mwmcbroom

Thought this might help: Garry's Camera Repair: Garry's Camera Repair

Coming a little late to this discussion, and my comment isn't about the new Sony 400/2.8 anyway. It's about replacing all those DSLRs on the sidelines of your favorite sport. The problem I see that the Sony has, and likely will always have, is there is still no substitute for a good optical viewfinder. I find it difficult to make fine-tuned discriminatingly sharp images when using a digital VF or a rear screen. Focus peaking is nice, but it doesn't get down to the fine details the way an optical viewfinder can. I find that, with my Sony, I'm almost always having to boost magnification to make sure my subject is critically sharp. But these are still, unmoving subjects. Boosted magnification would never work for sports where you have to follow the action. So, I'm not quite willing to count DSLRs -- especially full-framed ones -- out just yet.

Welp, I didn't see a mirror in that mirror box that sucks you in at the end, so my vote is for it being a mirrorless camera, and I'll wager it will be full-frame too. Yeah, I agree, it looks a little like a Sony A7-series. I don't think Nikon will discard the F mount. I agree with c_watson that it would be almost suicidal. But there's no reason why this new camera's F-mount can't have a totally electronic interface, a la Canon's EF mount. Of course, if it is mirrorless, this means an adapter to use legacy Nikkors and it'll likely be a while before there will be a full gamut of mirrorless mount Nikkors. But I expect it to be worth the wait. Plus, Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron will do their best to grab some of that lens market share too. Oh, and also -- look for a sensor on this camera to have at least 50 mp. That's my guess. Price point? Somewhere around where the 800-series has been selling at, would be my guess.

Most camera makers who also produce their own flashes make it such that they are backward compatible. And Canon is one of those camera makers. Cmuseum, the fact that your 244T recognized your AE-1 to the extent it did proves this. BTW, back when I was almost a total neophyte at photography, I bought a Canon 188A flash for my then new A-1 cuz that was one of the flashes recommended. I believe the 199A was recommended as well, but it was more than my budget would allow at the time. I quickly discovered that the 188A was good only for when the camera was in one of its AE modes. It was worthless for manual photography.

You've discovered one of Tamron's better known gems. The SP 35-80 has an outstanding reputation. I resisted picking one up for years because it's "only" a 35-80mm focal length, but eventually I succumbed and added a nice example to my Tamron collection. Glad I did because it is one incredibly sharp lens. The 35mm end is great for street photography and the lens is small enough where it is relatively unobtrusive. The 80mm focal length on the long end makes it suitable for portraiture, but it's almost too sharp for portraits. I've found that, unless the subject is very young with no facial wrinkles or blemishes, people can be put off by images that are "too sharp." Eh, a filter with a smear of Vasoline on it works wonders. Congrats and enjoy!

I have a couple of Canon rangefinders that are capable of double exposure. These are the early, Leica-looking rangefinders. Mine are both Canon IIIa's. There's a small lever next to the shutter release and film wind knob that, when flipped, does something that helps achieve double exposure. I don't know precisely how it works. I would definitely read up on this first before trying it, though. Mike Butkus (the net's best source for camera manuals in .pdf form) may have some old Canon rangefinder owner's manuals. I also have a Canon P, a more modern rangefinder model, which is much more simple and streamlined in operation. I suspect that, with this camera, you merely have to press the button on the bottom to disengage film advance, same as is done with many modern film SLR cameras.

Indicative of the unwavering popularity of such a cool old classic.

I've been buying and selling on eBay for 20 years. And yeah, lots of things have changed. The vast majority of my buying and selling experiences have been positive. As a seller, what really gets me good and wound up -- well it's only happened to me once, but once is enough. It's when a buyer decides he doesn't like something I'm selling as is with no returns -- but plenty of photos with complete descriptions as always -- and eBay, using its "buyer protection" scam, reaches into my bank account and steals $200. I say eBay stole the money because this "buyer" never returned the item. I've been in contact with eBay over this and they say there's nothing they can do other than send him a message that I want my item back. I still send the guy eBay messages every month or two -- just to annoy him I guess. But he's never responded. He just ignores me, and gets away with it. That's what really sticks in my craw about eBay. And yeah, since eBay won't make him return my item, as far as I'm concerned, they stole $200 from me.

Yes, "sold" listings on eBay are a realistic way to get an idea of what an item is worth. A lot of the price depends on cosmetic condition, though, so you have to be aware of that. That 85/1.2 L is the high point of your dad's collection, and definitely should be sold separately. Far as that goes, I'd sell the focusing screens separately too. By the way, your dad's "old" F-1 is actually a New F-1 if it were bought new in 1982, unless it was an old stock original F-1. Probably the easiest way for a non-expert to tell them apart is their finishes. The original model has a high-gloss black enamel finish. The New F-1 has a matte, Parkerized-looking finish. Anyway, assuming it is a New F-1, focusing screens for that camera can sometimes go for some serious money, so you should research what you have and what they're worth. I Just took a look on eBay. Found two international sellers for the "SJ" who want an average of $140 for theirs. I tend to find that International sellers prices are too high, but still! That screen is definitely worth some bucks. I checked eBay's sold listings, but didn't get any hits. I found two of the PD screens in "sold" listings -- $60 and $80, so not exactly chump change on those screens, either. That old FD 35-70 AF lens is kind of uncommon and unusual, but not worth all that much. $40-50. Your New F-1, in decent shape, is worth about $250 or so, especially if it has the AE finder. eBay's showing $225 and up for the one with the AE finder. In clean shape with no fungus or haze, that 85mm f/1.2 L is worth $800+ -- again I'm looking at eBay "sold" listings. A few cheaper, many a whole lot more. Your filters -- whatever you can get for them. Polarizers are more popular than others, but still, you'll be competing against kajillions of others. Good luck and good fortune!

Improper storage might be a culprit. Back in a previous life, I was a camera dealer, and I attended all the camera shows in and around the Los Angeles area. When I was still pretty new at the game I got the bright idea to store my lenses inside socks -- white athletic ones -- and the first show I went to after using socks to cushion my lenses, I happened to inspect a lens's internals -- and I was shocked by the amount of dust and lint particles that was inside the lens. I quickly checked some other lenses I had stored in socks and they all had the same severe problem. Fortunately I had stored only a small number of lenses that way, but I sure learned my lesson! Back to bubble wrap as cushioning material! So anyway, as improbable as it may seem, it is easier than you might think for lenses to collect dust. This also reminds me of some "events" occasionally held here in the States, that I believe are based on the holiday of some sort in India, where people go around, tossing very brightly dyed powder on each other. Folks who decided to film these events discovered much to their chagrin that their lenses had been -- in some cases -- ruined by the amount of colored dust they had picked up.

That reminds me -- as winding experiences go, I'd also have to include the Rolleiflexes I've owned as some of the best, all of which had butter-smooth film advance mechanisms.

I would be most interested in that 16mm for my crop-body Sony. And in that respect, I think I would also go looking for something else with different pocket material, so that I could retrieve it with greater alacrity. I wouldn't be blaming the lens . . .

I would recommend assembling the unit dry, without any lubricant, and see how it behaves. I say this because any excess lube is gonna migrate down to the iris engagement mechanism and eventually onto the iris blades, resulting in sluggish or frozen performance. If it appears that lube is necessary, then I suggest using a very light lubricant, such as sewing machine oil, and then touching no more than a drop to the pivot points only in the mechanism.

You mentioned you used these as your test cameras: "Shot on a Canon t4i and Canon C300 (for video)" The t4i has Canon's 1.6x crop body sized sensor and the C300's is only slight larger at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Either way, they are not full frame by any stretch. So any reference to "corner sharpness" in your tests must bear in mind that your cameras aren't even approaching the corners that these lenses are covering. You must use a full frame camera to evaluate any of these lenses corners. Just sayin'

Just as a point of clarification, the lens in the title, "Canon nFD 200mm F/4 s.s.c." doesn't exist. You have the breechlock 200mm f/4 SSC and you have the New FD 200mm f/4 (with internal focusing as an added benefit), with "New FD" often being abbreviated as nFD. I own both the New FD 200mm f/4 and the New FD 200mm f/2.8, both of which are IF lenses. I think the 200/4 FD is one of the best "sleeper" lenses you can buy. It is a very sharp lens and can often be picked up for peanuts on eBay and the like because it is "only" an f/4 lens, whereas the 200/2.8 typically commands 3 or 4 times the price, sometimes even more. There is no denying the 200/2.8 is a great lens, but it has a bad tendency of producing a hefty amount of chromatic aberrations under certain conditions --- a deficit that the 200/4 does not share. So the 200/4 is a more flexible lens, as a result. Whether you get the breechlock SSC or the nFD model with IF, I think you'll enjoy it and the images it will provide, whether shooting with film or digitally.

I have some film loaded up in a couple of old Canons -- an original F-1 and an FTb -- so I'll take these with me as I head out this weekend. Canon FTbn, Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/ftb_85_ssc1.jpg

For my purposes, the 675 zinc-air hearing aid battery is the way to go. It's dirt cheap (I buy a card of 48 of them for less than $10 at Costco) and fits just fine in all my cameras and external meters that used the old mercury 625. Usually with these cameras, the contacts are the top and bottom and often there's a spring to keep the battery snug up against the contacts. I find that this spring also does a good job of centering the undersized 675s, so I usually don't need an o-ring to keep it centered. For cameras that have the contacts for the side of the battery, like my old Nikon F, for example, getting a ring that fits the outside of the 675 is the way to go. Jon Goodman and others sell the ring for cheap enough. As mentioned above, it's possible to knock a Wein cell out of its ring, so you can use that one just as easily. I prefer these methods over soldering in a diode. Mostly the reason is because I own probably close to a dozen cameras that took the old mercury battery, and I just don't feel like having to do all the dismantling and soldering involved. Not when I can often just insert a battery and go. I don't think it was mentioned above, so I'll go ahead and mention it now. One of the nice aspects of the old mercury batteries is its totally flat discharge curve. The 675 hearing aid battery mimics this discharge curve perfectly. So does the silver oxide type, from what I've read. But the SO battery does not have the correct voltage. The alkalines, on the other hand, have a sharply peaked discharge curve and I don't consider them to be reliable enough to be used for metering purposes. It's worth mentioning that some cameras have a bridge circuit, in which case, a 1.5 volt battery will work reliably. Cameras like the old Pentaxes (KX for example), and the Canon EF have bridge circuits, so they can use the 1.5v silver oxide batteries and will still have accurate meters. But the Canon QL17 doesn't have a bridge circuit, so it will need a 675 or adjustment.

Yep, but still informative, no?

I'm familiar with the miniatures being called "Century" Graphics. They're plentiful on eBay. Check the "Sold listings" box on the left and see what Centuries actually sell for on eBay. The lowest prices you'll find are all auctions. The Buy It Now listings are always higher.

I owned a green line Hanimex zoom some years back and sold it on eBay. Got about $20 for it as I dimly recall. One thing I do clearly remember about it on eBay was how quickly it sold. I don't recall where I got it from or what I paid for it. It was probably part of an outfit I bought, which I often will do to get one or two items from it, then sell the rest. I do remember testing my Hanimex zoom and concluding that it was actually a very good performer. I think it was just a 70-210 or something similar. As for others who commented some years ago in this thread that f/3.3 was "silly," I'm reminded of a few Tamron lenses I own where Tamron could have fudged some, but they didn't because they decided to err on the side of accuracy. The Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4, for example, or the 80-210 f/3.8-4, or the SP 24-48 f/3.5-3.8. I mean, they could have called the 60-300 a f/4-5.6 and nobody would have minded. Or the 80-210, an f/4, or the 24-48 an f/3.5 or f/3.8, and I don't think anyone would have cared. But there's certainly nothing wrong with erring on the side of accuracy, if it could be called an error at all.

I started out in photography with a Canon FD system. Meaning, I began using FD when I didn't know squat about photography. It was a lucky call on my part. I stuck with Canon FD for the next several years, where I learned a great deal more about photography, and my FD lenses almost never disappointed. The one exception was with my nFD 200mm f/2.8 IF and 300mm f/4. These lenses produced lots of CAs when shooting hard lines against high contrast backgrounds. But when not used in these sorts of situations, they were top-notch optics. Currently, primes I own are a rather typical variety of FD optics: FD 24/2.8 SSC, nFD 28/2.8, nFD 35/2.8, FD 50/1.4 SSC, nFD 50/1.8, FD 55/1.2 SSC, FD 85/1.2 SSC Asph, nFD 85/1.8, nFD 200/2.8 IF. I own only two FD zooms, the amateur oriented 70-210/4 and the more pro-oriented 80-200/4. This is the two-ring zoom,not the push-pull 80/200/4 L. The 70-210 is actually a nice lens, but the two-ring 80-200 is better. Since my early days with Canon FD, I have had the opportunity to use a wide variety of optics from various manufacturers. And I keep coming back to Canon FD for its performance vs value function, which is still good, but prices are firming up as more and more people realize just how good these lenses are. I also have a few FL favorites. The 55mm f/1.2, 35mm f/2.5, 19mm f/3.5, and 85-300mm f/5 are some of the FL lenses I like the best.

Tony, I realize it is not internet politic to correct spelling but in this case it might make the difference between finding Mike's site and not finding it. His last name is spelled Butkus. Here's the link: Free camera instruction manuals, camera instructions, free film camera user guide, camera manual, camera instruction manuals, Canon camera manual, Nikon camera manual, Ricoh camera manuals, Sears Camera Manuals, PDF camera instruction manuals

You know, I ran an allgedly fresh roll of Kodak Tri-X through an old Russian rangefinder last year and it definitely had numbers to follow.. With that camera, that's the only way you know when to stop advancing the film to the next frame.

Check your battery.

The Canon rangefinders' registration distance is the same as the Leicas, so you shouldn't have any problem with LTM lenses, except for one or two oddballs perhaps.