joe_user3

<p>I use my Nikon 1 V1 with the FT-1 adapter (purchased new in January for $185) with the Nikon 180mm f2.8. It's a rather large lens and it balances rather well thanks to the tripod mount on the FT-1. I also attach a 2X converter to the FT-1 along with the 180mm lens, and it still works rather well. Yes, AF-S is required if you want AF, but otherwise, the FT-1 does transmit information from an AF or AF-D lens, you just have to manually focus it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kent, I feel that had I no filter on the lens, the cap would have been smashed in to the front element, possibly resulting in permanent damage ruining the lens. The filter sacrificed itself and the lens survived because it had a filter installed.</p>

<p>I recently dropped my camera a few feet. It was in its case and landed lens first. The lens cap was smashed in to the filter, and the filter was shattered. I couldn't remove the lens cap so I gently unscrewed the filter from the lens. Some horrible sounds were made during this process! When it was finally removed, there were some glass fragments left on the front element, but they were from the filter, not from the front element! I was able to gently blow them off, and the front element, amazingly, was not scratched one bit! </p>

<p>I think the filter absorbed some of the impact, saving the lens. I don't put a filter on all my lenses, but most. I was glad this one had a filter! It was a Hoya HMC Super UV filter. Now this lens needs a new cap, I had a spare filter to put on it (Hoya HMC but not the Super). </p>

<p>Now if I buy any filters at all I usually spring for a B+W Multicoated.</p>

<p>D700 and D300 were, and still are, superb cameras. I reject the notion that just because they aren't the latest and greatest, that they are to be avoided. Use them and enjoy them! I remember Lex on p.net was using a D2H a few years ago (I was a lurker on p.net for many years until registering recently). To each is own. I would never suggest a D600 over a D700, they are in completely different leagues. I do, however, enjoy the extra pixels the D800 offers. I can zoom in and see fine detail in my images that simply would not be there with the D300 or D700. It's great! </p>

<p>I recently "upgraded" to the D800 and plan to sell my D700. I was perfectly satisfied with the image quality of the D700. But I always wanted more resolution. I don't see the image quality of the D800 as "better" than the D700. There are just more pixels, so slightly more fine detail. I do like the 100% viewfinder, and the ability to shoot a photo with the mirror remaining up while using Live View. But I know that in another 5 years I will again "upgrade" to a newer body. I think 5 years is a pretty good increment. But with the D800 having so much resolution, it makes me wonder if I will ever shoot film again. But I felt the same way with the D700. And so on.</p>

<p>I highly recommend the Nikon 16-85mm lens. I had one many years ago and it was very good. I can not comment on the other two as I never used them.</p>

<p>I'd expect Sony to bow out of cameras way before Panasonic. I still have and shoot with a 2008 Lumix compact digital camera (FX35 in case you're wondering which one) while traveling when I need a quick grab shot, and it still produces great images for a tiny little camera. The image quality and quality of construction are top rate. I also like Panasonic as a brand for TV's (have one), telephones (have one), and DVD players (have one Blu-Ray player). </p>

<p>My 9000 scans negs just fine too, I think Gup has asked some important questions. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I remember correctly, pro films were always sold in 36 exposure rolls. If it was 24 or 12 exposure, it wasn't pro film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film used to be sold only in 20exp or 36exp rolls. I can remember when I bought my first roll of slide film in the early 1980's it was a 20exp roll.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was told by a pro that the difference between professional and consumer film, is that the color of film changes over time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Professional film is made from the middle of the run, in other words, not at the beginning or the end of the film run. The beginning and end of the run might be a little less consistent with the manufacture process, so that part of the run goes to consumer films, and the middle goes to professional films.</p>

<p>Consumers don't shoot an entire roll the day they buy it and then develop it right away. They usually buy film, then maybe load it a few days/weeks/months later, and might take a few days or weeks to expose the entire roll. Then they might take it to get it developed a few days/weeks/months later. So this film needs to be able to not go bad over this period of time.<br /> Pros shoot a roll in a day and develop it the next day, so the professional emulsions are already primed and ready to go off the shelf! <br /><br />I also remember the emulsion of TXP 120 (rated at ISO 320) was a little thicker than TX 120 (rated at ISO 400). I don't think TXP 120 is available anymore.</p>

<p>The Stylus Epic (MJU II) is superb. But so is the original Olympus Stylus. I'd recommend both. I've also owned the Yashica T4 but I don't feel it is any better than the Olympus Stylus. I prefer the non-zoom Stylus for size and image quality. </p>

<p>That's the somewhat rare f4.5 model. They didn't make many. Most were f3.8 or f3.5. Nice of you to get it overhauled. Now it will work for many years to come! I have a few of these but only shot one roll. It had terrible light leaks due to a loose film door. I have other newer Rolleiflex cameras that I will be using, mostly the 3.5F that I just had overhauled. But I have a soft spot for the pre-WWII Rolleiflex and own quite a few of them in my collection. Most recently I bought a Rolleiflex I f4.5 model for $70. It is the very first Rolleiflex.</p>

<p>I bought the D700 the day after Thanksgiving in 2008. I had been shooting in DX format until then, and suddenly the larger viewfinder combined with getting to use my manual focus Nikon lenses at their normal focal length was a revelation. At first I struggled with the images from the D700, because they were so clean. I mean, they had no noise at all at ISO 200. It looked "soft" to me compared to the older DX format cameras I had (D300, D80, D70). Shot with it until just recently when I had to send it away for a professional sensor cleaning (after shooting 15K photos with it), and while it was away, decided to go for the D800. Still getting used to the D800 being much more demanding on lenses and technique than the D700, but overall its extra resolution is amazing. I don't feel I "need" 36MP all the time, but I've found that changing the size to M (20MP) on the D800 still results in outstanding files.<br>

I love the way the D700 allowed me to shoot quickly and still produce an outstanding image. My lowly circa-year 2000 Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 IF Macro zoom lens was a perfect match for the D700, but sadly it is not up to snuff with the D800!! The D800 demands a good optic, and you must take care and pay attention before you release the shutter, all the rumors are true in this regard! Read the Nikon Technical Guide on the D800 before you buy one, it has very good advice! But the ability of the D800 to allow mirror-up photography (not possible with the D700) is brilliant too. </p>

<p>I too like the Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS, but lately I have had difficulty focusing it manually with my D700, and with my new D800. Exposures are also off with the D800. Maybe my eyes are getting older!</p>

<p>Beefing up the ISO will boost your ambient exposure (allowing you to use a shorter shutter speed to achieve equal light gathering for the room) but your aperture determines the flash effectiveness. A group shot at f5.6? Better make sure everyone is standing in the same plane of focus. I'd try to shoot for f8 if possible to get everyone in focus, as most groups usually stand in front of or behind another person. Certainly with digital, you can shoot a test photo, and zoom in on it on your LCD screen to check focus.</p>

<p>That Leica III really shines. Well worth a full CLA by a master craftsman! I had a IIIf and a IIIa for a very short time. Shot one roll, and results were Sharp! But as a glasses wearer I can't stand the teeny tiny viewfinder. I'll stick with my Nikon F3HP...</p>

<p>I once shot with a camera called...wait for it...a Spartaflex! An all-metal design, with a fixed lens, fixed focus, and fixed shutter speed! Took 120 film. The results looked like...well...what I imagine Sparta must have looked like! I don't have that camera any more.</p>

<p>V H P I C T U R E S<br /> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0</p>

<p>Kodak used<br>

<br /> C A M E R O S I T Y<br /> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0<br>

<br /> I've often wondered since Hasselblad used Kodak lenses on their first 1000F model, if <a href="http://resources.kodak.com/support/pdf/en/manuals/slideProj/DecodingTheCamerosityCode.pdf">Kodak inspired them</a> to use a code for the serial numbers?</p>

<p>Closed...</p>

<table width="500" border="0" cellspacing="20" cellpadding="20" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<p><strong>9/15/2013</strong><br>

Dear Forum Members,<br>

You have been redirected to this page because the forum has been shut down by our hosting company. We were told that the outdated forum script caused an overload on their shared server and threatened the connectivity of other websites on this server.<br>

At this very moment, there's no plans of reopening the discussion forum. However, we are working with another site to see if these messages can be archived/merged into their forum. We truly thank you for your many years of patronage.<br>

The repair articles and manuals are remaining on the site:<br /><a href="http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/">http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/</a><br>

Thank you,<br />Site administrator</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Enlarging lenses are flat field lenses, they are optimized and designed for focusing on flat things, not like normal lenses that are optimized to focus on a 3D subject. So Dan is right, you will not get optimal quality shooting with an enlarging lens. There are plenty of 105mm lenses mounted in shutters that can be found for less than $100 on the auction site or elsewhere. Find a good Kodak Ektar mounted in a shutter. A lot of people will buy Kodak Medalist cameras just to harvest the lens and shutters from them for use on larger cameras (I have a Medalist but am leaving the superb Ektar in place).</p>

<p>105mm is the minimum, but if you expect any kind of movements, you'll need a 135-150mm enlarger lens.</p>

<p>I've shot 35mm format, 645 format, 6x6 format, 67 format, and 4x5 format. I like the 6x6 square the best. I find that it is somewhat liberating, in that I seem to "forget" I am shooting in a "format" at all, and can concentrate on the image itself, not having to worry about shooting a horizontal or vertical "format" image. While I feel it is all a matter of personal opinion, certainly, I still have a fondness for the square. </p>

<p>Really nice images, Kris. Your Rolleiflex looks gorgeous. I love pre-WWII Rolleiflexes. I have a small collection, starting with the original Rolleiflex, then the original Rolleicord, I have three Rolleiflex Old Standards, a Rolleiflex Automat Type 1 from 1937, and a Rolleiflex New Standard from 1939. There is something so wonderful about these cameras and I find them charming and extremely well engineered machines. My 1937 Automat is far from working, and I have thought to send it to Mr. Fleenor, but I don't have the money. I have a good working 1949 Automat X that I can use, as well as a Rolleiflex 3.5F Type 4. Seeing your images inspires me to get out and shoot some film through some of these cameras. The hardest part is choosing one and deciding where to go with it.</p>

<p>I bought one of the cheap Leica screw mount adapters for my Nikon 1 V1 to use with an old Russian lens I have. But the little 5cm lens becomes a 135mm telephoto and I don't much care for that focal length. But I also bought the Nikon FT-1 adapter and it works very well with all the Nikon lenses I've put on it. I don't own any AF-S or G lenses so I can't test the AF function, but I believe it works with those lenses. Mostly I use the FT-1 with my Nikon 180mm 2.8 ED telephoto, which is a great combination!</p>

<p>Tony, I believe the S2a has the provision to lock the mirror down as a way to minimize the crash that this camera experiences on taking an exposure. The original S2 did not have this, if I am remembering correctly. <br>

I owned an ETRS back in 1996, with the standard 75mm lens, 120 back, and the meter prism with the speed grip. Marvelous camera but I wished to have the ETRSi with the mirror lock up function. It did, however, take great photos. </p>

<p>Hi Joe,<br>

I have the Nikon 1 V1 and I love it. The V2 has some improvements over the V1, though I prefer the design of the V1 body better than the V2. I find image quality to be outstanding for a compact digital camera, and the small size and weight of the Nikon 1 lenses is incredible. I love the 6.7-13mm Nikon 1 lens (equal to a 18-35mm field of view). I also love the 18.5mm f1.8 (equal to a 50mm field of view). Shutter lag is nearly non-existant with the V1. Focus is extremely fast too. </p>