cosmin_saveanu

<p>The Feds could have been great cameras, only if, as mentioned in this discussion already, they had better film transport mechanics. I remember with sadness all the films that were scratched by my parent's Fed 5. Out of nostalgy, I bought a working one a few months ago and while the images were really nice, the handling of film rewinding was discouraging.</p>

<p>The "marran grass" picture is outstanding and those spotmatics are elegant. Strange things can happen to parcels but indeed, it is rare that the damage would be only on the contents and not on the package. Must have been a sign of destiny - to let you build a Frankencamera.</p>

Changing from 135 to 120 will definitely change the look of the picture. I vividly remember getting the first scans of the first roll of 120 film (pictures taken with a Ricohmatic TLR camera). The pictures had some kind of realistic or closer to life features that had no obvious explanation. In fact, the larger the sensor or fim area is, the smoother the transition between out of focus and sharp parts of a picture becomes. I still use 135 film because is convenient and cheaper but I definitely prefer the results from 120 film.

By the way, grain is the same in these formats, it's just that we need less enlargement from the larger format. Hence, the impression of smoother images.

<p>Late to this discussion, I wonder what motivates the various answers that revolve around two common themes: a) buy a new, better, video-able body because the D70s is obsolete and b) redefine your goals and ponder about what limits your current camera and lenses have. I have no direct experience with a D70s and cannot say if its abilities are limiting to some types of photographic use, but I know that I enjoyed tremendously using different lenses on an older Nikon D40 - faster, longer, wider or better quality (or more compact) than the kit lens.<br>

So, Christopher, if you are truly annoyed about the limitations or ergonomy of the D70s, buy a new camera body. If you want to experiment something different, you might gain probably more from a new, or used, lens, that is different from what you already have.</p>

<p>I did not use either the Nikon D3200 nor the Canon 60D. My experience comes from using the equivalent of the D3200, the Nikon D40 in the last 5 years with the 18-55 mm kit lens and a largeish number of Tamron old zooms and Nikkor old fixed focal lenses, from 24 to 135mm f/2.8.<br>

One of my colleagues, a long term user of Canon cameras told me he would switch to Nikon if he had not already invested in the Canon lenses. Sometimes, I feel the same, because each brand has advantages or disadvantages, depending on what you take pictures of, how many of them and what are your expectations. But I'm happy with what an old camera like the D40 gives me for the moment.<br>

In your question, the major difference between the models is price. The D3200 with 16-85mm will be much cheaper. Then, if you know you're going to use the camera in conditions where weather sealing is a must, the choice is much more limited, both in terms of camera bodies and lenses. If you want to compare similar weather-sealed bodies, you should rather compare the Nikon D7000 with the Canon 60D, and try both in a shop, to see which fits better in your hands.<br>

An advantage of the D3200 is its price, on a trip. Tourists are frequent targets of "vilains" and cameras hold an interesting value to be stolen. Just another factor to keep in mind.</p>

<p>Thank you Kris for sharing your experience with the Hasselblad and the beautiful pictures with the Yashicas. Medium format SLRs were on my list since I've seen the beautiful results a TLR can give (a Ricohmatic 225). Now, I can push the crave for a Blad lower on the priorities list since it is probably not a camera I would be using much.</p>

<p>102400/100=1024=2 to the tenth. You would use 1/4,000 sec with ISO 102,400 instead of 1/4 sec at ISO 100 for an approximate similar picture in terms of "brightness", for the same aperture.<br>

The "stop" term is a little overused but, as explained by Mike, it corresponds to using a logarithmic scale, base 2, for the settings. You can add one stop or substract one by changing by a factor of two either aperture or shutter speed (or by using a neutral gray dark filter). In addition, digital cameras allow higher or lower sensitivities to be achieved by shifting the ISO setting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Kick-start your classic camera collection"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... or maybe end it. I mean, it's nice to own stuff as a collection but most of the thrill goes, at least for me, in finding a camera, finding info about it, buying one, maybe even trying to repair it, test it, share some impressions with others. Little of all these will be found if buying such a collection.</p>

<p>The 70-300mm ED (AF) lens is a "modern" lens that has electric contacts to communicate with the body. From what information is available on the web, it looks to be an excellent lens which should give good results, especially on a tripod. A green dot in the lower left corner of the viewfinder will assist you with manual focusing (it is on when the camera thinks you're in focus, just pay attention to the number of focus points and use only the central one, it will be easier). Happy shooting!</p>

<p>Just a note of caution when dissasembling any lens: pay attention to the small metal ball that usually makes the "click" when you change aperture by rotating the corresponding ring. It is in general kept in place by some grease or not and it might not get free from the beginning - you will find it missing only when everything is reassembled, works fine but there is no "click" and the ring rotates almost freely.</p>

<p>It's easy to replace the piece with another small bearing ball, from the innards of another decomposed lens aperture or aperture mechanism, but it is still very annoying.<br>

<br />I also find cleaning lenses a funny occupation and taking pictures with a "salvaged" lens is pretty rewarding.</p>

<p>The sharpest lenses will give fuzzy pictures if focusing is wrong or the camera is not perfectly steady. Both situations happen all the time with me, but the camera quality can sometime make it happen less often. I agree with Rick, in most situations the performance of the lens is more than adequate for what we do. However, testing lenses is part of the pleasure of using a new - classic old - camera. It is also useful to know what look the pictures will have with a given camera - for heavy nice vignetting I love the Olympus XA, for reliability, the Nikkormat with its f/2 Nikkor is perfect. For distortion and excessive contrast, nothing beats a Yashica T4 Super compact. And when image quality really matters an old TLR, like the Ricohmatic 225 is perfect. Testing cameras and lenses is part of knowing the material and its limitations, so that you know what are your expectations.</p>

<p>Great to know I'm not alone Rob. In my defense, I must say that I could not read that well the user manual, in Russian...</p>

<p>At 41, in the light of the previous responses, I'm among the "youngsters" of the classic manual camera users. At 10, I was using a Fed 5 camera for family pictures, bought by my parents from Ukraina, with ORWO film from East Germany. It took me 28 years to find out that the FED had a focusing help called a rangefinder. I enjoy taking pictures but have to confess that it is the mechanics and engineering of the old cameras that I find most interesting. Most memorable pictures took in the last few years came from a Ricohmatic 225, medium format camera.</p>

<p>Being older and coming from a time when the models were updated less often, the XE-7 has obviously more "personality". I would go for it, if it works fine. The Canon, if I'm not mistaken, has a pentamirror instead of a pentaprism, which might lead to a dimmer viewfinder image. For older cameras, like the XE-7, I find advancing film manually a lot more fun that the whirring motor of a more modern camera.<br>

If you buy the Minolta you will have for a relatively low price a piece of the history of photography. With the Canon, you will get a nice tool to take pictures.</p>

<p>Agree with Leslie Cheung on the Nokia 808 PureView - but I would put it in both categories: camera and phonecam. Its performance as a camera outperforms many if not most compacts (at least from what samples ans comparisons exist on the web, I dont't have one myself).<br>

Too bad Nokia is using the "PureView" word for any camera they put on recent phones even if the technology has little in common with the large sensor of the 808.</p>

<p>Beautiful portrait of the Leica with the Xenon! After handling the Contax copy (Kiev), I envy you for having the original. You're not the only one having compulsive buying habits...</p>

<p>My first attempt of buying a Kiev 4m camera from an ukrainian guy was disastruous and highly frustrating. True, the description of the object was very short but still: "everything works as it should" inspired confidence, especially from a seller specialized in selling cameras. Well, the camera was useless, as someone tried to repair the shutter with a hammer... And the lens had been disassembled and reassembled by a monkey - with the aperture ring in the right orientation but not turning fully to f/16.</p>

<p>The seller sent me back the money for the camera, so in the end I only lost the price of shipping. I have a nice Kiev for pieces and a very good lesson learnt. I will however not attempt another transaction in the former USSR countries. All being told, a more expensive TLR that came from UK recently, had the optical part almost off and half of the leatherette covering sitting beside the camera. The description was nice and bright.<br /> <br />Asking additional questions is a very good way to avoid such situations.</p>

<p>Steve: excellent title of your post!</p>

<p>I found the Tokina excellent until some oil migrated between the diaphragm blades. My first impressions are described in a Flickr discussion (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/72157607237001091">link</a>). The lens compares favorably with the older Nikkor 135mm and is more compact. (see this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/72157612060167473">discussion</a> for sample images). Everything from the APS-C size digital camera point of view.<br>

Conclusion: as long as it works and you have a good copy, it is an excellent 135mm lens. Unfortunately, this lens is not a "classic" or "famous" one, and I could find no specific information either on the web or elsewhere.</p>

<p>A long series of comments, some of them coming from one of the authors of the article can be found on <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/08/26/2345236/new-flat-lens-focuses-without-distortion">Slashdot</a>. The most important, to me, information, it that the prototype lens only allows 10% of incident light to pass, and it is an inherent property not likely to change. In addition, the described lens seems to work best for infrared.</p>

<p>I bought once a Nikon f/2.8 200mm macro lens that had a very bad case of "translucid" spots in between the front element and second element. From various web sources and from the aspect, it looked like aged optical cement that cracked and had lost adherence to the glass. I hope this is not the case for your lens, since cleaning fungi is way easier than replacing old optical cement. The Nikon faulty macro cost me 5 euros, and has a fantastic resolution even with this major problem, unless there is a light source in frame.</p>

<p>I tried to repair the sticky blades on a 35RD and putting it back together has been extremely difficult. It worked a few months and than, back again, sticky blades. I observed however, that it is relatively easy to bend the different linkages keeping the aperture open (don't know the exact technical terms). It is not impossible that someone fiddled with the camera, tried to clean those aperture blades and put it back somehow wrong.<br>

The RD was a nice camera as long as it worked but the controls were too small for my taste. The lens is beautiful though.</p>

<p>You'll also find lots of information about this topic on a dedicated flickr group<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/"> http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/</a>. I don't think that the lenses changed that much in the last decades and I'm very pleased with the results that I obtain constantly with a 50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor from the 70s. The 24 mm f/2.8, that many people found "not that good" on digital bodies makes me happy as well. Then, you have the 35mm f/2, which is excellent in its own right. These are lenses that I constantly use. Nanocoating and special glass can indeed change the contrast and flare resistance but if you're not looking at pixel level, you will not see much difference in the end image.<br>

The lenses I cited above are all manual focusing and most of the modern Nikon bodies do not provide metering information with them. However, since you have immediate feedback by the histogram of the picture, it's really easy to adjust the settings to obtain great pictures.</p>

<p>Being involved in photography, sometimes starts and ends with the tools. This is how it works for me:<br>

A. Read photo.net and flickr discussions about cameras - google from there to know everything about the history of obscure or famous brands<br>

B. Go to the flea market (or ebay if it rains) and see what's on offer for little money - enjoy pulse acceleration when finding a "hidden gem"; give money to some stranger<br>

C. Come home with the object in the hot little hands and try to make it work<br>

D. Take pictures of family<br>

E. Rush to the lab and anxiously wait to see what the "gem" delivered - next, spend time admiring between 5 000 000 and 23 000 000 coloured pixels on a screen. Go to A.</p>

<p>A science project usually goes into the depth of a problem and should probably involve some controlled experiments, as mentioned in several of the replies. While dynamic range, resolution and other final aspects of what makes film and digital different are all very important for a photographer and for the final result, in a science project I would be more interested in what is the <strong>source</strong> of these differences.<br>

The very basics of the chemical reactions that allow film to record light should be investigated as well as the physical principles of electronic sensors (how a photomultiplier works, its efficiency, and so on). Then, to prove or disprove a hypothesis about how the two media work, an experiment needs to be planned, done and the results recorded and interpreted. Understanding the principles of how these things work can help later in various ways unrelated to photography.</p>

<p>I prefer someone who gives me an opinion using: "I think" or "I believe" and he or she is right than someone who tells me: "It's like this, I know better than anyone else" and is wrong.<br>

By the way, a long discussion of what a retrofocus design for lenses is can be found here on <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00WeQg">photo.net</a>. Not all the lenses for small cameras are designed as "retrofocus" and some medium format lenses are "retrofocus". So, no, I don't think that lens design in respect to being retrofocus or not retrofocus is a major factor. As already stated by about everyone, and on this point I agree with Noah Schwartz, the size of the film frame is what really matters.<br>

It would be great if someone could explain the physics behind the effect of frame size and focal length on sharpness and transitions to blurred areas.</p>