Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!

"TP" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out
of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine
part
of my camera maintenance.......


Paradoxically, if you used a body with a fixed finder, such as the
F100 or new F6, you probably wouldn't have to clean the camera quite
so often.

With interchangeable viewfinders, it doesn't matter how good the
sealing appears to be, dust and moisture can get in, and they surely
do.

That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....

"William Graham" wrote in message
newsuL3d.472542$%_6.326832@attbi_s01...
That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside
my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs
off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW, I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.

"William Graham" wrote:

That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


On a "need to know" basis, perhaps you went into ever so slightly too
much detail there, William.

;-)

"William Graham" wrote:

That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap inside my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


On a "need to know" basis, perhaps you went into ever so slightly too
much detail there, William.

;-)

"William Graham" wrote:

I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW, I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


Good point.

Cleaning my F3 and F4 bodies was (relatively) a trivial task, aided by
their removable finders.

"William Graham" wrote:

I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW, I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


Good point.

Cleaning my F3 and F4 bodies was (relatively) a trivial task, aided by
their removable finders.

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:m0M3d.230473$mD.19389@attbi_s02...

"William Graham" wrote in message
newsuL3d.472542$%_6.326832@attbi_s01...
That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap
inside
my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat hairs
off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper
body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid
that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less often....IOW,
I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


You're really going to hate digital...


Peter

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
course.

Another reason why I got a Yashica Electro GT (actually two, but who's
counting). While I am stuck to one fixed lens, it is one way to get that
1/500 in 35 mm. One problem is that the camera is aperture priority, so it
is tough to tell if the shutter is operating at 1/500, or slightly slower.
Medium format is much better for this stuff.


You could look into the Konica S3 Auto. That is shutter priority auto (no
manual override, unfortunately) with a _fantastic_ 38mm f1.7 lens and, of
course, sync. up to 1/500. It also has a nice fill flash system that, in
effect, tells you in the VF how much fill relative to ambient you are
giving.



Peter

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Gordon Moat wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

[SNIP]

I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and
the 1/1000 sync is noticeable, though not something that get used often.
Even 1/500 works quite well, though anything much less than that is not
much difference. These are high ambient light fill flash conditions,
specific
to some photographers and some situations, but I think still a bit
limited
usage in the overall scheme of things.

1/1000 sync! Some flashes discharge a good part of their energy
beyond 1 ms at full power, so got to watch out.


A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.

Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
underpowered flash normally produces.



Peter

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Gordon Moat wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

[SNIP]

I have used a Rollei 6008i with PQS lenses on a couple occasions, and
the 1/1000 sync is noticeable, though not something that get used often.
Even 1/500 works quite well, though anything much less than that is not
much difference. These are high ambient light fill flash conditions,
specific
to some photographers and some situations, but I think still a bit
limited
usage in the overall scheme of things.

1/1000 sync! Some flashes discharge a good part of their energy
beyond 1 ms at full power, so got to watch out.


A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.

Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
underpowered flash normally produces.



Peter