PatB

<p>Already have a couple of zeiss lenses and I have always felt less guilty about spending money on good glass - cameras are different. You can get a new grey market df for £1300 / $2000 at the moment, which is much more realistic than the introductory retail price. <br> I've been living with d700 since 2013 - came to digital pretty late - but the d700 camera has only got about 10k clicks so you can see that my love for digital is not that great, I basically reach for analogue more. However, and I am aware that the processing can make a huge difference, the Df is the first digital camera (looking at the pictures only, the ergonomics and limited functionality of the camera are fine with me) that has made me appreciate the benefits of digital over film, especially the high iso and the improved dynamic range of the current sensors. The d610/750 have a different look, d810 also looks impressive but the size of the camera is an overkill, I will probably end up not using it in the same way the d700 has been neglected. <br> A recent trip to China (which I shot on portra 160 only) made me realize that I was limited by my gear, there were many low light opportunities, with very cinematic qualities that I could not capture with film (or even film + tripod) and I haven't felt had that "equipment limitation feeling" in about 10 years. <br> The Df seems to tick all the boxes in therms of my expectations: small size, low light capabilities, great WB but I am not sure whether it will improve much on the already good d700? </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi All, <br> Has anyone done a similar transition? I was considering a d810 upgrade instead but looking at countless image samples on Flickr, DF colour rendition seems to be more appealing compared to D810 which looks more artificial and sterile to my eye - too many pixels crammed in perhaps? I tend not to rely on AF lenses and the weight of the d700 is bothersome, hence the idea. I laughed when the Df was first introduced, especially, given the inflated pricing but it is much more affordable now. <br> Has anyone done a similar transition? Any thoughts? Regrets? <br> Pat</p>

Thanks for sharing the results. I will try it myself at some point.

<p>great job! Well done for not giving in to peer pressure! ;)</p>

<p>Hi there, <br> A quick question for those who have got both. Given the fact that the Df was supposed to be used with legacy glass, is it's viewfinder better for manual focusing compared to the d700? <br> Many thanks!<br> Pat</p>

The old battery was definitely to blame as I got every frame blank when in P mode. However, I tested the camera in bright light (and a brand new battery) this morning, with the shutter cocked and camera left untouched overnight. With the first try the shutter did not open, with the second the shutter opened very slightly and it was only with the third try that the shutter opened as I'd expect. Once the shutter opens, it fires consistently every time though. I care very little for the P mode and never use it really but it makes me wonder what's causing the issue; I've never had blank frames in A mode by the way. Capacitors not getting enough juice the first time round? The circuitry draining the battery overnight?

Hi All, Just got a Minox 35ml which does not work properly in P mode. It leaves blank or almost blank frames; Aperture mode seems to work fine. There's some faint residue on the top aperture blade so perhaps that's stopping the mechanism to release the aperture blades properly? If it was sticking the frames would be overexposed rather than underexposed, though... Has anyone had this happen? Also, do you find the Minox 35ml to be sensitive to old batteries (this particular one was 2 years out of date but never used)? I have just tested the camera with a different battery and I can see the shutter is opening and aperture changes depending on light source. Perhaps that was the culprit? Thanks! Pat

Thanks JDM, at the minimum focus distances that amount of movement between the physical stop and 1m mark on the focus ring seems to translate to about 12cm shift in focus so it can make a difference, especially wide open.

<p>Hi All, <br> A quick question. <br> The specs for Contax T give a minimum focusing distance of 1m and yet, at least on my camera, I am able to hit the minimum focusing stop slightly below the actual 1 meter marking on the lens. Is the camera able to focus slightly below 1 meter then, say at 0,9m? Either Contax have given a rounded value OR the markings are mere estimates OR my focusing ring has somehow shifted. <br> What's your Contax T like?<br> Thanks!<br> Pat</p>

Many thanks for the info Gus!

Hi All, My Contaxt T is slightly short of focus at infinity. I've found information on vertical adjustment using a screw behind a small cover under the film winding lever (very straightforward) but I can't find any information on the horizontal adjustment. Does anyone know how to do this? Many thanks! Pat

All info much appreciated Craig, thanks.

<p>Yes, I am after a compact film camera. I am familiar with the mju series, thanks. They are well regarded but I've crossed it out off my list as it lacks manual aperture control. What's the shutter lag on these by the way?<br> G15 is a good recommendation but it's quite large. I have an even smaller panasonic lumix lx3 as a digital p&s camera as it is very compact. I'll try to find a contax t as the concept is identical to the xa with improved optics and also try to get a minox 35 for even more fleeting situations.</p>

<p>That's exactly it Craig.<br> F80 + 35mm f2 is fairly compact by SLR standards. It's a nice package: good size, smallish lens, AF, great meter etc. but not anywhere as pocketable as the Olympus XA. I think the Hexar AF, although a bit smaller still, will also be too large to be considered a viable alternative size-wise. I've tried using the F80 past the last couple of days as an "everywhere camera" and it simply did not work - it's too large, too conspicuous, like you're trying too hard... <br> I am digressing a bit but I have been using bulky cameras all my life and the XA experience was really inspiring. I've always dismissed point-and-shoot sized cameras because of lack of controls, poor lens quality, unpredictable AF, shutter lag and suddenly I came across the Olympus which offers everything a photographer could wish for casual, yet creative, shooting. However, as ideal as it may be ergonomically, I found the lens lacking and definitely overrated (that's why Lomography has never appealed to my taste) so I am now looking at getting a Contax T and/or a Minox 35 camera which are truly compact, offer good amount of manual control and are an improvement over the XA optically. <br> <br />Thanks again for your thoughts guys!</p>

Thanks for your thoughts on this. While the lens is not stellar it's an acceptable performer. I used an olympus xa for a while as a portable camera and while it was AMAZING for portability the lens' performance left a lot to be desired unless seriously stopped down, which sort of goes against having a bright lens if you can't use it wide open. The Nikon 35mm f2 afd is much better despite lacking contrast at f2 and it improves further at f2.8 and is pretty good at f4 even in the corners.

Hi all, Following a rather freeing experience of using an olympus xa - as a portable camera you can take with you all the time - I am now trying to find something that would better it and would have a brighter lens. I've narrowed it down to Konica Hexar AF and Olympus 35RD. Although generations apart, their lenses seem to have very pleasing rendering which I like. However, two things bother me: compactness and reliability. I am aware of the sticking shutter button problem on the Hexar (easy fix) and oily shutter blades that need cleaning periodically but is there anything in terms of reliability, especially with the Hexar that could turn it into an exlensive paperweight. Am I right thinking that the Olympus will be more serviceable? In terms of portability, their size and weight are almost identical with hexar being a bit larger - too large as a portable camera? Has anyone had a chance to use the two and would be willing to share their thoughts? By the way, if it turns out neither are really portable I might simply use my current "to go" set up a nikon f80 and 35mm or 50mm lens. thanks! Pat

Hi all, I have been considering getting the konica as portable everyday camera. As nice as the hexar af might be, I simply wonder whether I would get equally good results with the nikon setup (I already have an f80 and the mentioned 35mm afd lens), without the hexar's limitations such as 1/250 max shutter speed. Has anyone had a chance to compare the two lenses quality wise? They seem to be similar in size and weight. Is the comparison even fair? Thanks! Pat

Phew, testing has been done and I've managed to establish a reference point. For anyone out there experimenting with replenished Xtol, don't be confused by the suggested 10% increase - the times should be much longer! Stock time for tmax 400 is 6min 30sec and adding 10% will get you nowhere with seasoned xtol (1l bottle of fresh Xtol seasoned after 6-7 rolls in my case). 7min15sec gave underdeveloped negatives (by about 1.5 to 2 f stops), those tested at 9min15secs (xtol 1:1 dillution time) were still slightly underdeveloped although looked much better and they needed between an extra 2/3rd to 1 full stop. Developing at 10min15sec (closer to 1:2 xtol times as Peter suggested above) yielded very good results. With my inversion (3x every 30secs) tmax 400 needs slight overexposure as well so rating it at 320 or overexposing by +0.5 stop brings out enough shadow detail without flattening the tones. My next step will be to experiment with replenishment amounts as the process stabilizes or should the developer activity starts to lessen. Thanks again to all people contributing!

Hey, Thanks for sharing your experience. Perhaps it's not yet in its fully seasoned state and it's going to become even slower later. I'll try to increase development by a minute to make the changes more pronounced.

Just noticed that I described the agitation wrong. Turn+twist sequence is done every 30 seconds not every minute.

<p>Finally got to a stage where my 1l bottle of Xtol appears to be seasoned (7 rolls down the line). I developed a roll of TMAX 400 (a film I know well in stock xtol) using stock times (6m30s + 10% = around 7m15s), as recommended by Kodak, but the negative is showing underdeveloped by about a stop. On the plus side, the overall contrast has increased and the tonality is more dynamic. Oh, I thought I'd mention that I turn the tank upside down with a 90 degree twist 3 times every minute.<br> I don't want to develop for much longer not to blow out the highlights but may need to overexpose by half a stop to add a bit more shadow detail. Consequently, I am thinking of increasing development by another 30s with my next test roll. However, replenished xtol users suggest 1:1 times, which is a massive 9min15s! (for small tanks). The times quoted for large tanks give 7min45s which seems to be more in line with what I've observed so far. Perhaps that's what they mean?<br> I know I've asked this question before but there's a lot of conflicting and unclear information out there.<br> <br /> Any suggestions?<br> Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Right, Just developed first two rolls towards a seasoned solution. I did lose about 70-80ml during the process - the Patersons are a bit leaky during inversions so I topped up with fresh Xtol to make up the difference (which may slow down the seasoning process in the long run) before I poured it back into the storage bottle; in fact, I had to think hard about pouring it back into the bottle - I've always used one shot developers. Next time I putting the bottle right where the sink hole is to avoid a D'oh moment. <br> I won't be developing anything important the next couple of rolls but should I even bother increasing the times until I get to the 5-6 rolls threshold? </p>

Marris, thanks for the handy tip on the order of topping up.

Thanks for all your responses! I think I'll give it a go, it's the only way to find out. John, I am glad to hear there's a good way of dealing with periods of inactivity, very encouraging. What about times with replenished xtol and tmax 100? Are 1:1 times a good starting point?

Thanks for the tip, I've increased development time already. I now rate tmax 400 at 320iso and develop for at least 9min 45sec. Losing a full stop would be too much of a loss. I need that speed for my ga645i and its f4 lens. Perhaps 10min is the answer?