Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #41
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
That's really interesting information - it does make sense at least on a theoretical level. I do mainly have experience with the faster nikkors, not so much the slower more neutral ones.
I find some of the Nikkors suit me better than others. In general the not multi-coated lenses have a less harsh look; this especially seems to help in the oof. 105/2.5 in any version is one of the greats, though I prefer the revised design over the original Sonnar based version.

In the Minolta lenses, be aware that some of the older lenses are great, but huge. The 21/2.8, 28/2.5, 35/1.8 in MC are like that. The 85/1.7 is also big, but doesn't seem as supersized as those others.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #42
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnmcd View Post
Hi Murray,

Just tried the AEL button for the first time. It's quirky to use the middle finger as shown in the manual. The same technique works fine (at least with my fingers) with the drive on but you have to use the camera shutter button not the motor drive button. If you are used to using the middle finger without the drive it should be fine with the drive.
Thanks for that, John. Now I finally know that it can be done. The grip on the motor drive looks like it would add nicely to one's purchase on the camera, but if, in order to reach the AEL button, you have to reach around the grip and use the on-camera shutter release anyway, it looks a bit inconvenient.

I use AEL with most of my exposures, so I think I'll stick with my X-570s and winders.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #43
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Why do you need it mint or rebuilt, the last om I bought was an om4 that cost me 35 fully working its not mint but works as good as a mint one. Try finding a mint pentax LX thats going to set you back 350ish. A canon a1 will only cost you around 50, if you are thinking of spending more why not just go for a New F1 which will only cost around 150-200 for a good one.
I've had several OM1 and OM2s and have always found most of them to be in various states of deterioration. I love them when they're working, but don't really want to rely on them in work situations. Also, it was a pre-requisite that the shutter speed dial spins in the same way as the ones on my main bodies - fuji X cameras. That rules out the nikons, and the OM bodies have a completely different shutter control system. Thd Canon F1 is a bit clunky for me (I've used one a bit) - I'd rather just have an f3hp.

The reason I'd want an LX the most is because both the shutter speed dial and the aperture dial on the lenses spin the same way as the Fuji X cameras. It's that simple

That's my reasoning anyway.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #44
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
I find some of the Nikkors suit me better than others. In general the not multi-coated lenses have a less harsh look; this especially seems to help in the oof. 105/2.5 in any version is one of the greats, though I prefer the revised design over the original Sonnar based version.

In the Minolta lenses, be aware that some of the older lenses are great, but huge. The 21/2.8, 28/2.5, 35/1.8 in MC are like that. The 85/1.7 is also big, but doesn't seem as supersized as those others.
I did see the size of some of those minoltas - it seems the later MD 35mm f1.8 is a bit more reasonably sized? To be honest, I'll probably just grab the 35mm f2.8 which seems to have a good reputation, and leave the speed to the 50s.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #45
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
I did see the size of some of those minoltas - it seems the later MD 35mm f1.8 is a bit more reasonably sized? To be honest, I'll probably just grab the 35mm f2.8 which seems to have a good reputation, and leave the speed to the 50s.
The MC are really wonderful lenses and beautifully built, but big. The performance is there, so you are getting something more than just a bit of extra exercise.

The MD lenses were scaled down quite a lot, and also perform well as far as I know. I bought what I ran into. The only MD's I have are 50 1.4 and 1.7 and I'm very happy with them. I also had a little 28/2.8 MD that seemed like it would be a very nice lens if somebody hadn't ruined it; I think he grabbed his sandpaper by mistake while reaching for the lens tissue. I wouldn't mind picking up a nicer one.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.