rexmarriott

I've got a D1X, which I bought quite cheaply second-hand and very much like. Using it has got me wondering whether it would be worth investing in a more recent model. Ruling out the D5 on the grounds of price, which full-frame Nikon would you recommend? My criteria would be: Picture quality; Ease of use; Battery life (I'm fed up with carrying around multiple spare batteries for the D1X); Compatibility with a growing collection of F-mount lenses dating from the early '70s to the present day; Aesthetics. Many thanks Rex

11 years on, I've used this thread to find the serial number on my Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8D lens. Thank you.

Excellent stuff. I have what I need, many thanks.

Ben, can I infer from what you're saying that it's worth considering shooting black and white without a filter? Might the addition of an extra layer of glass be detrimental to picture quality?

Thank you for these answers. Yes, I was thinking in terms of lens protection.

I work with black and white film. I've just bought a lens that needs a 67mm filter. I noticed that some UV filters are advertised as 'digital'. What makes a filter 'digital', and what are the issues that I need to be aware of when buying a UV filter to suit my needs? Thank you Rex

<p>I posted a similar question recently and received no replies. I've also contacted Fuji in the UK and they don't know the answers.</p> <p>I have some black and white 35mm film dating from the late '80s/early '90s which bears the markings 'Fuji 1600-PR'. Yes, I know this is 1600 ISO film. It has separately been suggested to me that the PR stood/stands for 'press' or 'professional'. Do you know what it stands for? Is this film the same as Neopan 1600? Also, the film identifier is followed by a three digit number, which is different on each roll of film. Might this give an indication of coating dates?</p> <p>Is there anyone out there who knows their Fuji better than Fuji does?</p> <p>Thank you.</p>

<p>BeBu, having used a Nikon F, an F3 and an F4, what you say makes perfect sense. I don't use the auto focus on the F4. Also, compared to previous pro bodies, I find the F4 bulky and heavy (mine's an F4S, so incorporates six AA batteries). Worse, the batteries run down so quickly that I can imagine a busy photojournalist having to carry several spare sets.</p>

<p>OK, a thought occurs to me. I know that Nippon Kogaku was formed from companies which specialised in optics, so this was obviously a strength. Was the F-mount, then, at least in part, an attempt to ensure that Nikkor lenses were only used on Nikon cameras, thus boosting the sales of Nikons?</p>

<p>Thank you for these responses, and thank you for the recommendation, JDM.</p> <p>Michael, the F3 was launched in 1980. How was it viewed? Was it not seen as suitable for news photography as the F and F2?</p>

<p>I have an interest in news photography in the 1970s, '80s and '90s. Oddly, books that I have on the subject fail to mention the makes of cameras preferred by photojournalists. The only reference I can find is in Brian Long's 'Nikon: A Celebration', which suggests that the Nikon became the camera of choice after the Korean War.</p> <p>Is it true that during the era I'm studying most photojournalists (at least in the US and UK) employed Nikon cameras? If so, what were the reasons for this preference?</p> <p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Yes, the one I've got is an f3.5-4.5. I believe that it was released in 1991. Definitely no hacksawing the F6.</p>

<p>Andrew</p> <p>Up to now I've tried to match lenses contemporary with the cameras. I got a 24-70mm Zoom Nikkor for the F4, have a pre-AI lens for the F and use the AI-S on the F3. I'm not intending to use this new lens on the F3 or F4 so am not troubled by the lack of aperture ring.</p> <p>I'm intrigued by talk of taking a hacksaw to a lens to convert it. No way am I ready for that sort of thing. Down the line, maybe.</p>

<p>I'm fascinated by these responses and appreciate the time you spent on your list, Andrew. I've researched your suggestions and, at the moment, am leaning towards the f1.8 AF-S.<br> Also, I can't resist answering your questions, Bela. My brother Bruce, who died in 2012, was a photojournalist who mostly employed a Nikon FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm AI-S f1.4 lens. After Bruce's death I started researching his story, with special focus on his photography. I realised that if I wanted to get under the skin of my subject I'd need to learn 35mm film photography. I bought the same camera and lens and set up a darkroom to understand Bruce's processes. Then I asked myself why Bruce limited himself to a semi-pro camera body, and what he might have missed by not going for the F2, 3 or 4, each of which would have been an option at points in his career. Out of curiosity I bought an F3. I couldn't stop there, and got an F and an F4. It may not be the prettiest camera, but I love using the F4, and have been told that the F6 is a great camera. Finally, I have the funds to buy this camera. In a way, I feel I'm taking a journey through the last days of film photography. Why film? Of course, there is a sentimental aspect as well as the practical one of researching my story. Mostly, though, I use film because I enjoy the process and love the particular quality of the results. Why a 50mm lens? It's where I want to start with the F6. I may consider other lenses down the line.</p>

<p>I've just bought a Nikon F6 body. Which Nikkor 50mm lens would you recommend for image quality and compatibility with the functions of the F6?</p>

<p>Bruce, if I've understood correctly, what has been said here tells us that there is a relationship between film speed and contrast. If, in general, slow films develop more quickly than fast films, then when a slow film and a fast film are developed in the same developer for the same length of time, images shot with the slower film will be more contrasty.</p> <p>Alan, you said 'to make a film we glue...' Just out of interest, do you work in the industry?</p>

<p>I'm interested in these responses. I like your definition of contrast, Alan. I've often heard it said that a contrasty image is one in which there is a significant range between the lightest and darkest tones. This, surely, is a partial understanding, and often incorrect. As you say, for an image to be contrasty requires that there be a small number of different tones. It is surely not essential that there be a large range between these tones for there to be contrast.</p> <p>As regards inherent contrast in film, yesterday I found this in John P Schaefer's 'Basic Techniques of Photography':</p> <p ><em>Fine-grained film is developed much more rapidly than course-grained film. The greater total surface area of silver halides available to the developer in a fine-grained emulsion allows swift development of the latent image, and only a short development time is required to bring a negative of slow-speed, fine-grained film to an appropriate contrast level. The amount of time it takes a film to reach normal contrast values upon development indicates its level of inherent contrast. Slow-speed films generally have a high inherent contrast, and conversely, high-speed, coarse-grained films have a low inherent contrast.</em></p>

<p>I know that this subject has been broached before, and I found this explanation from Edward Ingold:</p> <p><em>'The correlation between film speed and contrast is less certain. Kodak's explanation for this effect in B&W film relates to the size of the silver halide crystals. Larger crystals are more sensitive than smaller ones. A broad distribution in size yields wider dynamic range (and less contrast) thsn a more narrow distribution. Hence very fast and very slow films tend to have more contrast, presumably because the range of crystal size is smaller in order to optimize other properties (e.g., speed or fine grain).'</em></p> <p>Still, I don't understand this phenomenon. Can anyone explain to me the relationship between film speed and contrast?</p> <p>Thank you<br> Rex</p>

<p>POSTSCRIPT</p> <p>I had a look at the focusing screen and felt that there was no problem with its alignment. The mirror, on the other hand, looked a bit skewed. Bearing in mind Kari's comments about mirror adjustment, I took the camera to be looked over at a local shop. The guy, who is brilliant, realigned the mirror while I stood in the shop and charged me nothing. I've tested the camera out and all's well. And to think, I set out believing I was going to need to buy another lens.</p> <p>That's a win for photo.net. Thanks for those suggestions.</p>

<p>I recently contacted Ilford and asked if they could help me date old film from information in the rebate. They checked the data I gave them against their archives and supplied me with coating dates (month and year) for film shot in the '80s and '90s. Of course, this does not tell me when the film was bought or shot, but I found it useful nonetheless.</p> <p>I've not been able to get the same help from Fuji. I've got negatives cut in strips of 6, so no leader or run-off. The film is black and white and marked 1600 PR, so I know it to be 1600 Press film. There is another three digit number, which I hope might help me date the film. I've got strips marked: 107; 237; 239; and 245. I know that the film was shot in the '90s.</p> <p>Can Fuji film be dated? Do you know how to crack the code?</p>

<p>I'm pleased with these responses, not least because it seems fairly clear from what is being said that I don't need to buy a new lens. I've also got a reason to take a closer look at the focus screen (a part of my camera that, as yet, I've not given much attention). Yes, it's a K-type screen.</p> <p>I've just bought a Nikon F3-T. I love using it just for the feel, but I was starting to wonder what, in specific terms, what are the benefits of the 'pro' camera, and maybe there's an answer here; if focusing is easier and more reliable, that's a significant advantage.</p> <p>As regards the condition of the camera, my brother worked as a photojournalist. The camera certainly saw plenty of service and took some knocks along the way.</p>

<p>I inherited my brother's battered FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 lens and was surprised to find that it worked. Now, having shot several rolls of film, I feel there may be a problem with the lens. Shots taken with larger apertures are often badly out of focus. I've chosen static subjects, focused carefully and kept a record of focus points. Often, objects in the foreground, well in front of the point of focus, are crisp and sharp, whereas the subject is not. There seems to be no problem with medium and smaller apertures.</p> <p>I'm a relative novice, so there may be some error on my part.</p> <p>Any ideas?</p>