evan_bedford2

I used to despise those ugly things. I much preferred the little window. However, I now know the real reason for them. They're perfect picture frames for commemorative stamps. The slots are about the right size for most commemoratives, and there's no shortage of themes to choose from.

 

As for film info, that's what masking tape, a sharpie pen and the bottom of a camera body are for.

 

The one shown below is apt, since on the other side of the camera is a shift lens.

 

This post makes me sad since Tony, the OP, is no longer with us...what a wealth of knowledge and talent! But to answer his question (again, since I responded back then) from several years ago, I'd have to say that the Minolta XE-bodies have the smoothest film advance ever. It's ironic that you don't like the R4's film advance since it's based on the Minolta XD11, and I think that it has a pretty smooth film advance as well.

Yeah, actually my R4's advance is silky smooth -- but only without film in it. Maybe it's just that extra little bit of drag that's the straw which breaks the camel's back. My R8 came in today. Its advance is also silky smooth, but it requires quite a bit less pressure than does the R4 (comparing both with no film in them).

 

I will put in a vote for a non-slr, and that's the roll-film back for the Mamiya Press (which I have on my Plaubel Proshift). This makes the F3 seem like it's full of sand.

Interesting thread. I read through the first page, and I replied on the 4th page, but page 2 and 3 seem to be unobtainable.

I'll put in another vote for the F3.

But how about the worst? I've probably had the pleasure of using less than a dozen manual film slrs, but of those, I'd say the Leica R4 is the worst. I just ordered an R8 to hopefully remedy the situation.

Thanks folks. Guess I'll just use my Minolta meter. I can keep it warm in an inside pocket. As for incident readings, I assume that's more for urban or studio settings; landscapes could be difficult at times.

Problem solved. I was using the L scale instead of the H scale with the lumigrid (for reflectance metering).

 

Unfortunately, this means that the Sekonic is fairly useless at a lot of useful exposures (say, for example in broad daylight, but under a heavy forest canopy), since the manual states that the lumigrid can't be used with a foot candle reading of less than 160. I originally got the Sekonic for hiking on cold days, figuring that it and a Leica M4-P wouldn't have any battery issues.

Well, it actually seems to work OK only if I use it without any filters (ie no lumisphere, lumidisc, etc). Then I can get it to give similar readings to what my cameras give, and to what my Minolta Flash Meter III gives.

 

But when I pop the lumigrid on it, I get nearly no needle movement at all. A bit more with the disc, and more still with the sphere.

 

I actually have two Studio Deluxe meters (an original model and an M model). They both give roughly the same readings with the same filters, so I wonder if I'm just doing something wrong. (and no, I don't have the little "high" metal grid inserted).

Figured it out. The diagram in the manual (on page 25) points to the wrong button when explaining the "exposure mode lock release button".

The camera just arrived in the mail today, so I don't know how much force I should apply. I'm afraid if I put any more force into it, something will break (yes, I push down the shutter speed button concurrently). Has anyone had experience with this?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Evan

Actually, I'd be needing pitch as well as roll. I see that I can get it by going through several clicks of the "info" button, but I was hoping to be able to assign it to a single-click button.

Sorry, I went through the relevant section in the manual, but couldn't find the answer.

 

I'd like to have my front function button turn the virtual horizon on and off. So I went into the "f control" section, scrolled down to f4, hit OK, then the right arrow. I'm now in the "assign fn" area. When I scroll down to "viewfinder virtual horizon" and hit OK, it just takes me back to the "f control" section, showing that the f4 button has not been assigned anything (ie, just the two dashes on the right).

 

Am I doing something wrong? (A whole bunch of the other f controls exhibit the same behaviour).

 

Thanks in advance.

Were the above RAW images similarly processed? If not, the difference in sharpness could easily be put down to the degree of in-camera sharpening applied to JPEG output.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they were both jpegs to begin with. But I'm getting better with Df focusing now. Image below shows the Df above and the A7s below. Both shown at 200%. Both from the outer fringe of the scene.

 

Did you focus stopped down or wide open on the Df?

Thanks ilkka. That may be the key. I was probably focusing stopped down before. Just did it again, wide open, and the focus seems to be better. The A7s output sometimes still looks a bit sharper, but it's hard to compare 12 mp to 16 mp output, and I may just be splitting hairs unnecessarily.

Why 2? What are they?

 

I don't know what the two adapters are and hence can't figure out the "therefore". But those adapters likely only move the lens to the correct flange-to-sensor distance on the A7S body and you should have the same FOV on both the Df and the A7S. The lower resolution A7S sensor may not show issues as clearly as the slightly higher resolution Df one.

 

Hmm, you're right. Now that I check, both cameras show precisely the same field of view. (I use a Nikon to M-mount, and an M-mount to Sony adapter on the Sony). And now that I check more closely, the corners and edges seem no different than sharpness in the center. However, I still can't seem to nail focus on the Df -- even at f11. I've tried both the live view with magnification, and the little dot between the two triangles, but something seems crappy on the Df output. I used the focus peaking combined to digital zooming to nail focus on the Sony. Both cameras are on tripod with timed shutter release. Attached photo shows the Df above and the A7s below. The A7s image is slightly smaller, since it has fewer pixels.

Finding, however, that the Sony A7s does much better (relative to the Df) with the PC Nikkor lens in the corners and edges of the shots. Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that I have 2 adapters in between the lens and the A7s body. Therefore the A7s sensor uses the central part of the PC lens. Would the central part of the lens have less distortion and more sharpness than the outer part of the lens?

I'm glad to see that the electronic focus indicator also works with the ancient Nikkor PC.

Well, the Nikon Df arrived today. The PC 28mm f4 popped on easily, and the Df metered through it just fine. Next, I guess I'll have to see if I get smear with shift, as Mike mentioned above.

well, I bit the bullet and bought a Df from Japan. I'll report back when I see how the 28mm PC works (or doesn't work) with it. (I also have an AI-converted 105mm micro-Nikkor, but I'm not at all worried about how well it will get along with the Df).

The only thing I can think of is maybe the collar around the mounting plate on the really old PC lenses protrudes about a mm past the plate (mine does), whereas the collar on the not-quite-so-old PC lenses is flush with the mounting plate. And maybe the person who wrote the Df manual wasn't aware that the 28mm f4 lens even exists.

 

So I guess I run the risk of having to either return the camera body, or taking apart the lens and grinding down the collar...though it almost looks like I could seal up the delicate parts of the lens, and then take a dremel to the collar.

Unfortunately the above is not quite true. Older pre-AI versions of the 35/2.8 PC at least have a rear skirt that protrudes far enough to hit the ai follower. Although it does not move in use, it certainly does when mounting and unmounting, and pushes in on it. It is very easy to modify these, since one need not mill steps in the ring. Just take it off, grind, turn, file, sand or mill it down and put it back. You can even just leave it off except that the lens looks kind of unfinished.

 

My recollection is that the original 35/3.5 PC interfered with Photomic F finders, and that later models were modified to clear them, and since that finder sticks out pretty far I don't think any lens meant to clear that will have a problem with later bodies.

 

I routinely use a converted pre-AI 35/2.8 as my normal lens on DX. Here is a picture of it mounted on a D7100, fully shifted up. Note that there is plenty of clearance, and that there is also enough clearance to operate the screw knob when shifting straight down. Note also how closely the rear skirt misses the AI follower even after the rear ring was turned down for clearance. In its original form it absolutely was not safe to use on an AI camera.[ATTACH=full]1217694[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks Matthew. It all makes sense...except I'm wondering why the Df manual would state that the pre-AI 35/f3.5 is not compatible (p. 320). And the mating surface of my 28/f4 looks very much like it. (I don't have a camera shop anywhere nearby that might have a Df that I could try it on).

OK, so I checked the manual. It doesn't explicitly state that the 28mm/f4 PC (or the 28mm/f3.5 PC) will not fit. However, it does say that the "PC 35mm f/3.5 (old type)" will not fit. I suppose that settles it. However, it would be nice to get a bit more assurance before I send $$$ over to Japan (I really like the Japanese vendors on ebay).

So, I"m assuming that a K lens is a pre-AI variant. However, on Ken Rockwell's lens compatibility page, it states that a pre-AI lens will not even mount on a 7200 (whereas I saw my 28mm/f4 easily do so this morning). So is the K some kind of freak that doesn't easily fit within the pre-AI category? And based on the Rockwell chart, could I be reasonably assured that a Df mated to the 28mm/f4 would be able to meter through the lens? (Guess I should check the manual).

Thanks everyone. I guess, to be on the safe side, if I decide to drop some cash, I should go for the Df. I prefer the styling and the light weight anyway.

 

I currently have the old Nikkor mounted on a Sony A7s, but it takes two adapter rings to make it fit, so it's somewhat ungainly. I figure it will balance better with the Df .

 

On a side note, I just did a comparison with the old Nikkor vs a practically brand new Voigtlander 28mm lens. The results were indistinguishable, except that the Nikkor held a clear edge over the Voigtlander in the corners of the photos.

Hi Folks,

 

I have a 28mm f4 PC lens. Wondering what it might fit without fear of hitting the prism housing when full shift is used. Also wondering about mount compatibility, though I understand that the Nikon Df has that under control.

 

Thanks in advance.

I had a 6 with the magnet problem (wouldn't advance in cooler weather). I solved it by buying a Fuji GF670.