steve_gallimore1

I think I answered it earlier? All the major camera manufacturers who had a rangefinder model in series production at the turn of the century have produced a digital model, either directly (Leica) or via a third party (Voigtlander - Epson). That's it, all two of them. Voigtlander (Cosina) no longer make cameras? And there's the Piixi, though I don't know if it can be considered to be in series production yet.

Because, with the exception of Leica*, no camera manufacturer had a rangefinder model in their line-up** by the end of the film era. * There was effectively a digital version of the Voigtlander Bessa - the Epson R-D1 ** Nikon's limited editions of old models don't really count. So there have been digital versions of all the film rangefinders that were in production around the turn of the century.

The 7artisans 35mm f1.2 is about as close as you're going to get to a native crop sensor version of the Jupiter-3 50mm f1.5 (or the Zeiss original). Jupiter-8M (Kiev/Contax mount) on a Fuji:

Monsieur Rondball (and the Young Farmers Association) welcome you: Olympus TG-320

Yesterday's dog walk Fuji X-E1, 7artisans 35mm f1.2

Separate companies, though their glass may be ground by the same supplier? As to focussing, same as any other manual lens. I like mine. For samples, see my posts in 'Mirrorless Monday', particularly 2020, a lot from the 7Artisans 35mm f1.2 (Fuji mount) in there...

I think the consensus is that they each have their own, distinctive, looks, but they're not all that close to the actual films. Xtrans 'Astia' (from above) is quite different from Rawtherapee/HaldCLUT 'Astia 100F', which looks closer to real Astia. That's not to say that you can't achieve something close by tweaking the settings. OP - maybe take a look here? The Largest Collection of HaldClut/Luts brought together

Fuji Film Simulation Profiles Any help? These profiles, and, I suspect, the 16 profiles you refer to above, are based on the Xtrans digital film simulations as used in the current Fujifilm digital cameras, not the original films.

Personally, I like it, so does my wife.

Oh, absolutely.

As a Fujifilm and vintage camera user, though not specifically a Nikon fan, I offer my thoughts: * Looks 'right', just like a Nikon FM/FE * Fully articulating screen means it can be flipped over and hidden against the camera, I like. * PASM switch? Going back to a physical dial interface removes the need for this turn of the century modal thinking, just add an 'A' position to each dial, as per Fuji, Leica, etc... * Bizzare (at least to me) auto ISO behaviour. * Exposure compensation dial looks to be difficult to reach with your thumb, which is bad, as it is (at least for me) the most used control on a mirrorless camera in any auto mode. In short, typical Nikon, I'm sure it'll be solid, well built with lovely mechanicals, but a needlessly overcomplicated control scheme that completely misses the point. Dials that are only active depending on the position of the PASM selector? What were they thinking?

E-PM1, 17/2.8

I like that one! (though maybe in monochrome?) Glad it's worked out for you. Two of my favourite manual lenses on my X-E1 are the Konica 40mm f1.8 Hexanon (pancake, so 'normal size' with the adaptor) and the 'modern' 7artisans 35mm f1.2, which is a native Fuji X-mount lens with a vintage optical formula (CZ Sonnar).

Industrial pallet wrap film might fit the bill? Ask around locally and see if someone will give you the end of a roll? Ours now has the company logo printed all over it, so not so useful...

Rawtherapee Darktable Both free (open source).

Number 4004 (feels like cow photo number 4004...) E-PM1, 17/2.8, converted from RAW

Don't be misled by the name, it can do plenty with jpeg files too, though the real 'power' is unlocked when working with RAW, if you like. (I shoot jpeg + RAW, I use the jpeg at least 50% of the time)

If you're struggling to 'correct' (correct is a matter of taste) then ones that didn't come out to your liking, here is the result of selecting 'Auto4 white balance in RawTherapee: (old version running on my laptop) The interface & workflow takes a bit of getting used to, but it is a very powerful tool. Or just shoot in (or convert to) monochrome, overexpose to the verge of blowing skin highlights, maybe add a red or orange filter and call it done!

If we've moved on to talking about archival storage of digital files, then a non-proprietary, lossless format is the only sensible choice, so lossless TIFF, PNG, or, stretching the definition a little, RAW (proprietary, but relatively open and documented). Will Adobe still exist in 20 years? Will you have the necessary subscription? Will it read 20 year old files correctly (look to MS Word as an example...) Replace Adobe with any other software of choice, the questions are the same.

Doesn't work around here, ceilings tend to have large oak beams and walls are stone... ...so a pop-up reflector is handy, hang it where you want to bounce your flash. Still fairly sure that Nikon has a 'Keep warm lighting' option when using auto white balance though, so maybe check that first?

'Photographer's Companion' - tons of useful calculators, free (ads). But my most used two apps are Fujifilm Camera Remote and Instax Share. So check the corresponding app for your system of choice. Remote control of all major settings, autofocus point selection and shutter release, with live view on your phone screen, is either absolutely priceless, or totally useless. (But I find it very useful)

Looks like the column from a Meopta Opemus enlarger. There was an adaptor to convert to a copy stand, I've found one for my Opemus 3, but the price (with shipping) was insane. Then again, the prices of copy stands are insane...

Strongly disagree, unless you shoot everything at f16.

Is there not a custom setting on Nikons that specifies whether or not to keep some of the 'warmth' (orange cast) when shooting under incandescent lighting with auto white balance?

Olympus E-PM1 with the 17/2.8 pancake, fast becoming a favourite of mine, fits in a big pocket and the lens has quite a distinct character.