Comments on: Now that was a sexy camera!

By: Laurie

Laurie — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:33:37 +0000

Gorgeous! The sky is pretty amazing. I’d say that is a pretty effective pre-set.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:16:26 +0000

@Mark: Yeah, they have certainly depreciated, just like the digital cameras! I guess that you could hang on to the F5 until it becomes completely worthless then use it as weight to keep your tripod a little steadier. Or, as you put in your April Fool’s post, you could go back to the simplicity of film!

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:34:46 +0000

You don’t know the horror I just experienced reading that an F5 can be had for $200. Even better reason to hang on to mine – I just couldn’t bear to part with it for that – even though it is still $200 in my pocket vs. being a dust collector.

By: Chris Klug

Chris Klug — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:52:32 +0000

My dream camera at the time was a Canon F1. But really, what I yearned for even more than a particular camera were lenses. I never had the money to get the, say, f/2.0 version of a lens, I always settled for the slower version (which usually was not quite as good as the faster version of the lens. So, since I shot a number of actor’s head shots, I’d shoot with the f/1.8 version of the 85mm portrait lens instead of the f/1.2 version. I didn’t shoot Nikon because they were more expensive than Canons. I’ve always wanted to shoot a Nikon just to see what the deal is. Even today, sine I still shoot Canon, I’ve wanted to rent a D300 or D700 for a weekend with a nice 35mm fixed lens and see what I get and how it feels.

By: Paul Lester Photography » Blog Archive » Forgotten skills

Paul Lester Photography » Blog Archive » Forgotten skills — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:02:12 +0000

[...] Ove on Now that was a sexy camera! [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:44:47 +0000

@Rob: Yes, I remember those times fondly! I never did get that F3, but I must say that I am quite happy with my Nikon equipment. I never did own a Nikon until I started shooting digital. Oddly enough, I jumped right to the top with a D2x, then took a step ‘back’ and got the D300, which was better technology for a much smaller price.

By: Rob Terry

Rob Terry — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:31:39 +0000

Paul, as you might recall, I had a Pentax MX but my dream was the Nikon F2. I later got one, and the FE, but alas sold them both. For me the dream is fulfilled in my D300. Oh if I could travel back in time and show my 16 year old self the D300!!

By the way I remember you working at Jewel Mart and your Minolta. I used to love to stop by and we’d take the cameras out of the glass case and talk photo for probably too long.

Great times my friend, great times.

By: Ove

Ove — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:28:55 +0000

Yup, I would loved to have a rangefinder, a Leica or a Leitz comes to my mind… I had a Nikon F2 during the eighties and nineties, and I loved it in many ways. It was solid as a tank, too. And heavy… I sleek, high quality rangefinder, on the other hand, is light and equally solid. And the viewfinder is bright and big, perfect for my older and older eyes that has a pair of glasses in front of them…

That picture, btw, is really, really good! Looks almost as here, in wintertime. Solarized?

By: Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:06:49 +0000

Oops… I hosed my smiley… that was supposed to be silly. :-/

(It’s Friday and I’m stuck in an office digging through a pile of bad code. I need some silliness.)

By: Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:05:11 +0000

Yeah, get get with the program, dude!