Nikon 800mm f/5.6 NIKKOR ED IF AIS

[Henry Richardson]

Back in the late 1980s I had a co-worker who was a serious birder and bird photographer who bought a Nikon 800mm f/5.6 NIKKOR ED IF AIS manual focus (no IS) and used it on his Nikon F3 and F2. Does anyone remember how much these cost new in the 1980s? My recollection is that he paid something like US$10,000 in around 1987 which would be about US$27,000 now adjusted for inflation. He was a software engineer in Silicon Valley and in order to save money for his expensive toys he lived in a 1970s Chevy van and parked for free in the company parking lot. We had a fitness center with showers and a locker room so he used it for showers -- but not workouts. And an on-site cafeteria that served breakfast and lunch. He lived like that for a few years, saving lots of money for toys that would have gone for housing.

Anyway, get on with the story, Hank. We have lenses such as the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3, Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3, and very expensive Olympus 150-400mm f4.5. Easy and inexpensive with the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 and Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 to get to 800mm-efl these days.

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film? Note, I am not asking about a digital body with the Nikkor. I realize that it is sort of an apples/oranges comparison in some sense, but ultimately we are talking about creating photos in either case. So, maybe an apples/apple-oranges hybrid comparison? If you insist that the Nikkor must be brought into the digital realm then assume the very best, highest quality, professional film scan. Yes, I understand equivalency with regards to digital sensors so, please, do not even drag that into this and try to hijack the thread. We are all tired of that different subject.



I shot film for a few decades. Personally, I do not miss it. I have scanned over 10,000 of my old slides/negatives. I prefer digital.

 

[James Stirling]

Back in the late 1980s I had a co-worker who was a serious birder and bird photographer who bought a Nikon 800mm f/5.6 NIKKOR ED IF AIS manual focus (no IS) and used it on his Nikon F3 and F2. Does anyone remember how much these cost new in the 1980s? My recollection is that he paid something like US$10,000 in around 1987 which would be about US$27,000 now adjusted for inflation. He was a software engineer in Silicon Valley and in order to save money for his expensive toys he lived in a 1970s Chevy van and parked for free in the company parking lot. We had a fitness center with showers and a locker room so he used it for showers -- but not workouts. And an on-site cafeteria that served breakfast and lunch. He lived like that for a few years, saving lots of money for toys that would have gone for housing.

Anyway, get on with the story, Hank. We have lenses such as the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3, Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3, and very expensive Olympus 150-400mm f4.5. Easy and inexpensive with the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 and Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 to get to 800mm-efl these days.

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film? Note, I am not asking about a digital body with the Nikkor. I realize that it is sort of an apples/oranges comparison in some sense, but ultimately we are talking about creating photos in either case. So, maybe an apples/apple-oranges hybrid comparison? If you insist that the Nikkor must be brought into the digital realm then assume the very best, highest quality, professional film scan. Yes, I understand equivalency with regards to digital sensors so, please, do not even drag that into this and try to hijack the thread. We are all tired of that different subject.



I shot film for a few decades. Personally, I do not miss it. I have scanned over 10,000 of my old slides/negatives. I prefer digital.

The various claims of what effective mp count 35mm film can deliver when scanned properly offers a wide range of possibilities. There are also widely diverse films and developing treatments to take into account. I have a few excellent 30x20" Cibachrome prints of my kids when young . From Kodachrome 25 or other low noise films in B&W there were a number of very clean , very low ISO films, which I expect will give far better results than many imagine.

I think a lot of folk have bad memories of film and prints because so many used low quality "labs". Film was not made to be scanned it was made to be printed or projected . Whilst digital offers wonders aplenty these days with instant gratification no waiting 2 weeks for that little yellow box to drop through the door

I don't have a permanent darkroom set up nowadays. There is a certain magic in the process of developing and printing film . But convenience trumps everything

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Jouko]

Hello!

I have been around long enough, so I have shot several hundreds of thousands shots also on film - mostly slides, but also bw and color negative, different formats (135, 120 at 6x4.5, 6x9)... No Nikkor 800mm anyway.

if we compare nowadays mFT sensor to 135-format "full frame slide films" with "normal" development, I'd say the mFT wins hands down: more latitude, higher dynamic range(!), less noise (vs grain) at high ISO... And much easier to carry and use with same kind of setup, especially with long teles.

BW films had more latitude with user development and some special developers, and you could use different ISO (ASA/DIN) settings for the film, but only one for the same development. Now we can change all the settings for each shot, if needed. And use HDR, HR, HHHR, IS, OIS, focus stacking etc,

BW process from shooting to printing was something special, I must admit. But do I really miss the smell of the developer? No. Doing the BW conversion here with the computer is so much easier - and you can add all kind of filters and change the color sensitivity from frame to frame (and even partially), so affecting the tonality to the image easily.

I never did color development myself, so no words from that.

Slides... Last time I shot slides, I think they were something like 1€/shot. I shoot mostly nature (birds, landscapes etc, but also portraits, weddings etc). On a bird session I can take some 1000-2000 shots a day easily, then pick the 1-20 good ones.... With film? Never.

Large formats had they own feeling, I mus admit. maybe it was mostly because the equipment was so heavy and large, that every shot was taken with hard thinking and "they have to be good, because they are taken with that camera/lens". Maybe more thinking would be good now too.

I still have some old film cameras, but never really use them. Some are prettier than others...

Have a nice day!


Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Kuva-Lehto & Lehtokukka photography

Lehtokukka on pieni, henkilökohtaisesti palveleva Nokialla toimiva valokuvausyritys. Pääasiassa teemme muoto- ja lapsikuvauksia sekä perhejuhlien kuvauksia. Lehtokukka is a small, personally serving photography company, working at Noki

lehtokukka.smugmug.com

http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/

https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras

What to do with the camera during the winter...

How to use your camera during the winter. Kuinka käyttää kameraa talvella.

joukolehto.blogspot.fi

 

[nzmacro]

Back in the late 1980s I had a co-worker who was a serious birder and bird photographer who bought a Nikon 800mm f/5.6 NIKKOR ED IF AIS manual focus (no IS) and used it on his Nikon F3 and F2. Does anyone remember how much these cost new in the 1980s? My recollection is that he paid something like US$10,000 in around 1987 which would be about US$27,000 now adjusted for inflation. He was a software engineer in Silicon Valley and in order to save money for his expensive toys he lived in a 1970s Chevy van and parked for free in the company parking lot. We had a fitness center with showers and a locker room so he used it for showers -- but not workouts. And an on-site cafeteria that served breakfast and lunch. He lived like that for a few years, saving lots of money for toys that would have gone for housing.

Anyway, get on with the story, Hank. We have lenses such as the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3, Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3, and very expensive Olympus 150-400mm f4.5. Easy and inexpensive with the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 and Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 to get to 800mm-efl these days.

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film? Note, I am not asking about a digital body with the Nikkor. I realize that it is sort of an apples/oranges comparison in some sense, but ultimately we are talking about creating photos in either case. So, maybe an apples/apple-oranges hybrid comparison? If you insist that the Nikkor must be brought into the digital realm then assume the very best, highest quality, professional film scan. Yes, I understand equivalency with regards to digital sensors so, please, do not even drag that into this and try to hijack the thread. We are all tired of that different subject.



I shot film for a few decades. Personally, I do not miss it. I have scanned over 10,000 of my old slides/negatives. I prefer digital.

I read many years ago and I do mean many, Canon did say that when digital FF reached 12mp it surpassed slide film and they would have to rethink their lenses for resolution. Think it was in popular photography magazine at the time.

From memory and I could be wrong, but the Nikkor cost more than the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L and I think your $ figures could be wrong there.

In 1980 the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L was $3,300 US (or $5,700 NZ) at the time, so not as much as you may think. Still a heck of a lot of money at the time! The Nikon might have been more, but not as much as you think.

No way would I go back to film, personal choice and I started with the Canon FTb and ended up with two Canon T90, stunning camera IMO.

The Canon FD 800 F/5.6L is still an excellent lens when it comes to IQ and resolution on m4/3 and FF. The only thing Canon missed out on that lens was missing out a fluorite element and it does show slight CA and I would expect the Nikon would show the same.

Native m4/3 I know nothing about, so won't comment

I do however know what the equivalent becomes if you mount the Nikkor 800 F/5.6 on m4/3

Danny.

--
-----------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.

 

[Henry Richardson]

The various claims of what effective mp count 35mm film can deliver when scanned properly offers a wide range of possibilities. There are also widely diverse films and developing treatments to take into account. I have a few excellent 30x20" Cibachrome prints of my kids when young . From Kodachrome 25 or other low noise films in B&W there were a number of very clean , very low ISO films, which I expect will give far better results than many imagine.

I think a lot of folk have bad memories of film and prints because so many used low quality "labs". Film was not made to be scanned it was made to be printed or projected . Whilst digital offers wonders aplenty these days with instant gratification no waiting 2 weeks for that little yellow box to drop through the door

And don't forget the expense and bulk of film (before processing and after processing).

In 1993 I carried 125 rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film on a 10-week camping safari in Africa. I was not really into animal photos, but I took a bunch of photos of animals anyway -- who can resist? Almost all of them I did not care one bit about when I got home and still don't today. I did get a few good people photos, but rather than wasting 125 rolls of film on the trip I could have gotten by with, say, 30 rolls. Oh, and I removed all the film from the boxes and it was still too big. So I then removed all the film from the plastic film cans and put the rolls in several big ziplock bags. You can guess how much it cost for the film + tax + processing + tax for 125 rolls. Adjusted for inflation it would be over US$4000 today. What a bonehead.

I don't have a permanent darkroom set up nowadays. There is a certain magic in the process of developing and printing film . But convenience trumps everything

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

Back in the late 1980s I had a co-worker who was a serious birder and bird photographer who bought a Nikon 800mm f/5.6 NIKKOR ED IF AIS manual focus (no IS) and used it on his Nikon F3 and F2. Does anyone remember how much these cost new in the 1980s? My recollection is that he paid something like US$10,000 in around 1987 which would be about US$27,000 now adjusted for inflation. He was a software engineer in Silicon Valley and in order to save money for his expensive toys he lived in a 1970s Chevy van and parked for free in the company parking lot. We had a fitness center with showers and a locker room so he used it for showers -- but not workouts. And an on-site cafeteria that served breakfast and lunch. He lived like that for a few years, saving lots of money for toys that would have gone for housing.

Anyway, get on with the story, Hank. We have lenses such as the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3, Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3, and very expensive Olympus 150-400mm f4.5. Easy and inexpensive with the Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 and Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 to get to 800mm-efl these days.

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film? Note, I am not asking about a digital body with the Nikkor. I realize that it is sort of an apples/oranges comparison in some sense, but ultimately we are talking about creating photos in either case. So, maybe an apples/apple-oranges hybrid comparison? If you insist that the Nikkor must be brought into the digital realm then assume the very best, highest quality, professional film scan. Yes, I understand equivalency with regards to digital sensors so, please, do not even drag that into this and try to hijack the thread. We are all tired of that different subject.



I shot film for a few decades. Personally, I do not miss it. I have scanned over 10,000 of my old slides/negatives. I prefer digital.

I read many years ago and I do mean many, Canon did say that when digital FF reached 12mp it surpassed slide film and they would have to rethink their lenses for resolution. Think it was in popular photography magazine at the time.

From memory and I could be wrong, but the Nikkor cost more than the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L and I think your $ figures could be wrong there.

In 1980 the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L was $3,300 US (or $5,700 NZ) at the time, so not as much as you may think. Still a heck of a lot of money at the time! The Nikon might have been more, but not as much as you think.

No way would I go back to film, personal choice and I started with the Canon FTb and ended up with two Canon T90, stunning camera IMO.

The Canon FD 800 F/5.6L is still an excellent lens when it comes to IQ and resolution on m4/3 and FF. The only thing Canon missed out on that lens was missing out a fluorite element and it does show slight CA and I would expect the Nikon would show the same.

Native m4/3 I know nothing about, so won't comment

I do however know what the equivalent becomes if you mount the Nikkor 800 F/5.6 on m4/3

Danny.

my brother shot some slide at an airshow a few years back with a Nikon f100 and 500mm/4, the shots came out really good i have to say, sadly can't find any of them to show, whilst it was fun to do it is more a novelty to do so these days

--
the computer says no

 

[McDackles]

https://www.photoscala.de/2010/06/26/wie-viele-megapixel-hat-ein-film/

The table is the interesting part.

Velvia 50 24x36 mm corresponds to 22 MPixel …..

 

[Dennis]

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film?

Equivalence helps with depth of field and diffraction, but total light doesn't help in this situation where "sensor tech" is not the same. I'm sure that slide film was sharp, but ISO 100 with an f/5.6 lens shooting wildlife in anything but good light is going to be limiting. (I used to use a 400/4.5, sometimes with a 1.4X and I moved up to 400 speed slide film and even then, had to use longer shutter times than I'd shoot today at higher ISO). If you open it up to faster films, then you increase the shooting scenarios to make it a little more fair, but you'll end up with grainier images with fast film than with the m43 body, I think. Between the size of the lens and the performance of film, overall, I'd say the 35mm file/800mm lens combo is just a lot more limiting - very well suited to certain things, but not others. I never had the luxury of shooting anything like that, but wouldn't really want to own it. (I suppose if someone gave me one, I could use it on my Nikon camera and shoot backyard birds with it, but I'd rather sell it and buy something smaller - even the new 800/6.3 for Z is half the weight and sells new for less than a used 800/5.6).

I'd vastly prefer the m43 option. First of all ... film! I've been done with it for nearly two decades and never going back. Second, that lens is huge. Third, the limited scenarios where it excels (due to film speeds, not to mention the lens being huge). I'm sure I'd enjoy the shallower DOF at 800/5.6 versus 800/12.6 equivalent, but again ... film!
Dennis

 

[Henry Richardson]

I read many years ago and I do mean many, Canon did say that when digital FF reached 12mp it surpassed slide film and they would have to rethink their lenses for resolution. Think it was in popular photography magazine at the time.

From memory and I could be wrong, but the Nikkor cost more than the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L and I think your $ figures could be wrong there.

In 1980 the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L was $3,300 US (or $5,700 NZ) at the time, so not as much as you may think. Still a heck of a lot of money at the time! The Nikon might have been more, but not as much as you think.

Yeah, you could be right that it was not US$10,000 that he paid in 1987. Certainly if I had bought it then I would remember how much I paid, but after 36 years his one comment about the price when showing the lens to me is sort of fuzzy. I am pretty sure it was more than US$3300 though. I asked in a thread about this lens on the Nikon forum and a guy said he thinks it was probably about US$6000:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67319121

I searched for old Popular Photography magazine scans and I found this one of a 1989 issue. At the back of all the old Popular Photography magazines there were pages and pages of ads from camera stores, mostly in NYC. I have looked at a few and I have not yet found a listing for the 800mm, but there may be one in there somewhere:

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id...AgLEAE#v=onepage&q=Popular Photography&f=true

We are maybe trying to find the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

No way would I go back to film, personal choice and I started with the Canon FTb and ended up with two Canon T90, stunning camera IMO.

The Canon FD 800 F/5.6L is still an excellent lens when it comes to IQ and resolution on m4/3 and FF. The only thing Canon missed out on that lens was missing out a fluorite element and it does show slight CA and I would expect the Nikon would show the same.

Native m4/3 I know nothing about, so won't comment

I do however know what the equivalent becomes if you mount the Nikkor 800 F/5.6 on m4/3

Danny.

Back in 1987 when he bought his massive 800mm it was certainly a huge, impressive, very expensive lens to me. For years my longest was 200mm. I had a manual focus 35mm SLR + 28mm, 50mm, 35-105mm, 80-200mm lenses. I think I just have 2 scans taken at 200mm from back then:

1974: Very old, dilapidated gasoline station in a small Texas town (I stopped the car and took a photo from my window at some distance away)



1983: Dandy, dainty, doggie walker in the park listening to his Walkman

 

[Kharan]

I got to wondering if those of you are the equivalency afficionados could tell us what the equivalency of a 20mp Olympus/Panasonic body + Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3/Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 compared to a Nikon F3 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 using Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 slide film? Note, I am not asking about a digital body with the Nikkor. I realize that it is sort of an apples/oranges comparison in some sense, but ultimately we are talking about creating photos in either case. So, maybe an apples/apple-oranges hybrid comparison? If you insist that the Nikkor must be brought into the digital realm then assume the very best, highest quality, professional film scan. Yes, I understand equivalency with regards to digital sensors so, please, do not even drag that into this and try to hijack the thread. We are all tired of that different subject.

In my experience, type 1 sensors are the closest analogue to the characteristics of film in terms of dynamic range and "grain". Sure, some specific film stocks do better than modern one-inchers in some particular metrics, but people would've killed for the flexibility and general quality that a serious bridge camera like the Sony RX10M4 offers. MFT is a notch above 35mm film performance already.

Imagine that — you can get to a 600mm FoV with a camera that's the same size and weight as a Nikon F3 with the most basic kit lens available back then, but it goes from 24mm to 600mm all in one, and with outstanding quality.

Which explains why some people go the whole nine yards and shoot wildlife with digital 135 format — the potential quality is just absurd. Wildlife photos that 40 years ago took months of planning, years of experience and a metric ton of luck now can be taken by almost anyone with the inclination and a bit of training. Some people hate the loss of the romantic ideals, but I love that this genre is more accessible than ever, and how it has made possible great images of very scarce and/or shy critters.

I shot film for a few decades. Personally, I do not miss it. I have scanned over 10,000 of my old slides/negatives. I prefer digital.

 

[nzmacro]

I read many years ago and I do mean many, Canon did say that when digital FF reached 12mp it surpassed slide film and they would have to rethink their lenses for resolution. Think it was in popular photography magazine at the time.

From memory and I could be wrong, but the Nikkor cost more than the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L and I think your $ figures could be wrong there.

In 1980 the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L was $3,300 US (or $5,700 NZ) at the time, so not as much as you may think. Still a heck of a lot of money at the time! The Nikon might have been more, but not as much as you think.

Yeah, you could be right that it was not US$10,000 that he paid in 1987. Certainly if I had bought it then I would remember how much I paid, but after 36 years his one comment about the price when showing the lens to me is sort of fuzzy. I am pretty sure it was more than US$3300 though. I asked in a thread about this lens on the Nikon forum and a guy said he thinks it was probably about US$6000:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67319121

I searched for old Popular Photography magazine scans and I found this one of a 1989 issue. At the back of all the old Popular Photography magazines there were pages and pages of ads from camera stores, mostly in NYC. I have looked at a few and I have not yet found a listing for the 800mm, but there may be one in there somewhere:

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id...AgLEAE#v=onepage&q=Popular Photography&f=true

We are maybe trying to find the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

No way would I go back to film, personal choice and I started with the Canon FTb and ended up with two Canon T90, stunning camera IMO.

The Canon FD 800 F/5.6L is still an excellent lens when it comes to IQ and resolution on m4/3 and FF. The only thing Canon missed out on that lens was missing out a fluorite element and it does show slight CA and I would expect the Nikon would show the same.

Native m4/3 I know nothing about, so won't comment

I do however know what the equivalent becomes if you mount the Nikkor 800 F/5.6 on m4/3

Danny.

Back in 1987 when he bought his massive 800mm it was certainly a huge, impressive, very expensive lens to me. For years my longest was 200mm. I had a manual focus 35mm SLR + 28mm, 50mm, 35-105mm, 80-200mm lenses. I think I just have 2 scans taken at 200mm from back then:

1974: Very old, dilapidated gasoline station in a small Texas town (I stopped the car and took a photo from my window at some distance away)



1983: Dandy, dainty, doggie walker in the park listening to his Walkman

Yes most tele lenses of the day was with Nikon being more expensive.

Some of the Canon teles were at these costs in the day in todays money ......

600 F/4.5 = $2,400 US in 1981

500 F/4.5L = $3,100 US in 1981

150-600mm f/5.6L = $5,900 US in 1982

I'll go over those links for sure. For me it's always interesting.

Canon makes it really simple with the original costs, just click on a lens .......

View by series – Lens Hall - Canon Camera Museum

Search Canon's lenses by product series and release period.

global.canon

The FD 800 F/5.6L ......

FD800mm f/5.6L - Canon Camera Museum

Here, you can find out about Canon's FD Lenses > 100-800mm > FD800mm f/5.6L.

global.canon

It's a shame Nikon doesn't do the same on their site.

Here it is on the E-M10



Still an excellent lens.

--
-----------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Hello!

I have been around long enough, so I have shot several hundreds of thousands shots also on film - mostly slides, but also bw and color negative, different formats (135, 120 at 6x4.5, 6x9)... No Nikkor 800mm anyway.

if we compare nowadays mFT sensor to 135-format "full frame slide films" with "normal" development, I'd say the mFT wins hands down: more latitude, higher dynamic range(!), less noise (vs grain) at high ISO... And much easier to carry and use with same kind of setup, especially with long teles.

Yes, I agree.

BW films had more latitude with user development and some special developers, and you could use different ISO (ASA/DIN) settings for the film, but only one for the same development. Now we can change all the settings for each shot, if needed. And use HDR, HR, HHHR, IS, OIS, focus stacking etc,

BW process from shooting to printing was something special, I must admit. But do I really miss the smell of the developer? No. Doing the BW conversion here with the computer is so much easier - and you can add all kind of filters and change the color sensitivity from frame to frame (and even partially), so affecting the tonality to the image easily.

I never did color development myself, so no words from that.

Slides... Last time I shot slides, I think they were something like 1€/shot. I shoot mostly nature (birds, landscapes etc, but also portraits, weddings etc). On a bird session I can take some 1000-2000 shots a day easily, then pick the 1-20 good ones.... With film? Never.

I have heard (but not checked) that shooting and processing slides (and negatives) is much, much, much more expensive now.

Large formats had they own feeling, I mus admit. maybe it was mostly because the equipment was so heavy and large, that every shot was taken with hard thinking and "they have to be good, because they are taken with that camera/lens". Maybe more thinking would be good now too.

I still have some old film cameras, but never really use them. Some are prettier than others...

Have a nice day!

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

 

[Henry Richardson]

I read many years ago and I do mean many, Canon did say that when digital FF reached 12mp it surpassed slide film and they would have to rethink their lenses for resolution. Think it was in popular photography magazine at the time.

From memory and I could be wrong, but the Nikkor cost more than the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L and I think your $ figures could be wrong there.

In 1980 the Canon FD 800 F/5.6L was $3,300 US (or $5,700 NZ) at the time, so not as much as you may think. Still a heck of a lot of money at the time! The Nikon might have been more, but not as much as you think.

Yeah, you could be right that it was not US$10,000 that he paid in 1987. Certainly if I had bought it then I would remember how much I paid, but after 36 years his one comment about the price when showing the lens to me is sort of fuzzy. I am pretty sure it was more than US$3300 though. I asked in a thread about this lens on the Nikon forum and a guy said he thinks it was probably about US$6000:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67319121

I searched for old Popular Photography magazine scans and I found this one of a 1989 issue. At the back of all the old Popular Photography magazines there were pages and pages of ads from camera stores, mostly in NYC. I have looked at a few and I have not yet found a listing for the 800mm, but there may be one in there somewhere:

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id...AgLEAE#v=onepage&q=Popular Photography&f=true

We are maybe trying to find the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

I found an ad in the 1989 Popular Photography magazine link above. It is on page 84 at a place called Tri-State. It shows the 800mm f5.6 for US$4149.95. I am not sure why I had $10,000 in my head all these years. Unless he exaggerated the price when he told me. Adjusting for inflation it would be about US$11,250 in 2023.

View attachment 2634086

No way would I go back to film, personal choice and I started with the Canon FTb and ended up with two Canon T90, stunning camera IMO.

The Canon FD 800 F/5.6L is still an excellent lens when it comes to IQ and resolution on m4/3 and FF. The only thing Canon missed out on that lens was missing out a fluorite element and it does show slight CA and I would expect the Nikon would show the same.

Native m4/3 I know nothing about, so won't comment

I do however know what the equivalent becomes if you mount the Nikkor 800 F/5.6 on m4/3

Danny.

Back in 1987 when he bought his massive 800mm it was certainly a huge, impressive, very expensive lens to me. For years my longest was 200mm. I had a manual focus 35mm SLR + 28mm, 50mm, 35-105mm, 80-200mm lenses. I think I just have 2 scans taken at 200mm from back then:

1974: Very old, dilapidated gasoline station in a small Texas town (I stopped the car and took a photo from my window at some distance away)



1983: Dandy, dainty, doggie walker in the park listening to his Walkman

Yes most tele lenses of the day was with Nikon being more expensive.

Some of the Canon teles were at these costs in the day in todays money ......

600 F/4.5 = $2,400 US in 1981

500 F/4.5L = $3,100 US in 1981

150-600mm f/5.6L = $5,900 US in 1982

I'll go over those links for sure. For me it's always interesting.

Canon makes it really simple with the original costs, just click on a lens .......

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/lens.html?s=nfd

The FD 800 F/5.6L ......

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd186.html

It's a shame Nikon doesn't do the same on their site.

Here it is on the E-M10



Still an excellent lens.

Oh boy, it's a big lens. 1600mm-efl on m4/3. Whoa!

 

[paolop23]

not again a pointless thread...

- op talks about hi-end slr gear and how he used it for birding back in the day.

so far, off to a great start.

- shares meme and gear photos and asks about equivalency.

what? seriously?

why no bird photos from Nikon F3 and 800mmf5.6, you said you scanned 10,000 of them.....

 

[JosephScha]

I have taken many macro pictures of 35mm slides, just so they fill the frame, slides developed by Kodak. (Those hold up much better than others developed in other labs). I was surprised that when shot by my 20MP G9, at 100% view I could see grain in the slides. There was little to no more detail when zoomed in at 100%.

So I'd say Kodachrome might approach 6 to 8 MP. Given some time, I can find an example.

 

[Henry Richardson]

I have taken many macro pictures of 35mm slides, just so they fill the frame, slides developed by Kodak. (Those hold up much better than others developed in other labs). I was surprised that when shot by my 20MP G9, at 100% view I could see grain in the slides. There was little to no more detail when zoomed in at 100%.

So I'd say Kodachrome might approach 6 to 8 MP. Given some time, I can find an example.

Yeah, that is probably about right. I think back in the 1990s Kodak said that 6mp scans were enough for most 35mm film. You may recall their PhotoCD system from those days. Those were 6mp scans. I scanned 10,000 35mm slides/negatives using a 10mp Minolta scanner. As I wrote in these articles about the experience I thought most of the time 10mp was not necessary.

Scanning Torture (or Learning to Love Your Digital Camera) -- Part 1

http://bakubo.blogspot.com/2013/12/scanning-torture-or-learning-to-love.html

Over 10,000 35mm slides and negatives scanned! -- Part 2

http://bakubo.blogspot.com/2014/01/over-10000-35mm-slides-and-negatives.html

Update on scanning color negatives -- Part 3

http://bakubo.blogspot.com/2019/12/update-on-scanning-color-negatives.html

The equivalency aficionados talk a bit about resolution, but mostly about noise, dynamic range, light gathering ability, etc. So far there has been very little of that in this thread. It surprises me because often there are dozens of posts about it.

 

[nzmacro]

I found an ad in the 1989 Popular Photography magazine link above. It is on page 84 at a place called Tri-State. It shows the 800mm f5.6 for US$4149.95. I am not sure why I had $10,000 in my head all these years. Unless he exaggerated the price when he told me. Adjusting for inflation it would be about US$11,250 in 2023.

View attachment 2634086

Well thanks for digging that deep to turn that up. Brilliant. Amazing original list with the costs and yes, 2 lenses appeal there with the 120 medical and the 400 F/3.5. Someone in here was using the 400 F/3.5 on m4/3, might have been Sanjay. It's one lens I wish Canon had bought out with a fluorite element. The Canon FD 400 F/4.5 was not that great to be honest, the Nikkor was.

Nikon always had the tendency to be more expensive than Canon for the equivalent lenses at the time.

Danny.

--
-----------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.

 

[James Stirling]

I found an ad in the 1989 Popular Photography magazine link above. It is on page 84 at a place called Tri-State. It shows the 800mm f5.6 for US$4149.95. I am not sure why I had $10,000 in my head all these years. Unless he exaggerated the price when he told me. Adjusting for inflation it would be about US$11,250 in 2023.

View attachment 2634086

Well thanks for digging that deep to turn that up. Brilliant. Amazing original list with the costs and yes, 2 lenses appeal there with the 120 medical and the 400 F/3.5. Someone in here was using the 400 F/3.5 on m4/3, might have been Sanjay. It's one lens I wish Canon had bought out with a fluorite element. The Canon FD 400 F/4.5 was not that great to be honest, the Nikkor was.

Nikon always had the tendency to be more expensive than Canon for the equivalent lenses at the time.

Danny.

Looking at the 180-600mm F/8 at $6399 in 1989 that is nearly £16000 today. Meanwhile the new Nikon 180-600mm F/5.6-6.3 comes in at $1700. The 180-600mm F/8 weighed in at 3.4kg and extended length was 403mm long the 180-600mm F/5.6-6.3 weighs 2.14 kg and is 316mm long . We live in wonderful times

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

The various claims of what effective mp count 35mm film can deliver when scanned properly offers a wide range of possibilities. There are also widely diverse films and developing treatments to take into account. I have a few excellent 30x20" Cibachrome prints of my kids when young . From Kodachrome 25 or other low noise films in B&W there were a number of very clean , very low ISO films, which I expect will give far better results than many imagine.

I think a lot of folk have bad memories of film and prints because so many used low quality "labs". Film was not made to be scanned it was made to be printed or projected . Whilst digital offers wonders aplenty these days with instant gratification no waiting 2 weeks for that little yellow box to drop through the door

And don't forget the expense and bulk of film (before processing and after processing).

In 1993 I carried 125 rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film on a 10-week camping safari in Africa. I was not really into animal photos, but I took a bunch of photos of animals anyway -- who can resist? Almost all of them I did not care one bit about when I got home and still don't today. I did get a few good people photos, but rather than wasting 125 rolls of film on the trip I could have gotten by with, say, 30 rolls. Oh, and I removed all the film from the boxes and it was still too big. So I then removed all the film from the plastic film cans and put the rolls in several big ziplock bags. You can guess how much it cost for the film + tax + processing + tax for 125 rolls. Adjusted for inflation it would be over US$4000 today. What a bonehead.

The most shooting in "bulk" with film { nothing like yours } I did was doing weddings, for any young bucks whining about current cameras for wedding work try doing it with MF film When I was youn I lived for the wee yellow box dropping through the door. Though when it came time to scan a lot of my older images KR was a bit more tricky to scan

The odd time I shoot film now I do it with MF and B&W film easy to develop and scan in small amounts. A few years back one long winter I scanned cleaned up and edited 1000's of photos from my extended family not fun not fun at all

I don't have a permanent darkroom set up nowadays. There is a certain magic in the process of developing and printing film . But convenience trumps everything

 

[nzmacro]

I found an ad in the 1989 Popular Photography magazine link above. It is on page 84 at a place called Tri-State. It shows the 800mm f5.6 for US$4149.95. I am not sure why I had $10,000 in my head all these years. Unless he exaggerated the price when he told me. Adjusting for inflation it would be about US$11,250 in 2023.

View attachment 2634086

Well thanks for digging that deep to turn that up. Brilliant. Amazing original list with the costs and yes, 2 lenses appeal there with the 120 medical and the 400 F/3.5. Someone in here was using the 400 F/3.5 on m4/3, might have been Sanjay. It's one lens I wish Canon had bought out with a fluorite element. The Canon FD 400 F/4.5 was not that great to be honest, the Nikkor was.

Nikon always had the tendency to be more expensive than Canon for the equivalent lenses at the time.

Danny.

Looking at the 180-600mm F/8 at $6399 in 1989 that is nearly £16000 today. Meanwhile the new Nikon 180-600mm F/5.6-6.3 comes in at $1700. The 180-600mm F/8 weighed in at 3.4kg and extended length was 403mm long the 180-600mm F/5.6-6.3 weighs 2.14 kg and is 316mm long . We live in wonderful times

Yeah Jim, people can complain all they like but with the zooms around today, we are pretty darn lucky IMO.

I was just watching Jarod, a lot don't like him, but when it comes to tele lenses there's not much better than him for ball sports. He was using the Canon EF 1200 F/8. At a ball game he ran into the issue of being too close, I'm not sure what he expecting Wrong subject for that lens. Even for cricket on a large pitch it's too much focal length. Motorsports or birds, fine. Still not my thing though, heck the 800mm is hard enough work.

Interesting lens mate, but yeah, hard work.

--
-----------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.