BernardMiller

Another place you could ask for advice--if you haven't solved your problem yet--is the Facebook group devoted to the F2. It is owned and moderated by Sover Wong, one of the world's foremost F2 experts/repairers/restorers. You will definitely find people there who can advice you. https://www.facebook.com/groups/286168275667508 As a matter of fact, the top current post (11/25/23) may have some bearing on your problem--along with a solution.

Very sad news indeed, so sorry to hear it. David did a few jobs for me--and I was always very happy with the quality and highly reasonable speed every time. His prices weren't the cheapest--but, considering you had someone who really knew what they were doing working on your gear, and who was going to be thorough and stand behind it, they were certainly just and worth paying. The nicest thing about David was that if you ever needed help or advice on fixing a problem yourself--or if you did indeed need to send it to him--he was always a phone call or e-mail away. He'd recommend everything possible for you to try--patiently and thoroughly--to see if a problem could be fixed at your end first rather than having to send it to him. It's sad we've all lost someone whom we could rely on to keep our beloved old Hasselblads working. And even more, someone who *loved* that work, and had dedicated himself to being as good and reliable at it as possible, and to serving his customers faithfully and well, for decades. My condolences to his family, friends, and loved ones, who have even more reason than us to mourn his passing.

I really don't think there's any mystery to all of this--it sounds like some folks are getting borderline "The Moon landing was a hoax!" on us, which is just silly. (Why am I sure we went to the Moon? Because, basically--it's *easy*. I mean, it does cost a butt ton of money for the hardware, and to make sure it works well enough that the folks we sent up there make it back safely and don't die. But it's only 240,000 miles away, hell that's far less than a pubic hair width in astronomical terms.) When you get the Sun in or just outside of the frame, whether it's with an earthbound Hasselblad or a Moon 'Blad, you're gonna get: shadows from the film gate on the edge of the negs, multiple reflections (off both faces of the Réseau plate on the Moon, off the curved surface of at least the rear lens element front surface and possibly other lens element surfaces, and possibly from internal camera structures), flare & ghosts, etc. And if you're getting specular reflections off metallic surfaces on the LEM or elsewhere, *they're* going to cause weird flares and other effects. Not only that, you're gonna get something else within the film that nobody's mentioned explicitly above (although someone has noticed the effects): halation. NASA did work with Kodak to design a film which reduced that as much as feasible--but when you're getting sunlight that's totally unfiltered by any kind of atmosphere coming straight into your lens, there's no way you're gonna be able to mitigate that much at all appreciably, let alone eliminating it entirely. So I believe that some people are at risk of going down weird rabbit holes, and staring too long at inconsequential things to the point their brains start convincing them--as they are so good at doing--that they're seeing some sort of pattern that really isn't there...like Jesus on a potato chip or something.

Thanks bigly to rodeo_joe|1--this is a potentially very useful thread to those of us with SB-800s. Very easy to follow, fantastic, cheers! One of my very earliest memories, I must have been three or four years old (this would have been mid 1960s), a TV repairman came to our house to work on the TV. He apparently touched that thing with a screwdriver; he let out a yell, and the screwdriver flew out of his hand accompanied by a loud pop--the shock had actually split the plastic handle.

I actually found Bytesmith's attitude refreshing, honestly. The original poster, Lon, *did* get shouted down rudely and unnecessarily. Bytesmith has indeed added some hard information here, which is potentially useful to those of us troubleshooting Speedotron cables, who aren't intending to mess around with any part of the unit which might kill us. This site is, I'd think, for sharing knowledge--if that includes a listing of the potential dangers, fine. Mocking the original poster, basically, and then getting panties in a wad when someone who can provide the sought after information takes a gentle potshot at *that* kind of attitude is the bit that's extra.

What about the Zeiss 120 Makro-Planar CF/CFi for Hasselblad V, with an adapter for your favourite 35mm camera? Mine is extremely sharp, and I've noticed no aberrations. Since it's designed to cover 6cm x 6cm, you'd be using only the centre "sweet spot" of the lens on 35mm. And if you're using it for macro, with a tripod, etc., it shouldn't be too awkward employed that way. It'd give you a bit of extra working distance, too, over a 100mm lens, and the Hasselblad extension tubes aren't terribly expensive to get you to 1:1.

Unfortunately, I don't own or have access to the 100mm Planar, so I haven't tried it yet. If it's as good as reputed, it should be brilliant!

Cheers! I have no complaints, really, To me, it's better than my 36-megapixel Nikon D810. Because to print a portrait from that camera, you're generally going to crop some off the bottom of the 3:2 ratio to fit standard print sizes, so by the time you throw some of that away to get to, say, a 16x20 print, you're at roughly 22 megapixels anyway. In my opinion, the Zeiss lenses look far superior to the Nikkor output (I normally use the 24-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 AFS Nikon zooms), and I really prefer the color I get from the Kodak sensor, too, over what the Nikon puts out. Reds are *way* better, particularly, on the medium format sensor.

I'm afraid I can't offer a comparison of V series glass vs. XCD lenses on digital. What I can do, which may be useful to some following this thread, is show full-resolution what a couple of the V series lenses do on a fairly old digital back. And I can give my impressions of a few other lenses used the same way. I run a portrait studio in West Orlando, and my setup is a Hasselblad 553ELX with a 2004-vintage Sinarback 54M mounted on it. It's got the venerable 22-megapixel (36 x 48mm) Kodak KAF-22000 CCD sensor that was common in many backs of that era. This particular back has no screen, no battery, and no memory card slot, so it has to be tethered to an older MacBook Pro. These are full-resolution JPEGs (or close to; I may have slightly cropped one or both of the portraits). They've had a bit of post-processing, including a touch of NIK Sharpener, but you can see what's there for all practical purposes. The two portraits were taken with, I think in both cases, the 180mm Sonnar (CFi version), the very tight face shot with an extension tube, can't remember which one, but it was likely the 10mm and 21mm used together (and if it wasn't that combo, it was the 55mm by itself). The final one is a closeup of the fibres of a jute coffee sack hanging on my studio wall, shot with the 120mm Makro-Planar on the Hasselblad Auto Bellows at maximum extension (on both the lens and the bellows). I just wanted to see what that combo could do when pressed to the extreme; I was fairly careful, if not scrupulously so, in trying to get the camera aligned properly to the plane of the wall. All three were shot with strobes. http://www.presquevu.com/x8505.jpg http://www.presquevu.com/vs35.jpg http://www.presquevu.com/macro.jpg The macro shot, by the way, encompassed an area of less than 1.5 x 2 inches. I also use the 150mm Sonnar CF and at portrait distance it is really, really good. It's not quite as spectacular as the 180, but it's certainly very capable. Plus I have the 80mm Planar CF version which I use for full body shots. At that distance, it's good but not great. But when you get closer and shoot mid-body or nearer with it, it becomes impressively punchy indeed. Finally, I have the floating element 50mm Distagon CF and I've found it quite good, too, although I haven't used it enough in the studio with the digital back to draw any firm conclusions on where it ranks. But yes, I would class the 180mm and the 120mm macro as outstanding performers on digital. The 150mm Sonnar is very good--it may not be as razor sharp as the XCD lenses, but you can print up to 16x20 inches (and more) with fantastic detail; I've done so. The 80 is a bit meh under some circumstances, and I suspect, from the times I have used the 50mm FLE, that it doesn't lag at all far behind the 180 and the 120. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful!

Sorry, I'm very late to this discussion--I can't believe I missed it! For a period of about two years, from 2014 to 2016, I used this combination. I don't remember exactly which adapter I used, but it was the standard Sinar adapter for the RZ67--I purchased the digital back and adapter together from a seller in South London who had updated to a more recent Sinar digital back. He had been using it in his product photography studio. I loved the combination! In fact, I liked the back so much--particularly given its current price (when you can find one)--that I'm currently using a second one on a Hasselblad 553ELX in my portrait studio in Orlando, Florida. What I mean is, when I had to move back from London to the US, I had to sell quite a bit of stuff to fund the move. I had to choose between keeping my RZ67 kit with the digital back, or my Hasselblad gear--I'd have to sell the other to generate some cash. I decided finally (and painfully) to sell the RZ67, as I could use the Hasselblad both in the studio and out and about, and I didn't know precisely what my future held when I returned to the US. When I got back to the US, within a few months I decided I really needed to get another digital back. So I found another 54M on eBay, and the Hasselblad V adapter from a different seller. I've been using them ever since late 2016. I also own a Nikon D810 and several highly regarded Nikkor lenses. But for studio portraiture, I vastly prefer the images I get from the Sinarback 54M and either the RZ67 or my Hasselblad. It is a bit of an awkward combination, as you know if you've researched it--which it sounds like you did. For those reading this for future reference, the 54M is ancient (2004 vintage) and so has no battery, no screen and no memory card slot--you have to shoot it tethered (via FireWire), and the software (CaptureShop) will only work on a Mac. And you'd have to use an older MacOS, it's 32-bit only. (Up to High Sierra, it worked perfectly fine. After I moved to Mojave, the software still works to control the camera, but I can't see preview images of the files in CaptureShop--I have to import them into a folder where I use Adobe Bridge to view them.) At one time about a year and a half ago, I speculated in a Facebook forum about "upgrading" from this back, only to have several photographers tell me they'd used this same Kodak sensor (it was found in a variety of backs of the time) and that they had been disappointed by this change, despite having more megapixels in their new backs. They recommended I stick to this back/sensor combination, which I have done. Using this combination is even better with the RZ67 than with my Hasselblad, simply because of the rotating back. Makes life much, much more convenient, definitely! If you'd like to see a full-size example of what the 180 W-N lens can do with this back, here's a portrait I made with the combination. It's had a bit of sharpening applied for print, so it'll look a bit over sharpened when viewed at full resolution. But you'll definitely be able to see what it can produce. http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg

Both great cameras, and in many ways very similar in operation. I chose the FE myself. Why? I rarely use the camera in really low light situations, and I really like the way the match-needle meter of the FE allows me to gauge proper exposure--and intentional over- or under-exposure--in good light. I also like the fact I *can* use aperture priority, even though I rarely do. If I were shooting in low light situations more often, I'd probably prefer an FM series camera--or acquire one to go along with my FE (why not, I have two FEs already, one black and one chrome)--as the LED meter is much more useful in situations where the needle is hard to see. One thing I'd recommend, whichever camera you get: find a K3 screen, for the FM3a and put in it. I've pimped out both my FEs with one, and it's a good bit better than the original focussing screen. You may have to do some exposure compensation after, but you'll likely find it a very pleasant upgrade.

Not sure if you're aware of it--sounds like maybe not--but one of the folks (some would say one of the greats) who clung to film for publication use long after most people went digital finally gave it up way back in 2008 because he was worried about losing months (or more) of hard work (and on one occasion did lose over 50 rolls of film) because some officious jobsworth at an airport somewhere was going to ruin it by refusing to hand inspect it and maybe zap it with some destructive level of radiation. Sebastiao Salgado now shoots digitally--although his assistants produce simulated contact sheets for him, and he has the digital image "printed" to a 4x5 inch film negative, so that the final, published images at least have some of the look of film. (The POV Interview: Sebastião Salgado – Point of View Magazine) I love to shoot film--I just bought an RZ67 kit so I can shoot more of it, including loads of color film I've had in the freezer for ages. But any idea that you can demand hand inspection at some foreign airport (again, TSA officials in the US have been, in 100% of my many experiences, totally okay with it) and that you're going to get satisfaction every time may very well, I fear, run up against the reality that the world--and particular individuals in it--don't always move to our expectations.

It shouldn't be a problem if you're taking film with you overseas from the US, if you can get it processed abroad. I've never had a problem with a TSA agent refusing to hand-inspect film, and I've actually had a few brief but pleasant conversations about film photography while they were doing so. But don't even think about trying to get the people at Heathrow to do a hand inspection. Trust me, I have tried--being as polite as possible, turning on (tastefully) the charm, explaining that some of the film will be pushed beyond ISO 800, etc. It's not gonna happen, they're curtly going to tell you to throw it through the scanner with everything else. As someone who splits time between the US and the UK and has made that trip frequently, I can assure you that you'll get no satisfaction or consideration at that airport. Bloody philistines.

And here's another image posted in Classic Nikon Maintenance on FB--it's titled "A very rare lens." The discussion, such as it is (if you have access to Facebook) is here: Facebook.

That photo was taken by the gentleman who repaired the lens, who I would gather from what little information was posted on FB is not the current owner. There was another post, I can't remember on which of the two forums, where a photo showed the lens partially disassembled, and it was captioned, "Servicing the unicorn lens." So as other folks speculated, I'm guessing this one--and the other specimen out there somewhere--must have been prototypes that Nikon decided not to bring to market. Bit of a shame, because that looks like a b*tchin' lens!

Well now, here's a bit more information. On Facebook's Learn Camera Repair forum, a gentleman named Mark Ho said he repaired this lens--I'm assuming this *very* lens, as he said in response to a question that the problem with the lens was fungus--and that it was one of only two samples known to exist. Here's the original post from the FB Classic Nikon Maintenance group that he shared to Learn Camera Repair: Classic Nikon Maintenance.

I really can't agree with those who say that instant film for medium format cameras--and especially for 4x5 cameras--is "silliness." As Ansel Adams--and loads of other photographers--knew, the Polaroid can be, in its own right, a beautiful and worthwhile end product. A medium format Polaroid/Fujiroid taken on an RZ-67 is really, even at that size, quite a beautiful object; the fact that it develops "instantly" and is a unique image makes it even more attractive. I know how to expose my film and how to use my flash meter, but I always kept a few boxes of Polaroid and later Fuji FP100C lying around, and shot it for my own enjoyment and that of my clients. I shoot mostly portraiture, and if I was shooting someone interesting, I'd tell them to give me a moment, and we'd do something really nice. Then I'd pop off a few sheets of instant film. I always tried to slyly keep the one I liked best for myself, but the clients were universally thrilled to get the ones I gave them--particularly as most of them were only experienced with digital and had never seen such a thing. I still have a couple of boxes of those miniature portraits I keep. Back in the days when you could get FP100C for around 8 bucks a box from B&H, it was well worth it. (A couple of times when flying back to London from the US, I intentionally chose flights with long layovers at JFK so I could dash into Midtown and drop in at B&H and buy 8 or 10 boxes to carry back with me--fun times, those.) Fuji certainly wasn't obligated to keep producing something that wasn't economically feasible for them just so I could get my jollies, but I'd love to see the return of instant film--and I'm keeping my medium and large format backs not simply because they're pretty worthless right now, but just in case we do ever get to enjoy shooting it again!

Hi, Adrian. I'm not sure where in the UK you could get your Focotars cleaned and restored--you might try this company in Germany, however, as it appears they perform similar services: Lens Restoration | P+S Technik. Best of luck!

My film Nikon--either my FE or F4--lives in an old Domke J-3. The Domke bags are great: durable as all hell--mine, made out of ballistic nylon is ancient (nearly 20 years old) and has been beat all to smithereens, but is still functioning perfectly despite its scars (which merely lend it character), and a friend of mine has a canvas J-3 that he's been using to carry Hasselblad or flash gear for over a decade. There are loads of good bags, but the Domkes to me have the perfect combination of price, durability and ease of use: there's no faffing around getting stuff out of a Domke in a hurry, you just throw the top open and grab it. And as far as Roberts--they're great folks. I grew up in Indianapolis, and I've bought from them loads of times, both new and used gear. Their new stuff is frequently as cheap as B&H, and they stand behind their gear, both new and second hand.

If you own practically any Nikon camera with the modern rubber-covered body, you're going to have to replace the rubber at some point if you own it long enough. And you'll probably have to replace zoom rings on lenses as well. The first thing to go will probably be the grip. But even the parts that don't get a lot of direct wear and tear eventually swell up so that they no longer fit in the place designed for them. Replacing the adhesive won't fix it--you'll just find that the rubber has expanded beyond its original size and no longer will go back in place. I've had to replace the rubber--generally all of it, at one point or another--on my D300, my D700 (had to replace all of it twice) and my D810. Oh, and I had to replace the rubber on both my MB-D10 for the D700 and the MB-D12 for the D810. I've needed to replace the zoom ring on my 80-200 twice now and I'm it's second owner (I'm making do with the previous, loose ring, until I can find a proper replacement--see my reply above) and I've lost track of how many times I've had to replace the zoom ring on my 24-70. Whenever I order replacements from Nikon, I always order an extra spare or two, as I'm sure that within a year or so I'll be replacing the zoom ring again, and that way at least I save on shipping/price rises. The Nikon rubber feels nice and gives a good grip. But as far as longevity under regular use, it's really a bit crap.

I just did a search for the D750 on the DSLR parts page. And it returned only one result. But when I removed the filter for D750 and set the page to "Show All," it appears they do have the part you need for your camera available. You'll have to scroll about midway down the page to find it. It looks like they also have the zoom ring. And the parts are really cheap. But they're gonna stick you on the shipping, I'm afraid.

Here's the good news--you don't need to send your camera in to replace those bits. Or at least you shouldn't. Nikon sells the rubber bits--including grips, focus/zoom rings, etc.--and some other camera/lens parts to the public. You can look up the relevant parts here: Cameras and photography equipment from Nikon. And replacing them yourself is a simple and very quick operation, no need to pay anyone to do it. Just make absolutely certain that you're ordering the exact part you want. Nikon refuses to give refunds/exchanges of any kind, even if they screw up. (I contacted them looking for a zoom ring for my 80-200/2.8 AFS lens. I sent them a link from their site to the exact lens I own and asked them specifically if the ring they had listed fit my lens--it wasn't clear from the description--and making certain they knew that I wanted a zoom ring for that lens and not for the AF-D version. They sent me the wrong ring, and when I complained and pointed out that I'd gone to great pains to make sure I'd been precise about what part I wanted, and that they'd promised it was the correct part, their response was basically "tough s--t.") There are certain parts for Nikon cameras/lenses like those you seek that are also sold on eBay. I can't guarantee the quality of those bits, certainly, but they're cheaper and will probably do just as good as the Nikon equivalents, when tend to break down/come loose/expand so they no longer fit after just a few years.

I'm sure he was good with it. They're from this book, which is well worth seeking out--it not only contains proof sheets from the project, it shows the various ways the photos were cropped over the years for different purposes: https://www.amazon.com/Looking-Robert-Franks-Americans-Expanded/dp/3865218067/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3SWJDA5NQKEQ4&keywords=looking+in+robert+frank%27s+the+americans&qid=1568164784&s=gateway&sprefix=looking+in+robert+%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1

I worked my way through college in the sports department of the Clarion-Ledger/Jackson Daily News. The JDN died while I was there, and then the C-L, which won Pulitzer prizes and was a powerful voice documenting the addressing of past wrongs in Mississippi's civil rights movement era, was bought up by Gannett. When hard times hit the industry, they bought out their best writers--they had some very fine wordsmiths indeed on staff--giving them early retirement, and eventually got rid of nearly all of the photography department, which was highly skilled as well. Man, I used to love, when I didn't have anything pressing to do, going through the multiple file cabinets filled with sports photos--both images downloaded from the wire, and prints made by the C-L/JDN photography staff. There was some amazing stuff in there. Newspapers were really a wonderful and necessary thing (and are, in the few that are healthy and the greater numbers that are just hanging on). I spent some of the best times of my young life working there--I still consider that the best job I've ever had--and we *need* someone to hold to account the jackasses that our craven populism has thrown into office these days. There have *always* been jackasses in politics and public life, it's just a bit worse now that as a people we've become unable to take the time and exert the effort to read and process information that actually has editorial standards and a responsibility to try to convey the honest facts--not simply make up "alternate" facts. I hate to sound all nostalgic, but I really do miss the aroma that greeted me every time I walked through the employees' entrance--it was a powerful and equal mixture of oil-based ink and photographic fixer. To me it smelled like...truth.

He just gave you his hoard of cameras?? :eek: You should be well grateful, because although no one here's mentioned it, that particular camera is worth quite a bit on its own. We're talking $3.5K and up, likely even considerably more with the condition it's in. Not to mention with a little CLA, it's a hell of a user camera, if you just want to throw a lens on it and casually stroll around snapping away with it!