orsetto

Congratulations on your minty F4! You can use AFS and G lenses (without the aperture ring) on the F4 in Shutter Priority AE or Program AE, which is pretty cool considering how far the camera predates the G lenses. Exposure modification over a wide range is possible using the AE Lock button and/or exposure compensation feature. But with no aperture ring and no camera-based aperture control, you can't shoot the G type lenses in manual mode (G lens will default to minimum aperture on F4 in manual mode). You can make the F4 into a smaller lighter version if you can find the smaller MB20 battery grip (which gets rid of the bottom compartment). For discreet shooting, the F4 mode dial has a setting for "Silent Drive". IIRC correctly this is very quiet.

During a moment of madness coinciding with a window of people dumping Hasselblad gear en masse some years ago, I temporarily accumulated this excessive collection of Zeiss lenses for Hassy. Took awhile to decide what I should keep. The original all-metal type C lenses looked the best and were beautifully built, but the CF lenses were much more intuitive and easy to operate (and have consistent filter sizes). Much as I hated to sell off the C glass (including scarce silver T* multicoated 50mm Distagon and 80mm Planar), in the end practicality won and I settled on a handful of newer CF lenses. CFe with their lighter focus helicoid would have been even better, but the price premium is too great (so far I've only managed to snag a CB 60mm and CFe 80mm affordably). I'd dreamed of the huge 40mm C T* (shown on my ELM) since I was a kid: it was everything I imagined, plus the most impressive hunk of optical craft you could hang off any camera. Unfortunately a monster to use: ultra stiff focus, challenging weight distribution and impossibly large/rare/expensive filters. Eventually admitted 50mm was wider than I'd ever really need, and sold off my crown jewel.

za33photo said: "I would like to use my existing lenses that I have for my Nikon FM2n" "The G1X is a very nice camera and I really like it , but sometimes I find that the camera can be very slow in operation , for example , the Autofocus can on occasion be rather slow." These are two somewhat conflicting use cases which you may not be able to fully resolve in one camera body without spending (a lot) more on some new lenses. If the priority is to easily share lenses between your FM2n and digital, most any Nikon FX DSLR will suit. They'll meter couple with your manual focus lenses, and if in future you limit yourself to screw-drive AF-D lenses (the ones with manual aperture ring) you can get fast AE and AF on the DSLR while maintaining full manual compatibility with the FM2n. The DSLRs also take the latest AF-S lenses with built-in motor, but these will not work usefully on the FM2n because they have no aperture ring (defaulting to f/16 or darker). Challenging to disappointing manual focus is the drawback with DSLRs like D750 or even D4. Digital is ruthless toward older lens designs, so missed focus can suck the joy out of old glass altogether. If you have a collection of manual focus lenses for your FM2n (half dozen or more), a mirrorless body would be more suitable as digital host, and allow choice of brands beyond Nikon (tho its hard to beat the Nikon Z series). The drawback with a mirrorless body is inability to AF with any lens thats also fully compatible with your FM2n. You would need separate AF lenses, which won't work at all on your FM2n, making your film and digital systems less cooperative. As I mentioned in earlier replies, the choice comes down to your personal priorities: broader lens sharing compatibility between film and digital bodies (at the expense of challenging manual focus on digital), or optimization of manual focus across film and digital (at the cost of needing dedicated AF lenses for the digital that can't be shared with your film body). And of course the mirrorless lens mount would be the more future-proof choice, with nearly all new AF lenses being designed for it. The Nikon Df is an interesting sidebar camera whose original raison d'etre has been largely usurped by the mirrorless Z series. It does net you three unique features that some find indispensable: the interesting D4 sensor in a much smaller body, the polarizing quasi-retro appearance and controls, and ability to mount and fully AE meter (albeit clumsily) the millions of ancient pre-AI manual focus Nikkor lenses (which can't mount safely on any other stock unmodified Nikon FX DSLR). Otherwise its essentially a D610 that Cinderella's tipsy fairy godmother waved a reluctant wand over in an attempt to placate a loud subgroup of Nikonians, who (back then) desperately wanted a "digital FM2". I admit to being part of that extremely unrealistic group, who delusionally hoped Nikon could mfr and sell a compact bespoke manual focus digital body akin to the $9000 Leica M9 for $1799. To their credit, Nikon at least tried to offer something, but ended up fielding the peculiar Df. Which didn't answer the "digital FM2" demand so much as create an entirely new subgroup of Df enthusiasts. All of this transpired before the introduction of smaller, more versatile full frame FX mirrorless bodies: these quickly became the "digital FM2n" for manual lens enthusiasts. In 2013, the Nikon Df was about as good a digital platform as you could get for those lenses, but today most manual and pre-AI glass shooters find the magnified EVF of a Z5 or Z6 the game changer they'd needed. DSLR optical viewing is more natural and lag-free, but it takes incredible eyesight and instinct to nail manual focus (even with the slightly coarsened Df screen). Ten years on, with the D4 selling for nearly half the price of the Df, I'd be more inclined to jump on a clean dentist-owned D4 (if I wanted the Df sensor with pro AF) or D750 (for the newer sensor). Unless one has a large collection of pre-AI lenses they absolutely cannot or will not modify to AI, the Df remains a bit overpriced vs D4 or D750.

Somewhere in my wall of text, I did mention the D4 would be "rounder and thicker" than the stand-in F2AS with motor drive. 😉 Height and width would be comparable, but the D4 depth and larger grip add more bulk. OTOH, the D4 is lighter weight than F2 + motor drive + the countless AA batteries that power it (1337g vs 1544g). I've never used the motor drive to shoot film in my F2 cameras, its just a nifty toy I picked up back in 2007 when everyone was dumping film gear for pennies on the dollar. za33photo would benefit from a visit to a well-stocked camera dealer, for sure: nothing narrows down a confusing array of choices like trying them out with your own hands and eyes. But first carefully evaluate what needs their current G1X + FM2n don't satisfy, and whether a "bargain" used older camera makes long-term sense vs saving for something more current. Older second-hand digital can be a great price/performance deal, as long as one fully understands the tradeoffs involved. Some photographers truly need to ride the bleeding edge of every new innovation that enhances their capabilities, others can go for years quite happily using "obsolete" (but sill as good as it ever was) gear.

The point about memory cards is a crucial one that I forgot in my reply: most non-gearhead photographers will find bog-standard SD card support more useful than the shooting speed improvements of more arcane specialty cards. Everything is subject to change, however: nobody expected the once-standard midrange CF cards to evaporate off the face of the earth. Finding reasonably priced cards for my old Nikon D700 and various digital P/S cams can be a real pain sometimes. A digital equivalent of your film Nikon FM2n has been the holy grail sought by many photographers for over a decade, but it hasn't happened yet and probably never will in the ever-contracting camera market. The closest you can get would be a second-hand full frame (FX) mirrorless body like Nikon Z5 or Z6: fairly compact, and electronic viewfinder helps tremendously with manual focusing of non-AF lenses. If you have a mix of manual focus lenses for your FM2n plus a few AF lenses, the D750 is a good compromise: it can meter couple with both manual AI lenses and electronic AF lenses, and AF with both older screw drive and new internal-motor AF lenses. It really depends how extensively you expect to work with old manual focus (non-AF) glass: if thats your primary interest, you'll find a mirrorless body much easier and quicker to nail focus manually. OTOH, mirrorless AF is optimized for new mirrorless lenses: mount adapters are available to AF older DSLR lenses but performance can suffer. Adapters that can bridge mirrorless bodies to operate autofocus on even older screw-drive AF lenses are uncommon, and not yet available for Nikon Z system at all. A Nikon DSLR like D750 or D4 offers the broadest range of compatibility with pre-mirrorless AF lenses, while maintaining traditional meter connection with old manual Nikon lenses (tho some of us struggle nailing manual focus with DSLR viewfinders, which can be frustratingly imprecise at larger apertures). For a size/bulk comparison, see attached pic of three of my Nikons. My FM is on loan to a friend, so I substituted the comparable-sized D40 (on right). I don't own a D4-class body, but my film Nikon F2 with attached motor drive (left) is a close approximation (the D4 would be notably rounder and thicker). My D700 (center) evolved into the similar-bodied D800 series: a D750 or 780 would be slightly smaller, like their predecessors D600/D610. The weight increase from film FM2n to nearly any full-frame (FX) DSLR is substantial: don't underestimate this. Without motor attached, my Nikon F2 is 35% larger and heavier than the FM2, but the D700 dwarfs it: I can happily shoot an F2 all day but the D700 gets real tiring real quick (despite the excellent integrated grip, hand strain is off the charts). So I imagine the D4 would kill me altogether. This is where the smaller DX format cameras shine: my tiny D40 feels lighter than an FM2. Nikon recycled, updated and enhanced this body size repeatedly, thru much newer cameras like D3100, 3200, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5500. They're killer travel and street cameras, but are effectively limited to the newer AFS type lenses if you want the best experience they can offer. Smallish, dinky viewfinder isn't good for manual focusing lenses, there is no meter coupling for manual focus lenses (so no AE or exposure indications). A big tradeoff for the small size is omission of the screw drive motor needed to autofocus the old-style mechanical AF-D type of lenses (these will meter and offer AE, but no AF is possible). Mirrorless DX or M4/3 systems can be as small or smaller, and their EVF can help with manual focus/exposure, but on the whole are best used with their dedicated AF lenses. Some full-frame FX cameras like Sony A7 series are very compact, but the minute you attach a good lens it balloons in size (surprisingly few dedicated FX mirrorless lenses coordinate in size with the small bodies). Using manual focus or different-brand lenses on mirrorless FX requires a mount adapter (basically a hollow tube) to push the lens out to where it would mount on a DSLR mirror box. This combination of camera body, adapter and lens can look really strange (the 50mm lens you might have on your FM2n gets stuck on a mount adapter almost as thick as the lens, which makes it look more like a 135mm tele when hanging off a Sony A7 or Nikon Z). You'd find handling the various options personally at a dealer enormously helpful with your decision. If there are no dealers or stores near you, consider buying from a reputable second-hand camera specialist like KEH or B&H that have good return/exchange policies. Buying from random eBay sellers can be less expensive, but if you don't like the camera style you might get stuck with a loss on resale. Generally speaking, the newer the camera, the better the low light imaging capability: if this is important, save up for a more recent option.

BTW, the above assumes you have decided you want to invest in a DSLR system for your own personal reasons. Camera mfrs have turned away from DSLR in favor of the newer "mirrorless" technology with electronic viewfinder. Some older mirrorless models contemporary with the D750 are available at similar second-hand pricing: worth considering if you'd prefer your lens investment to be future-proof. Nothing wrong with DSLR: many still prefer the handling and direct optical viewfinder. But it is rapidly being abandoned by mfrs going forward. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc all offer a variety of mirrorless bodies, new and used. One of the smaller DX or M4/3 mirrorless cameras would be even closer in size/weight to your Canon G1X. Check them out at a camera store before jumping to a used DSLR: if you find mirrorless comfortable to use, going that route would ensure any lenses you buy today will remain relevant to future cameras you might upgrade to.

While its often tempting to go for the older big "pro" model if its the same price as a newer "amateur" model, D750 may be the more natural step up from a PowerShot type of camera: the D4 is quite a lot of camera to tackle (and carry) if you haven't had much experience with DSLRs. They are comparable in some respects, very different in others. The most obvious difference is the size and weight of the D4: it definitely has some advantages that make it a worthy choice, but unless you very specifically need those advantages for your type of photography you'd be carrying more camera than necessary. The larger, more obviously pro D4 can also attract more attention than you might want during street or travel photography: it can be more intimidating or provoking, and makes you a more noticeable target for thieves in some situations. Other than predictable "pro" niceties like battleship build quality, the D4 has two distinct qualities that set it apart from the D750. The main advantage is pro AF system including brute force torque power to quickly focus older mechanical AF lenses, and more electric power to quickly focus electronic AF lenses (Nikon made both over many years). If your primary interest is sports photography or animal/bird photos with long zoom or tele lenses, the D4 becomes more interesting. A more debatable advantage for some users would be the unique-to-D4 imaging sensor, which was optimized for low light sports environments (largely overtaken today by newer sensors, but some still prefer the rendition of D4). Its also a bit lower resolution than the D750. This sensor would be somewhat more forgiving of the optical flaws in older lenses. If you planned to explore the tons of now-cheaper mechanical screw drive AF Nikkor lenses, or even older manual focus Nikkor lenses, the D4 might be preferable. The specialty Nikon Df body (marketed as Nikon's best platform for older lenses) borrowed its sensor from the D4. Factors that favor the D750 are size, weight, and more recent engineering. It has the now-ubiquitous Sony 24MP sensor, a variation of which has been standard in countless midrange FX cameras for several years now. The popular D750 (and its followup D780) were/are considered phenomenal midrange enthusiast DSLR cameras. The decision comes down to being realistic about how big a camera you're willing to carry around, and whether the specific shooting advantages of the larger camera will help you in any significant way. Nikon offered several different DSLR configurations, all of which work well for general photography, but each was optimized for different tasks. 700 series was pitched for typical broad-range enthusiast photography, 800 series for those needing higher resolution and/or improved AF, and the single-digit pro D4, D5, D6 for the ultimate combination of AF performance, shooting speed and rugged build.

Just to get clarification/closure on the gallium meter tech question, I dug out my issue of Popular Photography with the lab test of the newly-introduced Pentax ME (yeah, I'm that old). glen_h above seems to have nailed the most accurate term for these rare metering cells, which according to the esteemed Norman Goldberg was GaAsP (for Gallium Arsenide Phosphide). Herbert Keppler often shortened that to GaSP, which annoyed camera mfrs enough they switched over to the GPD acronym before gallium meters promptly vanished into irrelevancy in the early '80s. See attached pics of the referenced Pop Photo page, the description of Pentax ME cells is shown. Goldbergs description of the circuit design also matches later historical mentions that these early attempts required circuitry ride directly on the gallium "eyes", a mfrg complication in an era that had standardized on twin meter cells aiming from eyepiece to focus screen. Pentax pulling this off in the tiny ME is pretty impressive, and must have been costly to implement Designers of the larger, manual-exposure Nikon FM probably had it a bit easier.

There were two versions of the Ciroflex E: an earlier model with a parallax correction frame in the viewfinder but no fresnel plate under the ground glass, and a later revision that omitted the (ineffective) parallax indicator to make space for a fresnel plate under the ground glass focus screen. On cameras with the latter "sandwich" type of focus screen, cleaning liquid can easily get trapped between the two plates. Did you completely remove the screen from the viewing hood, or just remove the hood from the camera and clean the screen while it remained in the hood? If you did not completely remove it, for sure some liquid could be trapped between the fresnel (if there is one) and groundglass. Try taking the glass completely out of the hood for more thorough cleaning and drying: if it separates into two plates, you have the fresnel, if only a ground glass comes out, you don't. Note these separate fresnel plates can be extremely difficult to clean without ruining them altogether. They tend to be either filthy or clean when found, if filthy you're better off replacing the screen with something modern than trying to clean it. As michael_linn suggested above, check the Rick Oleson website for info on screen disassembly and ideas for replacement screens. Rick has specialized in TLR upgrade screens for longer than I can remember. Like other sources, he sells brighter modern one-piece plastic screens with the fresnel molded into the bottom of the screen: since these are thinner you may need to fiddle with spacers or bend the clips to fit the screen in proper position in its frame. Awhile back Rick purchased the rights to use a premium screen type unavailable thru other sources, prices for those are higher than for generic Chinese eBay screens. Whether a Ciroflex is worth the cost of a premium screen is another question: for casual use a generic screen might be sufficient. A visual guide to removing the screen from the hood (and other CiroFlex parts) can be found at https://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=ciroflex

The focus screens in the C220F and C330S are hands down the best stock screens of any medium format reflex camera I've ever used (and there were many). Bright enough to make even the f/4.5 lenses like 55mm and 180mm much more usable, while maintaining the contrast (or 'snap') necessary to nail focus without hunting. I prefer these late Mamiya screens to the Acute Matte in my Hasselblad, which is slightly brighter but decidedly not easy to focus with. The 220F/330S screen is what finally and forever cured my Rolleiflex fantasies. Even today, you can buy an entire mint C220F or 330S for about the cost of just a premium screen + installation upgrade from one of the legendary Rollei techs. A variation of the 220F/330S screen material made it into the larger RZ67: those screens became so sought after to cut down for Rolleiflexes that they're almost unobtainable now. Track eBay for a few months, and one of the Japanese dealers will occasionally list assorted new old stock Mamiya 330S screens (like the example pictured). I bought a couple of these some years back, hoping to somehow retrofit them to my older 330f. But I don't have the tools or skill necessary to properly trim the size: after ruining two screens I gave up. If you can obtain a 330S screen, any good repair tech should be able to make it work in the old 330f screen frame: the screen side tabs just need to be carefully trimmed and the retaining clips in the frame resized. If a Mamiya RZ67 screen can be shoehorned into a Rolleiflex, it shouldn't be any harder to hack a Mamiya 330S screen into a 330f. Unless you're a klutz at filing fragile plastic, like me.

Unfortunately the Paramender III followed in the footsteps of several other accessories Mamiya once offered for their various medium format systems: after perfecting the accessory, sales would perversely decline. Mamiya would churn them out in lower volume than previous iterations, discontinue them, then all these years later they became scarcer and more expensive than one would expect. IIRC, soon after the final C330S/C220F bodies arrived demand for the Mamiya TLR system began falling off as their RB67, RZ67 system became more and more preferred by photographers for tripod studio work requiring accurate framing. While a very clever solution to the parallax issue, the TLR + paramender was increasingly perceived as clumsy or inconvenient vs a more intuitive SLR. Tho still a popular 6x6 system, in the '90s Mamiya TLRs saw less use in fields like tabletop, product, and food as the years passed, and the paramender eventually became a nearly irrelevant catalog item (much like the cut film back or newfangled frameless focus screens that would only fit the 330S). Hence the scarcity and price of the Paramender III nowadays. Having personally settled on the C220F (with its incredibly bright/contrasty focus screen) as my favorite Mamiya, I should probably track down a P3 before they all disappear. Unlike the 330, the 220 has no fallback auto parallax indicator in the viewfinder, making it even trickier for framing close shots. 220 is lighter and less fussy to use in the field, but has more compromises in the studio.

As above, unfortunately this annoying incompatibility is a "feature" of budget-priced Nikon DSLRs. You save money on the purchase price of the camera, but the savings come at the cost of losing full compatibility with the very thing most people like about Nikon: the huge supply of interesting older legacy lenses that often sell for much less than newer lenses (and are often much smaller in size, closer to what you'd want for these smaller bodies). While you can attach and use most older manual focus and AF Nikkors on your 5300, it can't fully interact with anything but "modern" versions (marked AF-S somewhere on the barrel). These have completely electronic AF, with self-contained AF motors. Older (and often more compact) lenses marked "AF-D" or simply "AF" rely on the motor that was built into all Nikon film-era AF bodies, and higher end (more expensive) DSLR models. When mounted on the smaller "amateur" bodies like 5300, these older lenses have nothing to connect with to drive AF, so AF is disabled. Meter coupling does still work, so you do get auto exposure and EXIF data, but no AF. Non-electronic, completely manual film-era Nikkors will mount to your 5300 but have no communication with the camera whatsoever. You need to guess your exposure settings, no lens data will transmit to EXIF. The green focus indicator in the viewfinder will still tell you when it thinks focus is correct, thats about all you get. Some very old manual Nikkors (those without dual rows of numbers on the aperture ring) can damage your 5300 lens mount. Nikon's research determined 9 out of 10 "amateurs" never take the original 18-55 kit lens off the camera, with perhaps a few opting for a single additional new tele zoom for sports photography. So they felt most buyers would prefer the lower camera price (and smaller camera size) made possible by leaving out the extra motor and electronics necessary for old lenses. The tradeoff is unimportant or invisible to most 5300 owners, who would never buy a used lens (or any other lens at all).. But disappointing for those few of us who DO want to use older smaller lenses on these smaller, lighter, more casual camera models. My ancient Nikon D40, the first model with this tradeoff, remains one of my favorite digital cameras for its tiny size, minimal weight, and remarkably good "low res" 6MP old-school CCD sensor. Will never give it up, esp after getting it literally for half price due to the chain store in my neighborhood making a huge mistake in their inventory system way back in 2007 (bar coding it for $329 instead of the correct $629).

You haven't posted any pics of the front of the lens, or indicated exactly which Sigma lens model you have here, so our replies are sorta "flying blind". Assuming this is a common consumer-grade Sigma from 15+ years ago, you probably would not get many offers on it even in perfect condition: most buyers today are looking for either camera-branded lenses or newer premium-grade Sigma models. The problem visible in your glass is almost certainly separation, which does progress, is not an easy DIY repair, and is rather expensive to get fixed professionally. Professionals usually don't accept such jobs unless the lens is a sought after classic/collectible (vintage Leica or Zeiss, or Nikon/Canon exotic). With more common mass-market old lenses, it is far less expensive to toss the bad lens and just buy another in better condition. Separation drops the value of most common old Sigma-Tamron-Tokina lenses to near zero. Personally, I would advise not trying to sell it: there are a LOT of clueless, nasty buyers out there who will stupidly buy a defective lens without reading the full description. When they receive it and finally notice the defect, they kick up a fuss claiming the seller (you) tried to deceive them, creating all sorts of headaches for you with the selling site (eBay, etc). This can be worth the risk with expensive items, but is a waste of time for lesser items. Some lenses can remain remarkably usable despite separation, esp if shooting a FX-format lens on a DX or Micro 4/3 camera (which crops away the separation and sees only thru the clear center of the lens). Some can be relegated to "soft hazy portrait" work. But if the degraded performance is too much to work around, you'll be happier if you replace it with another lens. Its sounds as if you were never very fond of this lens to begin with: if thats the case, just write it off after 15 years.

You would need the adapter version with rabbit ears for normal, open aperture meter coupling with your F2S DP2 meter prism. The version without ears can also be used if you don't mind the less convenient stop down metering method, which the F2S DP2 provides to meter with uncoupled old tele Nikkors and the old uncoupled extension tubes. This is the same method employed by many M42 cameras like Pentax Spotmatic. To activate stopped down meter mode, press the DP2 lens coupling pin upwards into the prism, until you hear a click and the little front window shows "5.6". Mount the uncoupled Tamron lens. When you want to meter, pull out the advance lever as usual, set your preferred shutter speed, then press and hold in the depth of field preview button with your right index finger (this stops the lens down to working aperture). While holding down the DOF button, adjust the lens aperture ring to light up both arrows in the viewfinder display (as usual). This sets the correct exposure. You can now let go of the DOF button, compose, focus and release the shutter. When you swap the uncoupled Tamron with another lens that does have the rabbit ears, your F2S DP2 will automatically reset to normal open aperture coupled metering mode as soon as the lens rabbit ears engage the prism pin (which they should when you rotate the aperture ring from minimum to maximum). Confirm the coupling has engaged by noting the aperture shown in the front prism window matches the max aperture of the lens (if not, remove and remount the lens).

GPD was the most common variation of acronym used for gallium meter tech, until the photography press (and mfrs) lost interest. The initial acronym was the more specific "GAsP" (for Gallium Arsenide Photo Diode), but camera mfr PR hacks realized that sounded a bit weird in their English-speaking markets. I think Herbert Keppler was the lone holdout who kept using it until the tech fell off photographers radar. Pentax very quickly switched from "GAsP" to "GPD" in their instruction manuals. There was quite a bit of hype for gallium meters when they debuted in the Nikon FM and Pentax MX/ME twins, it was expected they would replace Silicon Blue (SPD) meters in all new camera models. But then we just stopped hearing about it: I don't remember any other cameras beyond that first wave trio promoting GPD. Just a couple years later, even the newest top-line pro Pentax LX and Nikon F3 reverted to SBD. A little digging reveals '70s GPD tech proved premature for use in 35mm cameras. Something about the circuitry needing to be attached practically right on top of the cells, which made fitting/mfrg them into a compact pentaprism SLR body too expensive and challenging to be economically viable in the long run. Later GPD iterations allowed more distance and flex wiring between the cells and supporting circuits, but by then GPD was completely forgotten and Silicon Blue had become cheap to mfr and standard on all modern cameras.

Circling back to comparing red apples to green apples (or Nikons to Nikons)... When I first saw this thread a few weeks ago, it rang a bell as a familiar (if minor) issue I've noticed between various Nikon cameras: the models with CdS meters tend to "underexpose" vs the models with SPD or GPD meters. I write "underexpose" with quotes because on actual film results, I barely notice the difference. But in controlled-lighting back to back reading comparisons of my various Nikon bodies using the same lens, the CdS meters will read f/2.8 @ 250th while the SPD/GPD meters give me f/2.8 @ 125th. This comes up fairly consistently when I perform the occasional "wellness check" of my (rather crowded) collection of Nikon film cameras, some of which don't get as much active use as others. Such a check just came up again this week, and examining a dozen or so vintage Nikons reminded me of this thread. All my film Nikons with SPD meters (F2AS, F3) and GPD (FM) consistently read approx 1/2 to 2/3 stop lower than my Nikons (F Photomic, F2S, F2A) and Nikkormats (FTn) with CdS meters. The sole CdS exception is my Nikkormat FT3 which reads identically to F2AS/F3/FM. All of which signifies nothing beyond having too much time on my hands: as I said, I barely detect a difference on film (even slide film). The discrepancy could be the result of anything from intrinsic CdS vs SPD/GPD characteristics to Nikon changing its meter profile on newer cameras to a slight shift in the centerweighting area. Its worth noting the Nikon F2 meter finders, including the vaunted DP12/AS, are woefully imprecise mechanically. You can vary the meter indication at least 1/3 stop just by wiggling the free play in the meter prism/shutter knob nexus. So any comparison needs to take that into account and best efforts made to center the mechanical input. Of course our modern (or obsolete) digital Nikons have much more accurate and detailed meter readouts: the same scene measured by my D700 or D40 gives f/2.8 @160th, right smack in between the old film body CdS and SPD/GPD meters. Just for giggles, I pulled out a couple of selenium cell hand meters (Sekonic Master, Hasselblad Gossen Wind Knob): these read surprisingly close to the digicam TTL meters! This topic also reminded me of the curious trajectory GPD cells took in the 35mm film SLR era. Given their advantages over both CdS and SPD, we expected them to quickly take over the new camera market. But after an initial hype buildup via the Nikon FM and Pentax MX, the mfrs and photo press quietly stopped talking about GPD, and most new cameras reverted to SPD meters. A cursory web search reveals the reason: the GPD cells themselves were great, but their supporting circuitry footprint (at the time) proved too challenging and expensive to profitably implement in the 35mm camera body shape. By the time GPD circuit fabrication became flexible enough to use effectively in SLRs, SPD circuit fabrication had become even cheaper and more efficient, so GPD kinda stalled out.

Looks like a Minolta Dynax or Maxxum 7000i, second generation followup to the pioneering Maxxum 7000, circa late '80s. Seems you've got the compact, slowish 35-80 Minolta kit zoom and a typical Sigma tele zoom, likely from the same era. Assuming it all functions well, not a bad freebie kit. Midrange camera body with some nice features, average kit normal zoom, average third-party tele zoom. Not a huge demand for Minolta A-mount film gear these days: while it sold like crazy at the time, few users really bonded to this system, so today it doesn't have nearly as much of a holdover nostalgia demand as the classic manual focus Minolta legends like SRT series. There were some excellent pro-level lenses made for this system, which can be somewhat clumsily adapted to AF with the Sony A7 series digital full frame bodies. But generally speaking, Minolta manual-focus gear is more popular in the current film photography culture. Not a knock against Minolta, all the other brands share the same "charmless plastic blob" disdain when it comes to their AF vs manual focus bodies/lenses. Nobodys getting into bidding wars over the Nikon N70, Canon EOS Elan or Pentax SFX either. Best to simply enjoy the gift as a way to experience the ethos of the camera series that sparked the AF revolution. If you like it, use it and maybe pick up a couple more lenses. If it doesn't grab you, pass it on to an eager film newbie or maybe a photography class.

No. And no. It isn't quite "jammed', at least not yet (a jam usually entails inability to wind, or have the mirror come down, or inability to mount/remove the lens). But your 500cm mirror pre-fire mechanism is gummed up, likely from a long period of disuse, and is overdue for tune-up/lubrication/servicing. More than most other brands, Hasselblad was engineered to be used hard, used often, and serviced regularly. When Hasselblad sits unused for months, never mind years, the mechanics slowly gum up, eventually grinding to a halt. They can be revived, and once revived can be kept in good order by regular use (or at least dry firing every couple weeks). But revival can be more costly than anticipated. Newcomers to the wonderful world of Hasselblad are often blissfully unaware of the fact these are very quirky, very complicated pro-oriented cameras that were priced comparable to a good used automobile in their heyday, and required periodic servicing at pricing comparable to a good auto mechanic. When working properly, they are amazingly tactile and precise-feeling cameras with incredible Zeiss glass. But. That was then. Today, most buyers are stuck with the eBay lottery, where buying any vintage camera is a big gamble. When it comes to exotic German or Swedish gear like Rolleiflex or Hasselblad, the odds are stacked even more firmly against you. There was an enormous revival of interest in "prestige" vintage film cameras eight or nine years ago, at that time most of the good-condition Hasselblad stuff got snapped up at reasonable prices and left the open market. What remained were the more-worn or long-unused examples, in various states of relative functionality, which is what most often trades hands on eBay now in 2023. The good news is Hasselblad gear is still fairly easy to get repaired, as almost every decent camera tech still in business was trained at some point to work on them. In their day, they were a steady income stream for repair shops: they were designed and intended by Haselblad to be serviced on a regular basis. Common wear points includes parts of the film back mechanism, the lens leaf shutters, and the body mechanism timing. All these elements must sync together perfectly for a proper Hasselblad experience. The bad news is Hasselblad service typically costs about what you paid for each module of the camera, which can run into the hundreds to service a complete kit of film back, body and lens. This was not an issue back in the film era, because the pros (and very wealthy amateurs) that could afford Hasselblad never thought twice about the service costs. Today, the average newbie film shooter attracted by the Hasselblad mystique can be shocked by the necessity and cost of such maintenance. But it is what it is: Hasselblad was never remotely a budget-oriented system. The buy-in price for the gear has dropped to half or a third of what it was originally, but service costs soar ever-higher each year. With most other camera types and brands, the recommendation would normally be to return a dysfunctional camera to the seller and try another example, hoping for a better outcome. With Hasselblad, the situation is more nuanced and other factors must be considered. Sooner or later, in a few weeks, months or a year, the majority of Hasselblad items circulating on eBay today will require servicing, whether they seem to work OK when you first get them or not (the lens leaf shutters especially have an infuriating tendency to die a few weeks/months after your return window expires). Given a service expense is all but guaranteed, the "return it or repair it" question becomes one of relative value of the specific Hasselblad piece to the specific photographer. What is the overall condition of your 500cm? Is it very clean and nice cosmetically? It can be hard to find nice examples today, so repairing them can feel more palatable than repairing a worn-looking wreck. Other than the mirror pre-release dysfunction, does everything else work well? If so, you can maybe postpone repairs and use the camera awhile to see if it really suits you (like Leica or Rolleiflex, they can be a love/hate affair upon longer acquaintance). But if there other hints of trouble, repair (or return to seller for refund) may be more urgent. For example, film winding should feel steady, smooth and relatively light. If it feels heavy, esp with crank folded out, its gonna need service fairly soon. Is the focus accuracy of the body good? If not, the foam positioning pads between the mirror glass and the plate it rides on have decayed to dust and need replacement. If your newly-acquired 'blad looks nice and you paid a reasonable price, I'd probably keep it and save up for a servicing (bird in the hand, etc). But if you paid the going market price for a perfect example, or paid a premium based on seller claims of "working perfectly", a return for refund may be the better option. Its a tough choice: faced it myself many times as I built up my own Hasselblad system.

The Mamiya 500 DTL is not nowadays considered a model worth the trouble or expense of repair: if you are still within your return window, return it for refund. If you spent over $50 for it, request a return/refund from the seller even if you're a few days past your return window. This is a camera model that until recently sellers couldn't give away for $10, today every film camera seems to be selling for vastly inflated prices. Mamiya wasn't tremendously successful in the booming 1960s/1970s 35mm SLR market, they were primarily relied on as a mfr of professional medium format roll film cameras for studio work. Mamiya 35mm SLRs were well-built in one sense, but gimmicky and over-complicated in others which can make them unreliable and difficult to service today. For example, I would not advise attempting to remove the bottom plate to poke around: this can be helpful with many 35mm SLRs but some of the Mamiyas have a beyond-peculiar battery switch mechanism in this location which you can wreck if you don't remove the bottom plate just right. Also the Mamiya DTL bodies can be very picky about lenses: not all M42 screw mounts are compatible, and the DTLs were notorious for permanent jamming if incompatible M42 lenses were attached. If you want a nice cheap screw-mount 35mm SLR, there are tons to choose from (even Mamiya improved and simplified with their similar newer DSX-500). Chinon made several nice, very usable electronic AE screw mount bodies (also sold under GAF branding). Also Vivitar, Fuji, etc. If you don't care about a specific lens mount or lens line, consider a Nikon Nikkormat FTn. These sold in the millions, have bulletproof shutters, flood eBay in every country, and most still work perfectly aside from the meter maybe being dead (a very common problem on all non-electronic SLRs). If you're willing to accept an electronic SLR, something out-of-fashion like an Olympus OM20 is a good, very affordable choice. Lots more options available in the $100 price range, unfortunately below that threshold can be slim pickings in today's overheated cult of the film camera. The best buys out there are late '80s second-wave AF film SLRs like Nikon N8008 or N2020: not chic or retro looking, so nobody wants them for hipster jewelry, but they're great to use and take common AA or AAA batteries.

All the Mamiya TLRs, right up thru final C330S model, have the somewhat twitchy dual back latch arrangement. The newer 220/330 series is a bit more forgiving than the older C3, C33, etc but you still do need to make a habit of firmly pressing down both top corners of the back after loading to be sure both latches are fully engaged. The larger older bodies tend to have a more audible double click sound to help confirm each latch, the 330 and later models often only emit one click so you can't rely on sound alone. All 330 models have a removable back enabling use of their optional cut film holder. The only thing that ever goes wrong with Mamiya TLR bodies is frame spacing or frame counting issues, unsurprising since these simple beasts contain no other significant mechanics aside from film transport. Service and repair isn't difficult, but as with most cameras the hard part is removing the cosmetic bits to reveal access screws (and replacing the cosmetic bits afterward). If you don't have any experience with such repairs, pay a tech to do the work cleanly. The most common Mamiya TLR fault is 120 film transport glitches: weirdly, they'll often fail to handle 120 properly yet 220 will run thru the camera perfectly. The problematic bodies I've owned tended to work fine up to the 11th frame, then go wonky on the 12th (failing to stop on 12 and just winding straight thru the remaining roll). Given the very basic operation of these TLRs, of course its possible to just live with such an issue by remembering you can only rely on 11 or 12 frames (comparing the counter number to the 120 indicator on the back door should remind you anything beyond 12 frames is junk). As others above have mentioned, theres a chance your issue with this particular 330 may be a simple gumminess or stiffness in the 120 detection mechanism. Setting the pressure plate of all 330 models (and the 220F) to 120 film shifts a tab bar into position to press a spring loaded tab in the body once the back latches, which programs the frame counter and film stop for 12 exposures. When the pressure plate is set for 220, the bar tab on the back is retracted and the spring tab in the body remains untouched (programming the counter and frame stop for 24 exposures). See photo below of my C330f with open back. Red arrows point to the film type tab in the back and matching spring loaded button in the body (above the upper film chamber, right below the right hand latch). Check that the 120/220 arm inside the back door moves up and down as you revolve the pressure plate from 120 to 220 and back again. The bar with protruding tab should move up toward the top edge of the film door when set for 120, and retract down roughly a quarter inch when set for 220. If the bar is stuck in the lower 220 position even when the pressure plate is set at 120, thats likely the source of your issue: try pulling it up to 120 position with your fingernail. Also check the corresponding spring loaded tab in the body: it should press down easily and pop back up instantly when you release it. If it seems jammed or stuck in the down or up position, esp if up, your 330 is locked into 220 mode and requires servicing (clean, lube, perhaps a new spring).

I've seen many posts reporting success with the solder gun trick for loosening Loctite afflicted screws on old Nikon gear (esp lenses), but it has never worked for me. Properly fitting tools are the most helpful solution (i.e., use true Japanese JIS cross head screwdrivers vs ordinary Phillips jeweler screwdrivers). I eventually filed down an ancient brass mini pliers to needle nose, and use those for the occasional pinhead screws. This works, but after a couple mishaps on beater F2 bodies I learned to go very slow with steadily increasing turn pressure (stopping and starting again if I feel the tool beginning to slip). Ideally one would obtain a fixed dual-pin screwdriver of matching size, but they weren't readily available when I was looking years ago.

Hmmm... that is strange! This printed discrepancy doesn't seem to have been discovered in other similar discussion threads over many years, perhaps because most Mamiya TLR enthusiasts tend to refer back to Graham Patterson's definitive archive as their source of info for any items they don't personally own. My original C330S manual, plus the PDF on the Butkus manual website, list the 80mm S as 5/3 construction. In any case, a 4 element 80mm f/2.8 would give noticeably poor performance at wider apertures (making it unlikely Mamiya would suddenly choose to downgrade the final version sold as standard equipment with their final, most expensive TLR). I do happen to own a pair of of Mamiya C220F bodies (sister of C330S) along with all lenses except the 250mm. Among these are two 80mm S examples and one of the earlier black 80mm. I just took a few cell phone snapshots of them next to each other. Second photo from the top shows older and S version front lens barrels unscrewed: you should be able to see they're identical (I can also confirm they are the same, having disassembled them both down to individual glass groups for cleaning). Third photo down shows the rear barrels: I have not been able to unscrew my 80S rear barrels so can only show them affixed to the lens board. I am quite sure they are the same cemented element pair internally, the 80S (on the right) looks taller only because its barrel lip extends further beyond the glass for extra protection (vs the earlier 80mm rear barrel which is nearly flush with the glass surface). Hope you find these pics helpful with your question.

As a footnote to the above excellent advice, those new to camera tinkering and DIY projects should be aware the Nikon F2 baseplate has one glaring "gotcha" feature that can make opening the bottom annoyingly difficult. The always-exposed motor drive coupling (see left side in pic) defies easy removal if you do not have an appropriate tool (and it is alarmingly easy for even the correct tool to slip and seriously scratch the baseplate). The motor drive coupling wheel prevents the baseplate from coming off despite previously removing all baseplate edge screws and the door latch handle. It is held in place by a dual pinhead screw: this is very tiny and usually frozen solid with 40+ year old Loctite thread glue. Unscrewing it requires either the exact precision screwdriver or a decent substitute. The two pinholes are quite small and shallow, the turning force needed to break the Loctite seal is strong enough that any makeshift tool easily slips from the tiny holes and scratches the finish of the screwhead, the coupler, and if you're really unlucky the baseplate. Work slowly and carefully!

The above diagram is not accurate: possibly ianbfoto re-composited their page from several sources and an error crept in. The only four element version of Mamiya 80mm TLR lens was the slower, rather uncommon f/3.7 (almost never seen anymore). The 80mm S employs (in its lower "taking" lens barrel) the same 5 elements/3 groups formula as all previous variants of Mamiya 80mm f/2.8. Mamiya has never officially confirmed the 80 S has multicoating: that is popular conjecture based on the unique color of the S coatings, which may or may not be multicoating. The only confirmed radical change made to the final 'S' variant was cost-cutting of the upper viewing lens assembly: unlike all previous Mamiya TLR lens iterations, the upper viewing lens on the 80 S is a different, cheaper, incompatible design (quite possibly 4 elements) in a permanently fixed barrel that cannot be opened for easy cleaning (or to replace a damaged element of the lower taking lens). You can verify the 5/3 construction of the 80mm S lens via the diagram and description on pages 31 and 32 of the (genuine unaltered) instruction manual for C330S camera that was introduced alongside the 80 S:

Yes, thats the "crop factor" effect vs the same lens' coverage on your Hasselblad 6x6.. The 1000mm focal length stays the same, but the two different cameras get different angles of view from the same lens via their different frame sizes. As it happens, I also use my Hasselblad V lenses on my Nikon D700 occasionally. Pictorially, I find the D700 sensor characteristics an excellent match with the V lens characteristics. Of course the handling can be clumsy, and with shorter V focal lengths one sometimes needs to consider the true nature of each optic (i.e., the 50mm Distagon V mounted on the Nikon may be an apparent "normal 50mm" due to the crop factor, but remains a retrofocus wide angle in design with the usual optical properties and compromises of such designs). These optical category variations between the V lenses and identical focal lengths native to the smaller format become insignificant with lenses longer than the 80mm Planar, where the only change when mounting the V lens on a Nikon/Sony/Canon etc would be the crop factor. Be sure you are interpreting the crop factor and "lens equivalence" correctly, Your Hasselblad 500mm APO + 2x Mutar don't become "a 1600mm lens" when mounted on your Nikon: rather, the combined APO + Mutar on Nikon give you the equivalent angle of view/ frame coverage of a 1600mm lens on your Hasselblad. Put another way, 1000mm on Nikon gives you a magnification reach of 20x the standard Nikon 50mm focal length, which translated to the 6x6 Hasselblad is 20x the standard 80mm focal length (1600mm equivalent). The focal length is fixed at 1000mm, only the angle of view changes, but its convenient mental shorthand to think of these changes as being different focal lengths on the different cameras. It would depend somewhat on your subject and the shooting environment. The 500mm Zeiss V APO is an excellent lens, but at f/8 is a stop or more slower and far larger/heavier than 500mm lenses designed for the smaller format. The Zeiss Mutar is a good teleconverter, but using it to make the 500mm into 1000mm pushes the envelope in terms of its effect on lens performance, plus drops the effective max aperture down to a truly dismal f/16. Such dim viewing/focusing combined with the size/weight could lead to practical drawbacks that might make other alternatives preferable for subjects other than completely static architecture in bright daylight etc. Beyond a certain point in digital tele photography (typically 400mm on a Nikon D700), getting good quality pixel density with the longest reach in the most compact AF package tends to more predictable, usable results. The DX sensor format often wins out here, where mounting a decent but affordable 500mm DX/FX optimized AF lens on an affordable DX camera with good 24 MP sensor (say Nikon D7100 and later) nets you the effective reach of a 750mm lens on the D700 (with double the pixel density). Moderate cropping would get you the reach equivalent of 1000mm on the D700, again in a much more practical maneuverable package. Something to consider, if you find yourself increasingly drawn to long tele work with varied subjects on Nikon.