Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,508   Online: 1042
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,845
    Images
    29
    Marko, your question regarding the durability of the Spotmatic compared to the F3 is interesting.

    The F3 was designed in the mid to late seventies by a company that was pretty much at the top of the tree in it's field, at that time. The F3 was designed for professional usage day in day out, my personal take on the F3 is that it is the best straight 35mm camera produced by Nikon.

    By comparison the Spotmatic was designed in the very early sixties by a company that was at the time, also close to the top of the tree in it's field. If you are referring to the M42 Spotmatic of the early sixties I would sort of agree that it is designed and built reasonably close in comparison to the F3. They certainly have lasted and they work pretty much as they did when new, some forty years later!

    With designs of anything it is usually a matter of careful selection of materials and melding of form over function, to produce something that works extremely well for it's intended purpose. This usually means the item works well, sometimes to a degree that is unbelievable.

    If it is done well people recognise that and purchase it in numbers that are sometimes stupendous.

    The Spotmatic, the Nikon F3, the Volkswagen Beatle, the Ipod.

    Mick.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Well said, Mick. Steel and glass haven't changed much since the sixties, it's just a question of wanting to put in the engineering effort to truly leverage their strengths (pun intended?).

    I've always looked at UV filters as just another air-glass interface to cause flare and contrast loss. Not worth it IMHO.
    To paraphrase the old maxim, would you rather own a sharp contrasty $80 lens or a flare-prone $90 one? And don't drop either one! ^_^

  3. #23
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by okto View Post
    Well said, Mick. Steel and glass haven't changed much since the sixties, it's just a question of wanting to put in the engineering effort to truly leverage their strengths (pun intended?).

    I've always looked at UV filters as just another air-glass interface to cause flare and contrast loss. Not worth it IMHO.
    To paraphrase the old maxim, would you rather own a sharp contrasty $80 lens or a flare-prone $90 one? And don't drop either one! ^_^
    Well - if you can "plan" your drops - I guess this is a wise thought.

    But, "drops" are "accidents" and, as such, unplanned.

    But, more importantly, I see you've just joined us.

    Welcome to APUG,

    We have a special "Intro" forum set up so new members can introduce themselves.

    Oh, and, BTW, if you do a search of this site, you'll find that the Filter v. No-Filter argument has been beaten to death many times.

    It really come down to a simple solution: Do whatever you want to do - but you are no more right than you are wrong. Those of us who prefer to use prophylactic filters will continue to do so, not matter what you say - and vice versa.

    So, don't worry about it.

    Just intro yourself on the Intro thread and welcome to APUG....

    Oh, just in case you haven't realized that this is a "geezer site", I too have been shooting since "way back then". My first camera was a Nikkormat FT-2 with a 50/2.0 lens. And, yes, I put a filter on it.

  4. #24
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    A geezer site? ? But I'm young! I got a 1 year warranty with it, should I still get a filter?
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Oops. Forgot to lurk moar.

  6. #26
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Markok765 View Post
    A geezer site? ? But I'm young! I got a 1 year warranty with it, should I still get a filter?
    Well - do you plan to keep it until you become a "geezer"? :o

  7. #27
    Marc Akemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor area, Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,267
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Markok765 View Post
    A geezer site? ? But I'm young! I got a 1 year warranty with it, should I still get a filter?
    Well Markok, many of us have given our opinions on this thread regarding a filter on a lens for protective purposes. If you're still unsure about your decision, you might as well just get a filter. I'm not a filter guy, but you might be so worried about your lens without one, you might miss a shot or something. It's not that big a deal. (I know, George,....it's a big deal if a lens gets scratched. ) Markok, just get a filter, take some pics and have a little fun.

    Marc

  8. #28
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Well - do you plan to keep it until you become a "geezer"? :o
    Until it stops working! I'll probably get one, just in case.
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Liverpool (UK), and Bangkok (Thailand)
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    50
    The Super-Takumar 28/3.5 is a great lens - for many years when I used a Spotmatic it was my favourite. A lot of the Nepal photos here were taken with it.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Marcko,

    Sounds like you just met Paul at the clearance Centre, he is a character and a Pentax freak. Paul is also biased against filters but that is his personal bias showing through, I err on the side of caution. Did Paul, juggle camera bodies while you were there?

    Two years ago when shooting at St. Lawerence Market, I dropped my Nikon F on it's lens in a total dufus moment. The Filter was toast but the lens was fine, lesson learned.

    Bill
    ROFLMAO

    Deep in the store and to the right? Awesome guy.

    There isn't a manual focus lens or body in the store that hasn't been tossed around by him.

    He and I have the same philosophy on equipment.

    Too bad I didn't listen to him when he was saying that "plastic can be rugged too, but it makes the camera lighter and you can take it anywhere".

    Don't get the filter. For 10 bucks it will degrade the quality of your image.

    And also, it's almost impossible to really scratch a lens. Scratches only happen to fisheyes when they're dropped on the asphalt. And those scratches don't affect the quality at all - only resale value.

    But since you got it for 80 bucks, you're not planning on babying it to keep the resale value.

    So just leave it alone and don't use it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin