This has been on the agenda for years, and I can do it now with an SLR. Here's some craic.
First roll was mostly portraits of the bairn, and family Christmas morning stuff, so I won't be publishing any of them except this one.
But I'm content for now - the light meter seems to be working. It wants a good old run out in different conditions, though. And I need to see about getting an eyepiece, maybe a slightly magnified one, so I don't need the glasses. Not sure, at the moment, if the eyepiece thread is the same size on the Fs as the Ds.
I've had a couple of hours to look at all the settings and play around with them. What a beaut. Not as heavy as I'd thought, but nontheless the most substantial camera I've ever held. Against all expectation, the meter seems to work - though I won't know for sure until I've had a film through it, of course. But the wee needle moves in neat wee steps as one opens or closes the aperture, or shifts the shutter speed. And the photomic finder isn't as ungainly as it appears in photos. I've had a look at the batteries, they're Kodak, alkaline, 625. I've a feeling I'll get them when I'm back in Shanghai. Sorted. If only I could get out and buy a bloody film. The only 35mm I've got are the three rolls left over from the Old Film Project, and I want something more stable to check the light meter. Patience!
This thread in the Nikon_F group on Flickr gives some illumination. One poster reckons the problem is "the ring resistor which is of a design that if cracked or worn thru stops functioning". Naturally, he gives no source for that, but maybe it's this page on the somewhat eccentric Michael Liu F site, where he says the "universally reviled" ring resistor informs the meter of the aperture, and that it "is irreplaceable if it gets dirty (and scratched) or cracked.".
Although the meter is/was a very good one, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't working. It's aesthetically dubious, and anyway using a meter is overrated. No doubt a meterless (or eye-level) finder (or prism), can be gotten in due course. That's part of the point of getting an F, the modularity.
My Flickrpal Cliff tipped me off to a bargain on Ffordes today, and I was soon hitting the "confirm" button. It has the f1.4 lens with it, and that was the clincher. Camera and lens should be here tomorrow. There were a few other Fs on Ffordes, more expensive, with the warning that "meter not working", whereas mine said "meter irratic [sic]". I'm keeping my fingers crossed it can be fixed, because the meter sounds like an absolute peach, (click through on that link for instructions on setting it up). The batteries are the obsolete 625s, but adaptors can be had here, so you can use 675 hearing aid batteries.
The camera in the photo isn't the one I bought. It belonged to Don McCullin, and is on display in the IWM in Manchester because it saved the photographer's life when it took a bullet from an AK47 in Cambodia in 1970. You can see the damage, but it still looks just about usable with bit of repair work. That's the kind of camera I'm getting.
A Nikon F. A turntable. Digital's shite. It's one of those weird things, my kids seem to agree with me.
...like the hockey puck. Since I went back to analog, it's been rangefinders, MF folders, 1960s plastic, and Holgas. Now feels like the time to get an SLR again. My first one, was a Nikon EM, and for reasons too complicated and lost-in-the past, I had hold of it and took a few snaps for the first time in twenty odd years lately. It really is, I can see now, "beginners level". The F would, on the other hand, be a real pro camera, but a stylish one with its place in history. Dependable in all situations, which I can't say for any of the other cameras I've been using lately. But mix them all together and maybe you'd get the Nikon F. I've also missed the ability to use a PL filter.
It's one of those things, I'm asking myself, why didn't I think of this before? A quick scout around eBay suggests a price of £150 - perhaps including a lens, if I'm patient. And all the lenses and other bits of kit, won't break the bank one at a time... A Leica M might have the edge photographically speaking, but those prices, eyebrows would get raised, domestically speaking. Apart from the financial aspect, there must have been good practical reasons for press photographers preferring it to Leica during the 60s. AND, in The Rum Diaries, camera and Nikon are synonymous.
The Nikon_F group on Flickr isn't particularly populous or noisy, which is odd, as 7 to 800,000 were made, and you'd have thought more floating around still, as they're said to be so tough. Any number of reasons for that one.
I took this with the Holga a few weeks ago. There was some weird quality in the light, with the moon behind cloud - you often get that in Shanghai.
I thought I'd made a note of the exposure time, but I can't find it.
Strange how I've fallen out of love with Shangahi the last few months, and haven't taken many photos. Been busy with work, too.
