Adé FM-D!

[Frank Fremerey]

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!!!

[bjornthun]

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.

[Les Olson]

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. 

[Frank Fremerey]

Anyone here knows, how I can fit a F6 screen into the D600?

[Frank Fremerey]

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...

[Akira]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

and three more

[pluton]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[JJChan]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

I feel the digital one's in the opening post are rather spontaneuos too..

[pluton]

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.