I have a collection of Nikon and Canon film cameras which I use from time to time. Mainly to produce images that digital cannot produce because they are too sharp. I like the Canon EOS range best because all the lenses work on all the Canon bodies, film, dslr, and mirrorless. On the Nikon side, my F6 and Df can handle most of my vintage Nikkor glass. I have a habit, some would say bad, that I don't discard working equipment when I buy new. So, I'll leave it to my family to discard all my equipment when I die. Maybe on this site.

Nice set, Beth! I was up there in July when the weather was pretty warm. Then in September, I rode the train out of Chama to Osier. The aspens were just turning golden.

My observations of the medical world are based on remarks made by my parents who were products of "old fashioned" medical practice. They were both farm raised at about the turn of the 20th century. Children were born at home, sometimes helped into this world with the aid of a mid-wife. The doctor might pay a visit several days later "just to check up" on the condition of the new born. Most people paid for what medical service there was with products they grew or raised on the farm while rich people made up the difference for the doctor by paying him from their wealth. For most illnesses, simple "home remedies" were used. The only time most saw a doctor was when they broke a bone or needed stitches. Pharmacies actually made the various drugs they dispensed. Costs were relatively low because most people didn't have the money to pay for medical care or drugs. There was no health insurance. You either paid for each service or bartered. Or just died. There were not a lot of old people. Today, we don't have that choice anymore because of the introduction of health insurance and modern pharma. Most private practice doctors employ larger administrative staff than medical staff. Today, it is just big business.

It seems that your main urge for change is to "try something new". You have dismissed the Nikon as being a "bowling ball". Well, the 1V is about the same. So, to try something new, maybe consider getting some new glass for the Maxxum. All the last film cameras made by Nikon and Canon are complex and require time and study to master. Just remember that old or new film cameras just are holders for the film. The quality of the image is a direct result of your skill and the quality of the glass.

My experience is to just get any camera that still works properly and go shoot whatever pictures you want. It's the pictures that are memories that count, not the equipment that you used. Practice until you are good or until you die, whichever comes first. The battle over quality has sold a lot of camera equipment and made some of the companies rich and quite a few of us poor.

Wow!!! Really beautiful take. I was up at Chama last week and the aspens are turning too.

When I was in the military and someone found something to gripe about, we just gave them so much work to do they didn't have time to gripe and were too tired to do it anyway.

Let's see now who jumps on the bandwagon.

Yes the price is very high. Inflation over the years and decades and the low volume of sales contribute. My source is B&H mostly. I think their turnover is greater than other small-time providers so I will be more likely to get fresh stock.

I agree. My Df works nicely with all my old Nikkor glass and if I choose to shoot film, I'll just use my FM2n.

The idea of a digital camera that performs like a film 35mm SLR is what Nikon is trying to do. According to some sources, the Zfc is selling quite well, so Nikon decided to make a FF version. Maybe they also are looking to cut into Fujifilm's X-T series of cameras' market share. Whatever. But Nikon doesn't make any modern lenses with an aperture ring, so it kind of falls short. You could, of course, use the F adapter and couple Nikon's old manual focus lenses on the camera but that only adds more weight. The original Nikon F was a very light camera when used with primes. I will stick with my Fuji X-T1.

My photography journey began with the family Brownie box 616 during the 50's. In those days, I wanted to get a Kodak Retina III but could not afford one. Waited until I had some money of my own while in the service overseas and bought my first Nikon F. I still use that camera.

If I understand what you are after, you may not be satisfied with what a conversion could accomplish. Shooting B&W film renders a certain image quality and look and can be altered by using different film stocks but you are still dealing with all that film entails. Digital produces a different look and is easier to process than film. I've followed what Leica has done with their monochrom cameras and then there is the Ricoh Pentax. I'm not sure whether Ricoh just removed the color layer or not but from what I read, Leica built an entirely new sensor, at least in their later models, and these optimize what a true B&W digital sensor can produce: better tonal gradation, less noise in low light conditions and other benefits. If possible, you should try to rent or borrow these different cameras before expending money to buy.

Nice set Kathy! I recently made a train trip from Durango to Silverton. I too was waiting for the train to go around the bend so I could include the engine and coal car. Always seemed to be a group of trees in the way, ha! By the way, the coal seems to be stacked about as high as they can make it without falling off the side of the car. The back end of that car is filled with water for the boiler.

I mentioned speed boosters as a way to recover some of the lost light that is outside the smaller sensor. But whenever a third party tries to insert their own optics into another's design, things don't usually work out very well. In video work where top optical performance is not on display, it makes sense but for still photography the flaws of the design will be more evident. As you say, it is better to just stick with a more appropriate lens made by the manufacturer.