might make a valid argument for the shock absorbing properties of polycarbonate. On a side note, aesthetically, a beat-up metal camera looks better to my mind than a beat-up polycarbonate one.

 

In terms of weather sealing, the n90s would probably get the nod over all these manual focus cameras except the FM2 or FM, which do not have a electronic shutter, and can probably function - without metering - even in a monsoon.

 

Personally, I almost bought a n90s recently since it's such an awesome deal on the used market. But I decided against it due to its absence of off-center AF sensors, which I would prefer. I will probably wait until the F100 drops further in price on the used market and then snap one up instead.

I'm with you regarding the importance of a finder. I am not sure if the manufacturers of digital SLRs believe finders are less important to their target customer because of the presence of the back LCD screen? Regardless, I find a camera with a poor finder is not pleasurable for me to use regardless of what other wonderful attributes it may have.

I feel strongly that the solution to your 'rut' does not lie in adding, removing, selling, buying, renting etc any more equipment. Sure there will be some short-term novelty if you went out and bought a Leica M7 or a Nikon D2X but eventually the novelty will fade and you will be back to your starting point.

 

I sometimes feel the same way. I shoot a whole lot of pictures - more than half of my toddler son - and I wonder what's the purpose of putting so much time and effort into something when most fathers are content with snapshots and the Sears portrait studioTM. It's not like they will be published or even viewed beyond my immediate family members.

 

This came to me just recently that the greatest benefit photography has given me is the ability to see the world with fresh eyes. To realize that sunsets as well as people are all very fleeting and transient. And that the only way to make those good moments stand still is reach for my camera. This has helped me enjoy the process of photography more.

I love this shot. Is it Paris? How long ago?

It's one of those shots that become more effective as time goes by (i.e. the cars look more antiquated).

I'm confused - you used your Nikkor 50mm on a Bronica?

One question since I am new to AF. Assuming I place the sensor in the desired location (e.g. subject's nearest eye), am I likely to find that AF will produce sharper focusing that I can generally achieve by manual focusing (and using manual focusing aids)?

 

In other words, I am asking here more about 'precision' (i.e. how finely I can focus with AF) as opposed to 'accuracy' (as defined by the AF choosing the correct location on which to focus).

Shun,

To answer you question, I plan to shoot mostly portraits. But I want the ability to do it more quickly than my manual focus cameras so that I can capture the moment before my 2-year-old son turns his head or my mother-in-law gets impatient and starts to frown. Shooting sporting events is not my goal.

Thanks,

Ashwin

Thank you Arnab, Tristan and Ross for your helpful responses!

 

I was giving this some thought i.e. using the point AF feature effectively. Given that the majority of the time, I am shooting people, it would seem to me that placing one of your multi-sensor over the eye of your subject and using the back 'joystick' control to choose that sensor (F100 and N80) is probably not that much faster than simply using your point AF, locking, and recomposing (n90s). If the shutter button also permitted autofocus lock in the n90s (i.e. partially depressing it) than this might even be the simplest of all.

I have been a manual-focus Nikon user (F3HP, FM); however, recently I

thought having an autofocus, matrix system camera might be useful for

certain types of photography I do. Recently, an opportunity to

purchase a used n90s for a good price has appeared.

 

If I understand this correctly, the n90s has only one AF point (which

has a wide area AF or point AF option). As many of my compositions

have an off-center subject (i.e. rule of thirds), I am concerned that

this might make composing awkward particularly since many have

complained that the autofocus lock is not placed ergnomically.

Otherwise, I figured the one AF point wasn't a deal-breaker because I

could just point autofocus on, say, a person's closest eye, autofocus

lock, recompose and then shoot. But in practice, I am not sure if

this will work well. And secondly, I am not sure how the wide-area AF

option might assist or detract in the whole off-center subject

composition thing.

 

Anyone care to share their experiences? TIA