User_4754088

For years I've used an 85mm f1.4 and a 180mm f2.8 for portraits. The 85mm for upper body and face, the 180mm for headshots.

Interesting new look, and thrilling to see that we can now review archived threads from previous years (and decades). What a wealth of information. Thank you.

<p>One of the advantages to the old "uncoated" lenses from the 1930's & 1940's is that when they were attacked by fungus, you could take them apart, clean them up, and they were as good as new.</p> <p>Unfortunately with newer coated lenses, the fungus attacks the coatings. So you can get rid of the fungus, but now you have etched coatings on the elements. What Stephen said, the only real fix is to have the lenses stripped of their coatings and recoated.</p>

<p>Nice shot Bill.</p>

<p>While I think the D700 is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the one issue I have with mine is the 12MB sensor doesn't hold up as well as 16MB and 20MB in my other DSLR's when it comes to post processing, I've never had a DSLR that was easier to manual focus. Not sure why, but I can get much sharper images out of my manual focus Nikon glass with the D700 than I can with my D4, and it was as easy to manually focus the D700 as it was to focus a Df I borrowed a while back.</p>

<p>I believe the Korean war story was actually, David Douglas Duncan and another photographer (who's name escapes me right now), got a hold of some Nikkor lenses that were in LTM and used them on their Leica iiic camera bodies and found the images they created to be better than what they were getting from the Leica glass of that time.</p>

<p>Also check out buying refurbished right from Nikon USA. I've gone that route in the past and was not disappointed.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with all the FM2's intricate lubrication points, but one of the reasons many avoid "never used" cameras is that exercising the mechanism in a camera keeps the lubricants moving around and keeps everything lubricated and in good condition. This was especially true of the wet cameras from the 1940's, 50's and 60's. Again, not sure about the FM2, it might be a dry camera, meaning the bearing surfaces could be materials like teflon and delrin, which do not need wet lubricants, and in that case, "never used" would not be an issue.</p>

<p>What everyone said above. My D700 has the serial number on the bottom label (hidden when the battery grip is attached, so if your's has that, it must be removed). And it shows up in Photoshop when you look at camera data.</p>

<p>Speaking of re-issues, when Nikon did the reissue of the SP and S3(I think it was), did they use the same tooling from the late 1950's, or were these "reissue" cameras in the same vein as the Mini-Cooper is a "reissue" of the original? In other words, it looks kind of like the original, but is a whole new redesigned item.</p>

<p>They had them early this morning. Maybe they only had a few copies (maybe they only printed a few copies). It's being talked up on other Nikon sites.</p> <p>Come on Nikon, show us what you got!! Let's see a 100th Anniversary Df, D5, F6, maybe even a re-issue S2 rangefinder. That would be cool. Or better yet, how about a black paint 100th Anniversary Nikon F with plain prism finder (the one that takes diopters), that would be awesome.</p> <p>I couldn't afford any of them, but they're really cool to look at and read about.</p>

<p>Well now the 100th Anniversary book is out, but WHERE'S THE 100th ANNIVERSARY CAMERA?</p> <p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-100-Anniversary-Uli-Koch/dp/3200047402/ref=as_li_ss_tl">https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-100-Anniversary-Uli-Koch/dp/3200047402/ref=as_li_ss_tl</a></p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p>

<p>The Canon A-1 can be a tricky camera at times. I've never had the experience you are describing, but I would recommend getting a copy of the instruction manual and reading it carefully, making sure you do all the steps they show you. You can see a PDF of the instruction manual here:</p> <p>http://www.cameramanuals.org/canon_pdf/canon_a1.pdf</p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p>

<p>Yeah, I've got an S2 and I really love it. And I've got numerous light meters (including one on my iPhone), but it would be nice to have the light meter built in, but not sacrifice anything else about the S2. Just dreaming.</p>

<p>Would love a rangefinder that used the original lens mount (so all the old lenses would still work), functioned just like the originals, and had a light meter built in. That would get me to pony up the bucks.</p>

<p>Been hearing the rumors for the last year that Nikon would be introducing a follow up to the Df for their 100th Anniversary. I see Nikon is at the CES in Las Vegas and has 100th Anniversary logo's on their goodie bags and displays.</p> <p>Has anyone seen or heard anything about Nikon releasing a 100th Anniversary Df2 or any 100th Anniversary models?</p>

<p>Not sure about that Starvy, as I don't use Lightroom. </p> <p>I found that it's best to take the RAW file right from the Canon camera, put it through DxO Optics Pro 10 first, do the noise reduction (Prime), then export the file as a DNG and import that into my normal image editor. That's what I did with the images above. The one on the right went through DxO Optics Pro 10, had noise reduction, was exported as a DNG, and then edited, the one on the left went straight into my normal image editor, without having the noise reduction done in DxO Optics Pro 10.</p>

<p>I've got a Canon 6D that I've been trying to really push the ISO up to the 25,600 limit. The images get pretty noisy, so I've been experimenting with Noise Reduction. Tried out DxO Optics Pro 10 and was blown away by how well it removes the noise from my Canon EOS 6D images. Below is a cropped sample, on the left, ISO 25,600 noise as shot, and on the right, after DxO Optics Pro 10 Prime Noise Reduction. I've used this same photo editing program with my Nikon DSLR and wasn't happy with the noise reduction, but it seems to really work well with the Canon files.</p> <p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/NoiseReduc.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p>

<p>Look like nice cameras but I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind making a rather high resolution (24.2-MP) camera and equipping it with SnapBridge to encourage sharing on social media. Those files would be huge, and not lend themselves to sending via SnapBridge connected cell phone to Facebook/Twitter/Snapchat, unless you've got a great data plan.</p>

<p>My FM2N, which I bought brand new in 1996, did not come with a strap. I had to buy one separately. It did have the triangular D-rings, and the translucent body cap, and I had forgotten where that round black rubber tripod pad came from, but now Fred has reminded me.</p>

<p>I got my Nikon FM2N brand new in 1996, and it came with the triangular strap rings and no fabric under the rings. What you have pictured there is not original Nikon packaging.</p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p>

<p>Guy, If I were you I'd see how you like the images you already shot with the "non-L" lens before you decide what to do.</p> <p>I had a "real" 50mm f1.2L Canon FD lens and even after I had Ken O give it a CLA and make sure it was to factory specs, it never really impressed me that much. I also had an 85mm f1.2L Canon FD lens that blew me out of the water. But from my experience, the 50mm that I had was not in the same league. It's a nice lens, but not that much better than the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC that I also own.</p> <p>Just my 2¢ worth.</p>

<p>I hear what you're saying Joe, but I'm not sure alcohol would be good for this application. It is one of those very delicate front surface mirrors, probably like what you use in the scientific instruments. The one difference is this mirror has a clear coating over it. Not sure what that coating is, but my concern is that the alcohol may soften or smear that coating. That's why the guy recommends only distilled water and a very diluted (with distilled water) lens cleaning solution.</p>

<p>I don't have an F6 (yet!!) but my buddy swears by the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS lens on his F6.</p>

<p>Not sure how many folks here have one of the Coolscan 8000 or 9000 models. I was fortunate to pick up a Coolscan 9000 in 2009 right before they were discontinued. Have scanned hundreds of rolls of film in the years that I've had it, and noticed that the results didn't seem to be as nice as I remembered.</p> <p>Stumbled across this web site:<br> http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Nikon_coolscan_8000_9000.htm</p> <p>Started thinking maybe my mirror was dirty. Followed the instructions very carefully and opened my 9000 up. Man was the mirror dusty. It is that micro fine dust that gets pretty much like cement, stuck to everything. VERY CAREFULLY followed the instructions on the web site for removing and cleaning the mirror (it's really fragile and mirrored on the reflecting surface, so you can't touch it at all). To clean it, after it's been removed from the scanner, you flood it with distilled water, and a little lens cleaner, soak a lens tissue in distilled water, and with the surface soaking wet, you gently swirl the wet tissue ever so lightly on the mirror surface, never actually pressing the wet tissue to the surface, then flood the mirror with more distilled water, and blow dry with bulb blower. After a few repetitions of this process, the mirror was again sparkling clean. Re-installed everything as per the instruction above, and happily the scanner still works. I noticed the difference in the scans after cleaning. Compared to the dusty mirror, the clean mirror gives more tonal gradations in the midtown areas of an image.</p> <p>So if you have an aging Coolscan 8000 or 9000, it might be something to consider.</p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p>