Bought a Nikon 35mm film camera sight blind at auction today....

Hi,

At approx. 10.50 this morning, I was checking out the online catelogue
of an auction house in the next town that was holding a sale scheduled
for today. One of the items listed was a "Nikon F plus accessories" No
further details were given, bar a really fuzzy picture of the camera
mostly concealed by the bag it was in; it's metering head just about
visible among a bunch of strapping.
To cut a long story short, by 11.05, I was in the auction hall with a
bidding number and a maximum figure in mind. I had no idea what exact
model it was, what condition it was in, whether it even worked, so I
figured I'd go to $100 and no higher. In the end I got it for 59 bux -
but I had no idea what I'd won!
Anyway, I had expected to remove my prize from the bag and discover a
terribly battered old 'F' from around 1967 with evidence of chronic,
heavy useage. What it turned out to be was a chrome Nikon FE in fully
working order in what would be described by most sellers as A minus
condition. The lens was nothing special, but it was at least a genuine
Nikon: a 35mm/f2.5 again, though, in excellent condition. Plus a
couple of filters, two nice straps and a hefty, semi-pro Nikon SB-16
flashgun in its own case.
I don't normally buy stuff blind, but now and again it does make for a
bit of excitement and I'm quite pleased with the bargain I got. It'll
make a nice addition to the collection and whilst the build isn't up
to the 'bullet proof tank' standards of 10 years earlier, it does feel
reassuringly solid and well made.

I know virtually nothing about the FE, though. If anyone has any
comments on them regarding quality/common issues or whatever, I'd be
keen to hear about them.
Cheers guys,

CD.

 

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:29:54 +0200, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>At approx. 10.50 this morning, I was checking out the online catelogue
>of an auction house in the next town that was holding a sale scheduled
>for today. One of the items listed was a "Nikon F plus accessories" No
>further details were given, bar a really fuzzy picture of the camera
>mostly concealed by the bag it was in; it's metering head just about
>visible among a bunch of strapping.
>To cut a long story short, by 11.05, I was in the auction hall with a
>bidding number and a maximum figure in mind. I had no idea what exact
>model it was, what condition it was in, whether it even worked, so I
>figured I'd go to $100 and no higher. In the end I got it for 59 bux -
>but I had no idea what I'd won!
>Anyway, I had expected to remove my prize from the bag and discover a
>terribly battered old 'F' from around 1967 with evidence of chronic,
>heavy useage. What it turned out to be was a chrome Nikon FE in fully
>working order in what would be described by most sellers as A minus
>condition. The lens was nothing special, but it was at least a genuine
>Nikon: a 35mm/f2.5 again, though, in excellent condition. Plus a
>couple of filters, two nice straps and a hefty, semi-pro Nikon SB-16
>flashgun in its own case.
>I don't normally buy stuff blind, but now and again it does make for a
>bit of excitement and I'm quite pleased with the bargain I got. It'll
>make a nice addition to the collection and whilst the build isn't up
>to the 'bullet proof tank' standards of 10 years earlier, it does feel
>reassuringly solid and well made.
>
>I know virtually nothing about the FE, though. If anyone has any
>comments on them regarding quality/common issues or whatever, I'd be
>keen to hear about them.
>Cheers guys,
>
>CD.

If you can find film and people to process it, fire away!

It is what I would call a 'second level' Nikon -- they started to make
'consumer' stuff after the enormous success of the F1 and the F2.
I have used it just a few times, but the owner (friend of mine) was
very satisfied and we could not make out much, in terms of everyday
use, between the FE and my F2S. He still has the FE, as I do my
F2S -- both in great working order.

mt

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

 

On 2014-04-20 16:21:37 +0000, Mike Trainor <> said:

> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:29:54 +0200, Cursitor Doom
> <> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At approx. 10.50 this morning, I was checking out the online catelogue
>> of an auction house in the next town that was holding a sale scheduled
>> for today. One of the items listed was a "Nikon F plus accessories" No
>> further details were given, bar a really fuzzy picture of the camera
>> mostly concealed by the bag it was in; it's metering head just about
>> visible among a bunch of strapping.
>> To cut a long story short, by 11.05, I was in the auction hall with a
>> bidding number and a maximum figure in mind. I had no idea what exact
>> model it was, what condition it was in, whether it even worked, so I
>> figured I'd go to $100 and no higher. In the end I got it for 59 bux -
>> but I had no idea what I'd won!
>> Anyway, I had expected to remove my prize from the bag and discover a
>> terribly battered old 'F' from around 1967 with evidence of chronic,
>> heavy useage. What it turned out to be was a chrome Nikon FE in fully
>> working order in what would be described by most sellers as A minus
>> condition. The lens was nothing special, but it was at least a genuine
>> Nikon: a 35mm/f2.5 again, though, in excellent condition. Plus a
>> couple of filters, two nice straps and a hefty, semi-pro Nikon SB-16
>> flashgun in its own case.
>> I don't normally buy stuff blind, but now and again it does make for a
>> bit of excitement and I'm quite pleased with the bargain I got. It'll
>> make a nice addition to the collection and whilst the build isn't up
>> to the 'bullet proof tank' standards of 10 years earlier, it does feel
>> reassuringly solid and well made.
>>
>> I know virtually nothing about the FE, though. If anyone has any
>> comments on them regarding quality/common issues or whatever, I'd be
>> keen to hear about them.
>> Cheers guys,
>>
>> CD.
>
> If you can find film and people to process it, fire away!
>
> It is what I would call a 'second level' Nikon -- they started to make
> 'consumer' stuff after the enormous success of the F1 and the F2.
> I have used it just a few times, but the owner (friend of mine) was
> very satisfied and we could not make out much, in terms of everyday
> use, between the FE and my F2S. He still has the FE, as I do my
> F2S -- both in great working order.
>
> mt

Some F's had a rough life.
< https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:50:30 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:



>Some F's had a rough life.
>< https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >


And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
;-)

 

On 2014-04-20 21:01:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <> said:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:50:30 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Some F's had a rough life.
>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>
>
> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
> ;-)

There is a slight light leak, but you can do wonders with duct tape.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> >Some F's had a rough life.
> >< https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>
>
> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
> ;-)

then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
with medium format film.

 

On 2014-04-20 23:45:17 +0000, nospam <> said:

> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
> <> wrote:
>
>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>
>>
>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>> ;-)
>
> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
> with medium format film.

Damn it nospam! Do you have to argue your position, even in the middle
of a joke?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

In article <2014042016534265825-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>> Some F's had a rough life.
> >>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
> >>
> >>
> >> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
> >> ;-)
> >
> > then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
> > any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
> > with medium format film.
>
> Damn it nospam! Do you have to argue your position, even in the middle
> of a joke?

i don't think he's joking.

 

Re: Bought a Nikon 35mm film camera sight blind at auctiontoday....

cjt <> wrote:
>On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>
>>>
>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>> with medium format film.
>>
>"Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
today...

There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
produced, and that it can no longer be processed.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

On 2014-04-21 00:05:17 +0000, cjt <> said:

> On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>
>>>
>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>> with medium format film.
>>
> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

Neither does Kodak any more.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

In article <>, cjt <>
wrote:

> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

digital can emulate kodachrome, along with whatever other film you
want, and even do so from the same original image. choose the film
*after* you take the photo.

or you can not emulate film and enjoy the higher quality of digital.

 

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.

the reason is mostly the complexity of kodachrome processing.

even before digital came along, there weren't that many places doing
kodachrome processing and the rest had to send it out, which is one
reason why consumers chose something other than kodachrome.

 

On 04/20/2014 07:19 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> cjt <> wrote:
>> On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>>> with medium format film.
>>>
>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>
> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
> today...

lack of granularity

>
> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.
>

 

On 04/20/2014 07:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-04-21 00:05:17 +0000, cjt <> said:
>
>> On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>>> with medium format film.
>>>
>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>
> Neither does Kodak any more.
>
touche

 

In article <>, cjt <>
wrote:

> >> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
> >
> > Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
> > is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
> > produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
> > today...
>
> lack of granularity

digital has no grain.

 

On 2014-04-21 00:31:43 +0000, cjt <> said:

> On 04/20/2014 07:19 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> cjt <> wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>>>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>>>> with medium format film.
>>>>
>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>>
>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
>> today...
>
> lack of granularity

....and an artificial color tone with only a remote basis in reality.

Then with digital I can always process one of my images to look like this:
< https://db.tt/4vhOgA7t >

....or if I prefer, perhaps something like this:
< https://db.tt/RzXu1etB >


>>
>> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
>> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 04/20/2014 07:33 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, cjt <>
> wrote:
>
>>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>>>
>>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
>>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
>>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
>>> today...
>>
>> lack of granularity
>
> digital has no grain.
>
I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.

 

In article <>, cjt <>
wrote:

> >>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
> >>>
> >>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
> >>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
> >>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
> >>> today...
> >>
> >> lack of granularity
> >
> > digital has no grain.
> >
> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.

pixels are not the same as grain.

 

Re: Bought a Nikon 35mm film camera sight blind at auctiontoday....

cjt <> wrote:
>On 04/20/2014 07:19 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> cjt <> wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Some F's had a rough life.
>>>>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
>>>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
>>>> with medium format film.
>>>>
>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>>
>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
>> today...
>
>lack of granularity

But the question was can you provide an example of a quality that
Kodachrome had *that is not available in every single top of the line*
*DSLR*.

There isn't even an entry level digital P&S that doesn't have equal
Kodachrome in lack of granularity.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

On 4/20/2014 8:31 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, cjt <>
> wrote:
>
>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
>
> digital can emulate kodachrome, along with whatever other film you
> want, and even do so from the same original image. choose the film
> *after* you take the photo.
>
> or you can not emulate film and enjoy the higher quality of digital.
>

Pixels and all.

--
PeterN