New York November NYC Meet-UP

Your right Phil, I see the difference between the D300 and the F3 focusing screens the
F3 is courser and the D300 is real smooth harder to focus.

Bob
 
ornate_wrasse said:
You are more than welcome, Cal. I hope you enjoy many more cups of coffee in your new Noctilux mug!

It was really great to meet with the wonderful NYC RFF folks at Puck Fair and see everyone's cameras and lenses. Even my daughter had a good time!

Hope to do it again when I come to NYC the next time.

Ellen
Click to expand...

Ellen,

Hope to see you soon. I was promoting the 5 Boro Bike Tour that happens in May to Brittiny. The only problem is that they limit the amount of participants to around 40K cyclists. Make sure you sign up very early for a slot. IMHO this is just another great event that makes NYC a world class city.

I'm thinking about setting up a bike and shoot because this is a very different way to see NYC. I did this event three time because it is so much fun. I remember one time when I did it with two other friends and some Eric and I lost Tommy. We slowed down thinking that Tommy somehow was behind us, but in reality somehow he had gotten in front of us. When we figured that out we then began hammering and racing to Staten Island like crazy madmen.

Pretty crazy speed doing about 50 mph coasting on the mile long descent into Staten Island that cause my eyes to tear up due to the wind. At the finish is a big party.

Anyway another example where crazy is good. LOL. For me its like a one day vacation. Also know that the motorists get really annoyed because multiple bridges and roadways are closed to cars, and they even close one direction of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. Bicycles for a day take over the city. To get back to Madhattan you take the Ferry for free.

Cal
 
Range-rover said:
Your right Phil, I see the difference between the D300 and the F3 focusing screens the
F3 is courser and the D300 is real smooth harder to focus.

Bob
Click to expand...

When I first got the 300mm f/4.5 ED IF AiS, I couldn't focus it at all without using the little green LED focusing aid in the viewfinder which took my eyeball off the subject.
So I researched it a bit and found that the coarse groundglass makes it easier to focus an aerial image across the film plane as the coarse grit scatters light more and when the focus converges it really snaps because the scattering angle makes the otherwise slightly out of focus area appear more like the real out of focus in real life as opposed to the super fine, super bright screens that are made to show a bright field at f/2.8 or slower yet hobble the use of manual focus with lenses longer than 50mm.

This really is critical with that 85mm f/1.4 wide open. That thing has about a two sheets of paper thick depth of field at close range. It's amazing.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
A coarse groundglass is much easier to focus fast, it's just not as bright as the modern screens. One can't see the true focusing point as easily with fine grit screens as well. It's because zoom lenses dominate.


I may be wed to the D3 for quite some time for all this functionality. In that camera, Nikon brought together all the great functions of a full-frame D2x, added a better color meter and overlooked the fact that with the full-frame interchangeable screens, the user could put anything that fit in there and make it work great.


Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Phil,

I agree with you that the Beattie Screen while very bright due to the lack of courseness does not have the focus snap of the courser screens. Although mucho brighter there seems to be a general lack of contrast that is associated with a good snap. I tend to use the Beattie kinda like focusing a Rollie (ground glass and focusing to maximize detail).

For me I think you have built a real fine workhorse of a Digital Nikon SLR; I found your rig to be impressive; but for me I prefer my F3's because I'm a B&W film centric.

Recently I put together another black paint F2 with a DE-1 Prism. I built this camera for $390 between Adorama and KEH (includes taxes and shipping). The only thing needed is to replace the screen with a F3 "K" screen that has the "Red-Dot." Nothing like a small SLR built like a Leica M3 that's only a little bigger, especially for no money.

Cal
 
stompyq said:
Why you guys use manual focus on DSLR bodies when Nikon has some great AF glass I would never know.
Click to expand...

Because autofocus isn't accurate enough for critical focus using lenses like the 85mm f/1.4. You can see this in my camera when checking the "depth" of the focus sensor's sensitivity as compared to the split image aid. Once you see this, autofocus just isn't good enough. At least it isn't for me. Nikon's AF sensors can only "precisely" focus a lens of f/2.8 max aperture which is the difference between the size of a golf ball compared to a beach ball at 20 feet. Even though the AF is good, it's not good enough for me.

Also most AF lenses have some "slop" to them due to the necessary lightweight construction and stator rings built in to them. Those things affect focus. Gear lash affects fine focus. And the stators are all fragile, all being made of plastic because if they were made of metal a more expensive component of the lens would fail in the case where stress overload is applied to the stator. It may make repair impossible because of metal deformation.

I'm not easy on gear and since I don't have too much money I have to have gear that WORKS. Period. I sold my M9 because it was unreliable, in spite the fact it was still in warranty. Doesn't matter for a working stiff if the gear used for work is out for repair.

Manual focus lenses are cheap and they work. The AiS lenses that I have happen to be among the finest optics ever made by anyone and they still are at least as good as what Nikon made in autofocus of any variant or vintage.

Then there is the human factor. I'm good at using manual focus lenses, if i may brag a bit. Autofocus just doesn't work for me that well. I like to do the thinking instead of letting my camera do it.

Phil Forrest
 
stompyq said:
Why you guys use manual focus on DSLR bodies when Nikon has some great AF glass I would never know.
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

Mucho reasons: Nikon manual focus lenses are cheap; Nikon manual focus lenses are more durable; Nikon manual focus lenses seem to be more consistent in quality with less sample variation; certain manual focus Nikon lenses have no auto-focus counterpart like the Noct-Nikkor and the small compact 45/2.8P AIS.

I know there are some truely great auto-focus lenses that offer great performance, but these servo-wave telephotos are big time expensive, and I'm not sure if auto-focus is needed nor required for shooting wides the way I do stopped down at say F5.6.

The best question for me is why do I need an auto-focus lens??? I don't see an advantage for me.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I know there are some truely great auto-focus lenses that offer great performance, but these servo-wave telephotos are big time expensive, and I'm not sure if auto-focus is needed nor required for shooting wides the way I do stopped down at say F5.6.

The best question for me is why do I need an auto-focus lens??? I don't see an advantage for me.

Cal
Click to expand...

One note about telephotos longer than 300mm is that with autofocus lenses the sensors in the camera are easily fooled unless the subject is static. This can lead to the camera hunting back and forth between focus limits and is a big PITA. Sometimes it leads to missed shots. Put the AF lens on manual focus and the manual focus ring is so sloppy with so much gear lash that finding focus can become a game of luck, turning that ring back and forth just a tiny bit to find the sweet spot. For me it's slower than manual focus.

Phil Forrest
 
jsrockit said:
I'm curious to know how you think I'm not thinking when I use autofocus?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean this as an insult to anyone using autofocus. I meant it as a statement on the deficiency of precision in Nikon's AF system that I've seen since I got my first AF Nikon (the F4) fourteen years ago. The Nikon sensor isn't a point, it's a field and if focus falls inside that field then the camera "thinks" the image is in focus when critical focus may not have been reached although it is within an acceptable range.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
One note about telephotos longer than 300mm is that with autofocus lenses the sensors in the camera are easily fooled unless the subject is static. This can lead to the camera hunting back and forth between focus limits and is a big PITA. Sometimes it leads to missed shots. Put the AF lens on manual focus and the manual focus ring is so sloppy with so much gear lash that finding focus can become a game of luck, turning that ring back and forth just a tiny bit to find the sweet spot. For me it's slower than manual focus.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Phil,

I found what you say to be true. I had a 180/2.8 AF-ED-IF lens that I use to use on my F3's. Back then I carried two F3's with MD-4's, built a lot of upper body stength and stamina from doing a dumb thing.

I bought the lens because according to Moose Peterson the optics were better than the 180/2.8 ED-IF AIS, but focus lash made focus somewhat vague. Looked rather bizarre on my F3P, but this did not bother me. LOL.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Phil,

I found what you say to be true. I had a 180/2.8 AF-ED-IF lens that I use to use on my F3's. Back then I carried two F3's with MD-4's, built a lot of upper body stength and stamina from doing a dumb thing.

I bought the lens because according to Moose Peterson the optics were better than the 180/2.8 ED-IF AIS, but focus lash made focus somewhat vague. Looked rather bizarre on my F3P, but this did not bother me. LOL.

Cal
Click to expand...

I've owned both of these lenses and the autofocus version is amazing. The problem is that wide open, it has enough contrast and sharp focus plane with a sharp curve to out of focus, that if the desired focus point is missed (say, tip of the eyeball) then the image is obviously out of focus. I was using this lens on an F4 and a D100 and the D100 just couldn't hack it. The gear lash didn't help matters either.

Phil Forrest
 
jsrockit said:
I'm curious to know how you think I'm not thinking when I use autofocus?
Click to expand...

John,

I once found a Contax T3 in an abandoned part of Williamsburg near where I lived. In fact I almost stepped on it. It came with the OEM leather case.

Basically this camera was a point and shoot, but this camera did not work for me. The shutter lag made it impossible for me to take even one good picture. The process for making a photograph is rather rigid for me if focusing is required: focus then shoot, while it seems that auto focus cameras just trip me up.

Good for you that you are more flexible and make technology work for you.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
John,

I once found a Contax T3 in an abandoned part of Williamsburg near where I lived. In fact I almost stepped on it. It came with the OEM leather case.

Basically this camera was a point and shoot, but this camera did not work for me. The shutter lag made it impossible for me to take even one good picture. The process for making a photograph is rather rigid for me if focusing is required: focus then shoot, while it seems that auto focus cameras just trip me up.

Good for you that you are more flexible and make technology work for you.

Cal
Click to expand...

There's a difference between camera limitations and not thinking. I misunderstood Phil.

To me, one point AF is the same in usage to a RF patch... I focus on what I want to focus on and then recompose. I think I've proven that I can do this quickly with AF and I don't have to rely on zone focusing.
 
jsrockit said:
There's a difference between camera limitations and not thinking. I misunderstood Phil.

To me, one point AF is the same in usage to a RF patch... I focus on what I want to focus on and then recompose. I think I've proven that I can do this quickly with AF and I don't have to rely on zone focusing.
Click to expand...

John,

You do it very well. I could never do what you do.

I'm pretty good with zone focus, especially very close (under 7-8 feet) with a wide. Kill zones also work where I wait for the subject to reach a distance. Auto-focus for me compounds things making photography more complicated than it has to be.

Cal
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Because autofocus isn't accurate enough for critical focus using lenses like the 85mm f/1.4. You can see this in my camera when checking the "depth" of the focus sensor's sensitivity as compared to the split image aid. Once you see this, autofocus just isn't good enough. At least it isn't for me. Nikon's AF sensors can only "precisely" focus a lens of f/2.8 max aperture which is the difference between the size of a golf ball compared to a beach ball at 20 feet. Even though the AF is good, it's not good enough for me.

Also most AF lenses have some "slop" to them due to the necessary lightweight construction and stator rings built in to them. Those things affect focus. Gear lash affects fine focus. And the stators are all fragile, all being made of plastic because if they were made of metal a more expensive component of the lens would fail in the case where stress overload is applied to the stator. It may make repair impossible because of metal deformation.

I'm not easy on gear and since I don't have too much money I have to have gear that WORKS. Period. I sold my M9 because it was unreliable, in spite the fact it was still in warranty. Doesn't matter for a working stiff if the gear used for work is out for repair.

Manual focus lenses are cheap and they work. The AiS lenses that I have happen to be among the finest optics ever made by anyone and they still are at least as good as what Nikon made in autofocus of any variant or vintage.

Then there is the human factor. I'm good at using manual focus lenses, if i may brag a bit. Autofocus just doesn't work for me that well. I like to do the thinking instead of letting my camera do it.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

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.
 
Calzone said:
Pro-Mone,

Mucho reasons: Nikon manual focus lenses are cheap; Nikon manual focus lenses are more durable; Nikon manual focus lenses seem to be more consistent in quality with less sample variation; certain manual focus Nikon lenses have no auto-focus counterpart like the Noct-Nikkor and the small compact 45/2.8P AIS.

I know there are some truely great auto-focus lenses that offer great performance, but these servo-wave telephotos are big time expensive, and I'm not sure if auto-focus is needed nor required for shooting wides the way I do stopped down at say F5.6.

The best question for me is why do I need an auto-focus lens??? I don't see an advantage for me.

Cal
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
New York Annual NYC Camera Beauty Contest 2026 (early 2026)
Replies
14
Views
830
Calzone
C
C
New York November NYC Meet-UP
2 3
Replies
48
Views
4K
Calzone
C
C
New York Sunday November 13th MEET-UP
Replies
5
Views
1K
Calzone
C
C
New York Saturday June 21st 2:00 PM Meet-Up
Replies
5
Views
478
Calzone
C
C
New York October NYC Meet-Up
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
7K
Calzone
C
Back
Top Bottom