Niels - NHSN

IMO: Get an FE2 - same great user interface as the FM3a and much cheaper. In fact the brilliant interface of the FM3a dates back to the Nikkormat EL of 1972 and remained relevant and largely unchanged from 1972 up until 2006 through the ELW, EL2, FE, FE2 and finally the FM3a. The FE2 has the shutter speed and TTL flash features most will need, but if flash is not your thing, a FE can be an even cheaper option. Besides: The Nikon option is more portable than the Canon and not least; the interesting Nikkor lenses are more easily available and often cheaper than the Canon equivalents - for reasons I don’t comprehend.

Can't do a comparison, but I do find Pro Image 100 balances fairly well with the current Gold 200 when displayed next to each other, although both are a little too warm for my taste. Purely speculations on my part; but Pro Image may well be a close relative to Gold 100 - possibly just modified to keep better un-refrigerated in the asian heat and supposedly a slightly modified to render asian skintones more natural. I am glad rumours has it that Fuji has begun manufacturing C200 and Superia 400 again and hopefully stop selling relabelled Kodak stock for good. We can hope that includes Fujicolor 100 which is nicer than Pro Image. I see Japanese made Fujicolor 100 selling online in Japan, but I don't know for certain if it is new stock.

I think people of the 80's and forward mistakenly applied the "entry level" label to the Nikkormats. Entry-level in the 80's and onward meant inferior build quality among other things. The Nikkormat cameras were never as inexpensive and accessible as say a Canon AE-1 or the later Nikon EM/FG etc. If you handle a Nikkormat EL next to a Canon AE-1 you'll know why. Somewhere I have the 1974 Nikon price list. That year's pricelist was a little interesting as it was the last year where the Nikon F was listed alongside the F2, it also had listings for the Nikkormat FTn and the Nikkormat EL. I don't have it in front of me so I can't quote exact prices, but from memory I recall that I surprisingly noted the Nikkormat FTn cost about the same as a Nikon F with meterless prism. The Nikkormat EL was more expensive than a Nikon F w. a Photomic FTn head, and the Nikkormat EL was about the same price as an F2 with meterless prism. The Nikkormats were widely professionally used, maybe not surprisingly as backups to F/F2 by some press photographers but also, as I observed myself in the late 70's when accompanying my parents at work; widely used by museums documenting collections, exhibitions and research findings, by archaeologists in the field, by architects at construction sites etc. Whenever a camera (or any tool) is used professionally, especially in situations where the user is not the owner, or where several people use the same camera, it is rarely babied - to say the least. The Nikkormat's were build to withstand that sort of abuse.

I was informed earlier around the transition to new ownership that photo.net is complying with "The right to be forgotten" EU law, which must be followed if the site is accessible from the EU. Meaning - Yes; should be possible to request an account deletion - an action that will potentially affect a lot of threads in some cases. In the case of OP with only 6 posts including this, it is of little consequence. But I do wonder if a moderator, @Sandy Vongries or others have the necessary permissions to do a full account wipe on behalf of a user request? Or if such a deletion must be done by one of those seemingly non-existent administrators; meaning that photo.net only complies in theory??

Coffee enthusiasts often use enlarger timers to single dose old industrial coffee grinders. Those grinders are very cheap and very good. By removing the pre-ground chamber and adding a timer, you can use the timer to grind the exact amount of coffee needed to fill an espresso porta filter. For example: 8,5 sec grinding time gives 18g output.

If it wasn’t so expensive to subscribe to in EU, I’d go for Aperture. I can buy 3-4 monographs for the cost of a one year subscription. But to be fair, the print quality is close to that of a good photo book - and the editorial quality is as high as it gets.

This weekend will be the first time I use an Olympus-Pen half frame SLR. This is FT model with build-in uncoupled meter. The finder meter readout shows the light level expressed as a number from 0-7, taking shutter speed/ISO into account. You then transfer the number to the front ring of the lens. The number effectively correspond to an f-stop, but I guess Olympus thought users would find this solution easier. The lens is a 38mm f/1.8, which corresponds to 55mm in full frame. The viewfinder is bigger and easier to focus than I expected, but I admittedly didn't expect much. The finder of this model is said to be darker than other Pen F models due to the presence of the meter. Film will be some bulk rolled HP5+. It is on loan from a friend. He wants to sell it to me, but I am not yet sure if I need yet another half frame camera - I am quite happy with the size and simplicity of my Pen-S and Koncia EYE, but I'll see if the experience sways me towards another decision.

I use one. Basic quality, nothing like your Toyo, but cheap and new from the manufacturer. Very light and portable. Compatible with Linhoff boards. The exact measurements are on their website.

I certainly would rather have my portrait taken with the 105/2.5 than a Micro-Nikkor, the latter is mean! I am just speculating that the legendary 105/2.5 would have survived to the end had the tooling been available to allow that, but your guess is as good as mine.

It is always more profitable to sell things separately unless the listing fee negates it. Even I, who have never sold on eBay know that, as it also applies to other selling platforms. Inexperienced sellers may want to "get-over-it" and rid of their stash in one go, but that obviously isn't the Japanese sellers you are looking at. One may argue,; If a seller felt the need to climb the barrier to sell on ebay, she probably figured that out before listing. My suggestion is to look elsewhere with patience.

That's a true beauty @gary green with a great place in history, and probably cheaper than a Rolex Explorer contemporary with the first successful Everest climb ;-). Interesting that Sir Edmund Hillary would have brought an almost 20 years old camera on such a critical and well funded mission. Surely we can think in retrospect that the differences between 30's and early 50's cameras were minor, but at the time things like access to coated optics and range finders was thought high tech and should have been easily available (for a price). Could you perhaps explain how the shutter is released, please? That "thing" that extends out on the actual shutter unit or the button on the "wrong" side of the finder perhaps?

I certainly would feel handicapped focusing a stopped down lens (unless on a brightness compensated mirrorless digital camera). It reminds me of a depressing experience of using a 1936 Rolleicord with a degraded mirror as my only camera for two weeks. To each their own of-course, but I can't help thinking that you could benefit from re-thinking your workflow. In most situations you only need to hold 2 exposure readings in your mind. A reading from the brightest area and one from the shadiest area of your scene. Say f/16 and f/5.6 or equivalent shutter settings. Depending where you intend to point your camera, you change the setting before you lift the camera to the eye. As a benefit you will get better exposed images since from experience you'll know that a photo taken contre-jour will require an f8 setting where the F3 meter would have told you f22. No need to consult the meter unless you move to an area with very different lighting conditions - where you again will make two reference readings. You gain the ability to act faster, you gain a brighter finder image for ease of composition and focusing - and with time, the ability to read light without even needing a lightmeter outside only the most complex lighting situations.

I took a photo of the Schneideritis affected 35/1.4 AI-S for those interested. This is # 451297 - an otherwise good looking, well damped sample which have seen only little use. As you can see, It looks very bad, but as @orsetto noted, it appears only along the edges of the lens elements, not in the optical path. There is nothing to see by the naked eye when looking through the lens from the rear. I put it on a mirrorless, but could not provoke any visual issues that could be attributed to the Schneideritis - not to say there is no effect at all, I just couldn't provoke any in that situation. With this revolting look, I am guessing the shop will price it 1/3 or 1/4 of the value without the flaw, which would make a bargain for someone without deep pockets - and a lens worthy of a CLA sometime in the future if the pockets grows deeper ;-).

The last MF AIS lenses disappeared from the catalogue around 2020. They were not actually "in production" up until then but rather being finally assembled from available parts and subassemblies produced a decade or more before. After all, remember Nikon outsourced the production of the 45mm/2.8P (introduced with the FM3A) in 2001 because they were already winding down manual-focus-lens manufacturing. The last AI-S survivors were 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.2. I am sure if they had the parts, they would have liked to extend the life 105/2.5 as well. Almost everything else MF disappeared from the Nikon catalogue already around around 2005/6. Just because they are no longer listed, does not mean they are not available new, but you probably have to search through quite a few Nikon authorised Tokyo shops to find a sample with official warranty. I don't think there are many authorised shops with physical storage elsewhere in the world where there would be a remote chance for an unsold copy sitting in a corner. On the other hand, you should have no problem picking up a virtually unused sample in original packaging from almost any of the amazing second hand camera stores around Tokyo. I usually refer to the page linked below if I need information about production periods/versions etc. It seems mostly accurate: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

Nice!!

This thread turned out to be surprisingly interesting and timely for me (if somewhat off-topic - sorry @hjoseph7) I work a few hours every week in a camera store and yesterday I got both a used Nikkor 35/1.4 AI-S and a Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.C.C concave in for re-sale. Both with flaws described in this thread which I had not heard of before: The 35/1.4 AIS we got has severe edge markings around the front element(s). Schneideritis (at least on the affected Schneider lenses I have seen) looks a bit like bubbles to me. This looked more uniform and I wondered if it could be beginning separation. I had no idea that the 35/1.4 AIS generally suffers from that problem. I have seen a few but only in the flesh in Tokyo second hand stores, which possibly may not accept samples with this defect for sale. My own sample, bought in Japan, does not have signs of the problem and is exceptionally smooth for an MF Nikkor. It did came with a overhaul report from "Kiitos", a Japanese Nikon specialist. It is in Japanese but I may try to decipher it to see if they have remedied the problems @orsetto talks about. According to this site, my lens is manufactured around the 2000's and apparently has SIC. I love this lens! The Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C "concave" that came in was the second sample of this lens I have seen. I don't recall the first having noticeably yellow glass, but this one is like looking though a medium yellow filter! I have yet to look closer and make measurements, but I am almost sure there will be 1,5 to 2 f/stop loss of light transmission. As I am living in Scandinavia and don't expect to see much sun for the next 3 month. @ben_hutcherson would you happen to know if there is an economic alternative for exposing the lens to uv light? Are those plant growth UV LED lamps too weak to make a difference? We also have a very yellowed Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 that could need a serious treatment.

Recently found: Agfa Isopan F 35mm film box with expiration date SEP 1939. A box of Agfa black & white film presumably dating from the second half of the 1930's based on a SEP 1939 expiry date. The sensitivity is written in the old way 17/10 DIN. The DIN standard for film sensitivity was published in 1934 and as such still very new at the time of the product. The notation was later changed to just one number - 17 DIN in this case. 17 DIN was equivalent to 40 ASA. It is also interesting to note that it was found necessary to write examples of compatible camera's - Leica and Rolleikin! Leica I can understand, but Rolleikin? I would have thought Contax would be a more obvious choice, but perhaps the Rolleikin conversion kit for Rolleiflex was very popular at the time?

Philip Greenspun did not become rich from selling photo.net, but from selling ArsDigita Corp. in 2001, after which he retired and took up flying as a hobby. Philip build photo.net using Oracle and AOL Server in combination with TCL scripting which was a very potent and adaptable technology compared to anything else at the time. The TCL scripts were made open source by Philip, AOL Server was already free. ArsDigita Corp's business was to make money from support and consultation related to above technologies, not photo.net - although the site was certainly a showcase of the scaleability of the technology. I have been around since 1997 and don't recall him being particularly active on this site after he retired in 2001, but he was seemingly administratively involved up until the sale of photo.net to NameMedia in 2007. From the horse's mouth: https://philip.greenspun.com/teaching/photo.net-history/speaker-notes

It looks like a Contax II and Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 to me.

If only for your F4, a manual focus Nikkor 35/2 Ai or AiS is a lovely alternative without the aperture oil migration issues of the 35/2D. If for film I see no reason to obsess about resolution. Pleasant (to your own eyes) rendering is much more relevant IMO. The touch and feel of an MF Ai(s) lens is in a completely different league as well.

There's still some pleasing autumn colours in the local park. I brought my F2 (1971) and Nikkor-H.C 85mm f/1.8 - a chunky piece of glass. Camera is loaded with Fujifilm C200.

If you’re asking about less expensive BW film (as in less than kodak/Ilford) then the only 120 I can recommend is Kentmere. It is consistent good quality a small notch below Ilford/Kodak. Isn’t Arista repackaged Foma? I use Foma in 35mm and 4x5 but their 120 film has QC issues in my experience and I wouldn’t use it for anything but testing. i have never tried Bergger.

Does the resistance continue after the endpaper is all wound up on the receiving spool?

The photographer of the swim wear shoot saw an opportunity to write off a new toy by including it in the frame.

Thanks for the info AGJ. My bad; I meant to say cap, the one shown in my hand. Unfortunately the filter threads of this lens are stripped so I can’t add a screw-in hood nor a protective filter. I am not sure if it is the case for Zeiss, but I am used to lenses of that era having super soft coating so I wouldn’t object against a hood or filter for protection. So in this case it would have to be a push-on. I will keep my eyes open for one.