christian_fox

<p>I opened a new Df and placed the battery in the charger. Meanwhile, I wanted to view a Non-AI Nikkor-H 85 f1.8 through the optical viewfinder. To my surprise, I am not able to come close to focusing this lens. I can approach and pass a focus point and do the same with the diopter, but it far out of focus. This lens works beautifully on my Nikon F and F4. I cannot see any markings on the screen, like the F4 AF bracket. I only see my subject as a blur. <br> Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Do you lose 1 mm off each each side with a Nikon S? </p>

<p>The reason why I presented the question is that Stephen Gandy on Cameraquest indicted that the Nikon S was designed to be used by a non-standard film size of 24x34. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The Nikon S was not designed for standard film - the length was short. If I use a standard 35mm cartridge in this camera, will it work? Will the film advance line-up each frame properly? </p> <p>I wonder why Japanese camera designers resisted the 35mm film format through three Nikon models - 1, M, and S?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I enjoy collecting the Nikon F with the standard prism. I have two Nippon Kogaku bodies and was comparing them to decide which one to keep. One is a 64x and the other is a 65x. I don't know if I will physically chase the serial number as far back as I can - sometimes it is just fun to watch others do it or examine eBay offerings of old serial numbers. While I enjoy intellectual Nikon F collecting, I am more interested in building a practical clean model with old lenses, and take pictures with it.</p> <p>My sample 65x prism appears different than the 64x prism and later prisms that I own. Using Richard de Stoutz's Nikon F Collection and Typology site as a reference, the prism is Type 3 and "correct" to the serial number. The black prism housing inner walls appear to contain a perfect pattern of white paint spatter in slightly variable sizes. If this is commonly regarded as fungus, the pattern is suspiciously perfect on all inner surfaces. A happy fungus family? The mirror itself is clean and does not reveal deterioration. Any experience with this observation?</p> <p>Switching the subject, I use a circular diopter for the later Nikon F model, but I am at loss finding a diopter for the older square eyepiece. Any ideas for better luck? </p> <p>Given such a fondness of the Nikon F, I have become curious about its older RF sibling as well, although my conversation with a Leica repair expert indicates that Nikon RFs are failing these days (I assume he means that it is difficult to replace or repair them). No-one will question the reputation of Leica M, Leica R, and Contax lenses, but I grew up with Nikon and I can have more fun sampling vintage Nikon bodies and lenses. I just seem to settle into them better than other cameras regardless of quality. I am an artistic person that relies on aesthetics, so it can frustrating to subdue film and digital Leica RF collecting, but that's life. We all have our priorities for saving and spending, and we can shuffle our priorities a bit, but having fun with Leica RF really is a different stratosphere. </p> <p>I do not own a Nikon Df, but but I note that reviews and opinions have been heated on the Internet more than usual for a digital camera. It would be fun to see a digital Nikon Ds as homage to the original Nikon RF. </p> <p> </p>

<p>This is about finding the best focus screen for the original Nikon F - "best" is however you define it for your application. For those of you who have experimented with Nikon F and F2 screens, as well as assemble other screens into the Nikon F focus screen box frame, I would be curious to hear of your best experiences in terms of better light, faster focusing, or more pleasant viewing - however you define it. </p>

<p>Sorry, I fell asleep early. Reading this string in the morning.<br> I apologize for leading anyone astray on the NASA Apollo mission - I had no intent to link the history of NASA and the Nikon F. I am referring to a late Nikon F body style. <br> To update my specs, I have a non-slotted circular flange around the prism release button. I believe it is the oldest version on the Nikon F. I also have black open semicircular insulation around my flash contact. The evolution of this insulation appears to be numerous. <br> I am a neophyte, but I have seen enough discussion to realize that there are no hard rules when referring to transitional Nikon F serial numbers. I am safe to say that my serial number 727XXXX is a transitional period. <br> I appear to have three possibilities:<br> 1. Tampering to increase sales.<br> 2. Nikon retrofit.<br> 3. An original transitional camera.<br> I can imagine it would take years to become a Nikon F expert and fully categorize Nikon F variations, and attempt to explain each. I never see a discussion of internal changes, as reported by repair guys. Perhaps more clues as we look in the SLR mirror chamber, etc. . .</p> <p> </p>

<p>Nikon F Enthusiasts,<br> I purchased a nice clean black Nikon F Apollo. As I matured with classic cameras, I favored nice user samples and decided to resell the pristine Apollo.<br> During the resell, I have had to face discerning buyers, and explain why the prism release button does not have a thumbnail cutout. This led to the possibility of a fake on my hands. Serial number 727XXXX. Nikon F style sync socket. Apollo self timer and film rewind lever. Serial number is in the controversial zone of early Apollo numbers. <br> For Nikon F Sherlockians out there, I am curious if this is an obvious fake, or if there is room for discussion.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The technical response to this inquiry is very interesting - I did not conceive so many variables to a lens and focusing. I suspect Winfried's lube issue is a significant factor with some of my samples. </p> <p>I was hoping that someone would reveal a manufacturer that gave this some thought and designed a distinctive focus mechanism with unique bearings or something like that. </p>

<p>I have enjoyed sampling classic manual cameras and their associated lenses. It has been quite a ride, especially sharing it with users and restoration folks that have embraced this interest for decades, and have a comparative feel for some of these cameras. I favor the earlier models of the modern era, such as Nikon's first SLR, Canon LTM, and SL2. A few electronic cameras are interesting as well, like the F4, RX, and R8.</p> <p>There is considerable available literature on lens quality, but I am very sensitive to the lens ability to focus loose and buttery smooth, perhaps it is because I demand it so much when I use nice binoculars daily. With binoculars, I gain far more information when I constantly roll the focus wheel on both sides of perfect focus, especially with 10x magnification. My favorite focus wheel is the Pentax Papilio 8.5x21, used only for 18 inches to 4 feet. With this binocaulrs, a Praying Mantis upclose becomes a scary creature indeed. Beyond 3 feet, the Leica Ostrich 8x20 works fine and offers excellent views with good diopter settings, although for most users, compacts require considerable skill. The Ostrich skin and metal body of this Leica compact has no comparison in feel - it is truly a work of art beyond specs. </p> <p>In comparing a few lenses (LTM, C/Y, Nikon F (NAI and AI), M42 TAK, and momentarily a Leica R), I was surprised by a remarkably smooth and intricate focus ring on a 50mm Yashica ML lens, while some of my Nikons and LTM can get quite stiff, presumably due to aging. I have never tried a modern CV lens, but I have read that they are smooth and offer sensitive control.</p> <p>It makes me curious, from your experience, if certain lens brands or models of an era are known to be unusually smooth in focus control compared to most lenses.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Over time, Nikon's first SLR has become my favorite classic camera. I enjoy tinkering with it, handling a few interesting used samples, and researching its evolution online. While I tend to favor black camera models in general, I find the standard chrome F very attractive - it escapes the gaudy look of modern chrome cameras, or perhaps its just age and wear that gives it a nice appearance - I wonder if there is an evolution of the type of chrome and metal combinations on classic cameras. In jest, I say that this camera serves as my Tums for G.A.S., as its simplicity, modularity, viewfinder/screen experimentation, intellectual study of its evolution, fun relatively low cost acquisition, old lenses with large smooth focus rings, and physical comfort, really does give me peace.</p> <p>Its a shame that Nikon's rangefinder of similar body design has become a collectable and so much more expensive on the market, as it would serve as nice contrast to the F. <br> <br> As I research the Nikon F and classic cameras in general, a few sites stand out over time, like Stephen Gandy's wonderful Cameraquest (a deep black hole to forget the rest of life), Richard De Stoutz' interesting Nikon F Collection & Typology, Mir.com, Rolands Nikon pages (photosynthesis), as well as forums like the beautiful Photo.net, Fred Miranda's endless strings, and the surprisingly intelligent Rangefinder Forum (RFF) from Stephen Gandy once again.</p> <p>I am looking for individuals that would consider the Nikon F as a lifetime favorite classic camera, and enjoy sharing their journey with others - those that are not embarrassed to discuss the most minute details about this model. If you have an idea as to the likely place where these folks hang-out online or as a group gathering, I would value your suggestions. <br> <br> </p>

<p>"If I didn't wear glasses, I'd jam my eyeball right into that finder, and it's a beautiful world."</p> <p>I like that statement. All I needed to hear.</p>

<p>Les,</p> <p>I am grateful for your presentation, regardless of its potential negative effect on those with G.A.S. Stunning and I'm sure will be reviewed for years on Photo.net.</p> <p>Which LX VF screen did you find to work best for the dark lens?</p> <p>I wonder how all that equipment passed the sales Director in those days? It must have been an image strategy for Pentax to offer such a comprehensive selection of gear. Was there really a comprehensive user market for this stuff?</p> <p>Did anyone else match Pentax in regards to a wide mix of VF and screens for a single model? I wonder who had a reputation for the best quality and most functional selection of options. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I am curious to know if there is enough user history with the unusual dual mechanical/electronic FM3a shutter for a consensus on the reliability of the FM3a after extensive field use. </p> <p>From a multitude of user reports and fans over time, it is safe to say that the aluminum FM2n shutter is legendary in reliability, but I have not been able to find reports of the more complex FM3a shutter reliability after extensive use. It is a more modern but limited production run with less users than the FM2n, and the advent of the DSLR didn't give it a chance. Has anyone given the FM3a a physical or environmental beating over an extended period of time? </p> <p>If you are a fan of the FM3a, the situation below is intended to challenge you:</p> <p>Suppose you are out on a career dependent assignment in remote outdoor locations for one year in which the temperature will become very hot/dry and very wet/cold in season, and you are offered a clean lightly used FM2n or a FM3a for the task, given lenses of your choice, tripod, unlimited film, but only one battery in the chamber, and expected to use the selected camera in mechanical unmetered mode when the battery eventually dies without replacement. Unless I stand corrected about the FM3a, you will be able to create automatic exposures lasting several minutes as long as the battery works. At the end of the year, failure to succeed with interesting images will let you down in a personal way. </p> <p>Which camera would you select, and why? </p>

<p>I have been collecting classic cameras in a meandering way for a few years, and I use compact binoculars daily in the same way photographers capture images with passion. If you are interested in knowing what compacts I have come to admire as the best, send me a message. </p> <p>After a three-year G.A.S. attack, I am beginning to settle down on classic/modern film cameras. Different models have come and gone, sometimes to the disappointment of enthusiasts I have met for those cameras I let go (I apologize), but a few interesting cameras are taking shape in my collection. I have learned that beyond a basic level of quality, the "best camera or feature" is a highly subjective opinion based on our personalities, and whether we spend more time collecting, tinkering, or actually making film images. I have a developed a desire for nice VFs and screen combinations, larger size cameras in my hands, as well as silky smooth focus rings wide enough to find them while looking through the VF. Portrait (85-200 range) is my favorite range of focal lengths.</p> <p>Nikon is fun for its development history, low cost, modularity, and tinkering ability. A fan of the classic F, and the modern F4. In search of a more advanced VF screen for he Nikon F. Focusing with the F4 VF and NAI lenses with silky-smooth focus rings is a pleasure.</p> <p>The Contax MX with a silky-smooth focus Yashica 50/2 is nice, and it opens the door for CZ lenses. A future effort in the making.</p> <p>In search of amazing performance, Leicaflex SL2 and R8 are getting a lot of my attention, but require serious lens investment - not as fun as Nikon's staple. I had a recent experience comparing the SL2 to F4, and unexpected things happened. I rely on the F4 diopter and I note a loss of clarity when not looking straight through the center of the VF, while the SL2 appears magnified with amazing clarity across the entire VF, and I have yet to add a diopter for it. I thought using a diopter was a given for my eyes, so I am somewhat perplexed at this time. </p> <p>As I finally settle down on my G.A.S. (can't guarantee honesty here), I'll explore a few classics with high magnification VFs, and if they are small, I'll add a Motor drive configuration to them. </p> <p>There are many technical factors that lead to a great manual focus experience, as well as our own subjective opinions. For those of you that have cared about capturing an image with film, I am curious about your best VF viewing and focus experience and what camera/VF/screen/lens combination led to that perfection. </p> <p>Thank you. </p>

<p>Looking for discussions from experienced folks (especially CLA and overhaul guys) that rank and group the top well-built mechanical cameras that have endured the ages to prove durability. These are the cameras that the CLA guys open and look in with wonder.<br /> I was once informed by a repair guy that his favorite best built camera was a Rollei double lens camera, but I do not recall the model. He felt that no other camera was equal to its quality, then the F2 was next on his list. <br /> I will consider a mechanical camera that had batteries for a meter - that's ok, but it must fully operate its basic camera function without power. I am focused on 35mm film SLR and RF, but cost is not a limiting factor.<br /> References to old posts are welcomed. <br /> Practical considerations for a specific model to use today is also welcomed.<br /> I currently own an overhauled Leica IIIc and admire its design and dials, but I can't warm-up to using it - my personal feeling, not the camera's fault. I love its 50mm Elmar lens, and plan to use it on a micro four thirds body.</p> <p> </p>