photojim

I've owned several AF Nikon bodies and I don't find the F100 to be any harder to load than any of the others. Just make sure you don't extend the film too far, and make sure it's flat.

 

As an aside, I shoot a lot of bulk black and white film and none of the AF bodies I've used (F50, F601, F90, F90x, F100) have required that I cut a leader. It saves some time and makes loading the film in the darkroom easier.

Unless you're shooting professionally in some way that precludes it, you could always shoot film until the answer to the question is clear.

 

I like wide angle lenses and I can't afford to buy new lenses and a digital SLR... so I haven't. I also happen to enjoy the film photography process more, which doesn't hurt... but if Nikon had full-frame DSLRs, I'd be a lot more tempted to add digital to my arsenal.

 

Would a DSLR help your shooting? If so, would the disadvantages of the smaller sensor outweigh that shooting advantage? (There are also some advantages, particularly if you use long telephoto lenses frequently.) Think about it all in context.

 

Unless you're a pro that needs digital to keep up with the competition, make the change if and when it makes sense for you. Your current gear works as well as it ever did.

PMK does have an excellent shelf life (my stock solution is five years old and still going strong)... but definitely experiment with unimportant films before you convert to it. The negatives are not at all like D-76 negatives. I love PMK... but I had to get to know it first.

I have the 75-300 but I've not used the 70-300 ED.

 

Reviews done by Popular Photography indicated that the 70-300 was superior at shorter focal lengths and the 75-300 was superior at the longer end of the range.

 

Both are good lenses. The 75-300 is bigger, heavier and has a tripod collar.

One, never use a new developer (or a new anything) on something important. If you want to know if your shooting style will fit PMK at EI 400, shoot a roll of test subjects the way you shot these 60 rolls, and see how it comes out.

 

That having been said, HP5 Plus works very well in PMK and I would expect reasonable results. PMK is a different developer than D76, though. Why do you want to use it?

There are cheap 50s with good bokeh. Although it won't fit any Nikons, the Jupiter-8 50/2 is pretty nice and costs about twenty bucks.

 

I'm really curious how that new Carl Zeiss Planar ZF will be.

I agree about KEH. Their shipping charges to Canada are horrific (although the package arrives very fast - Tuesday to Friday in the case of an order I made online last week). However, their conservative grading means that I am never disappointed (or at least I haven't been so far, having purchased two bodies and a lens, plus a motor drive and some lens hoods). The hood I just got for my AI 105/2.5 was EX-rated and should have been BGN, but it's a hood, and I'll live.

 

As for camera bodies, I've gotten an FE and an F3, both in BGN grade and they were both excellent for me. There were minor faults (the FE's multiple exposure lever won't retract automatically; the F3HP finder has a bit of a dent in it and there are some marks on the bottom), but otherwise the cameras are in excellent condition. The F3 looks like it's seen very little film. I'm very happy to have it (it's my first F-series body).

 

The AI 105/2.5 lens I bought was also BGN-graded; I purchased it as a test, really. I have heard that BGN-graded lenses often have minor optical damage. If this one does, I can't find it. The focusing is slightly tight, but it is very usable. The barrel shows some wear but it is a 25-year-old lens. The pictures are, of course, outstanding. I use this lens far more than I expected I would, and it was an excellent purchase.

 

If I were looking for an AF 35/2 I wouldn't think twice about ordering one from KEH if their prices were attractive (and they usually are). In fact, the used equipment that is on my want list is going to be purchased from KEH unless I fall into opportunities elsewhere. I see no point in taking risks on eBay for used gear anynmore when KEH's prices are about the same and the risk is so much lower.

I thought that the compensating feature on the older 55/3.5 was simply to permit manual metering (i.e. that f/5.6 at infinity would be the same as f/5.6 on the aperture ring at 1:2). Without compensation, f/5.6 becomes effectively smaller (say f/8 at 1:2; just making this up as an example). With TTL metering this is a non-issue unless you need accurate mathematical calculation of depth of field (which you can still do but you have to calculate your effective shooting aperture first).

 

Aside from this issue, my understanding is that the lens is identical optically.

 

If you want compensating so that you can use a handheld meter, then that's a great reason to get one... but if you are going to use TTL metering or the histogram, you should just get the most attractively-priced 55/3.5 you can find.

 

As an aside, I have the AI-S version of this lens in like-new shape. I almost never use it (I use my AI'd 105/4 most of the time when I need such a lens) but the resale price is so low that I am sure that I would regret selling it. One day I'll be happy to have it. It is a more convenient focal length for photo reproduction onto film than the 105 is, for sure.

One other thing... I think the reason out-of-focus highlights can be unattractive is their colour. I shoot a lot of monochrome, so perhaps I'm biased in that direction, but when I want creamy out-of-focus backgrounds, I tend to find things with monotonous colour to them, or I shoot in black and white. It doesn't exactly correct the bokeh... but it does make bad bokeh look less bad.

I was way behind in doing my processing and finally caught up the last three weeks. Among the films were two rolls of APX 25, one that I exposed in September 2004 and one that I exposed a few weeks or months before that. There were other films of equally old origin (and a few that I'd just shot in the past few weeks, so it wasn't all bad :) ). I developed 27 rolls of film over 3 weekends and they all look really good (except for one roll of J&C Classic Pan 400 which has some weird fogging, but that is another story).

 

The APX looks good and I made no concessions due to their age. They were all stored in a cool place, either in the darkroom (which is in a basement and the normal temperature in there is about 14-15 C) or in a refrigerator.

 

Process normally, and cross your fingers, but I'm sure the film will be fine as long as it hasn't been stored in bright light or in heat.

Incidentally, this version of the 80-200 is a beautiful lens to use if you're going to focus it manually. Since I have a hybrid AF/MF system I happen to like that a lot. The autofocus is slower than the one-touch version but if you use the lens intelligently you can still autofocus quickly-moving subjects (prefocus to get in the ballpark before you start firing the shutter).

 

The picture is of the non-D version. There is a D version that looks very similar except for the focus limiter, which has a completely different design. Both are identical optically but the D version is slightly more convenient to use because it has non-rotating filter threads.

I have this lens and I use it on an F100. Autofocus is slow, but if you use it intelligently it is usable. Prefocus so the lens doesn't have to drive all the way from one extreme to the other. Use the focus limiter if you can to reduce the focus range. I've shot a lot of sports and moving subjects with this lens with good success.

 

As an added bonus, this lens handles way better on manual Nikon cameras and in manual-focus mode than the two-touch lens. It's well damped and you can zoom and focus with one ring. Although I hope one day to have the AF-S 80-200/2.8, I won't sell this lens; it's too useful.

That's interesting about the Fuji film canisters not being properly crimped. I remember Ilford's films from the 1970s and early '80s - they weren't crimped either. I loved it because I could reuse the cartridges for bulk film, but you did have to treat them pretty carefully. In the mid-'80s (maybe a nudge earlier), Ilford changed that practice.

 

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when 20-exposure rolls of film were common.

Pan-F Plus in PMK 1:2:100 (even though it doesn't stain much, it sure has beautiful tonality)

FP-4 Plus in PMK 1:2:100

Fomapan 100 in D-76 1:1

Delta 100 in XTOL 1:1

 

Yum :)

Slower films are affected less by being out of date. Refrigeration and freezing slow down the degradation, too. Shoot your film with confidence; you've stored it well and it's close to the date.

 

On a lark last summer I shot a roll of Plus-X with a 1981 expiry date. A friend got it along with a bunch of other long-expired film at an auction. A sheet of FP3 processed nicely so I figured, what the heck, let's try it. I processed it in PMK (which isn't the most forgiving developer when it comes to fog) and the results are quite nice. I suspect that the purchaser had the film frozen for most of its life so the degradation was very minimal.

You can, but the archival advantages of using an alkaline fixer are significantly lessened. You'll need to extend the wash time.

 

Seriously, the best choice might be to buy a small bottle of a rapid acid fixer.

 

I do my Efke in TF-4 without hardener and so far, so good. No damage yet.

I'm not sure if this camera is the most underrated, but it is certainly a great purchase at that price.

 

I think the most underrated Nikons right now are probably the F90/N90 (non-x/s) and F70/N70. Here's why.

 

Both cameras have lots of functionality including high maximum shutter speeds (1/8000 and 1/4000 respectively), fast motor drives (3.6 and 3.7 fps respectively), wide autofocus sensors, decent autofocus speed, and good ergonomics. (The F70 is a little quirky but you get used to it quickly.) They also both drive AF-S lenses and they will work with G lenses, albeit in P or S mode only. They also meter with AI lenses, which is a nice touch.

 

I think the F801/F801s is a good camera too but it'd have to be a lot cheaper to make me buy one instead of the F90 or F70. If you aren't going to use autofocus, it's a fantastic choice, actually.

 

Bargain-grade F90s aren't much over $100 these days though, and I think that's incredible value for what you get. You do have to get the MF-26 back to do multiple exposures, though. That's the only negative.

 

I think the EM is decent, by the way. I do wish it had a proper shutter dial, but you can get the effect you want by manipulating ISO. I found an EM with an AF 35/2 to be a fantastic combination for available-light shooting... nice and small and inobtrusive.

If you want to mix small batches from powder, there is an easy solution.

 

Make your own chemistry from bulk ingredients.

 

It's a little expensive at first (you have to get a scale accurate to 0.1 gram and you need to buy all the chemicals you will routinely use), but once you have them, they generally keep a very long time. The only exceptions are fairly obscure chemicals like pyrocatechin and glycin, which need to be used up within a few months.

 

To make D-76 you need metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, and borax (this is off the top of my head so check first :) ). Get some phenidone and sodium carbonate and you can make a lot of different formulas including some very interesting print developers. Add some glycin and you can make Ansco 130, the most delicious print developer ever. :)

 

Not only can you ensure you have fresh chemistry, you can have some fun experimenting with different formulas.

 

I make my D-76 a litre at a time (and more if I need it). I mix it up a few days before I need it. Other chemicals I mix up the day before I need them (just to let the chemical cool). D-76 becomes more active after a few days so that's why I age it a little bit.

64 is 2/3 EV less than 100. 160 is 2/3 more.

80 is 1/3 less, 125 1/3 more.

Of course, the lack of US doesn't mean the lenses are grey market. My lenses don't have US because they were purchased from Nikon Canada dealers. To us, the US lenses can be grey market depending on how they got here.

Perhaps there is sample variation, but my 28/2.8D was a magnificent lens, easily one of the sharpest I've owned (and I have some good glass). Popular Photography rated it the best 35mm SLR 28 it had ever tested, and second overall only to the 28/2.8 Biogon for the Contax G-series cameras. It really is that good... perhaps not when you focus on something 2 feet away, but at normal shooting distances, it is magnificent.

One lens? Easy. AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 G. No, it's not f/2.8, but I love 24mm more than I love f/2.8. It's a good range, it doesn't weigh too much and it's very sharp.

 

If I don't care about weight I'll take my 20-35/2.8D, 80-200/2.8 ED and maybe a 50/1.4. Slower lenses might be desirable if you're going to be walking much.

A strong red filter works fine. #25 or #29 will work. Neither is terribly expensive. They are useful for traditional black-and-white photography also, and you can see through them which makes using an SLR for infrared photography a lot easier.

 

Freezing the film is a good idea. Refrigerating it for a few days is not a big problem. Long-term storage is different. The freezer doesn't have to be dark, although when you close the door, they generally are. :)

 

I typically meter through the filter with the camera set at EI 400. Bracket plus and minus one stop.

 

Whether your Elan's infrared hole detection is an issue or not is something you'll have to test. The detector will fog the film; whether too much to justify use of the Elan is another matter.

 

A plastic tank is fine.

 

Don't take the film out of the plastic canister or out of your camera in anything except complete darkness. If you can see anything, it's too light. I use a changing bag in the field. They are inexpensive and also handy if you have a film jam, too.

If you fixed with sodium thiosulfate fixer (powder when purchased), 4:30 is nowhere nearly enough. With a fresh ammonium thiosulfate fixer (liquid when purchased), 4:30 is probably just shy of enough with a Delta or T-Max film. (These films tend to need longer fix times than non-t-grain films.)

Ilford's ID-11 sells in one-litre packages, too, and it is nearly identical to D-76. Put that in your back pocket as an option if you have trouble finding the smaller packages of D-76.