DJO

I never left. I have one auto focus dx 18-55 kit lens. The amount of distortion is embarrassing. On the other hand, my arsenal of Nikon Ai/ Ais lenses are always sharp and have never let me down:

200mm f4.0, 80-200mm f4.5, 200mm f4.0 micro, 135mm f2.8, 75-150mm f3.5, 50-135mm f3.5, 105mm f2.8 micro, 85mm f2.8, 55mm f2.8 micro, 50mm f1.4, 43-86mm f3.5, 28mm f2.8.

Notice that all of my zoom lenses have a constant aperture.

Nearly all of these manual focus lenses are now worth more than I paid for them.

Many of you say your eyes aren't what they used to be. I've have had poor vision since birth. Not once during my career did I see my subject in sharp focus through the lens. I pressed the shutter when it was the least blurry!!!

When AF came around people told me to sell all of my manual focus lenses; they were nothing more than paper weights. How wrong they were. Instead I bought more of them on the cheap.

therwol Loc: USA

All three of your micro lenses are legendary. Your 80-200 f4.5 is as sharp as anything new. (I bought the f4 that replaced it, and it's tack sharp too.) I still have and use a 55mm f3.5 micro that predates your f2.8. I don't own a sharper lens, though it lacks a floating element for distance correction and is optimized for working close. I have a 50mm f1.4 that was my go to lens in the 70s. I put the AI aperture ring on it myself. Nikon has never made a 50mm lens, expensive or cheap, that isn't very sharp. The one "lemon" I see in all of your lenses is the 43-86 zoom. Not one of their best.

DJO

Auto focus lenses are unbelievably bulky when compared to their manual focus counterparts. Maybe less weight due to the inordinate amount of crappy plastic.

therwol Loc: USA

I sometimes just put a 12 megapixel Canon Powershot in my pocket when I'm out and about, and I've taken some great pictures with it. But what you see is what you get. The Nikon D800e and then the D810 took things to a different level. With good lenses, you get medium format quality and the ability to crop heavily without noticeable loss of quality. You can't do that to the same extent with lesser cameras. Just the appearance of the pictures in general is eye popping compared with anything else I've ever used. Now that they're apparently "dumping" this camera with heavy discounts, including bundles with the 24-120 lens, I wonder if a replacement is on the near horizon. I can think of ways they could make the camera better, but I think 36 megapixels already challenges most lenses and exceeds their ability to resolve detail.

therwol Loc: USA

Nikon's AF-D lenses, some of which are still made, are not much more bulky than their older manual lenses. Their focusing in the manual mode is not as smooth as a good manual lens, but it's adequate. I think that what makes newer autofocus lenses so bulky is incorporating motors and electronics inside. It's really the glass inside that makes the lens, but I have to agree that some of the newer autofocus lenses are real monsters compared with the older lenses in terms of size and weight.

therwol Loc: USA

Back in the days of all mechanical cameras, the conventional wisdom was that they should be cleaned, lubricated and adjusted from time to time. Essex Camera in New Jersey was favored by pros for this and also general camera repair, but their business was wiped out by Hurricane Sandy, and they never reopened. Can anyone think of a reputable camera service and repair business for these older cameras. I can imagine turning a camera over to a hack and having them spray WD 40 inside to lubricate it. I'm wondering who really has the equipment to work on these older cameras, including the equipment to calibrate focus and shutter timing.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i use only film, with manual focus cameras. the size of lenses and desire for extremely "fast" apertures has reached the point of beyond silly.
one prime example is the manual 105mm f2.5 ais nikkor lens versus the 105mm f2 af d nikkor lens. incredibly stupid for the increased 2/3 stop, not to mention the silly "defocus" this lens supposedly offers. the same can be said for the nikkor 135mm lenses. totally unnecessary. i've owned and used both of these lenses in their af d variations and have sold both and used my manual focus ais nikkors. the savings in weight is profound, and the photographic results are, in the real world, just as good as the behemoth af variation.

as far as long focus lenses, the 300mm f4.5 ais nikkor versus the 300mm f4 af nikkor, well the same applies. then of course, there is the 300mm f2.8 af nikkor - i own one and if i want long focus i wind up using the 300mm f4.5 or just go to to my 500mm for my hasselblad, that lens weighs less, and easily outperforms the af nikkors, not to mention a 6x6 negative/transparency.

what amazes me, these days, is the kant of weight issues with aps, 4/3rds and ff digital bodies and their accompanying lenses. have to laugh, these kits often weigh more than my mamiya rz 67 body with lenses, film and meters, in my gadget bag.

so much for miniaturisation in the "digital" age.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

there is no such thing as "going back" as if digital imaging devices were somehow superior to film, especially in the final arbiter, which is the print, and not what you see on a desktop television screen. if you had difficulty with flare, you simply had not mastered your craft.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

2 things. vinil is incorrect, it is vinyl. the other is vinyl record pressors are running 24/7 throughout the world, trying to keep up with demand. vinyl releases sold in the past year, increased by 46%, for a total of 20 million issues. this does not take in consideration the number of used records sold. the other part of this equation, is new, affordable, turntables are being introduced and again, dealers are having trouble keeping them on their shelves. by the way, most sales of this format and turntables are being made to women and men between the ages of 20 and 38. they are tired of the lack of involvment in music reproduction and quality of streaming services over which they have no control.
i've records from 1964 with have no scratches, pops or hisses - it all depends on how you take care of what you own. my linn 'table dates from 1976 with certain upgrades over the years and performs just as it should. so... you might want to purchase a new 'table, cartridge and new record and find out what you have been missing. all you have to do is listen.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i think you will like the f6. have had 2 of them and used my manual focus lenses with them. just as tough as the f and f2 bodies. they will take a lot of punishment and reward you with excellent results. good luck. and the C330s is one great camera and lenses, on the secondary market, go for well under $100.00 each. look for the 50mm f4.5 wide angle lens - a stunning performer, albeit a bit more expensive.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

and that is the sad truth. reliance on computer chips will not make excellent photographs, anymore than the "chasing the dragon syndrome" of anticipation for the next thing that supposedly will "do more for you" make any difference at all. one must remember that there are no longer any camera companies in existance with the exception of leica, the rest are electronics companies badging their products with the names of old camera companies, as if there were any resemblance between the two.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i'm fortunate in that my local store will order whatever i need and the folks at freestyle.biz carry and ship all chemicals needed including E6 packs for transparency development.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

B+W is a stunning magazine out from England. it can be subscribed directly from them. if you want to see an example, most Barnes and Noble stores carry it. it is simply amazing what people on a little island can do. and they do it, for the most part, a hell of a lot better than we do.