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.

 

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 >

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

i don't think he's joking.

 

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.

 

Neither does Kodak any more.

 

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.

 

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.

 

lack of granularity

 

touche

 

lack of granularity[/QUOTE]

digital has no grain.

 

....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:

 

digital has no grain.
[/QUOTE]
I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.

 

I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.[/QUOTE]

pixels are not the same as grain.

 

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.

 

Pixels and all.