ben_hutcherson

The only way I can think of to transfer to an iPad would be to use an SD card reader, but if you can't buy a spare memory card you probably can't buy one of those either. Lightning to SD Card Camera Reader — Apple That's the official Apple one, but you might find a 3rd party one cheaper. From there, you can upload to iCloud, Dropbox, or wherever you prefer so that you have a copy in the cloud. You have one additional option in the form of a Nikon WU-1b, which will enable WiFi on your D610 and interface with the SnapBridge app on your phone or iPad. I've not played with SnapBridge much, but it will allow you to(slowly, and with a lot of battery power) transfer images to your mobile device. IIRC, they're fairly low resolution(maybe 2MP?). I can't say first hand as I've only used it for geotagging on my D500 and never to transfer photos.

I'd suggest making sure you have it loaded correctly. Be sure the leader is all the way to the orange mark, but not too much past it. Close the back, press the shutter(most of the higher end Nikons don't load until you do this-not sure about the N60/F60) and hopefully it should load. Make sure your batteries are good also. Aside from that, if there's anything actually wrong it's probably worth just finding another rather than fixing this one.

You have zero disagreement from me. I like the 24-120 a lot. It's a convenient zoom range in a good, sturdy but not overly large package, and for a lot of situations the f/4 max is offset by VR. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is phenomenal, though. Outdoors, it's not even a contest between the two lenses when absolute image quality is your main concern. When light drops a bit-even indoors-it can be a bit more off a toss-up. Earlier this evening, I was at a small birthday party get-together and had my D810 with the 24-70. There were times where I had to keep it at f/2.8 to keep my shutter speeds reasonable, and I would have benefited from VR and letting my shutter speeds drop down into the 1/30 or even 1/15 range and enjoyed the extra DOF and/or lower ISO. As it was, I was at 3200 and 6400 at f/2.8 to keep 1/100 or so. In my experience, the VR on the 24-120 is good for ~3 stops, which makes it about two stops better than the 24-70 in this sort of situation, but of course there are trade-offs. Maybe one of these days I can get the E VR version, which takes the no-VR tradeoff out of the equation, but leaves you with and even easier lens that's stuck at f/2.8 for film.

Great purchase! I have barely taken mine off a camera since getting it. I agree that it's easily the best all-around zoom I've used, despite the fact that I was told in another thread here that the 24-120 was just as good...

Sorry, that's what I get for not checking. With that said, B&H and Adorama still list them in stock and Amazon shows 3 available. Nikon has them listed as out of stock on their website. Two thoughts-I seem to recall that either Japan or the EU quit allowing exposed battery contacts like the EN-EL3 and EN-EL3e had(not applicable to the EN-EL4a). I'm not sure if that was just for new designs, or if it hampered their ability to continue producing old battery types. The second is that I wonder if Nikon's "out of stock" means that they're not making them anymore, and what B&H and Adorama have are old stock still in the pipeline. That's of course speculation, but the newest cameras that used that battery would be ~10 years old by now. The same would be true of the EN-EL4a, although I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough D3s still in service to keep some demand for them, but that's also an ancient camera in the digital world(and the D2 series even older). Of course you CAN use them in the D300 and D700 with a battery grip and both cameras make a really nice overall package with that battery. The one I really was thinking of was the Fuji battery that was electrically identically to the EN-EL3e but has a stupid firmware lock such that if you put one in an S5, it will power on but just give you a battery error. I have a few genuine Fuji and a few aftermarket ones, and I've had mixed luck using them in Nikons-sometimes they work and sometimes don't. The S5 is a D200 with a Fuji sensor and the required battery and truly should be interchangeable with the EN-EL3e.

The F3(whether in HP or non-HP form) seems to be a very polarizing camera. I've never warmed up to either the meter weighting or the tiny LCD. The F3 seems to be a great camera if you shoot in aperture priority(provided you're careful with the meter), but I don't much like it for manual. The standard vs. HP debate is always fun too. My first F3 was a standard prism, and I've had a few HPs(and do have one now). I wear glasses so the eye relief is nice, but I'm so used to the F2 that the standard just feels "right" to me and I like its higher magnification than the HP. That's definitely something you have to decide for yourself, though. The standard prisms don't seem to be as common as the HPs.

The FA, on paper, is the best of the bunch listed as far as features. In practice-I've shot two rolls of film through mine. It "burned" me on the first one in that I'd get random blank frames-apparently there's a known problem of the shutter sometimes firing at 1/4000. It was totally unpredictable-I'd have a blank one or two in a sequence of three, and then 10 or more in a row without one. I chanced a second roll and it was fine, but there again I'm still a bit leary of it especially since the big selling point-the meter-begs for slide film.

F2AS for me(which I know wasn't listed), with the FM2(n) as a close second. Even though I have several of them, the F2SB and F2AS spoiled me on using the F2 Photomic and F2A.

I'd vote for D700 to use it on also. They're fairly inexpensive these days, and even if the resolution is a bit low by current standards they're still good, especially with older lenses. The only real weak point is that the EN-EL3e batteries haven't been made by NIkon for several years now, although there are plenty of good used ones in circulation and also some decent aftermarket.

Definitely a desirable lens. I'd want to see it in hand to guess at a value, but assuming the glass is good they seem to be $250-300 on Ebay.

Yes, that lens would have been great for this generation AF cameras. Admittedly the F4 should work perfectly with the 28-70mm f/2.8, but the early cameras won't. I imagine a lot of people were still using their fairly high end N8008 when the 28-70mm came out. As much as I like the 35-70mm f/2.8, it's a bit cramped for me on the wide end.

That really is a fascinating piece. The "Hammertone" finish(as I've heard it called) is consistent with a lot of late 80s/early 90s designed pro AF lenses. I'm not a player now, but I'd sure like to have it too. Back in the day, it would have been a useful expansion of range as compared to the 35-70mm f/2.8.

The 28-70mm f/2.8 won't AF on the N6006, unfortunately.

Here's a thread where I showed samples of the 35-70mm f/2.8. If it looks that good on a D810, you can be sure it will look good on film. How much better is a modern 24-70mm zoom than an older f/2.8 normal zoom?

If you want a normal zoom and can find one without haze, the 35-70mm f/2.8 is hard to beat. It's a push-pull design and although heavier than the kit lens, is a lot lighter and more nimble than any of the f/2.8 "normal" zooms that came after it.

In my testing on a D810(and even D800) the f/2.8 is noticeably better. I suppose either my f/2.8 is exceptionally good, my f/4 is exceptionally bad, or otherwise both are consistent with testing like DXOmark which ranks the f/2.8 better when used on both the D800 and D810. I have posted full-resolution samples using the f/2.8 and D810 here in another thread. I have 24-120 samples taken that same day and will try to dig them up. I don't notice much if any difference on my Df, but that's a different ball game. I actually use the Df more often with the lighter 24-85 VR.

Fair enough on that-I'm actually tempted to grab it myself :) (let me know if you decide to not) I use a 10.5", but it's honestly too long for home use(I usually end up setting the projector on the dining room table and projecting into the adjoining living room). Zooms often aren't as good as fixed focal lengths, but they are nice for home use in that you can match them better to different room sizes. The better Kodaks honestly aren't terrible either. In some senses, they can perform better than a high dollar lens. Slides in paper or plastic mounts will usually "pop" when they get in front of the lamp. The Kodaks often have just the right amount of field curvature to offset this. A flatfield lens can actually at times give inferior results(unless you glass mount) than a curved field.

Well, to be fair, you could take a 70-200mm f/2.8E FL and stick it on your Nikon F. You could even meter with any of the metering prisms other than the last(and best) FTN. You'd just have to be sure to set the maximum aperture, and then move the tab on the front to the f/2.8 position. You just couldn't use any aperture smaller than f/2.8.

Vincent. A Kodak mount lens is easy to spot since it will have a plastic gear rack on one side. I have no affiliation with the seller, but in a quick look this looks promising Buhl 4.5 to 7.7 inch zoom lens for Kodak 35mm slide projector. Professional. | eBay

I was going to answer this earlier, but am glad I didn't since my answer would have been wrong! I have two of them(I think) but have never actually put film through one, and at least one of mine had a broken film door catch. First of all(and this is what I would have said earlier) the N6006 is happiest with screwdriver-focusing lenses with aperture rings. It will be fully functional with those, including of course AF and all operating modes. AI-P lenses(CPU manual focus) will also work in all exposure modes with all types of metering. AI/AIs lenses work in A and M without matrix metering. In common with the other first-gen AF cameras(save for the F4), no in-lens motors will work, including AF-I and AF-S. I stuck an AF-S G lens on the one I had handy, expecting it to have some functionality with G lenses. On an F4, N90, and I think N8008, you can at least access P and S modes with a G lens mounted and it will meter and expose fine. The N6006 is a different story. I tried with two different lenses, and it's actually semi-functional in M, although the lens is stuck wide open. Still, though, it correctly reports the maximum aperture. In P and S, however, it gives an fEE error, the same as what you would normally see if a lens with an aperture ring weren't set to minimum aperture. So, probably the most direct answer is "don't do it".

On film, yes I'd agree that there's no discernible difference in IQ. There are arguments for both for in terms of distortion, which is something I don't really care about on digital but can be a big deal depending on your use on film. Per Ken Rockwell's correction tables, the 24-120 is better at 24 and 28mm(in particular 28mm), but the 24-70 pulls ahead at other focal lengths. If you look at vignetting, the 24-70mm is better at f/4 across the board than the 24-120. The 24-70mm has somewhat less vignetting at 24mm and f/2.8 than the 24-120 at f/4, but comparing both wide open, the 24-120 is better at all focal lengths though. Still, though, that's not exactly a fair comparison since wide open is a full stop larger. I also don't mind vignetting per se in the right situations, but I also prefer more control over it. On what digital bodies have you compared the two?

I don't particularly care for the smell of glacial acetic acid, which is what things like Kodak's indicator stop bath are. Quite a while ago, I switched to using a citric acid stop, which mostly has no smell, or if it does it's only a light citrus-type scent. There again, I only really mix it up if I'm doing fiber base paper.

For that matter, it won't on a lot of digitals either! I have one AF-P lens, the 10-20mm DX. It works at 14-20mm as a full frame lens, and is a whole lot lighter than the 14-24mm(which is a beast). I had to do a firmware update(not a terrible thing) on my D800 and D610 to get it to work at all, and even those don't have the ability to turn off VR. My Df, D500, and D810 all work out of the box with them, but I don't think they work on anything older than D800 era or so. Without looking at a compatibility table, I THINK there's a difference between compatibility with some of these ~2012 era cameras(and maybe a bit older) with FX AF-P lenses as compared to DX. The 10-20mm is admittedly a fringe case that a lot of use in a way Nikon didn't intend it to be used. E Aperture was rolled in on models introduced around 2007, or around the time as the 19mm PC-E. That makes them roughly D3/D300 era, which means cameras most people will be using now work with them. I've also heard an "Any CMOS" rule, but don't have any to actually check. Something tells me the D2X, which has a CMOS(and the D2H, which has a Nikon proprietary sensor that I think is CMOS-like) don't work with them, or at least can't stop down the aperture.

My lovely bride-to-be had me working about two weeks ago on stamping and mailing invitations. They were two ounces and 85¢ each. IIRC, the non-machinable surcharge was 17¢. With that said, that was just for a thick and kind of "lumpy" envelope. I'm pretty sure a roll of film in an envelope would be thick enough to be classed as a package, which would bump you up into first class package rates. Off the top of my head, that's going to be $2-3.

I always use a stop bath with fiber based paper, and usually use one with resin coated. My big thing with FB is that when I started printing on it(having only used RC before) I found that the RC was hiding a lot of my "sloppiness", and started using Ilford's archival wash process almost to the letter to keep my prints from turning brown in a day or two. Since RC-and film-doesn't "soak up" chemistry the way FB can, you don't necessarily have to be as diligent about making sure you get as much left over chemistry as possible out. I also never used hypo clear until I started using FB either. If I have some stop handy, I'll use it with film, but don't routinely use it. Rapid fixers are acidic anyway, so they do act as a stop bath at the cost of sometimes depleting the fixer a bit early. If you're like me, you probably push your fixer beyond its reasonable limits anyway, so having it fail testing a bit sooner than it might otherwise isn't necessarily a bad thing.