mark_crown4

I bought a brand new FM3a in 2003 and it has served me very well (serial number 276648). I have the receipt somewhere but I know that it is out of warranty by now. Just the other day I put in a new film and found the following: · In auto mode, the fixing of a new lens the meter needle shoots straight to the top of scale and stays there. · The meter needle then settles at around1/60th of second no matter what aperture is used and stays there unless I remove the lens. · Firing the shutter in auto results in the shutter remaining open and can only be closed if I click the mode/shutter speed dial to manual. · I have tried 3 sets of new batteries. · There is no corrosion in the battery compartment. · The DX setting on the ASA dial is correctly set. · Manual shutter speeds are all OK and fire (but of course!) This morning I looked at again and now the meter seems to be working but the most bizarre thing is that when I press the shutter in auto, the shutter only closes when I take my finger off the shutter button! The shutter remains open if my finger rests on the shutter button. Then the meter needle drops and does not move again during follow on firings. Help! This camera has not been heavily used at all but I would like to keep using (it is lovely). Does anyone have any similar experiences/ I am I looking at an expensive repair? Is '276648' destined for the scrap heap in some repair shop somewhere? It has been lovingly handled and not thrashed at all. It's a bit disappointing to be honest. Thank you in anticipation, Mark

Could I also pipe up with suggestion? I shoot film and digital BTW. How about the Nikkor 50-135mm 3.5 AIS zoom? Prices seem to have gone down and in an era of camera set ISO s retaining excellent pictorial quality, the 3.5 constant aperture should not be a problem. Pixel peepers might say the 75-150mm E zoom is slightly better and lighter. But I got the AIS zoom after seeing the pictures by John Shaw using it and it delivers the goods. Even when I've used it wide open, quality has been more than good enough. The zoom is very crisp at all apertures and focal lengths. Colour rendition is fine. The prices however of even the E 135mm lenses just seem to be silly in my view. I have also just managed to find a 6T dioptre lens for the zoom and getting used to that and I must say it makes for a very flexible set up as Bjorn suggests. The lens has a good reputation online with most people. My only problem is my FM3a that I use the lens on. It seems to have gone on the blink (although my trusty FM2N is holding the fort). I will post about my problems later. The FM3a has hardly been thrashed!

I have recently been in contact with Grays of Westminster about my FM3a and they told me that the following are quick and good when they use them: PJ Camera Repairs Address: 10 Watlands View, Newcastle ST5 8AA Phone: 01782 711990

All I can say is that the Df is capable of making great images and that is what matters at the end of the day for any of us. I'm quite sure that if the Df was the last camera on earth everyone one of us on this blog are talented enough to get some good images out of it - of that I am certain. BTW - the FM's viewfinder is far too dim for me which is why I chose the FM3a and an FM2N with an FM3a focussing screen in it. Have a Cool Yule folks.

In my head. I'm just trying to be like Galen Rowell so the Df is right up my street. I do not do sports with MF my cameras - the D40 can do that quite well as the well focussed and exposed shots of my son playing mini rugby will testify. As for focussing its usually hyperfocal at f8-f11 for me with the odd filter attached. Nikon had a go at retro and good for them. What did for them was the earthquake - not their products in my view. As I said, second hand is my way of getting one in the long run. I think what may have also put paid to it is how easy it is to do colour photography these days. Even the cheaper models like my D40 and its successors make it as easy as falling off a log. Once you've seen what the cheaper SLRs can do, paying top whack for a Df seems rather silly. Old and new alike like cameras that are cheap and deal with the complexities of exposure etc., leaving us to focus on composition. But that is maybe everyone else - not me. That is why I'm trying to whack some B&W film through my Nikons before I get too old. Mirrorless? Not interested at all because as a hobbyist I don't need the competitive do or die features that the mirrorless stampeed offers. If I was a pro and earning money things might well be different. So I am not denigrating progress or those who welcome it - it's just not for me. I mean, I'd like an F6 for goodness sake!!

As far as I am concerned, I still use and FM2N and an FMA3a along with my D40 and soon to be acquired D7200 (because they are cheap now, and also this model can take my small collection of high performing AIS/AI lenses). The cost of film is what is doing it for me long term - I now only do B&W in 35mm. The last Df I saw in the my town in the UK was going for £1200 second hand in Exc++ condition. It was there one minute and gone the next. I want one because I'm not too interested in the technical performance or specs. I'd just like the thought of using a digital camera as I do an analogue one. I also think that the Df is quite handsome. Had I been able to afford it I would have got it over any other DSLR at the time because it would have been similar to what I have been doing taking pictures since the 1980's. I think that I would feel comfortable with it. Basically all I want to be able to do is just immerse myself in the picture taking process and create good pictures. The Df certainly seems capable of doing that as much as my D40/FM2N and FM3a. The only other two things I would want are the f2 200mm AIS telephoto and I'd love to get my hands on one of those ED glass 300mm 4.5 non-IFs Ai's that everyone goes on about except me because I have not got one. There was one on eBay recently for over £900, so fat chance!

Ruslan As far as I am concerned the 43 mm Ltd had a specific use as a pictorial lens - landscapes - but it was not a good all rounder like a good old fashioned, well corrected 50mm. Remember however that the metal build of the 43mm went against the trend as it was at the time to produce lenses with plastic bodies. I would say that the 43 mm also had too much distortion for a modern lens. So it was over-hyped somewhat. But as a landscape lens (I must stress this) it was very impressive indeed. For street photography I found it less so. But it did open up the market for boutique lenses - Nikon's 45mm P2.8 for example and others.

Ruslan I used the 43mm 1.9 Ltd at f8-f11 when taking landscapes just like I would with a wide angle. I very rarely used it as a short telephoto as you would with a 50mm lens as the performance at wide apertures (below f4) was not really convincing for me. It had bad distortion up close and was too wide to get separation in certain portrait subjects. Bokeh was not so good either. Also at F8-F11 its capacity to cope with bright light in the frame really came to the fore - it was superb in contre jour situations. But so was the Nikkor 45mm P 2.8 and any Nikkor 50mm 1.8 of F2 lens (not the 1.4). That is why I got rid of the 43mm - it was well made and was very good but I think that it was not as flexible nor as good performer than many 50mm lenses throughout the aperture range. Having said that, I used my 43mm on an MZ5n - one of the best cameras in my view made by anyone in the 1990's. I used a 50mm Pentax A 1.4 lens on a KX and the 50mm 1.4 was pictorially a better lens than the 43mm - especially on B&W. But the 43mm was definitely a high performer at F8-F11. BTW I only used it on film - not digital.

I had one in the early 2000's and I really liked it. It was really good into the sun and dealt with highlights really well. It was what I would call a landscape photographer's standard lens, being slightly wider than a normal standard 50mm. Having said that, the 43mm limited had unacceptable distortion - it was not a good lens to use for architectural photography. Any Pentax 50mm lens had much better performance there. I liked the 50mm FA 1.4 which was much better at isolating the subject matter - the 43mm was not so good at this. Having said that I found that a 50mm 1.4 A lens was even better than the autofocus FA version. The Pentax A 1.4 can give any Nikkor 1.4 (my current equipment) a run for its money especially with that 8 bladed aperture. I may end up getting another Pentax A 1.4 and a KX one day.

I'm going with Carbon Dragon but with a twist. My love affair B&W film is Tri-X. I have taken many rolls of this of my kids when younger on a Pentax KX with a Pentax A 50mm 1.4 lens and the images are lovely. I don't own the camera anymore or the lens but the images live on. The twist is that it has become much harder to get Tri-X with 24 exposures in the UK. So I'd like the 24 exposure version to become more readily available again (I have found a supplier but there is less of a market so I'm not convinced the pricing is as reasonable as it should be). As for other B&W films I'll give another vote to Kodak PX125 which was a really nice old fashioned B&W film which could give FP4 a run for its money if handled well.

Hi First of all - sorry to take so long to get back to you all - I have been away on holiday to Berlin and come back to a heavy work load. Secondly, thank you for your generous and helpful responses - typical of this site. So, this is how I am going to approach B&W photography: 1. Think more carefully about the actual picture in terms of its merit before I click - thank you Donald Miller. I agree. I need to think more graphically and artistically (shapes and forms). Slow down in other words. Be aware of shadow areas that might block up or bright areas that might blow out. 2. Consider the use of say graduated filters/other filters to get the balance of exposure right first time when dealing with contrast in a scene (remember I am thinking of trying to get decent prints right first time and I do not have the time or space to develop my own). Also think more about metering processes. Thank you Sandie and k.mac and Wouter And yes - a good monochrome picture is worth its weight in gold. 3. Think about materials. I have stuck with FP4 and Tri-X 400 but I now also have some Delta100/400. On holiday in Berlin I came across something now very rare in England - a good old fashioned film camera shop on! I couldn't believe it when I walked in - I was giggling like a child in a sweet shop to the point where the German proprietor asked me about my mirth and I had to reassure him that I was not going mad. The place was full of film cameras - no digital at all. So I bought a roll of APX 100 and Kosmofoto 100 (rebadged Formapan 100). I have used XP2 Super and it is amazing stuff and will use it again. Wouter - that B&W landscape is beautiful - if I can get pictures like that I will be content. My only concern with XP2 is that I find many tones of grey but true blacks tended to elude me. Hence why I am trying out silver halide a little more. 4. Come to terms with the Zone system - yes indeed James. I will investigate. 5. Alan Klein - I love your pictures. I am heavily into 35mm and cannot justify moving up but if I could afford it, MF(even a basic 645 kit) would be my next step up. We'll see if my fortunes change eh? BTW the shop in Berlin is called 'Click & Surr' and it is on Garten Strasse, some 20 minutes away from Berlin's main railway station. Here is their English page and it looks as though their Kodak G100 slide film has been delivered according to their face book page. clickundsurr.de/en/ Once again thank you ALL for your comments and suggestions.

Hi There Through out my life I have been chiefly a 35mm colour photographer starting off on C41 and then graduating to E6. I have also used B&W film too but not as much. I am formerly 35mm colour landscape photographer trying to be like Galen Rowell but based in the UK. E6 photography is getting really expensive now and although I have a digital camera, I love the analogue photography process so I am now edging towards being totally B&W on the analogue side. The expense is made easier by the fact that I can still get films from Ilford of 24 exposures which keeps the cost down (I used to be able to get Tri-X 24 exposures in the UK too but now that is getting harder and I love Tri-X - it is so easy to work with). So, I will be trying Delta 400, 100 etc., and using my old B&W favourite HP4. My question is does anyone have any good tips for getting decently exposed pictures in B&W? I am not in a position to develop my own film and have to rely on a lab and sometimes the results can be variable. Therefore, exposure and filtration need to come together I suppose to make every shot count with decent, balanced exposures. I have used B&W in the past for photographs of my children as they have grown up and the odd scenic and the results have been very rewarding. The other factor of B&W photography is one of the 'inner eye'. As a colour photographer I know what I am looking for given the materials I am using and how to control them. Sometimes the colours make the photo - not the subject (do you see what I mean?). But what are the rules (if any) for B&W scenic photography? To me, the lack of colour means that there is more emphasis on content or graphic quality Have I got this right? In short, how does a B&W photographer think? Many thanks!

Well, I still have my Nikon FM3a and an FM2n so it would be nice to try some Kodak again. My last roll of Velvia 50 was processed in March this year and I've been debating getting rid of the analogue cameras (my digital camera is still my D40 which I love to bits and I am saving up for my next digital camera likely to be an end of the line D7200 so that I can still use my Ai lenses). However, it will all depend on the price of the Ektachorme for me because I'm looking at prices of £12.99 for a roll of Velvia 100 right now as the cheapest I can get my hands on unless I buy it in bulk and even then the price per roll will not come down that much At the moment therefore I have been getting into B & W but have found 24 exposure Tri-X (my favourite fast B&W film) very hard to get hold of in the UK now (I like 24 exp because it cost effective for me). So, I have been sticking with Ilford FP4 and rediscovering Delta 400 and some Delta 100 as well as what 24 Tri-X I can get my hands on. The biggest problem here though is that the Royal Mail has increased its postage prices for sending film in the post so it is not just the raw material and development price going up. 35mm photography at a time of austerity is not easy. This post reminded me of what a great time we used to have experiencing different films. My favourite Fuji 35mm film was Velvia 100F to be honest - it was rather warm even in bright light. I have used Velvia 50 and had superb results and love Velvia 100 too especially when used with warm filtration. Provia? Yuk. But I miss those Kodak emulsions I really do. I grew to love 100 VS and as soon as the labs got used to it I have some superb pictures made on that. And then there was 100EBX - the cheaper version of VS - I mean I just loved it to bits - say what you like about grain but the Kodak EBX and VS whites were indeed white and they held shadow detail a smidgen better than the Velvia 50 & 100. But if there was one Kodak film that I thought was a good all rounder and very much underrated it was Kodak 100EPP. Now that was a superb film in my view. Ektachrome 100 to me was a little too muted. But if they were bringing back EPP or an Ektachrome based on EPP I would buy it without hesitation! Oh well...…………...good memories!

<p>I use my 24mm 2.8 AIS on my FM3a/FM2n and FE cameras - film of course.</p> <p>When I use my eyes to look at the slides and B&W pictures I take with it, I'm perfectly happy with it. I usually use it between f8 - f16 and use hyper focal techniques in landscape photography. I have an Ai 28mm f2 which I suspect is sharper but 24mm seems to me to be my go to landscape lens. I love it. I think Galen Rowell used an Ai version a lot too.</p> <p>It has great colour and is sharp but I do not use it to photograph buildings because of the distortion it has (even though it is not the worst for that).</p> <p>The only gripe is in some versions for it to flare badly if the sun gets in the frame. Mine however is very well behaved but the Ai and D autofocus versions I had previously flared really badly.</p> <p>The last person I recall saying anything good about it on digital was Bjorn Rorslett where if I remember correctly he felt it performed very well on his D3 full frame camera.</p> <p>On a personal note though Mark, this lens is not bad and is capable of enabling you - the photographer - to take great pictures. Keep the front lens clean and get out there and keep using it is my advice!!</p>

<p>The Rorslett reviews are all a bit out of date now.</p> <p>I had a 200mm Ais f4 and it was a perfectly sharp lens on film - very versatile and easy to carry around. However, I sold it when I got an AIS 180mm 2.8 and I've never looked back really - I still have it and if you could afford it I'd get one of those - although it is bulkier than the 200mm.</p> <p>Used carefully though, the 200mm on digital is very promising - look out for loads more feedback online about its performance.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Kent</p> <p>I mostly use a Nikon Y52 yellow filter with my B&W film - this slightly darker yellow filter I find increases contrast.</p> <p>I also use an orange 056 filter but only where say two thirds of the picture is dominated by the sky or when I take pictures of the coast in high key conditions.</p> <p>I keep the yellow filter on even when photographing people - usually in small groups - it does not help them to stand out in landscapes however.</p> <p>Another thing you might want to consider is what film you use. I use FP4 whenever I can. I love it, it's smooth tone transitions work well with yellow filtration as there seems to be a better separation of tones. For high speed I like Tri-X where I get the same results - lovely smooth tones with the Yellow filter adding a little 'bite'. This is because I do not develop my own pictures - I am using films and filter combinations I have learnt give me the best results from 3rd parties HP5 is too contrasty with a Yellow filter - the results are more hit and miss - I find the same with Delta 400. No doubt if I developed my own pictures I would get around this.</p>

<p>I'd invest in some quality graduated filters - I use Hitech ones - they will help you to keep a balance between exposure values the ground and sky when taking landscape pictures, and ensure that the sky is not over exposed as well as preventing under exposure on the landscape itself.</p> <p>I usually use a 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 grads but there other values you can get too. A 0.3 is fine in most cases, but 0.6 can result in really stronger blue skys and you will not get the unequal darkening of the sky you get with a polariser when you use wide angles like the 20mm or 24mm. I use the 0.9 when the sun is in the frame and expose for the foreground.</p> <p>Even better is if you can get graduated filters that also have a warming tint in them too - say an 81A or 81B for me. This will help the results to look warmer and less blue. I find Prescia to be a film suitable for really good weather; in dull weather it looks rather flat and lifeless which is why I preferred the old Kodak 100 VS or still use Velvia with warming filters for poor weather.</p>

<p>Kent</p> <p>The following is from experience:</p> <p>I got hold of a 45mm 2.8 Nikkor for my FM3A in around 2006. It is a lovely lens, with almost zero distortion and it behaves impeccably with highlights in the frame. The P design means that it is also useful on digital cameras as a rather stubby short telephoto. However, I tired of it rather rapidly because the 2.8 aperture is very limiting and the handling for my large hands is not the best (it excels as a pre-focused lens at F8). At F4 the aperture is almost purely circular - great for portraits.</p> <p>Instead I got myself another pancake lens - the very short 50mm AIS 1.8S made for the Japanese market - it looks rather like an E series lens, except that it focuses down to .45m not .60m and is more robust in construction, with proper Nikon lens coatings. It is NOT the version that comes with the 4XXXX serial number and has hard plastic nubbins on the focus ring. It is a wonderful lens (mine is anyway) again with very tiny distortion, fantastic resistance to flare but it is also very versatile - bang it on a PK-13 extension tube and it is a superb macro lens that can be used to create some truly wonderful images. </p> <p>I keep seeing them for sale on Ebay from Japan at very reasonable prices - the 45mm 2.8 can go for more than double in most instances. So, how much money do you have to burn?</p> <p>Both lenses are very sharp but the 50mm I feel has the edge. At infinity it beats my copy of the 50m 1.8 AFS that I have easily. I don't think I'll ever part with it. It has more creative potential than the 45mm 2.8 P. As for Ultron, I understand it may offer more distortion but is also very sharp.</p>

<p>Good for you mate! I'm going towards digital at this moment because film is getting all kinds of expensive but if your wallet can take it, do it! </p>

<p>Kent</p> <p>Can I just say that your B&W marshalling yard picture is just dripping with atmosphere - very inspiring - thank you.</p> <p>Mark</p>

<p>A lot of people have spoken highly of Provia 100F but my favourite as an outgoing E6 photographer is Velvia 100. It handles contrast better than Velvia 50, and is much easier to use when shutter speeds get too low and it works really well with warming filtration and polarisers - skies tend not to block up so much when using the latter as they can with Velvia 50. It is also a very sharp film that rewards good hyper-focal technique.</p> <p>Get yourself a really good loupe and be amazed at the detail you will get on these E6 films. I can get rolls of this from Ebay for around £9 at the moment which is why I got into it.</p> <p>Velvia 50 is not a bad film at all. Velvia 100 is more flexible however and may be a better starting point than Provia 100F (which I have always found to be too blue and rather bland to be honest).</p> <p>Mind you, I wish that I still had some stocks of Kodak EPP100, 100EBX and 100VS to play with..........................oh well.</p>

<p>Les</p> <p>Testing is one thing - field use is another. It's not just about sharpness - but all round rendering. One of the best zooms I have ever used is the Pentax A 24-50mm zoom. The FAL 20-35mm was also a fabulous lens for colour. But I've had most Pentax M lenses and they just did not do it for me. Some of the A lenses (such as the 28mm 2.8) were also not as good as they should have been in that respect.</p> <p>But I mean everything I say about the Pentax A 50mm 1.4. It equalled the FA 50mm 1.4 in colour but it was one of the most perfect B&W primes I've ever used, and if I had money to burn I'd buy it just for that purpose and put it on an LX. A cracking lens by any standard.</p> <p> </p>

<p>At the moment I have the FM3a, FE and an FM2N.</p> <p>They are all great cameras but the F3's give you I believe 100% viewfinder info. I like the F3 - I had one but sold it to fund a lens. The metering is bit different to the above and I found it to be very accurate. If I was going for another I'd go for the F3 Press version - look it up. I'd love one of those. But I am very fond of the FM/FE series Nikons I have.</p> <p>With regard to lenses I have a 28mm Ai 2.0 which is an outstanding lens - I think it is much sharper in the far corners than the much vaunted 28mm 2.8 version at distance and not bad at all in close up (0.30m or the AIS version is 0.25m).</p> <p>The 105mm 2.5 - I have nothing to add - lovely.</p> <p>For 50mm, the 1.4 is nice (I love it for B&W) but the 50mm 1.8S (looks like an E series lens but focuses at 0.45m) which was made for the Japanese market is truly outstanding - forget about the 45mm 2.8 P. You can even use as a close up lens with the PK13. This lens laughs in the face of highlights and is sharper at distance than my 50mm 1.8 AFS.</p> <p>I have used OM-1's which I believe to be the best camera ever made. It's meter is very good but I feel the FE/FM/FM meters are better for landscapes. However, the Zuiko lenses tend to be far too contrasty for my eyes. Zuiko's are great for print film but are not so good IMHO for E6. You need to use them carefully. If I had my way, I would put Nikkors on the OM1.</p> <p>Pentax? Well I liked the MX before I got into the MZ5N. I think that most Pentax M series lenses are not as good as their Nikon counterparts and also not as good as the FA autofocus glass that came later. With one exception however and that is the Pentax-A 50mm 1.4 which I think is better than the Nikon 50mm 1.4.</p>

<p>To be clear Jimmy I do not spend £3K on digital cameras on a regular basis. I bought an old new stock D40 in (I think) in 2008 to augment my 35mm.</p> <p>Cost is an issue in this age of declining wages - something that applies to the States as much as it does in the UK.</p> <p>However, your passionate support of film is most welcome. And it has made me think a bit more about my impending decision.</p> <p>I also believe that digital has its uses and this has got me thinking about which media to apply to various subject matters. You can use digital media to make some rather abstract images. But I agree with you views on film. I was looking at some Velvia 50 slides the other day some of which looked badly exposed but in fact, when viewed through a loupe, revealed gentle nuances of highlights and shadow that may not have been rendered as well on digital.</p> <p>So I need to think about tactics - how to make my film use more sustainable. Thanks for the challenge to my thinking.</p>

<p>Daniel has every right to his opinion and yes - the forthcoming end of MY love affair with film does not mean the whole film movement is going down the toilet because of little old me.</p> <p>I just felt that I should share my pain with people who understood - not to enable us to fall out or have a go at each other!</p> <p>I am not a pro, just a hobbyist. I did harbour a desire to scan my slides and perhaps sell them one day but even high quality scanning or printing is getting more expensive. But you never know................</p> <p> </p>