Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My favorite was shooting massive slide presentation for corporate clients. Four F2's with Md motors, 15 or 20 wides on one, 35 on another, 50 0r 85 on nr 3 and a 200 or 180 on body 4!! At least i used to hire a "schlepper" to carry some of the stuff and re-load. Usually went through 50-80 rolls of Ektachrome/day. Amazing how many shots you need for 24 projector set ups with Dove drives! Had to be programmed in real time too.
Other back breaking stuff - shooting for three weeks in Turkey. Industrial shoot - all Hasselblad. My bag topped out at 45lbs and you kept dragging it around for hours - as well as a Gitzo Pro Studex tripod and some Metz 45's and back up Vivitar 283's! I came back from that job with severe back damage - went on vacation for 4 weeks - driving around in California. When I got out of the van - I could not stretch and walked almost bent over at 90 degrees. Got some interesting shots of sidewalks, manhole covers and drains. Nothing above 5 ft showed. "Mountains, what bloody mountains?" I shot film after film with a M2 and a 35 of the sand dunes in Death Valley - only sand, as I would have had to straightened out to see anything else. Definitely a different viewpoint!
Photographers and posties usually have the same problem - one shoulder is 1-2 inches lower than the other - and the back gets whacked - and will remind you about that for the rest of your life!
Other back breaking stuff - shooting for three weeks in Turkey. Industrial shoot - all Hasselblad. My bag topped out at 45lbs and you kept dragging it around for hours - as well as a Gitzo Pro Studex tripod and some Metz 45's and back up Vivitar 283's! I came back from that job with severe back damage - went on vacation for 4 weeks - driving around in California. When I got out of the van - I could not stretch and walked almost bent over at 90 degrees. Got some interesting shots of sidewalks, manhole covers and drains. Nothing above 5 ft showed. "Mountains, what bloody mountains?" I shot film after film with a M2 and a 35 of the sand dunes in Death Valley - only sand, as I would have had to straightened out to see anything else. Definitely a different viewpoint!
Photographers and posties usually have the same problem - one shoulder is 1-2 inches lower than the other - and the back gets whacked - and will remind you about that for the rest of your life!
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Ain't that the truth, Tom - I was only a PJ for around five years in my late teens - early 20s, but it really did a number on my back too.
My usual daily loadout was:
2 Fs with F36s, replaced by 2 Fs with MD2s, replaced by 2 F3s with MD4s
A spare unmotorized body
20
24
35
45
85 or 105
180 or 200
Metz 45CT-1
283 or some other small flash
At least the 300 stayed in the trunk of the car unless I actively needed it for a shoot!
Oh, my aching back...
My usual daily loadout was:
2 Fs with F36s, replaced by 2 Fs with MD2s, replaced by 2 F3s with MD4s
A spare unmotorized body
20
24
35
45
85 or 105
180 or 200
Metz 45CT-1
283 or some other small flash
At least the 300 stayed in the trunk of the car unless I actively needed it for a shoot!
Oh, my aching back...
Mudman
Well-known
Jeesh you guys make me seem like an amateur on a shoot with my digital.
Daylight shooting
K10d with grip,
tamron 35-85mm f2.8-3.8
70-210 f3.5
50mm f2
18-55 (weightless lens)
Metz bracket flash.
Night shoots
same body
18-55 (for the wide end)
24mm f2.5
50mm f2
90 f2.5
135 f2.8
Or with film either a leica iii with 50mm f2 or Nikon F100/Fm2n with 24 f2.5, 50f1.8, 85f2 105 f2.5
Daylight shooting
K10d with grip,
tamron 35-85mm f2.8-3.8
70-210 f3.5
50mm f2
18-55 (weightless lens)
Metz bracket flash.
Night shoots
same body
18-55 (for the wide end)
24mm f2.5
50mm f2
90 f2.5
135 f2.8
Or with film either a leica iii with 50mm f2 or Nikon F100/Fm2n with 24 f2.5, 50f1.8, 85f2 105 f2.5
Last edited:
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
Well, maybe so, maybe not. The back focus of the Contax and the Nikon RFs are the same. What is different is the pitch of the focusing helical that is built into the camera. This was a result of mating a Leica-type focusing coupler to a Contax helical. Any optic or accessory made for either the Nikon or the Contax, if it willl mount, will focus correctly AT INFINITY. However, the actual focus and what the rangefinder says is focus will depart from there as you focus closer. It is not a problem with wide angles due to the depth-of-field. It is normally not a problem with normal lenses unless you are one of those types that keeps taking pictures wide-open at the closest focusing distance [i.e. f1.4 at three feet]. It is definitely a problem with longer lenses because the depth-of-field is narrower. Recent article in Nikon Journal covers this, but not clearly and gets the focal length story wrong [there is no significant difference in focal length between the Nikkor and Zeiss normals.]
As for the shutter speed, The dial on the S2 can be set wound or unwound. The top index marker for the higher speeds allows that. Not so on the older Nikons. I have an S2 that has low speed problems (below 1/50th). I found that there is a pivot in the bottom of the camera acessible under the inside cover plate that gets lazy and prevents the second shutter from closing until the finger is released. The solution is exercise and a trip ot a camera repairer if the exercise does not work. Cheers, WES
Wes,
The pitch of the helicals is different because the NRF and Contax normals have slightly different focal lengths. That forced the different pitched helicals, nothing else. It came about because NK engineers started the Nikon camera by borrowing the 50/3.5 NK had used on the pre-war Leica standard Canons.
Stephen
furcafe
Veteran
I haven't read the Nikon Journal article, but I thought the difference in nominal normal focal length between the Contax & Leica (I've read that it is 52.3mm or 52.4mm for the Zeiss v. 51.6mm for the Leitz) was the reason behind the difference in pitch &/or rotational angle (I believe Brian Sweeney has measured it as 260 degrees for the Contax v. 270 degrees for Nikon RF), not the manner in which the movement of the lens was transmitted to the RF mechanism. From my rudimentary understanding of optics, if there was no difference in focal length between the Contax & Nikon RF "50mm" lenses, then the lens would be moved the same distance from the film plane for any given focus distance & there would be no need for a different pitch or rotational angle in the helical.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
>>It is normally not a problem with normal lenses unless you are one of those types that keeps taking pictures wide-open at the closest focusing distance [i.e. f1.4 at three feet].<<
Most of the fun of owning an f/1.5 or f/1.4 lens is shooting it wide open and close up.
Most of the fun of owning an f/1.5 or f/1.4 lens is shooting it wide open and close up.
Attachments
kid_a
Established
Vince, how do you like the CV 25/4? There is a local(ish) shop that can order it in for me, and I'd love something right around that focal length.
back alley
IMAGES
check the prices kid, most times it's cheaper to order from stephen.
kid_a
Established
The Camera Store in Calgary has it for $399,95 cdn with the viewfinder
Stephen has it for $399,99 USD
I'll always check his stuff first though, such a GREAT resource
VinceC
Veteran
It's a great lens. It doesn't quite match the older Nikkors because of its modern optics and coatings. Sharp and contrasty. Same formula as the Leica version but with coupled focusing. I don't use it as much as I should because I'm not wild about separate finders compared to a 28mm lens. The CV finder is optically marvelous but I've had to take mine apart a couple of times to fix a tendency for the frameline to slightly rotate in the housing (it's a disc of glass). Lately, I've just been shooting the 25mm as though it were a 28, then taking a step closer.
Here are some examples from a couple of weeks ago:
Here are some examples from a couple of weeks ago:
Attachments
Last edited:
That's been my experience too. The focusing patch on the M3 is definitely brighter, but I still have no trouble focusing my SP or S2 in low light and don't find it any harder than focusing the M3 I briefly owned.
kid_a
Established
I saw David Byrne last night in concert, and the S2 was just fine focusing in low light .
Chris, it's the other way round
The Contax helicoid rotates approx. 10 degrees more than the Nikon helicoid.My understanding is that the backfocus and pitch of the Nikon/Contax helicoids are the same!
The Nikon engineers decreased the helicoid travel by 10 degrees to accommodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length. That's because a 51.6mm lens needs to be slightly closer to the film plane than a 52.4mm lens to focus correctly on a subject 0.90cm away. Naturally, the Nikon engineers also modified the rangefinder and focus scale to accomodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length.
furcafe
Veteran
Thanks, I stand corrected (math & science were never my strong suits). So the pitch is the same, but the rotational angle is different between the 2 mounts. Got it.
Chris, it's the other way round
My understanding is that the backfocus and pitch of the Nikon/Contax helicoids are the same!
The Nikon engineers decreased the helicoid travel by 10 degrees to accommodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length. That's because a 51.6mm lens needs to be slightly closer to the film plane than a 52.4mm lens to focus correctly on a subject 0.90cm away. Naturally, the Nikon engineers also modified the rangefinder and focus scale to accomodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'm glad the S2 worked out for you at the David Byrne concert but regarding the rf patch, I found the M type patch to be unique in it's ability to focus both in low light and simultaneously low contrast, something I found less easy to do with an SP. This has a lot more to do with the age of the shooter than anything else. When you're young; the pupils are larger, the eye can accommodate and generally you have better contrast detection in low light. All this make marginal lighting more of a snap when you're 20 something as opposed to 50+. One thing I like about the M (or most other modern rf's) is it's ability to accessorize the eyepiece with diopter lenses that allow for correction of my inability to compensate for the built-in -0.5 diopter power of the viewfinder. Nikon rf's had a diopter correction accessory but it was a cumbersome device as it attached to the accessory shoe and would probably fetch several hundred $$ due to it's rarity.
Last edited:
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
Chris, it's the other way round
My understanding is that the backfocus and pitch of the Nikon/Contax helicoids are the same!
The Nikon engineers decreased the helicoid travel by 10 degrees to accommodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length. That's because a 51.6mm lens needs to be slightly closer to the film plane than a 52.4mm lens to focus correctly on a subject 0.90cm away. Naturally, the Nikon engineers also modified the rangefinder and focus scale to accomodate the slightly shorter 51.6mm standard focal length.
Okay, guys. Let's get to the bottom of this. In the June 1951 issue of Modern photography, John Wolbarst wrote up the most extensive report on the Nikon that any publication had attempted up to that time. He had Bagdonowicz of the NYC optical testing firm test two 50mm f1.4 Nikkors and a brand-new Zeiss 50mm f1.5 Sonnar. The focal lengths reported were: 52.05mm for the Nikkor "A", 51.92mm for the Nikkor "B" and 52.07mm for the Zeiss optic. [page 84, ModPhoto, June 1951]. I do not see how, with the normal variations in focal length that existed from lens to lens even within a given lot, how these differences can be of any significance whatsoever. "Normals" for the Leica may have supposedly aimed at a 51.6mm standard, but if Nikon was trying to match that, they certainly were not getting close.
As I state in my book, the problem was not the helical, but the coupling between the helical and rangefinder optics. The Contax rangefinder is directly coupled via gears from the helical to a pivoting lens in the rangefinder window. The Nikon uses a Leica-type spring-loaded lever that bears against the back of the helical and transfers the movement to a pivoting prism behind the rangefinder window. These different methods of mechanically linking the lens to the rangefinder are, I believe the source of the problem. I do not believe Nikon messed up. They just did what they had to do to make a Contax bayonet mount work with a Leica rangefinder mechanism.
If the helical ends up with a focus difference of around an inch at the closest point, it is because of what the mechanical linkage is telling the rangefinder. In any case, even if the FL standards were what the latter-day critics claim, a difference in focal length of less than a millimeter (less than 1/50th of total length) would not result in a ten degree difference in the travel of the helical. WES
furcafe
Veteran
Perhaps this part of the discussion should be moved to the NHS forum, but it seems to me that Nippon Kogaku/Nikon itself, or @ least some of the men responsible for the Nikon RF, believed that the focal length difference was a factor. Fuketa Masahiko, 1 of Nikon's top designers, is quoted on page 38 in Robert Rotoloni's The Complete Nikon Rangefinder System (emphasis in original):
And Nikon includes the following statement on the historical portion of their corporate web site (originally from an article by Tateno Yokoyuki in "Nikkor Club Quarterly" magazine) regarding the focal length difference (see the section entitled "Truly original?"):
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/history/rhnc09s-e/index.htm
Again, I'm not an optical expert or engineer & I have no access to primary sources that might contradict my secondary sources, but it seems to me that if there was no difference in focal length, it would have been much easier to simply modify the Leica-style RF mechanism in the Nikon & retain full compatibility w/the Contax system (assuming the back-focus distance is the same, something that has been disputed by Henry Scherer), rather than modifying the entire helical mechanism.
The lens mount was very difficult to make. We thought we were the same as Contax but after Nikon One production began we realized we were slightly different. At infinity they are the same but the "travel" was different. This caused long delays.
And Nikon includes the following statement on the historical portion of their corporate web site (originally from an article by Tateno Yokoyuki in "Nikkor Club Quarterly" magazine) regarding the focal length difference (see the section entitled "Truly original?"):
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/history/rhnc09s-e/index.htm
The leading manufacturer of this type of camera is Ernst Leitz GmbH, which makes direct-view rangefinder cameras. In the beginning, Nippon Kogaku K.K. also thought of developing a screw-mounting camera — just like the ones Leica was making. However, in order to avoid direct competition with other companies already in the market using Nippon Kogaku K.K.'s lenses, rangefinders, and viewfinders, they chose to adopt Contax's bayonet mount system. As this unique mount employed an impartial focusing system, the exterior of the camera resembled that of a Contax. Nippon Kogaku K.K. knew that, based on their experience in the development of Contax mounts prior to W.W. II, and despite its complicated design, they were capable of mass producing the camera. To simplify things a bit, they employed the same flange back (the distance from the mounting surface to the film surface) as Contax. However, since the standard 5 cm Nikkor lens — which was being produced before W.W. II — had the same focal length (51.6 mm) as Leica, they wanted to keep the optical design. So they decided to adapt Contax's mounting shape, while using a Leica-type lens focusing mechanism — the birth of a "combined" mount. Contax's standard lens had a focal length of about 52.3mm, which meant that this Nikon mount could obtain correct focus with both a Contax lens and a Nikon lens at infinity. The extension capability of the Contax lens proved to be insufficient, though, and became rear focused even when adjusted to the rangefinder's double image in the viewfinder. This familiar-yet-original mount required a lens barrel with a design unlike that of Leica or Contax. However, as I mentioned earlier, they had been working with a 35mm camera lens barrel. This resulted in the inside of the telephoto lens becoming complicated, but it wasn't so bad when compared to the camera body.
Again, I'm not an optical expert or engineer & I have no access to primary sources that might contradict my secondary sources, but it seems to me that if there was no difference in focal length, it would have been much easier to simply modify the Leica-style RF mechanism in the Nikon & retain full compatibility w/the Contax system (assuming the back-focus distance is the same, something that has been disputed by Henry Scherer), rather than modifying the entire helical mechanism.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
Creating accurate rangefinder parallax mechanisms requires very precise tolerances, whether using the Leica swinging arm or the Contax gear-driven sliding prism. It's not clear to me why choosing a different mechanical method would result in a difference in lens focus. All of the non-50mm lenses in the Nikon-Contax system are examples of how you mechanically adapt a mount to precisely match the optic -- why would it be any different with the 50 itself? You could fine-tune the mechanical armatures to match the optics of the lens -- the physics of the glass dictate that an identical lens will be in focus at a specific distance from the film plane. If the Zeiss Sonnar, wth no focus helical of its own, is not focusing on the Nikon S2 at the indicated distance, then the only possible explanation is that the Zeiss Sonnar is at a slightly different distance from the film plane than a Nikkor 5cm. If both lenses are in focus at infinity, then the only possible explanation is that the distances vary between the two optical designs as they are focused closer to the subject, further from the focal plane ... the only real logical explanation for this would be a slight difference in focal length between the Zeiss and Nikkor.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
Vince, you raise the question that I do not know the exact answer to. I have read Bob's book and the quotes cited, but I cannot accept that a difference of a millimeter or less (or 1/50th of a millimeter) would result in the differences in focus that other users claim to have found. If a lens without a focusing mount goes into a helical and is at infinity, shouldn't it focus accurately at all distances? Or, is the external mount accurate at infinity, but the internal isn't? Or does focusing the internal mount lens give accurate focus for both Sonnars and Nikkors at measured distances, but not according to the rangefinders. In other words, if you would set both brands of lenses at three feet using a tape measure, they would agree, but the rangefinders would not?
Until I have my own Contax and run my own tests, I will not know for sure, but I do not believe the focal lengths were the real issue. Cheers, WES
Until I have my own Contax and run my own tests, I will not know for sure, but I do not believe the focal lengths were the real issue. Cheers, WES