User_1172872

<p>The first Leicaflex - the one with the external meter - also had a 1/2000 top speed. Flash sync was 1/100 if I remember. How long a mechanically timed shutter would retain its accuracy at the top speed is another issue altogether. It was not uncommon for the 1/1000 speed to be a half stop slow. And it was another Fuji SLR where the top speed was 1/750.</p>

<p>You can use the felt lip from a film canister to replace the mirror bumper.</p>

<p>Did you use print (negative) or slide (positive) film? You can't judge exposure from prints; the variation in brightness across the image may have fooled the exposure in the print machine. Underexposed slides would indicate, as others have said, the meter was fooled by a light source. Depending on the acceptance angle (field of view) of the meter, it's possible to fool the meter even if the light source is not in the frame.</p>

<p>Bird photographers are always frustrated by lack of reach. Even if you have a 600mm lens. Nonetheless in my opinion for bird photography 400mm is really the minimum on an APS-C camera body. Just be aware this may be only the beginning - the next logical step will be to upgrade to a Nikon body that will retain autofocus at f/8 and the addition of a TC-14. And even so, for small passeriformes you will still want to be well within 20 feet. You haven't mentioned where you located, but as a practical matter that may be a much bigger issue than equipment. The three rules for bird successful bird photography are the three rules that determine the value of real estate: location, location, and location. At some locations (e.g., the gulf coast of Texas at the peak of migration) some birds can be simply much more approachable than at other times and places. Do you have access to a good location with a blind (hide)?</p>

<p>I have a Canon 9900F in the closet. Never could get the infrared channel (dust/scratch removal) to work right. Tried Vuescan without improvement. That doesn't mean you won't obtain better results - I gave up long ago and the current Vuescan might be much different - but based on my experience I wouldn't recommend the 9900F. When I migrated to Windows 7 from XP I couldn't find drivers for the 9900F so I purchased an Epson V500. I'd easily recommend a new Epson over the 9900F - I think you'll save yourself a lot of grief. For 35mm I use a Nikon coolscan V, with much better results than the Epson. But the coolscan won't handle medium format.</p>

<p>The first one appears to be a Retina Reflex.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It would have been prohibitively expensive to make every new lens fully compatible with some of the older bodies</p> </blockquote> <p>Do we really know that? </p>

<p>Thank you for your comments and especially Shun for his prompt reply. This is very disappointing news. I purchased a Nikon D40 at a closeout price when I realized it would be the last Nikon with the hybrid shutter that would allow flash synch at 1/500 second <strong><em>and</em> <em>full power</em> </strong>with an SB-800. [in fact, it will synch at all speeds to 1/4000 with a Vivitar 285, albeit without e-ttl or i-ttl, whichever is Nikon's marketing.] The small and light D40 would have been a good match to the new, small, and light 300mm. But the lack of aperture control is a deal-breaker. </p>

<p>Apologies if I missed this in a different thread but Nikon forward/backward compatibility issues seem to be growing at an exponential rate. If I understand the situation correctly, the new 300mm f/4E PF ED VR has an "Electromagnetic Diaphragm Mechanism," same as the 800mm monster. Here is what a search engine turned up about the 800mm:</p> <blockquote> <p>Electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism is incorporated for enhanced stability in auto exposure control during continuous shooting even when the teleconverter is used (Not compatible with the D2 series, D1 series, D200, D100, D90, D80, D70 series, D3000, D60, D50, D40 series, 35mm film cameras)</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, you have no aperture control with that list of cameras and the monster 800mm. Since the new 300mm also has the "Electromagnetic diaphragm" I conclude that the new 300mm is also incompatible with the preceding list of cameras. Does anyone know with certainty whether this is correct?<br> I thank you in advance for your attention.</p>

<blockquote> <p>So the story goes, the Ikonette 35 was withdrawn from sale by Zeiss and as many copies as possible were recalled and destroyed, due to an ongoing problem with light leaks.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is certainly the account given by Barringer and Small in the Zeiss Compendium. As of 1995 they wrote that the Ikonette was 'rare' and 'sought after by collectors.' Wonder if that's still true in the digital age?</p>

<p>What were you planning to use them for? By modern standards, these have an extremely long minimum focus distance - 14 meters if I am correct. OK for landscapes, not OK for small birds.</p>

<p>All use AA. If I remember correctly, lithium AA were approved by Nikon for the F100 and perhaps the N90s.</p>

<p>It has been well over a decade since I have used either one, but if memory serves correctly, there's some kind of coating on the rear door of the N90s that tends to peel. I slowly and carefully removed nearly all of it once the peeling started - no big deal, just time consuming. Two advantages of an N90s over an N8008s - better autofocus (a lot better!) and the ability to take advantage of D type lenses for flash photography. If I still shot film, even occasionally, I'd have kept my F100 - in my opinion, the sine qua non of Nikon film cameras.</p>

<p>Following up on 2 other responses: I believe only the 5D uses lithium batteries; the others rely on NIMH. For me the NIMH would be a deal-breaker; these are an older generation battery that go flat when not used. Try a search engine; you'll find websites telling you how to replace the older NIMH batteries inside a Canon battery back with Eneloops.</p>

<p>If we use manufacturing a new one at today's cost as benchmark, a fully restored Duesenberg might turn out to be the bargain of the century. More to the point, what is the expenditure required relative to the goal? Manufacturing cost has nothing to do with it. If spending $1,000 on the camera and spending another $1,000 on a complete overhaul is the most cost-effective route to achieving your desired results then it's clearly the right choice for you.</p>

<p>I used the 300 f/4 IS for over a decade - starting in the film era! Please be aware that I owned only one copy - your mileage may vary and all that. My experience - wonderfully sharp at f/4 - but with a 1.4x TC, not so much. With the 1.4x TC I had to stop down to f/11 to recover the sharpness I had without the TC. With the 2x - hopeless. And that was obvious in the days of film, when my EOS 3 would autofocus at f/8. I suspect it's not really f/4 - that would require a minimum clear aperture of 75mm and it has a 77mm filter ring. Today I use the 400mm f/5.6 L - wonderfully sharp at 5.6 - two effective stops gained relative to the 300 + 1.4 combination which wasn't as sharp until f/11. I would either wait for the new 100-400 or if you can rely on bean bags or monopods, go for the now ancient 400 f/5.6 which has really fast autofocus. And it is still useable with the 1.4x TC. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Ivor Matanle describes it as "unreliable" and "not to be recommended for photography."<br> Title of his book is "Collecting and Using Classic SLRs." <br> The "Wink" is described in the "Leaf shutters and just plain weird shutters" chapter.</p>

<p>Many years ago, I owned an FE2. A fine camera in almost all respects, save one crucial flaw: to turn on the meter, you pulled the wind lever away from the body. Since I am left eye dominant, it always felt like I was about to put my thumb in my right eye. Not a problem if you use the winder, but did that thing ever make a racket!</p>

<p>If you are shooting JPEG, check the camera menu for 'high iso noise reduction' or something similar; you may have changed the setting by accident. If you shoot raw, check the noise reduction settings.</p>

<p>I am not a leica expert. However the following link may help:<br> http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-213.html</p>

<p>For me the real advantage of the better beamer is that it reduces the recycle time when used at working distances within the normal range of the flash. So unless you want a higher frame rate with your flash I wouldn't bother with one. I don't believe they're really made for different flash units. The parts that attach to the flash are made in different dimensions for different units. However I'm fairly certain the Fresnel magnifier is the same in all cases. The instructions that came with mine said to override the "auto-zoom" setting and set the flash to 50mm - so you are getting more power, but not 3 stops flash range over the maximum telephoto setting. If you want to experiment, a little searching should enable you to find instructions on how to make one with a US $ 1.98 Fresnel magnifier from an office supply store, some cardboard, and some duct tape.</p>

<p>Irfanview will allow you to do this.</p>

<p>Neither the T2i, nor my 20D, nor my 40D, will attempt to autofocus with a Canon lens and a Canon converter when the effective maximum aperture is f/8. With the exception of a handful of bodies, the Canon system will shut down the autofocus when the maximum aperture is smaller than 5.6; but that is to ensure reliable, accurate, and consistent autofocus. Whether the autofocus is good enough with the Kenko converter depends entirely on what the user thinks is 'good enough.' </p>

<p>I cannot answer your question directly as I do not have the same equipment as you. However I can tell you that with the latest 1.4 Kenko DGX - the X is important - the maximum aperture is displayed as f/8 if the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 and the exif data correctly shows the lens plus converter combination for both focal length and aperture. Nonetheless, both a 20D and 40D body will attempt, and sometimes succeed (in good light) to focus the lens. Suggest you look at reviews on Amazon for the DGX converter for EOS, several reviewers have reported success with various combinations.</p>

<p>The feathers of crows exhibit iridescence. It is indeed difficult to capture the subtle differences in shades. Well done.</p>