Simple cameras (Page 17): Yes, I know … why, just the other day, my D7100 did a somersault in mid-air … just as well I caught it, just in time, too …...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Bill P wrote:

I shouldn't have used the word tense, as it might be misinterpreted. If the muscles have to work a bit to hold up the body then it will be more steady. If the camera is too light, it will flop around.

Yes, I know … why, just the other day, my D7100 did a somersault in mid-air … just as well I caught it, just in time, too …

Abo

Chris T wrote:

A circle of SOWS, Abo? … Or, a Circle of COWS?

Oh, LOOK … in the next field … there's a circle of those old Singer Pedal-throw SEWING MACHINES!!!!

Now, where's that OTHER circle of old COWS, sowing cotton seeds ….

We were referring to "sowing circle" as in to sow ie to plant seeds or sow ie female pig.

"Cows" and "sewing" are irrelevant... you have failed to recognize the point.

The bloke meant sewing circle, but wrote sowing circle... that is what we were lampooning...
do you get it now bud?

Abo

Chris T wrote:

You're forgetting one thing, Abo, and that is - the Nikon FM, is, essentially, a Nikkormat - which used a smaller frame than the F series. and the Nikon Df - is essentially the same format as the original F. Here is a picture of my Nikkormat EL - which preceded the FM … only way to compare the three in a photo - is to have access to them all, and then line them up side by side - Nikkormat, FM/FG, Nikon F, Nikon Df ….

No mate. I did not forget a Nikkormat.
I didn't mention the Df in playing a part in the homage to the Nikkormat simply
because I owned and used an FM not a Nikkormat. So of course it reminded me
of a camera I owned and used, not one that I did not. The Df is enough like an FM to
remind one of it... nothing more nothing less. Sheesh!

Remarkably, when I wrote that the Df reminded me of the FM, I wondered if some drop kick,
would have to say it's more like one of the other early 35 mm Nikon SLRs.
So; it was you that had to come along and split that particular hair.

BebuLamar

Abo wrote:

No mate. I did not forget a Nikkormat. br I didn'... (show quote)

While the Df is a lot larger than any Nikon film cameras with manual winding but the prism does make it looks most like the FM, FE series.

Abo

BebuLamar wrote:

While the Df is a lot larger than any Nikon film cameras with manual winding but the prism does make it looks most like the FM, FE series.

The Df is 1/4 of an inch deeper, 1/3 of an inch taller and
it's a whole 1.5 mm wider...
less than a 1/16 of an inch larger in that dimension, than an FM.

Don't you reckon "a lot larger" is a bit of an exaggeration?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Abo wrote:

No mate. I did not forget a Nikkormat. br I didn'... (show quote)

As one can clearly see in the photo I posted here, yesterday, Abo - the Nikkormat is quite a bit bigger than the FM/FG series (also shown in the same photo) - but the D7100 holds its own in the height department - obviously, because of the bigger prism required to house digital AE/AF capabilities.

BebuLamar

I will have to make the measurement myself. I have the Df and the FM as well as the F3.

If you look here the Df is much larger. It's even bigger than the F3 (which I hope for the same size as the F3).

http://blogbeebe.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-well-never-have-true-digital-nikon.html

The width of the Df isn't big but the depth and the height is significantly bigger than the F3 (which is somewhat bigger than the FM).

Abo

BebuLamar wrote:

I will have to make the measurement myself. I have the Df and the FM as well as the F3.

If you look here the Df is much larger. It's even bigger than the F3 (which I hope for the same size as the F3).

http://blogbeebe.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-well-never-have-true-digital-nikon.html

The width of the Df isn't big but the depth and the height is significantly bigger than the F3 (which is somewhat bigger than the FM).

Well, if in your universe 1/4" in one dimension, and 1/3" in the second dimension
and 1/16" in the third dimension is "much larger", be happy with your delusion.

BebuLamar

Abo wrote:

Well, if in your universe 1/4" in one dimension, and 1/3" in the second dimension
and 1/16" in the third dimension is "much larger", be happy with your delusion.

You obviously don't have the FM and the Df at the same time.

Abo

BebuLamar wrote:

You obviously don't have the FM and the Df at the same time.

It's true that I "don't have the FM and the Df at the same time" but that being obvious
is true only in your mind.

Having said that, when I had my FM there was a time I was obsessed with photography
so there's no way I can forget the size of that camera. I've never owned a Df but have seen them
in the flesh, so to speak.

Anyway, whether I have them side by side is irrelevant, as I have dimensions from a Nikon
website.

The width of the 2 cameras is almost identical... 1.5mm, less than 1/16 th of an inch difference.
about 1/3 of an inch in height which is in the prism housing not the "block" of the body.
And less than 1/4 inch in depth. LOL

So, in your mind the Df is much larger is it?

In my mind the Df is a bit larger.

And having said that, My premise, (that has been contradicted) is that the Df reminds me of the FM.
My premise was not that they are the same size as you and the sheep that followed your
lead would have it.

Your posts have well and truly missed the point... Your posts are pointless.

(Download)