ben_hutcherson

A D70s was my first Nikon DSLR, bought when it was still very, very much an outdated camera and I bought something better within a month(a D2X in my case, which in ~2016 I think still probably wasn't a great move up-it took me a few more steps to get to a D800, which was a game changer for me). For someone coming from higher end film cameras that normally had 100% high magnification pentaprism finders, the viewfinder bothered me too. A lot of DX cameras have this issue(the D500 doesn't bother me so much) but the D70 seems unusually bad since it has the "tunnel vision" effect of a lot of early DX DSLRs and the pentamirror keeps it dim. In good weather without too much contrast, I could still get great results from it. The limited dynamic range, especially inherent in most CCD based cameras, can make it challenging to use well, and high ISO performance is less than great. BTW, one of my biggest struggles with mine was the pop-up flash. I could often find it handy both for slave triggering and also as an on-camera way to deal with the limited DR as long as I was close, but the on-cameras on these are a know weak spot. I fixed mine a few times(I think it's one of the microswitches that goes out of alignment as best as I recall) but it never stayed fixed for long. I've since picked up another D70 in an odd lot, and it has the same flash issue. BTW, I have piles of genuine Nikon EN-EL3e batteries, and have one or two that won't take charge. The rest are fine, and they also often turn up cheap in the clearance bins at my local camera stores. The Fuji NP-150, which is for all intents and purposes the same except that the S5 Pro(a D200 with Fuji guts) will power on but refuse to work with a Nikon battery, is a different story. I have one genuine Fuji battery that works fine, but have gone aftermarket on my others, although they're fine also(if anyone has any NP-150s kicking around they don't want, let me know).

Minolta definitely made some great glass. After switching to Nikon from a "dead" system(Canon FD) I pretty quickly found that the common workhorse MF lenses are often 1.5x-2x than their Canon FD equivalent. Of course, just to be a bit blunt, the prices didn't bother me as much as they did on Canon stuff since I was making a whole lot more money by the time I hit my mid to late 20s(and now early 30s) and made the switch than when I'd first gotten into this in high school/college. That's my circumstances, though, and may not be everyone's. I think the Nikon price differential comes from the fact that you can easily find modern cameras(film and digital both) to easily hang your legacy Nikon glass on and get full coupled open aperture metering and auto exposure(Pentax has the same advantage, but the lower market visibility of their DSLRs I think holds glass prices down somewhat). It's also worth noting that unconverted Nikon non-AI lenses are largely soft, partially I think because there's only one sort of oddball DSLR with more or less full-if clunky-compatibility(the Df) and also both the simple single coated optics and metal focus ring ergonomic don't appeal to everyone. Even if your workhorse glass is inexpensive, though, most of these systems have more exotic glass that's often revered and can bring a healthy price. In fact, I'd dare say that from what I've seen, exotics or "legendary" lenses(those two aren't mutually exclusive) can be more expensive than a Nikon equivalent thanks to lower availability. When I took a notion to dabble in the OM system about a year ago, I found some lenses that I'd consider even fairly ordinary in other systems to be crazily expensive. In Minolta, not too long back I sold an 85mm f/1.7 along with a few others that was nasty and I'd call all but unuseable(waterlogged, cloudy, fungus, mechanically seized) and I was amazed to watch the Ebay price creep up into 3 figures. A perfectly serviceable AI-S Nikkor 85mm f/2 can be had for $100 or so, and maybe double that for an 85mm f/1.8.

I'm a chemist and know dessicants. I will snag some Dri-Rite and seal it in a bag and hopefully stick it in a dessicator for a few days to dry it out. There should also be some silica gel around here somewhere(I'm still learning the lay of the land) which of course I can bake overnight, although I'm not particularly fond of handling loose silica gel.

I think that's missed a lot even today when folks new to film drop their exposed C-41 off at the lab and get back a stack of prints(just like what I started off doing back when film was on the decline, but almost every grocery store, pharmacy, and Wal-Mart still had a minilab tucked into it for their "1 hour photo"). Not too long ago, I was at my okay-ish local lab(to pick up a couple of rolls of E-6) and someone younger than me came in saying that they weren't happy that their prints were "too dark". The person at the counter offered a reprint, but also wondered if there was something wrong with the person's camera. I asked to see the negatives, and to my eye they ranged from normal density to a bit high(overexposed). Regardless, I'm sure the person was able to get prints to their liking, but when someone else prints your film you're at their mercy as to what they(or, more likely, the computer) thinks looks "correct." Slides REALLY make you appreciate correct exposure, or at least correct to your eye. So does printing in the darkroom or even scanning, where you have to deal with squeezing as much detail as you can out of a thin negative or trying to print through a thick negative.

To my eye, it looks like a file job Photomic T conversion, which I think pins it the 6.5 or 6.6 million SN range. There are a few other little nit-picky details that can help you pin things down a bit more. In the very early range, there were several versions of both self timer and film advance lever, although I think these had pretty well settled down to their "permanent" design(at least until the "Apollo" plastic tips) by 1962 or so. There's a site out there with lots of really nice photos of super condition Fs, and classifications on several different small design details.

My luck with the N6006 has been the weak door catches. The N8008 is a much better option in this respect, and is an all around great camera. The N90 is a step above, albeit very similar, but I think must have the loudest shutter of any AF Nikon.

My inclination would be to go with the Nikon for the better glass and accessory availability and more complete system, although you can't go wrong, per se, with either. With regard to service, both of these are inexpensive enough that they're really not economical to service unless you do it yourself. In general, I've found Nikon bodies of this era to be reliable. I do have one FE with a short that will eat batteries in a few minutes(and doesn't work) and I haven't dug into it to see if there's an issue. The overall build quality is high on them, and you also have the FM if you like the size/feel of the FE but want something that only uses the batteries for the meter and don't mind all manual. TBH, I rarely use my FEs because if I want an AE camera of this general type, the FE2(a fair bit more expensive) has some additional nice touches like the fact that if you use exposure lock, the needle actually stays there rather than continuing to move around and you hoping it's actually locked.

Like I think many folks, I have both an FX camera(really 3 in regular use, D800, D810, and Df-the 800/810 combo mostly so I can avoid changing lenses, otherwise I'd only have the D810 as it's subtly better all around than the D800 in almost every way, then the Df for specialty uses and its light weight), and a D500-arguably Nikon's best DX DSLR, and possibly the best that will ever be built. For general, all around use, I love the D8xx series cameras. The sensors have tons of dynamic range, great low light performance, and full frame benefits a lot of my photography. The D500 kills it at speed, really shines where you need long lenses, and has respectable high ISO performance. As mentioned too, DX benefits macro work(which I do a fair bit of)-lack of DOF is often your enemy, DOF at a given aperture is directly related to magnification ratio, and DX lets you get the same sized images at lower magnification ratios. Of course, a D850 and a grip-as was pointed out to me a while back-offers you a lot of the benefits of the D500 in a camera that is also an incredibly high resolution FX camera. With a grip, the frame rate is similar to the D500 and the DX resolution is slightly lower, but not enough to notice(IIRC 19.2mp on the D850 and 20.something on the D500). Both have the same D5-derived AF system. Of course, a battery grip adds a lot of size and weight, although even with a 70-200mm f/2.8 the camera isn't a huge component of the overall size/weight of the system.

My former local store was still doing it back in May when I was last there(before moving out of the area). They just gave everything a wipe-down after a customer had handled it.

Thanks Shun-that makes sense. I'm just glad it cleared!

I agree with your basic sentiment that you shouldn't build a an FX system around DX lenses. In my case, I only have a couple of DX lenses, and only two that get used regularly(the 35mm f/1.8 for a few specific tasks on one specific DX camera, and the 10-20mm I mentioned above). With the 10-20mm, though, it's not a question for me of "having" a comparable FX lens. I have the lens that is the benchmark F mount lens for this FL range, the 14-24mm f/2.8. I often choose consciously to leave it at home and carry the DX 10-2mm in its place even when there's not a DX camera to be found in my bag. The reason? The 10-20mm gets me as wide as the 14-24mm, and weighs almost nothing while still working with readily available filters, while the 14-24mm weighs a ton and needs expensive aftermarket filter systems. It's dismissive to say that it's only a good idea "for a few pictures" if you "don't have the corresponding FX lens" when really there are good reasons to use certain DX lenses in an FX kit.

This is a new one on me. I was out walking around with this lens mounted on my D810 yesterday, and it was fine for a good hour and a half or better. I did get splashed a few times(there's a bit more of a story to that), but nothing resembling full immersion or even a light rainstorm. I wasn't too worried when it happened as I did have a filter on the front and also I thought these cameras and lenses were supposed to be weatherproof at least up to the point of being safe to use in moderate rain. In any case, I put it up to my eye to use it and noticed that it looked very "cloudy" through the VF. I pulled the polarizer off the front of it, and found a nasty spot of condensation just under the front element. This came up rather suddenly-I have photos taken 2-3 minutes before where I can see no signs of it. Fortunately, it cleared about an hour late(I made sure to keep it dry and also tried to let it get sun on the body) but I still wanted to ask if anyone has seen anything like this. At the time I took this photo, it had already shrunk some. It started out about the size of a half dollar.

FWIW, if you have a good used shop around, I've picked up a handful of genuine Nikon MC-30s for a few bucks each by looking in the bottom of the misc tub. Since these work with virtually all higher end AF film cameras(from roughly the N90 on) as well as higher end digitals, they are a handy multi-purpose piece. It works with anything that has the 10 pin connector. I think they get relegated to the misc. tubs because folks don't realize that one bought for an N90 or F100 is interchangeable with one you can buy today for your D850 or D6. This is just a no-frills remote with a button and a lock. Of course if you want intervalometers or wireless, there are a lot of good 3rd party options, as Sandy and Shun found and recommend. The 10 pin connector, AFAIK, just need to have two pins shorted to fire, so in my mind there's virtually no risk to using a 3rd party unit.

Interesting to see them in use. The only one I have is the normal zoom that was kitted with the Pronea 6i, and of course I've only seen it on(expired) APS film. That's not exactly a high fidelity medium, and I've been less than impressed but there again that was the only way I'd evaluated the lens. I should also say that the last time I had my Pronea 6i out, I stuck my 14-24mm f/2.8 on it-a useful FL even if comically large and unbalanced on such a small and light camera-and I didn't see any difference between IQ in it and the kit zoom. Your results from the lenses are nothing short of impressive, though. It's kind of a mixed blessing that Nikon kind of dropped the idea of a dedicated APS format mount-as I'm sure you know Canon's EF-S lenses can't be mounted on anything other than an APS-C crop body, which gives them a bit more freedom to design them. At the same time, full frame Nikon shooters get to use DX format lenses on our FX cameras, whether in crop mode or even sometimes stretching them to full frame. Several of us have written about using the tiny featherweight 10-20mm DX zoom as a 14-20mm FX lens.

I know you know this, Ed, but EVs can also be a convenient short-cut with early pre-coupled-meter cameras. All of my Hasselblad lenses are "EV" lenses-essentially they are designed for you to set the EV value easily, and then the shutter speed and aperture rings are locked together to keep exposure the same as you change one value. I think some Rolleiflexes could do this also. As to auto ISO-it's not a function I've ever used. I don't typically photograph in conditions where the light changes fast or action is happening fast, so I prefer to scope things out, set the lowest ISO I can use for the conditions, and keep it there unless things change. BTW, I'm amazed to see folks saying that they don't go above 400 or so. For a lot of earlier DSLRs, yes that was a good rule. The D2X was the first DSLR I really bonded with, even though it was well past its prime when I did, and that's one camera where above 400 was basically "only if you have to." My D800, which was my next camera to follow, was a totally different story. I still think nothing of going to 1600 in that camera. There's a noticeable increase in noise, but it's tolerable and still far cleaner than any 400 speed print film I've used. 6400 is perfectly usable, far more so than 1600 speed print film ever was. My D3s and Df are both easily a stop better.

Funny thing...I know of one phenomenal photographer local to me who has reprinted a lot of 30+ year old slides as HDR images and was able to do that because he bracketed when shot. No, he didn't know at the time he would be able to one day do that, but it's sure handy now. I don't usually bracket, but at the same time when I'm in a situation with a lot of dynamic range, I'm not really even sure where my ~4 stops of exposure with slide film are going to fall. Actually, I should say I have a good idea of where different parts of the image are going to be(sort of a primitive, simplified zone system) but don't know which I'm going to like emphasizing in the final result. Bracketing serves a useful function at least sometimes, despite what our resident never-mad-a-mistake "expert" claims. With all of that said, I don't think I've ever bracketed color negative film or a modern digital camera. They both just have so much dynamic range that as long as I don't blow the highlights too badly(digital) or thin out the shadows too much(print film) the end result is going to be more than salvageable.

I wonder too where they'll go with this... For one thing, I wonder how likely they are to be able to get the A7R IV sensor, and if so that might be a big upgrade on a Z7 II, although I doubt Sony is ready to give up that sensor yet. Aside from that, I'm wondering if it's going to be a bit of a "massage" now that Nikon is comfortable with mirrorless bodies. I haven't gone beyond playing with them in the store, so don't know if there are quirks that could be ironed out, but I always think of things like the D800/D810 situation. Fundamentally, the D810 is a body wrapped around the same basic sensor as the D800 albeit without an AA filter. On the surface, that one change alone isn't a huge upgrade, but now that I have both I can see that the D810 did get a lot of tweaking and even if no one feature makes a compelling case for an upgrade, the totality of everything(no AA, lower base ISO, deeper grip, and much quieter/better damped shutter) make it a worthwhile upgrade. I wonder too if NIkon has managed to work a second card slot into these bodies. The D3s and D300s, for example, did get that upgrade.

Is this a first for Nikon using the "II" nomenclature on a body revision? We've seen the "s" version of bodies plenty of times, but the "II" and so on was a Canon thing first AFAIK and then a Sony thing. Canons are starting to get a bit unwieldy on some of theirs :)

I don't have any suggestions, per se, but it might be worthwhile to expand your solution search out to the D700 also. They both use the same battery grip-I don't remember if the AC adapter is the same, but it well could be.

Dang it, Vincent, you're tempting me again... Shoot me an email if you don't mind.

Personally, I use the aperture ring if it's present on the lens and the camera I'm using will let me. All my DSLRs are set this way, as is my F6 and I believe my F100. Part of it is it's less "muscle memory" when using screwdriver lenses since a lot of pre-F5 AF cameras required it in A and M modes(including the F4, which I use fairly often). Another part of it is that I find exposures to be somewhat more consistent using the aperture ring...there have been plenty of shown cases where the aperture is not as 100% repeatable as you'd like on non-E G lenses, while at least it should be with an aperture ring since the stop-down lever in the camera just has to get completely out of the way rather than stepping to a certain position.

I think maybe I botched my explanation, and the idea if I'm only carrying primes is to not group your focal lengths too close together. I know that I have Nikon MF primes at every major focal length between 20mm and 300mm, and if I carried every conceivable focal length I'd have a heavy bag, and spend all my time deciding which lens I wanted to use. A typical kit for me might be 20mm-35mm-85mm or 105mm and then 135mm or 200mm. If I bump my wide up to 24mm, It might be a clearer "doubling" at 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 200mm(or 180mm if I feel like carrying it). The "split personality" thing is true of a lot of fast primes. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4(which is one of my favorite MF lenses) is a good example. It's sharp and dream wide open, and really sharp by the time you get to f/2.8.

I have piles of 50mm lenses, but for my purposes if I'm going out with one lens it's going to be a 35mm(either a 35mm f/2 for AF or 35mm f/1.4 for MF, even though the f/1.4 has a certain look that's not always right for a photo wide open). In fact, even when carrying multiple primes, I'll often do the 35mm-85mm combo and skip the 50mm(using the "double your focal lengths" rule of thumb loosely). One of my real revelations was after I ended up with a couple of different mid-range zooms-in my case 24-85mm, 24-120mm, and 24-70mm. Looking at my EXIF from a day out shooting with just twisting the zoom ring without really giving much thought to where I'm actually landing(i.e. just using the FL that looks good good for what I'm doing) I rarely end up at 50mm.

IMO, on an F6 you won't notice any difference between the two. The AF-S focuses faster and quieter, and optically is a bit sharper. I doubt you're using your F6 for anything that needs fast focusing(maybe you are?) and of course you can decide if the fairly quiet focusing small 50mm even in D form is quiet enough for you, or if it's worth paying for the AF-S to get slightly quieter. Optically, I doubt you will see the higher resolution on film, and most newer lenses pay less attention to distortion since on digital its easy to fix in post. As you said, the old Nikon rule of 52mm on almost everything possible is nice, since it saves you carrying a mess of filters and/or step rings. My only AF 50mm f/1.4 is the much-maligned non-D version with the thin knurled focusing ring. I've been happy enough with it to not feel it needed to be replaced, even with a D version.

Of course I've not jumped into the Z system yet, but the 14-24mm is compelling. My F mount 14-24 is a bit of a polarizing lens for me, and I go through spurts of using it all the time and followed by spurts of it sitting for a few months. I love what it's capable of when used correctly, and in general I rarely go out without some sort of UW on hand. Still, though, for a lot of reasons something as wide as 14mm can be challenging to use well, and to me it's kind of pointless to carry that unwieldy monster if you're not going to make full use of its zoom range. The Z mount version will hopefully be a bit more tame in terms of size, but I'd wait to see one in hand.