jbcrane_gallery

<p>Thanks very much for the input Neil. I know the 645 system has been around a while. I'm looking forward to putting it to use on some specific projects this fall. I loved the images the RZ produced - but didn't love the form factor. Thanks again. JBC</p>

<p>Greetings All,<br> I'm new this year to the 645 system (M645 1000s with FE-401) and trying to get up to speed on lenses. I've come from an RZ system, which I loved, but my back did not when it came time to get into the field with the kit. The 645 seems a wonderful compromise: bigger (than 35mm) neg; smaller, lighter gear. As an added bonus, the older non-AF 645 gear is going for a relative song; the new goldie lox for me at the moment, at least.<br> I'm shooting mostly scenic/landscape/outdoor, so stuff that doesn't move around too much. Clean, sharp images with good color rendition and contrast at infinity are more important than bokeh. Close-focusing isn't much of an issue... I'm not shooting portraits with it. And I know I can pick up macros and extension tubes as needed. I do usually use a tripod, Mirror-Up and a cable release.<br> <img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s10/v102/p1772891640-4.jpg" alt="" width="791" height="630" /><br> Briggsdale, Colorado, RZ67, Portra 160</p> <p><img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s4/v63/p2013389445-4.jpg" alt="" /><br> Rocky Mountain National Park, 645, HP5 (developed in Ilfosol S)</p> <p>I work in both color and black and white, and am interested in keeping the front diameter at 58mm to easily work with my existing collection of filters, etc. (- you've gotta draw a line somewhere). And- the lenses are smaller and lighter. I do not see myself ever needing AF versions of these lenses. The ultimate goal is to have as complete a set of quality focal range coverage as possible while keeping the load as light as possible. I'm no longer interested in carrying heavy packs - but also realize that's a relative term.<br> I work in color and black and white, and can see myself adding something like a Pro TL with interchangeable backs, rather than the 1000s' insert. But all in good time.<br> As I build out my system with the above in mind, I wonder if anyone has hands-on experience with the following lenses:<br> 105-210mm f4,5 ULD<br> 150mm f3,5N<br> 210mm f4 C<br> 300mm f5,6 ULD<br> I also have the 55mm f2,8 N and the 80mm f2,8 N. Again, I'm more interested in sharpness, color and contrast than close focusing and bokeh. Any input on these specific lenses would be much appreciated. I did a search and found some good opinions on a few lenses, but most usage was geared toward portraiture. I'm sure those beautiful APO's are fine lenses - but they're far too large and cumbersome for what I'll be using the system for. Any information on the selection above would be much appreciated. My general sense is they're all fine lenses, with little difference between the C and N versions - but that's part of what I'm hoping to clarify.<br> Thanks very much in advance,<br> JBC</p>

<blockquote> <p>Some people set infinity using a target closer than 5000 feet <strong>assuming </strong>that the lens will be used stopped down 2 or more stops from wide open and that DOF will carry infinity.<br />Your lens may have been set under such an assumption.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Charles, this is a good thought. When I tested the lens on the digital starting at ƒ1,2 and progressing to ƒ16 the images did sharpen up around ƒ8, optimizing between ƒ11 and ƒ16. Just the same - it's a little disconcerting to have the image blurry in the viewfinder, hoping it'll actually 'appear' sharp in the print. If it's a simple adjustment by a factory trained tech I'll have it adjusted to be sharp in the viewfinder - unless there's an advantage to the infinity setting you mention above.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Let me know if you want to see a detailed photo of the "Nikon infinity adjustment securing mechanism". ;-) :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, please... Is this something that could be done at home by an untrained guy handy with small, delicate things?</p>

<blockquote> <p>It is a simple and quick adjustment for any qualified technician familiar with Nikon AiS lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Many thanks Michael - and thanks to Ross, Kari and Wouter for weighing in as well. This is what I was hoping. Though simple to the trained tech, I'll avoid the slight temptation to tackle it myself and send it in for proper servicing. The lens is worth it, gorgeous. The build is what drew me in but really enjoy the size and smooth motion of the oversized focus ring. But if it doesn't focus at infinity it's all but useless to me - which come to think of it probably explains why I got such a good deal on it. I haven't been terribly disappointed in the image quality - but can only look forward with excitement to a properly functioning lens.Thanks again.</p>

<p>It's 5 meters/20 ft.<br> For comparison sake, my 50mm 1,4D is 3 Meters/20ft.<br> <img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s1/v47/p1914118635-6.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>When the barrel stops rotating the infinity symbol is aligned with the black dot. The image in the viewfinder is however still out of focus.</p>

<p>Greetings All,<br> I recently purchased this lens used and immediately fell in love with the build. I've discovered however it doesn't focus at infinity - falling short of realizing perfect focus (in other words, it doesn't rack past inifinity, it stops short) - and am trying to determine if its a problem with this copy - or an attribute of the lens. I've tried it on a couple of F2's, my F6 and D3s all with similar results. Does anyone else shoot this lens and have a similar issue trying to focus at infinity - or did I get a lemon? Any input greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>"<em>I have just the opposite opinion, I love the F2 with an MD-2 and battery pack bolted on. Frankly I think it makes the camera. The F2 fits my definition of good design in that it never gets in the way of the work. I can set a few adjustments and just go. Reliable? It's dead-on reliable, simple and straightforward. Easily my favorite camera.</em>"<br> <br> "<em>I'm with you Rick, I love the F2 with the MD-2/MB-1. Yes, it is heavy and a little noisy, but it feels right in my hands, even though I have kind of smallish hands. The F2 is most likely the finest manual 35mm film camera ever made and it too is my favorite and go-to 35mm camera.</em>"</p> <p>Thanks Rick, Scott. I feel the exact same way about my F6 (and my F5). I know there are those who dismiss the MB-40 for the F6, preferring instead the smaller configuration of just the F6. While I appreciate this "convertible" option - I indeed prefer the F6 with the MB-40 mounted (and a Kirk L-bracket to boot) for general use. It somehow completes the camera, balancing it well for me and the way I use it.</p> <p>So I can understand the draw to the extended F2 configuration very well. One of the great things about the F2 is the system one buys into when jumping on board. The number of options are amazing and intriguing. I have several F2's now and can see outfitting one of them as you've described, just because ;-).</p> <p>All the best,<br> John B. Crane</p>

<p>Thank you both. This is what I suspected. Guess I'll just mount the bottom of my CH-1 and call it good. I've been enjoying the aesthetics of this camera - the "feel" is very much that of my F but shootability is improved with a key key points. I have several now and think they're nice looking cameras. I want to keep the aesthetics intact.<br> Thanks again for your information.<br> Kind regards,<br> John B. Crane</p>

<p>Hello All,<br> I am new to the world of the Nikon F2 and familiarizing myself with the finer points of the motor drives. My question is, can the MD-3 (or MD-2) drives be used by themselves - without any type of battery pack? I'd love to add the ergonomics of the MD-3 to the camera, but do not with to add the mass of the separate power pack to it. After reviewing whatever documentation I can find on the MD-3 I see no mention of how or where batteries would go and my assumption is the unit is designed only to run with the separate power pack sitting beneath it. <br> Thanks very much for any assistance.<br> John Crane</p>