Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Poor eyesight in low light has been a curse for a while now and yes the fingers aren't what they used to be ... I think the connection between the brain and the body's extremeties must deteriorate with age ... like old copper wire that eventually starts to build up a resistance. Did you know that that this is the reason a lot of old (especially British) cars tend to have rather yellowy headlights in their dotage if they haven't had a full rewire!
"Elderly Gent" .....
That's harsh ... but I've just checked my birth dertificate and I fear you may be right! All I can say is thank god there are eighty something year old 'go for it guys' like Ted white on this forum to stop people like us in our mere fifties feeling sorry for ourselves!
john_s
Well-known
I wouldn't call 50s "elderly!" That term is for people much older than I am. This shows what's happening to the OP's eyes (and just about everyone else's):
This is copied from the wiki article on optical prescriptions:
Distant vision and near vision
The DV portion of the prescription describes the corrections for distant vision. For most people under forty years of age, this is the only part of the prescription that is filled in. The NV or near-vision portion of the prescription is blank because a separate correction for near vision is not needed.
The NV portion is used in prescriptions for bifocals.
In younger people, the lens of the eye is still flexible enough to accommodate over a wide range of distances. With age, the lens hardens and becomes less and less able to accommodate.
This is called "presbyopia;" the "presby-" root means "old" or "elder." (It is the same root as in the words "priest" and "presbyterian.")
The hardening of the lens is a continuous process, not something that suddenly happens in middle age. It is occurring all along. All that happens around middle age is that the process progresses to the point where it starts to interfere with reading. Therefore almost everybody needs glasses for reading from the age of 40-45.
Because young children have a wider range of accommodation than adults, they sometimes examine objects by holding them much closer to the eye than an adult would.
This chart (which is approximate) shows that a schoolchild has over ten diopters of accommodation, while a fifty-year-old has only two. This means that a schoolchild is able to focus on an object about 10 cm. (4") from the eye, a task for which an adult needs a magnifying glass with a rated power of about 3.5X.
This is copied from the wiki article on optical prescriptions:
Distant vision and near vision
The DV portion of the prescription describes the corrections for distant vision. For most people under forty years of age, this is the only part of the prescription that is filled in. The NV or near-vision portion of the prescription is blank because a separate correction for near vision is not needed.
The NV portion is used in prescriptions for bifocals.
In younger people, the lens of the eye is still flexible enough to accommodate over a wide range of distances. With age, the lens hardens and becomes less and less able to accommodate.
This is called "presbyopia;" the "presby-" root means "old" or "elder." (It is the same root as in the words "priest" and "presbyterian.")
The hardening of the lens is a continuous process, not something that suddenly happens in middle age. It is occurring all along. All that happens around middle age is that the process progresses to the point where it starts to interfere with reading. Therefore almost everybody needs glasses for reading from the age of 40-45.
Because young children have a wider range of accommodation than adults, they sometimes examine objects by holding them much closer to the eye than an adult would.
This chart (which is approximate) shows that a schoolchild has over ten diopters of accommodation, while a fifty-year-old has only two. This means that a schoolchild is able to focus on an object about 10 cm. (4") from the eye, a task for which an adult needs a magnifying glass with a rated power of about 3.5X.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Dino ... I think you need to be banned from this forum for posting those pics of the F6. I can see that eventually I'll quite likely be selling my soul to the devil to own one.
Someone mentioned that the F6 is a little expensive and hence the sensible alternative being an F100 or F5. All I can say about that suggestion is ... "Am I on the right forum?" When did common sense become paramount round here when you're choosing a camera to photograph a friend's children ... or even your own cat for that matter ... get real!
As for the actual used price of an F6 ... isn't it funny how we'll happily drop a couple of grand on an MP or M7 when in reality it's fifty year old technology dressed up in year 2000 pricing ... and I'm not knocking Leica or rangefinders here because I'm guilty as charged! The most sophisticated 35mm film camera ever made is within reach for the price of a good used M6 or maybe an M7 ... compared to the Leicas it's like racing the latest 'M' series BMW against your sister's Morris Minor!
And whoever suggested going digital ... what were you thinking? I do some paid digital work with my M8 where the fastest moving objects are gliding past me with a glass of red wine in their hands on their way to the next exhibit they want to gawk at! Out of that environment it has to be film for me!
Someone mentioned that the F6 is a little expensive and hence the sensible alternative being an F100 or F5. All I can say about that suggestion is ... "Am I on the right forum?" When did common sense become paramount round here when you're choosing a camera to photograph a friend's children ... or even your own cat for that matter ... get real!
As for the actual used price of an F6 ... isn't it funny how we'll happily drop a couple of grand on an MP or M7 when in reality it's fifty year old technology dressed up in year 2000 pricing ... and I'm not knocking Leica or rangefinders here because I'm guilty as charged! The most sophisticated 35mm film camera ever made is within reach for the price of a good used M6 or maybe an M7 ... compared to the Leicas it's like racing the latest 'M' series BMW against your sister's Morris Minor!
And whoever suggested going digital ... what were you thinking?
I do some paid digital work with my M8 where the fastest moving objects are gliding past me with a glass of red wine in their hands on their way to the next exhibit they want to gawk at! Out of that environment it has to be film for me!
Last edited:
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I have a F6 and it really is as good as advertised.
- Best SLR meter I've ever used.
- Best AF and Tracking on any film SLR I've used.
- Superb viewfinder (behind only the R9 for me)
- iTTL flash, superb.
The camera is not light, with battery pack it is actually heavier than the F5. Used without the pack it is lighter and more compact, but not "light".
It's an amazing camera, as was the F5. If you aren't going totake advantage of the AF and metering/flash differences the F5 is an incredible good deal. Be careful though, as mentioned in another post the AF on the F5 is ferocious and can chew up some lesser lenses. Superb with all pro lenses.
Both the F100 and F5 have slightly better eye relief for those with glasses, I do believe. The F100 is a fantastic camera as well, just a tick less capable in extreme conditions but a powerhouse for normal everyday use.
Anyway, they're all great SLRs from where I sit.
Kent
- Best SLR meter I've ever used.
- Best AF and Tracking on any film SLR I've used.
- Superb viewfinder (behind only the R9 for me)
- iTTL flash, superb.
The camera is not light, with battery pack it is actually heavier than the F5. Used without the pack it is lighter and more compact, but not "light".
It's an amazing camera, as was the F5. If you aren't going totake advantage of the AF and metering/flash differences the F5 is an incredible good deal. Be careful though, as mentioned in another post the AF on the F5 is ferocious and can chew up some lesser lenses. Superb with all pro lenses.
Both the F100 and F5 have slightly better eye relief for those with glasses, I do believe. The F100 is a fantastic camera as well, just a tick less capable in extreme conditions but a powerhouse for normal everyday use.
Anyway, they're all great SLRs from where I sit.
Kent
Last edited:
Thardy
Veteran
Poor eyesight in low light has been a curse for a while now and yes the fingers aren't what they used to be ... I think the connection between the brain and the body's extremeties must deteriorate with age ... like old copper wire that eventually starts to build up a resistance. Did you know that that this is the reason a lot of old (especially British) cars tend to have rather yellowy headlights in their dotage if they haven't had a full rewire!
"Elderly Gent" .....
That's harsh ... but I've just checked my birth dertificate and I fear you may be right! All I can say is thank god there are eighty something year old 'go for it guys' like Ted white on this forum to stop people like us in our mere fifties feeling sorry for ourselves!
Haha I'm in the same boat as you.
Thardy
Veteran
I wouldn't call 50s "elderly!" That term is for people much older than I am. This shows what's happening to the OP's eyes (and just about everyone else's):
This is copied from the wiki article on optical prescriptions:
Distant vision and near vision
The DV portion of the prescription describes the corrections for distant vision. For most people under forty years of age, this is the only part of the prescription that is filled in. The NV or near-vision portion of the prescription is blank because a separate correction for near vision is not needed.
The NV portion is used in prescriptions for bifocals.
In younger people, the lens of the eye is still flexible enough to accommodate over a wide range of distances. With age, the lens hardens and becomes less and less able to accommodate.
This is called "presbyopia;" the "presby-" root means "old" or "elder." (It is the same root as in the words "priest" and "presbyterian.")
The hardening of the lens is a continuous process, not something that suddenly happens in middle age. It is occurring all along. All that happens around middle age is that the process progresses to the point where it starts to interfere with reading. Therefore almost everybody needs glasses for reading from the age of 40-45.
Because young children have a wider range of accommodation than adults, they sometimes examine objects by holding them much closer to the eye than an adult would.
This chart (which is approximate) shows that a schoolchild has over ten diopters of accommodation, while a fifty-year-old has only two. This means that a schoolchild is able to focus on an object about 10 cm. (4") from the eye, a task for which an adult needs a magnifying glass with a rated power of about 3.5X.
Explains why I now find my arms are too short.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You don't have to be able to see clearly when the 2 images in the rangefinder coincide. Just learn to notice the sudden jump in contrast that occurs when they do.
photogdave
Shops local
April Fools' was days ago.
fbf
Well-known
zleica
Established
Keith,
I'm using F6 along with F5 and Leica R8 for SLRs. The F6 is by far the best camera, period. Compared with F5, F6 focuses faster, it is quieter and much more smooth. The finder is also brighter than F5 and Leica R8. F100 is an excellent value at around $250, but there is no comparison between the two in terms of performance.
Kind regards,
I'm using F6 along with F5 and Leica R8 for SLRs. The F6 is by far the best camera, period. Compared with F5, F6 focuses faster, it is quieter and much more smooth. The finder is also brighter than F5 and Leica R8. F100 is an excellent value at around $250, but there is no comparison between the two in terms of performance.
Kind regards,
john_s
Well-known
I think we all do this to some degree. Which is why it's so disconcerting to have the two images fail to register because one is above the other (due to rangefinder needing adjustment). It's still posssible to focus accurately, but much harder to distinguish the exact spot.
john_s
Well-known
While my M6TTL was having its rangefinder adjusted, I bought an F6 last year when the Australian dollar reached an uncharacteristically high value, and it's one beautiful camera. Among many attributes, it's very good with older MF lenses. It really is a joy to use.
David R Munson
写真のオタク
I've found that one of the best things about having switched from Nikon to Canon is that I finally have managed to overcome lust for cameras like the F6.
Mostly.
(Nikon lust never fully leaves...)
Mostly.
(Nikon lust never fully leaves...)
italy74
Well-known
Keith
in the last year F6 prices dropped a lot, at least here.
In October 2007 I exchanged a couple of lenses I had plus an old body for the F6: value: around 1500 €. At that time, F5 was around 500-600 €, F100 around 350-400 and F80 around 150-200.
A few days ago I saw the same shop selling the F6 for around 800-900€, F5 for 400-500, F100 around 250 and F80/s around 120-150.
About the D700 and the comment someone did earlier: I have both and this is what I can say:
D700 is a (great) "tool", for JOBS - it does everything, but probably just for the same reason you lose a bit the "thrill" of using it. For sure a D700 in a wedding is as useful as a commandos squad in a war operation area
F6 is a "toy", for PLEASURE. - You can load one roll at a time and you are forced to squeeze the most out of your brain, being sure that it will always follow your desires. There you can really express the most creative side of yourself.
p.s.: did you note the "funny" LAICA (pronounced as the famous camera maker Leica) chocolate UNDER the F6?
p.p.s.: the "latest" one I'd like to have is, like in my sig, a Zeiss Ikon and a Biogon 2/35 T*, but I'll have to save money for a while, actually I couldn't afford it "safely" (safely for my marriage, I mean )
in the last year F6 prices dropped a lot, at least here.
In October 2007 I exchanged a couple of lenses I had plus an old body for the F6: value: around 1500 €. At that time, F5 was around 500-600 €, F100 around 350-400 and F80 around 150-200.
A few days ago I saw the same shop selling the F6 for around 800-900€, F5 for 400-500, F100 around 250 and F80/s around 120-150.
About the D700 and the comment someone did earlier: I have both and this is what I can say:
D700 is a (great) "tool", for JOBS - it does everything, but probably just for the same reason you lose a bit the "thrill" of using it. For sure a D700 in a wedding is as useful as a commandos squad in a war operation area
F6 is a "toy", for PLEASURE. - You can load one roll at a time and you are forced to squeeze the most out of your brain, being sure that it will always follow your desires. There you can really express the most creative side of yourself.
p.s.: did you note the "funny" LAICA (pronounced as the famous camera maker Leica) chocolate UNDER the F6?
p.p.s.: the "latest" one I'd like to have is, like in my sig, a Zeiss Ikon and a Biogon 2/35 T*, but I'll have to save money for a while, actually I couldn't afford it "safely" (safely for my marriage, I mean
)
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Keith
in the last year F6 prices dropped a lot, at least here.
In October 2007 I exchanged a couple of lenses I had plus an old body for the F6: value: around 1500 €. At that time, F5 was around 500-600 €, F100 around 350-400 and F80 around 150-200.
A few days ago I saw the same shop selling the F6 for around 800-900€, F5 for 400-500, F100 around 250 and F80/s around 120-150.
About the D700 and the comment someone did earlier: I have both and this is what I can say:
D700 is a (great) "tool", for JOBS - it does everything, but probably just for the same reason you lose a bit the "thrill" of using it. For sure a D700 in a wedding is as useful as a commandos squad in a war operation area
F6 is a "toy", for PLEASURE. - You can load one roll at a time and you are forced to squeeze the most out of your brain, being sure that it will always follow your desires. There you can really express the most creative side of yourself.
p.s.: did you note the "funny" LAICA (pronounced as the famous camera maker Leica) chocolate UNDER the F6?
p.p.s.: the "latest" one I'd like to have is, like in my sig, a Zeiss Ikon and a Biogon 2/35 T*, but I'll have to save money for a while, actually I couldn't afford it "safely" (safely for my marriage, I mean
Thanks Dino,
I did notice the 'Laica' underneath the F6.
For sure F6 prices will come down a bit more and as the recession hits a lot of other camera also no doubt. There was one in the classifieds a couple of weeks ago ... can't remember the price though!
I'm patient ... I'll wait until one comes along at the right price or I may even get an F100 in the mean time to test the world of auto focus SLR's!
kully
Happy Snapper
The F80, whilst a lovely small, light and quiet SLR has a much worse viewfinder and AF than the F100/F5/F6.
I've never touched an F6 but I chose the F100 over the F5 because whilst the F5 is quick and built like an ingot the F100 is not far behind on build but is smaller, lighter and I found its AF / metering to be no different to the F5.
Of course, I never try tracking birds in flight or football players and only use the centre point AF.
Keith, I use the F100 alongside the D70 - you will be amazed at the F100's speed and the viewfinder
I've never touched an F6 but I chose the F100 over the F5 because whilst the F5 is quick and built like an ingot the F100 is not far behind on build but is smaller, lighter and I found its AF / metering to be no different to the F5.
Of course, I never try tracking birds in flight or football players and only use the centre point AF.
Keith, I use the F100 alongside the D70 - you will be amazed at the F100's speed and the viewfinder
Fraser
Well-known
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosaic
Except for nostalgia, there´s no reason shooting film anymore with a SLR.
I agree.
I have my three F4s with a set of lenses because those were the cameras I dreamed of having when I was a little boy. For work I shoot with Canon Mk3s and my holiday camera is a nikon d200 with 24 2.8 and a 85 1.8.
Originally Posted by Prosaic
Except for nostalgia, there´s no reason shooting film anymore with a SLR.
I agree.
I have my three F4s with a set of lenses because those were the cameras I dreamed of having when I was a little boy. For work I shoot with Canon Mk3s and my holiday camera is a nikon d200 with 24 2.8 and a 85 1.8.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosaic
Except for nostalgia, there´s no reason shooting film anymore with a SLR.
I agree.
I have my three F4s with a set of lenses because those were the cameras I dreamed of having when I was a little boy. For work I shoot with Canon Mk3s and my holiday camera is a nikon d200 with 24 2.8 and a 85 1.8.
No reason, indeed, unless you like the look of film or don't want to spend the extra money upfront for a comparable DSLR.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The advantages in shooting b/w film with anything are enormous if it makes you happier than shooting digital. Film's cheap (relatively) and the theraputic value is way ahead of basket weaving for me!
bradfordco
Member
I really like the Nikon AF lenses, on continuous focus they track the subject and when you press the trigger it calculates where the subject will be focuses and shoots - tack sharp.