Hi--

> Busy, busy, busy.... sorry I took so long getting back to you.

I should be..., I should be..., I should be...;-)

>>Hmmmmm... ;-) Actually the N90 vs. the FM2n is a good comparison...
>>It appears we see differently, since the N90 specifically has
>>a VF that I cannot use for MF (what I meant by, "and a basic
>>feature [MF ability] is removed..."), since it is too soft and
>>low in contrast
>
> How odd. I honestly find mine very good. In fact, at night, when doing
>time exposures, I find the F90's VF to be superb. Points of light are so
>crisply defined, I don't even need to use the AF rangefinder for
>confirmation. In the same situation, my FM2's VF is too coarse, and grainy
>to use in that way, and using the split screen at night is next to
>impossible. Even during the day though, I find the same thing; that the
>FM2's screen is too grainy to use quickly, without the having to resort to
>the split rangefinder. It's also noticable darker than the F90's. It looks
>like it's personal taste that decides things here, as I see no reason to
>doubt what you say, it's just that I can't agree with you -)

Ah, well... For most daylight and interior subjects, the image "snaps"
in and out of focus cleanly on the FM/FE/FA matte-centered screen for me
(though I don't use slow zooms - these finders are better optimized for
fast primes, and I suspect the newer ones are optimized for f4-5.6 lenses),
but the N90 finder is "soft", without similar precision in the feel
for exact focus.

>>I won't own an N90....

> Just out of curiosity, why?

For the above reason alone - otherwise it is a nice camera, but if I can't
focus with it, all other virtues are moot...

>>> Modern AF systems are a boon, and worthy of praise, and despite what
>you
>>>say, they CAN be turned off if you have no need of them.

>>Well, yes, of course...! ;-) Which is all the time...! ;-)

> Can you honestly tell me that you can track a moving car coming towards
>you at great speed, with a 300mm lens, wide open at f2.8? I'm not doubting
>your abilty for one second. HOwever, I myself, if you'll allow me to be
>immodect for a second, amd extremely skilled in this area, can not reliably
>do this. The F5 can. So in circumstances such as this, you can not deny
>that AF is almost essentioal if you wish for your shots to be competitive.

I don't shoot moving cars coming toward me with a 300mm.... (and I doubt
most other people do either). In this (and similar) rare instance (for most
people), the very best AF system (in the excessively expensive F5) may well
beat my abilities, but even this camera may not do as well in ordinary
situations for me, since for me it requires extra steps MF doeasn't...
I like the F5, but I am probably never going to own one (24 of my 25
lenses are MF, and I will not replace them with the icky plastic AF versions
in order to use features I don't generally care about using [but which are
at least well designed in the F5...])

>>Try putting on a fast wide-angle lens (a 35mm f1.4 is good for
>>this...), aim it at a contrasty, easily focused subject maybe
>>30' away, and manually *slowly* focus through the correct focus
>>point. You will probably see the "in focus" indicator come on
>>well before the image is really sharp in the finder, and it
>>will stay on as you go through correct focus and out the other
>>side, going off only when the VF image is clearly not in focus...

> I just tried that with a 20mm, and I find the opposite. The
>rangefinder is so precise, as it's almost not usable for the opposite
>reason You so much as take half a step forward and your out of focus, and
>you have to be very careful not to go "right through" the focus confirmation
>without even seeing it -)

Try turning the focus ring instead of moving, and try a fairly
distant subject...

>>Accurate, the focus *indicator* is not...
>>AF is getting better, but for me, as with AE, it places
>>an unnecessary technology between me and my making of a photo

> I suspect both you and I have wildly differing technoques, and subjects.
>I find that in certain situations, full manual can slow you down. Grabbing
>that candind shot, that only lasts for a fleeting moment, can be next to
>impossible with full manual sometimes, and Nikon's matrix metering has given
>me shots that I simply KNOW i would have missed on the F3, or FM2, as I find
>centre weighted, even the F3's narrow angle CW, too innacuarate for AE modes
>to be used reliably.

Yes, I agree with this. My work, even with people, is probably slower-paced,
though with a pre-checked exposure and a good finder for MF (with primes instead of zooms), I can kill a roll of film rather fast, and have all
sharp and correctly-exposed frames... With color negative materials and
TTL fill-flash set at one stop under, I suspect that I could stop using
ME (and with the N90 and F5, maybe even MF...), but I haven't felt the
need so far...

>Sometimes, the subject is more important than taking
>your time to meter, adn setting exposure. I have to ass though, if I'm
>taking a landscape, I will usually turn all this stuff off, adn use CW
>metering in manual, and MF. I often put the F90 back in teh bag (I would
>never use the F5 to shoot a landscape, that's just silly) and use the FM2.

Actually, the F5 finder doesn't have the linear distortion and edge
softness (with short lenses), and edge focus inaccuracy of the non-"F"
bodies, making the F5 finder better, I think, for landscape work...

> You should be selective with the technology at your disposal, and it
>will be less of a hinderance to you. Even you would benefit from AF if you
>didn't view it as some "evil" that encroaches upon your creativity.

But as a feature, it resulted in 1) worse finders for MF, 2) horrid-feeling
lenses with too-fast MF - so I do regard it as an unfortunate occurance...
For most things, I still see its use as a hinderance - I must spend too much
time evaluating what it did, and then modifying the result...

>>But my original point was that excellent older camera designs have
>>been "glopped up" with features that are not necessarily helpful,
>>and in the process, basic features have been compromised. I do not
>>regard this as progress... (just salesmanship...)

> I'm having trouble with this last comment of yours. Take the F90 for
>example How can you say that the less essential features have compromised
>the basic ones? Full manual is a delight to use on this camera, as you have
>the aperture ring around the lens, just like any other manual camera, and
>the shutter speed right under your thumb, ready to adjust in the blink of an
>eye. D.O.F preview is right under your finger as well. How can this be
>less useable than the FM2, or F3? Surely it's MORE usable, and the thumb
>wheel is faster than the shutter speed dial, because your thumb is always on
>it, ready. Now then, are you telling me that the silly features like all
>the various program modes, actually stop the camera being used easily?
>Because this is clearly not true. I've never once used any of the program
>modes, and they've never encroached upon the manual operation either. In
>fact, I have no idea if they even work -) I sometimes use the basic
>program mode with the SB28 for flash, but never for anything else. I
>consider the F90 to be one of the easiest to use manual cameras around. Much
>easier than my FM2 anyway.

I don't disagree with the above, except regarding the VF sharpness, and
the feel/attractiveness of the materials choices - though the FE-2 metering
is not "incremental", and so with it, it is easier to do fine exposure adjustments (with metering...). But why not have the same controls on
a basic manual camera (with selectable fill-ratio TTL flash...) that
is cheaper (hmmm, I guess that was called the N6000 - maybe I should dig it
out and use it! ;-) - best would be an F3, but with standard Nikon TTL
flash-with-selectable-fill, and 1/250th synch... BTW, I use three 8008 bodies
with SB-24's for people work (always in M modes, except for the flash), and the F3 when finder-precision is useful.

> As I stated earlier though, I believe this is simply a matter of
>opinion, but I really think you should ease off on the anti-AF rhetoric ;-)
>AF's cool, and if you've got the right camera, it needn't cramp your MF
>operation, or your creativity. Nikon's AF cameras are worth every penny,
>and my photographs, although no better than they were, have increased in
>frequency since I had AF at my disposal. Like all good tools, they help me
>work.
"D. Gregory"

Opinion, yes, and where one started from. I'm beginning to feel like
returning to the basics from which I started two F bodies with meterless
prisms, and a Weston meter... Good feel, good precision in operation,
simple... (And, since most people have only known the newer cheapo-feeling
feature-laden cameras, I blab, maybe to put things more into perspective
[how often do you see the posts that start, "I just bought an N70/90/F5 - so
what el-cheapo lenses should I buy for it?" versus, "I just bought an
F/F2/F3/FM - so what really good, easy/pleasant-to-use lenses should
I buy for it?"] - most people seem to be sold on the gadgetry, without
understanding its limitations...)