|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I'm debating getting a manual focus camera so I can use my grandfathers old glass and waste tons of money on film. I've read about older nikon and was wondering if anyone here can give me their opinions on what would be better to get, a FA or a FE2? All I know about film cameras is that the thread seems like it recommends the FM2, and it sure looks pretty. Operable without batteries sounds pretty awesome if you know your exposures.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
vote_no posted:All I know about film cameras is that the thread seems like it recommends the FM2, and it sure looks pretty. Operable without batteries sounds pretty awesome if you know your exposures. Operable without batteries doesn't matter in practise. Old cameras need the batteries replaced like once a year and they are tiny watch batteries. I keep a spare set of F3 batteries sealed in gaffer tape in all my bags because it takes up almost no space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I'm debating getting a manual focus camera so I can use my grandfathers old glass and waste tons of money on film. I've read about older nikon and was wondering if anyone here can give me their opinions on what would be better to get, a FA or a FE2? Which lenses did you get from your grandfather? Almost all F mount lenses will mount on modern Nikon cameras (although the older ones won't meter correctly but who cares we have histograms now). All my grandpa's old Nippon-Kogaku lenses he got while living in Japan in the 70's worked on my D90 (although my parents' first gen 50mm f/1.4 didn't).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Clearly he's implying use of a modified TC-16A teleconverter, you loving plebe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
I'd take the FE2 over the FA/FM2. I prefer the shutter readout and match needle over >0< LEDs. These days an F4 or N90s (not for NAI) with a good screen is probably a more sensible choice unless you want to pay for a refoam/lube or learn how to do it. Younger and they'll AF if you want. I like the E screen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
FE2 > FA/FM2 for a ton of reasons mostly though the meter needle is better and more exact. Gods true Fmount MF camera is the F3HP, check one out at your local shop. Generally found inexpensive. Another idea would be to get an F100 and just MF on your own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Musket posted:FE2 > FA/FM2 for a ton of reasons mostly though the meter needle is better and more exact. Gods true Fmount MF camera is the F3HP, check one out at your local shop. Generally found inexpensive. Another idea would be to get an F100 and just MF on your own. The F100 is so much more modern than the FM/FE line. To name one, if you want to use flash, it's got a few more possibilities like rear curtain. Or the fact that you can use matrix metering where applicable. It's bigger than FE/FA/FMs, though, if that's of concern. A nice compromise is the FM3A, which by the way retains the battery-less operating features of the FMx. Bonus feature of the FM3A is the film checking window so you always know what kind of film you've loaded (or if you just suspect the film has NOT been loaded  DD).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Musket posted:FE2 > FA/FM2 for a ton of reasons mostly though the meter needle is better and more exact. Gods true Fmount MF camera is the F3HP, check one out at your local shop. Generally found inexpensive. Another idea maxmars posted:A nice compromise is the FM3A, which by the way retains the battery-less operating features of the FMx. Bonus feature of the FM3A is the film checking window so you always know what kind of film you've loaded (or if you just suspect the film has NOT been loaded If I were going to start shooting film a lot more then I would probably get a FM3 (not having to deal with that silly card holder on the Back is nice) but $500 for something I may loose interest in seems a bit wasteful. Then again I could probably make the money back on resale. I've been trying a FM2 and the metering system is pretty crude. The FE2 is appealing since the metering is a bit easier I find and having aperture priority mode is very nice. The FA is tempting since it's such a bastard child of the manual focus line and has some extra features like shutter priority. My fear is with either is that with the age of either the rudimentary electronics might not work and I'll have to visit the local camera repair a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
The FM2 is Nikon's best camera. If you've already metered for highlights and shadows where you're shooting, then you're only slowing yourself down by checking the meter further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Quote from myself in the OPquote:The Nikon FA FE2s are cool too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Spent the day playing with a FM2 a coworker was kind enough to let me try before I consider buying and got the film developed just to make sure there was no light leaks or other problems with it. I was impressed every frame was metered perfectly except for two that I forgot to meter and I realized after the fact. This particular one is about 30 years old and it does an astounding job. After a while I found that not having an aperture priority mode wasn't that bad although I'm sure it can be annoying to not have. Also here is the glass that got me started with this nonsense The EM is my aunts, she bought it in 1981 when she was in high school, the meter died recently so she moved onto a D3200. She had the 50mm and 135mm along with the doubler since my grandfather has long since moved into evil sony digital.  This was the beast I used this afternoon, when it was new it was considered a very good lens although being a slab of metal its pretty heavy, The receipt says my grandfather paid $400 for it in 1980. My earliest memories of a camera is this on a Nikon FE at thanksgiving and my grandfather explaining how it worked (my tiny brain didn't understand it very well at the time).  Would it be worth trying a FE2 or FA? Other than the lack of any sort of auto I'm fairly happy with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Well they fix the thing you're unhappy about for one. F3 is also cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Spent the day playing with a FM2 a coworker was kind enough to let me try before I consider buying and got the film developed just to make sure there was no light leaks or other problems with it. I was impressed every frame was metered perfectly except for two that I forgot to meter and I realized after the fact. This particular one is about 30 years old and it does an astounding job. After a while I found that not having an aperture priority mode wasn't that bad although I'm sure it can be annoying to not have. Also here is the glass that got me started with this nonsense The FM2 is a great camera. It's one of the best "advanced amateur" or "backup pro" bodies ever built. It's got a big, bright viewfinder for easy focusing, and one of the fastest shutters (top speed and flash sync speed) ever put in a film body. There really aren't any "better" bodies - only different mounts and feature sets, all of which trade off something or other. You really can't go up from there, only sideways or down. The nice thing about manual cameras is there's nothing to go wrong. The FM2 is a well-built, light, reliable camera and they don't need any batteries to operate. They are one of the cameras you will be able to repair forever. That can be a problem with some of the 80s electronic cameras - they're not the most reliable electronics in the world, and parts are getting scarce at this point. I had an FG with a bad meter board and it was a writeoff. The meters are technically less "smart" than modern matrix meters, but they work just fine and follow a straightforward logic, so you don't have to second-guess what the matrix meter might be doing. Aperture priority is nice, but not essential to me at least. Zeroing the meter only takes a second. And manual everything is fun because it forces you to set up everything about an image. Fixed lenses (vs zoom) are great for forcing you to consider perspective as a creative element in your image. I'm also a fan of B+W shooting because it teaches you to see contrast rather than color and it encourages you to really focus on your composition. You can buy "chromogenic" film that can be processed at a drug store (Ilford XP2+ or Kodak BW400CN), or you can try doing real B+W film yourself. Real B+W film is cheaper, there's more options, and you can do some really amazing things with custom processing. You do need a room you can black out for a few minutes while you load the film onto the development reels. That can take a few tries to get good at, other than that it's pretty hard to mess up. If I were you I'd get a FM2 (or FM) and shoot the 50mm lens a lot. Look for a cheap no-brand 28mm or 35mm lens at a garage sale or thrift store or something (~$30) because the 80s era zooms were pretty bad. The 135 is fine on the long end, it's a pretty competent portrait or short tele lens, but it's overshadowed by the 105mm f/2.5. The Nikkor 28/2.8 is supposed to be good, or you can get Samyang manual focus lenses. The price difference between the FM2 and the FM3A is $350 ($425 for the FM), and that's a lot of lenses, tripods, brackets, cases, supplies, or other photographic gear. If you can find a cheap Nikkormat FT2/FT3, those are pretty nice too. The FT2 uses rabbit ears (the Samyang is incompatible), the FT3 is AI metering. Earlier models use mercury cells and the zinc-air replacements are a pain. Teleconverters are basically garbage except for specific niche uses, most of which are no longer done on film. KEH is popular around here, they're cheap, their selection is good, and their grading system is extremely stringent. You usually add a grade or two to compare to ebay or B&H/Adorama ratings. They warranty their stuff for 6 months and have a good return policy. If nothing else it's a good price reference for Craigslist or ebay. Their site is awful though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Mar 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I want a lens that can double for macro and portraits, and I'd like it to have image stabilization (and autofocus). I'm thinking about the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro VC, or the Nikon AF-S macro 105mm f/2.8G VR, for being at about the focal length I'd want. Anything else I'm missing, or any strong feelings between the two?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:I want a lens that can double for macro and portraits, and I'd like it to have image stabilization (and autofocus). I have yet to hear a bad thing about that Tamron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
So not sure anyone else has a Nikon CL-2 soft case but apparently it was recalled back in 2009. How did I find put? Well I will let this photo explain: Luckily it failed almost right when I picked it up so it kind of just fell over. Still not very happy...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Can anyone identify this lens? It looks like an older prime but I'm not sure what. It's on a D3 body I think.  Also, on the ISS they really love their nikons: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
It looks like one of the older AF-I super teles, probably the 400mm 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:It looks like one of the older AF-I super teles, probably the 400mm 2.8. Perfect, k-rock seems to agree: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/40028afi.htm Thanks! I figured it might be a fast 400mm but without searching for the AI I got the newer one instead. This is the guy who takes those incredible merged exposures of thunderstorms from the ISS. This video on his work up there is pretty cool: http://vimeo.com/79065488
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
You know, I've really come to dislike the 28-300. I love its versatility, but every time I take it out it disappoints. Awful distortion and hilarious vignetting over the whole length, and I feel like the color rendition is generally messed up. It's a total step down from the first-gen 18-200mm DX I had on the crop platform. Reviews don't seem to agree with me, so I wonder if I just got one that's just a little off. Yet I can't bring myself to get rid of it, because the longest prime I have is a 105, and the huge range, VR, and AF really are awesome for road trips and times where you don't have time to change lenses. It's upsetting to have a $1,000 lens mostly sitting around, but I can't bring myself to replace it with the 70-300 (or, for a comparable price, an old 70-200 f/2.8). I might be starting to come around, though. In case anyone wants to provide some suggestions, I've currently got the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5, the 50 f/1.8D, and the 105mm f/2.5 AI, all of which I just love. I'm chiefly a landscape guy; is there something really amazing that I should replace the superzoom with?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Anything but a superzoom would be the amazing thing I'd replace your superzoom with. They're full of compromises and are never going to be all that good. I suspect that the bigger the sensor the harder it is to make a good lens. Especially zooms like that. My XF300 has a 29-527mm f1.6-f2.8 lens that's really good all the way through its range, but it has a teensy 1/3" sensor. If you want a zoom with lots of range that's better I'd look at either the 24-120 f4 or Sigma 24-105 f4. I've used the 24-120 quite a bit for video and it's far from perfect but likely much better than the 28-300. Or, if you use the longer end of the superzoom a lot, a 70-whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
If you want a cheap zoom (and have a body that can drive a screw AF lens) find a Tokina 80-200 2.8 (non-pro). Not as sharp as the newer AF-S 70-200's but not too shabby either. I got one on KEH for $180.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:Seems like the consensus is keep the DX 35, and buy something in a zoom range you like/want. The 17-55 should cover me for just about everything and I've been thinking about a telephoto anyway, so maybe that'll be my next lens. I got a 35 and I mostly use the 18-55 kit lens. 35 just crops too much for my tastes V  V Mostly it gets used for when I know I need it's qualities, like its light gathering ability.I think I'd be better served with a higher quality zoom in the same range as my 18-55 tbh, it would practically never need to come off. BTW is the Speedlight SB-24 worth anything, found one for sale locally for 70 euros. His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Hey guys, I've got a D50 that has been collecting dust a little bit and I'd like to do something about it. I have three lenses - a Sigma 17-35 which was my favourite (but someone dropped it and now its hosed), a Nikkor 28-80 and a Nikkor 70-300. I bought them all from a friend for a cheap price, but the payoff is they're all pretty slow and a bit worn. I've also had pretty much no use for the 70-300 other than to go 'wow I can take pics of stuff really far away, but I haven't really got a use for that...' I read this blog over Christmas which seemed quite a decent breakdown of how to follow a few steps and get good photographs. However, I'm aware that my camera crops but he doesn't make a massive note about that, and lists the Canon/Nikkor 50mm lenses next to each other. Would I be better with something like this? (Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX) instead? (it's mentioned in the comments section and has generally excellent reviews). I'm going on vacation next year to Mexico for a friends wedding, and he's asked if I can take photos of the ceremony with no expectations (but naturally I'd like to do a nice enough job, I'm better with video but I'm not lugging my PD150 with me too). Also I'd want to get nice photos of the trip too, without having to change lenses all the time. Having something I can rely on for the whole thing would be pretty great. A few other questions: While I save up for a prime, should I try keep my 28-80 at either 35/50 based on what you guys say and use that to practice with? I'm presuming it'll give me the same kind of focus/composition but just not as sharp etc Is there much difference between my D50 and the current $ equivalent camera other than the MP count? I can't say I've ever really needed shots to be bigger than 3000x2000 so just curiosity. I'm guessing with a low mm prime I might be cropping pics more? Not really an issue if I'm not printing and probably just putting on Facebook etc. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Would I be better with something like this Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX instead? (it's mentioned in the comments section and has generally excellent reviews). EL BROMANCE posted:I'm going on vacation next year to Mexico for a friends wedding, and he's asked if I can take photos of the ceremony with no expectations (but naturally I'd like to do a nice enough job, I'm better with video but I'm not lugging my PD150 with me too). Also I'd want to get nice photos of the trip too, without having to change lenses all the time. Having something I can rely on for the whole thing would be pretty great. EL BROMANCE posted:Is there much difference between my D50 and the current $ equivalent camera other than the MP count? I can't say I've ever really needed shots to be bigger than 3000x2000 so just curiosity. I'm guessing with a low mm prime I might be cropping pics more? Not really an issue if I'm not printing and probably just putting on Facebook etc. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
The 35mm 1.8 is great, and in my opinion is a bit more versatile than a 50 on a crop body. If you're not totally sure what lens to get, go through your previous photos using the 28-80 and check the EXIF data. If you spend more time nearer 50mm than 35mm then get the 50 instead. The difference you can expect between these primes and what you have on the 28-80 is a much wider aperture: at 35mm on the 28-80 I doubt you'll get much wider than f/4, and maybe f/4.5 at 50mm. This means you can't easily compare the DoF of the two lenses but you can get a feel for the area you'll cover, so by all means practise but it's a very different game, particularly in low light. As for differences between the current cameras and the D50, the higher ISO performance on the D5100, D7000 onwards is phenomenal. Otherwise, I'm less sure of what you can expect. The AF and metering might be a bit better on the newer models too. The nice thing is, if you drop cash on lenses with this old body, they'll still work with a newer body later. I'd get the glass first and worry about the body later if you find it's cramping your style.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Much appreciate the replies, looks like I'll aim for that 35mm then. Shame UK prices are so unflattering compared to the US, but I've spotted one for about $180 second hand which is a bit cheaper than Amazon at least (although I'm building up vouchers for the latter). I spotted the insane ISO levels of modern cameras, didn't realise that that was also something that went down the line. It makes my 1600 top end look a bit feeble! I've always been happy with the body though, and given that I don't have enough excuses to drag the camera out that often I'll probably stick with it for some time yet. Good idea with regards to the EXIF data, I should definitely look through it on my old vacation photos. I know I tend to take the 17-35mm out with my more (until it's death) and I'd often shoot at the 35mm end. I'm guessing being locked at a focal length will just mean having to change my distance on shooting, which is no issue. It's been so long since I've used the thing properly I'll essentially be learning from scratch, luckily I found my D70 shooting guide from years ago and from memory there was only a handful of things that didn't apply to my body. Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Any more news on the D7200 rumors from back in Jan/Feb? I've been thinking of upgrading towards the end of summer and I heard something new might come out around then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
I heard September-ish, but who knows. I'm planning on picking one up as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
WHERE IS THIS D400 AT MOTHERFUCKERS?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
They're going to call it the D9300 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Refer to thread title tyvm
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
About a year ago I accidentally stumbled into a job in photography with absolutely no prior experience. I've been shooting with a Nikon D700 for the last 6 months or so and I love the drat thing. I was taught on a D7000 and a D300... The 7000 was great, the 300, not so much. Low light was god awful. I'm currently in the market for a personal kit, and I'm looking at the D7000 and its big brother the D7100. KEH has the following listings: D7000 - $619 (possibly with an 18 to 105?) http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DN0299911962804?r=FE D7100 - $919 no lense http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DN029991325710?r=FE I've got two questions, first, to anyone who's ever ordered from KEH can you tell if the D7000 actually comes with a lens or not? Under lens in the description it says "when sold with 18 to 105". That could mean it has one, or it was originally sold with one. If that listing does include a lens (even if its not the best one in the world) that makes the D7000 about $500 cheaper than the D7100 (depending on the lens I get). My next question is to anyone who's used these. I know the D7100 is an improvement in most areas, but is it worth the extra $500? My main concerns are low light and weather sealing. I could really care less about video. I found a few comparisons online, but they weren't very good and none of them broke it down to for the money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:About a year ago I accidentally stumbled into a job in photography with absolutely no prior experience. I've been shooting with a Nikon D700 for the last 6 months or so and I love the drat thing. I was taught on a D7000 and a D300... The 7000 was great, the 300, not so much. Low light was god awful. Never used either so I can't help you with a comparison, but the D7000 listing does not include a lens - they generally explicitly mention it in the short description when it does, and also it's under 'Bodies' as opposed to 'Kits'. As far as I can tell that's just the camera body (which the price would support).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Unless it specifically says so, it is body only. The only time you get a lens is if you buy it as a camera outfit or as a kit. Also KEH's bgn grade is pretty loving great, and it only gets better from there. I've purchased a few bgn things, and they all function 100%, the glass is perfect or nearly perfect, but you can tell it has been used. It's also cheap. KEH also has deals where you can save a bit if you buy the lens with a body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
That closes the gap then. I think I'm going to spend the extra $300 and get the camera that's all around better. Thanks for the quick help. I also added a bargain grade 18-70 lens. I had that same lens on my training kit and got a ton of use out of it. I figure the one I used was beat up and abused and it was still a great workhorse, so they're hardy enough. $1100 all told for a kit that should last me a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:...should last me a long time. Oh man, I wish that were true. A bottomless pit, lenses are. Relatedly, I forced myself to sell the 28-300, couldn't decide on what to replace it with, and ended up getting a 300mm f/4.5 AI from KEH as sort of a tele stopgap. It's no 105 2.5, that's for sure. Still, I'm glad not to have the superzoom sitting around being expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:That closes the gap then. I think I'm going to spend the extra $300 and get the camera that's all around better. Thanks for the quick help. To be honest the 18-70 AF-S is a really solid kit lens that you will probably not hate (if you do, the 18-55 VR II is loving awesome for the price). I mean yes you'll want better glass pretty soon but there are far worse lenses to start out with. Also yes, bargain grade is awesome, I got a 135 2.8 for $16 that I swear still smelled like the factory. I just assume that EX grade is "literally brand new but somebody touched the box."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
My work kit has a fixed 50, a 12-24, and a 24-70. I usually stick to the 50 unless I know I'm not going to have the room to zoom with my feet, then I'll rock the 24-70. The 12-24 really only comes out when I want to get a big wide scene. There have been times when a longer focal length would be nice, but usually the subject is more interesting when you get up close. I had an 18-105 during training, but it was old and the autofocus did really wonky poo poo. Since I was (and still am) new, I never used it cause I dreaded manual focus. I'll probably grab a 50 at some point soon and that's about it. Of course you all know the truth... I tell myself these things so I don't lust for new and exciting lenses that my wife won't let me have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
If you're on a crop sensor (you said d7000/7100, right?) and you're buying these lenses yourself you should own a 35mm f/1.8G instead of a 50. 35mm f/1.8G is best current gen lens for the money other than maybe the 18-55 kit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
