Fiddlefye

My SL66 has nice new (real) leather, is loaded and ready to go.

At age 8 I was given my father's Kodak 35 rangefinder with a GE meter. Not the easiest camera ever, but I loved it.

I'm still working away at the roll of Superia 200 in the OM-2n, but with a bit less enthusiasm due to the two labs I've used recently running out of C-41 chemistry and not being able to get more "due to the pandemic". I already have four exposed 120 rolls in the freezer... so Delta 100 it shall be as I am on a kick with the stuff recently. So, back to the Canon F-1n with "Lens Converter E" and some of my Exakta mount lenses. I tried this a few weeks ago, but the converter needed some internal shimming to successfully mount the lenses I have. It wasn't worn, just a bit too thin as designed and with a couple of them the lock pins could skip right over the latch and the fit was sloppy. It ended up an aborted effort, but we're back on track. I took the lenses and converter to my tech who worked out an appropriate shim thickness that works for all of them. Using the F-1n relative to the Exakta bodies I own has some distinct advantages. For starters the focus image is brighter and I have excellent focus aids available. Then there is a nice, accurate (admittedly stop-down) metering. The basic reliability of the camera doesn't hurt, nor general ease of use. The Exakta's are a lot of fun, but the Canon is a lot ncier for actually making images. The main choice will be the 58 f2 Biotar just because it is lovely. Next will be this tiny 50 f3.5 Tessar. It is brass-mounted, has coated glass and probably the highest mass density of any lens I own. I've never managed to make an image with it and I'm really curious how it does as I've always been a bit of a Tessar fan. The little guy looks rather amusing attached to one of the larger 35mm SLR bodies out there. Last of the bunch is an interesting old creature, the Meyer 35 f4.5 Primagon, also coated. Yes, that is f4.5... I shot with the lens quite a bit many years ago and the results were really lovely so I'm looking forward to using it again. While massively slow for a 35, it fortunately makes a very nice image wide open and the "bokeh" at f4.5 is really pretty sweet. It has the highest disparity in size between the front and rear elements of any lens I've ever owned with a front element bigger than the Biotar's and a rear one that is a virtual "gunner's slit". So, after double checking metering with a grey card against my incident meter I'll be off into the wider world to see if I can find something interesting to shoot.

This weekend - a camera that seldom gets an outing and a film I almost never shoot (but have a bunch in the freezer). Both very nice and capable of excellent results, though neither has ever particularly turned my crank. With regard to the film it probably doesn't help that I don't develop C-41 myself and the only remaining local lab does a completely crap job now so I have to send the film away. If the combo ends up feeling less than inspiring the Rolleiflex is next in line.

A few shots from a roll of Delta 100 in the Canon Model 7. I discovered when focusing the first image that the rangefinder had gone out of whack in the horizontal plane so I resorted to scale focus. Easy fix on a 7 as the adjustments are all on the outside, but still... First two and last images shot with the 50 f1.8 Serenar, the middle two with the 35 f2.8 Jupiter 12, a lens I've not explored nearly enough.

Taking an old friend out, the Nikon F2S. The body came to me in the mid-80s in fairly worn but perfectly functional condition (serviced since, of course). The DP-2 finder was found in the sale counter at Nikon service a few years later for a surprisingly low price and has been on the camera ever since. I've mounted the 50 f1.4 AI which sees a lot of digital use on the D750 and D3 but hasn't seen film in ages. A nice combination that hasn't been used enough in recent years as newer "toys" have arrived. Other lenses will probably get trotted out during the course of the roll, but the 50 will make a nice starting point. Given the time of year and weather I'm thinking HP5 will do nicely.

I had a light leak in the Canon 7 and it got new seals this past week. A test roll is in order before I get too carried away with anything "important". I think I'll load a roll of Delta 100 and shoot some with the Jupiter 8 so I can compare with the 50 f2 Sonnar I've been shooting with lately. The one is a copy of the other after all.

Since my Contax IIa resurfaced after being missing for half a dozen years I've not been able to put it down. I think posted a shot or two from a roll of HP5 recently. These were shot on Delta 100. The first shot was taken with a 53mm f1.8 Helios 103. The next two were with the 50 f2 Zeiss Sonnar. I have to admit being blown away by the combination of the Sonnar and Delta 100. I've shot quite a bit of the film, but never seen it look as appealing. First I've shot with the Helios and it is very nice as well.

A Canon "Lens Mount Converter E" arrived this week so I'll be playing with Exakta mount lenses on my Canon F-1n.

It took me a couple of tries to get Nikon to accept that there really was an issue, but when I sent them a disc of images with absurd EXIF data etc. they couldn't pretend it was a lens function issue or user error. The camera is making very good images now and nothing that is so far from correct that it can't be recovered, even if there are frustrating oddities yet. I'm leaning toward a Z7 before too long as I'd like to be able to use some of my interesting old glass effectively in the digital realm.

Because the images were shot wide open at f1.4 and therefore aperture was not involved. Also because as with all of my lenses, it is kept properly serviced and functions perfectly. Even with stopping down if I use the same lens on any of my film Nikons or the D3 I get perfectly consistent results. In addition - it doesn't matter what lens I mount I get the same sort of weird variation from the D750. One of the times I sent the camera back to Nikon they insisted on me sending the lenses that were associated with the images i supplied so they could test them. All lenses tested perfectly (as expected), but I had to do without those lenses (including my 20-35 f2.8 which was most annoying) for nearly three months as a result. As far as I can tell Nikon never accepted that there might be something fundamentally flawed with the camera and that in addition to the repeated bad shutters there were other undiagnosed issues. When they'd replaced the shutter twice and the issues continued you'd think they'd look deeper or replace the camera? Apparently not. I'm afraid that at this point I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that one day before an eternity passes the camera will probably cease functioning and become someone's parts source. Meanwhile I'm saving pennies for a D850 or Z7.

After this many years I doubt any "lemon law" would cover the issues except perhaps because the camera was sent back to Nikon early on and then again and again. My camera does identify all of my AI and AIs lenses correctly in the data because I have them in the cameras data base and select the correct lens info each time I mount one. The only exception is when I shoot with the 90 f2.5 Tamron macro because 90mm isn't available in the data base - i have it listed as 86mm and it all works just fine.

No, the lighting the image was taken under is old-fashioned incandescent, no other sources involved. The most frustrating thing about the camera is that it doesn't do anything really consistently. I'll take it out for a day of shooting and everything is wonderful. The next time there are inconsistencies all over the place. Sometimes I will turn it on, take a few shots and all is well, turn it off, see another shot or two I'd like, turn it back on and have it suddenly behave oddly in exactly the same circumstances. Each of the first three times Nikon serviced it the behaviour pattern was different after it came back, but in each case the results were sometimes baffling. Sometimes the EXIF data had inexplicable variation, other times bore no relationship to the images produced. Other times the EXIF data would be the same, but the images would vary. At least now it consistently makes usable images most of the time. I've used the camera professionally and to have it start misbehaving in the middle of a shoot was exasperating. I ended up buying a nice low-count D3 from an estate to carry as back-up when a situation absolutely counted. I absolutely adore that camera. I'm afraid my D750 and I are wedded until it eventually gives up the ghost as in no way could I in good conscience sell it except as "for parts or repair" in spite of it working well much of the time. Every other Nikon I own has been flawless. I provided Nikon with a wealth of images to work from so it wasn't a case of it just not malfunctioning in their hands - they had plenty of clear evidence. Truth is they should have sent a replacement and put the camera in the parts bin after the second visit.

My D750 has been to Nikon service four times now for warranty work and is on the third shutter at this point. Early on there were problems with the first shutter being unable to reach speeds over about 1/1250th and locking up. The second shutter was erratic and caused all manner of strange discrepancies between EXIF data and the actual resulting exposure. It seems apparent that this third shutter is dying as well. The shutter was clearly an abysmally bad design. How it appears to me at any rate. Total shutter count on the camera is only just over 24k and the current shutter probably has about 10k on it at most. At no point in its history has the camera ever produced completely repeatable exposures. Last night I found myself awake in the middle of the night and got up for a wee snack. The D750 with 50 f1.4 AIS was on the dining room table so I messed about with it a bit to amuse myself before heading back to bed. The camera has lately taken to occasionally double-firing when set on single and it did it. I looked at the images and noticed the two exposures were not the same, so I set it on high speed continuous and shot a burst of four. On reviewing the images I noted that not only were no two exposures exactly the same, but that the area of greatest exposure moved around vertically. Bracketing was not in use. The lens was wide-open at f1.4 so the aperture could have had no effect. All shots were done in RAW, but have been exported in reduced size in jpeg to post. In all cases the EXIF data is identical except that the file size varied, presumably as a result of the variation in exposure. Look at the images in as rapid a sequence as you can and you will see what I refer to. I realize that the variation in exposure appears minimal, but bear two things in mind - first that the EXIF data is identical and the aperture can have had no effect and secondly that there is a vertically roving area of variation in the exposures in addition to the change in overall exposure. It seems to me therefore that the shutter is not functioning entirely correctly. It is still better than the two shutters that came before it (which were complete disasters), but looks to me to be on a path to failure. What say you?

Another car pic from the same HP5/Contax roll. I shot some Delta 100 with the IIa on the weekend that needs to get developed and tried out a Helios 103 53mm f1.8 I was given - half roll Sonnar, half Helios. They're very different designs (Helios being Biotar/Planar related) so it will be interesting to see how they compare.

Thanks for that! The Austin is one of several cars that were "repurposed" into an art installation several years ago. They have gardens growing in them in summer! After the end of the installation per se they were spread about town in various locations. This one is on the frequent "flight path" of one of my walks. I've studied it photographically many times - on film, digital, in B&W and colour and every format up to 6x6. I think the image I posted is my favourite of the lot to date and I put much of that down to the lovely behaviour of the Sonnar. Much as I like having fresh things to photograph I also enjoy very much revisiting the same subjects and trying to see them with fresh eyes each time.

From the first roll in a very long time with my long-lost Contax IIa. 50 f2 Sonnar on HP5. I'm completely overjoyed to have it back!

My Contax IIa shooting just expanded a little in terms of possibilities. I shot a roll of HP5 last week, but when I stopped to visit my tech last week he offered to lend me a Helios 103 53mm f1.8 (1981) that came with a non-functional Kiev 2 that he has. Of course I borrowed it only to be told he doesn't want it back so it looks like I have a Helios as well as the Zeiss Opton 50 f2 Sonnar. If we ever see a hint of brighter skies this week I'll load up some PanF and shoot half a roll with each lens. In the end I'll have a Sonnar and Planar type "normal" for both the Canon and Contax rangefinders. I'm getting antsy to see how they compare.

So now I can finally do a comparison between the 50 f2 Zeiss Opton Sonnar and the Jupiter 8 Russian copy I tend to use on the Canon IVs which I did not yet own when the Contax went missing. It should be interesting!

I shall. Not being able to find it has become increasingly distressing as time passed. The timing of finding it was kinda perfect. Speaking of elves... at the beginning of winter weather season I searched all through my car and the house for my snow brush. No sign of it, so I bought a new one. Overnight last week the old one just appeared in the open in the back of the car like it had been there all along. Still scratching my head over that one.

In an odd sort of way Christmas came early for me. My Contax IIa disappeared several years ago, much to my consternation. Of my rangefinder cameras it is the one I've owned the longest (since the mid-80s) and it is still probably my favourite. Today it appeared like magic in a box containing my Christmas decorations that my wife isn't fond of. How it got there I cannot imagine and my wife has no recollection of putting it in the box, but at least it is back and, apart from needing a good cleaning appears to be working just fine. Needless to say it will have a roll of film in it tomorrow!

Canon 7, HP5. Probably also the Nikon D750, but that's not film..

Velvia 50 and in 4x5 at that. Lovely shot and... Velvia 50...

Detroit River, another camera at work - Pentax LX/200 f4/Ektar 100.

Rollei SL66/80 f2.8 Planar/Fuji NPC. I don't shoot a lot of colour film, but I got a few rolls developed recently and scanned today.