Rob F.

<p>Here's my story. I bought two FE2s together in the late 1980's. For years, I never thought there was anything wrong with the metering. And for years, the color film I shot was Velvia 50. I knew that many photographers felt that Velvia 50 should be shot at 40 or 32. An avid and skilled photographer I knew always shot it at 32. My exposures were fine!</p> <p>Later, I bought an FA and an F3; then an FM3a. Funny, they indicated less exposure than my FE2s. They also gave perfect exposures. Obviously, something was wrong. Maybe my FE2s were haunted?</p> <p>I had the dealer send in my FE2s to Nikon, with a note explaining the concern. They came back with a perfect bill of health. That's when the light came on. I had been shooting Velvia 100 and Provia in the newer cameras. Velvia 100 and Provia 100 really are ISO 100 films. Velvia 50 really isn't 50. Yes, the FE2 exposes more heavily than my other Nikons, and my Leicas.</p> <p>Just set your EI a little higher, like everyone said. I don't think there is anything wrong with your FE2. FE2s just overexpose, that's all.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"RAW conversion is provided by and intrinsic to OS X."</p> </blockquote> <p>How is that? What is there in OS X that will convert my RAW file even if Aperture or iPhoto has no provision for a RAW file from my X10 or D-Lux 6? What does it convert it to? JPEG? TIFF?</p>

<p><img src="/bboard/17942905-md.jpg" alt="" />Here you go. 15mm CV on Leica M8.2 (20mm effective view).</p> <p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17942905-md.jpg">17942905-md.jpg</a><br> This one is larger:<br> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17942905-lg.jpg">17942905-lg.jpg</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>DAG did the MP upgrade on my M6 classic, in order to get control over finder whiteout. With that done, and the MP type wind-on lever installed, My M6 became close enough to my MP that I didn't need both, and sold the 0.72 MP. I kept my 0.58 MP, as I use it a lot more.</p>

<p>I measured the thickness of a 35mm Gepe mount at 0.088". A Wess mount measured 0.097". Would the thicker Wess mount be therefore less suitable? And my slides these days come back in thin plastic mounts, no longer in cardboard ones. I measured one of the plastic mounts at 0.049". Would that make it better than the Gepe in the CA2500? Or does it make any difference, as long as they are plastic and not cardboard?</p> <p>What is it about the cardboard that kills the quick change?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Does your lens look like this? If so, the filter is a standard 86mm thread.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yep! That's it! Thanks!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Under controlled conditions it is a very good lens but for many practical applications the flare renders it useless.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is my impression also. It's a great studio lens--controlled conditions--but not the right lens for use in the field, owing to the flare issue. I know. I've owned two of them.</p>

<p>While the 28mm may be intrinsically crappy, and the fisheye adapter may be crappy, what if one of the two is actually 'anti-crappy?" Anti-crappy, viewed by itself, may appear indistinguishable from crappy. But when used in combination, anti- and crappy may cancel each other, like matter and anti-matter. You may have discovered the perfect lens!</p> <p>Or have I been reading too many articles about the universe and the big bang in "Discover" magazine?</p>

<p>I have the 18/4 Nikkor. I've tried the series 9 filters, held in by the lens hood. I'd like to try using a screw-in filter. There are threads for the hood, so I should think there might be a filter to fit those threads. The filter size for this lens is listed as "series 9/86mm." But I don't know if that means the threads are 86mm. I have a metal screw cap for the lens, but alas, it isn't marked with a thread size. Does anyone know if the lens will take an 86mm screw-in filter, or is the hood thread some nonstandard size just for the hood?</p> <p>I'd rather use the filter sans hood, and screw my metal cap on for protection. It would be easier than always screwing and unscrewing the hood and having to put the filter away. Circular hoods on an 18mm don't do much anyway!</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<blockquote> <p>One popular solution is to put the Leica SBOOI 50mm bright-line (Albada type) finder in the accessory shoe. </p> </blockquote> <p>Copy that! It's the right thing to do!</p>

<blockquote> <p>It's come this far "wrapped up", so remember the adage: <strong>"It's only original once"</strong><br />Or in this case, it's only factory sealed once...</p> </blockquote> Yeah I have a sealed Joan Baez vinyl album I feel that way about.

<blockquote> <p>Depends on your Mac and OS-X. Nikon Scan stopped working several version of OS-X ago</p> </blockquote> <p>I was just at the Apple store today asking about going to a later version. I have Snow Leopard now. What's the last version Nikon Scan will work with?</p>

<p>Barry, I can sympathize. I received Capture One along with some Leica purchase or other. I could not make it do anything at all! That's when I bought Aperture, and have been happy with it. I tried adding Lightroom, but have systematically bollixed it up until it doesn't even work. Aperture has been smooth as silk, as can be expected when a program is designed by Apple, for Apple. I didn't even have to study anything, it is so intuitive, I just started using it.<br> Thanks, Apple, for trashing the best program I ever got. I plan to buy an extra imac to ensure I will always be able to use Aperture!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Unless you think that dropping Aperture will adversely affect Apple's earning, that would be an example of "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know what will happen to Apple's earnings, but this makes me lose faith in Apple decision making. This would not have happened if Steve Jobs were still in charge. It's hard to be invested in a company I'm disappointed in. I put in an order to sell if it drops below 90 and 1/8.</p>

<p>Actually I think the sky <em>is</em> falling. I have, by now, thousands of photos stored in Aperture, and I'm very comfortable using it--more so than Lightroom. And the "Photo" program won't have the power of Aperture. It will be more like iphoto, apparently.</p> <p>I'm very disappointed. I may sell my Apple stock in protest.</p>

<p>Well, the flange to film distance is only 27.8mm. The lens can't extent all the way to the film plane. For a 90mm, the rear element shouldn't project behind the flange.</p>

<p>The last M I know of that still has a properly sized 50mm frame is the early M4-P. I wish I hadn't sold mine. (How many times do we say this?) I just sold one of my M6s, planning on getting an M5. It's the only way I can think of to get accurate framelines plus a meter! Although my M8.2 has a generously sized 47mm equivalent frameline when used with a 35mm lens!</p>

<blockquote> <p>The Summarit 2.5/90mm is inexpensive and one of the shorter 90s at 66mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>This statement threw me for a bit! A 90mm lens is 66mm? But, of course, Clive meant it is 66mm long physically, not optically! So, it must be of telephoto construction: physically shorter than its focal length. Thus it joins the Tele-Elmarit in being a small and handy, yet fairly fast, 90mm.</p>

<p>I see a lot of endorsements for the M6+50. But please take note of the caution about the dreadfully undersized 50mm framelines of the M6 (and M7 and MP). The OP wants a camera optimized for a 50mm. That would not be an M6! Were there no requirement for a meter, the M3 would be the answer. But the OP wants a meter, plus good 50mm framelines. There's only one answer (it has already been suggested): a Leica M5! It has the right size framelines for 35, 50, 90, and 135. Just don't get a collapsible 50 for it, as collapsing it will destroy the meter stalk.</p>

<p>The camera in the video has an adapter ring installed, tricking the camera into behaving as if a lens were in place. Without the adapter, I believe the stalk should stay down.</p>

<p>Yes it is supposed to be up when the shutter is cocked and a lens is in place. What I wonder is if it's OK for it to be not fully down when there is no lens. Gus's answer, though, I believe indicates that while it's not OK, maybe it's not a serious problem, if, as he says, it will tuck down the rest of the way under shutter button pressure.</p>

<p>I recently saw an M5 whose metering cell was still visible in the chamber with the lens removed. It's been a while since I had an M5, but it seems to me the stalk and cell should be fully retracted when no lens is fitted, and there should be no circumstances under which it sticks up. This one is sticking up into the opening; not all the way, just in the lower region of the mounting hole, enough to be in the way of the picture. And there's no adapter ring fitted, that would bring up the stalk. The owner hasn't used it in a while, but can't remember seeing the shadow of the meter stalk in his pictures.</p> <p>So: this is not OK, correct?</p>