Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] High ISOs Comparison
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Sat Dec 9 05:51:49 2006
References: <120920060615.2470.457A54990004338A000009A6219791299503010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com>

Gene

I've a great idea. If I run across a Nikkormat we can make a swap for 
your dusty F3. :-)    I missed a heck of an image years back  because I 
was carrying two different bodies. An F3 and a Nikkormat. Since I always 
work by feel what I carry must feel the same. Actually, the Nikkormats 
were fine cameras and much better than the plastic throwaway stuff made 
today.

Walt


grduprey@mchsi.com wrote:

>Walt I had 2 Nikkormats over the years and loved both.  However they are no 
>longer supported by Nikon or any other repair facility I have been able to 
>find, so when they fail they are good only as paper weights.  My F3 sits 
>and collects dust, well it really sits in a spare camera bag upstairs 
>unused.
>
>gene
>
>
>-------------- Original message from Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com>: 
>-------------- 
>
>
>  
>
>>I was making a comparison based upon spending a few hundred dollars or 
>>5000 Reichmarks and then looking at the results. Personally, I hate the 
>>Nikkormats but have a near new F3, 24,35,50 1.4, 55 2.8, 100 2.8 
>>(Vivitar) and a 200 f4. (just looked in a drawer and found a Tamron 
>>19-35 and a Tokina doubler) I think I have too much unused junk and 
>>since this is Friday, I'm open for offers. :-) 
>>
>>Keep shooting but watch out for sunspots 
>>
>>Walt 
>>
>>Douglas Herr wrote: 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Walt Johnson wrote: 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>What if the Nikkormat with a 50mm f2.0 provided a better finished 
>>>>product than your M8? 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I don't see why someone who is interested in a digital rangefinder 
>>>would care how a film SLR of any vintage or capabilities compares. A 
>>>more logical comparison would be a film SLR and a digital SLR and in 
>>>this comparison for me from viewing prints the digital SLR (DMR in my 
>>>case) has pretty much replaced the film SLR at ISO 400 and above. BTW 
>>>I do have a recently-CLA'd Nikkormat FTN with 50mm f/2 lens (also 50mm 
>>>f/1.4 AIS, 55mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4 and 300mm f/4.5 ED non-IF). 
>>>
>>>Doug Herr 
>>>Birdman of Sacramento 
>>>http://www.wildlightphoto.com 
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ 
>>>Leica Users Group. 
>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________ 
>>Leica Users Group. 
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>  
>

Replies: Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
In reply to: Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)