mike_grigsby

It's a superb lens. I find it a little slow in focusing on moving targets, but the contrast, color and sharpness are what you'd expect from a good Nikkor. It seems to focus a bit more slowly on my D50 than I'd like, but I usually use mine in manual mode on my D200.

 

I've found a TON of variants of this lens. Mine looks quite different, with a different focus limiter.

I relucantly swapped a extra large format lens for a Nikkor 300mm f/4

ED AF lens. Reluctantly because the 300mm f/4.5 AIS was a dog. Well,

the ED version SMOKES! I'm thrilled with the optical performance.

 

But I don't have a clue how to use the strange lever and collar that

sits near the lens hood. It appears that it might let you limit the

shortest focusing distance or something. Can anyone clue me in to how

this scale, slot and knurled pin work, what it's used for, etc.?

Thanks so much!<div></div>

My real intention is to wait until Nikon comes out with a reasonably affordable full frame. But today I thought I'd step up from my pocket sized Nikon and buy a D50. I wanted to share my experience after using it for all of 8 hours.

 

All I can say is "wow"! I haven't had this much fun photographing in a long time. My Nikon 35mm equipment has been sitting neatly in a bag while I've been working with Hasselblad and 4x5" formats. Until I bought the D50 today with the 18-55mm lens, I forgot how much fun shooting anything and everything could be.

 

As I photographed head-on into bright streetlights, night scenes, and dimly lit doorways, I rediscovered photography today. It was like the old days of burning a half roll of Tri-x or Ektachrome to see what affect settings had on the final print. After the initial hit $869 and some change (did you know DSLR's don't come with memory cards?!?!), it was cheap to play around again.

 

Only tonight did I really get a chance to read through the manual very thoroughly, but the shooting I did today was effortless. The menus are quite intuitive, and I had a lot of fun with changing ISO settings and could instantly see the depth of field resulting from different aperture settings. The D50 is a pleasure to shoot with. The very first image was the mall where I impulsively bought it (sorry about this one B&H<g>). I transferred the medium sized JPEGs to my computer and ACDSEE and was blown away by the sharpness and color. I found I need to control my stance, breathing and release technique now that I'm shooting hand-held shots.

 

Tonight I figured out how to change the ISO to 1600 and had very little problem shooting hand-held night and dusk shots of lighted streets. I need to look into the noise adjustment though because I did notice some artifacts at higher magnifications of the image.

 

I was originally going to buy the cheaper 28-80mm? Nikkor, but realizing the 18-55mm used 52mm Nikkor filters I already owned, versus the cheaper lens' 58mm, I paid a little more. The fact it was ED and a little wider made the choice easier, though I have to say that I experienced some flare and ghosting that I didn't expect. It could be due to the filter needing a bit of cleaning so I'll work that out tomorrow.

 

As far as manual and auto focus, I was pleasently surprised to find in the manual that I can use most of my old AI'd Nikkors. I was also surprised there was no flash socket on the D50 to use my SB-11 and studio lighting, but did find a reference to a hot-shoe adapter that would let me do so. My eyesight is also not what it used to be 20 years ago or so when I was shooting more 35mm, and I find it a little difficult to manually focus the lens, but it can be done. The ability to creatively zoom with the 18-55mm and let the camera worry about the focus is wonderful. I also like being able to use the spot area metering to lock the focus where I want it, then frame the image anyway I like, letting the background go out of focus. I found the results of the autofocus to be spot on, and I like the way the camera beeps when it acquires the proper focus. I really don't see much need to manually focus anymore, unless it's on a tripod and you can't move the camera around to get the focus and then the framing.

 

I didn't bother looking for used equipment because I know there are enough horror stories about new bodies that have problems. The D50 is very light weight, but I sort of miss the tank-feel of a more pro Nikons. Tomorrow I'll tripod mount it and see how it performs, as well as use normal ISO settings to reduce noise. I know this camera is going to teach me a lot about photography and help me regain some spontaneity I've misplaced over the years with my more rigid large format work. For my needs, the D50 seems fine... until Nikon comes out with a full-frame DSLR.<div></div>

Also, I don't find Acros very enjoyable when it comes to pushing or the little amount of pulling. It' tends to look flat to me. I'd rather push one of the Ilford films, like Delta 400.

I wish I could remember enough about shooting movie stills years ago so I might give you step by step suggestions, but it's been too long and my memory's gone<g>.

 

My problem was mainly matching the color correction to that of the movie camera. They were always shooting in some bizarre light using color correction on the lens, or sheets of color filtration on windows, incandescent bulbs, windshields, or who knows where.

 

If you're truly shooting movie film and not digital video, there are some other factors. Often the lighting is not as intense as you think it is. Cinematography allows slower shutter speeds because the blurring is not so obvious when the frames are moving at a high rate of speed in front of your eye. Often they use a very slow speed film and shutter speeds that are appauling to still photographers.

 

Also, I believe movie film is actually negative film so it can be printed to positive (but I can't recall. It's been awhile). I don't think you can get away with shooting the slower speed film often used by cinematographers because you'll find the lighting to be too insufficient. I think you'll need to find a film that is 400 ASA or higher. Otherwise you'll end up with blurry images.

 

Most sound people won't let you shoot stills unless you're using a blimp on your camera to eliminate the shutter clicking. This can easily be picked up by the sound guy. A Leica might be tolerable, but you're better off buying or building a blimp-wrap for your camera to hide the noise.

 

As for film, it's been too many years, but I recall the most accurate color came from a warmer looking film like higher speed Kodachrome, and Ektacrhome seemed to look too cold at the time, but I think newer variants are probably better. You might want to look at some of the Fuji E6 films that do such a good job of warming up a scene. Good luck and have fun!

Hello Martin, I'll try to go easy on my answer, but you're a long way from being able to do zone system work with the equipment you've assembled. Here's why:

 

1) You need to vary exposure and development time on a shot-by-shot basis. For example, one shot is N-1, another might be N+2. You simply can't effectively do that with your K1000 unless you have one body for each exposure/development combination (one for N-1, one for N-2, one for N, one for N+1, etc.), or load and shoot very short rolls of 35mm film (which would not be economical or practical).

 

2) If I were starting out again with zone work, I would probably use the film almost everyone started out using: Tri-X, not Neopan or Efke. Both are great films, but have very different behavior with regard to zone system work.

 

3) The Zone System is not about metering 18% gray, it's about visualizing the scene as it will play out on your film. You're not metering for neutral gray, so much as you're trying to stuff the right amount of tonal scale into a matching tonal scale available by your film/development process. The Zone system is not about metering, it's about visualizing, in my opinion. Until you can do this (even with the perfect equipment), you will not master the art of Zone photography.

 

4) Your K1000 meter is not capable of doing a good enough job in identifying the tonal range of your scene. Center weighting is not precise enough to do the work of a 1 degree meter. My recommendation is you find an older 1 degree meter, like an analog Honeywell V, but you will still be limited by your camera.

 

5) Filters can assist with tonal scale in your images, but if you're a newbie, they'll confuse you more because you have to know what a polarizer or R60 filter does to a blue sky or what happens if you use it on shadows.

 

From your post, I suspect you are not as familiar with the Zone System as you need to be. I highly recommend you buy Ansel Adam's book: The Negative, to start, then The Print. Follow his process until you understand it. Then work diligently to move beyond mere technique into seeing and visualizing your scene and image.

 

Now for what I would do (but not really using all the zone system):

 

1) If you're trying to get the longest tonal range for a given shot (perhaps one that is too bright with too big of a difference between highlight and shadow), then consider underexposing the film by a stop (depends a bit on the film), and over developing the film by about 15-20%. This tends to maximize the film's contrast range around the "shoulder" of the graph to optimize tonal range.

 

2) Conversely, if you're shooting a low-contrast scene, try over exposing slightly, and under developing the film. This tends to boost the contrast.

 

Just working with these two combinations will probably get you to 70% of the results you're looking for. Good luck.

My biggest problem with these screens on my Nikons is they vignette with wide angle lenses.

Please send the camera to me as it will need extensive testing, being a used camera and all!<g>

 

You are a lucky guy. These are less than spectacular cameras that take exceedingly spectacular images. I wish I still had mine. It's not hard to tell which razor-sharp transparencies I shot with my SW/C. Congratulations!

After nearly dumping my 500 EL/M off a bridge while trying to use it at a high angle with the WL, I bought a PM45.

 

I don't like it nearly as much as I thought I would, and it adds far more weight to the camera than it's really worth.

 

But there are times it is absolutely indespensible. For the most part, I prefer my WL finder because it gives me a better sense of what the scene looks like.

Hi John, Where do you buy these screens?

 

I've used Beattie screens before, but don't like the way the edges fall off with wide angles. Thanks!

I just got back from San Diego a few weeks ago. For fun (and because I bought too much HP5 film), I tested five rolls of 120 film. HP5 ISO400.

 

3 rolls were exposed (just setting up a tripod in my back yard and shooting the same subject on all 12 frames).

 

I put 1 exposed roll and 1 unexposed roll in my luggage, letting it go through the luggage scanner to and from San Diego.

 

I put 1 exposed roll and 1 unexposed roll in my carry-on briefcase, and simply took it through the normal x-ray machines both ways, without any protection.

 

I left 1 exposed "control" roll back at home.

 

When I came back, I developed all 5 rolls at the same time. I could see no difference in any of the 3 exposed rolls (the two that went through machines showed no fog or problems and looked just like my control roll). My two unexposed rolls that went through x-ray machines were absolutely clear as you would expect an unexposed roll.

 

It was enough to make me confident that I don't need to sweat film transport for normal domestic flights. Are some machines cranked up more than others? Possibly, but the ones at my airport are brand new.

Having been on the set of many feature films during the shoot year ago, I know their cameras often use rectangular filters, particularly for color correction.

That's a very broad question with many factors. First, how far out of date is the film, and secondly, what were its storage conditions?

 

The other day I developed some 120 Tri-x that was exposed and had expired about 25 years ago, and surely kept it awful conditions of heat and cold. Except for a slight fog (partly because the base was simply fogged and partly because there was some light leakage at one end of the roll), it was good enough to make good prints.

 

As for color transparency film, I've developed 15 year old film that turned out pretty well too. If you're talking an expiration of only a year or two, you're not going to see a lot of difference in results I don't think.

 

Age will probably have a few effects: a) the shadows will be more blue and less dense, b) the highlights will be a bit warmer and washed out, and c) there may be some introduction of grain. All are effects you might do better recreating with newer film or video and importing into an editing tool like Adobe Premiere.

And then there's the obvious: make sure you lens is absolutely clean, and avoid adding to the problem by using or combining filters.

 

Beautiful shot with your Fuji, BG!

This is very simple lighting. There is a main light from the right (probably the same distance from the subject as the camera, but further right).

 

It appears there is a bit of fill light 1:3 from the far left, or it could even be a white wall that the main light is bouncing off of. It isn't very sophisticated though--probably just a matter of taking the flash off the camera (though it's a pretty good size flash).

 

I could be very wrong and it could in fact be street lighting that is color balanced. I suspect that given the quality of the light color, that's probably not the case though.

Just curious: what makes the C version more rare? I have a non-C that I like very much. Thanks!

Congratulations Ted! It's so nice to see people doing things with their photos. So often people seem fixated on equipment, but not producing tangible results. Have fun and good luck!

I also believe you may be "hosed". If the coin on the four contacts does not cause it to reset or cycle, and the light stays on, that's usually the sign. Repair would be more than it's worth. Also, I stopped using my MD-11s altogether because they eat batteries if you forget to turn them off.

My vote would be yes. I have used one in the past and liked the image quality very much... but not the aperture<G>. For $1200, it would be a very good value. It's odd that some of the non-core Hasselblad lenses are undervalued on the used market, including the 250, 350 and 500. I felt the 350 was a tad sharper than the 500, and I think for the format, it's a good focal length. That's just my opinion.

I've owned both versions of the 65mm.

 

I wouldn't use the F/8 without a center filter unless shooting B&W, stopped way down, and able to dodge the edges.

 

The F/5.6 is slightly better, but I bought a center filter anyway, and am extremely pleased with the results. But yes, either one could be used without a center filter depending on what your tolerance for light falloff is.

They weren't mirror lenses, like the 500 or 1000 (or apparently 2000<g>), but a refractor design as I've been told. I don't believe they were ever in the US market, I think it would have been overseas based on what my friend told me.

 

Yes, I am talking about astronomical. I just wondered how good they were, if I should bother looking for used ones, etc.

No. The D series is for 4x5, E is for 5x7 and F is for 8x10. You might be able to rig something up using a different head, but all you'd be using is the chassis.

I think you've got the cart and horse confused. Developer doesn't increase or decrease film speed. Developer is used to correct the over or under exposure of the film after you've exposed it. If you've under exposed the film (for example rating a 400 speed film at 1600), then you compensate by developing the film longer.

 

Some developers are better than others at allowing you to push or pull the exposure/development relationship. Most cause increased grain when pushed, often (but not always) higher contrast, etc.

 

What you're really talking about, in the case of Rodinal, is how well the developer handles the push / pull process. Rodinal is reknown for preventing pushed films from being too grainy, and is pretty good at optimizing contrast curves (including shadow detail).

 

I personally believe that most films are over-rated in film speed. A 400 speed film is often shot at 200 or 320 to compensate (Tri-X for example).

 

When you say "better suited", that is an extremely subjective term. While you might like Microphen for pushing film, I may find characteristics that I don't care for. You simply have to see what works for you. I think the proof in this widely variable process is a) whether the final print is attractive to you, and b) how easy was it to get the results you wanted?

 

While a lot of people are speed-freaks (ISO I mean<g>), there's an old technique I use all the time when I'm not using (or don't have the means to use, because of long rolls of film and non-interchangeable backs for example) the Zone system. It is simply to underexpose the film a bit and over develop it. Depending on the film, it tends to put the contrast of the image within the tolerance of the film's capabilities, yielding maximum contrast ranges. You might want to try it.

I use DD-X with a lot of films, but TMX isn't one of them. I always use a pre-soak to clear sensitizing color because I know this seems more of a problem with DD-X (could just be the films I'm using).

 

The other thing I do with DD-X is also use Ilford Stop and Fix--for a number of reasons, but mainly because they're not as smelly as some other brands. The fix exhausts pretty quickly with paper, but seldom with film.

I made my own, but you can buy them too. Mine is a plastic tube that connects on one end to the faucet and the other to a nipple in the bottom of my cylinder. I pump water from the bottom and it simply overflows out the top. Whatever you do, you want to cause the water to flow rather than just pool in your tank.