Can we talk about film?

[Lord Blackadder]

KEH is generally well regarded. I think they are better for buying from vs selling to (I think they tend to lowball stuff people send in, even taking into account their need for a profit), so you should be okay. I have not personally purchased from them, but I do think I sold to them (ironically a film camera that I wish I still had) nearly 20 years ago.

I respect Lady Blackadder's dedication to her favorite camera, but if she would consider a Canon AE-1, my own personal favorite store and camera repair shop has two currently listed. These would have been CLAed and have a warranty with them and the store owner is great. But I'm also primarily a Nikon user, so I can't fault her for wanting a direct replacement. 🙂

Shop All | Pro Camera - Charlottesville, VA

Shop fully serviced, warrantied film cameras at Pro Camera! Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Nikon, Canon We sell medium format and 35mm

www.procamera.us

Thanks for the tip and link! Ironically, I have an AE-1 someone gave me (non-program though) that I never use. The battery door is cracked but otherwise it's in good condition and I believe it works fine. And I have plenty of FD lenses.

I offered her that one, BUT she really likes the ergonomics of the FM and prefers its simple meter. I would like to get a replacement that has been at least inspected, and preferably cleaned - I think it's certainly worth the extra cost. So I might wait and shop more to find an FM for sale at a camera store like the one you linked.

 

[dwig]

Disaster strikes - the advance lever on my Nikon FM moves around freely but won't advance the film. I can advance it by turning the motor drive connection on the bottom of the camera. I can't find any example of someone disassembling this part of the camera on YouTube, but based on the exploded diagrams for the FM I suspect one of the cogs on the advance lever shaft has broken. Most FMs seem to have issues with the advance mechanism jamming, but this is the opposite problem.

I started taking the thing apart but quickly decided I didn't have the time to invest on this sort of thing - I want to shoot film, not become an amateur camera repair technician (I tinker with vintage Mac repair and that's already taking up plenty of time!). And the advance shaft is a really buried part...I'd have to disassemble a bunch of linkage pieces under the bottom plate, remove the shaft, and then try to find a replacement. Assuming that's truly what is broken.

I primarily shoot a Canon F1 and EOS-1n, but this is Lady Blackadder's favorite camera, so I find myself shopping for a replacement on KEH. Anyone ever bought a camera body on there? it seems less of a gamble than going to eBay...

If it's not a case of the rewind buttom being stuck in its depressed state then it is not likely be be something a tinker can fix.

When looking for a replacement I would recommend an FM2 over an FM. If you go with the older FM then try to get one of the second generation models. They're easily distinguished by having the shutter release lock incorporated into the wind lever rather than being a collar around the shutter release.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

If it's not a case of the rewind buttom being stuck in its depressed state then it is not likely be be something a tinker can fix.

Yes, I think the issue is buried deep within the advance shaft assembly. Above my skill level.

When looking for a replacement I would recommend an FM2 over an FM. If you go with the older FM then try to get one of the second generation models. They're easily distinguished by having the shutter release lock incorporated into the wind lever rather than being a collar around the shutter release.

I'm shopping around, but I think I may just stick with the FM - it worked well and while there are a lot of 'better' cameras out there (and I now own a few), this one worked fine and I don't know that the premium for the FM2 brings anything we need but don't have in the FM.

 

[dwig]

Yes, I think the issue is buried deep within the advance shaft assembly. Above my skill level.



I'm shopping around, but I think I may just stick with the FM - it worked well and while there are a lot of 'better' cameras out there (and I now own a few), this one worked fine and I don't know that the premium for the FM2 brings anything we need but don't have in the FM.

The FM2 is not all that much "better" than the FM. It has a brighter focusing screen and a higher X-sync speed. But other than that there's not much that the very solid FM doesn't have. At this point in time the fact that all FM2s are younger than all FMs doesn't count for anything significant. I'd avoid any FM with the early style knurled rewind knob. Those are ancient and the knurling wreaks havoc when used with a winder and a neckstrap.

 

[bunnspecial]

To be honest, as someone who has both cameras, I don't think I'd spend the extra expense NOW for the significant premium an FM2/FM2n is bringing over the FM.

If you really need the faster flash sync speed or faster shutter speeds, there are more economical choices around, including the equally excellent FE2 or moving to something more modern.

Neither the FM or FM2 is exactly known to be unreliable, but there's an argument to be made(and one I've heard stated by camera repair techs) that the lower tension springs in the FM shutter put a lot less stress on it and over the long haul it tends to hold up better. Nikon had some teething pains early on with the 1/4000 Copal-type shutter, especially with the "honeycomb" titanium used. Anecdotally, the honeycomb shutters were problematic enough that Nikon would often replace them if a camera came in for service, whether or not the shutter was working fine. Again, anecdotally, I've had mixed luck(at best) with the FA, to the point that I pretty much won't use them for anything where I actually want all the shots I've taken, but so far my "reliable" FA has a smooth-blade shutter, and my "problem child"(that randomly gives blank frames) has a honeycomb shutter.

Long and short, I've considered selling the last FM2n I have. Even though mine has been rock solid, I don't see any real benefit to it for me other than some small ergonomic enhancements.

And, when talking about any of these cameras, they're all old enough(at this point even the FM3a too, which is approaching 20 years old for the newest) that a recent service by a reputable tech means MUCH more than the age of the camera.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

To be honest, as someone who has both cameras, I don't think I'd spend the extra expense NOW for the significant premium an FM2/FM2n is bringing over the FM.

If you really need the faster flash sync speed or faster shutter speeds, there are more economical choices around, including the equally excellent FE2 or moving to something more modern.

Yes, I primarily shoot with a Canon F1 and EOS-1n, and those have all the extra features and performance I will ever use (and then some). So I don't need a 'better' camera to replace this FM. Just another one that works!

And, when talking about any of these cameras, they're all old enough(at this point even the FM3a too, which is approaching 20 years old for the newest) that a recent service by a reputable tech means MUCH more than the age of the camera.

Indeed - as with any 'vintage' gear of any kind, if you want to actually use it condition and service history really matters more than anything. A rare/fancy camera that's broken is just a paperweight.

 

[bunnspecial]

Yes, I primarily shoot with a Canon F1 and EOS-1n, and those have all the extra features and performance I will ever use (and then some). So I don't need a 'better' camera to replace this FM. Just another one that works!

There's no direct Canon analogue to the FM2n. The FM's closest equivalent is the FTb, but the FM is objectively a better or at least more up-to-date camera with the Copal Square type shutter(vs. the FTb's horizontal cloth) and the 3-LED readout. The only thing the FTb really does "better" is offer full time mirror lock up. In fact the FTb is probably closer to a Nikkormat series camera-an argument could be made it's more like an FT3 since that was the only Nikkormat with auto-indexing(which the FD mount had from the beginning), but it's also more like the FTn in that it needs a mercury cell to meter properly, and all the Nikkormat cameras had Copal shutters and faster flash sync than the FTb.

Granted the comparisons don't really do or mean anything in 2025-I say it more just as an historical mention. Canon basically "undercut" Nikon with the thoroughly consumer grade A-series cameras, and Nikon answered with the EM/FG/FG20. Probably the only other comparison to be drawn there is the Nikon EL2 and Canon EF, which are similar cameras in a lot of ways, but the EF never sold in big numbers and you're really lucky to find one that actually works now.

So, again, I'll just mention in all that rambling that if one wants an FM, to me another FM is the only realistic replacement. The FE deserves a mention, but has somse drawbacks compared to the FM and I found the electronics a bit less reliable. The FE2 is rock solid, but also a battery hog. The FM3a may be the best of the bunch, but it's actually the only Nikon film SLR I've never owned as I've not wanted to pay the $600+ they've been bringing for as long as I've been paying attention to them.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

There's no direct Canon analogue to the FM2n. The FM's closest equivalent is the FTb, but the FM is objectively a better or at least more up-to-date camera with the Copal Square type shutter(vs. the FTb's horizontal cloth) and the 3-LED readout. The only thing the FTb really does "better" is offer full time mirror lock up. In fact the FTb is probably closer to a Nikkormat series camera-an argument could be made it's more like an FT3 since that was the only Nikkormat with auto-indexing(which the FD mount had from the beginning), but it's also more like the FTn in that it needs a mercury cell to meter properly, and all the Nikkormat cameras had Copal shutters and faster flash sync than the FTb.

Interesting! As it happens, someone gave me an FTb in its original box a few years ago. It looks like a nice, clean design. It appears to be in only lightly used condition, and the shutter cocks and fires, but I haven't actually tried using it - it doesn't improve on the F-1 for what I do. I never thought of it as an FM equivalent, but I lack your thorough experience with these things.

Probably the only other comparison to be drawn there is the Nikon EL2 and Canon EF, which are similar cameras in a lot of ways, but the EF never sold in big numbers and you're really lucky to find one that actually works now.

Not to mention that the EF's name, overlapping as it does with the lens system, means that finding one via search on a marketplace is going to be nearly impossible!

So, again, I'll just mention in all that rambling that if one wants an FM, to me another FM is the only realistic replacement. The FE deserves a mention, but has somse drawbacks compared to the FM and I found the electronics a bit less reliable. The FE2 is rock solid, but also a battery hog. The FM3a may be the best of the bunch, but it's actually the only Nikon film SLR I've never owned as I've not wanted to pay the $600+ they've been bringing for as long as I've been paying attention to them.

That makes sense to me. Rarer or marginally 'better' or niche models with prices inflated by the collector market are not what I am going for.

There are so many vintage film cameras out there it is bewildering. Granted most of them are very similar in their basic functions, but I'm trying to stick with becoming very familiar with just a few so I can focus on doing better photography - and just getting out there and shooting.

 

[dwig]

Interesting! As it happens, someone gave me an FTb in its original box a few years ago. It looks like a nice, clean design. ... I never thought of it as an FM equivalent, but I lack your thorough experience with these things.

The FT, FTb, and FTb/n were marketed as competition to Nikon's Nikkormat FT, FT2, and FT3 models. Canon didn't continue the line into the "as small as the OM-1" design era while Nikon did to a degree with the FM/FE family. Canon went the "plastic wonder" route with the A-series, starting with the AE-1.

As camera models got smaller, I always found that the designs forces on the Copal Square derived shutters, as opposed to the Leica style horizontal curtain shutters, left a camera configuration with better handling. The rewind side could get very short and the wind side remained large enough to hold comfortably since all of the shutter mechinism, other than the blades, resides on the wind side. The horizontal curtain shutters need to have some significant space on the rewind side for the curtain's supply spindles. This made the wind side too short for easy handling when the designers went for a small overall size.

 

[bunnspecial]

As camera models got smaller, I always found that the designs forces on the Copal Square derived shutters, as opposed to the Leica style horizontal curtain shutters, left a camera configuration with better handling. The rewind side could get very short and the wind side remained large enough to hold comfortably since all of the shutter mechinism, other than the blades, resides on the wind side. The horizontal curtain shutters need to have some significant space on the rewind side for the curtain's supply spindles. This made the wind side too short for easy handling when the designers went for a small overall size.

As just a bit of a comment on that too, when I was shooting Canons, I found that 36 really meant 36. I never managed to get the "bonus" 37th frame I've heard others talk about. This was mostly in the mid-2000s that I was using them, just for reference, and most of my 36 frame rolls were Tri-X, Plus-X, E100G/GX, Elite Chrome 100, Portra 400UC, and the original Velvia. This was true on the A series cameras and the F-1s, but even the T cameras with Copal-type shutters. Of course the T90 may have been capable of shooting the 37th, but as I recall(it's been years since I used mine) it would normally auto-rewind at 36 frames.

When I switched to Nikons, admittedly a decade later, I found that 37 frames was pretty much a given. On Copal shutter cameras like the FM/FM2 I'd even get a lucky 38th frame sometimes. Of course film stocks weren't all the same-I was using some Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F(which I'd previously only shot in medium format), Portra 160/400, Ektar 100 and then E100 when it came back on the market, but also of course Tri-X. Just to make sure I wasn't going nuts, I tried some of my old frozen film stock including the same bricks of Elite Chrome I use to shoot out of all the time, and sure enough I was getting 37/38 from them.

I sat down and compared film gates, and found that on all the Nikon models I looked at, even the F and F2, the film gate was just a touch closer to the film cartridge than on similar Canon models. The difference was even more stark on the FM and others around that same basic body(FE, FM2, FE2, FA). It made sense why I never could get that 37th frame on Canons, even though it looked like I had enough space for it at the end of the roll when I'd develop, and had no trouble on Nikons...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

As just a bit of a comment on that too, when I was shooting Canons, I found that 36 really meant 36. I never managed to get the "bonus" 37th frame I've heard others talk about. This was mostly in the mid-2000s that I was using them, just for reference, and most of my 36 frame rolls were Tri-X, Plus-X, E100G/GX, Elite Chrome 100, Portra 400UC, and the original Velvia. This was true on the A series cameras and the F-1s, but even the T cameras with Copal-type shutters. Of course the T90 may have been capable of shooting the 37th, but as I recall(it's been years since I used mine) it would normally auto-rewind at 36 frames.

I have shot a fraction as much as you, but just to chime in, looking at my film development spreadsheet: I've managed a 37th frame with the FM 15% of the time, and a 37th frame 21% of the time with the Canon F-1. All with a variety of film stocks (Kentmere 400, HP5+, TX 400, Fuji Color 200, Kodak Ultramax). The EOS-1n always rewinds after 36.

I have a Zeiss IKON Contessa LKE I picked up at an estate sale, with the selenium meter still functioning. Fun little mid-mod camera, and with it I once got 39 good frames on a roll of Kentmere 400. But that was probably luck. On the same outing I accidentally opened the back of the FM and ruined a third of roll. The photo gods giveth, and the photo gods taketh away,....

 

[cjsuk]

Thought I'd dig this one out and join in. I went to the Lee Miller exhibition at the Tate Britain and had a hankering to shoot some B&W film again. I'm a bit of an old hand at this, originally on an East German made Praktica MTL5b back in the day and developing my own stuff. Decided to jump back into, so hit ebay and grabbed a cheap Nikon F80, 50mm lens, some HP5 rolls and half a chemical plant and dived in. Did my first roll today which I was rather pleased with. Everything worked

So the first stage was getting stuff onto film and developing it which went rather well. I screwed up a couple of things. Firstly the 50mm is nice but I usually use a wider lens (35-40mm) so it was a bit restrictive. Secondly I screwed up loading the patterson reel and scratched some emulsion. Then when developing it I squeegeed it without remembering how bad the things are and scraped a neg.

Scanning is a complete dick with my setup so I apologise for out of focus or low res scans - the negs are pretty incredibly sharp. Anyway first results.

Now I hate scanning the things using my mirrorless so I think I'm going to hit ebay for an enlarger next. Here we go ...

 

[cjsuk]

Quick update. Definitely got the film bug. 3 rolls in now and 3 unused ones in the drawer. Durst enlarger is on the way now as well.

Just before I posted the last set of images I swapped my Nikon Z50ii for a full frame Z5ii. This has been used so far for a few shots here and there and scanning negatives and not a lot else because I've been using the F80 all the time. This sort of hurts. I have a really expensive camera I don't use suddenly. The enlarger is going to hurt that even more. Thank goodness I got it on sale day AND with student discount.

As for which film camera, the F80 is wonderful. I rather like it. It's got all the bells and whistles of the higher end Nikons, works with all the nice lenses and if you want a dumb brick, you can just turn all the bells and whistles off. If you drop it, there's loads on ebay. If someone nicks it, the strap is probably worth more. And unlike the old Praktica I had, the light meter actually works in this.

Anyway some shots from last roll.

 

[mollyc]

Quick update. Definitely got the film bug. 3 rolls in now and 3 unused ones in the drawer. Durst enlarger is on the way now as well.

Just before I posted the last set of images I swapped my Nikon Z50ii for a full frame Z5ii. This has been used so far for a few shots here and there and scanning negatives and not a lot else because I've been using the F80 all the time. This sort of hurts. I have a really expensive camera I don't use suddenly. The enlarger is going to hurt that even more. Thank goodness I got it on sale day AND with student discount.

As for which film camera, the F80 is wonderful. I rather like it. It's got all the bells and whistles of the higher end Nikons, works with all the nice lenses and if you want a dumb brick, you can just turn all the bells and whistles off. If you drop it, there's loads on ebay. If someone nicks it, the strap is probably worth more. And unlike the old Praktica I had, the light meter actually works in this.

Anyway some shots from last roll.

View attachment 2586309 View attachment 2586310

View attachment 2586311 View attachment 2586312

These are really lovely. Is this from the same roll you shared from today in the POTD thread?

 

[cjsuk]

These are really lovely. Is this from the same roll you shared from today in the POTD thread?

Yes they are from the same roll. The interior ones are shot at Cosmic House ( https://www.thecosmichouse.org/ ). Outside one was outside Shepherd's Bush station.

I did one experimental local walk one to check process etc which I posted first. I have a mixed one coming up I'll post a couple of. Not quite as abstract though.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

These look great!

This is going to end up being a stupid question, but if these are scans from a mirrorless camera you've inverted, why are the borders black? [winces while anticipating obvious answer]. I have zero formal training in film photography, and suffer all the humiliations of the autodidact....

Quick update. Definitely got the film bug. 3 rolls in now and 3 unused ones in the drawer. Durst enlarger is on the way now as well.

Just before I posted the last set of images I swapped my Nikon Z50ii for a full frame Z5ii. This has been used so far for a few shots here and there and scanning negatives and not a lot else because I've been using the F80 all the time. This sort of hurts. I have a really expensive camera I don't use suddenly. The enlarger is going to hurt that even more. Thank goodness I got it on sale day AND with student discount.

I have an EOS RP and these days I use it almost exclusively for scanning my 35mm home-developed film. It's a pain to break up my scanning rig, so it usually just gets left there.

 

[cjsuk]

These look great!

This is going to end up being a stupid question, but if these are scans from a mirrorless camera you've inverted, why are the borders black? [winces while anticipating obvious answer]. I have zero formal training in film photography, and suffer all the humiliations of the autodidact....

This was a conscious choice. Basically that’s the edge of the exposed area of the film. Figured I’d leave it in the crop from the mirrorless as it shows they are not cropped down from a larger image at the “print” stage. This is stolen from Cartier-Bresson if I’m honest and used as a stick to make sure I spend time framing things rather than just crop them later aka do the photography on the camera.

I have an EOS RP and these days I use it almost exclusively for scanning my 35mm home-developed film. It's a pain to break up my scanning rig, so it usually just gets left there.

Yeah it’s somewhat painful to do that indeed. I don’t have the space for that annoyingly so it’s on the normal desk. No idea where the enlarger is going be stored yet.

Edit: Current scanning set up looks like this. If I'm honest I'm thinking about not scanning them and just printing them properly in the future. Keeping the two worlds apart...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

This was a conscious choice. Basically that’s the edge of the exposed area of the film. Figured I’d leave it in the crop from the mirrorless as it shows they are not cropped down from a larger image at the “print” stage. This is stolen from Cartier-Bresson if I’m honest and used as a stick to make sure I spend time framing things rather than just crop them later aka do the photography on the camera.

Ah - I also keep the exposed edge visible from my scans...but when I import the RAW images I've scanned and then invert them in software the borders turn white (such as this shot I recently scanned, no post-processing apart from invert/conversion to greyscale)....I was just wondering why your film borders are black. I feel like I'm missing something stupidly obvious here.

I love the contrast you achieved in your shots. I am still working on learning how to get more contrasty negatives without resorting to post-processing.

EDIT: I should add I'm doing my scanning manually: the RP is set up with a fixed ISO & aperture, manual focus on a RF100mm F2.8 L Macro, a Lomography DigitaLIZA+ film holder, and the RAW files batch converted to TIFF & inverted/greyscale conversion in IrfanView. The 'Cheap n Cheerful' software workflow.

 

[mollyc]

The borders should be black. It's actually unexposed film, so turns clear when developing. The area where the rebate info is (film stock info and frame number) has been pre-exposed and turns black when developed. But then when you invert it, it turns white - ie, exposed to light. And because the main width of the border was never exposed to light, it reverses as black.

 

[mollyc]

@Lord Blackadder what film is this?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Just regular old Ilford HP5+.

The borders should be black. It's actually unexposed film, so turns clear when developing. The area where the rebate info is (film stock info and frame number) has been pre-exposed and turns black when developed. But then when you invert it, it turns white - ie, exposed to light. And because the main width of the border was never exposed to light, it reverses as black.

I knew this would be an embarrassing forehead-slapping moment for me. 🤣

It's my film holder, the Lomography DigitaLIZA+. The backlit window in the holder (when using the 35mm adapter) is almost exactly the same size as the exposed area of film. So the border area is completely covered and my scans are just catching a bit of the (black) film holder, which turns white on inversion. Duh. I knew that, but it's been a busy real-life day and I wasn't paying attention there.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[cjsuk]

Ah - I also keep the exposed edge visible from my scans...but when I import the RAW images I've scanned and then invert them in software the borders turn white (such as this shot I recently scanned, no post-processing apart from invert/conversion to greyscale)....I was just wondering why your film borders are black. I feel like I'm missing something stupidly obvious here.

Well you worked it out - that's a winner in my book. I was scratching my head too!

I love the contrast you achieved in your shots. I am still working on learning how to get more contrasty negatives without resorting to post-processing.

Not doing a huge amount. Ilford HP5 does most of it.

I am only doing edit and tone curve adjustment. If you bang the tone curve hard down on the right it gives you a bit more contrast. There's no reason not to change contrast when you edit it as that's exactly what you do with contrast filters in your enlarger.

To keep things "authentic" I only change the exposure and the contrast when I am editing in Lightroom. The crop is only the negative frame.

----

More experiments....


On a side note I've just changed how I'm scanning as I was using some crappy no brand macro tubes. These, whilst filling the frame, cause distortion and focus issues at the edges of the negatives. So I have chucked the 24-120mm lens on it and moved it further back. Cranked it down to f/6.3 and ISO 100.

I am not buying a macro lens for this system. Well not yet. You know how these things go 🤣

That of course leads to a hell of a lot of loss of resolution as you're stuck centre frame:

Of course there is a slightly bananas solution to that. Pixel shift shooting. So it takes 16 shots (25 meg each) and moves the IBIS platform inside the body slightly and then you use NX studio to combine them into one NEF. This kicks out a 500 meg file which you can then crop in Lightroom and export as a sensible sized DNG!

This is then sucked back into Lightroom, B&W mode selected and inverted using the tone curve and that's it, job done. The contrast / dynamic range I suppose is adjusted by sliding the bottom right of the tone curve on this one.

Output...

 

[mollyc]

Well you worked it out - that's a winner in my book. I was scratching my head too!



Not doing a huge amount. Ilford HP5 does most of it.

I am only doing edit and tone curve adjustment. If you bang the tone curve hard down on the right it gives you a bit more contrast. There's no reason not to change contrast when you edit it as that's exactly what you do with contrast filters in your enlarger.

To keep things "authentic" I only change the exposure and the contrast when I am editing in Lightroom. The crop is only the negative frame.

----

More experiments....


On a side note I've just changed how I'm scanning as I was using some crappy no brand macro tubes. These, whilst filling the frame, cause distortion and focus issues at the edges of the negatives. So I have chucked the 24-120mm lens on it and moved it further back. Cranked it down to f/6.3 and ISO 100.

I am not buying a macro lens for this system. Well not yet. You know how these things go 🤣

View attachment 2586647

That of course leads to a hell of a lot of loss of resolution as you're stuck centre frame:

View attachment 2586648

Of course there is a slightly bananas solution to that. Pixel shift shooting. So it takes 16 shots (25 meg each) and moves the IBIS platform inside the body slightly and then you use NX studio to combine them into one NEF. This kicks out a 500 meg file which you can then crop in Lightroom and export as a sensible sized DNG!

This is then sucked back into Lightroom, B&W mode selected and inverted using the tone curve and that's it, job done. The contrast / dynamic range I suppose is adjusted by sliding the bottom right of the tone curve on this one.

View attachment 2586650

Output...

View attachment 2586649

Your scans look great, but you do lose a lot of resolution using a not-macro lens. I scan on a Z6 with an F-mount 105 macro, although I've asked Santa finally for the Z mount. I can still use the F mount on my F100 and D700 so I will keep it, but I'm hoping for slightly sharper edges with the Z-mount.

But there are a lot of really sharp vintage lenses you could adapt for not much money to the Z mount. I haven't investigated them since I already had the F mount but if you google you could find any number of options for a couple hundred bucks or less. You don't have to go full on Z macro if you don't want.

 

[cjsuk]

Your scans look great, but you do lose a lot of resolution using a not-macro lens. I scan on a Z6 with an F-mount 105 macro, although I've asked Santa finally for the Z mount. I can still use the F mount on my F100 and D700 so I will keep it, but I'm hoping for slightly sharper edges with the Z-mount.

But there are a lot of really sharp vintage lenses you could adapt for not much money to the Z mount. I haven't investigated them since I already had the F mount but if you google you could find any number of options for a couple hundred bucks or less. You don't have to go full on Z macro if you don't want.

Works out around 14MP which is fine for my needs. I did consider buying a macro lens or adapting it but I figured if I'm going to spend the money on stuff I think I'd rather do an "okish" job of scanning and invest in printing as it looks more fun that sitting in front of the computer all day (the day job).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Works out around 14MP which is fine for my needs. I did consider buying a macro lens or adapting it but I figured if I'm going to spend the money on stuff I think I'd rather do an "okish" job of scanning and invest in printing as it looks more fun that sitting in front of the computer all day (the day job).

I recently met a real old-timer film photographer, and when I mentioned my home developing/scanning setup, he raised his brows and said "Scanning? Scanning? You're not making prints?" He sounded positively offended. 🤣