ben_hutcherson

I'm struggling to think of what would be special about the T90 to allow this, or conversely what would prevent most any other film TTL system from working with any kind of polarization... Early film TTL flash, such as you'd fine on cameras like the Nikon F3, FE2, FG and FA is pretty darn basic. As long as the sensor can see light reflecting off the film, polarization of the light anywhere in the path shouldn't make a difference...

I have the 300TL for my T90, haven't touched it in years partially because it's sort of a "one trick pony" and for the rare occasion I'm using in the T90 in the first place I don't want to haul it out. I'm also a bit of a Metz junky, and it's nice to have flashes that work with multiple different brands of cameras. The Metz SCA 311 adapter, per this website(in German, so hopefully my translator is working correctly) https://faq.d-r-f.de/wiki/Metz_SCA-FAQ Should allow second curtain sync and the other things you can do with the 300TL. If that's the case, it would be a big deal at least to me since there are so many SCA 300 system compatible flashes out there. Has anyone used one of these adapters? I don't have one, and before I go to the effort of tracking one down I'm wondering if anyone has ever used one of these on a T90 with a Metz SCA 300 compatible flash.

re: the orange mask- I've never done software reversal, but can't most software account for the mask? With that said when I sit down to do this if gelling the flash helps, it's worth trying. I've never optically printed color, although I do have a color head on one of my enlargers(I'd not go out of my way to buy one, but the one I have is handy to dial in contrast filters for VC paper) but when one is printing color, don't you start by dialing in correction for the mask? Re: Resolution of the cameras-it seems to me(not having done this but hoping too in the coming week-I have just located my PB4) that you want enough to get everything, but going too high just leaves you with big files with a bunch of useless information. I honestly shoot with my D5 a lot these days just because even my good "regular" lenses like my 24-70 f/2.8E don't show a ton more detail in real-world situations on my D810 or D850(and I'm REALLY pressed to see a difference with all but a few lenses between the D800, D810, and D850). Storage is cheap these days, both in camera and on the computer(I have 10TB on-tap in my 2019 iMac-2tb solid state and 8tb in a spinner) but big files are slower to import, slower to sort, and just everything about handling them seems to drag down if I'm scanning my computers. With scanning, I've always gone by the idea that if I can see the the grain/dye clouds I have enough resolution. I'll go straight to 4000ppi if I'm scanning modern fine grain transparencies(E100/Provia/Velvia) or even finer grained negative like Ektar 100, but once I start getting into any 400 speed films I usually dial the resolution back. Scanning is a slow process anyway, and if the higher resolution just means more pixels without more detail, it seems a waste to me. Of course too with a DSLR set-up, I have a feeling that once I get a workflow down with a particular camera(probably going to be my D800...) it's worth keeping going. One of the stores where I use to hang out had a really interesting set-up for slides. They had a Kodak Carousel without a lens, then a DSLR(I think something like a Nikon D5200 with a kit lens-nothing at all fancy) pointed right where the lens would be mounted on the Carousel. The whole set-up was tethered to a computer-I'm guessing with a special dongle to tie the Carousel remote port to the computer-and they could just drop a tray on the Carousel and let it rip and get a stack of files.

I seem to recall "disposable" digital cameras being a thing at least for a period of time. I never really looked at them seriously, partially because by the time they were on the market I was pretty deep into using my film SLRs for everything(which, lets face it, were better than most inexpensive digitals). From what I remember of the disposable digital cameras, they used the same sort of plastic mensicus lens as a film disposable and were-I thought-horribly expensive. I seem to remember them being $20-30 or so when a regular film disposable was $5-10. I BELIEVE that with those, you would take them to friendly neighborhood drug store/grocery store/Wal-Mart(okay maybe not so friendly on that one) where they'd print and burn a CD for you. At the time, pretty decent digital P&Ss(something like a the pocketable PowerShots or Coolpix) could be had for $150-200 depending on what exactly you wanted. It didn't take too many digital disposables to pay for something like that. I don't think they were ever really a starter. I know not exactly what was asked about here, but it seems the same general idea.

Just thought I'd mention as an add-on to this that I do still love Metz flashes, regardless of the mode 🙂 After a bit of hunting, I did get my hands on a 45CL4 Digital. Actually I ended up with two of them(as these things sometimes go...)-one that works fine but is ugly, and another that looks really pretty but for whatever reason seems to have a dead short across the battery contacts if my bench PSU is to be believed(weirdly enough it works fine when I bypass the low voltage stuff and hook a Metz P76 to the HV input. For those unaware, the CL4 Digital, despite the seeming similarity to the CL4, is actually a different model. It's the same size and shape as a regular 45CL4 and can use the same faithful NiCd pack or AA basket, although I was just yesterday made aware of an NiMH pack for it. Presumably it should be backward compatible all the way to the 45CT1, especially since NiCd and NiMH are both 1.2V/cell so both packs will be a(nominal) 7.2V. That aside, I THINK as best as I can tell that the 45CL4 digital should work with all SCA 300 series adapters with the apropriate cable(not tested this). It's not mentioned in the manual, but I'd not be surprised if it handles some of the more advanced film era TTL flash metering with the standard SCA3000 adapter, and of course an appropriate SCA300/3000 shoe for both. Where the CL4 Digital differs, though, is that it's compatible with the SCA 3045 "Digital" adapter. I had actually bought one of these a while back, not realizing that there was a difference beyond branding between the CL4 and CL4 Digital, and it actually will not physically connect to anything but the CL-4 Digital. Internally, like the 76 MZ-5(which is a great flash too, but with a lot more going on than the classic 45 series flashes) what makes this different is that it's capable of supporting pre-flash as used for iTTL, D-TTL, ETTL, and I'm sure other systems. So, with a CL4 Digital , SCA-3045, and for Nikon an SCA 3402 M3 or later(I personally have tested and used M6 and M9 revision adapters), you can use iTTL flash, Nikon's current digital protocol. iTTL uses a low power pre-flash and reads the scene with the cameras "regular" meter at least per my understanding(and if you watch carefully you can see the pre-flash through the viewfinder, something that doesn't happen with auto flash, manual flash, film TTL, or even Nikon's D-TTL which uses a preflash reflection off the shutter). As a side note too, I'm pretty sure SCA 3402 M2 and later support DTTL-it wasn't deprecated to my knowledge with newer revisions of the adapter. The 76 MZ-5, which I've had and used for a while, depends on a hotshoe mounted control unit with an LCD display. This is used basically for all the flash functions-to toggle between the various flash modes(A, M, TTL, TTL BL), set things like the manual power level, dial in flash exposure compensation, toggle auto-zoom or set the manual zoom range, and I think even set features like slow speed/second curtain sync or high speed sync. Metz documentation is pretty universally considered terrible 🙂 (at least in English-the original German may be better) , but I think the 76 MZ-5 is even CLS compatible(with the right M revision adapter) in some capacities. I've just never checked it. I've always considered the 75 MZ-5 more or less a functional equivalent of the SB-800, with a few features in the SB-800s favor(including Auto-GN if you want to use it) and a few in the 75s favor(like the secondary small front tube, something that older Nikon flashes had). The 45 CL-4 Digital has a pretty minimal UI. The major settings, just like other 45 series flashes, are handled by the calculator dial. If it's set to the "TTL" position, you can toggle it between TTL-BL(via the "Mode" button, not present on any 45 flash I've seen). Apparently too the 45 has a coupled Automatic Mode, where it bases its automatic(auto thyristor) setting on settings transmitted from the camera. 80s Canon flashes did this-including my favorite the 299T-as well as the SB-800. I'd assume the 76 MZ-5 can but I've not stumbled across that feature/setting. This is really nice if you want to use Auto flash but not have to deal with transferring the data. For the lack of UI on the 45 CL4 Digital, though, I did find that I can set most of the options from my D850 flash menu. That lets you dial in flash exposure compensation, second curtain, HSS, and some of the other things you might want to set. I actually hadn't realized that somehow or another my D850 had been set to -1.00 stop exposure compensation, which might explain my complaint with all iTTL with any flash I use on there(I had to hunt for the menu-there's no dedicated button like on older cameras...but I know that's user error and another Thom Hogan "moved cheese"). I can't say for sure, but I seriously doubt the CL-4 digital works with CLS. Overall, though, I still love Metz flashes and even though I'm probably going to be going back to auto flash where I can, at least iTTL properly set does work well. The beauty of auto flash too is if I want to deal with the bulk, or rather the separate shoulder pack, of a 60 series Metz flash, I can still use it, and use it on anything at that(and a Wein Safe Sync lets me use even a CT-1 with or without a Mecamat). BTW, I just recelled one of the Metz Ni-Cd packs, even though surprisingly enough I have yet to find one that was completely dead. Recycle time on a fresh pack is 6 seconds from a full dump. The P76 gets that down to 3 seconds-note that for users of the CL-4 digital, you need the same cord as the 50/70/76 for the P50 or P76(or if using a Quantum Turbo, obviously you need the Quantum cord-I just asked Quantum yesterday and they no longer have this particular one in stock but they are plentiful on Ebay).

Not exactly my guess(revamped DC lens) but looks superb!

I have options... IIRC, the D850 is supposed to do this at least sort of automatically with the ES2. sol With that said, it seems like overkill for 35mm. A 4000dpi film scanner outputs a ~24mp full frame scan(~1x1.5" , or 4000x6000) although those are "real" RGB pixels and not Bayer pixels(if that actually makes a difference). That will grain resolve-or maybe dye cloud resolove to be more precise- a lot of film, including favorites like Tri-X, FP4+, and Portra 160 or 400. It SEEMS to grain resolve 100 speed slide films(including Provia 100F, which at least use to hold the finest grain slide film title with an RMS granularity of 8(Velvia 50 is close at 9, and I'd expect Extachrome E100G/E100GX/E100 to be close) but there's the pesky grain aliasing phenomenon that can increase apparent grain in fine grained film. I don't necessarily see myself going finer, as I've found films like Pan F to be too touchy for my liking and TMAX 100, which has finer apparent grain than FP4+, has never been a film I've taken to/ A 24mp camera might seem ideal, but I don't currently have one. I can go under with the D3s, Df, D4, and D5. I can go over with the D800/D810 or really over with the D850. I'm wondering where the sweet spot would be, since as tempting as it is to just grab the D850 for everything, I know I certainly hate the space and time(even on my 2019 8-core iMac, which is my current editing machine) that D850 files occupy, plus my D850 files always seem to need more work to make me happy than D5 files, which not only are smaller and easier to handle but also in the "real world" are nearly perfect. So, part of this is going to be experiment, especially with some of my "reference" slides that are ~15 years old and have been scanned on pretty much every scanning device I've ever owned(and that I always enjoy seeing again), is going to be testing bodies to see where the sweet spot is, and of course it could change depending on film stock. I have a feeling it mind end up being the D800 or D810, which already pretty much live as macro cameras for me now anyway. I do want to do some medium format scanning too, especially as everything said about the "fun" of scanning 35mm is even more true of medium format. I went through fighting with the expensive better scanning holder for my Epson V700, only to still fight flatness with a lot of extra work. I'm now using a cobbled together holder that works by laying a piece of AN glass on the standard MF "stretch" holder for my Coolscan 8000, but it's still less than perfect and I haven't wanted to fork over the mega-bucks for a genuine Nikon glass holder. MF will likely on a lighbox with glass to hold it flat. The D850 could come into its own here, or I could get really fancy and do pixel shift on the X-T5. I guess too there's always the "always an excuse to buy another camera" to end up at 24mp, but I don't really know where I'd go. I had a D600 for a while, but don't really know that I want to go there again just since I still have some annoyances with how the camera works even though they were(relatively) cheap the last time I looked. The D750 just doesn't appeal to me, especially for current used prices, even though I know it's a great camera. The D3X has a cult following and I suspect I'd actually really like it, especially given how much I love SOOC outputs from all the other full frame single digits I've used, but that cult following(combined with, I'd guess, relative scarcity) makes them bring prices far stronger than I'd really want to pay for a 15 year old camera. Even though I'm decent at the moment. on EN-EL4/EN-EL4a batteries, the genuine Nikons I have are definitely starting to show their age. I have some aftermarkets from both Kastar and Wasabi, and they're okay, but aftermarket batteries always leave me a bit on edge. Nikon made it possible to charge EN-EL4 batteries in the MH-26a with an addapter-the EN-EL18 seems electrically similar enough that I wish there was a way to make it work in the D2/D3/D300/D700 etc cameras. If only there were a 24mp option with pixel shift...(and yes as I mentioned I'm taking a serious look at it as my potential first Z camera, although that's going to be a ways off).

That's definitely one I will look at if I go this route. There again, that's essentially an exact match for the 16-80 f/4 I have for the X-T5. I have the F mount 24-120 but it's...less than thrilling. It does fine on my Df as well as my other lower resolution bodies(D3s, D4, D5) but definitely starts holding back the D800/D810 much less the D850. It's also a big and heavy enough that I'd rather just grab the 24-70 f/2.8 and call it a day. Yes I lose some range, but on the higher resolution bodies the much better 24-70 lets me crop to the equivalent of 120 and not lose much, if any, detail plus the potential noise advantage if I'm using the f/2.8 lens wide open. The Z system seems to offer really good f/4 zooms, something that I feel is lacking in the F mount. I know the F mount 70-200 f/4 seems really well regarded, but I almost never hear it discussed. The 16-35 is popular and well regarded too, but the mid-range is lacking.

Thanks for the detailed comments, and it sounds like the PB-4 may well be the winner given especially that I already have it. I actually prefer the 55mm f/3.5 Micro to the f/2.8 version for true macro work. The floating element seems to make things weird on the f/2.8 version if you do more than the intended 27.5mm tube(and even then I feel like it loses a little vs. right on the camera). The unit focusing f/3.5 is beautiful no matter how far I rack it out from the film plane.

This may well become my first Z mount camera. Combined with the 24-70 f/4 S, it could make a formidable set-up for my uses for times now when I use the X-T5+16-80 f/4. The X-T5 is certainly a formidable and capable camera, but there are times when I find the Fuji UI fustrating compared to my Nikons, and 40mp is honestly hugely overkill both for the times I use it and also for the lenses I'm usually using it with. I'm not buying until I can get one in my hands, though(as in the local store has a display model) and even then I may hold off for a little while.

As much as I love my scanners, they are slow and fiddly to get right, and I'd really like to try DSLR "scanning" I know that the current, Nikon-sanctioned way to do this is the ES-2 on a 60mm Micro lens. Even though I have the AF-D version of this lens, it's never been a favorite of mine, so I'm not necessarily wild about this option. If I'm understanding correctly, since the distance from the filter ring to the negative will be fixed with the ES-2, a 60mm full frame(or maybe the 40mm DX?) is the only option that will allow a full frame scan in focus. Buried somewhere in a box from moving a few years ago is a nice PB-4 Bellows with a PS-4 slide/film copy attachment. Obviously this is fairly old tech, designed primarily for slide duplication, but in my mind there's no reason this particular option shouldn't work provided that you set it up and focus it correctly. Obviously it needs a fair bit of manual input, and I do have some of the attachements to make life easier like the cable release stop down ring(number escapes me at the moment) to use with a reversed lens and a couple of BR-2 reversing rings. I really do need to dig my PB-4 out, although it hasn't been pressing as my much lighter, more nimble Novoflex bellows do the job when I need them. Still, though, does anyone have any thoughts on this combination as opposed to the ES-2?

I have one on my X-T5. Fuji makes their own version, but it's something like $120 vs. $40. From playing with them in the camera store, the Fuji version has a little better fit-up and is available in black(the only Smallrig I've seen for the X-T5 is silver) but the SmallRig gives a bit larger of a grip. Either way, for these little cameras like this to me they're an almost perfect addition. Not only do they give you more palm grip, but if you stick it on an A-S compatible tripod head(or adapter) it's so nice to feel like the camera is quite literally locked directly onto the tripod. I know that's a lot of rambling, but basically I'm just saying that I consider them a worthwhile addition and a good product at a reasonable price. When I looked at a ZFc in person before deciding on the X-T5(decision driven by the more complete line-up of purpose made APS-C lenses-I mostly liked the ZFc handling better and took to it pretty quickly despite not really having used the Z cameras, and 4 months of decently heavy use later of the X-T5 has gotten better but still leaves me frustrated at times where my Nikon DSLRs seem to continue to just do what I want them to do...) the shop had a Smallrig grip on their display ZFc.

What lens are you trying to calibrate? Unfortunately, my experience has been that AF fine tune often isn't terribly repeatable with a lot of longer focal length screwdriver lenses(I've driven myself crazy with my 135 f/2 DC and just finally said "good enough"). I haven't even tried with my relatively recently acquire 200mm f/4 Micro, although live view manual focus is often a better option with it anyway. If you're using AF-S lenses, it's worth looking at how you're supporting the camera, or rather the lens if using longer lenses.

The D500, like the D5 and D850, has auto AF fine tine https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_info/technical_solutions/d500_tips/af/auto_af_fine-tuning/ I no longer have a D500, but have fine tuned several lenses using the function on my D850 and D5 both. It can be touchy-you need a super solid support, a lot of light, and a high contrast target or it will fail-but it works beautifully when it does work.

Perhaps an updated take on the now ~30 year old 105/135 DC lenses?

I got it, thank you so much! I will at least keep my eyes open for MC-33, and I'll probably be installing it on a Windows XP laptop I have around here. I do still wish I could find the Mac version someway or another...

It's certainly interesting, and if the local camera store gets one in I'll have to play with it. The palm "swell" reminds me of the Df(and F3...) and isn't there on the ZFc. I'll be curious to see just how much it handles like one. They seem to have at least fixed some of the ergonomic annoyances of the Df and eliminated the vertical front control wheel in favor of a more conventional one. Truth be told the control layout reminds me a lot of my Fuji X-T5-it would be really great if Nikon would let you just toggle the locks on the shutter speed and ISO dials on and off like Fuji does, but I'm guessing the shutter dial will lock in a few positions(like the 1/3 step and I think X and T on the Df) and spin otherwise, and I'd not be surprised if, like the Df, the ISO dial is always locked. I really am mixed on what to think of this one. When I bought my X-T5 back in May I pretty seriously cross shopped the ZFc but the latter lost of a variety of reasons. One of the biggest ones, and this is a subjective thing, but the ZFc definitely shows that it's a dressed up Z50, where the X-T5 works, handles, and feels like the flagship body(or I guess not any more, but high in the line-up) that it is. Although I love my Df, the D600 underpinnings certainly show in it.

Those edge markings look super faint. If it were mine and I really wanted to know, I'd be tempted to clip 2-3" and give it strong development in a super high contrast developer, but tread cautiously(not that you have a ton to lose-you don't know what it is now and even if you don't have a bunch left you can probably get several clips going that route). That should get the markings to pop nicely. It looks like you do have some base fog so you could overdevelop and get nothing, but I suspect with a bit of care you won't run into that issue too badly. As for what developer to use-when I'm printing(I'm not set up to now-hopefully soon) I always keep Dektol mixed, and diluted 1:2 or 1:3 will give very high contrast on film although with super short development-think a minute or two. I wouldn't necessarily go buy Dektol unless you have it and intend to print-some people do use it as a film developer but I find it very temperamental for that-but it's cheap(~$10 for a pouch to make 1 gallon the last time I looked). Alternatively, it looks like you're currently overexposed/overdeveloped with a relatively thick negative(actually given the faint edge markings I'd tend to think overexposed, underdeveloped), but you're in the right ballpark of getting useable negatives out of it. You could just use this roll as a starting point to tweak it, and not really worry about what exactly it is. I say this as someone who has probably a dozen bulk loaders in the closet with partial rolls of film in them, most of which I either knew or was able to ID, some of which I don't know. The camera store where I use to hang out a lot would often give them to me if they came in since I was the only one who cared to bother with them(and if I was buying something else that day), or maybe charge me a few bucks if it came in marked as to the film. I've never used them for anything critical, but I always treated it as basically free film that was great for testing camera operation or getting an idea of lens performance. Even if I had to pay a few bucks, it was pennies per roll and D76 or HC-110 works out to $1/roll or less to develop($10 for a gallon of D76 at current prices, or 128oz, and 8 oz. stock to develop 135-36, so 16 rolls/gallon or 67¢/roll).

Thanks, that fixed it for now, but still it seems there could be a better solution. I ENJOY seeing peoples' work in the side bar, and I've noticed phtoographers I might not have otherwise thanks to it. I'd rather keep the side bar on, but make sure it's not going to cause issues viewing in public. This sort of stuff worked for 20+ years on this site. I know the side bar hasn't always been there, but even in ratings, etc, you use to be able to filter out nudes so that one didn't pop up when you weren't in an appropriate place for it...

I'm not a prude by any means, and can appreciate and even admire the artistic and tasteful nudes often posted to here. With that said, there was a time on here where you didn't see them unless you went looking for them. The reason for this is obvious-in a public setting ore even semi-private like my office at work even a tasteful, artistic nude can be misconstrued and not necessarily be a welcome sight by others. I'm finding now, increasingly, that nudes seem to show up in the sidebar of the main forum page as I'm browsing. This makes me reluctant to view Pnet anywhere publicly. I hunted and can't find a setting, like I recall there use to be to turn this off. Am I missing something in this? EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This one isn't particularly explicit, but I've seen others that are. This one has been here for a day or two now...

I'm a little confused by your title and the text of your post. Does the AF currently work? Your post seems to indicate it does, but that you're worried about if it's going to continue. Given your title, I would interpret "jittery" as maybe seeming reluctant to lock or jumping around. If that's the case, I might suggest recalibrating your expectations. I have two F4s and the AF on both operates similarly, and obviously I haven't used yours so I can't say if yours is normal or not(or if mine is normal, but I'd guess two different cameras from two different sources in different battery configurations operating more or less the same might give me some idea). Remember that the F4 AF is incredibly primitive by our current standards. For that matter, in 1990 or whenever it came on the market, some people considered it less than great compared to its contemporaries. I use the AF box in the center much as I would use a split image rangefinder-or in other words I look for something with a defined high contrast vertical line to point it at. If that's not present on my subject, I find something at a similar distance. I've used it enough to be second nature now, but it's also definitely a big step back even from the F5 and I find it less sure than the N90(which is also a single point system). I find it perfectly normal for the AF to hunt a bit on the F4 in basically any situation other than daylight with strong verticals. In lower light, a flash that can shine a red grid for AF assist can be a lifesaver. If you really want to test the AF, I'd suggest printing a dark black vertical line on white paper, taking it outside, and seeing how the AF handles it. Of course that's not a realistic real world, but it's about as perfect of a target for the F4 AF. One last thing-at one point or another I had a camera-I think it was an F5 but don't hold me to that-that wouldn't lock to save its life unless things were nearly perfect. It came to me "smoky"(from a smoker's home) and I suspect that was part of the issue. I CAREFULLY locked the mirror up and cleaned the AF module in the bottom of the mirror box. After removing a decent bit of yellow-brown haze, AF operation was perfect(and the F5 tends to be very sure focusing). With that said, it's worth trying as a last ditch attempt. Tobacco smoke can wreak some of the worst havoc on camera optics, but even just normal day to day dust and other things in the air can cause issues if they're especially bad. I could see this being the case on a "shelf queen", especially if it has spent time without a lens or body cap fitted.

I had a family engagement last night, one of those things where I've become the de facto "official" photographer. It wasn't exactly a new to me location-rather it was a very familiar one in my parents-in-laws house. I know this house well. I've done all kinds of different lighting in their living room, from strictly ambient all the way up to a Norman strobe tucked into the corner(I'll be doing that one again in a few months, but will figure out a way to get a second strobe...). I pretty much know optimum bounce angles from anywhere in their living room. I have a love-hate relationship with Nikon's iTTL system. Most of the time I can get what I want out of it, especially with TTL-BL. Given the typical mix of residential lighting these days between LEDs of various color temps, some CFLs still hanging around, and even a few tungsten lights here and there for now(although new sales of most "normal" residential incandescents were banned this past summer, including old exceptions like 3-ways and rough service), it can be almost impossible to gel your flash to match ambient. Sometimes the only real hope is to just hope you have enough flash and a good enough ceiling/wall to make your own ambient light. I have been "playing" a lot lately with handle mount Metz units. I know some people love these and some hate them, but I fall into the love camp. I do have a 76 MZ5, or rather two of them now, that give me full iTTL, but sometimes simple is nice. My first "real" flash was a Vivitar 283, and even its relatively limited "Auto Thyristor" system would consistently give me perfect exposure on slide film. Provided that you've properly set up everything and matched the aperture setting on the camera to the flash, the big thing that can trip this system up is using a filter, and I'm not likely to use something with a high filter factor indoors. Even if you do use one, you just need to know the filter factor and appropriately compensate it between the camera and flash. Lately I've been grabbing my SB-800(or Metz 58 AF-2) a lot and setting it to "A" rather than TTL just since it works better. I decided last night to do something different, though, and figured I'd pull out one of the Metz handles. As much as I like the 60 series, I ruled using one out since I didn't want to deal with an external power pack. I should mention also that I've recently discovered another Metz accessory, the Mecamat. I was actually quite excited when I found out these existed. On an auto flash, ideally your light sensor should be as close to the camera/lens as possible. Vivitar solved this really nicely, if a bit clunky, but allowing you to remove the Thyristor unit from the front, plug a cable into its place, then mount the other end of the cable in your hot shoe with the Thyristor plugged into it. In practice, I've found handle mount flashes to be "close enough" to give good exposure, but still they are off-axis from the camera. In typical Metz/German fashion, though, the Mecamat lets you stick the auto sensor in the hot shoe but gives you a LOT more options. You can adjust it side-to-side to point at a specific area of the frame, tilt it to correct for parallax errors at close range, and they even give you a simple frame type "sports" finder to see where the sensor is pointed. Along with all of that, you get flash controls on the unit that generally give you a lot more range(both for auto and manual modes) than are on the flash itself. I have two different types of these Mecamat units-the 60-30 that works with 60 series flashes, and the 45-20 that works with the 45 CT-1 and CT-5. I don't have a 45 CT-5, and the 45 CT-1 does lack the small front facing flash tube, but I just figured I'd go with it. Ideally I'd have used a 45 CL-4, but the 45-46 Mecamat that works with it is not the easiest to find or least expensive of the range. So, the 45 CT-1 it was, complete with a genuine and still perfectly working Metz Ni-Cd pack(I have cells ready to rebuild these, but have yet to actually find a bad one). You are supposed to be able to tell whether or not a CT-1 has low voltage or high voltage sync from the serial number, but it was a lot faster for me to use a voltmeter. I know Rodeo_Joe will tell me that's not an accurate way of doing it, but still if my voltmeter says 220V(and I feel a "buzz" from a PC termin), I think I can say it's a high voltage unit. So, with that in mind, I rigged all of this up to my D850 with a Wein Safe Sync between the Mecamat and the hot shoe. I came home with a nice pile of perfectly exposed, lovely illuminated complete with nice background illumination flash photos. I settled on leaving the D850 at ISO 200, which let me hover between f/4 and f/5.6 on the two lowest power settings on the flash. Provided I was smart about bounce head placement, I was able to do this with power to spare for every shot(which made recycle pleasantly fast). I know this is a lot of rambling just to say that despite how good iTTL and other advanced TTL systems can be, at the end of the day 1970s era flash technology works just fine for me. I can still manually do a slow sync if I want to try and pick up more ambient(setting the camera to manual, as I do in a situation like this, puts it just under my right thumb). I know things like second curtain sync usually are tied to TTL systems, but that's not a feature I personally have ever found a use for in the types of real world scenarios where I'd use flash.

Sorry I missed this one, but then as a primarily still shooter a 128gb card is often more than enough to last me a week-long trip with a lot of daily shooting(and I still tend to rotate cards regularly on the "don't put your eggs in one basket" philosophy). I can't claim Shun's 1gb/$200 story, but I recall in 2019 when I bought my D500 that I paid I think $200 or so for a 120gb Sony XQD card. Fortunately at least Nikon let those of us with older cameras(other than D4 users) take advantage of CFExpress as XQD is still more expensive than CFExpress for similar capacities and of course too with much fewer options. I know it's also a much smaller market, and if I didn't have a D4 I likely wouldn't even bother keeping XQD around.

Sorry about that, and seems my PM inbox is full here for reasons I'm not sure of. I always hesitate to post live email publicly, but what the heck bhutche0@gmail.com And @BeBu Lamar if you'd be willing to share I'd appreciate it too! I'll still put out my request too for the Mac version! I can handle floppy disk images if anyone has them. If someone has floppies of it and no way to read/image them but would be willing to loan them to me, I'd be more than willing to image and return them.

Are your batteries good? When in doubt try a fresh set of name brand alkaline batteries-they're not necessarily the best tool for actual flash use(rechargeables recycle faster, and unattended alkalines have a tendency to destroy flashes) but on AA-powered flashes are the gold standard for checking operation. I have no particular brand loyalty, other than the fact that Sam's Club seems to consistently have good prices on Energizer 40 count packs. Freshly charged NiMH can work great also, but I don't recall if the 199A was ever intended to use with NiCds. NiCd and NiMH are electrically similar enough in this sort of application that they can be used interchageably, and their lower internal resistance makes for faster recycles(NiCd is actually better than NiMH in this regard, but NiCds can be a bit more temperamental in some respects and also tend to have about half the capacity of an NiMH of comparable quality that I pretty much only use NiCd in a few isolated cases with integrated chargers that are designed around Ni-Cds...and that's too much rambling on the subject). The "danger"(not really a danger, but potential source of trouble) with some older flashes is that 4x Nickel-based rechargeable have a nominal voltage of 4.8V for 4 cells, where Alkaline(and "standard" carbon zinc) will be a nominal 1.5v/cell or 6V for 4 cells. Some flashes can't handle this lower voltage. Have you cleaned the contacts in the battery chamber? Also, are you sure that there's not been a past battery leak with corrosion hiding somewhere inside the flash? It's been a long time since I've even touched my 199A-I have fond memories of it as I bought mine when I was in college on Ebay and it was the first purchase I'd made on my own personal Ebay accont(as opposed to using my dad's) and even paid for it with a money order since I didn't have Paypal set-up at the time. That's enough reminisicing, but I didn't use it for super long before I found the 299T which still lives with my FD kit and actually even saw occasional use with my Digital Rebel when I still had it. With that said, lately I've been playing-well-a lot with Metz flashes including the 45 and 60 series units that were made from the late 70s on up into the 2010s(for at least one model). I've done some kind of nutty and stupid stuff with them-that amazing has worked-like actually succesfully bringing back to life 6V "Dry Fit"lead acid gel cells that were completely dead(don't try this at home-I'm a chemist who pretends to know what I'm doing). What I can say from playing with and using all of these is that first of all, if the battery can't output what the flash needs, it's will charge(you will hear the whir/hum from the inverters) but won't ever actually get the capacitor full charged. Capacitors don't have an infinite life, and most all 40 year old flashes(which is what the 199A would be now, if not a little older) will have some leakage. If your batteries are marginal, or the batteries themselves are fine but the electrical contacts are pitted/corroded and not making good enough contact, the leakage from the capacitor may be higher than the flash can pull power out of the batteries to make up for. Last, and I promise final-thing. I mentioned leakage from the flash capacitors. My experience is that most are actually pretty robust and even though they may not be where they were new, most will continue to function just fine even if they haven't been used in years. There is a small caveat to this, though. Metz, in their manuals(and I know we're talking Canon here and not Metz, but Metz knew a thing or two about flashes), advises that a flash not in active use should be switched on for 10 minutes every 3 months or so to reform the capacitors. Ancedotally, lately I've been buying up what some would say is a ludicrous amount of 60 CT series flashes, along with a lesser number of 45s. Say what you will, but often I buy them to get accessories and other odds and ends lotted with them. When I say "slightly ludicrous" just this morning I crammed 8 60 CT-1 and CT-2 flash heads(they are very similar) into a box to go on the shelf and be further sorted/tested/cleaned up/etc along with 3 60 CT-4. The 60 series flash heads do not actually contain a capacitor, but rather have a separate "power pack" that contains the battery, charging circuit for the battery(from a wall plug) and the flash capacitor. These big affairs(about the size of an A5 notebook, but 4 inches thick and in use mean to be work over your shoulder or on your belt) connect to the flash head via a heavy 3 wire cord that carries the high voltage from the capacitor to the flash head(which contains the "brains" of firing the flash). When I test a power pack, I put a fresh, fully charged(charged and confirmed on a bench PSU, not with the internal charger) in it, switch it on, and connect a known good flash head. It can take anywhere from 15 seconds to 2 minutes to get that initial ready light. After the first full power flash, the next recharge will usually take 10 seconds or so. After a few flashes I will usually let it sit powered on for a few minutes(or fun thing I just learned today-it seems that the earliest power packs-the ones with the gray on-off switch-don't have a bleed off resistor for the capcitor when switched off like later ones, or maybe the one I was using was defective...). After I go through all of this, a full recycle wlll take 5-7 seconds, which is in-line with what I get with my newest pack fitted with a battery I bought new in 2018(back when Metz still existed and you could get stuff like this). So, a TL/DR on my most- 1. Clean your contacts and clean them well. When in doubt use a pencil eraser, as it's just abrasive enough to do the job without removing the nickel plating present to prevent corrosion(I've been known to get more aggressive, but if it's something worth saving I am also able to restore contacts to nearly good as new...). The pencil eraser on the cotacts isn't a bad practice for maintenance of any flash of any age. I do it when I get a new to me used flash like the Nikon SB-900 I bought a few years ago. 2. Fit 4 fresh Duracell or Energizer AA alkaline cells 3. Switch the flash on and see if it goes to ready. If it does go there, set it to manual and full power(don't remember if the 199A lets you dial back power) and flash it. It WILL be bright-the 199A IIRC is a full "professional" flash which should have a rated(probably optimistic) guide number of 110-130ft or 35-40m. Incidentally flash technology hasn't progressed too far and this is similar to what a current Nikon SB-5000 offers at the same flash zoom seeting. 4. Whether or not it gets there, leave it turned on for 10 minutes+ Last thing-I promise- It's pretty rare, but I have seen the neon ready lamp go bad. I only actually remember seeing this once(on an ancient Metz unit from probably the 50s or 60s) but it can happen. It's worth trying the test button after a minute or so to see if that's the case. Of course this wouldn't apply to something newer that uses an LED ready, but I'm 99% sure I remember the 199A using a conventional neon, which normally will glow pinkish-orange.