NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on July 11, 2016, 01:00:44
-
We already know that film is worse than chip as a recording medium.
So film vs. chip was not the test target in my test when I bought the FM-2 from aerobat, our long time friend in Switzerland.
It was about testing the FM-2, D600, D3 and D500 as cameras in a holistic way using the very same lens, the still astounding and amazing 1.4/35 Ai-S.
A long story made short:
1) FM-2 can not deliver a sharp finder view to many visually impaired users (I only need reading glasses but I need them very hard).
All correction glasses available do not help me. No good finder view means no fast OR precise manual focus.
2) D600 ground glass is very good with some exercise, D3 is soso, D500 is light years ahead when it comes to fast and precise manual focus with the 1.4/35 Ai-S wide open as well as at f=2
Digital has all digital advantages like being able to record thousands of pictures before you need to change battery and memory cards instead of 36 or with a lot of effort 250. And I have them readily available in minutes.
You get RAW + JPEG, high res, 10 fps for small change and GREAT ERGONOMICS.
Tonight I took a big series, wonderful shots, portraits, people, reportage but I can nearly show zil, because there are people and children in the pictures.
You have to believe me from my test: The D500 is my current MF-champion.
-
It is unfortunate that none of the Nikon finder diopter solutions worked for you, Frank.
It'd be nice if Nikon would offer a 24x36 camera with the same absolute magnification of the ground glass as the D500 has.
Blowing up the finder image bigger would greatly help manual focus. It could be offered alongside the standard units that are more suited for AF.
Or, build a flip-in 1.4X(or whatever factor it would have to be) magnifier into the finder optics of the 24x36 D camera.
-
Hi Frank, do your reading glasses have prescription lenses, and if so do they have corrections for astigmatism?
My uncle went through a similar process some years ago with his Pentax ME to what you are going through with your FM-2. None of the standard Pentax eye pieces suited him.
His optometrist was also a keen photographer and in the end my uncle had him make up a prescription eyepiece for the Pentax. Problem solved! Maybe this approach might work for you?
-
try the F3HP :o :o :o
-
Hi Frank, do your reading glasses have prescription lenses, and if so do they have corrections for astigmatism?
My uncle went through a similar process some years ago with his Pentax ME to what you are going through with your FM-2. None of the standard Pentax eye pieces suited him.
His optometrist was also a keen photographer and in the end my uncle had him make up a prescription eyepiece for the Pentax. Problem solved! Maybe this approach might work for you?
My prescription reading glasses are useless for anything but the very near field. I will not go another step to make the FM-2 compatible with myself. If I was wearing glasses always, another cup of tea of course. Then I would see to shooting her with glasses.
I have a very good solution for shooting my MF glass now, the D500.
And in a few moths time, hopefully, there will be the D850 or D900 or whatever they might call the camera.
IMO the general ergonomics of the D500, esp with MF glass, not only the ground glass and the Diopter adjustment is by far superior than the ergonomics of the FM-2.
My memory, nostalgia, did not serve me well. The FM-2 will go again, I will concentrate on the stuff I really use.
As soon as the D850/D900 arrives the D600 will be fixed to my panorama setup. Color consistency over a huge range of ISO and light sources has, for me, become a very important beloved feature of the current fifth gen cameras. D500 IQ at raised ISO is still inferior to the D600. These files do also not play well with post processing. Beware to take JPEG with the D500 with slightly raised ISO. I have seen some in newspapers, barely barable, nearly unfixable. Too aggresive preprocessing in camera or, if you switch that off, very rough when editing these.
-
1) FM-2 can not deliver a sharp finder view to many visually impaired users (I only need reading glasses but I need them very hard).
I don't understand in that case why the FM2 viewfinder is a severe problem. It is the standard -1 diopter viewfinder, placing the virtual image at 1m. The diopter adjustment for the D500 - AFAIK for all Nikon cameras that have diopter adjustment - is -2 to +1, so if the D500 is OK an image at 1m distance should be clear enough to use the split prism. Could there be a problem with your FM2's viewfinder?
Viewfinder correction lenses are inexpensive and have the additional advantage that the kibitzers don't borrow your camera and change the settings. There is a table relating spectacle prescription and viewfinder correction at https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/639/~/viewfinder-diopter-adjustment
-
I bought all the Diopter lenses in question: Original Glass, 0, +1 ... none of these does deliver on fast and reliable manual focus on the ground glass.
Also the split prism is very hard and slow to operate this way.
Next time I am at Nikon, I will ask them to check the VF anyway.
The D500 DOES deliver fast and reliable manual focus, so there is no need. I just have to figure out, if it is possible to assign ISO to the Fn-Button on the MB-D17
Thank You!
-
The optical variations possible in human vision are nearly infinite.
I find that when attempting to use the diopter adjustment on my D800 cams, the 'best' setting sometimes falls in between two of the preset notches on the adjustment dial. So, it is entirely credible to me that the 'whole step only' diopter adjustments that are available on the FM2 may not come close to being adequate for Frank's personal vision requirements.
-
There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.
-
Maybe that is why the prescrption eyepiece made up for my uncle's Pentax worked so well for him? His eyepiece corrected for astigmatism IIRC.
He too had little success with the standard eyepieces offerred by Pentax.
There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.
-
Thank you, Keith, Hugh, Bjørn!
It might well be that "in between" settings were required for me to operate the FM-2. But after conducting my tests I am so happy with the possiblility my D500 offers, that my motivation to shoot any more film has dropped to nil.
Only question remaining is: Shall I keep the FM-2 for whatever reason or sell her?
-
There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.
And even .25 diopter can be noticeably too coarse of an adjustment.
-
Maybe that is why the prescrption eyepiece made up for my uncle's Pentax worked so well for him? His eyepiece corrected for astigmatism IIRC.
He too had little success with the standard eyepieces offerred by Pentax.
Uncorrected astigmatism would be a problem when you were trying to see the edges of the image - not good for using a camera because the edges of the viewfinder image is where the metering information is. It would not effect the centre of the viewfinder image.
-
And even .25 diopter can be noticeably too coarse of an adjustment.
Yes, it can be, but only in unusual circumstances.
People under the age of 50 or so have several diopters of accommodation (which is why young people with short-sightedness can wear lenses that correct distance vision and not take them off to read); people older than 50 or so have about two diopters and even at age 70 you have one diopter. If you are short-sighted (short-sightedness is caused by close work in childhood, such as reading and computer games, so it is getting more common and in 50 years everyone will be short-sighted) and need -1 correction you cannot achieve sharp focus beyond 1m. If you need -2 correction you cannot achieve sharp focus beyond 0.5m. So the difference in the limit of sharp focus between -1.25 and -1.5 is 13 centimetres. That is a small distance relative to the way the world is set up. Most people read or use the computer at 0.5m or so, look at the viewfinder image at 1m, watch television at 3m or so, and everything else is "distant". For other things you don't need high visual acuity - the dashboard instruments in your car, or cooking or playing the piano, eg. Since the line between sharp and not sharp is not sharp 0.25 diopter only makes a difference if you are doing fine work at a distance you cannot adjust, or you are older and have limited accommodation. Whether using a focusing screen is "fine work" depends - using a split prism needs much less acuity than judging focus on a ground glass, eg, and you don't have to have perfect focus to judge relative focus.
There are few circumstances where an error less than one diopter is worth correcting. That is why when you have refractive surgery "no longer need to wear glasses or contact lenses" means a residual error less than one diopter.
-
To free you from speculation. This is my current prescription.
-
Les.
On the D500 I acquire reliable focus on the ground glass reproducibly.
On the D600 the ground glass is not good enough and I need the "green dot" to assist.
In other words: Someone please sell me a D500 type ground glass fitted for my D600!!!
-
Les.
On the D500 I acquire reliable focus on the ground glass reproducibly.
On the D600 the ground glass is not good enough and I need the "green dot" to assist.
In other words: Someone please sell me a D500 type ground glass fitted for my D600!!!
Is there a new generation of ground glass from Nikon, that they use in both the D500 and the D5. In that case, perhaps a D5 ground glass could be modified to fit in a D600? Just speculation on my part, but something for the Nikonistas here to research.
-
According to the specifications the D600/610 and the Df have the Brite View Mark VIII screen; the D5 has the Mark IX. The D500 has an old screen, the Mark II, which appears to the one used in the F6 (unless someone at Nikon has no idea about Roman numerals and wrote II for the D500 when they meant XI). The D750 has the Mark III, which is what was in the D1 and the D2 and the F100.
Maybe Nikon would tell you what the differences are.
-
Anyone here knows, how I can fit a F6 screen into the D600?
-
Update: NPS Germany say they will not officially replace screens, because these very possibly will not work reliably with other AF modules than the ones they were originally designed for. They recommend to wait for offerings from third parties...
-
I would think that how the view finder screen looks depends on the entire design of the optical system, screen, condenser lens, pentaprism and ocular. The screen should be just a part of the system.
Both D4s and D800 uses the same type VIII screens, and their magnifications are 0.7x, but I remember the look of their viewfinder was noticeably different, and the viewfinder of D4S was noticeably clearer. The viewfinder image was rather similar to that of D610.
I'm curious about the reason for the latest D750 and D500 using such older screens.
-
some pics from the first film with f*cked up focussing interface...
bad development, bad scan it seems too. Wow!
Mechanical: FM-2
Optical: 35 Ai-S f=1.4 and 300PF f=4 Nikkor lenses
Sensor technology: Provia 400f crossed
A-D-Conversion: Foto Brell, Bonn, Minilab
-
and three more
-
I like the shots very much. Was this reversal film that was cross-processed in C-41? I can't believe how grainy it looks on my 13" low-res laptop! I don't miss film much, except the Ekachrome Infrared.
-
Agree to that sentiment. At this stage of digital technology, it very difficult to avoid being amused by the film/digital debacle in the 00s. At a pure technical level, photography surely has evolved a lot since the film age faded into obsolescence. However, I hesitate to declare the same has happened to the images produced.
Yes, I join you in the desire for Ektachrome Infrared. Not the latest version though, as it made garish non-subtle colours processed in E-6 chemistry (it was designed for AR-5, which no usual labs did at the time). The old E-4 version raises many fond memories, however. I'm actively trying to emulate it with my Fuji S3/S5Pro cameras and have had some success, but not gotten to the stage where I had hoped yet.
-
I like the shots very much. Was this reversal film that was cross-processed in C-41? I can't believe how grainy it looks on my 13" low-res laptop! I don't miss film much, except the Ekachrome Infrared.
I gave technical details in #21
-
It is unfortunate that none of the Nikon finder diopter solutions worked for you, Frank.
It'd be nice if Nikon would offer a 24x36 camera with the same absolute magnification of the ground glass as the D500 has.
The D850 or D900 will be a huge winner with that magnification and ground glass.
Meanwhile the D500 is a terrific instrument.
-
Frank
I really like these shots - they do seem to capture a real spontaneity that isn't in your digital ones?
With 36 shots only, are they much more precious and less likely to be discarded because of technique/focus flaws?
Is our minds eye more forgiving because we recognize film - a bit like when one listens to 78rpm records, ignores the limited fidelity and focuses instead on the music/performance?
I'm shooting film again too - but definitely no masterpieces and sadly really poor technique with nothing to say, no statement, no interest :(
-
I feel the digital one's in the opening post are rather spontaneuos too..
-
Frank, I will assume "crossed" means 'cross processed in C-41.'
Now able to see these on a large, color-correct monitor. I admit to not minding the grain and slanted color. The artifacts of film, in this case, are not unpleasant.
-
I post one of the original full res scans for download later.
Here it is: http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/C016310-R1-29-30.JPG
-
I think it would be a shame to let the FM2 go nonetheless. Wish I had the money to make you a serious offer for the camera. The FM2 not only brings back many many fond memories from about 15 years of photography, it also motivates me to go out and shoot. I gave my FM2 to Kristina so she would have a film camera. After buying my Nikon F I bought her a Nikkormat (built in lightmeter and non-removable viewfinder were reasons to go with a Nikkormat rather then another F)
Still, the FM2 in a coat pocket with a 50mm and 105mm is a very nice, light and portable photography combo.
Personally I do like shooting film. Not as much for the "higher" quality arguement, the claimed dynamic range or anything else that is measerable. What I like about film is not being able or tempted to chimp and delete.
-
"What I like about film is not being able or tempted to chimp and delete"
In fact I shoot far far fewer frames now than in the film days. Just because I easily can check immediately after the exposure. No need to bracket or have "extra originals" for own archive and the stock libraries.
Perhaps down to 1/10 or even less of the shooting volume. Don't delete anything in camera , though, thus my practice is as before.
-
Yes. If I am out with the D500 and 1.4/35 Ai-S I take very few frames. That is because I know exactly
what happens. I compare it to the F4. Ultrareliable. Ultrapredictable. Only extreme backlight needs
testing and using the display.
Not so with the FM2. I reallly consider to have a diopter made. That should fix some issues.
I really should carry a digital with me as reliable spot meter.
-
"What I like about film is not being able or tempted to chimp and delete"
In fact I shoot far far fewer frames now than in the film days. Just because I easily can check immediately after the exposure. No need to bracket or have "extra originals" for own archive and the stock libraries.
Perhaps down to 1/10 or even less of the shooting volume. Don't delete anything in camera , though, thus my practice is as before.
Bjørn, that is quite the opposite of what happened to most shooters as far as I am aware. Interesting to hear things developed that way at least for some.
For me, I shot about 350 rolls of film/year. In part that was due to financial constraints being a student at the time.
Nowadays I shoot well over 30k photos/year. There are a lot of 5-8 shot sequences in that number though.
Frank, I do find that the FM2 deserves a chance. I am blessed with unimpaired eyesight, but I would like to hear about your experiences with a custom made diopter, because I will certainly consider the option for my Nikon F and F3 once I do need glasses.