"Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3F1A2A28.9B4DBF8B@attglobal.net...

> David Ruether wrote:

> > "Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message . . . . .

> > > I do not like the command dial interfaces of the newer Canon bodies, though I should also mention

> > > I ma not crazy about the F5 nor F100 interfaces. I could almost live with an F100, rather than

> > > renting, but a new purchase . . . I would rather get an FM3A, or a used FE2. Autofocus provides

> > > no benefit for my photographic needs, plus I ma a control freak anyway. ;-)

> > I prefer Nikon bodies for the way they operate, and especially for the

> > (generally...) better viewfinders. The F100 is an excellent body with an

> > excellent VF, grip/feel, and excellent manual and auto controls. The 8008

> > (which I still like, but I needed the better AF of the F100) got me over the

> > interface resistence (what is easier than pushing a well-marked button and

> > having all else go away from the LCD screen while you adjust only the one

> > displayed item using only the one control wheel?), and the F100 offers

> > more control yet over functions... (BTW, I have a mint, tested one FS

> > [and a mint FA, if you prefer small...;-]).

> Interfaces do get better, but I just do not like command dial interfaces, on cameras, or anything

> else. I have to work with this type of interface often with video gear, and when I need to rent some

> modern still camera gear.

I shared your feelings, but got over them with the 8008, in trade for its

greater capability (with compact motor, and greater flash control...).

Gone, though, were the "fine camera" feeling and possibility of

keeping it mint. These returned with the F100, though...

> The FA is small, but I am more a fan of the old FE2. The flash features are still useful today, and

> aperture priority is about as much as I need in auto exposure to do my work. It might seem like I am a

> throwback to older gear, but I really do feel that there are some nice tactile and ergonomic details

> of some older cameras. The other issue is that the older 35 mm gear more closely matches much of the

> medium format interfaces, with the exception of a few really new cameras.

Yes. Mebbe the F3 is "your" camera - with the "low-eyepoint" finder, it

is compact, easier to grip than the FE, and it has a better VF (no linear

distortion, sharper corners, and more accurate coverage...).

> > [...about the late 35mm f2.8 Nikkor PC lens...]

> > > > Yes - the illumination and resolution are very good and even to the corners,

> > > > and the contrast is also very good wide open...

> > > I am guessing, but it might be the greater coverage of the shift lens that accounts for some of

> > > the good edge performance when not shifted. Whatever it is, I am glad I own one.

> > That does explain it - since it must cover about a 65mm diamerter circle,

> > the middle 44mm circle (unshifted) is covered quite well wide-open...

> This would almost work as a panorama type lens, similar to the XPAN in coverage. It gives me an idea

> for hacking a folder camera into a panorama camera with that lens.

I would not bother. There are better lenses around for 645 that are not

expensive (Mamiya wides are really good [my 45mm f2.8 is good to the

corners wide-open!]), and these fit the old, inexpensive-but-excellent

Mamiya SLR bodies of 20+ years ago...

> > Lens FLs (especially WA ones) do have "feels", and I have been attached to various specific

> > ones at times - though I learned with the brief use of a WA zoom that I was less attached to

> > specific FLs than I thought...;-)

> I guess it took the zoom to dial in my preference of "feel" for wide shots. It surprised me that I

> kept hitting on 24 mm, since I did not check until after each photo. I suppose any zoom could be a

> good test for prime purchases later, though many people only use the closest and farthest settings.

Yes. Looks like the 24mm f2.8 is the way to go for you...;-)

> > I use f32 (and smaller) with macro only. F32 for most distant work looks "gooey"

> > to me...;-)

> Very few Nikkor lenses go to f32. It can be interesting on the few that do this. I realize that the

> image does get softer, though sometimes that unique look compliments and image. Macro is definitely

> one good example of this.

Ummm, not for me - I like "crisp" images, even when most of the image is out of focus

(see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html ). Which leads me to liking "bad bokeh", too...;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!