New York November NYC Meet-UP

[jsrockit]

Pramodh,

Some people just hate AF.

 

[Calzone]

Cal I understand all those arguments for shooting a MF lens on a Nikon MF body but not essentially crippling a AF DSLR to use these lenses.

Pro-Mone,

For me I still don't see an advantage even on an auto-focus DSLR or even a film camera that has auto-focus capabilities like a Nikon F5 unless perhaps using an intergrated flash where distance information provided by a chipped lens can offer an advantage as being maybe the only exception.

All of what I stated advantages above all still applies to either Nikon MF or Nikon auto-focus camera. For example durability still applies to both technologies, same for quality and sample variation, and cost. My logic presents itself as applying to Nikon MF, auto-focus, film or digital cameras.

The only thing "crippling" is the auto-focus, which does not work or is not needed by everyone. I guess you are assuming that auto-focus is better, but that is arguable and is not required/ nor prefered by everyone like you suggest.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Pramodh,

Some people just hate AF.

John,

I don't hate auto-focus. It just is not for me. In the end when I weigh the advantages of MF vs Auto-focus I have a distinguished clear preference.

BTW I have seen numerous Auto-focus Nikkors being returned, getting Waren-T because of issues I mention above. I have no doubt about which style of lens wins with durability, which lens has stronger construction, and which lens is built to last longer.

Another question: why purchase complexity when you don't need it, especially when it offers no clear advantage and might even be a handicap?

Cal

 

[stompyq]

Pro-Mone,

For me I still don't see an advantage even on an auto-focus DSLR or even a film camera that has auto-focus capabilities like a Nikon F5 unless perhaps using an intergrated flash where distance information provided by a chipped lens can offer an advantage as being maybe the only exception.

All of what I stated advantages above all still applies to either Nikon MF or Nikon auto-focus camera. For example durability still applies to both technologies, same for quality and sample variation, and cost. My logic presents itself as applying to Nikon MF, auto-focus, film or digital cameras.

The only thing "crippling" is the auto-focus, which does not work or is not needed by everyone. I guess you are assuming that auto-focus is better, but that is arguable and is not required/ nor prefered by everyone like you suggest.

Cal

All I'am saying regarding Nikon DSLR's is that AF is better on a camera designed for it than using the same camera and sticking a MF lens on it. Lets not debate about if AF is better than MF overall. You know I'am in Johns camp when it comes to that.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Phil I disagree with you especially when it comes to the 85mm. I owned that lens for a very very long time. Used it on multiple different bodies and never had a problem focusing on exactly what I want consistently. I would imagine you'd have a harder time accurately focusing quickly with even your rigged D3.

Even Nikon will say that their AF sensors can't focus precisely with lenses faster than f/2.8 simply due to the nature of their focusing system. It doesn't have the capability to do so because its range covers f/2.8 to f/5.6. This is evident with using the stopdown button (in the cameras that have it) and looking through the camera at f/2.8 then manually changing the aperture to something wider. There is no change in the viewfinder and stopped down you can focus the 85mm f/1.4 anywhere within the focusing range where the sensor says it's in focus. At close distance, this is a centimeter or so.

This effect is VERY apparrent on a D2 or D3 with split prism screen. You can have the camera on a tripod, and focus using the LED focusing aid and see that there is a range of what the camera deems acceptable focus. This corresponds exactly to the depth of field of the lens stopped down to f/2.8.

Don't get me wrong, the sensors are pretty good but they aren't good enough to focus a manual 85mm f/1.4 or a Noct-Nikkor or a fast wide like the 35mm f/1.4 or the 28mm f/1.4 which is an AF lens and probably the finest 28mm ever made for an SLR. Especially with the fast wide lenses, the f/2.8 DOF margin of error is great enough that at 1:1 on a screen the deficiency in the focusing sensors is plainly evident.

If the camera user shoots in open-loop mode (constant focus, not single servo) then the sensor can get much closer but it also has more of a tendency to hunt for a fine focus point and so takes longer.

As for focus speed, I've found the only lenses that can keep up with practiced manual focus use are the AFS ones but they are expensive as hell and not built as well.

With my focusing screen mods, there is no crippling of any function of any camera. They retain the AF function as it does not use the focusing screen, it uses a half mirror and sensor below the main image mirror.

Isn't it enough for me to be able to shoot a night time football game or indoor volleyball match with manual focus 300mm and 85mm lenses and get shots repeatedly with excellent focus accuracy, to not have to defend my reason to "hobble" my D3 even though through over ten years of AF DSLR use I've found their AF sensor deficiencies to be enough to bother me? Add to that the fact that the Nikon sensors don't work at apertures wider than f/2.8 as a function of their design? Is that enough reason?

Phil Forrest

 

[stompyq]

Hey man whatever works. I'am not doubting your skill just saying that it's not far me. I like AF and MF but prefer to use AF when it comes to DSLR's/Mirrorless and MF with my analog gear.

 

[jsrockit]

Another question: why purchase complexity when you don't need it, especially when it offers no clear advantage and might even be a handicap?

That's the thing... I feel AF doesn't add anything to complexity in real life usage.

Cal, the difference is that I don't want to keep my cameras for life. They are tools and with digital, things rapidly change. I find getting used to a new camera takes only a few times out.

I guess I'm more in love with photography than cameras these days. I use what is best for my photography. I'm sure you feel the same way, but you also have a collector's mentality. I just can't buy things that I don't use often or buy the cooler looking /feeling camera that is worse for what I want to accomplish. You know they end up getting sold whenever I try that. 🙂

 

[Calzone]

John,

I learned from the affluent that paying for quality, durability, longevity and enduring value is what rich people do, and generally the wealthy think for the very long-long term, they understand enduring value, and the affluent not your average consumers. In the end over the long-long term the cheap way is really the rich way, and I never-ever regret going with quality, and gladly pay a premium for condition, and all for gear I buy with the intention to keep.

Our timelines and horizons differ because of understandable different reasons, but over the years my accumulation has built up over time to where not only do I have many cameras but I also have accumulated wealth that can be considered greedy hoarding, a natural habit that people who were once poor often do.

I'm don't consider myself a camera collector because my consumption is just like you: I buy to use; and I want the best tools for each job; but also I do appreciate nice things that are classic and timeless, especially if their inherent strengths of design and engineering make them long lasting and enduring. This is the reason why I either passed up a remarkable $799.00 black chrome M4 or returned a $470.00 chrome M4. Surely if I was a collector I would not been able to pass up great deals that would add up to be the hoarding that collectors do.

I tend to buy used for value (the only new camera ever bought was my Monochrom) so I am not a consumer like you who constantly updates to the newest advances in technology, but know that my accumulation of gear remains more a judgement of value and values than speculation and any display or accumulation of wealth is incidental.

Cal

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've learned what Cal said about buying expensive durable goods which will last over cheaper stuff. That's why I have three pairs of Alden boots which will probably last for 20 more years. That's a good deal for handmade orthopaedic shoes.

I drive a Mercedes-Benz (my second) and if I take care of it, there is no reason the car won't last for another 40 years. The insurance premiums on both my cars combined (with New Jersey comprehensive coverage) are less than if I were to buy a Subaru, Mazda, Toyota, Volkswagen or Jeep from the 1990's.

For the last ten or so years, my cameras used for work have always been the absolute top of the line that one could get. Leica, Canon, Nikon, Mamiya, always the pro lines of the DSLRs and film SLRs due to the sheer durability of the gear.

I hate cutting corners and I hate rework. The Navy soured me on doing anything less than perfect.

Phil Forrest

 

[Calzone]

Phil,

My Nikon F3P I acquired in 1991. It was a real "Press" camera and was owned by the newspaper "Newsday." I bought it after it had been overhauled by Nikon right after it returned from being used to cover Operation Desert Storm.

Owning and using a camera for over 22 years without ever needing service has been a good deal that is real value. Until 2007 when I started buying a Leica and then other cameras the F3P was not only my main camera, it was my only camera (not counting the Contax T3 that I found).

Know that you and I will be looked upon as eccentric because no matter what I do it seems that real understanding remains limited, and I feel very frustrated.

Just because I own many cameras does not mean that I am a collector, and I very deeply resent that implication because I use all my gear and each rig I own has been optimized for a particular purpose. I feel passionate about what I do, I try to share my excitment, but this leads to upsetting misunderstandings that need further explainations without any real understanding. What a waste of time because of one-sided limitations and judgements with spin that I feel are being imposed upon me.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

John,

I learned from the affluent that paying for quality, durability, longevity and enduring value is what rich people do, and generally the wealthy think for the very long-long term, they understand enduring value, and the affluent not your average consumers. In the end over the long-long term the cheap way is really the rich way, and I never-ever regret going with quality, and gladly pay a premium for condition, and all for gear I buy with the intention to keep.

I get bored too easy to buy really good stuff that won;t be used. I won't appreciate it if it's not in use. Plus, are we trying to say the cameras I use currently are cheap pieces of crap just because they are not Leica?

It does not pay to buy digital cameras and pretend they will be relavant as anything but pretty objects 20 years from now.

Our timelines and horizons differ because of understandable different reasons, but over the years my accumulation has built up over time to where not only do I have many cameras but I also have accumulated wealth that can be considered greedy hoarding, a natural habit that people who were once poor often do.

You appreciate a shelf of cameras way more than I would. If something is on the shelf at my apartment, it's because I forgot about it. I'm not dissing you. I'm glad you have a shelf of cameras that you always say I can borrow from.

I'm don't consider myself a camera collector because my consumption is just like you: I buy to use; and I want the best tools for each job; but also I do appreciate nice things that are classic and timeless, especially if their inherent strengths of design and engineering make them long lasting and enduring.

I said collector's mentality... i.e. whiteface, wetzlar, titanium, etc. Nothing wrong with this... but let's be real. You will never buy a camera with dents and dings... (and no, brassing doesn't count). 😉

This is the reason why I either passed up a remarkable $799.00 black chrome M4 or returned a $470.00 chrome M4. Surely if I was a collector I would not been able to pass up great deals that would add up to be the hoarding that collectors do.

They were too pedestrian for you. 😛

I tend to buy used for value (the only new camera ever bought was my Monochrom) so I am not a consumer like you who constantly updates to the newest advances in technology, but know that my accumulation of gear remains more a judgement of value and values than speculation and any display or accumulation of wealth is incidental.

Cal

Wow, I didn't realize that I always update based on newest advances... can you give me a example?

 

[dshfoto]

I kind of lost track of what the train of thought is here.


First off, I was disappointed with auto focus on Nikon lenses on a Fuji DSLR for a couple of reasons.
One was what I call the “back focus” problem inherent in all digital sensors. It is just a fact that most lenses are not set up to resolve to a digital sensor in the same way that they do film. As the lenses get stopped down, this problem seems to disappear. The second issue that I had with auto focus lenses, was that shooting in low light, or in the studio where the flash was brighter than the modeling lights, getting the focus right was not as easy as with manual focus systems. The lenses lacked the fine adjustment for manual, and the view finders of the digital cameras were not very useful for manual focus. It is noteworthy that Hasselblad now matches the digital backs to the bodies, and they have gone to great lengths to come up with a special focus system that uses a pre-light to achieve the correct lens focus. Of course then the model moves and that's the end of that. A large part of the problem was due to the fact that I learned with manual focus lenses, so my expectations were not attuned to auto focus.


On another train of thought, since all cameras are a compromise of some technical principal, I always keep trying out different ones. It is sort of like a quest for a holy grail of camera and lens combination that will give you the print you want. This leads me to keep buying and trying cameras, and mucho other gear. “Buying and trying” is not the same as “collecting”. However, sometimes given the number of cameras you have lying about the house, it might be hard for a non buyer-tryer to tell the difference. Sometimes I will buy > try > sell > later buy again to try again. Also what I am willing to spend to experiment changes from time to time, so that makes the buy-try syndrome even more confusing. Going to meet-ups and camera swap-sales like in New Jersey even compounds the problem.
The easiest way to distinguish a "Buyer-Tryer" from a "Collector" is that you will find the "Buyer-Tryer" out and about actually taking pictures with the gear, and not just parking it on a shelf. Or, at least intending to take it out and shoot.

 

[Calzone]

Wow, I didn't realize that I always update based on newest advances... can you give me a example?

John,

I'm not current on being knowledgable on the model names of you Fuji's, Sony and I think Merrell, but are these all not all new cameras that came out after you sold your M9? Am I mistaken that basically all these cameras are about a year old or less? I don't think I have to be specific here to make the point. Are they not auto-focus when your M9 is a manual focus. In discussion with you overall you presented reasons why you liked your new cameras over the M9.

Anyways there are a lot of connotations that I find negative that perhaps I mistakenly associate with either having a collection of cameras or being called a collector that I don't find flattering.

Imagine if I started to put spin on things and said you are a camera dealer because you buy and sell cameras frequently, and instead of calling your cameras your cameras I called them inventory would you eventually find this not to be funny.

I'm O.K. with being known as different or eccentric. I have no problem standing alone. I have no problem that others are different, but it seems that over the years, the questioning and the repetition of trying to add clarity has grown tiring.

It really is no big deal, but I prefer not having to struggle, and I prefer not to be called names I am not, especially by someone I think knows me better.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I said collector's mentality... i.e. whiteface, wetzlar, titanium, etc. Nothing wrong with this... but let's be real. You will never buy a camera with dents and dings... (and no, brassing doesn't count). 😉



They were too pedestrian for you. 😛

John,

I will take ownership that these two cameras I looked at with possibly buying just purely because they were very good deals that were hard to walk away from, but you are correct because you know me that I generally will always either pay a reasonable premium for condition or rarity that over the long-long run is valuable to me. While not as clean as my 1970 M4 I call "Punky" because of the missing Vulcanite, you are right both cameras, although not as clean, both M4's had no dents.

I also understand and respect that what I mention above is not at all important to you.

BTW buying the Rollie 3.5F "Whiteface" was a good deal (value). Only paid $999.99, and only after I bought it did I find out that is a rare collectable camera after doing research.

Cal

 

[JuJu]

Wow, let's sit down, have a drink and make fun of Nikon DF or my F5 instead?😀 You guys are my best buddies and I do understand and also learned from both of your priorities on photographic gears.

 

[jsrockit]

John,

I'm not current on being knowledgable on the model names of you Fuji's, Sony and I think Merrell, but are these all not all new cameras that came out after you sold your M9? Am I mistaken that basically all these cameras are about a year old or less? I don't think I have to be specific here to make the point. Are they not auto-focus when your M9 is a manual focus. In discussion with you overall you presented reasons why you liked your new cameras over the M9.

Right, but AF is hardly a new advancement. The thing is that digital is in its infancy. If you are into film, you have the whole history of cameras already played out and available for sale. If you like digital and don't like DSLRs, you have limited options...many which have just become available in the last few years. I've been using the X-Pro1 for about 2 years (since it was released). The rest didn't exist 2 years ago... meaning big sensor pocket cameras. You can't buy it until it exists. I know what I'm looking for in digital based on many years of film camera use and the cameras still have a ways to go. Since they are computers, there is a certain upgrade path that you have to deal with. The good thing is that digital depreciation is similar to film costs, so I don't necessarily mind that digital doesn't hold its value.

Anyways there are a lot of connotations that I find negative that perhaps I mistakenly associate with either having a collection of cameras or being called a collector that I don't find flattering.

Imagine if I started to put spin on things and said you are a camera dealer because you buy and sell cameras frequently, and instead of calling your cameras your cameras I called them inventory would you eventually find this not to be funny.

I believe people already do diss me for buying, trying, and then selling. I handle it fine... because it's true. I'm of the opinion that you have to try something for yourself to really know if it'll work for you. I'm the love em or leave em type... they are only cameras.

I'm O.K. with being known as different or eccentric. I have no problem standing alone. I have no problem that others are different, but it seems that over the years, the questioning and the repetition of trying to add clarity has grown tiring.

It really is no big deal, but I prefer not having to struggle, and I prefer not to be called names I am not, especially by someone I think knows me better.

Cal

Well, I'm sorry to took exception to being called a collector... but I don't think there is anything wrong with it. It's just not my philosophy. I'm happy that when I want to fondle a Leica or a Nikon F2... you have one! Relax Cal, I'm on your side and we diss each other all the time.

 

[jsrockit]

Wow, let's sit down, have a drink and make fun of Nikon DF or my F5 instead?😀 You guys are my best buddies and I do understand and also learned from both of your priorities on photographic gears.

Sounds like a good plan... 😀

 

[Calzone]

John,

I'm sorry that some people also impose and project onto you about how you relate to your gear also, but in a different way. After a while it all gets tiring and mucho annoying. Both you and I would rather be shooting and doing photography rather than wasting time explaining ourselves again and again repeatedly.

Don't take my postings the wrong way. Although we are both different, I know we support each other, its just that eventually stuff that really has no meaning comes to a head, especially if one feels passionate with what one is doing.

I hope the same but different explaining and repetition does not get to the levels it has with me. I'm just trying to express what has been building up over a long-long time. Not trying to impose myself on others, but sometimes it feels like others are imposing themselves on me not in a good way.

BTW since Lou Reed's passing I saw a PBS American Masters show that featured him. I realized that to truely understand NYC in the 60's, 70's and 80's you really kinda had to be here. There was no way to convey the feral feudalism that existed in the streets and a certain state of anarchy that existed. Lou Reed captured some of this reality.

Cal

 

[Range-rover]

On a side note, Last night I took apart the Nikon F3 from that deal I got on ebay,
I removed the rewind side of the camera, got to the Auto indexing gear, tighten that up
and adjusted the meter it was over 2/3 of stop off. it's better now than the one I showed
you guys on sunday, this ones mucho cleaner, LCD works great and the shutter has no
dents nice all around. Now about the discussion on Auto focus and manual focus

 

[helen.HH]

Well the main reason I stopped going to RFf meet ups
Its the subliminal vibe of Superiority...
one may have in their Perception of their Gear...😱 😛

Its Subtle but there...🙄

Its hardly ever about The Fun of Shooting, Catching The Moment, Creating a 'Look'
Or becoming absorbed in a Theme...