Fiddlefye

I still have the spring back, so I could end up using an insertion holder if I ever came upon one. The back I have does have the pin rollers and works very well. For the purpose I put the camera to it works very well - basically a nice, super-cheap, cool-looking rangefinder that is easily carted about and reasonably convenient to work with. I don't really need to run any other lenses on it as I have other medium format options for that sort of thing. It does what I need it to do, heretical or not.

I've owned quite a few over the years, going back to the IIC. Of the oldies the only one I've kept is a 9500 that was set up as an AV machine with RCA in and out etc.

All I can say is that my friend tried taking shots of me and couldn't get the camera to stop hunting for a long time so he handed it to me to try. I finally did get it to lock focus and took a shot successfully. This was the one taken with the D500 (via his FB page). Both cameras work beautifully. I'd be happy with either, though my collection of lenses would be less thrill with the 500.

How many times did I see that ad? My goodness....

I walk out on my front porch and what should I see.... Nikon D750, 24-85 VR G DSC_4828 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

The focus assist on my D750 only comes on when it is really very dark and useful. Otherwise it never turns on. The difference between my 750 with the focus assist light and my friend's brand-new D500 without was the difference between quick and accurate focus and long hunting and 80% failure rate. It might be annoying, but it got the pics, the D500 without did not. Here is one of the shots I took that evening. I got a half dozen shots of the same result. With the D500 I managed one successful shot, it took a long time for the camera to find something it could focus on and even then all but the one weren't focused properly. It was a very difficult shooting situation as you can see from the data. (D500 in the foreground). Nikon D750, AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, ƒ/4.2, 38.0 mm,1/13 12800 ISO DSC_4836 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

It wasn't a comparison of specs, but rather what could actually be accomplished under particularly difficult circumstances, ie. outdoors on our deck after midnight, with the only lighting being a string of LED "fairy lights". The focus assist in the 750 made easy work of the situation, the D500 struggled mightily and mostly failed. Had I turned off the focus assist light in my 750 the D500 would probably have been the better camera, but then they both would have struggled.

Many years ago I found a Speed Graphic 2x3 at an estate sale. It was old enough that it didn't have a Graflok back arrangement and had to use small format sheet film. As a result it didn't see a whole lot of use. Then on day I got the idea of trying to adapt the back to take a roll film holder. So, now with the use of some sheet metal from an ancient frozen juice can (almost period-correct) it has a semi-permanently mounted 6x7 Rollfilm holder and is lots of fun to use. While the 101mm f4.5 Wollensack Raptar may not be up to the standard of the Zeiss and Schneider lenses on my other medium format cameras it still does a pretty nice job. The rear shutter works fine as well, pain in the petootie though it might be. Carrying around the leather-covered "little" thing, it is amazing what attention it attracts and how happy people are to have their photo taken with it. DSC_1079 by fiddlefye, on Flickr DSC_1078 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

We were both using pretty standard mid - range VR zooms and in fact it was me taking photos of the same subject (my friend) seated at the same location under the same dim light with the two cameras. As I was knocking off shot after shot my friend was trying to get his D500 (three days old) to focus and it was struggling. Hence he handed me (as the more experienced photographer) his camera to see what was going on. As far as I could tell the D500 doesn't have a focus assist light. I didn't see hide nor hair of one on the front of the camera, nor any mention in the menu. Given the extended ISO range of these cameras one can be pretty useful at times. Maybe an "amateur" feature, but worth having in extremis.

I've owned a couple of Contaflexes and a Contarex, but never succumbed to the whiles of the Tenax. Yes, there is definitely gender stereotyping involved. No, my wife still doesn't want to know about f-stops and shutter speeds - strictly "running guy" etc. for her. (Covering ears) "stop with the numbers!". Personally I find those pictograph things baffling, as in "what do they really mean?"

At the time the photo was taken I owned exactly one camera body (RTS II) and two lenses - a 45mm f2.8 Zeiss Tessar and the 80-200 f4 Tokina my father had given to me as a Christmas present a few months previously. My, how that situation has changed (GAS)!

If no one minds - a blast from my very distant past. Saturday, June 20th, 1987 - at 11PM I got a call from a friend who said he'd been given two tickets in the bleachers at the Start/Finish line for the Detroit Grand Prix Formula 1 race the next day. Of course, all of the film I had in the house was Kodachrome 25 and 64! Not a single camera store would have been open the next day (Sunday closing laws of the time being what they were) so I shot with what I had. Contax RTS II, Tokina f4 80-100. Aryton Senna about to cross the finish line to win the race. Still my favourite of all of the race photos I've shot over the years. img667 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

When confronted with the same issue in my Olympus OM-1 I discussed what to do with my tech and ended up doing the diode correction method. Then again, my tech is a good friend and charges me embarrassingly little for his work. At any rate, it works just fine and dandy.

Yes, checking in on these threads has become one of my little joys!

The Ultron really is a gorgeous lens! My Vito III folder has one and I love it.

Rolleiflex SL-66, Fuji Velvia Slides239 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

I use a D750 and a good friend recently picked up a D500 when they were on sale. I was a bit surprised that the 500 was actually bigger than the 750 when we had them side by side. Image quality was very similar, though I'd give a bit of a nod to my 750. A few friends were sitting out on my back deck one evening in low light level and we were shooting a bit. The 750 picked up the focus very quickly and accurately in the dark (the focus assist light is helpful), but the 500 struggled. Anther camera to perhaps consider if you're going full-frame is the Df. From what I've seen the look of the images is much like those from a D3. Just another option and dang, they're pretty.

I clicked "Like" as a sign of support, but I definitely don't like. Not at all. Stay safe!

I still have a few shots on a roll of 50 ISO Ilford in the Leicaflex SL-2, but hardly enough for a nice weekend's shooting. So, how about (shall we call it) Folder Friday? The question is, which one? DSC_4981 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

Speaking of long lenses and relics - I'm presently in discussion toward picking up a Nikkor 300 f2.8 ED-IF. Big brute, but I tried it out on my D750 and it works a treat. I already have the f4 AF-ED, but wouldn't the f2.8 be just the ticket for the concert shooting season? ;)

My grandfather's field glasses; Lemaire Fabt, Paris. My grandfather was in the RFC and RAF in WWI (and RCAF for a time thereafter and again in WWII) and I presume he brought them home from Europe in 1919. There is a second pair hanging around at the family cottage that is slightly longer, but it has smaller front elements and in slightly less attractive condition, but equally good functional condition. I've used these extensively over the years in spite of having a a couple of pair of decent prismatic binoculars. The spacing suits my eyes perfectly. DSC_4970 by fiddlefye, on Flickr DSC_4971 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

A few from a roll of HP5, freshly scanned. Leicaflex SL-2, 50 f2 Summicron. HP5 19 004 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 010 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 013 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 019 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 029 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 031 by fiddlefye, on Flickr HP5 19 037 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

I got the resilvering done in London.UK and the cost was about $60CAN, including the return shipping. It took them a few months to get to it, but given it is scarcely my only camera I could still take pics. Lens prices have taken a hike for sure. Many of them are going for much more than what they sold for back in the heyday of film on the 80s. All I can say is I'm glad i stocked up when I did. Same goes for a lot of things, LPs, turntables.... good to be ahead of the curve or an out-of-step Luddite (take your pic).

DSC_4243 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

I posted simply because it was an oddity I found interesting and a bit puzzling. I'm guessing that in the early days of putting chips loaded with data in lenses all manner of things happened that no one really expected would come to light. Lo! and Behold! the new day dawned and the digital light shone into a few darker corners.