Nikon F50 (D) review specifically for Radozhiva prepared Nikita Tomilov.
Nikon F50
The last time I took up film photography was fifteen years ago. However, after reading the article about 'Mirror Full Frame, 28 MP for 240 cu'I wanted to repeat something similar and, at a much more conscious age, try the trademark ™ film ™ color ™. And one day my wish came true - in a photographic equipment store in Gostiny Dvor I found and bought this miracle of champagne color for 2000 rubles or $ 30. Having spent about the same amount on the battery, film, development and scanning, I somehow repeated the above article, and at the same time gained experience for this review.
TTX
| Camera type | Mirror, 35mm |
| First appearance | 1994 |
| Directivity | Amateur cam |
| Bayonet mount | Nikon F mount, metal |
| Chassis | Partially Metallic, Partially Polycarbonate |
| Shutter | 1/2000 to 30 |
| Auto focus | Manual, automatic with one focus point |
| Modes | PASM, a set of automatic modes |
| Food | 6V 2CR5 Battery |
| dimensions | X x 149 96 70 мм |
| The weight | 580 grams |
Nikon F50
Chassis
The camera lies in your hand just like any other DSLR, adjusted for the fact that the gum will never come off here - they simply do not. In addition, there are no adjustment wheels either front or rear. Instead, the photographer is encouraged to use the buttons located above the display. On the front panel of the camera, you can find, in addition to the bayonet, a focus mode switch automatic / manual, a flash open button and a red window of a property unknown to me (although this may be the window of the IR receiver of an external control panel). On the door you can find the lever to open it. Below, next to the tripod thread, there is a button for forcibly rewinding the film and a lever for switching to the “panoramic” mode, in which two thin curtains are moved above and below the shutter, designed to create the appearance of a panoramic frame.
Nikon F50
At the back, you can find a window for information on the film, a viewfinder with lost rubber, an AF lock button (and at the same time aperture lock). On the door there is a block imprinting information about the date and time of shooting in the frame, which, together with the panoramic mode, suggests that this is actually a Nikon F50D camera, presented somewhat later than the original F50.
Shooting
As mentioned earlier, the camera has no adjustment wheels, nor does it have a mode dial. Instead, you have to use the buttons located on the top of the camera.
Nikon F50
From left to right: “advanced” and “simple” operating modes switch, on-off switch, hot shoe, mode selection button, four settings buttons, self-timer button. If the switch is set to “advanced” mode, by pressing the button with the “notepad”, you can call up the menu for choosing the usual classic P, A, S, M modes.
Nikon F50
Here, for example, I chose the fully manual mode, so the left two buttons are responsible for shutter speed, the right two buttons for aperture. Not that it was a big inconvenience for me, but at first I really looked for nonexistent tuning wheels. There is no way to manually adjust the ISO of the film, the camera reads the ISO itself, or considers ISO 100 by default.
In addition, there is no aperture rheostat here, therefore, when using AI / AI-S lenses, metering will not work exposure. However, there is a focusing motor and automatic focusing on one point in the center of the frame, and at the same time a light meter with the usual scale in the viewfinder below.
Autofocus when half-pressing the shutter button always works, similar to the mode AF-C, but priority is given to the shutter button, and you cannot change this. However, you can use the AF-L / AE-L button and recompose the frame. According to experience, the exposure meter works well, but autofocus is often lame, on my Tamron 28-75 the focus often went astray. In addition, there is a suspicion of focusing errors specifically with this lens - for some reason, frames with focus at infinity are a bit blurry.
The camera focuses automatically with AF lenses only and does not support auto focus with AF-I, AF-S, and AF-P lenses. At the same time, the aperture on the latter works correctly, and confirmation of manual focus also works. However, there may be problems with the external flash - mine SB-800 does not recognize this camera and TTL does not work, but in manual mode everything is in order. Although, maybe I did something wrong. Also, the stabilizer built into the lens will not work on this camera.
If the switch is set to “simple” mode, you can choose a fully automatic mode or “scene preset” (which, by the way, in P mode is even more).
Nikon F50
In these modes, the camera will do everything on its own, occasionally turning on the flash or reporting a lack / excess of light with Hi and Lo symbols in the viewfinder and on the screen. I can’t say anything more about these modes, since I didn’t use them. I shot almost the entire test film clip in A mode, setting the aperture to either F / 2.8 for flowers or F / 11 for landscapes.
All frames are made with a lens. Tamron 28-75D with some long name, a review of which is also here a site. The film was a Fujicolor C200, developed in a photo lab, scanned there with the highest possible resolution, which yielded the same “full frame 28MP” experiment. No processing was done, so due to some shots I will look like an ominous killer of horizons.
Nikon F50
Conclusion
As a result, for about $ 60 (not counting the lens that I already had) and a few hours of leisurely walking, I got 36 frames of branded ™ film ™ color ™ ™, and I even liked some of them. I also liked the camera, the button control did not bother me much - aperture priority mode, f / 11 and you can forget about these buttons. I think the “repetition” of the experiment was successful.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Oh, and do not bother me about your favorite canon 3000QD?))
The frames are super, thanks for the review! 1)
The secondary is now a variety of film cameras from inexpensive Nikon F50, F60, F65, F75 up to the expensive Leica, Contax G2 and medium format type Fuji 690 (format 6x9!), Etc.
I welcome the appearance of reviews of film cameras in Radozhiv)
I grabbed Fujifilm GW690III for 400 ye, I think it was very lucky.
If possible, write a note for Radozhiva!
I myself dream of such a camera.
Thank you for the review)
But I would choose something more modern - F65-75-80 - they are closer to modern cameras in control
Thanks!!! More film reviews.
Thanks for the review. It was interesting). That would be to shoot portraits on some 135ku
it's like pulling the bones of a beloved grandmother from her grave :-)))
Precisely noticed.
By the way, removing bones is called archeology (with some reservations) and is a very valuable activity.
This is not archeology, but still exhumation
Monsieur knows a lot about perversions.
And when will the F4 review be?
Well, yes, the film ... the color of the water is greenish - right. But something was not particularly impressive. The image turned out to be somehow simple. Still, it is better to shoot on film with Soviet unenlightened glass, it turns out much more :) than with a mediocre zoom.
And do not understand how to scan the film - blasphemy.
The image is too contrasty. The sky, marble, the swan are a white solid, the water is almost a black solid. Perhaps, due to its low contrast, “Soviet glass” would have fit better. Perhaps the nuances of the film. Perhaps the nuances of development. There are too many variables, little dependent on the photographer, to worry about this. It's easier, IMHO, to play imitation through post-processing.
A lot depends on the weather, the film and its condition. And also from the developer of the film and scanner.
If there are camera reviews on Radozhiv, it will be interesting to see the results on different films under different lighting conditions. As for color, there is an interesting public film in Vkontakte: https://vk.com/trita.plenka
There are interesting works, I recommend.
But all the same, the “figure” would have looked absolutely uninteresting. The film is more expressive, and no amount of Photoshop can make the “digital” identical to the film.
http://dmitriikuchev.ru/blog/all/film-vs-digital/ - here “digital”, in my opinion, has lost outright, and this is despite the poor-quality, but so attractive, image of the film.
This tamrik is better than any Soviet rattle. You see, the contrast is too big for you;) a monocle is better
Maybe he's good for numbers. For film, the simpler the better.
I can write a review on F4, I have one)))
Suggest an article to Arkady, curious to read)
Eh ... I remembered my Zeniths - ET, TTL, 122 and transition
on film Nikon :-)
Nostalgia .. nostalgia for youth, the times when a series of shots was limited to 12, 24 or 36 pieces and you had to think about a lot before reaping the descent. When the result was visible after some time and exip had to be kept in mind :-)
In general, I also wanted to make an experiment with film ... And the film apparatus can be given to my son - let him learn to think :-)
Before switching to digital, I shot Zenit-19 for many years (it is still in working order). Now I am digitizing the necessary and interesting shots. I must say that filmed on good film and developed in the “correct” service is quite comparable to “digital”, to such an extent that sometimes I unsuccessfully search for RAW. From the same that I showed myself (mainly ORWO slides) or in village minilabs, I manage to pull out 2-3 MP, according to a subjective feeling. True, I do not exclude that there is still degradation from time to time.
But after the appearance of the Canon-5D with L-kami, I stopped shooting on film, from it quite decent shots can be printed on A2-A1.
“Sometimes unsuccessfully looking for RAW”. And the rabbi is in a locker in a roll :)
I have similar posts about printing on a2-a1 format are always surprising.
Thanks for the review! I also bought Kodak200 / 24 for the Canon EOS 1000, I want to shoot and remember the old, film time. Although in our time from expensive hobbies.
Well, how expensive ... Everything is relative.
If you shoot 2-3 clips a month, then the norm.
At a price of Kodak Gold 200/36 is worth a penny, the development of many is free or equal in price to the coil of this Kodak. Plus, scanning also costs about the same.
I support the author of the review!
I've been filming for the last 3 years. Both in narrow (35mm) and medium format (120 film types). Before that, I shot digital. The digital image is kind of “dry”! Now I shoot digital only when traveling - with a mirrorless camera due to weight and volume restrictions.
Film has its own unique visual aesthetics. In b & w film, the chip is the grain! Moreover, no photoshop is reproduced and close. In color film, in order to get a cool color, you need to know well the features of the film on which you are shooting. The scanner is very important - it is understandable. The film makes you think and consciously approach the frames, and not click everything. Despite the hassle with the process of obtaining the final image (development + scan), you get more pleasure from creativity on film.
A separate issue is printing the total image in large format. Large-format prints (e.g. 120cm x 100cm) in high quality can be obtained from a film, especially a medium format (80 type).
It is a pity that the leaders of the photo industry decided to curtail work with the film. Ideally, a FILM and a Number should exist in parallel!
I would also mention the dynamic range of the film. But for “digital” this is a profitable business ... Or maybe already acquired. In general, it is rather not the “digital” as such, but the existing digital technologies. The latter are different and, fortunately, do not stand still. To get “cool color” in slow shooting mode, I personally look not at the film, but at the foveon. Moreover, as an amateur who takes pictures for his own pleasure, he is ready to sacrifice both the working ISO and the rate of fire, etc.
All right. DD is better for a film, you won’t get grain like that, you need to know the features of that particular color brilliantly. The film you are shooting on is very important for developing and scanning.
CPKiO SPB.
People hawala "digital" because it is easy, clicked - distributed, thrown - multiplied, processed, displayed ...
A million photos, but I don’t want to review it - it’s long, uninteresting, it’s better to go and click another 1500.
Film is a canvas onto which reality is reflected as it is. Therefore, it turns out mentally.
where does the mysticism come from?
at one time, the labs were clogged with millions of films for development with exactly the same plots that the number is shooting now.
From a change in signal reception, absolutely nothing changes that the sensor and the film reflect reality.
and unlike a film, a good sensor removes it many times better.
not a single film had accurate color rendition, this is so, if you are aware of the difference between agfa, kodaki and fudzhikolory.
following your logic, or old newspapers that were cut into toilets, not like white soft toilet paper now, newspapers - it was soulful! )))
The newspapers were really emotional. You can also read it at the same time before using it) The film was still filmed less - it was expensive to snap 1500 frames. But the plots, and what they were, remained and they appeared with the advent of automatic soap dishes, when everyone could afford to take pictures without specials. knowledge
Well, I compared it, and reading ... and wiping your ass with some politician is worth a lot :).
Plіvka tse khіmіchny protsess i occupied by the science of chemistry. There is no soulfulness in swimmers. If you know about the color scheme, then there is no sense. And from b / w plіvka tse force.
They say the same thing about the soulfulness and about vinyl…. despite the fact that in the studios everything has been processed digitally since the beginning of the 80s….
Somewhere there was a site where in real time it was necessary to choose where mp3 / 320 and a bottle of vinyl and numbers. Nobody could guess yet))))
Or digital sound was overlaid with vinyl-specific noises and background. And the vinylophiles, who didn’t know it, were delighted ... I’m not just saying that. I myself love vinyl, but not because it is better in quality, but because some things I heard for the first time on vinyl for the first time and I just like them on vinyl and listen to them as well. It's hard to explain: memories, associations, etc. ... This is what I like and that's the point for me personally. And the quality of the media, technology, etc. it has nothing to do with it.
I spoke a little about Foveon. Here is a link, maybe someone will be interested
https://davidov-art.livejournal.com/72213.html
Jupiter is pretty. I always suspected that Soviet optics was enlightened as much as needed.
“Often when viewing photographs taken with the participation of native optics, the feeling of some kind of over-local contrast and an overabundance of sharpness was created and created.”
I agree with the author of the test.
Suppose I do not have SD Quattro H, but SD1, I remove the sharpness in the regular developer a little.
This is the only cell where there is a lot of it. It seemed to me that the EX DG under the SA mount is softer and does not have such sharpness. Another point is that it is very difficult to find it.
Damn, but the design of the camera ... either the designers really do not understand what a “comfortable grip” and ergonomics are, and that DSLRs produced for decades have the current design for a reason, or they were given the task of “not doing it like everyone else”. The carcass is still large and heavy, the flange is large. Why is this two-level bottom? Why are there buttons at the bottom of the display, which you can only reach with your tongue in a classic hand arrangement? I don't quite understand why the matrix is so far from the rear wall (because of this, the bayonet sticks out a lot). It is not clear why make physically two different displays under one glass, when it is cheaper and easier to make one, and divide it as you like programmatically (yes even into triangles)?
It was easy to make the case a little thicker and larger, and add / move buttons to classic places.
My bottom line: yes, the matrix is interesting. Dot. Now let's have a normal device on this matrix, but, no, we will release it in four years, we must first sell this “creation”, and then we will release an “updated” model in a classic case (but one and a half times more expensive), and the previous model - for suckers ...
The specific case design is easy to explain.
SD Q / SD QH has an additional option - battery block.
With this battery pack, the grip becomes normal and the appearance becomes adequate. It is stupid to buy gluttonous Sigma on Foveone without this bat.blok / booster. The cameras are very gluttonous.
Why “nosy”? Well, because it is kind of like an UPC, but the flange distance and all the bayonet features of the SA mount were left.
It is a pity that Sigma did not agree on a common mount with Canon at one time. Sigmovy mount has something in common with him, but they did not begin to copy directly.
And here is another alliance formed by Leica, Panasonic and Sigma ... Will leica now have a foveon? :)
No, it won’t. Each will produce its own camera, but there is one bayonet mount, it will be possible to hang out optics
Now in Russia and SD Q is not visible on sale
“Taking HELIOS-44-2 (58mm f2.0) I got out for a couple of hours outside.
I'll make a reservation right away - it's not clear why, but there was a glitch with this lens - half of the photo was lit a little in green, and the other half in a little purple. " - can you comment on this somehow?
Most likely, due to the fact that the lens is film, the rays are not perpendicular to the matrix and it turns out something like a color shift in the Sigma manner
Thanks, really interesting
Guess vinyl over the internet? Strong.
No, I didn’t guess on the Internet. And did not try
What is the problem? The site has laid out tracks, download and guess.
“I’m digging up this very truth, and at this time something happens to it that I’ve dug up the truth, but I dug up a bunch, excuse me ... I’ll not say what.”
The difference between mp3 320kb / s and flac with a bitrate three times as thick is easy to catch.
If this is a PC, then this will allow any external sound card not built into the motherboard. Good modern phones also let this one be heard.
Now the most important thing is where to listen. If these are plastic speakers or headphones from MaoZedong from aliexpress, then the result is clear - you cannot understand the difference in detail.
There really is a difference, there just have to be quality components, not necessarily new ones. If there is no money, you can take or buy a used one on credit.
Well, if you really understand what vinyl is and look for the original 70s vinyl from a master copy of vinyl, then you should know that no one in their right mind even on an expensive turntable listens to music from vinyl, because after 50 (and some say after 10) plays there is an irrevocable degradation of vinyl tracks, contact reading! Therefore, collectors always bought 3 vinyls, 1 listen, 1 for rare recording on bobbins and cassettes and 1 as a master in the archive.
Moreover, when buying a disc, the country of origin is also important, the first press or not, etc. :) ..and willingness to pay from 10-15k USD in order to get something more or less decent for listening ... In general, it's not only the frequency range, but also the dynamic range. So it's better to listen to DSD :)
Again, on a set of 10-15k USD, but without a turntable, and using a tape drive with a good DAC
Oh ... yes, there is also a warm tube sound discussed)
Very interesting,..)
This is a personal experience using normal sound cards in a PC:
Creative Audigy 4 Pro, then Creative X-Fi Elite Pro.
Speakers - stereopair at the price of $ 300.
The difference between mp3 and flac is palpable, but not always noticeable, because neither speakers nor sound cards are professional solutions.
The quality of mp3 and flac also floats and may depend on the source, as well as on equipment, and on straight-handedness.
Therefore, if there is an opportunity to compare - I compare, I do not chase after the “warm and tube” sound.
@@ This is a personal experience using normal sound cards in a PC:
Creative Audigy 4 Pro, then Creative X-Fi Elite Pro.
Speakers - stereo pair at the price of 300 with a small $. @@
===========================
it no longer makes any sense. any person working will laugh for a long time that on such a system you are seriously talking about the difference in sound quality between flasks and mp3 320
"The quality of mp3 and flac also floats and may depend both on the source ..."
===========================
of course !!! the first common thought in a thread that has collected all the myths about sound, except that except for wires at $ 200 per meter)))
the difference between the sources is certainly extremely important and is much easier to determine than the difference between the formats. If you sculpt a flush from sawn vinyl, then the output will suck.
But it seems that the difference is discussed if you make mp3 320 and a flask from an identical source code? )))) and it just does not exist in reality for the hearing of a normal person)))
"... both from the equipment and from straight-handedness."
the thought is vague and incomprehensible.
again. what you hear depends primarily on the condition of your ears, which, alas, are far from the hearing of a bat. the second most important point - on what obey. if through the speakers, then 70% of the sound is a room + speakers, the rest is everything else.
You can really hear (!) The difference between flac and mp 3 320 mainly with perfect hearing, with an ideal source, on very expensive monitor headphones (from $ 600) and with music that actually includes the part that is stored in the flake and cut in mp3 320))).
Those. in reality - well, nothing)))
All of the above applies to the photo. Holivars about SSD and CMOS, pseudo “legendary” ancient cameras and so on and so forth.
The only criterion is testing, blind. There is a difference - there is a reason to discuss. There is no difference - alas! ))))
"Laugh for a long time that on such a system you are seriously talking about the difference in sound quality between the bottles and mp3 320"
Just watch the testing of these sound cards and all the laughter will disappear.
*
“… Both from equipment and from straight-handedness.”
the thought is vague and incomprehensible. "
If you yourself have ever digitized or distilled something (for example, VHS video cassettes), then nothing needs to be explained. It is possible to compress with compression during the transfer to mp3_320 that the difference between mp3_320 and mp3_192 will be imperceptible.
*
“All of the above applies to photography. Holivars about SSD and CMOS, pseudo "legendary" ancient cameras and so on and so forth.
The only criterion is testing, blind. There is a difference - there is a reason to discuss. "
Does it make sense to compare? Zaporozhets with Lada, CCD / CMOS / Foveon, SF and FF, crop and FF.
This is all demagogy and a waste of time. You just need to enjoy your favorite business with good equipment.
Well, it began, to spoil the compression and other nonsense. weakly easy to default on a fixed 320? )))
“” Does it make sense to compare? Zaporozhets with Zhiguli, CCD / CMOS / Foveon, SF and FF, crop and FF. ”” Of course there is, only by comparing the tools you can understand which one is better for specific tasks and with optimal costs, etc.
any system is limited to the weakest link. in the case of sound, the weak link is not the file format and not the sound card, but the quality of your ears and the quality of the source, then the quality of the speakers (speakers or headphones).
“You just have to enjoy what you love with good equipment.”
in the end it all ended in pleasure))) well so if you are doing meaningless actions solely for pleasure, then there is nothing to discuss here)))
As a result, everything slipped into demagogy and a terrible offtopic. Look, if you think that there is no difference between mp3_320 and flac due to the fact that you don’t hear it and if there is no difference in color rendition of different types of matrices or if you don’t see it for various reasons, then this is not my problem. And we need to end here.
Well, you say that your ears are like a bat)))), in principle, you don’t understand how vinyl works and why the quality of vinyl cannot differ from the numbers if the master copy of the vinyl is also a number, you don’t understand the work of the digital formats flac and mp3 320 and sincerely claim that you hear the difference on cheap speakers (and 300 bucks, alas, cheap for hi-fi speakers) and on the computer sound card (people don’t hear the difference on amplifiers for $ 900). What can I say, sincerely believe in it and have fun! )))
Guys, tell me why I see the film with great pleasure, and some shots are even impressive.
I can’t recall a single digital photo that would impress.
Still, with a figure, so far, something is wrong, well, she does not know how.
And no matter how rotten the film of the cytophiles is, they will continue to be used by those who see in it something natural, something naturally reflecting reality.
Taste, but I, on the contrary, was indifferent to the film, but got sick with a number
I like the film too. Maybe because it gives not the right colors, but beautiful?
And if you could watch the slides on the big screen! There the gap with the “digital” is even greater.
film, vinyl individually is not cool. I've combined their unique virtues and become a steam locomotive. I love locomotives for the warm, lamp color and soulful sound.
What about the smell? Not the smell of the engine. The locomotive has a different charm
I like this. No troubles with bb, post-processing, as I took it off, I got it. Somehow honestly. And he also noticed how he switched to digital, family albums ceased to be replenished, everything was on a computer. It is necessary to dig out an old F80.
"No troubles with bb, post-processing, as I took it off, I got it" - it's like a Georgian dish "eat-che-dali", and you can't even salt it, because there is no salt in this eatery)
In photo labs, they can scan film in TIFF 16bit and in high resolution.
Something can be fixed, although I would not.
Yeah, but in the “digital” everything is colorful, clear, contrasting, the focus is on, the bb is perfect, but damn it, it’s flat and uninteresting. On the film, they take some crap like: a rusty trough in a vacant lot, a chair and an open window, and it's summer in the window, and I want to be in the frame ...
Alas, “digit” is a lifeless image. And this fact cannot be simply dismissed, because for all, so to speak, “ideality of the“ figure, ”people continue to use film.
It depends on the photographer.
But it’s one thing to take off the rubbish with cheap Kodak Gold and then show and scan for 300 rubles for average quality for free on a stock.
And the other is to splurge on expensive Ektar / Ektahrom / Vision / Fujichrome. For all sorts of nonsense, people do not buy a good film - each frame pulls a ruble out of their pocket.
Add up if the cook is crooked.
Yes of course. Why then were conversion filters needed? Both bb and post-processing are required for both film and digital. It's just that very few people used to bother - they took it off in kodakexpress (and now the phone is jpeg). And they didn't find fault with the result.
"There is no way to adjust the ISO of the film manually, the camera reads the ISO itself, or reads the default ISO 100."
Why is it not possible to configure ISO ?? I have the same camera, the functionality has such settings!
Thanks for the review, interesting! Still Nikon f80 / 100 as the most advanced of the current low-cost
The network has such reviews
Friends!
Is there an opportunity on this camera to rewind the film manually or so that it is not completely wound into a reel, so that the tail of the film remains? I need this to re-snap the film (multiple exposure :)
Or just shake hands in the dark?))
Can I put G glass on this fotik? I am silent about the expediency, but it is very interesting whether the af
For sale in Ukraine Akum. 2cr5 battery up to Nikon F50.
Hibaa їkh vipuskayut batteries? For rent, only with batteries.
on Ali bachiv in a set with a charger, ale the price to bite, just try to learn.
You can change the dx film setting by putting tape over the dx sensors, camera then asks u to set a iso no, which equates to changing the speed should wish! Later models f55/60/65 did not have this. Check the manual for details.
Very valuable information, thanks.
Plivka, which is busy with the science of chemistry. There is no soulfulness in swimmers. Mova about b/w photography and the process. The price is not for everyone. Nikon does not have any coils.
I would like to know - the type of lens connection to the camera, if, bayonet, modern Nikon lenses for DSLRs, will Nikon fit a film camera?
Nikon F mount (this is indicated in the article)
There is an article on Radozhiv: https://radojuva.com/2012/03/nikon-lenses/
Nikon AF-D screwdriver lenses should work with this camera (most, IMHO).
In my opinion, Nikkor 28-105 / 3.5-4.5D is quite suitable for the first time
https://radojuva.com/2012/11/obzor-nikon-28-105-mm-3-5-4-5-af-d-nikkor/
When buying, I advise you to check the camera for operability and look at the latch of the back cover. For many Nikon and Canon film budget cameras, the back cover was made of rather fragile plastic and the latch broke over time, as a result, the film was exposed to light. If possible, look at stronger models like F90/F90X/N90S.
Necesito peliculas para F50
Así que compralo.