Holy Trinity of Manual Focus Nikon SLRs...

Cholentpot said:

and the 105 2.5 greatestlensofalltime

Click to expand...

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.

chuckroast said:

The F3 should have been the height of mechanical F designs except for that stupid LCD illuminator button. ICT has a mod that replaces the button with something more substantial but my F3 is so clean I hate to modify it.

Click to expand...

The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.

Nicholas Lindan said:

I don't see much difference between having a few rolls of film in the gadget bag and having a replacement battery in the bag. They are both consumables.

Click to expand...

Agree.

flavio81 said:

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.




The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.



Agree.

Click to expand...

I have both versions of the 105 2.5 and it's still the greatest lens of all time. I also have the 85 1.8 H and it's also a great lens, but not as great as the 105 2.5

Cholentpot said:

I have both versions of the 105 2.5 and it's still the greatest lens of all time. I also have the 85 1.8 H and it's also a great lens, but not as great as the 105 2.5

Click to expand...

Try the 105/1.8 ... !

flavio81 said:

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.




The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.



Agree.

Click to expand...

I bought my LX sometime in the early eighties, used it for ten years, then got into Nikon and never looked back. A few years ago I pulled the LX out of a drawer (batteries had been pulled so no corrosion), put new batteries in and voila! Dead LX. Can’t fire or wind the shutter, 50mm f1.4 had stiff focus, etc. In the same drawer was a much older, undisturbed Nikon F with 50mm f1.4 which to this day works like new. I do appreciate how small and (apparently) well-built the LX was but I can’t honestly put Pentax in the same league as Nikon. I’ll take a larger, heavier camera that I can rely on over a more elegant but also more fragile one every time.

Just my own experience, of course.

flavio81 said:

Try the 105/1.8 ... !

Click to expand...

Oh, I have to mention. I got my 105 2.5 for free. So that makes it the best lens in the world. I got the 85 1.8 for free too but the 85 didn't shoot the Afghan Girl so that leaves the 105 2.5 as the greatest of all time.

The light going through a 2.5/105 AI exposed the film for one of the most beautiful pictures I ever took of my older daughter, The Nikkor 1.8/85 HC gave a portrait of my then girlfriend, now wife I still cherish (the wife, the picture and the lens). I currently own a 1.8/85 K (AI-converted by the factory) and think about adding a 105 just for kicks. Maybe this time the 1.8 because I can.

skahde said:

Is used a FM2 for many years and, guess what, I always carried a spare battery for the meter because I hate to rely on educated guesswork aka sunny 16.

Click to expand...

With experience anybody can nail the correct exposure by looking at the scene and remembering what worked before with a camera's meter or a hand held meter, it's muscle memory and nothing to do with Sunny 16. A hand held meter means you have to look at what you are pointing it at, and the readings you are given, which is better than simply aligning a needle to + or - ( I guess large format and medium format photographers may come out better here) , but I can say what the shutter speed should be for a given ISO at a given aperture, it isn't magic or skill, it's recall. I imagine you just relied on the needle?

Bruce Butterfield said:

I bought my LX sometime in the early eighties, used it for ten years, then got into Nikon and never looked back. A few years ago I pulled the LX out of a drawer (batteries had been pulled so no corrosion), put new batteries in and voila! Dead LX. Can’t fire or wind the shutter, 50mm f1.4 had stiff focus, etc. In the same drawer was a much older, undisturbed Nikon F with 50mm f1.4 which to this day works like new. I do appreciate how small and (apparently) well-built the LX was but I can’t honestly put Pentax in the same league as Nikon. I’ll take a larger, heavier camera that I can rely on over a more elegant but also more fragile one every time.

Just my own experience, of course.

Click to expand...

So, you expect that a camera that has been sat unused for 30+ years should work just fine?

As a camera technician, i would disagree.

The Nikon F is a much, much simpler camera than a LX, so this is not a valid comparison.

Now next time you want to assess reliabilty, try comparing the LX to a Nikon F3, a camera whose light meter died on me unexpectedly while sitting on a bag doing nothing for 3 months. Meter gone forever!

Cholentpot said:

Oh, I have to mention. I got my 105 2.5 for free. So that makes it the best lens in the world. I got the 85 1.8 for free too but the 85 didn't shoot the Afghan Girl so that leaves the 105 2.5 as the greatest of all time.

Click to expand...

Well, now I think I can agree with you.

250swb said:

With experience anybody can nail the correct exposure by looking at the scene and remembering what worked before with a camera's meter or a hand held meter, it's muscle memory and nothing to do with Sunny 16. A hand held meter means you have to look at what you are pointing it at, and the readings you are given, which is better than simply aligning a needle to + or - ( I guess large format and medium format photographers may come out better here) , but I can say what the shutter speed should be for a given ISO at a given aperture, it isn't magic or skill, it's recall. I imagine you just relied on the needle?

Click to expand...

Estimating the exposure may have worked for you but putting generalisations aside, it never worked for me. OTOH I know from several professional perspectives how to use measuring-instruments to their best and within their limitations and that me and my eyes suck in comparison. In this sens I'm the exception which proofs your assumption true that anybody can nail exposure visually.

I have a few handheld cameras that don’t have light meters but they usually sit unused. When I’m going to pick a camera to use, I have no interest in making things more complicated.

That the light meters for F and F1 are coupled to the aperture and shutter speed controls is fabulous.

skahde said:

Estimating the exposure may have worked for you but putting generalisations aside, it never worked for me. OTOH I know from several professional perspectives how to use measuring-instruments to their best and within their limitations and that me and my eyes suck in comparison. In this sens I'm the exception which proofs your assumption true that anybody can nail exposure visually.

Click to expand...

I've never found estimating the light to be an issue. Even when using a meter I make my own judgment based on the meter and my brain and meet somewhere. I've only recently been using the exposure comp dial on my more automated cameras.

I prefer an actuall light meter, but I have a Nikkormat FS and a Pentax SV that I used to use specifically to not have a meter and have to guess exposure and do so reletively cheaply.* The FS is basically a FT with no meter, and the SV is basically a Spotmatic with no meter. Obviously I wouldn't use that for photos that mattered, but I always felt like I should have some limited ability to guess--just in case--so I used those to train myself. I'm still not great at estimateing, but fortunately most modern B&W film is pretty forgiving.

* By "cheaply" I meant a bult roll of 20 exposures on 35mm. Almost all my MF cameras and all my LF cameras have no built in meter, but even with Foma or other inexpensive films, doing on 35mm is a lot cheaper on film costs.

skahde said:

Estimating the exposure may have worked for you but putting generalisations aside, it never worked for me. OTOH I know from several professional perspectives how to use measuring-instruments to their best and within their limitations and that me and my eyes suck in comparison. In this sens I'm the exception which proofs your assumption true that anybody can nail exposure visually.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about it in relation to the history photography and the 35mm camera, not making it a contest. Cartier Bresson didn't use a light meter, and even thought people who used one were lazy. And did I see Dennis Hopper using a light meter in 'Apocalypse Now' in it's closely observed depiction of a 60s photojournalist (?), but the analogy extends to portraits of real journalists at work in Vietnam and not forgetting Robert Capa landing on the beaches in WWII. There is indeed a thread on this forum about the cinematographer for 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' guessing the exposure and only having a lifetime of experience and knowledge to help him

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/douglas-slocombe-a-dp-who-never-used-a-lightmeter.82626/

I had a un-metered F, F2, and the inevitable Leica M combination when I was a photojournalist and other than establishing a starting point with a meter or using Sunny 16 there often just wasn't the time to make a meter reading during the press scrum so a Photomic head for the Nikon's was a pointless expense. And just as your eye gets good at guessing the exposure so does your darkroom technique adjust for the quality of the light in pushing or pulling development instinctively, they are not separated by dogma.

This is all particular to a way of working with 35mm, but not exclusive to 35mm. Think back to the days of pressmen using Speed Graphic cameras without a meter in sight and only experience to earn a living by. But to be clear, many great photographers did use a meter, but the question is not so much how often they took a reading but how often they allowed their eye and experience to 'adjust' that reading, which I would say was a lot of the time.