jbcrane_gallery

August 28, 2016

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

August 27, 2016

Greetings All,

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.

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.

Briggsdale, Colorado, RZ67, Portra 160

Rocky Mountain National Park, 645, HP5 (developed in Ilfosol S)

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.

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.

As I build out my system with the above in mind, I wonder if anyone has hands-on experience with the following lenses:

105-210mm f4,5 ULD

150mm f3,5N

210mm f4 C

300mm f5,6 ULD

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.

Thanks very much in advance,

JBC

June 12, 2016

Some people set infinity using a target closer than 5000 feet assuming that the lens will be used stopped down 2 or more stops from wide open and that DOF will carry infinity. Your lens may have been set under such an assumption.

</blockquote>

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.

June 12, 2016

Let me know if you want to see a detailed photo of the "Nikon infinity adjustment securing mechanism". ;-) :-)

</blockquote>

Yes, please... Is this something that could be done at home by an untrained guy handy with small, delicate things?

June 12, 2016

It is a simple and quick adjustment for any qualified technician familiar with Nikon AiS lenses.

</blockquote>

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.

June 12, 2016

It's 5 meters/20 ft.

For comparison sake, my 50mm 1,4D is 3 Meters/20ft.

June 12, 2016

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.

June 12, 2016

Greetings All,

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.

September 1, 2015

"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."

"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."

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.

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 ;-).

All the best,

John B. Crane

August 31, 2015

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.

Thanks again for your information.

Kind regards,

John B. Crane

August 31, 2015

Hello All,

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.

Thanks very much for any assistance.

John Crane

November 14, 2012

Hello Ray,

John, what you've done is brilliant! - so I hope you won't you be annoyed if I made the following points, to make it slightly better?

</blockquote>

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I'm not annoyed in the least. It's what helps make something better.Thank you.

First of all, the mirror inverts the image...so the way you've overlaid the image on the mirror, should really be upside-down, if it's representing the light incoming from the lens.

</blockquote>

You're of course right, and I struggled with this. In the end I decided that an upside-down image in the viewfinder - though accurate - was potentially confusing to the viewer. I may go back and fix this at some point... things have been rendered in layers and it would be a pretty simple fix. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll think about it...

But even that would not really be accurate - the light impinging on the mirror is not yet in focus, so it is not correct to show a focused landscape, of any orientation, on the mirror plane. I think it would be better just to show some light ray paths emerging from the back of the lens and bouncing off the mirror.

</blockquote>

This 3D model is actually animated. In the animation, the rack and pinion focus extends in and out, showing the image in the viewfinder going in and out of focus - along with the focus knobs turning, etc. So when I froze the moment in time, so to speak, I opted to create a fictitious moment for aesthetic purposes. So, I like the shape of the camera assembly with the bellows extended because it showed the bellows, the distance scale, etc. well, but in reality if you were racked out like that, a landscape image would be blurry... and I didn't want a blurry image in the viewfinder. So I chose to be an artist instead of an engineer and make it "look good" and be "sort of accurate" ;-).

I don't know if you went and viewed the updated version on the web site, but it has the double cable release added, and labeling. If not, here's the link: http://www.johnbcrane.com/120/h3e9c80e5#h3e9c80e5

I think next will be the FE701 with the focus magnifier because that's often how I'll shoot the camera. I'm also working up to modeling the G3 bellows, which is a real rigging challenge, trying to get all the scissor pieces moving and behaving properly. Good thing this is an old camera with lots of cool gadgets - and I'm on no deadline... it's purely a personal project when I'm not out shooting.

You may also notice there's not second (side) frame counter window in the 120 back, though it is a ProII back, not a Pro back. Another omission I may address later. I've put it aside for some other projects at the moment, but will get back to it later.

Sincere thanks for bringing this old thread back to life - for the comments and the intent. I knew I could count on input from this forum to help bring it home.

Kind regards,

John B. Crane

</blockquote>

October 7, 2012

I never understood why Nikon released the F6. I am sure they never made a profit on it and I've never met a pro who used one.

</blockquote>

Dave, I read another thread with another of your disparaging comments regarding the F6 and I just had to speak up. I found myself wondering, why? I don't understand the animosity towards film; towards those who choose to continue to shoot film. Deeming someone amateur because they use a certain type of camera seems so... I don't know... small minded? Does film somehow threaten the digital shooter? It shouldn't.

It's late 2012 and I'm a pro, and I shoot the F6 regularly right along side my D3s. It's without question the finest camera I've ever owned of any format, film or digital. Once I bought it in 2008 I no longer shot my stylish F4s or the clumsy F5. I'll be adding several more F6's to my rotation as well. To go into the reasons why is beyond the scope of this note, but why are you down on the F6? Have you worked with one? Just curious.

Regarding the Kevlar shutter, a good bit of time and effort was spent refining the materials and design of the F6, optimizing for sound, weight and ergonomics. Most people that have held and worked with the F6 understand immediately what it's all about. True, those who appreciate the refinements and finesse of F6 are a different breed of photographer.

But weddings were digital by 2004, except for the large group portraits that were shot with medium format. News was digital, sports was digital, what else is there?

</blockquote>

This must be a rhetorical question. What else is there? Seriously?

By 2004 35mm film had been replaced by digital for most every pro shooter out there. Sure there are fine art shooters who still use 35mm and there always will be of course.

</blockquote>

That's a pretty sweeping statement when you consider the world-wide camera market. Again, really? These types of generalizations always make me laugh. The F6 is a niche product, for sure. A recent report (2012) said that in the Sendai plant there are two people still building the F6. Two. It's not a mass-produced item. It's not Nikon's bread and butter. And it's not disposable, like the digital cameras they're making. Like my D3s. I'd bet my last dollar that my F6 will outlast my D3s.

The F5 is still a superb, rugged, powerful 35mm workhorse. The F6 doesn't seem as rugged or as powerful as the F5.

</blockquote>

I agree with this statement, that the F5 is a rugged, powerful 35mm workhorse of a camera. It's a legend, for sure. But there was lots of room for improvement, and Nikon knew it. And they were allotted extra development and design time to make the F6 perfect. They took much of what existed in the F5 and built on it, refined it, tweaked it, and put it all into a smaller, more nimble and versatile package, and crowned it their best. If you're interested in reading the article, here's a link: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/09/index.htm

I like that the F100 and F5 use AA batteries, a type that can be found most anywhere in the world. The F6 relies on rechargeable batteries.

</blockquote>

No it doesn't. You can run it with AA batteries with the MB-40 grip, or easily found 2 x CR123 batteries without the grip. I can also swap out my EN-EL4a batteries in the MB-40 grip. So there are actually multiple power options for the F6 over the F5, another advantage.

Granted, the F6 is modeled after the D2 series camera so has similar controls. But I never heard of any pros using one.

</blockquote>

You've now met one.

For me the F100 was the best pro Nikon body, I never saw a need for the huge F5. But I can remember in 1996 being totally blown away by the specs when the F5 was introduced. We had a customer asking us which camera body he should buy, the F5 or the Leica R8. We said of course the F5!

</blockquote>

The F100 is another great camera, but it's lacking in many areas (no mirror-up capability). There is absolutely no comparison between a F100 and an F6. Absolutely no comparison. The F100 is a good camera. The F6 is the pinnacle of 35mm film technology, now and probably forever. Nikon will probably not build another film camera, making this the best of something there will ever be. It stands alone at the top. How many other things can that be said about?

I don't mean to stir up an old, dead thread, but if anyone finds this is thinking about picking up an F6 and diving back into film, I can say with certainty that it's not dead. It's not a mistake. And yes, the Nikon F6 is worth every single penny. Get it while you can.

Peace.

August 12, 2012

Hello Frederic,

Just returned from vacation and am getting caught up on things. If you haven't seen this link, most every image was made with the RZ system, save for a few Holga shots:

<a href="http://www.johnbcrane.com/mamiya/">http://www.johnbcrane.com/mamiya/</a>

Have fun.

John B. Crane

August 12, 2012

Hello Frederic,

Thanks for your post and a warm welcome. You'll love the system. It sounds from your list that you'll be well equipped for a variety of shooting situations for some time to come. I can not imagine a more beautiful playground than Banff in which to exercise a quality medium format system. Looking forward to your images.

Kind regards,

John B. Crane

July 28, 2012

I might be able to add something here, even though it's an old thread... when I bought my double release I diligently plugged in silver to silver, black to black. That is, the silver part was screwed into the body, the black-tip into the lens barrel. Sometimes, though, the camera would fire immediately upon re-cocking the lever. I finally realized what was happening: the friction in the cable that connected to the silver-tipped portion - because I had it bent around too tightly - was causing the pin to remain extended into the shutter release button, causing the camera to fire again once cocked. Now, I do as others mention above: poke the release with my finger, count to 5 or so, then release the leaf shutter via the cable release. I can second the M-up socket getting stuck "out" too - an easy thing to overlook. It wastes a frame until you figure it out.

July 22, 2012

That's uber cool! Thanks, John!

</blockquote>

Thanks Cian. I've been adding more "stuff" to it (the mirror-up cable release and waist level finder's magnifier), and will eventually add the FE701 Metered Prism Finder with the magnifier. I have a new (stupid-fast/powerful HP workstation) computer coming next week and hope to render out some animation sequences as well. It's a great way to get to know every nuance of the camera - when not shooting with it. I'm quite fond of it ;-).

July 7, 2012

Great thread. Thanks to all who posted images of their favorites. For me it's a toss up. My Nikon F6 is my stated favorite camera. But my Mamiya RZ67 Pro II is right there as well. I like the ergonomics and shoot-ability of the F6 - they are unmatched, making the camera a joy to hold and use. But there's something about the mass, thunk and the image potential of the RZ that invigorates creativity, even though it's less pleasing to hold. I'd rank the F6 as a truly modern film camera, but the RZ as only somewhat modern. Here are my visual offerings:

June 29, 2012

OK guys - the film has been fixed. Largely a mapping issue, but I actually had the curl on the feed spool coming from the wrong direction. Duh. I also shrank the diameter of the take-up spool. It's a little harder to see what's happening in their now because the dark of the film is less easy to see than the yellow backing. Thank you to those who pointed out this error.

Some finer points... technically speaking this is not CAD. CAD is Computer Aided Design and what an Industrial Designer or engineer would use to build the product in physically accurate solids models to then send to manufacturing equipment. This surface model was built, textured and rendered in a 3D animation/modeling software for animation. Even though the image bares resemblance to something a CAD user may see on screen the process and actual resulting data set are completely different - though both are 3D models; both existing in the 3D space.

Thanks again for your comments.

JBCrane

June 29, 2012

Hi Folks, Thanks for the comments and feedback. The film loading thing's being fixed now...thanks for pointing it out. - jbc

June 29, 2012

Good Evening All,

Please find below an illustration I've been working on for a while. This is a 3D model of the RZ I've built for a larger animation project, and wanted to put together a nice cutaway-style illustration for my desktop. I thought if anyone else in the world might appreciate such camera geek-dom (and I say that with all due respect), this would be the crowd. Here's a larger, multiple angle version: http://www.johnbcrane.com/illustration/e2de127e4

Please enjoy and a good evening to all.

JBCrane

May 27, 2012

John, some people are advocates of gaffer-taping the floating element to infinity and calling it good. I do my best to set accurate distances and I have seen a significant difference at the edges on images I have forgotten to do so, then have remembered and actually set it right. That's really about it. It's a stunning lens - clarity, sharpness, color rendition, detail... it's all there. Just get in the habit of setting the floating element to the proper distance and you'll be good. Have fun.

March 4, 2012

Hello Dave,

Thanks for your note. The link to the RZ work has been reorganized to the following "120" gallery:

http://jbcrane.zenfolio.com/p572167072

Regarding a good lab, I use a place here in Fort Collins, Colorado called digi-graphics. They do a brisk mail order business and have always done good work for me. Regarding a scanner, I use an Epson V500 for quick, preliminary scans just to get the image into the computer. I drum scan images I want to bring the most out of - but honestly - the Epson does a terrific job in most cases. Liberate that RZ from the Pelican case and give him some air. He won't disappoint you.

kind regards,

John B. Crane

January 26, 2012

It looks like a real beauty and sounds like you got a very fair price on it. As others have said, it's a great time to get into medium format film gear. Rest easy, and enjoy using it.

January 4, 2012

John, I hand-hold my RZ using 400 speed film with no trouble at all. I use the FE701 Prism finder with an assortment of lenses. The key for me is to make sure I steady myself before a shot, and to keep the shutter speeds higher, like at least 1/125 with the 110. I have shot successfully down to 1/60, and recently hand-held a shot with the 250APO, adjusting the exposure to allow for the fastest possible shutter speed, 1/400. It's razor sharp even under close scrutiny. I'm average size and build so I don't feel one's stature has a ton to do with it, if your technique is intentional. It is a little awkward and takes some practice, figuring out focus and button-push, but once you get the hang of it, it's cool to be able to shoot that large a camera hand-held. As with any other camera, I wouldn't dream of slower films/shutter speeds for low-light work, if your goal is to have a sharp image. For that - as with any camera - tripods are mandatory. Have fun.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jbcrane_gallery