ben_hutcherson

As said, the 28mm has been AI converted. AFAIK, you can't convert an AI lens to an AI-s. The difference between the two is that stop down lever on the back of the lens is linear-or moving it a certain amount always results in the same change in aperture-on AI-s lenses. If you play with an AI lens or AI-converted one next to an AI-s lens, and watch the movement of the aperture lever as you turn the ring(off the camera) you can see this. Bodies that require non-AI lenses use the "bunny ears" to couple the meter to the lens. The reason for this is interesting, at least to me. The "bunny ears" are always located at the f/5.6 position. This means that the camera/meter always "knows" what aperture is set, but since TTL meters normally meter at full aperture, the camera needs to know what the maximum aperture actually is. For a lot of non-AI cameras(Nikon F FTn, Nikormat FTN, FT2, EL, Nikon F2 Photomic, F2S, F2SB) there's a mechanism that sometimes gets called "semi-auto indexing", where you set the maximum aperture by turning the aperture ring to maximum aperture after mounting. On some earlier bodies, namely the Nikkormat FT and the Nikon F T and Tn, you have to set the maximum aperture(you actually do it on the ASA dial-basically you line up the mark for the maximum aperture set with the film speed you're using). The non-TTL meters, like the original F Photomic and the F clip-on selenium meters, don't need to have the maximum aperture set since they don't actually care what it is. The AI system is a bit of a different philosophy-it uses a "notch" in the aperture ring that interacts with a tab around the lens mount(or hanging down from the metering head). This only communicates whether the lens is set to wide open, or if not wide open how far down from maximum aperture it's set. The 28mm should work fine on the FT3. It should also allow aperture priority and manual on your F-801. The N2000 gets interesting. When Nikon started making AI lenses, they added a lug to the back of the lens that communicates the maximum aperture. I've never seen an AI converted lens, from Nikon or anyone else, that had this maximum aperture lug added. There are only a handful of cameras that even can "read" this lug, but the N2000 is one of those cameras. I'm working on memory rather than loading batteries in my N2000(even though it's sitting a few feet behind me) but the main thing you will lose on it with this lens is full program. Aperture priority and manual should work fine.

I'm just curious if anyone had ever seen or encountered one of these. I bought a Nikon F lot not too terribly long ago with actually an incredibly well documented history of its first/original owner, who had lived in Germany for a number of years. The camera itself is worthy of a post(it's a lovely low 64 million block black F with a clean eye level prism) and lots of documentation. The person who sold it to me had done quite a bit of research on the history of it. In any case, in this kit was an F-mount Steinheil Munchen lens. Most references you find to this maker list them making Exakta lenses, and I can find very little information on any F mount lenses by them. I've used the lens a bit-admittedly on my Df and not on film-and it's really a lovely lens. I'd dare say it's a bit sharper at comparable apertures to Nikon's 105mm f/2.5 of the same vintage, but also has its own rendering. As I said, I'm looking for information or just general comments on the lens, but am also just sort of showing it off too...

I'm not familiar with this work flow, but this reads like a digital darkroom question for me. I think it's asking about "developing" the "scans"(photos of negatives taken with a DSLR) or presumably doing the color inversion/correction with a particular piece of software.

Joe, I know you often speak ill of old studio flash equipment-what do you prefer as its alternative? And for full disclosure, I am not giving up my Normans any time soon. Yes the power settings are weird, but after 5 years of owning and using them quite a bit, I know how to work around them and get almost always get the result I want the first time, and I love the quality of light. A little more recently I've been playing with Lumedynes, which look like they were put together in someone's garage(probably because they were, or at least some of the oldest stuff) and the whole system is clunky. I love how small the light heads are, though, especially for the amount of power they can throw, and also simplicity and built-in a-garage design means I can often repair it myself..

The post was directed at one specific person, and has quite a few specific questions in it combined with my own experience and data. I'm sorry that you find it cumbersome to read, but the questions I'm asking to another user relate to both the age of their experience and some technical minutia about how certain products work. I'm sorry if you don't seem to understand these questions.

I think one other part of the GPU equation comes down to this 1. Adobe likely has a larger percent of Mac users among their user base than the general public, just given the historic stronghold of Macs in creative fields and the like. This means that making sure their software is at its best on Macs. I think anyone who has used half-baked attempts to port PC software to macOS from some other makers can likely agree that, on the whole, Adobe does a really good job. \ 2. When you're catering to a Mac audience, your possible hardware configurations are pretty limited. For a long time, you only needed to worry about Intel CPUs, and at that nothing below the "Core" series CPUs. For GPUs, since about 2013 you're really only had to worry about AMD and Intel, although there were a few nVidia models still under support for a while. I'm not even sure if Adobe ever bothered to do much if any hardware accel on Intel GPUs, so really that limits it to AMD. Of course 2020 added a new CPU and GPU architecture, and I don't pretend to know software engineering but I suspect that the various Apple Silicon models are similar enough to not cause too much of a programming headache. Even within AMD, you have a pretty short list of supported GPUs. The only small wrench in the works are the old Mac Pros, especially when Apple gave them a lifeline by officially supporting aftermarket CPU upgrades. Past 2020 or so, a few years after nVidia discontinued the web drivers that allowed their GPUs to be used in 10.13 and earlier and that OS rolled off support, you really did have a very short list of possible GPUs. That certainly makes compatibility easy, and I imagine the onyl sort of niche case where someone really runs into a GPU wall is if they're still running a 2010/2012 Mac Pro with a current OS and have a GPU that's way off the rails from anything Apple ever imagined. That certainly makes things a lot easier compared to the "wild west" of possible CPU and GPU combinations in Windows. It doesn't help that Windows 10 runs on a whole, whole lot of computers that may getting well on in age by now, where Apple does pretty regularly cut off older systems from new OS updates.

Gary, I know this is an older post, but just curious have you tested Tenergy batteries recently? I have used bunches of them in both NiCd and NiMH in AA, Sub-C, and 4/5 Sub-C. I typically go with their standard capacity batteries. Right now I have quite literally over 100 each Ni-Cd AA 1000mAH, NiMH AA 2000mAH and 4/5SC NiMH 2000mAH. I also have several(in the dozens) 4/5SC NiCd 1300mAH, NiCd SC 2200mAH, and NiMH SC 4200mAH. I spot check cell lots any time I get them with 1 or 2 cells. My spot check is charging at c/10 for 14 hours while monitoring voltage with a sensitive bench multimeter. I will terminate charge if I see the full charge drop signature, although it's subtle especially on NiMH at that charge rate on a single cell. Plus, NiMH will generally tolerate C/10 without harm for several hours past full charge, and NiCd could probably go 72 hours without harm. I follow that by discharge at c/10 to 1.05V, where almost without fail I will get rated capacity +/-5% on the full charge(although to be honest discharge termination voltage doesn't matter a ton as long as you don't go too low-once you fall into the "toe" of the discharge curve or below about 1.1-1.15V depending on load there's not any useable capacity remaining). After initial charge I do a couple charges at C/5. Since I know they are discharged starting, I set a timer for 5 hours, watch for the full charge voltage drop(which is a bit more pronounced at higher charge rates) and monitor temperature. Rarely will they not test at 5-10% over rated capacity at this point. When I build packs, I bulk sort by internal resistance to get matched cells, then do the same conditioning as above before charging where they'll finally be installed(i.e. an 8 AA cell pack for a Quantum Turbo SC goes in a Turbo SC, and preferably in the one where it will end up). I generally do both C/5 and C/2 discharges after doing this and check "real world" performance(make sure they give at least the number of flashes that Quantum says they will-I never get less!). Right now I have 5 packs sitting on my bench that are 8 cell 4/5SC NiMH meant for the Quantum Turbo Z. Even though this was originally a Ni-Cd pack, I've monitored charging on it and I'm satisfied that it can safely charge NiMH correctly. The only exception I've had was one box of 4/5SC Ni-Cds that tested out at ~1100(rated 1300) no matter how much "massaging" I did. Other boxes I bought at the same time were fine. I've only done one Lumedyne pack, but I have about a half dozen small NiCd packs, one medium NiCd, and a Minicycler(which uses the same 9 Sub-Cs as the other packs). I know Lumedyne advertises that they will upgrade NiCd to NiMH-I'd think the ones with thermal termination could handle it but I don't know. I'm tempted to try one... Granted I don't know how much real use I have for Lumedynes. For fast flash recycle, I prefer the size if the Turbo SC or the capacity/speed of the 2x2 and Turbo 3. The Megacycler does recycle faster than any Quantum product I'm aware of, but it's also bigger, bulkier, and annoyingly loud. I have a few Lumedyne heads and power packs for them, and I appreciate both the modularity and how much more powerful they can be than a some other portable options, but for my use I find the Q flash T series better. I know they are a lot less powerful, but I like the 1/3 stop manual adjustment and all the nice wireless controllable TTL features you get with the T5Dr and the right other bits and pieces.

Maybe I'm just sloppy or get tired quickly, but I've never printed enough in one session to exhaust the tray of Dektol I mix at the beginning of the session. It's the only print developer I've ever used, and I mostly print on Ilford multigrade(occasionally Kodak Azo, but my use case is limited even though I have a ton of it).

Well, call me stupid, stubborn, whatever but a Leafscan 35 is on its way to me. I have Vuescan in 10.4.11 on a dual 1ghz Quicksilver that has the Apple supplied Adaptec 2930CU card. I've run several scanners off those cards, including the Coolscan II and III and an ancient Sprintscan 35, so it should be fine. I just wish I could track down the Leaf software, although I haven't dug that hard yet. The computer does dual boot OS X and OS 9-or actually triple boots 10.4, 10.5, and OS 9(10.5 deprecated a LOT of SCSI drivers, including, frustratingly, the 2030CU which, again, Apple supplied as BTO in computers that can officially run 10.5), so can easily run it in OS 9 if that if it plays better.

Just as an anecdote- I don't run Adobe products on my one M1 system(first generation M1 pro) because I find it woefully inadequate for the task. When I bought it, everyone told me 8gb was fine, It's not, at least if you want to multitask while running Lightroom. I'm currently eying a 16" to replace it-undecided as to if I'll do refurb M1, M2, or go with a current M3, but in any case I'm eying the base Max config(which is 32gb RAM/1tb) and have eyed a few M1 Max 64gb models. My Lightroom/Photoshop machines now are a 2019 5K iMac and a 2015 15" Retina MBP. I have a couple of eGPU enclosures with Radeon RX580 cards in them. One stays on my iMac, and it makes a noticeable difference in how Lightroom runs as long as, of course, I enable eGPU. With that said, It's not night and day-as an example running AI noise reduction on a 40mp X-T5 file or 45mp D850 file takes about a minute on the internal RX 570, and 30-45 seconds on the RX580. The big benefit to me to running it on the eGPU is to keep heat out of the main case. The 2015 Retina doesn't officially support eGPUs, but it's easy enough to get one working. My 2015 does not have aa dGPU, and the Iris Pro is definitely showing its age with some of the GPU heavy stuff. AI Noise reduction takes 10-15 minutes for similar files as above, and that includes a couple of minutes just to render the preview(which is 10 seconds or so on my iMac. Adding in the eGPU gets me a preview in ~20 seconds, and 1-2 minutes to actually run it. That's slower than the iMac, but still workable especially as I don't do it on every file. I picked up a "Trashcan"-Mac Pro 6,1-not too long ago, but haven't really played with it. It has decent specs for RAM and storage, and I have a 12 core CPU sitting here waiting for me to install. I'm expecting it may be pokey as it has the base D300 GPU, which was already a bit dated in 2013, but opted for that since the D500 and D700s, which I could have just as easily bought(I bought at a retail electronics retailer, and they had 14 of them in varying configs out, from absolute base to top of the line) have been known to have issues. Thermal management isn't the best in those computers-in a rare interview someone from Apple admitted as such shortly before the 7,1 was announced. I know that's a bit of rambling, but it's all to say that the GPU seems to just work for me on my Macs regardless of what I throw at it. Even though I had issues with Lightroom on my M1 if I had say a browser in the background, it still was fine for GPU accelerated functions. Admittedly the last time I tried it was before the Ai NR update dropped. BTW, too, it's not a lack of use of the computer in general-I'm typing this post from it now and it's my main computer 80% of the time(the iMac the remainder at home, the 2015 Retina usually stays at work semi-permanently docked to an old Thunderbolt display). I just don't have any Adobe products activated on it.

I think Nikon really missed the boat too by not offering a split image at least as an option on the Df. It's such a great camera in so many ways, and falls so short in others. Also, I have read on here-maybe from you!-that the digital rangefinder has two "levels" of precision, and it is less precise with a non-CPU lens mounted. That's really a shame, as a digital rangefinder, especially one that can be moved around, has the potential to give much better focus than a split image even if it's not as "satisfying" to use(or as informative as the single dot version in the lower end bodies is). Assuming that is the case, too, I never was clear on whether the lower-precision mode applies to non-CPU lenses or to manual focus lenses. I've tried to test it with the 45mm AI-P, but a(relatively) slow normal lens is not one that will show an issue. Considering that Nikon has some recent high end manual focus optics, like the various PC-E lenses, I'd assume CPU manual focus lenses do use the higher precision electronic rangefinder, but there again don't know for sure. Are Dandelion chips still a thing? I know they were a hot topic back before I was a Nikon user and had no real concept of what they were other than seeing the name tossed around.

Can you give a general idea of where you are located?

I've done wet mounting before on my V700(I used 1-Octanol and plastic sheets held down with polyimide tape on the Epson glass tray) and was able to get some beautiful results, but hard as I tried I never managed to get one completely bubble free. I think it made such a big difference on my V700 partially because film flatness with MF in particular is such an issue, even with the BetterScanning holder. I was able to do nearly as good by using the glass tray dry and laying the(heavy) piece of AN glass from my BetterScanning holder on top of it. Scanning is one of those things I have a love-hate relationship with. For my part, the Coolscan V does great. I wish I had a glass carrier for my 8000, but the last time I looked those sold for nearly as much as I paid for the scanner!(which wasn't cheap-I think I paid around $1K in 2018 or so-I did get 35mm strip, medium format strip, and 35mm mounted slide carriers with it but have only ever scanned MF since the V is so much more convenient for 35mm. I finally hit on a workable combination of removing the top rails from the MF holder and laying the AN glass from my BetterScanning Epson holder on top, but the purpose made glass carrier I know would be better. Really, I don't need another scanner. After moving a few hundred miles 3 years ago, my V700 is still one of the things I moved to my parents house for storage and have yet to retrieve. There have been a few times I could have used it, but not that often. Still, though, I would love one of these old high end scanners. I'm kind of hoping this Leaf 45 local to me turns up still available-it's cheap and I do have Besseler carriers to use in it(which I understand it takes).

That’s also Ken Rockwell… I don’t get too caught up on distortion for digital or for scanned film, especially not the easy to correct barrel or pincushion distortion that most simple primes show. Things like softness, poor field flatness, and veiling flare are a lot more difficult to recover. I don’t know how the 35mm f/2.8 compares as I’ve never owned one-just the PC, a few f/2s(AI and AF) and now two different gens of f/1.4. I do know that the examples I’ve handled left me less that impressed.

Are you sure you’re not mixing up the 35mm f/2.8 AI/AI-S or Series E with the 35mm f/2.8 PC? The PC does have shift adjustments and optically quite good. It’s also a preset lens, not AI or AI-s, or even Auto-NIKKOR.

The one I was looking at actually was SCSI, but there’s either a blanking button plate or GPIB port next to SCSI-I couldn’t tell which. I know it’s big and a pain, but some thing about it is weirdly appealing to me and I do have the computer hardware to make it happen. There’s a part of me that wants a drum scanner, but I know that’s even bigger(especially adding in the mounting station) and I understand there’s quite a learning curve with them…

Interesting-guessing that's old stock since Nikon hasn't made them in what, probably nearing 20 years now? At least 15? I know Nikon's software for Mac was never updated to Intel-in fact the newest version of NS 4 is still a carbon application(can run on OS 9 or OS X). Fortunately it works on 10.6.8, but I've had weird instability issues with 2011-era Macs, may of which will run it natively, most of which can be made to run it. I thought I'd hit the jackpot with my 2011 Mini server, which was the only Quad mini that can run it(and one of the few non-Mac-pro Quads that can run 10.6.8) but NS crashes as soon as I launch it with a scanner connected. I went hunting for a Leaf 45 out of curiosity, and I'm actually well equipped to run one on either a PC with GPIB(I actually run HPIB equipment at work still, and yes I call it HPIB since everything I use is HP) or on a Mac with SCSI. I found one about 2 hours away listed on FB a year ago, but it might or might not still be available...

It’s all good in my book-it was still interesting a second time around and you added a lot more with your second post!

Thanks everyone, FV lock it is. I assigned it to Fn2, although unfortunately that's a little used button and I'm having a hard time working in pressing it. I may end up putting it somewhere my finger already is anyway most of the time, like center of the multi-selector, although I'll have to see if Fn2 lets me do non-CPU data as an option(one thing I love and hate about Fujis is that any button on the camera is quite literally up for grabs for any control, while Nikon limits some buttons-Fn3 has so much potential IMO but is incredibly limited in what Nikon allows you to assign to it). I don't know how I'd missed this function, especially in hunting for it. As for switching flash modes, I do sometimes use multiple off-camera flashes, especially if I'm using the Q-flash behind an umbrella. Switching flash modes is a pretty major ordeal, especially with them high up on a light stand. Manual is viable in some situations, not always where I'd use TTL, though, especially if I'm using stationary lights and with the subject potetially in different positions from burst to burst. The Q-flashes support auto thyristor(I'm using the old Vivitar name for it to avoid confusion, even though I know everyone has their own name) as do the Metz 45 flashes and the SB-800. It works great unless, again, you're off camera behind an umbrella that throws everything back into the eye. They can also end up fighting each other with multiple flashes. I think Quantum lets you designate one as "master" and use its eye for everything, but you need to have them all tied together with physical cords or with with Freewire transmitters to do it. FV Lock seems the perfect solution for me for now, though.

This is one I've been trying to figure out, with no success, for a few weeks now. Let's say I want to shoot a burst with flash. For the sake of this let's say I'm using flash equipment that can reliably handle moderate frame rates(4-6fps or so-pretty easily achievable if you keep flash power down on a higher powered flash and are using something like a Quantum Turbo). iTTL, of course, uses a pre-flash to meter the scene. For single shot this isn't really an issue, but it does cause a slight but noticeable amount of shutter lag and also eats into flash power. Typically, in a burst, frame-to-frame is similar enough that I'd be content with a single iTTL pre-flash at the start of the burst. I've been driving myself crazy trying to figure this out. I've tried with a couple of different cameras, but mostly find myself trying to do this sort of thing with a D5 or maybe D4 and a Metz 45 CL4 Digital. I have options for flash, though, including a Nikon SB800 or SB900, a Metz 76 MZ-5, and Quantum Q-Flash T5Dr. I'd use any of them if they would let me do this, but I'd also think it would be a camera-side setting...

I like between-frame printing to keep track of shutter speed, aperture, and capture time. It's a pain to stop and write it in a notebook then match it all up. Is it that important? No, but I put it in the nice to have category. Of course proper data recording is, IMO, better than any of it, but only a handful of cameras do that.

The problems I have with them are: 1. The backs have so many different options, modes of operation, and limited ways to communicate that I find it difficult to figure out just what exactly the back is currently set to do! 2. From what I remember, it's not always that clear whether you're set for in-frame, between frame, or no imprinting. Between frame is nice(IMO) even if you never look at it, but in-frame is not particularly great at least to me. I have photos that I've ruined by it... 3. The backs add a lot of bulk to the already not-so-small F4 4. To fit one, you give up the film reminder window and of course also don't have a film box tab holder. There's an area you can write on with pencil to remind you of the film stock in the camera, but it's certainly not as easy as just looking at the window. If you want one, PM me. I have two of them, which is honestly two too many, but I do want keep one around just for curiosity sake. I'd sell the other cheap, especially considering that I don't think I paid much for it. If I really wanted to get serious about data imprinting, I"m pretty sure that the F6 offers all of those same functions too, but the settings are in plain text and not tiny little arrows that you need a menu to figure out...

I have two of them-no LCD issues on mine. The imprinting is just like any other data back-it basically "projects" onto the film to print on it. Since it fully integrates with the camera(if you open the back of your F4 you'll see a row of contacts-this is how it communicates) it adjusts intensity for film speed, something you have to set on more primitive. I personally find them worse than trying to program an 80s VCR, and I dislike them because I've inadvertently turned on in-frame printing before when I meant to have it off or thought I was doing between frame...

A few comments from someone who has never owned an FM3A(in fact the only Nikon film camera I've never owned) and has used a lot of the ones mentioned in this thread: 1. First of all, I use the term "New F-1" to refer to the last generation, 1980s F-1. F-1N is the common collector shorthand, but the cameras are in fact badged "New F-1" and F-1N invites confusion, especially for someone just learning about these cameras, with the camera commonly called the "F-1n." The latter is basically a revised/massaged version of the original F-1. The changes(all 13 of them) in the F-1 and F-1n, individually, are minor but add up to a nicer package IMO. In particular I find the larger wind lever offset more comfortable as I can easily "hook" my finger behind it. In any case, the New F-1 is in fact a different beast. The Original F-1 and F-1n are basically Canon's direct competitor to the F2(IMO better in some ways, worse in others, and I think the F2 is an overall better package especially fitted with a DP3 or DP12 finder). The New F-1 has more in common with then F3, and I consider a far superior camera to the F3 in most respects(others may disagree with me) aside from one small touch. The original F-1 and F-1n, to me, feel smoother winding than the F2. The F3 takes this up a notch and is often considered the smoothest, lowest effort winding 35mm SLR ever made(the Minolta X700 is the only one that really even gets included in the discussion) while the New F-1 seems to have been designed for durability and utility with no regard for feel-it's rough(that's not to say the F3 is weak-far from it-and the film wind on the F3 is often considered bulletproof). BTW, there seems to be a lot of incorrect information that gets passed around about the shutter on the New F-1. The shutter is mechanically timed from 1/90-1/2000, and of course B. If a battery is installed and the camera set to any speed other than B, the shutter button "electronically" releases the shutter when pressed, so there is very little effort required(this is not the case in B). What this means is that if the battery is dead and you attempt to the fire the shutter, it won't do anything. If you look in the battery chamber, however, you see that the top battery contact is a heavy spring loaded plunger-removing the battery allows this to "drop" and sets up a mechanical connection between the shutter button and the shutter release mechanism. This will allow the shutter to fire at any of the mechanical speeds, although you have to push the button a lot harder! This, to me, is a lot more versatile than the F3 "emergency" 1/80th. 2. I'd like an FM3a just for the last mechanical(ish) film SLR, but IMO it's an awfully pricey camera for what it is. I'm sure it's every bit as tank-like of a camera as the FM2n and FE2, but either of those is a fraction of the price of the FM3a. For manual exposure, I much prefer the 3-LED read-out of the FM2n to the needle set-up used on the FM3a 3. Someone mentioned the FA as a possibility. I'm a bit gun-shy around them after my first one. which would randomly fire blank frames. It also uses the tiny little LCD readout, which is my major annoyance with the F3 too. The FA sounds great on paper, but it seems a lottery these days as to whether or not you get a good one. Worst of all, if my experience is any indication, there's no way to tell other than just shooting a roll of film through one. In my effort to give my first a chance, I shot 3 rolls of film. The first had 5 random dropped frames mid-roll, the second was fine, and the 3rd dropped 4 frames in a row out of the first 10, was fine for the rest of the roll, then dropped the last 2. I don't know any static/bench testing that would have shown that issue, or even if a single roll film test would have. Everything about the camera SEEMED fine until I actually ran film through it. It's a shame, though, as the meter in particular is wonderful when it does work. 4. The Nikon EL-2 is a very much under-rated(IMO) camera in this category. It has the tank-like metal Nikkormat-derived body, not the somewhat lighter constructed(although still very durable) build of the FM/FE series cameras, and is aperture priority AE. I consider it functionally equivalent to the FE(except for maybe TTL flash? I forget if that was in the FE or if it didn't come along until the FE2) and is overall a great camera.

L-R Plain prism F with 45mm GN, early black F with waist level and 2,1cm f/4, and plain prism F with 8mm fisheye(and the auxiliary finder). All three of these Fs are 64 SN block ones, the black one is the earliest.