Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,719   Posts: 1,483,129   Online: 1237
      
Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 123456789101115 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 208
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,548
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.
    Like my Canon FTb!

    Jeff

  2. #42
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.
    Based on an Internet inflation calculator and $220 in 1959 dollars, I get about $1,600 for the body only, with plain prism. And that is for what most people would consider the best 35mm camera of the time. Today's equivalent would be the D3X at $8,000. In short, with general inflation accounted for, the amount of money that people are willing to pay for a top-end small-format camera has quintupled in the past 50 years. Pretty bad inflation for camera equipment specifically! And, ironically, a Nikon F body now easily sells for half (or less) of it's original price.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,154
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.
    The F/FtN with lens was around $425 at a time when you could drive home a brandy-new Toyota for eighteen hundred dollars. So, one-quarter the price of an inexpensive new car, say $3750.

    Today's wonder cameras in 50 years? Not likely that many (if any) will be working, and those won't be useable. They mostly won't be repairable in 5-10 years.

  4. #44
    X. Phot.
    I've only just recently installed a Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 on my Canon III. After seeing the examples provided above, I do hope the bokeh isn't equally as horrid. Hopefully these lenses are not similar in that respect. I'll know more once finishing up this current roll.
    Last edited by X. Phot.; 12-06-2011 at 12:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    BE
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    375
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    28
    I have no experience with Nikon or Olympus so I cannot comment on that, but I'm really happy to see a sensible, honest comparison. Many people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that a less expensive/desirable camera can produce results which equal the expensive system they already have.
    And the sign said, "long haired freaky people need not apply"

  6. #46
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by waltereegho View Post
    I have no experience with Nikon or Olympus so I cannot comment on that, but I'm really happy to see a sensible, honest comparison. Many people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that a less expensive/desirable camera can produce results which equal the expensive system they already have.
    Shush - don't say that it could cause a whole industry to collapse
    Ben

  7. #47
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    As to the sharpness at the edges, I don't necessarily agree. Most of my Zuikos have a very large image circle which well encompasses the 24x36 gate. However, what I have noticed is that side walls of the gate itself is either reflecting some light which is fuzzing up the very border and it also doesn't fit perfectly tight against the film. So the edge of the image area is either not sitting flat against the gate or it has some diffraction and mirror distortion going on.

    I first noticed this with the negative carrier in my enlarger. I ended up taking a file to the carrier to widen it up beyond the image area and also painted it with flat black to prevent reflection.

    I know we're supposed to be discussing the Nikon F, but our point of comparison is the OM system. I can speak to some of the traits of the OM system as I've been a heavy OM user for almost 26 years now. The OM system had one very specific design flaw which really hampered it. That is the diaphram actuation function. There is so much torque required to stop down the lens at the start of the exposure that this puts a substantial shock through the camera/lens which reduces image sharpness. The Nikon system is opposite as a spring is used to hold the diaphram open and this is released at the start of the exposure. The torque to open the diaphram happens after the exposure is finished.

    Other than that, it is really hard to find fault with the system. Sure, we can grouse about the lack of aperture setting in the viewfinder, but otherwise almost every oddity/nuance of the OM system is based on philosophy of use-intent.

    Lenses? I think you are short-changing the Zuikos a little bit here in your comparison. The contrast curves of the Zuikos are MUCH different than the Nikkors. Zuikos can seem flat in comparison, but then again, I think we get more highlight and shadow detail in our prints as a result. I've almost always needed a 1/2 grade harder paper when printing from Zuikos than Nikkors. My guess is that when you adjust the paper grade by 1/2 you'll see about the same image. The Nikkors are more punchy. I see the same thing when using my Zuikos on a digital-thingy. I have to boost the contrast, but really only in the midtones as the highlights and shadows are at the limits but contain gobs (techical term) of details. Details which just aren't there with the modern lenses.
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    Ken, I am sure you are right on both counts - it must be that in the OM body, the last couple of millimeters is not being held perfectly flat against the film gate. Not a major nuisance at all, just an observation - I'm not making this stuff up, I've used a couple of OM bodies, and it struck me how much better the very corners of images made with the 50mm is in the Nikon F.

    And yes, I think the Nikkor 50mm is definitely a higher-contrast lens than my Zuiko 50mm (late-model f/1.4). This is usually not a good thing for, say, colour slide film, but if you're shooting a grainy ISO400 B&W film, it's actually great in my opinion. Either way, you have to look at my images (first post in this thread) - the images are by no means overly-contrasty, and have good dynamic range (no appreciable lost shadow or highlight detail). They presented no difficulties in printing or scanning. So for B&W, the contrasty Nikkors are great - I think the optical engineers knew what they were doing. I find the same when shooting large format: My Nikkor 360mm f/8 is a super-punchy, contrasty lens, but by no means beyond what B&W film (HP5 in this case) can handle. Obviously a shared trait across all Nikkors. This was a contact print:


    (Nikkor 360mm at f/8, Ilford HP5+ (4x5in), contact print on Ilford MG IV)

    It's great to be able to play with al this professional gear when there are almost no professionals left who want it...

  9. #49
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    Totally related to this line of thought is that I do tend to process my B&W film to be a touch harder contrasted. For all those zillions of years I shot Fujichrome Velvia, I never had the problems other people groused about. I think what was going on was the lower contrast Zuikos were a much better match to Velvia's extremely punchy curves.
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by X. Phot. View Post
    I've only just recently installed a Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 on my Canon III. After seeing the examples provided above, I do hope the bokeh isn't equally as horrid. Hopefully these lenses are not similar in that respect. I'll know more once finishing up this current roll.
    Hope is a wonderful thing, but that is not a lens known for good bokeh. Nonetheless it is a great performing lens and I don't find the bokeh horrible. To me the single coated H seems to be the best of this series in that regard.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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