Hi--

>> Thanks for the Mamiya info. Well, the N90s arrived today, carried
>> by its owner. I popped on a 35mm f2 AF, and, uh, new glasses or
>> not, the finder was TERRIBLE! NOT SHARP!!! I could see the fine
>> Fresnel lines just fine - just not any fine subject details.
>> Yuck. Then came the next shock (well, you HAD almost gotten me
>> prepared to believe that the N90s could focus) - it missed,
>> hit, missed, missed, hit, etc. in AF. I put on a 105mm f2.8
>> Micro-Nikkor and tried again, and about 1/2 the time, I could
>> improve focus slightly by moving, or tapping the shutter release
>> to have it try again.... Hmmmm!! (I am beginning to think that
>> Nikon is following the lead of other companies and making their
>> VF's brighter and softer - looks "better", unless you know
>> better, but it is harder to detect the AF errors [though they
>> are still visible], and it makes people think they actually need
>> AF [gotta get rid of those FE/FM/FA/F/F3/8008's with matt-center
>> screens, so people won't see how easy MF can be.....].) I was
>> impressed! (That Nikon has sunk that low in VF quality - they
>> were tops.)

>Hmmm, this is interesting, and adds more fuel to the fire that I have been
>brewing. I've noticed a lot of "My N90/S hunts a lot; is this normal?"
>posts on rp35. Then a slew of "yeah, mine too" and contrary "mine's
>perfect."s So perhaps we are discovering that Nikon's QC is terrible for
>this model. Due to your hysterical complaint ;), I just checked the N90s VF
>v the Leica, whose screen is wonderful. Part of what I miss about using
>that camera (if you don't recall, I kept my R4S with the 35-70/3.5 as a
>travel buddy) is the ease of focusing. There's a relatively large
>microprism that is INCREDIBLY easy to focus, and just as precise.

Hmmm, I hate microprisms, even when they do work (old Pentax), since
they tell little about image look. BTW, as I mentioned in (another?)
post, I don't like Minolta/Leicaflex screens much - they look soft to
me, are unuseable for focusing fast lenses, OK for slow.

>Anyway, I
>stray. Yes I've noticed that the VF in the N90s isn't sharp, but after just
>comparing the two, I wouldn't say that it's terrible. I just assumed that
>they are expecting you to AF. Actually, I noticed the VF first off when I
>got the camera. I was used to the F3/Leica, and I found it rather a
>disappointment, but not for fuzziness. Instead, it was later color fringing
>near the edges that I found distracting. I figured "that's what you get
>when you don't buy the pro model" and thought nothing more of it.

Um, er, you are easily satisfied....;-) (As are most other people, it seems....;-) How can anyone used to an FM/FE/FA/8008/F/F3 matt-center
focusing screen use any new stuff?!?! (Most people accepted the icky
focus "aids" in those cameras, and missed how wonderful GG focus was
with them, so they don't know the difference, I guess.) And the Minolta
trick when they brought out AF was to have a screen so unsharp that
people readily accepted AF as necessary.

>As far as the AF, I think here's where the bad QC comes in. After one
>recent post about hunting, I went and checked my camera again, and it
>doesn't hunt. So I suspect that there are good N90Ss, and bad ones. I've
>got a good one, you've got a bad one. Cuz if mine hunted and didn't work, I
>wouldn't be able to use it. That's why I got rid of the EOS I bought years
>ago. So I hope you won't conclude that your N90s is representative of all
>of them, because apparently it isn't.

Actually, the one I tried doesn't hunt at all - it goes immediately to
50% failure! Rapidly, and without delay. Just as my 8008's do. No
hunting - it goes bzzzt quickly to a focus that about half the time
needs correction (for those who can see sharply enough...;-).