photojim

Don't be too averse to buying a more modern camera. The technology of the view camera has not changed very much over the years. Modern cameras are certainly better built, but the actual principles of operation have remained remarkably static over the years.

 

The period books that you have purchased will probably help you to discern the minor differences between modern equipment and the gear of the the day. Those books, and some judicious use of google, will likely fill in all the blanks you have.

 

I appreciate your attention to detail. I think it's a terrific attribute for an author to have.

It sounds like a monopod might help you. If you can't hold the camera and lens steady (which, unless your lens is defective, must be the reason your images aren't sharp - the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor is a fantastic lens), the monopod will help. It's a lot cheaper than buying a lens with vibration reduction.

 

If your images improve markedly but not enough, then you will know that the VR lens is a good investment. Also, your VR lens with a monopod will be steadier than your VR lens without, so the monopod will not have been a useless purchase.

If you use IR film and a red filter, the ISO rating doesn't jump higher. Firstly, ISOs are set by specific methods and are standard. Subjective ratings are called Exposure Indexes (or EIs). Even here what your professor said is not quite true. If you use a handheld meter, you would set the meter at a lower ISO than you would metering on the camera through the filter, but this isn't really a change in ISO, it's a change in how you are performing the metering. The film speed doesn't change in either event.

I could counter Bill's argument by saying that buying an F80 and pocketing the savings to pay for film and processing would buy you a lot of shooting. Digital photography is deceptively expensive (in time and equipment - the equipment including higher-power computers to do the image manipulation that your lab will do for you if you shoot C41, and won't be necessary if you shoot E6, or is easy to do yourself and is fun if you shoot black and white).

 

The F80 is a great camera, and it's cheap. Start simple. Buy one or two elementary lenses, learn what you like about them, and learn what you don't like about them, then make targeted decisions to move out from there. It is tempting to be able to do everything immediately, but what you think you want today may be very different from what you think you want in a year or two or five.

 

I am in a vaguely similar situation. I am buying a medium format system in the next few weeks. I am very tempted to get a more elementary camera and get the three lenses I really want that will cover the majority of situations I need. I am also tempted to sacrifice a lens or two and get a better camera into which I can grow (TTL capability for flash, for the record). I'm still deciding which is more useful. (No, don't comment on this issue here. It's off topic. :) )

 

My point is that you have to decide what's important, but realize that you don't have to do it all at once. I've been shooting for about 30 years and I still don't have a fast long telephoto lens. I'd still like one, but I've come into the thinking that it is a very minor need and the money has been better spent in other directions. On the other hand, some delicious purchases like a fisheye lens have been very worthwhile and get used surprisingly often. I'd have waited years if I'd decided I needed this at the very beginning.

 

Build your system as a system. Frankly you might be best to start with an F80 and a 50/1.8 - under $200 in expense - and figure out what you really need. You'll be shocked at the quality of what you can do with those two cheap pieces of hardware, and you'll learn a bunch about what your style of photography is and how best to target your future purchases.

I agree with Peter, except that if you don't need the extra stop of speed, the 50/2 AI is likely to be the sharpest of the bunch of lenses that you have.

 

In my experience the Series E lenses were single coated. The second-generation 50/1.8 AI-S and AF 50/1.8 and /1.8D have the same optical formula as the E lenses, but have multicoating. If you compare your lens' coatings to one of these lenses then you will have a straighter answer as to whether you have multicoating or not.

 

The E lens is very light and tiny and only worth about twenty bucks, so it's probably not worth selling it, but that /2 AI you have is a delicious lens...

Bear in mind, too, that lenses vary in quality depending on the shooting aperture.

 

How often do you need a fast lens? If not often, one of the lower-priced lenses consistently shot at a middle aperture might do you just fine.

 

More expensive does not necessarily equate to better, although in general more expensive lenses are better - but there are exceptions to the rule.

 

I shoot film not digital so I can't give you specific recommendations, but the question to ask first is what exactly do you want, and how do you shoot. Then establish your budget, see what's available in that budget, and go from there.

Film for Classics still sells 116 film. It's expensive but it's available.

As far as I know, TXP is the only one (which is the ISO 320 version of Tri-X). Ilford no longer has the equipment to make 220.

 

You can roll your own 220 out of 70mm stock, but I don't know that there are too many b&w films in 70mm, either.

At -20 I doubt an F100 or any digital camera will make it unless you tape heat packs to the camera, and probably not even then. My F90 had huge trouble shooting Comet Hyakutake a few yaers ago at -26 C and the exposures were only a few seconds, although we were out shooting for about an hour.

 

Can you snag a mechanical Nikon from someone? An FM, FM2, or FM2n would be perfect, and a Nikkormat FS, FT, Ftn, FT2 or FT3 would work well too. In fact a cheap Nikon EM would work fine as well - B mode doesn't use battery power. The Nikon F, F2 and F3 would work also, although on the F3 you need to use T mode instead of B (B eats batteries).

I've never had PMK negatives go anywhere nearly that wrong. 1:2:100 is the standard dilution. Did you mix the developer too strong? Did you develop at too high a temperature? Did you grossly overexpose the film? Something had to go awry somewhere.

Yup, there are a few sources of Foma film, under Foma brand or under other brand names, and they all look like that.

The ones I know:

 

Lloyd's - very small and inexpensive. Minimizes waste of the film. Has a felt light trap which can cause scratches if not kept meticulously clean.

 

Watson - moderately-sized and more expensive than the Lloyd's. Wastes a couple of frames at the end of the roll, but has a wide open light trap so no scratching can occur (except for scratching caused in your cassettes).

 

Alden - much like the Watson in design but much better made. Most expensive.

 

I started with a Watson and graduated to an Alden. With the rush to digital, the Aldens are not that expensive if you buy one used. I got about ten dollars on eBay for my Watson.

 

The Watsons work very well - they just don't have the tactile pleasure one gets from using an Alden. Think Nikon FG (Watson) versus F3HP (Alden).

PMK and Rodinal are the closest things to immortal film developers out there. Rodinal will keep for many years. PMK will also - I used up the last of my 7-year-old stock solution today and it was still fine.

 

The advice to mix your own developers is also good. There are lots of developers you can make. I make D-76 from scratch quite frequently (although I usually use PMK). You can make as little or as much as you want; the powdered chemicals will keep for years.

I don't really understand what the point of making this camera would be. The advantage of the FM2 is that it works without batteries (except the meter). A digital FM2 would work without batteries, I suppose - except the meter and CCD. Since you couldn't actually record images with it without power, what would be the advantage?

 

I suggest that if you want to shoot with such a camera, buy a real FM2n and use it with film. Part of the whole "retro" photo experience is doing it was it was in the day. Film shooters don't try to cram collodion plates into their 35mm cameras, after all. :)

It is likely C41... but C41 film doesn't age very well. Don't shoot anything important with it.

 

To be honest, unless the film has been frozen for the vast majority of its life, it is not worth shooting, in my opinion.

 

Black and white film ages a lot more elegantly (particularly if it's slow film) and is often worth some experimentation, even if it is very old.

The 35/2.5 E is a decent, but unspectacular lens. If the price is right, it's worth getting but there are better 35mm Nikkors.

 

Don't fear that all Es are mediocre, though. The 50/1.8, 100/2.8 and 75-150/3.5 are all spectacular Series E lenses, and the 135/2.8 is pretty decent, too.

Actually, to be pedantic, ":" doesn't mean "ratio"; "/" does. i.e., 1/3 means one part in 3. Mathematics does not use the colon to denote ratios; it uses the slash. Ratios are division.

Some have stated that the FM2 actually would sync at 1/250 despite it not being officially supported. Try it for yourself and see, I suppose.

 

The FM2 (as opposed to the FM2n) is pretty uncommon so this isn't a huge issue.

 

Incidentally the FM2 is from 1982-2004 so it doesn't exactly qualify as pre-1970.

One other thing... shooting film is still fun. Especially if you're shooting for pleasure, you might find that using medium format gear makes you shoot differently. You'll get different images. It's worth a try; a cheap TLR like an Autocord will help you figure out if it's for you.

I don't find the VIOOH superior to my Feds' and Zorkis' viewfinders, but I've never tried using a IIIf.

 

The VIOOH is great at 35mm. It's not so great at 85 and 135 but it works. (It crops the field; it doesn't zoom.)

The E lens has the same formula as the AF non-D.

 

The D is an entirely new lens. Incidentally, if the AI-S lens is better, it can't be by much. The D lens is magnificent optically.

I agree with the F90/N90 or F801/N8008 recommendation.

 

I just got an EX-rated N8008s from KEH for about $43. I added the multi-control back for $11.

 

It's not in perfect condition (it was BGN-grade) but it works great and the flaws are very minor. What a steal for the price. 30 seconds to 1/8000 plus B, very low shutter lag (a great reason to reject the above advice to get a digi P&S - they have horrid lag), depth-of-field preview... the works. If you want you can get a focusing screen that has focus aids to use with manual lenses, but I find manually focusing on the standard screen is easy enough.

 

The F601/N6006 was also recommended and while this is a good camera, it's really loud and uses (relatively-)expensive lithium block batteries instead of AAs. It does, however, have a built-in flash which is occasionally convenient.

These cameras are only as fast as the operator. There is no automation. :)

 

Here is how I would rank them:

 

Nikkormat FT3 - best bang-for-buck ratio

 

Nikon F2 series - best quality of construction. F2A and F2AS will meter at full aperture with AF Nikkors (except G series) so I prefer these. The F2AS has a more reliable electronic meter, but costs significantly more.

 

Nikon FM - inexpensive, small, good

 

Nikon FM2/FM2n - most recent bodies (the "n" ones are newest). Fastest shutter (up to 1/4000 sec). Fastest x-sync (1/200 with FM2 and 1/250 with FM2n).

 

Nikon FM3a - newest of all. Fully mechanical and manual unless you use aperture priority mode, in which case you have fully electronic operation. Very expensive.

 

Now choose which you prefer, according to your requirements, preferences, budget and availability.

The MD-12 does not supply power to the body.

A solvent action developer essentially dissolves the edges of silver grains to make the grains appear less distinct. This has the effect of making your photographs look less grainy. Because of the same effect, it also will make your images look slightly less sharp. Whether this is a good trade or not is entirely up to you and your style of photography.

 

ID-11 is a great developer (it is essentially the same as Kodak D-76 but I prefer it because of the metric packaging; Kodak sells its US-packaged product in Canada, where I live).

 

My personal preference is to use ID-11 diluted 1:1 (I think it's a better compromise than 1:3 or undiluted) but you should try each dilution yourself and see what you think.

 

Remember that you should ensure that you use 125 mL of stock solution per roll of 120/35mm film, no matter how much developer you actually require. (Of course, you should use more if necessary :) but not less.) If you go below this, you will not have enough active ingredients to properly develop the film. (This is potentially a problem with 35mm film but with 120 you will need 125 mL ID-11 plus 375 mL water at 1:3, so you'll be fine.)