I published a blog entry on $5.00 cameras a while back, and now I have two extra SLR bodies and a lens to add to my league of fivers. I recently became the proud owner of a Canon EOS 620 for $4.95 (nobody seems to like first generation auto-focus SLRs) and of a nice Canon EF 28-70 F3.5-4.5 zoom, (the hidden part of a bundle with the very first generation EOS camera, the EOS 650: $8.95). They both seem to work well and the lens is …pristine.
Generally there is not much in terms of a bargain on shopgoodwill.com : as opposed to eBay where the sellers are independent entrepreneurs competing for your dollar, Shopgoodwill is a sole source marketplace.
On eBay, sellers have to describe the piece of equipment they’re offering in detail and the buyers are protected by the feedback mechanism. On Shopgoodwill, item descriptions are minimalist, and the equipment for sale is almost always “untested, sold as-is”.
I suspect that because purchases at Goodwill can be easily disguised as tax deductible charitable contributions, lots of buyers are not really sensitive to prices, and end up paying a lot for a poorly described and untested piece of equipment. As much as they would pay on eBay for an equivalent camera, but without the implied warranty of a seller or the support of eBay if things go south.
Lastly, considering that cameras and lenses are sold “untested and as-is”, the risk of buying a lemon is pretty high – if a camera is known for a weak point (fragile shutter curtains, short lived capacitors, temperamental electronic shutter release, for instance), it’s safe to assume that the item for sale will be plagued with it. Even if it looks “pristine” cosmetically.
Canon T90 with a Canon 50mm f/3.5 macro lens.
Spotmatic F – a very nice copy
I would not buy a camera from a series with a known weak point on Shopgoodwill – far too risky. I would buy it from a seller with a great reputation on eBay.
In my opinion, there are only two ways to score a good deal at Shopgoodwill: buy for cheap something that absolutely nobody wants but that has value for you (a first generation AF cameras for instance if that’s your fancy), or buy a poorly documented bundle, whose perceived value is dragged down by a very disserving description. Imagine an item advertised as “Nikon N4004 + Sears lens” or “Olympus film camera with broken lens”. Nothing to grab the attention of the casual browser. But if you look carefully at the pictures, you notice that only the lens cap is from Sears, and that the lens looks like … a recent Nikon AF-S lens. Or that the Olympus camera sold with the broken lens is a rather rare (and sought after) OM-2000 in seemingly pristine condition.
How is it possible? With a few exceptions, the people who write the item descriptions at Goodwill know nothing about photography, and don’t have time to check or research.
More about my first Canon EOS cameras and how they compare to Nikon’s best in a few weeks.
One of the biggest challenges of digital photography is the long term archival of the images. And because slides and negatives are generally scanned, and end up in the same post-processing chain as “native” digital images, they’re subject to more or less the same issues (I guess that you could still go back to the original negative or the slide and re-scan it, but you would have to locate it first).
There are three big obstacles to the long term preservation of pictures in a digital world:
the long term availability of the digital asset management software,
the evolving file format standards
the inherent fragility of the medium used for storage
Users of the original version of Apple iPhoto, of Apple Aperture, of Microsoft Expression Media and of plenty of other discontinued products have not lost the original images stored in their photo libraries, but they have lost an easy way to access them – and in some case, of all the changes and adjustments (crops, exposure, contrast and curves) they had performed. Of course, it’s always possible to port the images to … the standard of the moment: Adobe Lightroom, but it may require a serious effort.
Adobe Lightroom is not about to disappear (on the contrary, it has become a de facto monopoly), but Adobe may progressively price it out of the reach of amateurs: they have already transitioned to a subscription-only licensing model, which may make sense for professionals, but is costly for amateurs who used to perform an upgrade every 5 years or so…
Surprisingly, evolving standardshave not been too much of an issue so far – after early challenges by patent trolls were defeated, JPEG has led a quiet life. Evolutions of JPEG are being discussed in the international standardization bodies, but they promise to maintain backwards compatibility. At this stage, jpeg is still jpeg, tiff is still tiff, and we can still read files saved 15 years ago.
The proliferation of RAW file formats (how many for Nikon or Canon already? ) is also a potential issue, but computer Operating Systems and RAW converters still keep up – and support most of the old RAW formats, even though it’s probably wise to keep a JPEG or a DNG version of your images, just in case.
Which brings us to the worst issue by far – the medium (tape, CD, DVD, hard drive, cloud blob) used for storage.
the storage needs have exploded (24 Mpixel is the new normal, and I know amateurs who refuse to shoot with anything less than a 40 Mpixel camera, like the Pros) – shooting 10 Gigabytes worth of images per day has nothing exceptional anymore,
At the same time, the capacity of WORM devices (CD, DVD, …) has stagnated,
solid state media is still expensive,
spinning hard drives have capacity but are fragile,
in spite of all the promises, consumer grade Network Attached Storage (NAS) is far from 100% reliable,
on line backup/archival services and cloud hosting services come and go (many vendors have decided to leave the consumer market, while some services are tied to a specific brand of computer or smartphone hardware), and some free photo sharing services may sell your secrets to advertisers (“if you’re not paying for the product, you’re the product”).
For long term storage at home, hard drives are currently the best option, but at least in my case, they’ve been quite unreliable: over the last 10 years,
I lost two hard drives on my personal laptop, before I upgraded to a SSD – which has less capacity but seems to fare much better when it comes to reliability,
I lost a hard drive on the Apple Time Capsule I was using for backups (Green Seagate Barracuda)
I lost a LaCie network attached hard drive (a Barracuda also, I’m afraid)
Files got corrupted (see above),
the Netgear ReadyNAS RN104 (with four 1 TB drives arranged in a so-called X-RAID) lost its file allocation tables (even if the Western Digital Red disks were still OK) and had to be reinstalled from scratch – without using X-RAID this time, but under a proper RAID 6 scheme instead.
Fortunately, I’ve always had relatively good backups (not 100% success at recovery – there’s always something that falls thru the cracks, but close enough)
Here is how my pictures are processed and protected, currently:
if I’m using a modern digital camera:
while traveling – I upload the files to my iPhone over Wi-fi at least once a day – then Apple syncs it to my Photo library in iCloud. It’s not a full backup – my Fujifilm XT-1 camera only uploads JPEG files via Wi-Fi, it does not upload the RAW files, and with a resolution limited to 1776×1184 (a bit above 2 Mpixels) – but it’s convenient, good enough for social network updates, and better than nothing if the SD card fails or the camera is stolen,
the “exposed” SD or CF card are copied as soon as possible to the SSD of a laptop;
and I store the SDs for up to 6 month before reformating and reusing them.
if I’m shooting with film:
I don’t have any form of backup until the film has been sent to the lab, processed and scanned (it’s the rule of the game with film – but it always makes me uneasy when a drop an envelope with a few irreplaceable rolls of film in a USPS mailbox, even if they have a 100% reliability record with me so far).
when the scans are available, I download them to the SSD of the laptop, and when I receive the negatives from the lab, I keep them in the proverbial shoebox.
once the JPEGs, the RAWs and the scans are on the laptop,
there is an automatic backup process to an external HDD drive (using Apple TimeMachine), to the NAS (TimeMachine again), and to Amazon Glacier (using the ARQ backup application)
I upload the pictures to the Netgear NAS for Lightroom processing and archival,
Amazon Glacier is the long term archival service of AWS (the Amazon Cloud). Storage is extremely cheap ($0.004 per GB per month) and Amazon keeps multiple encrypted copies of the data in multiple AWS data centers.
There are all sorts of interesting features for Enterprise clients. But it’s not the exclusive domain of IT departments and the man in the street can also store files on Amazon Glacier.
Now there’s a catch: data retrieval is not instantaneous (Amazon needs 3 to 5 hours to start processing the request in the standard retrieval mode) and it’s not free either ($0.01 per Gbyte in the standard mode) – which is perfectly fine if you remember that Glacier is about long term storage. Consider the typical use cases for an amateur photographer:
you lost the pictures of that fantastic trip you made 10 years ago – it’s not going to be an issue for you if Glacier starts retrieving the pictures 5 hours from now,
you lost a hard drive and its local backup with 1 TB of pictures (to a flood, a fire, a burglary, a massive power surge) – again, you’re not going to complain if the data retrieval actually starts a few hours after you requested it: you’ll be happy to retrieve your files, even if it takes time (assuming 1TB, that would be 44 hours on a 50 Mbits broadband circuit continuously operating at that speed, which means much more time in reality) and you will have to pay a few dozens of dollars for the service.
Arq is a backup solution for Mac OS and for Windows, leveraging the storage and archival services provided by a large selection of public cloud services. I’ve been using it in conjunction with Glacier for a few years, and it’s proved its worth a few times already.
It may seem like overkill – but massive hardware failures, catastrophic events and user errors happen, sooner or later. If you don’t want to lose your pictures eventually, do something, now.
Definitions, Buzzwords and Acronyms:
Archive: collection of records kept for long term retention. Typically, archives are not actively used.
Backup: “process of making extra copies of data, that will be used to restore the original in case it is lost or corrupted”
AWS: Amazon Web Services – the on-demand cloud computing platform of Amazon.com
HDD: hard disk drive – they’re called hard disk drives because there are made of a few hard, metallic disks spinning at high speed, with tiny mechanical arms moving a magnetic head a few microns above the disks. The technology has been here forever, hard drives are cheap, offer a large capacity, but are somehow unreliable over the long run. (see Backup, above)
NAS (NAS Drive): Network Attached Storage – appliance containing one or more hard drives, connected to a LAN, that provides file level data storage to PC or Mac clients. Practically, a NAS is a small file server, generally running a version of Linux, with an easy to use Web based configuration interface. For the user of a PC or a Mac, the NAS just presents itself as another storage volume in Windows Explorer or in the finder. Models supporting two or more disk drives generally offer redundancy mechanisms (mirroring, RAID) to minimize the consequences of a hard drive failure.
RAID: (Redundant Array of Independent Disks): a technology that provides data redundancy and performance improvements in storage systems using multiple physical disk drives. Having a NAS configured with RAID is not the panacea and does not dispense from running regular backups: RAID usually protects the data if one disk fails, but it does not protect against a massive failure (two or more disks fail, a disk controller corrupts the data) or against human error (files erased by mistake).
SSD: solid state drives. With a SSD, information is stored on microchips. There is no moving part. SSDs are both faster and more expensive than Hard Drives, that’s why they are used in laptops, but not in long term storage systems.
With smart phones and wireless Internet connections being cheap and ubiquitous, billions of human beings have access to an always available camera of very decent quality and can easily share the pictures they shoot via messaging, photo sharing or social networking apps.
I don’t think there is any geography where film photography is still broadly considered an easier to use and cheaper alternative to digital (smartphone and digicam) photography.
Some people may still want their 4×6 prints, they may refuse to deal with smartphone apps or with memory cards at the self service kiosk of a pharmacist, and stick to film for those reasons. But there is no doubt that they form a small minority.
The rest of the film photographers are not necessarily enamored with 4×6 prints and don’t refuse to use PCs. They scan film or have it scanned, and insert the resulting files in a digital workflow. For them, there are roughly three options: premium film, boutique film, and expired stock.
premium film is designed to offer the best performance (finest grain, highest dynamic range, most realistic colors, most constant quality), but at twice or three times the price of standard amateur film,
boutique film is produced by small outfits, and prioritize special effects (color rendition and image resolution of the sixties, strong color hues, scratches, ….). Prices are all over the map, with some films in the low-cost category, and others being 4 to 5 times more expensive than the standard amateur film.
The ultimate bargain chasers are looking for expired film, and enjoy the consequences (unpredictable rendering, bizarre color hues).
Where does it leave the typical “amateur” color negative film like Kodak’s Gold and Fujifilm’s Superia, that casual photographers used to trust for their annual family reunions or for the trip of a lifetime ?
Firms like Fujifilm, judging by the type of film they dedicate to this usage, perceive people still sticking to a conventional film processing chain and to 4×6 prints as more price than quality sensitive, and reformulated their Fujicolor 200 ISO stock to make it cheaper to manufacture (it’s now sold as the Fujifilm C200).
Brick and mortar stores only seem to carry old inventory about to expire, the low-cost Fujicolor C200 mentioned above, and sometimes Fujifilm’s Superia X-TRA 400. Online retailers like Amazon or Adorama still carry Kodak Gold and Ultramax, but they also tend to put forward cheaper products from the same manufacturer.
How does it translate in the offer of film?
My observations are based on the US market, and on what the three major photo retailers (Amazon, B&H and Adorama) are offering. The situation may be different in other countries – (Kodak is probably better represented in the US than in the rest of the world, but Fujifilm’s catalog is wider in Japan), and here and there there are small specialized distributors also selling products from smaller brands.
The part of the old Kodak Company which is still in the film business is named Kodak Alaris (Alaris belongs to the pension fund of the British employees of the Yellow Giant, but the products I’ve purchased over here are still manufactured in the USA, and sold under the Kodak name).
Looking at their Web site, it’s obvious that Kodak Alaris wants to sell “professional” (understand “premium”) film (Ektar, Porta, TMax and Tri-X). Amateur color print films (Gold 200, Ultramax 400) are impossible to find in the menu hierarchy of the site, or with the built-in search tool. Google Search still returns the spec sheets of all films currently in the catalog of Kodak Alaris (the list includes includes Gold and Ultramax), and the three major photo retailers of the US still sell the whole range of Kodak Alaris products.
Amazon and Adorama are also selling Kodak ColorPlus 200 – but there is no spec sheet on Kodak Alaris site, and it does not seem to be widely available in the US. It’s a budget film – supposedly relying on a simpler/older formula than the Gold 200, and it falls in the same low-cost category as the Fujicolor C200 – you use it if you look for the absolute lowest price (for a Kodak branded product, that is) , or if you want a rendering similar to the one you could get in the eighties/nineties.
Kodak also has a large range of B&W film (Tmax in 100, 400 and 3200 ISO declinations) as well as the old Tri X. They have announced they will soon manufacture slide film (Ektachrome) again.
In the US, Fujifilm have significantly reduced their product range (they have retired most of their Superia color print films last year) – leaving us with only the “low cost” C200 sold at Wal-Mart or CVS (available in 24 exposure cartridges only, manufactured following a simplified formula and replacing the more elaborate and now retired Superia 200), and a single Superia reference, the X-TRA 400 ISO (in packs of three 36 Exposure cartridges only). With Kodak having left the amateur market and deserted the brick and mortar stores, Fujifilm is the only major vendor of general purpose “amateur” color negative film.
Fujifilm only offers a single “professional color negative” film, the Pro H 400, aimed at Portrait photographers, and a single Black and White reference, the Neopan Acros. But they still offer three slide films (Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100).
Obviously Fujifilm is more interested in pushing their highly profitable Instax film packs, which are declined in multiple sizes (mini, square, wide), and available in black and white as well as color stock.
Harman / Ilford
It’s been a very long time since Black and White film was last considered the default choice for the casual “amateur” photographer. And Ilford (now part of the Harman Technology group) does not manufacture or sell color film. But Ilford is worth a mention here: they have the largest catalog of Black and White film (classics like the Pan F, the FP4 or the HP5, fine grain products of the Delta series, and products now unique such as the XP2 (a Chromogenic B&W film that can be processed in the same chain as color print film).
Cinestill, Lomography, Revolo, Rollei, fall into the Boutique category. I don’t know much about Boutique film – and now that some of my old favorites are gone (Fuji Reala, Kodak CN400), I tend to stick to Kodak’s Ektar 100, that I use alongside Fujifilm’s Superia 400 and Ilford’s FP4 Plus B&W film.
I have to admit that I don’t really get this “low cost at all cost” thing: in the US, a 35mm (24 exposures) cartridge sells for anything between $2.75 and $3.50 – with premium film being generally sold in rolls of 36 exposures at prices between $6.75 and $9.90. Worst case, the cost difference between low-cost and premium amounts to $0.20 per exposure.
Processing a single 35mm cartridge will cost approx $8.00 to $10.00, and scanning another $5.00 to $10.00 (postage included). Some processors may advertise cheaper prices, but only scan in low-resolution, or don’t return the negatives (they destroy them), or charge a significant extra fee for the postage or for a higher resolution. All in all, consider that $17.00/cartridge is the best price an occasional/low volume user can get for a decent service (it’s a scale game, and prices get lower when the volume goes up).
And if you spend that much on processing, why not buy the best film you can get?
Brick and mortar stores (big box and pharmacists): not much to chose from, only Fujifilm’s products.
On line: besides the big Three (Adorama, Amazon, Bhphotovideo), there are a few sites specialized in ‘Boutique” film: Freestyle Photo ; Lomography
The N2020 (F-501 outside of the US) was Nikon’s first mass market auto-focus SLR. It was an upgrade of the N2000 (F-301 “in the rest of the world”), Nikon’s first SLR with an integrated motor. They inaugurated a new type of laser etched focusing screen, and a new camera naming scheme based on numbers. Because they had the two lowest numbers in the hierarchy, they were often mistaken for low performance entry-level models.
It’s obviously a wrong perception: just consider the price of the N2020 – a few years after being launched, it was still more expensive than Minolta’s enthusiast oriented Maxxum 7000, in the same ballpark as the ground breaking Canon EOS 650, itself derived from the very high-end and very expensive Canon T90.
Like the Nikon F4 that would follow two years after (and contrarily to the Minolta and Canon auto-focus cameras), the N2020 retained conventional commands (shutter speed knob, aperture ring, ISO speed dial), and, as a true high-end Nikon, protected the photographers from unfortunate lapses of attention with all sorts of locks and flashing red LEDs.
Nikon’s transition to auto-focus
At the end of 1985, Nikon was apparently not certain that their (generally technically conservative) customers would enthusiastically embrace auto-focus, and they edged their bets. They first launched a manual focus version of their new body, the N2000 (*), and took their time to fine tune the auto-focus version, the N2020, finally presented in April 1986. They were not certain that the photographers would adjust to motorized film advance either, so they kept a conventional rewind crank. The N2000 and the N2020 could read DX coding, but still had a conventional film sensitivity selector. Just in case. This prudent approach extended to the design as well. Nikon did not go for a full poly-carbonate body with rounded edges, they kept an hybrid metal/plastic construction with a design language based on sharp angles. Do you start seeing a pattern here?
Yes, the auto-focus of the N2020 is primitive – with only 96 photosites (the following generation launched in 1988 with the N8080 and the F4 had a new sensor with 200 photo sites). Strangely enough, the auto-focus area at the center of the viewfinder does not feel as narrow as it does on the F4, but it’s far less sensitive in low light, making it almost unusable indoors.
By today’s standards, it’s more of a focus-assist system than a true auto-focus, but because there was a version of the same camera without auto-focus, the viewfinder retains the characteristics of manual focus cameras (92% coverage, 85% magnification, precise and relatively grainy focusing screen). It is still suited to manual focusing, even though the default focusing screen of the N2020 is deprived of a micro-prism ring. Other focusing screens (including the very sought after K type with a micro-prism ring surrounding a split image telemeter spot) may still be available – but as far as I know the model is specific to the N2020 and I could not find any on eBay.
The N2020 (in fact, mine is a “rest-of-the-world” F501) is the camera that I had brought with me – virtually untested – to a long trip to Israel, Jordan and France. The camera did not miss a beat, and fulfilled its mission brilliantly.
It does not exude from the N2020 the impression of quality that emanates from a Nikon FE2, a F3 or a F4, but it still feels less of an amateur photographer camera than the Nikon FG. Compared to the FG, it’s larger and heavier, and receives a faster shutter (1/2000sec) and an exposure memory lock button (more useful than the +2EV button of the FG). Like the current pro cameras from Nikon, it can be controlled via a wired remote. The back has a window showing the film cartridge, a film advance indicator, and a red LED warns the photographer if the DX sensitivity coding can not be read. Clearly not a body for the experts or the pros (roles that would be fulfilled in Nikon’s product range by the N8008/F801 and the high-end F4 respectively), but not a simplified or spec’d down entry level camera either.
If you don’t forget it’s a very early auto-focus camera, and don’t expect it to behave like a Nikon F6, it’s a pleasant camera to use. On the plus side:
the ergonomics – simple, easy to learn, no menus, no hidden functions, just conventional knobs and rings
the conventional Nikon average weighted metering – that is to say: accurate and predictable (at least as long as the cell is not blinded by the middle-eastern sun)
its relatively compact size
it works with any Nikon AI, AI-S, AF or AF-D lens without any limitation (the lens mount has all the sensors and pins of a true AI-S camera).
Exposure determination can be left to one of the three program modes, or controlled more directly by the photographer (aperture preferred auto-exposure and manual modes)
It runs on standard AAA or AA batteries (the AA battery tray was optional)
it’s reliable – it simply works, with no known mechanical or cosmetic issues.
Not everything is perfect: the viewfinder is informative, bright, but rather narrow, with a relatively short eye-point (the same as the FG or FM-FE), the winder is rather loud, and of course its auto-focus system dramatically lacks sensitivity in low light – it is almost unusable indoors if the scene is not lit like a studio. But it’s not too much of an issue today : even with its standard focusing screen, the N2020 is one of the few auto-focus SLRs that can still really be used with manual focus lenses – at least with wide angle lenses.
Today, early auto-focus cameras are dirt cheap, and this one is not different. Very nice copies can be had for $35.00 in specialized second-hand photo equipment stores, and will not fetch more than a few dollars on eBay or at Goodwill.
As a conclusion
Like the F4 in the “pro” market, the N2020 is at the same time Nikon’s last “enthusiast” body with a conventional user interface, and the first of a long line of auto-focus and motorized SLRs.
Its conventional user interface is well thought and makes for a pleasant experience, and its high-magnification viewfinder is better suited than the F4’s for manual focus operations. The N2020 is also reasonably light and compact (half the weight of the F4 with its MB-21 grip), but of course you can’t compare a camera designed for amateurs with a high-end professional rig.
It would not be reasonable to buy a N2020 and expect it to deliver the performance of a more modern auto-focus SLR. With its simple and narrow auto-focus sensor, its limited processing power and its weak focus motor, it can’t even compete with a F4, let alone a N90s or any auto-focus film SLR manufactured in the mid to late nineties. But if you see it as a manual focus camera with a focus-assist system, it becomes much more enjoyable.
The manual focus E Series lenses are a very good fit for the N2020. Designed originally for the EM, the lenses are built out of plastic with a simplified optical formula (to save on weight and contain cost), but some of the E lenses (the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2.5 for instance) are probably as good optically as the metal-built Nikkor lenses of equivalent aperture. Nikon’s first consumer grade (sliding aperture) 35-70mm auto-focus zooms have a bad reputation, but the 28-70 AF f/3.5-4.5 that followed a few years later is very compact and sharp – a little known gem.
With a manual focus prime lens or a small auto-focus zoom (like the 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 mentioned above), the N2020 will form a cheap, reliable, compact and highly capable set, to be used to learn the basics of photography, or as a second body for the occasions when a more expensive camera can not be risked.
(*) In 1990, Nikon did it again- they replaced the F301-F501/N2000-N2020 series with two cameras – one with an improved auto-focus system (the F601/N6006), one with manual focus (F601m, N6000).
I recently moved to a new home – half the size of the one I was leaving. In a big home, you have lots of storage, a basement, an attic, a large garage, rooms you never use, and you tend to keep stuff. Lots of old stuff. Like old computers.
But when you move, you can’t leave anything behind. You check all the hidden corners of your home, and you find your old iMac. Second generation, officially known as the iMac G4 700 MHz. And often nicknamed Sunflower, because of its very original shape.
I had bought it in 2002. My first Mac. My first Apple widget.
The machine did age very well. It had been solidly built, with good quality components. It boots, and makes all the right sounds and moves. You log-in, and find a desktop which is not really different from what you see on a modern Mac (this machine is running OS X 10.5 Leopard – the last OS X version to run over PowerPC processors). Your spirits are high. You’ve been reunited with an old friend.
On paper, the specs of an old iMac – a 700 MHz 32 bit processor, 512 MB RAM, WiFi, Firewire – are not totally ridiculous if you compare them with a recent entry level machine. A modern Macbook has a 64 bit dual core processor, generally running at 1.3 GHz, with the ability to burst at 3 GHz. It does not look like a huge difference. Admittedly, a modern laptop also has much more RAM (8 GB) and more storage (256 GB SSD as opposed to a 40 GB spinning drive). But in the real life, it results in a huge gap in speed.
The iMac is incredibly slow at performing tasks as simple as ripping a music CD. And the worst is not the speed, it’s the inability to do anything really useful with the machine because the hardware and OS X Leopard can’t cope with modern security protocols:
you can’t connect to a wireless LAN, because the iMac and OS X Leopard support at best WPA (original version) and not WPA2 which is the standard today.
you can’t browse any modern Internet site, because the browser does not support the recent encryption layers of https, and every site worth its salt defaults to https now.
you can’t access any of the on-line services requiring a fat client (the Apple Music store from iTunes, for instance) because nobody’s accepting connections from such an old thing (probably another TLS vs SSL issue)
Software from 2009 still works (things like Photoshop Elements 2 or Microsoft Word 2008) but obviously recent versions of popular software are written for Intel Macs, and don’t run over Power PC processors (not even software as basic as a browser).
Basically, it could work if you downgraded your home WiFi network to WPA (or even worse, WEP), and only browsed sites whose servers have not been updated since the end of support of OS X Leopard (in 2009, I believe). That’s a scary perspective.
So, what will happen with this Mac? I will donate it. To people who still have room in their large home, where it will join a burgeoning computer museum. Until they decide to downsize of course.
An anecdote – the iMac was the first Apple computer I bought, but not the first I used. In the early eighties, I even had the privilege of being trained on Apple SOS (nicknamed Applesauce, of course), the operating system of the Apple III. It makes me a true geek.
For the fans of all things Apple, and among all the bios of Steve Jobs, I recommend the excellent “Becoming Steve Jobs“, by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli.
I don’t want this blog to turn into a Nikon fansite. But Nikon related pages are now the most read: the Nikon D700 and FE2 entries have been the two most visited pages lately, leapfrogging the pages related to the Angenieux 28-70 f/2.6 zoom, which had been the readers’ favorite for years. And I can’t hide that Nikon film cameras are those I prefer, and that I’ve put my money where my mouth was.
Interesting things are happening at Nikon’s. On August 23rd, they will unveil a new full frame mirrorless digital system, launch a new lens mount and at least one lens.
The new lens mount will be typical of modern mirrorless cameras (short flange distance, and, I assume, no mechanical interface at all – autofocus and aperture control being all electric ), but its diameter will be unusually large – much larger in any case that the Sony E lens mount.
Over its 59 years of commercial life (so far), the Nikon F mount has gone through many revisions to support successively aperture indexing, automatic aperture indexing, matrix metering, auto-focus, silent wave auto-focus motors, and more recently, electronic diaphragm control.
Because Nikon has made a core business principle to guarantee at least a modicum of compatibility between its older lenses and its newer generation of bodies (particularly for high-end cameras sold to professionals), the new full frame mirrorless body will accept Nikon F lenses, via an adapter. But Nikon has not shared any detail about this adapter yet.
The adapter could be made simple, with no electrical contact and no mechanical linkage to the lens. Generally speaking, mirrorless cameras are not dependent on the automatic aperture pre-selection capabilities of the lens, so it’s likely that any Nikon F lens old enough to have an aperture ring will not only physically mount on the adapter, but will somehow work when the camera is set to semi-automatic exposure and manual focus mode. But recent lenses deprived of an aperture ring (or with an electronic control of the aperture) would not work with such a simple adapter. Which would go against Nikon’s tradition of preserving compatibility in priority for recent and/or expensive pieces of equipment.
The adapter could be made very complex. Sony supports Minolta/Konica-Minolta/Sony A mount lenses on its E Mount mirrorless bodies thanks to two models of adapters. The most complex of the two, the LA-E4, has its own autofocus motor in order to provide support and adequate AF performance for screw-drive autofocus lenses (which still constitute the majority of the Series A lenses offered by Sony today). Sony’s adapter also has a Phase Detection AF module, probably because its A series lenses were not designed for the contrast detection auto-focus system of its NEX mirrorless bodies.Nikon’s original AF and AF-D lenses (the screw drive lenses without an auto focus motor) could be supported using a similar setup if Nikon really wanted to, but I doubt they’ll have any appetite for such a solution (one of the reasons being that professionals have been buying AF-S lenses with a built-in auto focus motor for almost 20 years now – and probably don’t use many screw-drive auto-focus lenses anymore).
Nikon’s now defunct One series (J1 to J5 viewfinder-less cameras and V1 to V3 SLR like models) could accept F mount lenses thanks to an adapter. With the FT1 adapter, auto-focus lenses with a built-in auto-focus motor (AF-S lenses, with or without an aperture ring) are fully supported (all auto-exposure modes, vibration reduction and auto-focus, of course).
Older auto-focus lenses (the AF and AF-D lenses) can be used in all the auto-exposure modes but don’t auto-focus. Lastly, AI and AI-S manual focus lenses will only be usable in Manual or Aperture Priority Auto Exposure modes.
Nikon FT1 adapter (Nikon F to Nikon One lens mount adapter) – the adapter is seen from the front (where the F lens will be mounted). Source: Adorama
My bet is that the new adapter will offer the same functions as the FT1. It will fully support any lens introduced in the market since the last years of the XXth century (AF-S, AF-S G, VR, AF-P), and with reduced capabilities, most of the older lenses.
Will there be a penalty in terms of auto-focus performance for users of AF-S lenses ?
That’s the real question.
First answers on Aug. 23rd…
Update: Aug 24th, 2018
So.. Nikon had a busy day yesterday: they launched a new Z series of bodies with 2 cameras, the Z6 and the Z7, 3 lenses of a new S series, and a F to Z adapter.
In the picture above, the Nikon F to Z adapter looks very similar to the FT1 adapter – no built-in auto-focus motor, no auto-indexing mechanism to support full aperture metering for AI or AI-S lenses, but “a mechanical actuator to operate the aperture on the lens you mount to it” (according to DPREVIEW)
As I expected last week, lenses released during the last 18 years (AF-S, AF-S G, VR, AF-P) are fully supported, and the VR lenses gain 5 axis image stabilization in the process.
Older lenses (AF, AF-D) will not auto-focus but will still access all the auto-exposure modes of the Z bodies. Older manual focus lenses will mount but will have more limited exposure control capabilities.
For more (and in particular an opinion about the auto-focus performance), you can check DPREVIEW’s very interesting first take on the F to Z adapter.
The city, located in the desert between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea, was a very prosperous trade hub in the Antiquity, but lost of its importance in the Middle Ages to the point it was uninhabited and totally forgotten until its ruins were rediscovered by an archeologist in the early 1800s. The city had been built at the far end of a narrow canyon, and is famous because of its temples directly carved in the walls of rock forming the canyon. It was recently used as the lair of the bad guys in Indiana Jones’ “Last Crusade”.
Getting there is not exactly easy – a long flight to Amman or Eilat, followed by a long bus drive through the Wadi Rum desert (of Lawrence of Arabia fame), followed by a walk under an excruciating heat. And at the top of that, the access fees are exorbitant. But the place is absolutely unique, and the end of the approach in the narrow canyon is really magic.
Petra is one of those places that always look good in pictures – and I absolutely wanted to bring back images I would be pleased with. So why did I bring to Jordan a 40 year old camera I had never used before?
Normally, before an important trip, you’re supposed to test the camera in advance: you change the batteries, you expose a roll of film, you have it processed, and you look at the pictures it produced very carefully, before you finally declare the camera fit for service.
That’s the process I followed, with a Fujica AX-3 I had earmarked for this trip. But it did not pass the test. When I downloaded the scanned images, only a few days before I was due to the airport, 30% of the images were severely under-exposed and I could not see a pattern (it looked like random). I had just moved to a new home, my trusted cameras were still in a storage facility and too difficult to access, so I decided to trust Nikon, and brought with me a Nikon N2020 (aka F501) I had just bought for a miser a few days before, and only briefly examined.
To be honest, it was not that big of a risk. I had bought the Nikon from a second hand camera dealer of good reputation. I live in the 21st century and I have a good digital camera, and can use an iPhone as a backup. I decided that on this trip, on a given day, I would shoot digital for a few hours, then switch to the film camera. This way, even if the Nikon severely malfunctioned, I was not going to come back with no image at all.
At the top of that, Nikon cameras from that era are reliable. From all the cameras I have used over the years, Nikons are the only ones that have never let me down:
Fujica and Pentax cameras from the seventies have all sorts of mechanical problems (with the shutter, in particular). Cameras from the early eighties also suffer from relatively troublesome electronics (capacitors, stabilization circuits).
I owned Minolta Maxxum and Vectis cameras and Minolta AF lenses in the nineties, and they were not trouble free when they were in their prime (the only lens that ever broke in my photo equipment bag was a Minolta Vectis zoom). I have no recent experience with those cameras, but time generally makes reliability worse, not better.
The Olympus OM cameras I’ve used have been solid and reliable, but some models (the OM-2 Spot Program in particular) tend to go through their batteries with an alarming voracity, which could be an issue on a long trip.
Canon A series tend to develop a well documented shutter problem over time. I can’t use my Canon A-1 until I have it fixed.
My Canon T90 has been flawless (and a pleasure to use), but the model has a reputation for being a ticking bomb (from a reliability point of view) because of issues with the magnets used to control the aperture, and because of capacitors and batteries soldered to the camera’s integrated circuits.
On the other hand, even Nikon cameras I bought in bulk in antique shows or from thrift stores have been easy to bring back in service – generally the only thing missing was a good battery. They have a very reliable shutter and an accurate meter, and no light leak issue. Some Nikon cameras develop some annoying issues (the rubber grip on modern Nikon digital cameras, the LCD display in the viewfinder of the F4), but nothing that would prevent you from taking good pictures.
As a conclusion
I received the scans a few days ago. The exposure was a bit off (over-exposed by 1/2 stop in average – it’s likely that the camera had not been calibrated by Nikon for such a luminous landscape), but nothing that could not be adjusted in Adobe Lightroom in a couple of seconds. There’s still life in those old cameras.
The N2020 (F-501 outside of the US) was Nikon’s first mass market auto-focus SLR. It was an upgrade of the N2000 (F-301 “in the rest of the world”), Nikon’s first SLR with an integrated motor.
On this trip, I used it as a manual focus camera, with a very compact Series E 35mm f/2.5 lens. The ergonomics is still very conventional (dials and rings instead of menus and LCDs), it simply needs four AAA batteries that you can find anywhere in the world, and it’s a pleasure to use.
More about the Nikon F501/N2020 in a few weeks.
I initially wrote that the building shown in my photos and drawn by Herge in “Coke en Stock” was the “Monastery”. It was wrong. In fact, it’s known as the “Treasury”. And it was neither a monastery or a treasury, but the mausoleum of King Aretas IV, who ruled the region in the 1st century AD.
And I watched “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” again – in the movie, the “Treasury” is not the liar of the bad guys, it’s the place where the Holy Grail and its guardian reside.