scott_murphy5

Nikon D850, 400mm f/2.8 ED IF AIS Nikkor. 

I shot a couple of rolls of T-Max 100 120 with the Hasselblad the other day down in Charleston, SC. I mixed up the chemistry this morning and got all ready to go. As anyone who has had to load 120 B&W film onto film reels knows, the film base is rather thin and at 2.5x the width of 35mm it makes loading reels a little tricky. 35mm is easy, I can load a 36 exposure roll in about 10 seconds with no problem. 120 not so much, even though the film is a lot shorter. And for those of you who have ever shot 220 back in the day you know that it is even worse.  My 120 reels have a strong little clip in the very center that hold the film while you are loading but you have the get the film centered perfectly in that clip or you are going to have all kinds of alignment issues, which is never a good thing. I always trim the edges at an angle to make it easier to get it into the center of the reel.. In pitch black it is difficult at best to get them at the same angle. It was then that a stroke of genius entered my head. Panchromatic film is insensitive to IR. Why not use my Night Vision Goggles (Gen III+ PVS-7B's) and turn on the IR illuminator so I can see what I am doing? The IR Illuminator is which is necessary when there is essentially no light which was the case on many a black ass night ini Baghdad. NGV's multiply light up to 50,000 times but 50,000 time zero is still zero. Loading those reels was a snap! Why have I not ever thought about this before? 

I am looking into getting the optional high voltage battery pack for the Sunpak DF4000U flash but cannot find any information on model number or availability.

Can anyone give me information on model number and where it is available? 

Nikon FTN, 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S, Tri-X

 

Long Exposure. Nikon D850, 15mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor. 30 sec@ f/22 ISO 32

 

On 8/23/2001 at 8:28 PM, andrew_schank said:

The Tc300 is AI not AIS, so it won't work in program or shutter

preffered Auto (on cameras that had those features). The real main

difference is that Nikon now has no parts and does not repair the

TC300 (I found out the hard way). By the way, I tried these

converters with my 300mm EDIF f4.0 lens, and wasn't really bowled

over by the image quality. I got better results with a Kiron 7

element converter I picked up on ebay for $50.00.

I was bowled over, or at least, very impressed. Nikon D500, 600mm f/4 ED IF AIS and TC-300 cropped on a monopod. Effective focal length 1800mm (over FX). Maybe yours was a bad one or had been knocked out of alignment

I started off with a Minolta SRT-101 and MC Rokkor-X lenses back in 1972 but once I borrowed a friend's Nikon F2 and a couple of lenses I realized just how much better Nikon was. Minolta's coatings sucked compared to Nikon and the sharpness in the corners was noticeably softer. I ditched all my Minolta gear and replaced it with Nikon and have been a loyal Nikon user ever since.

I started with Minolta back in 1972 and had an XE-7. It was a really outstanding camera. My gripe with Minolta was the lenses. Acceptably sharp but prone to flare and ghosts. I switch to Nikon in 1975 and never looked back.

Well with the ever-declining quality of the images posted It here over the last several years, it does not surprise me. It needs to be changed to "badsnapshot.net"

The 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor is extraordinarily sharp, but so is the 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor. I have both and they both still get a lot of use both not only in macrophotography but in general use. My 105mm f/2.8 is my go to lens for inside portraiture, even over my 105mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor. In most cases, with women especially, I have to tone down the sharpness with the D850. Women are not particularly fond of being able to see every single peach fuzz hair on their upper lip or chin.

 

I would call it a draw.

>Any of them in the hands of a good photographer.

 

... and on a tripod.

 

Do you lug a tripod with you everywhere you go?

Judge for yourself. Late Afternoon Buttes, Sedona, AZ

 

500CM, 250mm f/5.6 C T* Sonnar with 25A filter. Shot on Kodak T-Max 100 developed in D-76 1:1

 

I have a 30x40 print of this hanging in my den.

 

Is this tongue in cheek? You haven't even been member for 10 years, and this thread is 18 years old!

I have been a member on this site for almost 20 years

It certainly seems like it is close to needing life support. It certainly seems that viewership is way down over 5 and certainly over 10 years ago. Perhaps there are just too many alternatives. The quality of the images posted seems to be waning as well.

Mine is doing this too all of a sudden, I have Nikon Scan 4.0 with XP on an old Dell laptop. Not sure how to fix the problem and Nikon no longer provides tech support.

The CB lenses usually have 1 less element than the CF lenses. If you want to go full tile techno-nerd, the MTF curves show the CF lenses as having slightly higher resolution. Whether you will see this in the final image is debatable.

The 18mm f/3.5 is one of my favorites. It makes the lowest edge distortion I have ever seen. It uses standard front filters, offering plenty of imaging options. The next wider lens is the 15mm, but it's big, flares more, not as sharp, and offers limited filtering options, in comparison.

I agree about the predisposition to ghost with a bright light in the frame and its size, but having had both for a number of years and both used in architectural photography, it's level of sharpness is right on par with the 18mm f/3.5 AIS.

I have one and love it. I sold my 20mm f/2.8 AIS when I got this one.

I use my TC-300 with my 400mm f/2.8 IF ED AIS Nikkor and D500 with great results.

The basic Nikon F camera is entirely mechanical, and will work without the battery, which only powers the exposure meter.

 

Some people make a big deal of the small voltage difference between the original (and obsolete) 1.35v mercury cell, and a 1.5v alkaline substitute. It's a 10% difference, and that's nothing if translated directly to an exposure 'error'.

 

However, even the alkaline 625 sized cells are overpriced. Personally, if I really wanted the photomic meter to work, I'd buy or make an adapter shell to allow ordinary A13 or LR44 cells to be used.

 

Good advice from BeBu to test the meter first though.

 

This is what I use, it works like a champ!

 

PX625 PX-13 replacement Nikon F Leica, Gossen, Canon

Having used both I can say without reservation that Minolta lags a good bit behind Nikon, both in bodies and especially in optics. I started with Minolta in 1972 with an SRT-101 and several MC Rokkors from 24mm to 300mm. After about 2 years I grew unsatisfied with the performance of the Rokkors and especially their poor coatings and tendency to ghost and flare. I switched to Nikon and have not looked back. In photography, like most things, you get what you pay for. If you go for the cheapest, you will pay for it in the end.

My Hasselblad 500CM

The lens is superbly sharp if you provide good support. The very high magnification (20x) will magnify any camera movement and since the depth of field, even at f/11, is very shallow, you need to take extra care to ensure that you have focused properly. I have found that it works quite well on a gimbal head on a sturdy tripod. Focusing is going to be challenging if you use the standard screen which comes with most DSLR's. The truth be told, they ALL totally suck for manual focusing, but if the subject has any specular highlights, focusing is a snap. If you plan on using MF lenses I encourage you to switch out your screen with a microprism/split image one from focusingscreen.com like I have. If you have a more current DSLR, you may still be able to use the focus indicator if the light levels are high (outdoors). My D850 still gives me focus confirmation outside but inside the light levels are generally too low. But who needs a 1000mm lens indoors?

The 500/8 mirror lens is easily and effectively handheld. I've kept one around since my newspaper days. It was pretty sharp, compact and lightweight. In short it would fit in my camera bag and was there when I needed it which happened often enough. By way of example, when I photographed the fourth shuttle launch, STS-4, I had a motor driven F2 and a 1000/11 mirror on a tripod and the 500 on another F2 handheld. I was able to go through two 36 exposure rolls of Ektachrome in about 10 seconds and with excellent results. Those older Nikkors may not have been the absolute sharpest in the world but they did everything I needed with good results and decent pricing.

 

Rick H

 

Ah the good old days of F2' and MD-2's! I still have one with the MD-2, having gotten rid of 2 others and I still love it. In my opinion, still the best 35mm camera ever made. My avatar is that camera I still have, though I have swapped out the DP-1 head for a DP-11. I have both the 500mm f/8 (New version, a recent purchase) and the 1000mm f/11 Nikkors and I will never get rid of either one of them. As long as you pick a background without a lot of specular highlights, the "donuts" are usually not a problem. For the ones there, that is what the PS patch tool is for!

Is a mirror lens still a viable sensible purchase at all these days? They're tricky to focus, dim viewfinders, horrible ring effect to out of focus points of light blah blah, as we all know, but the real killer for me that you never read about is their lightweight means you need a tripod head mounted in concrete to avoid camera shake. Just say no. Move on. You don't need one.

 

It is most definitely still viable. They are not tricky to focus, though the screens on most DSLR's are not particularly optimized for manual focus. And the "horrible" ring effect (usually referred to donuts) is not bad if you chose your backgrounds carefully. And a rock steady tripod? Nonsense they work just fine on any gimbal head. Listening to your negatives it sounds like you have been listening to that idiot Ken Rockwell.

 

That picture I took above was taken with a 500mm f/8 C Nikkor HAND HELD on a Nikon D700. Oops, there goes all of Rockhead's baseless arguments.