That's a ridiculous statement that's verifiably incorrect by simply looking at a photo from this lens, or reading Nikon's own writings about it. (They're linked in the video's description.)

@@DavidHancock You must have had a dud. In my testing the results are indistinguishable from the summicrom (of the same vintage) apart from the flare of course. I love old Nikon lenses and this would be my favourite if not for the flare that I really dislike.

Show me the work you've done on this that's more accurate. Put your work where your mouth is.

That makes me all the more excited to test the Zeiss next to this lens later this year (and the Nikkors -P, -P.C., and -H.C.) Since I have and use all the Bronica standard lenses, I look forwarding to finding out if my view that this is actually the best of them holds up. There is more to a lens than sharpness.

@ I agree. Sharpness is just one part of it. Flare resistance (or the beauty of the flare), bokeh, or something else.... but I don't find any of the Bronica S lenses exceptional in any of those categories.... very good - yes, but not exceptional. As I said, check out the Kowa 85mm f2.8, that is something else.... sharpness, bokeh.... and that something else...similar to Rollei Xenotar 80mm 2.8 on Rolleiflex....

You mean the review I made of my most-used Bronica lens? The review here that has photos taken over a nine-year period? This review? Well, stick around and later this year the Bronica standard lenses are all getting tested and compared against each other. I haven't done any of the work on that video yet, but I am very excited to see how it goes.

@@DavidHancock Sure, I can see you like it. And that's fair game. But I also used (and tested) all of the standard Bronica lenses over many years and I strongly disagree with your assesment. Yes it is beautiful (bokeh), but no, it is not nearly as sharp as its rivals. That may not matter to you, and it did not matter to me, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Thank you!

Yeah, film is getting expensive.

Thank you!

@@KT1459 it will not

@DavidHancock thanks for the quick response!

Do you mean the black box in the middle of the focusing screen when looking through the optical viewfinder? There's no removing that. It's etched into the focusing screen.

@@MongiAouinet these are, I think, the parts I used. Both links are affiliate links: amzn.to/413F4xR amzn.to/40Remav

@@DavidHancock Thx

Those are, I think, VERY small. You would need a way to fill the gap in the battery chamber. I also am not sure if those have enough amperage to power these as I'm not too familiar with 312 batteries.

That would be in the image toning section (I forget exactly the name Nikon uses.) I think this video is new enough that I showed how to do that, but in your image toning there's a button you press to adjust parameters and then you can make that adjustment.

That could be a use.

Thank you and yes, a number of the lower-tier cameras back in the day did that so that people unfamiliar with film, if they opened the back of the camera, would only ruin film that had not been used.

Back then you were limited by the exposures left in the roll to get the shot you wanted, bracketing the frames and making those changes by muscle memory. That was a loooooong time ago. To be a serious student you wound your own cassettes and got good at switching rolls on the fly without damaging your precious camera or attracting dirt in the process. I still have my old Lloyd's winder on a shelf. Edit: Hmm... You can still buy the winder new for $50 at B&H, etc.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

@@ahmadrizqon190 I haven't tried that so I can't answer that specifically.

@@ahmadrizqon190 thank you're and it's been a number of years since I made this, so I don't recall exactly what I said, but I do recall that I covered that.

@@mopo366 the kitchen is a bit busy, mostly because it gets used a lot. The AF had a lot of trouble tracking me on the next one of these that's going live. So I know I need some kind of background change but I don't know what yet.

Thank you!

That was quite the camera.

@DavidHancock Pictures taken 30 years ago with it still look awesome, it would best leica sales if they bring it back.

Yeah, the Vivitar is a good option for that FL and though this does have some better sharpness and so forth it does lack some character compared to the Vivitar.

@@careypridgeon Size and weight have taken a priority these days, with vendors assuming software will be used to correct the issues.

That's a great question and I have ideas but no conclusive answer. Ultimately, I think that it must be WAY cheaper to build a lens that has distortion, which is weird to say because distortion is simply mis-aligned light rays. You might know this, but others who read this comment thread won't, think of lenses as having a power to adjust the bending of light (in eyeglasses, that's the diopter and I think in optical lenses it's the same term but don't quote me on that.) So the amount of bending that occurs from the elements in front of the aperture will be some measurable unit and the same is true of the elements behind. In an optical system where the powers on each side of the aperture are balanced, they cancel each other out and create a distortion-free image. Hence the rapid rectilinear and similar lenses that were just mirror-images of their optical designs have no distortion. Pincushion distortion arises when the elements in front of the lens have more of an effect on the way that light moves in the optical system and barrel distortion arises when the elements behind the aperture have more influence. So that's the mechanics of it. So why would that be allowed? Well, two reasons come to mind. 1- There may be optical performance characteristics that the engineers could not design into the system unless the distortion was present. So if a Tamron Engineer appeared from the ether next to me and say something like 'yeah, we had manufacturing constraints for this lens based on available equipment and materials that prevented us from using some other approach to correcting against softness, aberrations, and so forth so we had to either include distortion OR include some other nasty and unremovable flaws. So we chose to develop a lens with otherwise great performance but strong distortion knowing we could get the cameras it would be mounted to to fix that.' I would completely see that as being a best-path scenario for the designers and also the choice I would make. 2- Cost. It may just be that the distortion would have been corrected with some fancy element in the front of the system but the cost of grinding it would have made this lens some large number of dollars more expensive. So ultimately, I think that the choice for this came down to engineering and construction compromise, or that's my best guess and it's possible there are other valid reasons I'm not thinking of.

@@jw48335 I would not accept that as justification for poor design and build decisions in any lens I bought. I have 22mm one from the 1960's with no distortion at all.

@ This brings to mind when students would hand in source code for my assignments, where the spec was it had to be immediately compilable with no problems, and have text file telling me all I had to do was import it into Microsofts programming IDE or some other coding environment, create a project with it, and then it would compile. Such submissions *always* got far lower grades, because I had no intention of doing any such thing, and had always provided a template terminal based programming project for them to use anyway. This was akin to the whole brown M&Ms thing by Van Halen. If they weren't using it they likely hadn't read the assignment brief properly, so the work was going to be bad. Besides which I can read code in multiple languages, and trying to use an obscure one to hide the fact they'd barely done any work didn't fool me. Logic remains clear regardless of the language used. I intensely dislike sloppy work wherever I see it, regardless of the medium.

Thank you and it's healthy to do both. :D I am down to just once box of cameras to get rid of (from a high of around 1,200!) I'm hoping to make videos about those in the next couple of weeks and then list them.

I completely agree. I had that exact same issue with mine and the Monster Pentax K to Sony FE adapter, but I had that problem with all my Pentax lenses on the Monster adapter.

Thank you!

Hmm. Let's start with the easy fix. Double check your ISO setting. Make sure it's set correctly. Next up, what speed film are you using? If it's a VERY fast film, like an 800 or higher, then that's a very likely situation. If you're in full sun with the sun to your back and set your lens to f/16 then the shutter speed will be approximately the same number as your film speed (so 200 ISO film would be about 1/250th.) If you have 800 ISO film loaded, and if it is very bright, you might not be able to get an exposure at all. Does the light meter give correct readings inside? (Approx. 1/60th at f/5.6 with 400 ISO film when pointed at an interior light.)

@@DavidHancock Wow I appreciate the rapid reply! This is helpful info. I am using 400 ISO film and double checked the setting. I do get about 1/60th shutter speed indoors, although the meter can be very sensitive and finnicky - for example, I'll get an initial reading that makes sense, then it starts flickering a bunch of different dots randomly before going back to normal. I am going to try replacing the batteries and see if that helps, and continue experimenting outside and see if it keeps happening. Thanks so much!!

@@aamirdurrani5826 thank you!

Probably some dirt. If it's on the front of the glass cover above the aperture, then it might be cleanable. Otherwise if it's dirt inside prism housing it's probably there to stay.

Thank you! Almost all film should be DX coded. All the Kodak, Kentmere, and Fuji films are and I think all the Ilford are as well. The ones that are note would be specialty films like respools and some ultra-low-ISO stocks like Adox CMS 20 II (IIRC, that's not DX coded.)

@@petervanorsouw 😃 D-76 tastes awful.

​@DavidHancock Oh my, I was joking. You've really tasted D76 Wow.😵‍💫

@@BrewsterPgonzales619 I believe there's a power switch. Video 1 should point out where that is.

@@thomasboone1356 I hear you, thank you, and I've been taking the feedback. I already uploaded the next two but have a better format to use after those.

Thank you! I actually goofed on the recipe, too. I'll redo it soon. It's only 3 dashes of birthdays and a half bar spoon of cherry syrup.

В этой серии 2 видеоролика. Во втором показана работа, включая загрузку пленки.

The next two of these are uploaded already and in one of them he pokes his head over the counter. :D He misses the camera time, too.

Hes somewhere flashing somebody.

@@Austinite333 sorry to see you go, put you could just skip these videos.

With the arrow.

This isn't news...this is speculation!

The next two of these are uploaded, but Dixon had a good idea so what I'm going to do with the next one I record will be treat it like the coffee -- here is a quick description up front -- and then have the recipe portion be at the end so that people not interested in that can just drop at that point. I'm hoping that will be a good compromise.

@@petermcginty3636 I have to admit, the current generation of Chinese lenses are impressive. I'm using the Laowa 10mm Zero-D and I'm really glad I bought it. It's an incredible lens. The Viltrox 20mm is another stand-out, too.

@DavidHancock Yep, I am thinking about getting the Laowa 25mm f0.95 lens for night street photography. It is about $AUD700 (approx $USD 430). A very good purchase option. I am just waiting to see what lenses OM System announce next week, then I will decide where to spend my money.