Can we talk about film?

[Lord Blackadder]

I am not yet ready to buy a scanner, but I just finished scanning my latest roll of B&W and I have been forced to admit things are just not working out with my current camera scanning setup. I have been trying to use an FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro with extension tube mounted to my EOS RP with two adapters (Canon EF-RF adapter and Fotodiox FD-EF adapter) . I thought the results were good initially but the last couple rolls I scanned had woeful edge sharpness (and it must be the scanning process, the negatives are coming out of multiple cameras). I assume that the combination of FD-EF adapter and EF-FD adapters is messing everything up since I am sure they are not designed to be stacked like that...

Photography is a self-taught trial-and-error hobby for me, so I am not embarrassed to make boneheaded mistakes. I wish Canon had just stuck with one mount for the last fifty years...in that case I'd have all the gear I need without this silly mixing and matching. 🤣

I just tried a few scans using an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro I traded for locally mounted on the EOS RP (with Canon's EF-RF adaptor) and it made me realize my previous results look like hot garbage by comparison - BUT I don't have the funky Life Size Adapter Canon made for it so I am not using all of my sensor; after cropping I am only getting ~6MP images using the 25MP EOS RP. They look great for digital sharing but not enough for prints. Sigh.

So I ordered an FD-RF adapter from B&H - I swear these did not exist when I started shooting film and setting up my scanning apparatus a year or so ago... So hopefully this adapter allows me to mount the FD Macro plus extension tube correctly on the RP and get some good-quality scans for about 50 bucks additional investment...

I may eventually go get a PlusTek (cheaper than most RF mount Macro glass!), but people seem to be getting quite good results with even budget camera scanning setups like mine, so I am hopeful.

 

[mollyc]

I am not yet ready to buy a scanner, but I just finished scanning my latest roll of B&W and I have been forced to admit things are just not working out with my current camera scanning setup. I have been trying to use an FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro with extension tube mounted to my EOS RP with two adapters (Canon EF-RF adapter and Fotodiox FD-EF adapter) . I thought the results were good initially but the last couple rolls I scanned had woeful edge sharpness (and it must be the scanning process, the negatives are coming out of multiple cameras). I assume that the combination of FD-EF adapter and EF-FD adapters is messing everything up since I am sure they are not designed to be stacked like that...

Photography is a self-taught trial-and-error hobby for me, so I am not embarrassed to make boneheaded mistakes. I wish Canon had just stuck with one mount for the last fifty years...in that case I'd have all the gear I need without this silly mixing and matching. 🤣

I just tried a few scans using an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro I traded for locally mounted on the EOS RP (with Canon's EF-RF adaptor) and it made me realize my previous results look like hot garbage by comparison - BUT I don't have the funky Life Size Adapter Canon made for it so I am not using all of my sensor; after cropping I am only getting ~6MP images using the 25MP EOS RP. They look great for digital sharing but not enough for prints. Sigh.

So I ordered an FD-RF adapter from B&H - I swear these did not exist when I started shooting film and setting up my scanning apparatus a year or so ago... So hopefully this adapter allows me to mount the FD Macro plus extension tube correctly on the RP and get some good-quality scans for about 50 bucks additional investment...

I may eventually go get a PlusTek (cheaper than most RF mount Macro glass!), but people seem to be getting quite good results with even budget camera scanning setups like mine, so I am hopeful.

I would doubt it's your adapters. I mean, I guess it could be. But how are you holding the film flat? Are you sure your camera is level with the film and the film is flat?

 

[bunnspecial]

I am not yet ready to buy a scanner, but I just finished scanning my latest roll of B&W and I have been forced to admit things are just not working out with my current camera scanning setup. I have been trying to use an FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro with extension tube mounted to my EOS RP with two adapters (Canon EF-RF adapter and Fotodiox FD-EF adapter) . I thought the results were good initially but the last couple rolls I scanned had woeful edge sharpness (and it must be the scanning process, the negatives are coming out of multiple cameras). I assume that the combination of FD-EF adapter and EF-FD adapters is messing everything up since I am sure they are not designed to be stacked like that...

What are you using to hold your film?

Admittedly I've not stuck the FD 55mm f/3.5 Macro on a digital camera, but on film it has an excellent reputation. I owned one about 15 years ago and was able to get good results from it then. I have one sitting on my shelf now, acquired in the last few months but not yet used, and I need to try it.

Also, what sort of EOS to FD adapter are you using? They come in two types-"glass" adapters that retain infinity focus and "macro" adapters that do not. The official Canon offering, which use to be super pricey when it did come up for sale, is something like a 1.2x teleconverter(don't hold me to that exact number) and only works with 300mm and longer lenses(and the 200mm f/2.8 IF-basically the same compatibility criteria as the 1.4x TC). By all accounts it's excellent. There are inexpensive glass adapters on the market, but they tend to be really bad. A glassless macro adapter would be fine for this situation.

In any case, there's no technical reason I can think of why an RF to FD adapter couldn't exist, and Fotodiox makes about a million different adapters for various mirrorless systems. I have a couple of theirs for Fuji X mount, including both Nikon F and Canon FD mount. The common mirrorless systems have registration distances so much shorter than any 35mm format SLR I'm aware of that basically any SLR lens can work on them.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I would doubt it's your adapters. I mean, I guess it could be. But how are you holding the film flat? Are you sure your camera is level with the film and the film is flat?

What are you using to hold your film?

Ah, sorry, I should have mentioned that. I have a Lomography DigtitaLIZA+. Ergonomically it's a little awkward but it keeps the film nice and flat when scanning, and includes the backlight.

Admittedly I've not stuck the FD 55mm f/3.5 Macro on a digital camera, but on film it has an excellent reputation. I owned one about 15 years ago and was able to get good results from it then. I have one sitting on my shelf now, acquired in the last few months but not yet used, and I need to try it.

Also, what sort of EOS to FD adapter are you using? They come in two types-"glass" adapters that retain infinity focus and "macro" adapters that do not. The official Canon offering, which use to be super pricey when it did come up for sale, is something like a 1.2x teleconverter(don't hold me to that exact number) and only works with 300mm and longer lenses(and the 200mm f/2.8 IF-basically the same compatibility criteria as the 1.4x TC). By all accounts it's excellent. There are inexpensive glass adapters on the market, but they tend to be really bad. A glassless macro adapter would be fine for this situation.

In any case, there's no technical reason I can think of why an RF to FD adapter couldn't exist, and Fotodiox makes about a million different adapters for various mirrorless systems. I have a couple of theirs for Fuji X mount, including both Nikon F and Canon FD mount. The common mirrorless systems have registration distances so much shorter than any 35mm format SLR I'm aware of that basically any SLR lens can work on them.

My adapters are the basic Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, and a FotodioX FD-EOS-PRO. The latter has a removable glass element. The lens is a Macro Lens FD 50mm f/3.5 mounted on a Canon Extension Tube FD 25.

The adapter I just ordered is a Vello Lens Mount Adapter for Canon FD-Mount Lens to Canon RF-Mount Camera. I figured I'd try a different brand. And even if this doesn't work for scanning it lets me use my other FD lenses on the RP, so it's not a waste in any case.

So now the FD Macro will be mounted on it's extension tube, which is mounted to the mirrorless camera via the Vello adapter. The Vello adapter has no lens element, so the ONLY glass I'll be using is the Macro lens itself.

 

[toke lahti]

[...a lot about Harman Phoenix 200...]

From wiki:
"'Harman Phoenix 200' which was developed and manufactured in house over 12 months. The film is high contrast and lacks an anti-halation layer. Due to most default scanner settings being determined with the colour balance of the more common Kodak or Fujifilm emulsions in mind, this film requires adjustment to scanning settings in order to achieve “normal” colour balance."

I haven't touched film for a decade.
But I had better results in 2 decades ago with 2 stops pushed kodak or fuji.
Why they made a new film pushing back the quality 50 years? Because it's "artsy"?

Maybe it's really about scanning settings?

 

[OldMacs4Me]

So here is my new 'Red-Green' slide copy set-up. The light source is a Kodak 6x8 light panel. The slide mount/light mask is made from four layers of black art foam and is a bit more than 1/4" in thickness. Raising the slide from the light source keeps a spec of dust on the light panel from showing in the copy. The book was needed to raise the light panel, as the arm on the tripod head was too long. The match stick was needed to make the arrangement perfectly level. I used a bullseye level to make it easy to check level in both directions at the same time. Missing but essential is the kneeling pad.

The tripod is a 70s Gitzo Tatalux. Purchased because it was light enough to carry on extended hikes and sturdy enough to support my 4x5 field camera. The tripod head is from my big 60s era Slik tripod, and is rock solid. I got it cheap but it was too bulky and heavy for my needs. NOTE: The Gitzo was always headless as the 4x5 had a rotating back and eliminating the head also eliminated many dollars and almost 2 pounds. Also Note: If I were doing this professionally I would want vernier control of the tripod center.

The camera is a Nikon Z50 (APSc) coupled to a 50mm Nikkor ƒ-2.8 Macro lens. The front of the lens is about 4 inches from the slide. Again I used the bulls eye level as Nikon thoughtfully made the horizon level only work when shooting parallel to the ground rather than pointed straight down. An absurd omission on what is an otherwise superb camera. I tried both manual and auto focus and was getting better results with less work letting the camera do the focusing. Occasionally I had to shift focus point away from center dead center. I set the aperture to ƒ-11 and ISO to 200 and let the camera pick the SS.

FWIW I do my shooting at night with zero ambient light.

The other image is from a slide I mounted myself and is by no means perfectly flat. I've been able to compare the results to my old Epson 2450 scanner on a string of difficult slides. Results are comparable although just a bit sharper with the camera set-up. Generally speaking I'm finding it easier to do the post-imaging work on copies from the camera. I also do a 0, -1, -2 bracket which assures me of a good starting image.

Final NOTE: This could also work well as a table top set up by simply using the camera back in the vertical plane and working from the other side.

 

[bunnspecial]

From wiki:
"'Harman Phoenix 200' which was developed and manufactured in house over 12 months. The film is high contrast and lacks an anti-halation layer. Due to most default scanner settings being determined with the colour balance of the more common Kodak or Fujifilm emulsions in mind, this film requires adjustment to scanning settings in order to achieve “normal” colour balance."

I haven't touched film for a decade.
But I had better results in 2 decades ago with 2 stops pushed kodak or fuji.
Why they made a new film pushing back the quality 50 years? Because it's "artsy"?

Maybe it's really about scanning settings?

Just a wild guess-

Color film is complicated business, which is the reason why there really have only been by my count I think 3 major makers of it, or maybe 5(Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Polaroid, and Chinese "Lucky" brand). There could be a few others I've missed, and I also don't know who makes the film for Cinestill(the name makes me wonder if it's MP film, but I honestly haven't looked at it). Ilford/Harman did make Ilfochrome paper in the past, so I guess they could be in the mix. I'm aware of 3 of those being active now, plus the "reborn" Polaroid. I apologize if I've missed anyone, but my end point is that it's a small number of producers especially compared to all the different brands of B&W film that were and still are out there.

It seems to me as though this film is basically Harman learning to make color film, and they finally stumbled onto something that is good/interesting enough to sell. There's talk that this may be a one-off run, and I'm guessing that their next attempt will be incrementally better.

Fuji seems pretty tight lipped about their manufacturing facilities, but there's been a lot of talk in the past about how the current Kodak is basically a victim of its own success. Their coating facility was built in the 90s with 6 of the most advanced coating machines ever developed meant to run 24/7. Aside from consumer negative film, probably their single biggest product was motion picture print film. That market held on a long time, but basically died overnight(although with plenty of warning) when the studios all agreed to only distribute on digital. What positioned Kodak to keep their market dominance through the 90s and into the early 2000s has become a burden as they basically can only make miles-long master reels. It's a small miracle that they've brought back some emulsions.

The last I saw Harman comment on their coating facilities, they didn't explicitly say what their situation was but did more or less say "We're a lot more flexible than Kodak"

If the current film renaissance continues, I think Harman sees a potential market for having at least one color stock in their portfolio.

Some of the decisions on this do strike me as strange. Their B&W emulsions are as high tech as anything else on the market-my beloved Plus-X was basically stuck in the 80s(although admittedly there's not been a lot of advancement in traditional grain B&W since then) while FP4+ is about as modern as you can get for a classic B&W emulsion. I'm not a big T-grain fan in general, but probably like the Delta films a smidge more than T-MAX. I've never been a chromogenic shooter, but if I was, to me there's basically no contest between XP2 Super and T400CN(and the fact that XP2 Super is sitll strong while a lot of poeple have never even heard of T400CN despite it even being sold at Walmart back in the day).

So as much as anyhting I'm buying some Phoenix to have fun and support their efforts.

There is also, to me, a certain appeal to shooting lower tech emulsions. When I first got into large format, my aunt gave me a bunch of Kodak Technical film they still had around their print shop after buying a digital-to-plate printer(and I have some still back in the freezer for if I ever decide to shoot 8x10, since that's what most was, even though it's now 20+ years expired-even for their small shop the break-even point was quick for digital direct to plate) and I lucked into some 4x5 Ilford techincal film as camera shop freebies-and those who have heard me talk about the camera where I use to hang out will know that in many caes I was more or less their dumpster for the stuff they hated to throw away but also didn't feel great about selling. I should scan some of my photos on it-it took some work to tame it down to pictoral contrast but loved the what I was able to get out of it. Lo and behold, I get it sorted out and Ilford decides to start coating their technical film on acetate base and cutting it into roll film formats, complete with low-contrast developing instructions packaged in it and selling it as "Ortho Plus."

Back when I got into photography, I was buying a lot of Efke film, an Eastern European manufacturer that's now gone, but was making panachromatic films basically straight out of the 50s. Their films were very low tech-they'd reticulate if you inadvertently gave them a 10ºC temp swing when changing baths, and even drying weighted like I normally do, they'd pop into a curl as soon as you pulled them off the line. At the time, intentional reticulation was a bit of a trend on APUG, and I remember people trying to get Tri-X to do it. Ron Morland(sp?), who went by Photo Engineer and was a retired film engineer with Kodak, said that they'd built Tri-X to take a ton of abuse, and you'd basically have to go from boiling to ice water to get it to reticulate. Still, though, the thin emulsion on Efke films gave them a sharpness and certain look that was hard to get from pretty much anything else...plus with I got my mini Crown Graphic they were the only ones making 2x3 sheets...

 

[piatigorsky]

From wiki:
"'Harman Phoenix 200' which was developed and manufactured in house over 12 months. The film is high contrast and lacks an anti-halation layer. Due to most default scanner settings being determined with the colour balance of the more common Kodak or Fujifilm emulsions in mind, this film requires adjustment to scanning settings in order to achieve “normal” colour balance."

I haven't touched film for a decade.
But I had better results in 2 decades ago with 2 stops pushed kodak or fuji.
Why they made a new film pushing back the quality 50 years? Because it's "artsy"?

Maybe it's really about scanning settings?

I've pushed both Kodak Gold and Ultramax one stop, all of the Kodak cine films up to two stops, and Fuji Superia Xtra two stops, all with great results (except maybe Kodak 500T two stops is really pushing its limits). Harman Phoenix evidently can't do even one stop, but I'd say underexposing one stop (and not pushing it in development) is still within its tolerances—as it should be with color film.

Ilford did say that this first batch of Harman Phoenix is more like a trial run, and the official data sheet does say it's an "experimental film". As for scanning, when I took the film out of my development tank, I immediately noticed that it has a clear base like b&w films, and this will throw off scanners. When I went back to the dealer for my second batch, they mentioned that their lab has done extensive testing with the film, and their scanning process is to scan the developed film as color reversal film, and then inverse the colors in Photoshop. I've tried that, but at least in my current setup with Silverfast 9 and an Epson V600, I think the results look better when I follow the official data sheet: for Epson flatbed scanners, "Use full autoexposure and auto color."

 

[bunnspecial]

Well, this arrived yesterday. This definitely feels like a small film order for me, especially given that I use to consider 50 rolls in a B&H box small…or on the other side of things one of my first orders from B&H, fall of 2006 and I ordered 5 rolls of Velvia(I think it was $35 or so-a lot less than my local camera store charged-I have a receipt from them where I paid $13 or so for a roll of Velvia in 2006, along with some Kodachrome 64 and some other odds and ends). I remember thinking I’d struck it rich with those 5 rolls of Velvia, and still look back fondly at the photos I took with it.

Okay, rambling aside(as you he student evaluations I read yesterday reminded me I do a lot of ) here’s the first B&H order of 2024, and part of my commitment to shoot more film this year

Hearing some of the comments here and elsewhere about how picky it is, I decided to just throw it in the best metering camera I have short of the F6…I kind of wish I’d done the F4 so I can enjoy old lenses with this old film, but this was a compromise especially since my F6 is loaded now. Even though I trust my F2sb, F2AS and FM2n, the electronic cameras are hard to be beat for meter accuracy. Even more important, the F2 meter brake in particular is prone to making the high speeds go off in particular. I should get in Sover Wong’s queue again, but I’m terrified at the cost of sending all my F2s in one go. The F5 supposedly self times and corrects, so that it is.

Hopefully I can shoot it this weekend and see what happens…

It’s an interesting looking film for sure. It is DX coded for 200, which I would have expected but is nice to see.

 

[mollyc]

I'm four days into my year on film (I know today is the 5th but I haven't taken my photo yet today). But I'm seriously thinking I need to just shoot two cameras or multiple images per day because I don't want to have to wait a month every month for film back. But it's the curse of January browns right now!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm four days into my year on film (I know today is the 5th but I haven't taken my photo yet today). But I'm seriously thinking I need to just shoot two cameras or multiple images per day because I don't want to have to wait a month every month for film back. But it's the curse of January browns right now!

There is nothing worth looking at, let alone photographing in color, in my neck of the woods this time of year. 🤣

 

[mollyc]

There is nothing worth looking at, let alone photographing in color, in my neck of the woods this time of year. 🤣

I'm used to mostly daily shooting with digital, so there's no reason I can't just transition those images to film (some of them anyway). It's more that I'm just not comfortable shooting film all the time so I don't want to waste frames. Which is of course illogical because I won't get better without practicing. This is in large part why I decided my year on film project.

And I hate snow, but we haven't had any in two years (save a dusting last month) and even I am jonesing for snow just to photograph it.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I live in a snowy region, so it would probably make sense for me to learn how to shoot interesting snow photos. But yeah, right now we have record low snowfall levels so it’s a bad year for that.

 

[mollyc]

I mentioned elsewhere that one of my 2024 projects is to do a year on film. I'm treating this like a P365 and shooting at least one film image a day, but of course since a roll of film has more images than a month, some days I shoot multiples. I thought I'd share my roll for January. Unfortunately for me, this is only the second time I've used this camera, and I had an issue where I thought I'd rewound it fully and opened the back, when I hadn't rewound much of it at all. I lost one whole frame and had to do some work to recover other images to be sorta-kinda-not-really-useable. A good lesson - I seem to learn a new lesson every single roll, lol. So a lot of these images have some light leaks from opening it too soon. Hopefully I'll manage a successful rewind for my February roll.

For January I joined a month on film group and used prompts for most of the roll; surprisingly the one image I lost completely was a bonus image, so I did actually get all the prompts done. Going forward I'm just shooting random stuff and not following a prompt list.

The second image I forgot to take off the lens cap, and since this is a rangefinder camera I couldn't tell. Luckily I realized it almost immediately so just reshot the image. I now no longer keep the cap on the lens at all!

I used Kodak Color Plus for these and metered with my phone. I have since purchased a separate shoe-mounted meter which is much more efficient, but we'll see how the photos turn out if the metering is better or worse. It seems fairly accurate compared to a digital camera meter, though, so I think it was a good buy. This was lab developed and then I scanned them at home with a digital camera setup.

And even though I don't think I have any portfolio images in here, I'm really enjoying the process of shooting film once a day and think by the end of the year my film skills will be much better.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Unfortunately for me, this is only the second time I've used this camera, and I had an issue where I thought I'd rewound it fully and opened the back, when I hadn't rewound much of it at all. I lost one whole frame and had to do some work to recover other images to be sorta-kinda-not-really-useable.

Some tricks us old timers used depending on the camera.

On some older cameras the take-up knob turns backwards as you rewind. Watch that knob until it stops and you'll be fine. Actually give it another turn or so just to be safe.

If it's a lever, you have to be clever. Learn to use your ear. When the film leaves the take-up spool it makes a sound you can hear.

As an addendum to the second one count the turns so when you are in a hurry you just have to count.

Finally if you have a garbage roll that has not been cut, put it in a reusable cannister and practice over and over until your sure how many turns of the rewind knob are required.

BTW It happens to the best of us. I lost about 5 frames of Havasu Creek with that blunder and I'd been using that particular camera for nearly 20 years! 😂

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I've had several mishaps in my short film career already. Nothing truly catastrophic as yet but I have opened the back twice now before remembering to rewind. That has cost me a handful of frames.

Though the one that made me feel really foolish was not properly loading a roll into a Zeiss IKON I picked up at an estate sale last summer. I was unfamiliar with the camera, and thought it was loaded. The advance felt light but it sounded like something was turning in there…

…then I walked around like a dope for two days snapping away, only to ‘rewind’ and discover the film had popped off the sprockets and never advanced. 😭 now that I know what it feels like to advance I hopefully won’t make the same mistake again.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've not had a rangefinder in a few years. My experience with a Contax ended up not so great, and I never really got along so well with my Leica IIIc I had or the LTM Canon clones of it.

Back in the fall, I seriously considered a Nikon S2 but there are some issues there and some things that made me hesitate.

So...well...we're giving rangefinders another shot. I've been accused of not doing anything halfway...

And yes, it's already loaded with HP5 for a trial roll.

 

[mollyc]

I've not had a rangefinder in a few years. My experience with a Contax ended up not so great, and I never really got along so well with my Leica IIIc I had or the LTM Canon clones of it.

Back in the fall, I seriously considered a Nikon S2 but there are some issues there and some things that made me hesitate.

So...well...we're giving rangefinders another shot. I've been accused of not doing anything halfway...

And yes, it's already loaded with HP5 for a trial roll.

View attachment 2351752

what a fantastic collection

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Wow. Fantastic indeed.

 

[bunnspecial]

Thanks everyone!

Getting new cameras/gear is definitely fun, but I'm also probably more excited than anything about what I hope to be able to do with this stuff.

BTW, I had a bit of a moment of panic on Tuesday. Of course I played with it/dry fired it several times before loading film. The M3 is a LOT easier to load than the Leica III(which need a special long cut leader that you need to cut yourself-50 year old rolls of film I have are pre-cut that way, but current isn't) but still is "bottom loading." Basically you take off the bottom plate, pull out the take up spool, tuck the leader into it, and push both it and the cannister up into the camera. What is different from the earlier models is that the pressure plate is on a hinged plate on the back, so you don't need the special leader to slip past the pressure plate or get the film in. You can also see if it's in place correctly over the shutter.

I fired my first frame with film loaded, and the camera seemingly jammed. It didn't complete the shutter release, but I couldn't advance it. I took the lens off, and I see the second curtain caught on the film.

Fortunately, I was able to open the back, remove the film, reset the shutter by advancing/cocking, and then reload and all has been well.

 

[piatigorsky]

Some tricks us old timers used depending on the camera.

On some older cameras the take-up knob turns backwards as you rewind. Watch that knob until it stops and you'll be fine. Actually give it another turn or so just to be safe.

If it's a lever, you have to be clever. Learn to use your ear. When the film leaves the take-up spool it makes a sound you can hear.

As an addendum to the second one count the turns so when you are in a hurry you just have to count.

Finally if you have a garbage roll that has not been cut, put it in a reusable cannister and practice over and over until your sure how many turns of the rewind knob are required.

BTW It happens to the best of us. I lost about 5 frames of Havasu Creek with that blunder and I'd been using that particular camera for nearly 20 years! 😂

I've learned to feel when the film leaves the takeup spool, but even so I always give the lever a dozen or so turns more just to be extra safe—nothing bad will happen if you overcrank!

Also, for my fully mechanical cameras I tend to load film in a changing bag so that I can squeeze an extra frame or two off the leader, so I really do need to make extra sure that everything gets rolled back into the canister.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've learned to feel when the film leaves the takeup spool, but even so I always give the lever a dozen or so turns more just to be extra safe—nothing bad will happen if you overcrank!

Unless your preference is leader out, in which case there's a fine art to listening for/feeling for it to drop off the take-up spool and wind it a bit more, but not too much.

Thank goodness Nikon put leader-out as a custom function on the F6, although I normally rewind it manually to save the expensive CR123s. I almost always rewind my F5 and F4 manually for this reason...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Thanks everyone!

Getting new cameras/gear is definitely fun, but I'm also probably more excited than anything about what I hope to be able to do with this stuff.

Ken Rockwell writes about the Leica M3:

...trying to review the LEICA M3 is about as meaningful as trying to review any other immortal masterwork, like Beethoven's 9th Symphony or the Mona Lisa. To those who already appreciate it, there is nothing more I could possibly add, and to those who don't, there is no way a review could possibly convey the brilliance and eternal genius these works contain.

The way he goes on about it, this thing must do your taxes and serve you breakfast in bed.

 

[mollyc]

Ken Rockwell is a bit of a tool, but the M3 is fun to use. But alas, it does not do taxes or bring me breakfast in bed.

 

[bunnspecial]

Ken Rockwell is, well, Ken Rockwell.

I've read him on and off since first getting into photography. Back in the mid-2000s, he basically thought Nikon could do no wrong, and rarely had anything positive to say about any other cameras unless they were the Mamiya 6/Mamiya 7 or anything large format(and back in those days he really hyped his Tachihara field camera(which admittedly is still a great piece). Good luck evening finding a Mamiya 6 today(you might luck out on a Mamiya 7), be ready to dig deep if you do find one, and hope to goodness nothing breaks on it.

Oh, BTW, back then, digital was for news photographers(who weren't really artists) and for snapshooters. If you needed a DSLR, the D200 was the greatest thing ever created, until the D40 came out and then it was even more great than the greatest camera ever the D200 because it was smaller and lighter and even better it was lower resolution(so don't even think about a D40x, which is the D200 sensor in a D40 body). Oh, and too, all you ever need on your DSLR is the amazing 18-200, and since the D200 and D40 are so phenomenal at high ISO(which I guess they are if you consider noisy ISO 1600 "high") and VR on the 18-200 is so good you don't need anything but a tripod.

Let's not forget too that yeah, Nikon didn't make full frame DSLRs, but that was okay since full frame was obsolete anyway and really a 16.9x24mm sensor in a D40 was all anyone anywhere ever could possibly need. But anything smaller than 16.9x24 was bad too(back in those days 4/3 was a thing, although this was before micro-4/3) because it was too noisy.

In other words, whatever Nikon made and sold, it was always perfect, no questions and no holds barred, and his F100(his special left-handed F100 on which he'd replaced the peeling rubber with African Elephant Phallus hide because of its durability and grippiness when wet) was the greatest camera ever created especially when he needed more resolution than digital offered. To be fair the F100 was and still is a great camera, but buried down in his archives is still a lot of talk about the issues he had with his first one and Nikon finally replacing it.

Oh, don't forget to always set your cameras to "P" mode, since after all "P" stands for "Professional."

Underneath the big word salad, though, I still think that there are actually some great points to be made, including that at the end of the day the best camera is the one you have with you that basically gets out of your way and lets you capture what you're visualizing. I'm not going to lie too that reading a lot of his reviews influenced a lot of my earlier taste for overly saturated photos, and it's no coincidence that I still love shooting Velvia and often set my X-T5 to Velvia mode.

And despite his write up about the M3(which is also poking a bit of fun at some of the die-hard Leica snobs) he's not wrong IMO about the build quality/precision. It really is probably the most solid and well-built camera I've ever handled.

And in the vein of Chuck Norris facts, which were all the rage when I was in college, we have Ken Rockwell facts also...http://blog.bahneman.com/content/ken-rockwell-facts