Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!
Peter Lawrence
http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
- Peter
Malcolm Stewart
news:29db0c14.04091...@posting.google.com...
> Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
> http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
> - Peter
Thanks for posting. Nikon make a great sales pitch about reducing noise,
and then forget to put a figure in the specifications against which we might
do some checks!
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk\oddimage.htm
William Graham
>
> http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
>
>
> - Peter
The specs seem almost identical to the F5......I really don't see anything
that warrants a new model.....Perhaps quieter, and perhaps better flash
control, but an F6?
Bhup
of the F5
Nikon has got it right to to keep at the forefront of film too
B
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t5c2d.58656$D%.25370@attbi_s51...
Bhup
I suspect all the digital people are asking Why.. have nikon done this
thought film was dead.
Gues ther is a market for the F6 .
B :)#
When My F3 /F90x break down I will conside a F6
"Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29db0c14.04091...@posting.google.com...
Brian C. Baird
But they did announce the D2X. Finally made the switch to CMOS - with
12.4 megapixels I don't think the CCD would cut it in terms of noise.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
none
no more direct successor to the F100 (esp. given the F6's design)?
Also, would official support for another previous generation of F-series
cameras (esp. the F4-series) be discontinued (given Nikon's 10-year
spare parts policy)?
David Edwards
------
David Edwards
nitehawk01 at verizon dot net
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t5c2d.58656$D%.25370@attbi_s51...
>
Stephen H. Westin
> They're bonkers.
>
> But they did announce the D2X. Finally made the switch to CMOS - with
> 12.4 megapixels I don't think the CCD would cut it in terms of noise.
No, I suspect the limitation is readout speed. Though the reason you
can't just keep increasing the clock speed on a CCD is the noise
increase.
I wonder if the F6 was derived from the D2 series. More probably, they
were developed together, and the degree to which they share technology
made it economical to do two cameras rather than just one.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Stephen H. Westin
Hmm. The prism is now permanently mounted, so they lost at least one
F5 feature. I suspect that the improvements in size, weight,
alignment, and dust sealing were just too tempting...
Matt Clara
news:cibpd5$lol...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
I suspect not--the F100 will continue to sell for ~$900, and the new F6 for
$2000, with the F5 being discontinued.
I don't believe there is a discontinuance of "official" support for Nikon
cameras, other than the spare parts policy you cite. For instance, Nikon
USA will service my Nikon F, but only if they can bring it up to 100%
factory specs. Which is to say, if it needs new parts, they won't work on
it, because there aren't any, and therefore they would be unable to bring it
up to 100% factory specs.
This I know from experience.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Alan Browne
> Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
>
> http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
Glad to hear it. As William says, so what, it's an F5... but it
looks more compact and up to date ... has some questionable bells
and whistles ("Shutter Monitor"?)...
Didn't mention viewfinder options ... have they gone fixed VF?
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Matt Clara
news:d3j2d.3282$5F4.1...@weber.videotron.net...
> Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
> >
> > http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
>
>
> Glad to hear it. As William says, so what, it's an F5... but it
> looks more compact and up to date ... has some questionable bells
> and whistles ("Shutter Monitor"?)...
If this is what I'm thinking it is, the F5 has the shutter monitor, too. It
checks the speed of the shutter against the speed set by the camera--if the
shutter is off, it compensates. Rather than quesitonable, this sounds like
a must for a working pro who can't afford to miss the shot.
Wesley Jansen
so, as I thought that was a glaring omission on the F100 (considering the
N90 came so equipped). Shame about the loss of interchangeable finders, but
perhaps there just wasn't much of a market for such; and as you said,
probably easier sealing. Glad to see the manual rewind option and mirror
lock-up.
"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:s07jqun...@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu...
TP
>
>I wonder if the F6 was derived from the D2 series. More probably, they
>were developed together, and the degree to which they share technology
>made it economical to do two cameras rather than just one.
The F6 and D2 are the products of a Nikon development program that has
been running for three years with the aim of marketing a convertible
film/digital SLR that would have succeeded both the F5 and D1X. The
rationale for this hybrid camera was questioned - and abandoned - in
early 2003 when it became apparent that Nikon's target market's move
from film to digital was becoming so rapid and so total that it made
such a hybrid obsolete even before it hit the camera dealers' shelves.
The result was that Nikon used the technology to develop two separate
cameras, one film and one digital, that share many common features.
In fact they share just about as many features as it is possible for a
film and a digital SLR to share. Metering, autofocus, even the
shutters share similar technology.
Leica's R Digital Back for the R9 is aimed at a different market; one
that is still firmly wedded to film but is slowly and cautiously
moving into digital. Leica don't expect large production volumes for
their digital back, but loyal Leica fans wishing to embrace digital
while continuing to use Leica optics will no doubt support Leica's
efforts to the extent Leica need.
Gordon Moat
Thanks for sharing. It almost seems like more of an update to the F100,
than a change in the F5. This is the first F single digit camera from
Nikon to not allow changing the viewfinder. :-(
I am not surprised that the flash control feature of the latest digital
SLRs has made it to the film line, though I wonder if only the F6 will
have that capability in the film SLR line.
Nice to see they have cut some weight off the F5, the F6 is at 975 g. It
is close to the lightest F4 configuration which is 1090 g.
Also interesting to see Giugiaro listed as the body designer. This
Italian firm was responsible for the F3 body design as well. With some
possibility that this might be the last new flagship film SLR design
from Nikon (industry analysts expect no new film SLRs at all by 2008
from Japanese companies), it might become a future classic. Looks like a
nice package, though somewhat like an F100.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
William Graham
"Bhup" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ixc2d.33$7X...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> perhaps its smaller than the F5 . I never liked the intgrated battery pack
> of the F5
> Nikon has got it right to to keep at the forefront of film too
Yes....I think TP's post is the key....The two engineering departments at
Nikon saw a chance to profit from each other's work, so they came out with
the F6 along with the D2X.....They wouldn't have normally replaced the F5
with so few improvements otherwise......
Martin Francis
news:d3j2d.3282$5F4.1...@weber.videotron.net...
"Fixed eyelevel pentaprism". Shame....
... means the used F5 will be even cheaper, though!!!
--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Martin Francis
news:%_d2d.7669$lX.91@trnddc04...
> The specs seem to imply that it comes with a "data back" as standard.
*gasp!*
Martin Francis
news:s07jqun...@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu...
> F5 feature. I suspect that the improvements in size, weight,
> alignment, and dust sealing were just too tempting...
... and the chance to make an Nikon 1v.
--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
.
ThomasH
>
> I dont like the batery CR123A but Guess it has to have a fault.
> I suspect all the digital people are asking Why.. have nikon done this
> thought film was dead.
> Gues ther is a market for the F6 .
>
> B :)#
> When My F3 /F90x break down I will conside a F6
I guess they like low temperature performance of lithium,
durability (10 years) and the higher energy density
(smaller size and weight.)
At least they have low price of down to $1.25 online, compared
to Canon's ultra-extra expensive and difficult to get on
the road 2CR5!!
Does someone knows how many mAh a typical CR123 has?
Do we have CR123 compatible rechargeable Li-Ion? They never
made large scale rechargeable 2CR5!
Thomas
Sander Vesik
No. F6 is all the features of F5 with all the features that have been added
to the digital cameras - including D2H - moved over to film. You should
re-read teh specs ;-) While its true the difference isnt as big as it has
been in the changes in top dSLR-s, the fault there is with dSLR-s having
stated off really primitive in comparison.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik
> Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
> >
> > http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
>
>
> Glad to hear it. As William says, so what, it's an F5... but it
> looks more compact and up to date ... has some questionable bells
> and whistles ("Shutter Monitor"?)...
Its not a F5. Please look at the specs (not pictures) of D2X and F6
and F5 side by side.
D2X F6 F5
AF 11-area Multi-CAM 2000 same multi-cam 1300
AF modes 4 same 2
exposure comp 5EV, steps of 1/3,1/2,1 same 5EV, steps of 1/3
rear LCD yes yes no
>
> Didn't mention viewfinder options ... have they gone fixed VF?
The spec says: Fixed eye-level pentaprism, built-in diopter
adjustment (-2.0 to +1m-1), eyepiece shutter,
eyepiece DK-17 (eyepiece lock available)
*IMHO* they should have called it F200 - but I suspect that there will
be just one new gen high end film camera, not two so some things are
gained and some lost in convergence of F5 and F100 follow-ons.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
Matt Clara
news:10953833...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
As far as I can tell, the only thing lost is the interchangeable prisms.
That matters not a whit to me, nor do I know any photographers by aquintance
or word of mouth who change prisms by the job, or on any regular basis, for
that matter.
William Graham
"Matt Clara" <cri...@large.com> wrote in message
news:9ns2d.908854$ic1....@news.easynews.com...
I think they lost the 8 AA battery set too.....This is one of the things I
like best about my F5. Being able to buy batteries at any 7-11 in the middle
of the night.....
Patrick Leung
"Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29db0c14.04091...@posting.google.com...
Wm Gardner
and "Film Loading". About 3/4 of the way down the page.....
Bill
--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-Theodore Roosevelt
"Patrick Leung" <1...@1.com> wrote in message
news:2jt2d.448190$gE.31633@pd7tw3no...
Alan Browne
> Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
>
> http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
...not sure if anyone else posted on it ... but the F6 backs
off to 1/250 sync speed from 1/300. Yet another area where the
F6 is a watered down F5 or more likely an improved F100.
Bill Tuthill
According to my online research, 1200 to 1400 mAh.
> Do we have CR123 compatible rechargeable Li-Ion? They never
> made large scale rechargeable 2CR5!
I have never seen one.
Heck, lithium AAA batteries are *still* not available!
Matt Clara
> Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Here's the link to Nikon's press release:
> >
> > http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_02.htm
>
>
> ...not sure if anyone else posted on it ... but the F6 backs
> off to 1/250 sync speed from 1/300. Yet another area where the
> F6 is a watered down F5 or more likely an improved F100.
>
>
Whatever... Most modern Nikons will go to 1/300 (on manual), but it's iffy,
even on the F5. Nikon's just playing it safe. Plus, look at the host of
other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
and on.
If this is an improved F100, it's improvements are generational, at the very
least.
Alan Browne
> Why I don't see the MLU function in the new F6?
It's there.
"Mirror lockup Set using film advance mode selector"
So perhaps a delay type rather than a lever type.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> ...not sure if anyone else posted on it ... but the F6 backs
>>off to 1/250 sync speed from 1/300. Yet another area where the
>>F6 is a watered down F5 or more likely an improved F100.
>>
>>
>
>
> Whatever... Most modern Nikons will go to 1/300 (on manual), but it's iffy,
> even on the F5. Nikon's just playing it safe. Plus, look at the host of
On the F5 it is spec so I would expect it to work within the temp
range of the camera flawlessly.
> other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
> etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
> better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
Shutter monitor? WTF is that? Nikon shutters are extremely
reliable in this class ... not something of value to monitor it, IMO.
> super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
> and on.
> If this is an improved F100, it's improvements are generational, at the very
> least.
I expected that the "F6" would be better than an "F5" in all
respects. Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it... but by
going to a fixed VF, slower sync, etc. etc. they've taken away
some of the king-of-the-hill pro appeal.
Cheers,
Alan.
ThomasH
I got so used to the rechargeable AA'a and also in my
"small" digital is of course also a Li-Ion rechargeable,
that I am almost hesitant to use anything what would force
me to use one way batteries again! Why to revert to such
technology? Apparently the F6 does not offer any alternative,
unless you attach the vertical grip with Nikon's battery pack.
Thomas
TP
>Thanks for sharing. It almost seems like more of an update to the F100,
>than a change in the F5. This is the first F single digit camera from
>Nikon to not allow changing the viewfinder. :-(
>
>I am not surprised that the flash control feature of the latest digital
>SLRs has made it to the film line, though I wonder if only the F6 will
>have that capability in the film SLR line.
Gordon,
There is an "F105" under development which has the body style of the
F100 but with most of the features of the F6. Expect it in 2005.
Tony
TP
>
>As far as I can tell, the only thing lost is the interchangeable prisms.
>That matters not a whit to me, nor do I know any photographers by aquintance
>or word of mouth who change prisms by the job, or on any regular basis, for
>that matter.
Nikon still have comparatively huge stocks of unsold alternative
finders for the F4, and sold very, very few for the F5, hence their
omission from the F6 specification. None of the D1/D2 series digital
SLRs had/has interchangeable finders, and apparently there is no
demand for them.
It seems sensible not to offer something for which there is virtually
no demand, and which adds significantly both to the cost of
manufacture and to the risk of ingress of dust or moisture.
TP
>
>I think they lost the 8 AA battery set too.....This is one of the things I
>like best about my F5. Being able to buy batteries at any 7-11 in the middle
>of the night.....
Just buy the accessory AA battery pack. I suggest that most F6 owners
will buy one, just as most F4 owners purchased an MB-21 or MB-23
battery pack.
Alan Browne
> As far as I can tell, the only thing lost is the interchangeable prisms.
> That matters not a whit to me, nor do I know any photographers by aquintance
> or word of mouth who change prisms by the job, or on any regular basis, for
> that matter.
Yet in the past when comparing the Maxxum 9 or EOS-1v to the F5
there are certain proponents who claim that the interchangeable
VF is *so* essential to a professional ... so it is interesting
to see that Nikon are simplifying the F6 to keep the costs
down... those few who really *do* need the interchangeable vf's
can of course resort to the F5 ... which has a well earned
reputation for reliability and performance in the first place so
they should be available for a while yet, both new and used.
The F6 strategy seems to be as a film alternative for digital
shooting pros who need to shoot a lot of film too. F6 is not the
"extreme" pro camera that the F5 is but has all the essentials
that most pros will want in a film camera.
It is heartening to see them coming out with a full pro camera at
this point... I wonder if Canon will too ... they seem to be
pounding down the digital walls by preference.
Sales will tell.
William Graham
"TP" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gegmk0d3ojigf30uo...@4ax.com...
Yes....On re-reading the specs, I see that such a thing is available...I do
wonder where they put it. Does it hang on the bottom of the camera,
extending it's height to approximately the same as the F5?
Sander Vesik
> > other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
> > etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
> > better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
>
> Shutter monitor? WTF is that? Nikon shutters are extremely
> reliable in this class ... not something of value to monitor it, IMO.
Something that will tell you when you need need to go to
a Nikon service center because your shutter just fired at
the wrong speed compared to what it was supposed to.
Or do you have a use for a shuuter that fires at say 5% less on speeds
above 1/2000?
>
> > super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
>
> About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
> fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
Are there really subjects needing more than 1/8000? And I don't
mean shooting bright sunlight dyatime scenes with ISO 1600 film
and large apertures.
>
> > and on.
> > If this is an improved F100, it's improvements are generational, at the very
> > least.
>
> I expected that the "F6" would be better than an "F5" in all
> respects. Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it... but by
> going to a fixed VF, slower sync, etc. etc. they've taken away
> some of the king-of-the-hill pro appeal.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
--
Richard Williams
>> will buy one, just as most F4 owners purchased an MB-21 or MB-23
>> battery pack.
>
>Yes....On re-reading the specs, I see that such a thing is available...I do
>wonder where they put it. Does it hang on the bottom of the camera,
>extending it's height to approximately the same as the F5?
Unfortunately the whole combination is even bigger than the F5:
http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=80&pg=1&mem=&arc=Y
Why on earth didn't they design it to accept internal AAs as an option?
After all, the F100 can take either an AA or CR123 internal battery
holder, without having to bother with the optional external grip.
Richard.
Matt Clara
[Alan, I wrote this earlier in response to your post. I realize now your
point is that the F6 doesn't seem like an F5 x 2 (or 1.4, even), still, this
rant of mine is too good to let go...]
<rant>
Oh, I know. Whatever Nikon comes out with these days has to be defined in
terms of what it's not. It's as though they really haven't offered us
anything except big voids. They come out with a 12 megapixel dslr, it's not
full frame, it's not on time (should have been last year, right?). Hey, we
better not buy into Nikon, lest we get sucked into the void ourselves. Buy
a Nikon camera, get nothing, less than nothing, even, a great sucking
blackness, cleaning out your wallet, causing your wife to leave you, making
your life empty of meaning. And the pictures--all black. The void even
sucks at the light itself, so save yourself the trouble of developing your
film, there's nothing on it, except the emptiness that the Nikon Corp.
foists on the world! Move to Canon now--there's the light, there it is,
Carol Anne, move towards it. Or towards Minolta, like you, Alan, you willy
fox, you.
Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of everyone bashing on Nikon. They've
come out with several fine cameras just now, with lots of attention to
detail and end user needs, and 90% of the discussion here is about what it's
not. Nikon hears the complaints about the F5's size and weight, so they par
the new one's size down, and yet pack in a lot of cutting edge technology,
and now it's called either an F200, or a rip of the EOS 1v, and not an
improvement over the F5, even though many of its features are improved.
</rant>
Dallas
Where might I find these huge stocks of F4 finders? Are they selling them
off cheap? Because I would be interested in a couple of them.
--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez
William Graham
"Dallas" <dal...@pingmefirst.co.za> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.18....@pingmefirst.co.za...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:57:56 +0100, TP wrote:
>
> > "Matt Clara" <cri...@large.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>As far as I can tell, the only thing lost is the interchangeable prisms.
> >>That matters not a whit to me, nor do I know any photographers by
> >>aquintance or word of mouth who change prisms by the job, or on any
> >>regular basis, for that matter.
> >
> >
> > Nikon still have comparatively huge stocks of unsold alternative finders
> > for the F4, and sold very, very few for the F5, hence their omission
from
> > the F6 specification. None of the D1/D2 series digital SLRs had/has
> > interchangeable finders, and apparently there is no demand for them.
> >
> > It seems sensible not to offer something for which there is virtually no
> > demand, and which adds significantly both to the cost of manufacture and
> > to the risk of ingress of dust or moisture.
>
> Where might I find these huge stocks of F4 finders? Are they selling them
> off cheap? Because I would be interested in a couple of them.
I wonder why they didn't design the F6 to take the F5 finders.....Then at
least, they would have a chance of getting rid of the ones they had on hand
that they had already made for the F5.
TP
>
>Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of everyone bashing on Nikon. They've
>come out with several fine cameras just now, with lots of attention to
>detail and end user needs, and 90% of the discussion here is about what it's
>not. Nikon hears the complaints about the F5's size and weight, so they par
>the new one's size down, and yet pack in a lot of cutting edge technology,
>and now it's called either an F200, or a rip of the EOS 1v, and not an
>improvement over the F5, even though many of its features are improved.
></rant>
If it is any consolation, you would feel much worse if you were a
Leica user and paid any attention to the vitriolic anti-Leica nonsense
for which this newsgroup is justly (in)famous.
;-)
TP
>I wonder why they didn't design the F6 to take the F5 finders.....Then at
>least, they would have a chance of getting rid of the ones they had on hand
>that they had already made for the F5.
There is no excess stock of F5 finders.
Nikon must have learned from their experience with the F4 finders.
;-)
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
>>>etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
>>>better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
>>
>>Shutter monitor? WTF is that? Nikon shutters are extremely
>>reliable in this class ... not something of value to monitor it, IMO.
>
>
> Something that will tell you when you need need to go to
> a Nikon service center because your shutter just fired at
> the wrong speed compared to what it was supposed to.
Shoot some slide film. You'll know if it needs to go.
It sounds like a feature that, for whatever reason having to do
with the design of the shutter, was a low extra effort to include
... and so it was added as a marketing bonus.
>
> Or do you have a use for a shuuter that fires at say 5% less on speeds
> above 1/2000?
There is no way you would know (or care) about a 5% error on
shutter speed (at any speed). The effect would certainly not be
visible on a slide exposure.
>
>>>super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
>>
>>About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
>>fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
>
>
> Are there really subjects needing more than 1/8000? And I don't
> mean shooting bright sunlight dyatime scenes with ISO 1600 film
> and large apertures.
I've shot shaddowgraphs of the sun at 1/12,000, f/22 and a 4xND
in place on ISO 100... but certainly not something I'd do every
day... the very fast Minolta shutter has its real benefit in the
1/300 sync speed. How they got there .... very light, stiff,
shutter blades... so it seems a bit odd to me that the sycn speed
of the F6 is less than on the F5.... (it really doesn't matter
*that* much either.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
No regrets other than the Konica merger that caused them to slow
down on the DSLR... (who's 'willy'?).
> Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of everyone bashing on Nikon. They've
> come out with several fine cameras just now, with lots of attention to
> detail and end user needs, and 90% of the discussion here is about what it's
> not. Nikon hears the complaints about the F5's size and weight, so they par
> the new one's size down, and yet pack in a lot of cutting edge technology,
> and now it's called either an F200, or a rip of the EOS 1v, and not an
> improvement over the F5, even though many of its features are improved.
> </rant>
Don't rant too hard... I'm very pleased that Nikon have come out
with the F6. I just had an expectation (unreasonable as it is)
that it would be a real killer. Instead it's a very good pro
camera with compromise.
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
So, I guess the only loss is that their advertising department can't say,
"And it has a titanium finder"....The finder must be removable however, or
there would be no way to replace/clean the screen.......Somehow, it just
doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to not offer different
finders......
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
A shutter monitor is built into the F5, and is one of its big advertising
bonuses.....I guess Nikon felt that they should put it into the new
machine.....I think in the F5 it not only monitors it, but it also
automatically adjusts it if it starts to stray out of specs.......
Gordon Moat
A fairly obvious development, though I had heard the name F200 instead. A
cousin of a good friend works for Nikon in Japan. Unfortunately, I have not
been able to get on the testing list . . . yet.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
Gordon Moat
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> > "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> >> ...not sure if anyone else posted on it ... but the F6 backs
> >>off to 1/250 sync speed from 1/300. Yet another area where the
> >>F6 is a watered down F5 or more likely an improved F100.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Whatever... Most modern Nikons will go to 1/300 (on manual), but it's iffy,
> > even on the F5. Nikon's just playing it safe. Plus, look at the host of
>
> On the F5 it is spec so I would expect it to work within the temp
> range of the camera flawlessly.
>
> > other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
> > etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
> > better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
>
> Shutter monitor? WTF is that? Nikon shutters are extremely
> reliable in this class ... not something of value to monitor it, IMO.
Same as on the F5. Basically, there is an electronic circuitry built in to check
and automatically adjust for absolute shutter accuracy at every speed, which
technically should ensure perfect exposures (we know there is no such thing, but
accuracy is nice). A secondary feature of this circuitry is to alert the camera
user of any malfunction. In practice, an F4, F5, or F6 shutter should be accurate
for 150000 exposures, and quite often works reliably well past that point. More
at:
<http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/rhnc/rhnc11shut2-e.htm> Scroll down for
F5 information.
>
>
> > super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
>
> About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
> fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
>
I wonder if more Nikon F5 cameras have been sold than Minolta Maxum 9. How often
do you think 1/12000, or even 1/8000 shutter is actually used?
>
> > and on.
> > If this is an improved F100, it's improvements are generational, at the very
> > least.
>
> I expected that the "F6" would be better than an "F5" in all
> respects. Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it... but by
> going to a fixed VF, slower sync, etc. etc. they've taken away
> some of the king-of-the-hill pro appeal.
I think they are addressing something that pros have actually been doing more of,
which is namely using an F100 in situations where they could have used an F5. A
smaller and light F6 is a huge improvement, especially considering it is even
lighter than the lightest F4 variation. In fact, it is lighter than an F2, and
only slightly heavier than an F3 or F100.
I doubt many who would consider using an F6 would have it as their only camera,
but maybe. Those who actually used the changeable viewfinder might already have
an F4 or F5 still in use.
Matt Clara
news:414C6FAF...@attglobal.net...
Any rumors concerning mirror lockup on this F105/200?
Alan Browne
>
> Same as on the F5. Basically, there is an electronic circuitry built in to check
> and automatically adjust for absolute shutter accuracy at every speed, which
> technically should ensure perfect exposures (we know there is no such thing, but
> accuracy is nice). A secondary feature of this circuitry is to alert the camera
> user of any malfunction. In practice, an F4, F5, or F6 shutter should be accurate
> for 150000 exposures, and quite often works reliably well past that point. More
> at:
>
> <http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/rhnc/rhnc11shut2-e.htm> Scroll down for
> F5 information.
Assumes that other variables like metering, were well done... the
F5 has probably the best metering system of any SLR (and the D70
borrows a lot of it) so the accurate shutter speeds ... er, help,
but not that much. Seems to be additional expense for nothing...
maybe I'm jealous.
>>
>>>super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
>>
>>About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
>>fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
>>
>
>
> I wonder if more Nikon F5 cameras have been sold than Minolta Maxum 9.
> How often do you think 1/12000, or even 1/8000 shutter is actually used?
Not often. Actually the 1/8000 or 1/12000 is a derivative from
being able to do 1/300 sync...
My point was really about them dropping sync from 1/300 to 1/250
... seems odd that if they've gone to a lighter shutter system
(as Minolta did) that they didn't at least retain the 1/300 sync.
>>
>>I expected that the "F6" would be better than an "F5" in all
>>respects. Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it... but by
>>going to a fixed VF, slower sync, etc. etc. they've taken away
>>some of the king-of-the-hill pro appeal.
>
>
> I think they are addressing something that pros have actually been doing more of,
> which is namely using an F100 in situations where they could have used an F5. A
> smaller and light F6 is a huge improvement, especially considering it is even
> lighter than the lightest F4 variation. In fact, it is lighter than an F2, and
> only slightly heavier than an F3 or F100.
>
> I doubt many who would consider using an F6 would have it as their only camera,
> but maybe. Those who actually used the changeable viewfinder might already have
> an F4 or F5 still in use.
As my other reply to someone else said, there is little doubt
that new/used F5's will be available for quite a while for the
few who really need changeable VF's.
Cheers,
Alan
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> >
> > Same as on the F5. Basically, there is an electronic circuitry built in to check
> > and automatically adjust for absolute shutter accuracy at every speed, which
> > technically should ensure perfect exposures (we know there is no such thing, but
> > accuracy is nice). A secondary feature of this circuitry is to alert the camera
> > user of any malfunction. In practice, an F4, F5, or F6 shutter should be accurate
> > for 150000 exposures, and quite often works reliably well past that point. More
> > at:
> >
> > <http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/rhnc/rhnc11shut2-e.htm> Scroll down for
> > F5 information.
>
> Assumes that other variables like metering, were well done... the
> F5 has probably the best metering system of any SLR (and the D70
> borrows a lot of it) so the accurate shutter speeds ... er, help,
> but not that much. Seems to be additional expense for nothing...
> maybe I'm jealous.
Of course, the funny thing is that almost anyone with more than a little experience
uses exposure compensation quite often. A similar matter is TTL flash control, with
even that being adjusted for many situations.
Probably the marketing department likes some of this stuff more than the people who
actually use them. Also, there are well funded enthusiasts who buy these cameras for
those little details, while learned pros often use centre weighted or manual controls,
and news pukes leaving everything on full auto. No reason to be jealous.
>
>
> >>
> >>>super hightech shutter made in collaboration with DuPont. The list goes on
> >>
> >>About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
> >>fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
> >>
> >
> >
> > I wonder if more Nikon F5 cameras have been sold than Minolta Maxum 9.
> > How often do you think 1/12000, or even 1/8000 shutter is actually used?
>
> Not often. Actually the 1/8000 or 1/12000 is a derivative from
> being able to do 1/300 sync...
Wow . . . 1/3 of a stop . . . . . nope, cannot see much reasoning behind that either.
Looking back into history, there is information that the first FM2 had marked a 1/200
sync speed, because Nikon just was not sure if 1/250 would be reliable. Actually, the
1/250 was reliable, and later FM2 bodies were marked to indicate that. The reality is
that you only often give up 1 mm to 4 mm from the 24 mm distance going to the next
fastest shutter speed, depending upon the camera.
I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and the 1/1000 sync
is noticeable, though not something that get used often. Even 1/500 works quite well,
though anything much less than that is not uch difference. These are high ambient
light fill flash conditions, specific to some photographers and some situations, but I
think still a bit limited usage in the overall scheme of things.
>
>
> My point was really about them dropping sync from 1/300 to 1/250
> ... seems odd that if they've gone to a lighter shutter system
> (as Minolta did) that they didn't at least retain the 1/300 sync.
If you set your camera to 1/300 and did a fill flash shot, then set the camera to
1/250, and did a fill flash shot, could you tell much difference in the final images?
How often would that matter? More marketing department fluff?
>
>
> >>
> >>I expected that the "F6" would be better than an "F5" in all
> >>respects. Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it... but by
> >>going to a fixed VF, slower sync, etc. etc. they've taken away
> >>some of the king-of-the-hill pro appeal.
> >
> >
> > I think they are addressing something that pros have actually been doing more of,
> > which is namely using an F100 in situations where they could have used an F5. A
> > smaller and light F6 is a huge improvement, especially considering it is even
> > lighter than the lightest F4 variation. In fact, it is lighter than an F2, and
> > only slightly heavier than an F3 or F100.
> >
> > I doubt many who would consider using an F6 would have it as their only camera,
> > but maybe. Those who actually used the changeable viewfinder might already have
> > an F4 or F5 still in use.
>
> As my other reply to someone else said, there is little doubt
> that new/used F5's will be available for quite a while for the
> few who really need changeable VF's.
The funniest aspect I found recently about F5 bodies is that the Kodak DCS models
based on those now sell for less than a used F5 of similar vintage. I think the Kodak
bodies were four, or five (or more) times more expensive when new.
Did anyone notice that the viewfinder is extended backwards on the F6? There is still
a possibility of a removable back, though I think it is more likely to be a third
party product.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>Assumes that other variables like metering, were well done... the
>>F5 has probably the best metering system of any SLR (and the D70
>>borrows a lot of it) so the accurate shutter speeds ... er, help,
>>but not that much. Seems to be additional expense for nothing...
>>maybe I'm jealous.
>
>
> Of course, the funny thing is that almost anyone with more than a little experience
> uses exposure compensation quite often. A similar matter is TTL flash control, with
> even that being adjusted for many situations.
>
> Probably the marketing department likes some of this stuff more than the people who
> actually use them. Also, there are well funded enthusiasts who buy these cameras for
> those little details, while learned pros often use centre weighted or manual controls,
> and news pukes leaving everything on full auto. No reason to be jealous.
As time goes by, esp. shooting slides, I'm most often in "M"
anyway and the camera meter is just another source of
information, not the guiding hand... Most serious shooters are
more or less the same. I do use A and S pri with comp as
required for some things.
>>
>>Not often. Actually the 1/8000 or 1/12000 is a derivative from
>>being able to do 1/300 sync...
>
>
> Wow . . . 1/3 of a stop . . . . . nope, cannot see much reasoning behind that either.
Minolta are entitled to marketing manouevers too. Simply put,
letting the shutter be set to some maximum is not a negative in
any way... if they had designed for a 1/250 sync, then likely the
1/12,000 would not have been available. That's the only point here.
> Looking back into history, there is information that the first FM2 had marked a 1/200
> sync speed, because Nikon just was not sure if 1/250 would be reliable. Actually, the
> 1/250 was reliable, and later FM2 bodies were marked to indicate that. The reality is
> that you only often give up 1 mm to 4 mm from the 24 mm distance going to the next
> fastest shutter speed, depending upon the camera.
There is definitely some engineering margin in any sync speed.
Cameras with 1/3 shutter speed intervals might be able to take
another 1/3 stop w/o shading the frame... I've never tested my
camera above 1/300 ... who knows (I'll try to remember to waste a
frame on this this week).
>
> I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and the 1/1000 sync
> is noticeable, though not something that get used often. Even 1/500 works quite well,
> though anything much less than that is not uch difference. These are high ambient
> light fill flash conditions, specific to some photographers and some situations, but I
> think still a bit limited usage in the overall scheme of things.
1/1000 sync! Some flashes discharge a good part of their energy
beyond 1 ms at full power, so got to watch out.
>>
>>My point was really about them dropping sync from 1/300 to 1/250
>>... seems odd that if they've gone to a lighter shutter system
>>(as Minolta did) that they didn't at least retain the 1/300 sync.
>
>
> If you set your camera to 1/300 and did a fill flash shot, then set the camera to
> 1/250, and did a fill flash shot, could you tell much difference in the final images?
> How often would that matter? More marketing department fluff?
In most cases not at all. With very high ambient and a low flash
power though, movement would record (and no I've never pushed
this to see it, but obviously the right conditions will reveal
it). With the larger film area of MF, slight movement would be
more visible on the neg/pos than with 35mm for the same amount of
subject movement.
I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
course.
>>As my other reply to someone else said, there is little doubt
>>that new/used F5's will be available for quite a while for the
>>few who really need changeable VF's.
>
>
> The funniest aspect I found recently about F5 bodies is that the Kodak DCS models
> based on those now sell for less than a used F5 of similar vintage. I think the Kodak
> bodies were four, or five (or more) times more expensive when new.
>
> Did anyone notice that the viewfinder is extended backwards on the F6? There is still
> a possibility of a removable back, though I think it is more likely to be a third
> party product.
Interseting point. The F6 was to be a film/digi hybrid when
rumours first started up many months ago... and that might have
set the VF where it is. If one had access to an F6 and could
look for additional contacts inside that would go to such a back
then a Nikon or 3rd party system may still be in the works... but
I think to fuel sales they would have to announce it now. That
they haven't may be signs that this will remain a film-only body.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> >
> > I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and the 1/1000 sync
> > is noticeable, though not something that get used often. Even 1/500 works quite well,
> > though anything much less than that is not uch difference. These are high ambient
> > light fill flash conditions, specific to some photographers and some situations, but I
> > think still a bit limited usage in the overall scheme of things.
>
> 1/1000 sync! Some flashes discharge a good part of their energy
> beyond 1 ms at full power, so got to watch out.
>
Yeah, it takes a bit of thought, though it is definitely nice to have that option. I should
also mention that not all lenses that go on the Rollei 6000 system do 1/1000, and that many
are only 1/500 . . . still very useful.
>
> >>
> >>My point was really about them dropping sync from 1/300 to 1/250
> >>... seems odd that if they've gone to a lighter shutter system
> >>(as Minolta did) that they didn't at least retain the 1/300 sync.
> >
> >
> > If you set your camera to 1/300 and did a fill flash shot, then set the camera to
> > 1/250, and did a fill flash shot, could you tell much difference in the final images?
> > How often would that matter? More marketing department fluff?
>
> In most cases not at all. With very high ambient and a low flash
> power though, movement would record (and no I've never pushed
> this to see it, but obviously the right conditions will reveal
> it). With the larger film area of MF, slight movement would be
> more visible on the neg/pos than with 35mm for the same amount of
> subject movement.
Sure, the larger film area on medium format gives one more room to find slight differences.
I think if someone anticipated doing quite a few shots with fill flash, or unusual lighting
combinations, then some type of leaf shutter camera would make a good choice.
>
>
> I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
> 35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
> course.
Another reason why I got a Yashica Electro GT (actually two, but who's counting). While I
am stuck to one fixed lens, it is one way to get that 1/500 in 35 mm. One problem is that
the camera is aperture priority, so it is tough to tell if the shutter is operating at
1/500, or slightly slower. Medium format is much better for this stuff.
>
> >>As my other reply to someone else said, there is little doubt
> >>that new/used F5's will be available for quite a while for the
> >>few who really need changeable VF's.
> >
> >
> > The funniest aspect I found recently about F5 bodies is that the Kodak DCS models
> > based on those now sell for less than a used F5 of similar vintage. I think the Kodak
> > bodies were four, or five (or more) times more expensive when new.
> >
> > Did anyone notice that the viewfinder is extended backwards on the F6? There is still
> > a possibility of a removable back, though I think it is more likely to be a third
> > party product.
>
> Interseting point. The F6 was to be a film/digi hybrid when
> rumours first started up many months ago... and that might have
> set the VF where it is. If one had access to an F6 and could
> look for additional contacts inside that would go to such a back
> then a Nikon or 3rd party system may still be in the works... but
> I think to fuel sales they would have to announce it now. That
> they haven't may be signs that this will remain a film-only body.
Well, I am not suggesting that there is something . . . . . ;-) Not everything that
goes through development actually does get released. Anyway, take a look at the delays
getting the Imacon back going for the R8/R9, and you should have some idea of the technical
challenges. Besides, if something was mentioned now, it could detract from sales of the
newest Nikon direct digital SLR. Remember that Nikon usually only announces a product when
it is ready to ship, though there have been some exceptions.
Alan Browne
>
> Well, I am not suggesting that there is something . . . . . ;-) Not everything that
> goes through development actually does get released. Anyway, take a look at the delays
> getting the Imacon back going for the R8/R9, and you should have some idea of the technical
> challenges. Besides, if something was mentioned now, it could detract from sales of the
> newest Nikon direct digital SLR. Remember that Nikon usually only announces a product when
> it is ready to ship, though there have been some exceptions.
Good point. Many companies end up in a state where two product
lines begin to cross and threaten each other in the marketplace.
Managing this is not as easy as many would think. The managers
of the D2 line would probably not be happy if the F6 was sold as
a "future digi-back" body as that would offer to many open
possibilities, threatening the D2H and newer D2X ... but after
the D2x peaks then an F6 back appearing would be welcome for
everyone ... of course such a back would probably start modestly,
somewhere around 4 to 6 Mpix and 1.5 crop, but with great growth
potential.
The above is pure speculation of course.
Very few people 'round here have reported owning R8/R9's so I
can't see there being a huge population of such... although their
desire to have such capability is probably no less than mine for
Minolta to get off the pot with the D7 and more interestingly and
importantly a higher end version, hopefully a lower crop if not
36x24 ... as well as correcting other shortcomings of the D7 ...
although the A-S is a great thing to be sure.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Good point. Many companies end up in a state where two product
> lines begin to cross and threaten each other in the marketplace.
> Managing this is not as easy as many would think. The managers
> of the D2 line would probably not be happy if the F6 was sold as
> a "future digi-back" body as that would offer to many open
> possibilities, threatening the D2H and newer D2X ... but after
> the D2x peaks then an F6 back appearing would be welcome for
> everyone ... of course such a back would probably start modestly,
> somewhere around 4 to 6 Mpix and 1.5 crop, but with great growth
> potential.
That's what I think they did with the F6. It's a FILM D2x. It has the
"look and feel" of a D2x and uses many of the same parts. The idea being
if you want to shoot digital today, you pick up a D2x. If you want to
shoot film you pick up an F6. Same accessories except the D2x uses memory
cards and the F6 uses film.
Nice idea for a pro, you can but one set of "stuff" and different bodies
as you need them.
Now the $64,000 question. Which will Nikon release? A full frame Digital
camera or a focusing screen for the F6 the crops off the area the digital
only lenses cover?
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, C.T.O. GW&T Ltd., Jerusalem Israel
g...@mendelson.com g...@gwandt.com
IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Sander Vesik
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> > Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>>other bells and whistles, like the built in databack, inter-volvo-meter,
> >>>etc. Then there's the full metal body, including the back, beter meter,
> >>>better autofocus, mirror lockup, faster motordrive, shutter monitor, and a
> >>
> >>Shutter monitor? WTF is that? Nikon shutters are extremely
> >>reliable in this class ... not something of value to monitor it, IMO.
> >
> >
> > Something that will tell you when you need need to go to
> > a Nikon service center because your shutter just fired at
> > the wrong speed compared to what it was supposed to.
>
> Shoot some slide film. You'll know if it needs to go.
This doesn't help you with gradual failure.
[snip]
>
> I've shot shaddowgraphs of the sun at 1/12,000, f/22 and a 4xND
> in place on ISO 100... but certainly not something I'd do every
Ah. Ok. Have you tried projecting the sun through a telescope
on a white screen? (*NEVER* look at the sun. esp not through a
telescope).
> day... the very fast Minolta shutter has its real benefit in the
> 1/300 sync speed. How they got there .... very light, stiff,
> shutter blades... so it seems a bit odd to me that the sycn speed
> of the F6 is less than on the F5.... (it really doesn't matter
> *that* much either.
The F6 certainly has a F200-ish taste to itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
Matt Clara
<snip>
>
> Very few people 'round here have reported owning R8/R9's so I
> can't see there being a huge population of such... although their
> desire to have such capability is probably no less than mine for
> Minolta to get off the pot with the D7
No, following the expression you invoke, "either shit or get off the pot",
you don't really want Minolta to get off the pot, you want them to shit,
which, by analogy, would make the D7 a piece of shit...
Don't look at me, you chose the expression!
;-)
Matt Clara
news:slrncks1r...@cable.mendelson.com...
> In article <g4m3d.8602$ir6.3...@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne
wrote:
> > Good point. Many companies end up in a state where two product
> > lines begin to cross and threaten each other in the marketplace.
> > Managing this is not as easy as many would think. The managers
> > of the D2 line would probably not be happy if the F6 was sold as
> > a "future digi-back" body as that would offer to many open
> > possibilities, threatening the D2H and newer D2X ... but after
> > the D2x peaks then an F6 back appearing would be welcome for
> > everyone ... of course such a back would probably start modestly,
> > somewhere around 4 to 6 Mpix and 1.5 crop, but with great growth
> > potential.
>
>
> That's what I think they did with the F6. It's a FILM D2x. It has the
> "look and feel" of a D2x and uses many of the same parts. The idea being
> if you want to shoot digital today, you pick up a D2x. If you want to
> shoot film you pick up an F6. Same accessories except the D2x uses memory
> cards and the F6 uses film.
>
> Nice idea for a pro, you can but one set of "stuff" and different bodies
> as you need them.
>
> Now the $64,000 question. Which will Nikon release? A full frame Digital
> camera or a focusing screen for the F6 the crops off the area the digital
> only lenses cover?
>
As Alan points out in another thread, the F6 is the only real wide angle
option of the two cameras, thus, kidding though you may be, a focusing
screen crop would not make perfect sense.
Ted Azito
Matt Clara
news:10956352...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> >
> > I've shot shaddowgraphs of the sun at 1/12,000, f/22 and a 4xND
> > in place on ISO 100... but certainly not something I'd do every
>
> Ah. Ok. Have you tried projecting the sun through a telescope
> on a white screen? (*NEVER* look at the sun. esp not through a
> telescope).
As a kid I had (still have it somewhere) a telescope with a special filter
just for looking at the sun. It was cool, I could see the sun spots and
everything! I can still see them, they're right there, before me, ever
since... ;-)
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:g4m3d.8602$ir6.3...@wagner.videotron.net...
> <snip>
>
>>Very few people 'round here have reported owning R8/R9's so I
>>can't see there being a huge population of such... although their
>>desire to have such capability is probably no less than mine for
>>Minolta to get off the pot with the D7
>
>
> No, following the expression you invoke, "either shit or get off the pot",
> you don't really want Minolta to get off the pot, you want them to shit,
> which, by analogy, would make the D7 a piece of shit...
You've been in a nasty mood the last couple days.
Don't tell me: your arch rival at work borrowed the D70 for the
weekend?
Cheers,
Alan.
Matt Clara
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> > "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:g4m3d.8602$ir6.3...@wagner.videotron.net...
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Very few people 'round here have reported owning R8/R9's so I
> >>can't see there being a huge population of such... although their
> >>desire to have such capability is probably no less than mine for
> >>Minolta to get off the pot with the D7
> >
> >
> > No, following the expression you invoke, "either shit or get off the
pot",
> > you don't really want Minolta to get off the pot, you want them to shit,
> > which, by analogy, would make the D7 a piece of shit...
>
> You've been in a nasty mood the last couple days.
>
> Don't tell me: your arch rival at work borrowed the D70 for the
> weekend?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
No, I'm sorry, I was being glib, but not in a nasty way, really. I just saw
what you said, occured to me you'd gotten it backwards and then saw the
logical extension of it.
Alan Browne
> This doesn't help you with gradual failure.
When it is gradual it can wait until you start questioning the
exposure results.
> Ah. Ok. Have you tried projecting the sun through a telescope
> on a white screen? (*NEVER* look at the sun. esp not through a
> telescope).
Ooops. Does looking through a 300mm f/32 stopped down lens with
a 4x ND in place hurt? I can still see, so I guess not too
much... that's 2^12 less light, I think...
McLeod
wrote:
>As Alan points out in another thread, the F6 is the only real wide angle
>option of the two cameras, thus, kidding though you may be, a focusing
>screen crop would not make perfect sense.
Huh? What about the 10.5mm and the 12-24DX?
Matt Clara
news:5mgsk0dfoo779cme6...@4ax.com...
I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in their
uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though fisheyes
are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.
McLeod
wrote:
>I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
>distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in their
>uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though fisheyes
>are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
>what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Matt Clara
Pretty much any camera store I've ever been to will let you take some
test shots. Also the 10.5mm can be used as a fisheye, but the
curvature can also be corrected with a mouse click in the Nikon
Capture program. Very nice. The fact that a smaller sensor is being
used means there should be less distortion, not more.
Bandicoot
news:61l2d.3450$n16....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in message
[SNIP]
> > Hmm. The prism is now permanently mounted, so they lost at least one
> > F5 feature. I suspect that the improvements in size, weight,
> > alignment, and dust sealing were just too tempting...
> >
>
>
> Also I didn't see if there was an eyepiece shutter or not. Certainly hope
> so, as I thought that was a glaring omission on the F100 (considering the
> N90 came so equipped). Shame about the loss of interchangeable finders,
but
> perhaps there just wasn't much of a market for such; and as you said,
> probably easier sealing. Glad to see the manual rewind option and mirror
> lock-up.
>
Dust is an issue, but I don't see the size and weight arguments: after all,
the Pentax LX has removable finders and has always been smaller than any
Nikon F, with or without - and its dust sealing is pretty good too.
This may be because of the LX having the metering system in the body, not
the prism - which is also why it had no need at all of an eyepiece blind.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:qVY2d.113069$3l3.91388@attbi_s03...
In both the Pentax LX - which has removable finders - and the MX - which
doesn't - the screen can be removed through the lens throat. Can't see why
Nikon couldn't have gone that route for screen changing on the new F6, so I
wouldn't think the prism would _need_ to be removable for this reason.
Even so, a removable prism is a great advantage - I guess a lot of people
just never realised what they were missing.
Peter
Bandicoot
> >>
> >>About time they caught up to Minolta (Max 9 [1998] uses carbon
> >>fibre reinforced epoxy blades and shoots to 1/12,000 (1/300 sync)).
> >
> >
> > mean shooting bright sunlight dyatime scenes with ISO 1600 film
> > and large apertures.
>
> in place on ISO 100... but certainly not something I'd do every
> 1/300 sync speed. How they got there .... very light, stiff,
> shutter blades... so it seems a bit odd to me that the sycn speed
> of the F6 is less than on the F5.... (it really doesn't matter
> *that* much either.
>
Most films start to suffer reciprocity failure above 1/10,000, which is part
of the reason I've never seen super high shutter speeds as all that useful.
There is also the issue of how long it takes them to cross the film plane:
presumably just over 1/300 in this case, as that's the sync. speed - that
means that 1/12,000 isn't going to be as great for freezing high-speed
motion as it sounds - which is what flash is for, of course...
Still, if caught with fast film and a desire for a large aperture I can see
it might be useful occasionally, reciprocity permitting.
Peter
Alan Browne
Yeah ... forced to buy more lenses.
Matt Clara
Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still, the
12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one click
correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.
My point wasn't about the sensor, it's about the lens itself; even if
designing for a smaller sensor, creating a 10.5mm lens without distortion
has got to be an impossible feat (at least in a cost effective manner), ergo
the kludge. 12mm can't be much easier. Of course, I'm no lens design
expert.
Also, if we're talking about me personally, 6 megapixels isn't enough for
me, I doubt 8 is, either, I think 12 is getting close. Ergo any discussion
of what lenses I'd be willing to settle for is moot at this time.
As to the original post and your comments in this vein of the thread, I
still don't see the efficacy of using a crop screen in an slr. It would
allow you to maintain a single vision of what your lenses will capture in
digital, but then, you're not shooting digital, you're shooting film--if you
want digital, why not just use digital?
Alan Browne
>>I've shot shaddowgraphs of the sun at 1/12,000, f/22 and a 4xND
>>in place on ISO 100... but certainly not something I'd do every
>>day... the very fast Minolta shutter has its real benefit in the
>>1/300 sync speed. How they got there .... very light, stiff,
>>shutter blades... so it seems a bit odd to me that the sycn speed
>>of the F6 is less than on the F5.... (it really doesn't matter
>>*that* much either.
>>
>
>
> Most films start to suffer reciprocity failure above 1/10,000, which is part
> of the reason I've never seen super high shutter speeds as all that useful.
I was making "shaddowgraphs", color shift was the least of my
considerations (at that the orange of the hazy day sun came
through nicely).
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/SmokeySun.JPG
(This was in open sunlight ...
300mm, 1/12,000, f/32 + 4x ND, ISO 100)
There were some huge forrest fires that week, and the day had a
spooky, erie color. Probably more than a stop less light than usual.
> There is also the issue of how long it takes them to cross the film plane:
> presumably just over 1/300 in this case, as that's the sync. speed - that
> means that 1/12,000 isn't going to be as great for freezing high-speed
> motion as it sounds - which is what flash is for, of course...
I agree. But I'd put the time at about 1/500 as the calculation
below indicates.
1/300 sync means that it gets to the other side fast enough that
it can dwell there 1 to 2ms before the rear curtain follows. So
the actual transition time is determined by the travel velocity
and the slit width. The slit width must also be wide enough to
prevent difraction effects. The wider the slit, the faster the
required travel speed.
Let's say they uses a 1mm slit as the minimum to avoid
difraction. Then a 1/12,000 exposure would require that the 1mm
slit travel at 12,000mm/sec. 24 mm/12,000 mm/sec = 2ms or
1/500s. (It might be faster with a larger slit or slower with a
narrower slit ...but must be fast enough to allow 1 to 2 ms for
the flash to fire at full power in x-sync).
> Still, if caught with fast film and a desire for a large aperture I can see
> it might be useful occasionally, reciprocity permitting.
Very occasionally. Again, the 1/12,000 is (to me) a 'benefit' of
being able to to 1/300 sync, and not the reverse. As the shutter
is electronically controlled I imagine they can make the slit
progressively narrower until difraction really ruins everything...
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:109568829...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......
Gordon Moat
That is something I had never even considered, so I really have no idea. I
rarely ever have a need for mirror lock-up, and do quite well on those rare
occasions using the mirror pre-fire on the self timer. The easy feature to
imagine is the new flash control, which should eventually make it onto all new
body designs, though it might happen that only the high end cameras get that
feature.
What I would rather see would be an FM4A with that feature. Unfortunately, it
seems that the FM3A is the last of the manual focus line, barring some
nostalgic rare edition in the future. I still think all the Japanese companies
(except Voigtländer) will only introduce new digital cameras by 2008, and that
year is getting closer.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
Gordon Moat
> "McLeod" <cerv...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:pqdtk0dso7ffodhd3...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:28:53 GMT, "Matt Clara" <cri...@large.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
> > >distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in
> their
> > >uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though
> fisheyes
> > >are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
> > >what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Regards,
> > >Matt Clara
> >
> > Pretty much any camera store I've ever been to will let you take some
> > test shots. Also the 10.5mm can be used as a fisheye, but the
> > curvature can also be corrected with a mouse click in the Nikon
> > Capture program. Very nice. The fact that a smaller sensor is being
> > used means there should be less distortion, not more.
>
>
> Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
> distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still, the
> 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one click
> correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.
At some point in the near future, when batteries are a little more efficient,
and electronics are also a little more efficient, then we will have the
correction option within the camera body. At that point, nearly any distortion
should make little difference, with software correcting it automatically. Of
course, any software correction involves some interpolation of data, which can
lead to errors. Bottom line is that it will always be a kludge, but it may soon
become a major in camera feature.
>
>
> My point wasn't about the sensor, it's about the lens itself; even if
> designing for a smaller sensor, creating a 10.5mm lens without distortion
> has got to be an impossible feat (at least in a cost effective manner), ergo
> the kludge. 12mm can't be much easier. Of course, I'm no lens design
> expert.
The software would make it easier on the lens designers. They could just design
for coverage and evenness of exposure. Then the distortion would be measured,
placing the information onto a chip in the lens. That chip would communicate
with the body, making correction available within the camera, or just
automatically. Lens construction costs could drop dramatically, leaving more
room for profits, though some additional expense in software engineering would
be needed.
>
>
> Also, if we're talking about me personally, 6 megapixels isn't enough for
> me, I doubt 8 is, either, I think 12 is getting close. Ergo any discussion
> of what lenses I'd be willing to settle for is moot at this time.
>
Two page spread with bleed for high quality printed materials. Taking 300 ppi
at Tabloid size (11" by 17") plus 1/8" bleed all around, works out to about
17.5 MP. Add in some room for errors, or adjusting, and you can see how the 22
MP medium format backs make a good size target. Seriously though, the Kodak DCS
at slightly more than 14 MP should solve most imaging requirements, at least in
resolution.
>
> As to the original post and your comments in this vein of the thread, I
> still don't see the efficacy of using a crop screen in an slr. It would
> allow you to maintain a single vision of what your lenses will capture in
> digital, but then, you're not shooting digital, you're shooting film--if you
> want digital, why not just use digital?
The funny thing I wonder about is how many sports guys shooting film previously
cropped down images from the 300 mm or 400 mm, to make the image more like a
600 mm or longer lens. Somehow I don't think that was happening too often, but
now with direct digital it is marketed as a "feature".
I think choices will be much better in three years time. If some enthusiasts
want to throw money at this stuff now, I hope they at least enjoy it while it
lasts. I also think there might be some great deals on second hand Kodak DCS
SLR/n cameras within three years, definitely under $1000 used price. In my
opinion, the current prices still look too much like trying to gain back R&D
money, rather than a realistic amount.
TP
>
>Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
>the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
>of my camera maintenance.......
Paradoxically, if you used a body with a fixed finder, such as the
F100 or new F6, you probably wouldn't have to clean the camera quite
so often.
With interchangeable viewfinders, it doesn't matter how good the
sealing appears to be, dust and moisture can get in, and they surely
do.
William Graham
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....
William Graham
> That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside
my
> camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs
off
> of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
> cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
> and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....
>
I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW, I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.
>
TP
>
>That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside my
>camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs off
>of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
>cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
>and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....
On a "need to know" basis, perhaps you went into ever so slightly too
much detail there, William.
;-)
TP
>
>I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid that
>it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW, I
>think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
>know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
>didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
>hard to clean it out.
Good point.
Cleaning my F3 and F4 bodies was (relatively) a trivial task, aided by
their removable finders.
Bandicoot
You're really going to hate digital...
Peter
Bandicoot
[Snip]
> >
> > I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
> > 35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
> > course.
>
> Another reason why I got a Yashica Electro GT (actually two, but who's
> counting). While I am stuck to one fixed lens, it is one way to get that
> 1/500 in 35 mm. One problem is that the camera is aperture priority, so it
> is tough to tell if the shutter is operating at 1/500, or slightly slower.
> Medium format is much better for this stuff.
>
You could look into the Konica S3 Auto. That is shutter priority auto (no
manual override, unfortunately) with a _fantastic_ 38mm f1.7 lens and, of
course, sync. up to 1/500. It also has a nice fill flash system that, in
effect, tells you in the VF how much fill relative to ambient you are
giving.
Peter
Bandicoot
> Gordon Moat wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> >
> > I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and
> > the 1/1000 sync is noticeable, though not something that get used often.
> > Even 1/500 works quite well, though anything much less than that is not
> > much difference. These are high ambient light fill flash conditions,
specific
> > to some photographers and some situations, but I think still a bit
limited
> > usage in the overall scheme of things.
>
> 1/1000 sync! Some flashes discharge a good part of their energy
> beyond 1 ms at full power, so got to watch out.
>
A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.
Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
underpowered flash normally produces.
Peter
Alan Browne
>
> A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.
Is there such a beast (no, I'm _not_ in the market for one, just
curious).
>
> Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
> presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
> there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
> the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
> underpowered flash normally produces.
In the context of flash sync, usually talking manual mode. A TTL
system can't stop a studio strobe... they discharge completely.
(I've always wished that studio strobes would switch to a
thyristor approach to power. Potential for more accurate power
control and definitely would allow intermittent fast shooting at
mid power levels. Even avoid the (reputed) warmer colors in the
tail of the discharge curve at all but the highest power).
Dallas
> Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
> distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
> the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
> click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.
This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.
Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?
Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.
Oh crap.
--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez
William Graham
protected by a shutter. I guess that with film, the little bit of dust that
gets behind the shutter is moved out whenever a new frame is positioned, but
with the digital sensor, it stays in place in the camera, so it
accumulates....there must be some way of blowing it out, however.....I would
think they would make the sensor removable for cleaning, like the screen in
my F5 finder. Are the sensors on a removable chip, or are they permanently
wired in place? And if permanently wired in place, how does one clean the
back of the shutter blades?
Gordon Moat
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:16:22 +0000, Matt Clara wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
> > distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
> > the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
> > click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.
>
> This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
> set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
> should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.
>
> Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
> SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?
I don't know if I am throwing a wrench into your choices, but I evaluated
several 17 to 35 mm zooms at the beginning of this year. The Nikon was
obviously the most expensive, though the surprise was the newest Tamron
offering. While the earlier Tamron in this range was not as good, the newer
one provided images nearly indistinguishable from those produced using the
Nikon. The comparisons were done on Fuji Provia 100, with most of the shots
hand held, and a few tripod mounted shots. Even under an 8x loupe, the
difference was almost unnoticeable between the Nikon and Tamron. The only
apparent difference was on a couple wide open aperture shots, with the Nikon
seeming to have a more even exposure. My guess on this is that the Nikon
might be passing slightly more light wide open, which would indicate that the
T stop differs from the Tamron, and could be explained by the different
optical construction.
>
>
> Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
> wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
> also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.
>
The other interesting lens in the comparison was the old Nikon 20 mm AIS.
That lens was slightly better in the corners than all the zoom lenses, though
the used cost was near to the new Tamron zoom. I viewed all the images on a
balanced light table under controlled lighting conditions. Someone else took
the comparison photos, and provided the notes.
I guess then the consideration might be different with direct digital. I am
not sure if results seen on film could indicate possible results on an
imaging chip. As always, your mileage may vary.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
Gordon Moat
I have looked at a few, though the prices are not as nice as the Yashica GT.
The use of shutter priority is also a little limited in most situations, which
might make it too specialized as a 35 mm camera body. With medium format, and
full manual control, the results are very accurate and predictable.
Stephen H. Westin
<snip>
> Yes....I understand that dust is a big problem. But the sensor is still
> protected by a shutter. I guess that with film, the little bit of dust that
> gets behind the shutter is moved out whenever a new frame is positioned, but
> with the digital sensor, it stays in place in the camera, so it
> accumulates....there must be some way of blowing it out, however.....I would
> think they would make the sensor removable for cleaning, like the screen in
> my F5 finder. Are the sensors on a removable chip, or are they permanently
> wired in place?
No. The alignment of the chip is critical to image sharpness, and
making it removable would compromise this. Besides, opening the camera
that far is likely to introduce dust, as well.
> And if permanently wired in place, how does one clean the
> back of the shutter blades?
It doesn't seem to be a problem, perhaps because of their motion. It
also seems that certain sensors are far more prone to dust
contamination; perhaps they have more of a surface charge when
operating. So dust may actually be attracted to the sensor. It's also
not advised to use pressurized gas to blow dust out; there are special
sensor-cleaning swabs and fluid for the purpose.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
William Graham
Ah....Well, if there are sensor cleaning swabs and fluid, then it is
possible to get to the sensor....Probably by holding the shutter open, and
reaching through the front of the camera.....I would hate to have a camera
that was "uncleanable", under the assumption that it would never get
dirty.....I clean my camera with very soft artists brushes and a rubber
bulb-type air blower.....I try to never use any liquids inside the
camera......For one thing, I have never seen a swab that didn't leave little
pieces of itself behind when it got wet.......
Stephen H. Westin
Yup, there is usually a "sensor clean" feature in a menu somewhere.
There is also usually a provision to prevent the battery going dead
and closing the shutter with the swab stuck in there, which is a Bad
Thing.
> ...I would hate to have a camera
> that was "uncleanable", under the assumption that it would never get
> dirty.....I clean my camera with very soft artists brushes and a rubber
> bulb-type air blower.....I try to never use any liquids inside the
> camera......For one thing, I have never seen a swab that didn't leave little
> pieces of itself behind when it got wet.......
Well, these are very fancy swabs: <http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm>
shows them at $4 per. By all accounts, they can work very well.
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:414DE867...@attglobal.net...
> > [Snip]
> > > >
> > > > I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
> > > > 35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
> > > > course.
> > >
> > > Another reason why I got a Yashica Electro GT (actually two, but
> > > who's counting). While I am stuck to one fixed lens, it is one way to
> > > get that 1/500 in 35 mm. One problem is that the camera is aperture
> > > priority, so it is tough to tell if the shutter is operating at 1/500,
or
> > > slightly slower. Medium format is much better for this stuff.
> > >
> >
> > You could look into the Konica S3 Auto. That is shutter priority auto
> > (no manual override, unfortunately) with a _fantastic_ 38mm f1.7 lens
Oops, make that f1.8
> > and, of course, sync. up to 1/500. It also has a nice fill flash system
that, > > in effect, tells you in the VF how much fill relative to ambient
you are
> > giving.
>
> I have looked at a few, though the prices are not as nice as the Yashica
> GT. The use of shutter priority is also a little limited in most
situations,
> which might make it too specialized as a 35 mm camera body. With
> medium format, and full manual control, the results are very accurate and
> predictable.
>
Yes, they are a lot scarcer than the GTs, and the lens is a bit cultish.
But still, they're also a lot smaller and lighter than a GT. I do agree
about shutter priority being less useful though - I think of mine as a
camera for very specific circumstances: low light, and for use with flash
fill. Sometimes even in low light I'd rather have aperture priority (or
manual, obviously) but shutter is a help ocassionally if working fast and
trying to control movement.
I just got back from a trip when (as well as 35mm SLRs and a 6x9 outfit) I
had two rangefinders with me: an Olympus SP for daytime (mostly) people
shots on B&W, and a Konica S3 for some evening shots. I knew I'd be asked
to do some band shots when I got there, and the Konica, with iso 800 in it,
was a very nice tool (in addition to a Pentax MZ-S).
I like my little Konica better than the Yashica GT series, and about as much
as my CC and GX - though the shutter priority means it doesn't get used as
often since it is a 'special purpose' machine. It's a _lot_ lighter than
a GX though.
Peter
(who also prefers Medium Format and full manual, but probably not in the
mosh pit...)
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
> >
> > A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.
>
> Is there such a beast (no, I'm _not_ in the market for one, just
> curious).
Yes, though not every flashmeter does it, and not sure how absolutely
relieable it is...
Peter
Gordon Moat
That would probably be better. The Yashica GT actually seems larger and heavier
than my Nikon FM.
> I do agree
> about shutter priority being less useful though - I think of mine as a
> camera for very specific circumstances: low light, and for use with flash
> fill. Sometimes even in low light I'd rather have aperture priority (or
> manual, obviously) but shutter is a help ocassionally if working fast and
> trying to control movement.
Mostly, I have used the Yashicas as low light cameras, which is mostly why I
have them. The light meter will time the shutter out to around 30 seconds
(maybe longer; have not tried), which is great under low light. In daylight
usage, I tend to put a two or three stops ND filter onto the camera, and use
them near maximum aperture.
>
>
> I just got back from a trip when (as well as 35mm SLRs and a 6x9 outfit) I
> had two rangefinders with me: an Olympus SP for daytime (mostly) people
> shots on B&W, and a Konica S3 for some evening shots. I knew I'd be asked
> to do some band shots when I got there, and the Konica, with iso 800 in it,
> was a very nice tool (in addition to a Pentax MZ-S).
The light meter outside of the lens on the Yashica GT allows fitting an ND
filter, and then moving the ISO dial to use higher speed films. Since the ND is
only on the lens, there is no change in view through the viewfinder.
>
>
> I like my little Konica better than the Yashica GT series, and about as much
> as my CC and GX - though the shutter priority means it doesn't get used as
> often since it is a 'special purpose' machine. It's a _lot_ lighter than
> a GX though.
I am not so happy with the size and weight of the Yashica GT. A different, or
more modern rangefinder might be better, though much more expensive. I don't
know that I would go for another older rangefinder with fixed lens, though if I
found a nice example, I might buy something else.
>
>
> Peter
> (who also prefers Medium Format and full manual, but probably not in the
> mosh pit...)
I do some concert photography as well, though I try to stick to being on the
stage. I could definitely use the Yashica for crowd control, if I need it. ;-)
I am working on a strange medium format construction. It involves an Ilex
shutter, Nikon 35 mm f2.8 shift lens, mounted on a 6x9 body (likely masked down
to 6x7, or similar). Until that camera gets closer to being finished, I am not
doing any other project cameras.
Ted Azito
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>
> > As far as I can tell, the only thing lost is the interchangeable prisms.
> > That matters not a whit to me, nor do I know any photographers by aquintance
> > or word of mouth who change prisms by the job, or on any regular basis, for
> > that matter.
>
> Yet in the past when comparing the Maxxum 9 or EOS-1v to the F5
> there are certain proponents who claim that the interchangeable
> VF is *so* essential to a professional ...
For many it's not, but a waist level option is a very nice thing to have.
Bandicoot
Yeah, the GTs are bricks. I borrowed one a long time ago and liked the
lens, but not the weight - hence my going to the CC and GX models when I
went back to using Yashicas again. Still, the Konica makes even the
'little' Yashicas seem very heavy, even though it is only a little smaller -
about 1/4" in every dimension (which still makes it a lot smaller than a
GT).
Per my kitchen scales:
Brass Yashica Electro 35 CC - 1lb 4oz.;
anodized Aluminium Konica S3 Auto - 14oz.
To be fair, the Yashica did have a film in it...
>
> > I do agree about shutter priority being less useful though - I think of
mine
> > as a camera for very specific circumstances: low light, and for use with
> > flash fill. Sometimes even in low light I'd rather have aperture
priority (or
> > manual, obviously) but shutter is a help ocassionally if working fast
and
> > trying to control movement.
>
> Mostly, I have used the Yashicas as low light cameras, which is mostly
> why I have them. The light meter will time the shutter out to around 30
> seconds (maybe longer; have not tried), which is great under low light. In
> daylight usage, I tend to put a two or three stops ND filter onto the
> camera, and use them near maximum aperture.
They are primarily low light tools for me too, the Yashicas and the Konica.
Shame the meter on the CC only goes to ISO 500, when the other two are 800.
All three have the cell within the lens mount, so the ND trick doesn't work
to allow use of extra fast film (though I have my Olympus SP if I do need to
do that, which I don't really imagine I would.)
I've actually wondered about getting the meter on the CC recalibrated: I
never use this particlular camera with anything slower than 400, and it goes
down to 25. I'd live without 25, or even 25 and 50, if it gave me a meter
that went to 1,000 (so I could use 800 film) or better yet to 2,000 (so I
could use 3,200 film pulled to 1,600).
These are not low-light-long-exposure-on-a-tripod cameras for me though,
more tools for catching the action where RF focusing is a help. For very
long metered exposure I have my Pentax LXs, which are unbeatable in that
role.
>
> >
> > I just got back from a trip when (as well as 35mm SLRs and a 6x9
> > outfit) I had two rangefinders with me: an Olympus SP for daytime
> > (mostly) people shots on B&W, and a Konica S3 for some evening
> > shots. I knew I'd be asked to do some band shots when I got there, and
> > the Konica, with iso 800 in it, was a very nice tool (in addition to a
> > Pentax MZ-S).
>
> The light meter outside of the lens on the Yashica GT allows fitting an ND
> filter, and then moving the ISO dial to use higher speed films. Since the
ND
> is only on the lens, there is no change in view through the viewfinder.
>
> >
> >
> > I like my little Konica better than the Yashica GT series, and about as
> > much as my CC and GX - though the shutter priority means it doesn't
> > get used as often since it is a 'special purpose' machine. It's a
_lot_
> > lighter than a GX though.
>
> I am not so happy with the size and weight of the Yashica GT. A different,
> or more modern rangefinder might be better, though much more expensive.
> I don't know that I would go for another older rangefinder with fixed
lens,
> though if I found a nice example, I might buy something else.
I can see you with a Cosina Voigtlander. I don't use rangefinders enough to
buy into a system now: my interchangeable lens Contax/Kiev outfit sees just
about no use these days. The RFs I do use are all fixed lens, and for the
things I use them for that isn't really a problem. I do still wish someone
would make something like a Ricoh GR1 with a 75-85mm sized fast (fixed) lens
though...
Having accumulated a few over the years I probably have too many of these
fixed lens RFs, but in fact I do use all of them, for different things. I
even had my Olympus XA out last Saturday.
>
> >
> >
> > Peter
> > (who also prefers Medium Format and full manual, but probably not in
> > the mosh pit...)
>
> I do some concert photography as well, though I try to stick to being on
> the stage. I could definitely use the Yashica for crowd control, if I need
> it. ;-)
I know you do - that's why I mentioned it. I like to shoot from the
audience perspective when it is possible (and safe!) to do so. Also, I like
to get a shot or two with the crowd in the foreground - preferably with lots
of hands in the air. OK, so it's a cliche...
For crowd control, maybe you should get a Yashica Lynx 14? f1.4 lens,
separate meter window so your ND trick would work, and so big you could
think it takes 120. I find a 200mm f2.8 on an SLR intimidates people fairly
effectively. Never used a 300/2.8 for a concert, but I suppose that would
work even better, though my back would hurt by the end of the night.
>
> I am working on a strange medium format construction. It involves an Ilex
> shutter, Nikon 35 mm f2.8 shift lens, mounted on a 6x9 body (likely
> masked down to 6x7, or similar). Until that camera gets closer to being
> finished, I am not doing any other project cameras.
>
Yeah, I've been following the thread in RPEMF on this with interest. I'm
wondering if I could try my Pentax 28mm shift lens for the same thing.
Wondered about using a miniature Speed Graphic, so I'd have a Graflok back
and a focal plane shutter all in one unit. I don't think the front standard
would take the weight of the lens all cantilevered out of the front though,
so I'd have to hack the body - which is OK since I'd be using the lens'
focusing mount. Just need to find one with a working shutter but useless
bellows and front so it's cheap enough. Even if the lens only covered 6x6
it would be seriously wide. Wonder if those FSU 35mm T&S lenses would work
too?
Come to that, wonder if my 45mm and 55mm shift lenses for 6x6 would cover
6x7 (surely) or 6x8/9 (maybe) if I made such a body. Hmmm, it'd be easy
enough to make two wooden box fronts for it, one with a PK mount at the
right distance, and another deeper one with P6 mount for the MF lenses.
Now look what you've gone and got me doing...
Peter
(Wondering how much all this has to do with Nikon's new F6!)
Gordon Moat
> ". . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> > That would probably be better. The Yashica GT actually seems larger and
> > heavier than my Nikon FM.
>
> Yeah, the GTs are bricks. I borrowed one a long time ago and liked the
> lens, but not the weight - hence my going to the CC and GX models when I
> went back to using Yashicas again. Still, the Konica makes even the
> 'little' Yashicas seem very heavy, even though it is only a little smaller -
> about 1/4" in every dimension (which still makes it a lot smaller than a
> GT).
>
> Per my kitchen scales:
> Brass Yashica Electro 35 CC - 1lb 4oz.;
> anodized Aluminium Konica S3 Auto - 14oz.
Crap . . . that settles it, I am looking for replacements. ;-)
>
>
> To be fair, the Yashica did have a film in it...
>
> >
> > > I do agree about shutter priority being less useful though - I think of
> mine
> > > as a camera for very specific circumstances: low light, and for use with
> > > flash fill. Sometimes even in low light I'd rather have aperture
> priority (or
> > > manual, obviously) but shutter is a help ocassionally if working fast
> and
> > > trying to control movement.
> >
> > Mostly, I have used the Yashicas as low light cameras, which is mostly
> > why I have them. The light meter will time the shutter out to around 30
> > seconds (maybe longer; have not tried), which is great under low light. In
> > daylight usage, I tend to put a two or three stops ND filter onto the
> > camera, and use them near maximum aperture.
>
> They are primarily low light tools for me too, the Yashicas and the Konica.
> Shame the meter on the CC only goes to ISO 500, when the other two are 800.
> All three have the cell within the lens mount, so the ND trick doesn't work
> to allow use of extra fast film (though I have my Olympus SP if I do need to
> do that, which I don't really imagine I would.)
Well . . . maybe I should keep one Yashica GT . . . . . . . .
>
>
> I've actually wondered about getting the meter on the CC recalibrated: I
> never use this particlular camera with anything slower than 400, and it goes
> down to 25. I'd live without 25, or even 25 and 50, if it gave me a meter
> that went to 1,000 (so I could use 800 film) or better yet to 2,000 (so I
> could use 3,200 film pulled to 1,600).
On the GT, you remove the ISO dial, and there is an eccentric adjuster. I think
it might allow up to one stop of change, maybe a bit more.
>
>
> These are not low-light-long-exposure-on-a-tripod cameras for me though,
> more tools for catching the action where RF focusing is a help. For very
> long metered exposure I have my Pentax LXs, which are unbeatable in that
> role.
I usually use the Nikon FE, which has an anomaly in the shutter mechanism. It
times the exposure out to provide 18% grey in the centre weighted metering
area. So far, I have let it run out to 42 minutes without intervention. Most of
my long night exposures are under 10 minutes.
If I remember correctly, the LX uses an OTF meter that is a variation of that
uses in some Olympus models. I am not aware of any other limitations that might
close the shutter after a specific time, so it should work as long (or longer)
on exposures as my FE. If the batteries are fresh, it might go even longer
(funny that the FE and LX use the same batteries).
I use to do rangefinder shooting with a Leica M3, though it unfortunately
broke, can now costs more to repair than I paid for it (just over a decade
ago). I noticed Voigtländer just came out with a Bessa-R3 . . . actually two
versions with different viewfinders. Since it is also an aperture priority
camera, that might be a choice. The new price is near the price of a used M4-2.
My main choice still looks like an Xpan, though I am still not entirely sure.
If I go the Xpan route, I would likely sell off the Yashica GTs.
>
>
> Having accumulated a few over the years I probably have too many of these
> fixed lens RFs, but in fact I do use all of them, for different things. I
> even had my Olympus XA out last Saturday.
The last roll through a GT was a few months ago. I just don't like the film
pressure plate and transport design, and I think they are problematic. Of
course, I should probably not expect so much for so little money.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > (who also prefers Medium Format and full manual, but probably not in
> > > the mosh pit...)
> >
> > I do some concert photography as well, though I try to stick to being on
> > the stage. I could definitely use the Yashica for crowd control, if I need
> > it. ;-)
>
> I know you do - that's why I mentioned it. I like to shoot from the
> audience perspective when it is possible (and safe!) to do so. Also, I like
> to get a shot or two with the crowd in the foreground - preferably with lots
> of hands in the air. OK, so it's a cliche...
Funny that the bands often like those. I am working on a live CD package, and
the band likes one of the crowd shots, though it was on the scaffolding looking
down at the band and the crowd. A little bit of climbing, though the result
makes the event look even larger.
>
>
> For crowd control, maybe you should get a Yashica Lynx 14? f1.4 lens,
> separate meter window so your ND trick would work, and so big you could
> think it takes 120. I find a 200mm f2.8 on an SLR intimidates people fairly
> effectively. Never used a 300/2.8 for a concert, but I suppose that would
> work even better, though my back would hurt by the end of the night.
I did a few shots with the 180 mm f2.8, but I think I was missing too much with
such a narrow lens. The other factor was the weight, and an area in which I
preferred using the 105 mm f2.5.
>
>
> >
> > I am working on a strange medium format construction. It involves an Ilex
> > shutter, Nikon 35 mm f2.8 shift lens, mounted on a 6x9 body (likely
> > masked down to 6x7, or similar). Until that camera gets closer to being
> > finished, I am not doing any other project cameras.
> >
>
> Yeah, I've been following the thread in RPEMF on this with interest. I'm
> wondering if I could try my Pentax 28mm shift lens for the same thing.
Okay, easy and cheap test. Find a piece of ground glass, or even just wax
paper, or some textured semi-transparent material. Find an old bellows off a
folder camera, or make some small pieces of paper to block side light. Hold the
lens and old bellow about the distance of the lens mount to film plane and view
on the ground glass material. That should give you a very rough idea of the
image circle, and then you can decide if you want to move onward.
>
> Wondered about using a miniature Speed Graphic, so I'd have a Graflok back
> and a focal plane shutter all in one unit.
Several others mentioned it, though it would be bulkier, heavier, and tougher
to use hand held. The distance from lens mount to film plane I have to work
with is only 46.5 mm.
> I don't think the front standard
> would take the weight of the lens all cantilevered out of the front though,
> so I'd have to hack the body - which is OK since I'd be using the lens'
> focusing mount.
Yeah, almost too much construction.
> Just need to find one with a working shutter but useless
> bellows and front so it's cheap enough. Even if the lens only covered 6x6
> it would be seriously wide. Wonder if those FSU 35mm T&S lenses would work
> too?
I think those might work better, since they are actually medium format designs.
However, the Nikkor is very good with almost no distortion, which I hope to
provide a nearly rectilinear image.
>
>
> Come to that, wonder if my 45mm and 55mm shift lenses for 6x6 would cover
> 6x7 (surely) or 6x8/9 (maybe) if I made such a body. Hmmm, it'd be easy
> enough to make two wooden box fronts for it, one with a PK mount at the
> right distance, and another deeper one with P6 mount for the MF lenses.
I have a Kiev 88 / P6 to Nikon mount adapter. That was one other possible
route, for even more lens choices. The idea is a low cost ALPA 12 concept.
Shutter vignetting is the biggest issue so far.
>
>
> Now look what you've gone and got me doing...
>
> Peter
> (Wondering how much all this has to do with Nikon's new F6!)
I recently got an Ilex #3, though it seems I might only be able to do 645, or
6x6 with that. Unless I want to machine down the shutter, I am not yet sure if
it will be the best solution. The size is not too large, and going to an Ilex
#4, or Ilex #5 would be a big step in size and weight. Shutter thickness is
another issue.
I found a Sinar behind the lens shutter for about $25, but it might be way too
large overall. That would work with a fabricated mount, but even more
complexity with that fabrication.
Oh . . . and to stay on topic of this thread, a Nikon F6 costs too much to hack
for other lenses.