Matthew Currie

On old manual, non-G setups, that lever is essentially binary. When viewing, it's all the way open and then some, with a spring allowing for some error, and when shooting, it's all the way out of the way, not even in contact with the lens. So even a slightly bent one may continue to work. But I once made the mistake of mounting a used lens without that little screw on an old F, and it was a lesson learned. I was able to take the back off and disentangle it, and on the F it's made of brass which you can unbend. But of course on a digital camera with no back it's a different story. So I'm careful to check any old lens before I use it now.

In my case the camera itself is close enough to that point, 10 years old, nearing its shutter life expectancy, with print worn off the buttons and an internal malfuction that makes it no longer work in manual mode unless you squeeze in just the right place, etc., so I don't worry much. It rides in the car and goes on some trips when traveling extra light. The batteries still hold a charge and before swelling a little they were already pretty tight, and they have not swelled further, so they will stay. I wouldn't recommend it for more demanding uses.

I have a couple of Watson third party batteries for my D3200, and they have swelled a little. They're still good, and I was able to sand them down a little to fit better, and they have not continued to swell, but they did swell enough to prevent them from falling out. I'd definitely keep an eye on batteries if you leave them in.

Just a quick note, that although it is recommended, it is not necessary to set a lens to 5.6 on the Nikon F's FTn meter head, which has a retracting spring. A possible selling point for the F if one is switching lenses a lot in a hurry.

If you want the plain prism look and don't need the F system accessories the Nikkormat might well be a better choice. Same lenses, only one battery, and threaded viewfinder. Much of the advantage of the F, such as accessory finders, bulk film and Polaroid backs, is of little importance now.

Couple of final notes. Plain prism finders are hard to find, especially the later ones with round eyepieces. If you need any eyepiece accessories such as dipoters or magnifiers, stick with the circular one on the Ftn finder. It's the smaller of two thread sizes (bigger starting with the F3 HP). Depending on which version you have, the 55/3.5 may have a compensating aperture. The first versions of this lens, made when most meters were external, compensated for the loss of light when focusing close. It messes up TTL metering and must be compensated for. Chances are if it is contemporary with the camera it will be a later uncompensated version but it would be a good idea to check. Here's a list of what serial numbers fit what versions: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro. I have a later pre-AI "PC" version and concur with Ben Hutcherson above. Great lens.

I second the idea of cycling the shutter many times. Those old cameras can sometimes regain much of their accuracy. If you go on line, I think you may still find somewhere the info for recalibrating the FTn meter for modern batteries. It's not all that hard, requiring that you open it up, and adjust two little variable resistors. One adjusts the exposure itself (comparing with a known good meter) and the other the battery check needle, and they slightly influence each other. I did mine many years ago and they worked very well. I found the old 1.4 lens all right on black and white, but it seemed a bit less satisfactory in color, and I much preferred the lagter 50/2 AI. The older 50/2 was also supposed to be very good, and with less distortion. I would not overlook the 55/3.5 either, though, which was a decent normal lens. Don't forget too that if you can't manage the meter recalibration, you can probably compensate enough by fudging the ASA setting. The main problem here is going to be keeping track of the battery condition since the battery check does not change with film speed, so it will be out of adjustment. Alkaline batteries are not optimal but they will work. Or, you can get conductive rings to put on smaller batteries and use those instead, which gives more of an opportunity for silver oxides. Just remember that because this finder's battery contact is on the side of the cell, you can't just use O-rings as you can on some other cameras. You need a conductive ring. In a pinch you can use aluminum foil.

Just for informtion, Exiftool (also the more windows-friendly Exiftool GUI) also returns fine tune information.

A matter of taste, I guess. It's been a while since I used my F3 and its predecessors, and had only a couple of odd lenses that were automatic but uncoupled, but I would not have liked a locking DOF preview. I'd rather push the button to meter and let go to focus and shoot. I do miss having a true mechanical DOF preview on digital cameras.

Not much chance of beaches for a while, but a nice downpour or two is likely to occur soon enough.

I haven't shot film for some time, and have resisted adding more to the pile of film cameras, which continues to be overstocked despite my having given away a bunch of them. But there was this Nikonos III in good but shopworn looking condition for cheap, and I just couldn't...you know. I've never had a working Nikonos before. Probably won't run much film through it, especially with the underwater season dramatically over for a while, but there it is.

I sold a whole slew of cameras some years ago including a black body Leica II with a nice lens, and a few other goodies, but I think the one I regret most in a way was the Sept I had what appears now to have been a rather rare example of the Sept half-frame still/movie camera/projector, because it had the film cassettes and it still worked. I never got around to using it. Oh well.

A small note. I'm not sure how it was done everywhere, but I long ago had a Canon APS film camera. I had assumed that the three print sizes were different sizes on the film itself, since I thought the whole point of APS was this new flexibility through film encoding and all. I was surprised to find that, just as with some 35 mm. cameras, the different print sizes were just crop instructions to the processor. Wide prints were cropped horizontally, narrow ones cropped vertically with wider spaces between them. No more or fewer pictures would go on the roll, whatever sizes you chose. The camera itself was very nicely made, a solid little all metal body. Unfortunately the very compact body did not make up for the smaller negatives and the expensive film and processing, and it appears that very few of the touted features of APS were used by most processors anyway.

A quicky shot in lousy light, but here's my nephew Gabriel, at a concert last night. A member of the group "The Moanin' Frogs," consisting of six college music professors off on a summer frolic, playing each of the six sizes of saxophones from sopranino to bass. He's the alto.

My wife had the AFS-VR version, and when my far lesser 55-300 became too frustrating, I sprung for the new 70-300 AFP (the FX version). So I was able to race them using the same camera and same targets. Though the old AFS was pretty decent, and focused relatively fast and well, the new AFP surpassed it in several ways. First, it focuses approximately twice as fast, and second it's measurably sharper, especially at the long end. Compared to the 55-300 with its relatively poor long end quality and abysmally slow AF it was no contest, of course, but my wife liked it so much she replaced her AFS with one too. We both use these with DX cameras (D7100 and 7200). I have heard that the DX version is also quite good but the FX is supposed to be a tiny bit better as well as a tiny bit faster. We opted for this one in part because of the on-lens switches, which the DX version lacks. I suspect there are few other lenses that deliver as much for the price.