So this is a pretty decent eBay product shot, isn't it? Camera's a bit dirty. Close enough for government work, as we used to say in D.C. You can read the serial number.
I have a bunch of schtuff to list (schtuff—that's a technical term) on eBay, and I wanted to shoot it with the D800. But I don't have a macro or a long lens for it.
So check out what I did...
...Just shot it with the 28mm and cropped. Instant digital zoom.
And the crop was too big—I had to reduce the image size. I could have stood twice as far away.
Hehe. Whee!
(Lighting is one umbrella at camera left.)
Mike
ADDENDUM: The camera is a Nikkormat (a.k.a. "Nikkomat," in Japan) FT3, manufactured for just a short period of time in 1977 while the then-new FM was being readied for sale. It was thus the last of the Nikkormats, Nikon's traditional (but always somewhat confusing to the public) name for its sturdy no-nonsense workhorse cameras just below the F line. (Many pros, especially beginning pros, preferred two Nikkormats to one F.) The FT3 was the only Nikkormat that accepted Auto-Indexing (AI) lenses. As with many old Nikkormats, the meter on this one no longer works. Otherwise it's still fully functional. The FT3 also has the distinction of having the shortest production run of any Nikon SLR (I believe—I'd have to ask Stephen Gandy to be sure).
It's actually fairly analogous to the D800/E—it was the top of Nikon's amateur camera line, but one tier below its flagship pro cameras, just like the D800 is.
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Pascal Jappy: "I am sooo jealous, I'm never reading your blog again. Not until tomorrow at least!"
Manuel: "Amazing shot. No moiré whatsoever ;-) "
ault: "Camera's a bit dirty??? I had thought that mine were moderately clean. It appears they are not."
Mike replies: Well, it's clean for real life. But look at the right-hand side of the top plate and you'll see what I mean. That's a light coating of grime that could easily be spruced up a bit.
As any tabletop photographer can tell you, lots of things show up in a product shot that sometimes aren't even visible to the eye unless you look carefully. Small-object photographers spend a lot of time getting things scrupulously clean in order to photograph them.
This used to be a lot more of a problem before you could spot with a click of the mouse. Of course, in eBay product shots, you have to be very careful what you spot out—you have to make sure it's something that's actually removable from the camera. There are times when I'm about to spot a white mark off a camera when I have to go back down to the basement and check that the white spot is actually a speck of dust that can be brushed off the camera itself. Cleaning up a photo of a object for sale if the object itself can't be cleaned would be deceptive. It's usually a lot easier—still—just to make sure the thing is clean before you take its picture.
David Aspinall: "Congrats on your purchase but it just reinforces what for me is one of the problems of the digital age...Too much choice Too much money Too much in-built redundancy. The old Nikon will still be going long after the D800 is in a recycling bin."
Mike replies: Gasp.
Pavel: "That old Nikon is as beautiful as any sculpture and always potentially more useful too. If only to sit on a shelf that faithful servant should not be cast down like this, publicly and on fleabay of all fates, in the heat of your infatuation with the new. You will be sorry Mike! And I will use my 'toldyouso' emoticon on you, mercilessly, when you soon realize your terrible mistake! (As a man of your passion, intellect, good taste and good grammar undoubtedly will.) I know you would not sell a good book once you've thumbed through it! You've upended my faith in the known universe! By the way...umm ....how much ya askin'?"
Soeren Engelbrecht: "Nice, Mike. I'm constantly bewondered by seeing people—or even camera shops—trying to sell very expensive camera stuff and not being able to make a decent picture of it :-) They put their double-digit MP compact into 'macro mode' (which is often optimised for wide angle), move within two inches of the object, and then downsample to 0.8 MP or whatever they need. The result: weird perspective distortion—and often heavy barrel distortion, too. I'd definitely buy something from you, though :-) "
Mike replies: As the kids say now, "I know, right?"
The other thing that used to "bewonder" me is how often camera companies will put example photos in their brochures that either don't show off the qualities of the equipment or that have some obvious flaw. An old Contax brochure had an example picture, made with a Zeiss lens, that had obvious camera shake...and the caption talked about the sharpness of the lens.
It was later explained to me that often the U.S. importing arm of the camera company is responsible for the brochure, and just sends one of its tech reps out to snag a few sample pictures—and some of them just aren't terribly good photographers. You can see the same distinctions sometimes in digital review sites—the "sample" pictures from site to site, or even among different reviewers on the same site, can vary pretty widely in style and skill.
This is the main reason why I propose to go for a d800 to use as a travel lens - cropping instead of zoom lenses (and without the 'flattening' effect for distant objects) - just don't print too large.
Posted by: Bear. | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:29 AM
Very nice :-)
Posted by: Mike Potter | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:37 AM
Interesting backdrop. I can't help thinking of the airline ads: "I'm Nikki. Fly me."?
Posted by: robert e | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:41 AM
robert e,
I found it in the posterboard section of the local OfficeMax this evening. Most of the rest of what they had was day-glo, so I figured I'd give it a try.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:43 AM
and what is your ebay user id again?
Posted by: Neal | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:51 AM
Nice Nikkormat by the way
Posted by: Neal | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:52 AM
I would so love a good digital camera that looked exactly like this: no playback screen, only a viewfinder.
If additional playback is needed it should beam live view straight to your phone or other available device.
Or you just wait until you finished shooting (you're not supposed to be looking at your camera for Pete's sake).
Simpler, more beautiful.
Posted by: Peter Aaslestad | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:55 AM
Alright. Now you are starting a product photography career. :-)
Posted by: Mathew Hargreaves | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:32 AM
Bear -- the flattening of distant objects is due to camera position, NOT to lens focal length; cropping and picking an appropriate focal length will give the same perspective from any given camera position.
Mike -- your ebay product shots look to be better than mine, and mine seem to be "good enough". Cropping is a form of enlargement, and the more you enlarge the sharper your original needs to be -- but shooting product shots with strobe should NOT pose any difficulties with getting to the upper-middle reaches of sharpness, so no problem.
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 02:23 AM
"the flattening of distant objects is due to camera position, NOT to lens focal length; cropping and picking an appropriate focal length will give the same perspective from any given camera position."
'S true. The best illustration I ever saw of this--can't remember where--was an 8x10 neg shot with a 300mm normal lens, and a 35mm shot with a 300mm telephoto from the same camera position. The 35mm frame was placed up next to the appropriate crop of the much larger 8x10 neg. A great visual....
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 02:31 AM
For a real size shocker photograph your D800 with a 28mm next to your Nikkormat with a 1970s 28mm. You can't really carry all that around all of the time, can you? Thus, the real cost of digital is not just your main camera but the other, smaller camera (e.g. Fuji XPro1) for when you are still shooting serious photos but just can;'t deal with the size and weight of the DSLRs...
I hope you have more gear to sell!
--Darin
Posted by: Darin | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 02:40 AM
Warning! Advert.
Stuff for cleaning dirty cameras.
Where I live we can buy something called "Cyber Clean".
www.cyberclean.net
Just very sticky stuff that removes hard to clean dust.
Recommended.
Guess there might be something similar where you live Mike.
Posted by: Johan Grahn | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 02:49 AM
I have often thought this would be the result of mega pixel cameras. A photographer with a wide lens, capturing everything in one exposure and creating ten or twenty separate photographs from it. So I don't understand why you don't just photograph everything for sale in one big picture and crop? Or at least take the chore out of it and create a still life on one side of the frame and put the Nikkormat on the other ;-)
Posted by: Steve Barnett | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 03:16 AM
Steve B,
That sounds harder to me.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 03:30 AM
In general, to steepen perspective move closer to the subject and then zoom out to get everything else in your composition. To flatten perspective do the opposite.
Posted by: Ed | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 04:23 AM
My mind wandering again, I missed the whole point of this post. All I saw was a Manual Mechanical Metal camera, one from the "hockey puck" era of camera design.(Build them as tough as a 'hockey puck'.) It's strange but I still think of cameras like the FT3 as a modern camera. Man, I'm really behind the curve here.
Posted by: John Robison | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 08:21 AM
Peter, some of us are very glad we have the playback screen. A tool to be used at times when we want to check whether we got the peak action in a sporting event so we can move to the next event - news coverage for papers and a half dozen games to photograph in a limited time frame.
Or, in my particular case, bare and glare ice in winter or water reflections in summer. Nice to know when one has just what is wanted when we can't really look directly into the viewfinder due to searingly bright sunlight.
Other than that I keep hoping Canon will bring out the EOS 3 in digital. As of yet, no Eye Control AF.
Canon is behind these days with Nikon upstaging both its last two introductions. Maybe their developers and engineers are busy putting the 50MP sensor into a new body? You know, the super-duper 50MP sensor they showed a year or so ago but have not put into a camera for us. Was supposed to be way better than anything else. Well, with Nikon and the D800 it is time for Canon to produce or keep sucking hind teat.
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 08:43 AM
Good to see that you are enjoying the new camera. The dirt only shows up because you have all those pixels. You will just have to be very honest with your Ebay listings.
With great (resolving) power comes great responsibility! : )
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 09:35 AM
Why would you sell a Nikkormat? It may be one of the best built cameras ever (except for the lightmeter). I still use mine weekly.
BTW - how much (if the meter works)
Posted by: Jim | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 10:03 AM
"Because I can" is a hell of a drug.
I'm getting that same giddiness from nearly the same source - D800, but the 24 f/1.4 rather than the 28.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Kwasi | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 10:17 AM
I know you don't want to "pollute" your site (and feed), but it seems a shame to give eBay their cut when you probably have interested buyers among your readers. But then again, perhaps their merchant services really are worth something, especially to find buyers for any esoteric items.
Posted by: Ben Wilkes | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 10:23 AM
Mike,
May I recommend buying a tabletop "tent" for shooting this stuff? I've been shooting small products 1-off for years. But, like you, I've a line of small items (lenses, cameras, etc.) that I have to photograph for sale. So just the past week I finally purchased a collapsible tent to help standardize lighting and speed the process. It takes an hour or so of practice but it works great. And eBay buyers don't need / want to see creativity in such pics. They want to see the frank condition details.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 10:57 AM
Be careful using eBay auctions. I've been selling there in a small way for years with no problems. A couple of months ago I sold all my remaining Canon gear in eight auctions. I had trouble with half of them. In fact I still have one lens to resell. The buyer never responded to a single email he was sent.
I've been told that the fixed price sales are better with fewer issues. Might try that next time.
Posted by: Ken White | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 10:59 AM
So many pixels... *goes cross-eyed*
Posted by: Peter | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 11:06 AM
Nikon photographing a Nickon...
obviously your protege son was not interested in being
a model. Now as to his motor vehicle...
Posted by: Bryce Lee | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 11:21 AM
I aways hated the axial shutter speed control on the nikkormat , then I started using a 'blad and came to like the round the mount shutter , but couldn't stand 35mm.
Always wondered who made them back when copal shutters were only licensed to a handful of makers.
Posted by: Hugh Crawford | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 11:52 AM
The Nikkormat FTN I used for 35 years had such a funky meter, that half the time, the camera didn't even have a battery in it.
I learned to gauge light with the film package insert (which introduced the phrase "cloudy bright" into my vocabulary), adjust exposure according to conditions, and bracket like crazy.
When discussing cameras with other photogs, they would have one of two comments about the Nikkormat-
"Poor man's Nikon", or "That camera is a workhorse, you could pound nails with it"
Posted by: Jimmy Reina | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 11:55 AM
Not to be negative or anything (negative? This is digital!) but I find your blue-sky background makes it look like the white balance is way off. As in, set-for-daylight-and-shot-indoors kind of off.
It's not so obvious in the "crop" that the backdrop is supposed to be blue, so all that blue reflection on the silver of the camera body makes me go "eeeek!"
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:22 PM
With respect to Pavel's comment on hastily-made product shots, I must say what's "good" and "bad" is highly subjective. I recently got into my head of taking photos of my current cameras (long story), and after a bit of experimentation and thought, came to the conclusion that a slightly overhead view with a wide-angle compact in macro mode gave the most pleasing results. Yes, the perspective is highly unnatural, but as with car and keyboard photos it adds a certain charm to the scene that's missing from more normal shots, and using a compact gives you DOF to spare.
Now, I won't deny that most of those product shots were likely made as such for reasons of inexperience rather than conscious artistic intent, but I feel it's more a case of "doing right for the wrong reasons" than something in need of correction per se. Though, as I said before, it's all subjective anyways so feel free to disagree :)
Posted by: Daniel S. | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:25 PM
For those that warn of the eternally impending obsolescence of any digital camera body: My two 12MP, full frame Nikon D3's are still working fine four and a half years after I acquired them, and I expect they'll still be working fine in another four and a half years. For small prints no more pixels are required or desired. I still pull the D3 out for everyday or experimental shots, even though there's a D800E sitting just nearby.
By the way, the each D3 camera paid for itself within a year and a half of purchase when measured against the cost of shooting those sixty-plus thousand frames on color transparency film.
Posted by: Keith B | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 12:45 PM
So I take it from Darin's comment above the D800 and any pro-grade lens combo is an Armstrong camera. You carry it and your arm gets strong. No harm in such exercise.
From a fellow Nikkormat FT3 shooter (black paint, semi-wonky meter, self-timer removed, and showing some miles) three bits of advice to the wise soon-to-be owner of the above camera.
1.) The inner edges of the film rewind knob adjacent to the pop-up rewind lever are often sharp enough to slice a finger open.
2.) Yes, that ISO setting tab under the lens mount is a fingernail breaker when you want it to move and yet it moves easily on its own in your camera bag.
3.) When in bear country you may be tempted to swing this Nikkormat about but do carry bear spray for protection.
Posted by: B Grace | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:02 PM
Mike - What lens is that in the lower left corner of the second picture?
Is it an AI lens, and have you given it a shot on the D800?
I've done a little bit of experimenting with the few old AI lenses I've got, and I've found that they can be surprisingly good performers on the D800. The next expense is going to be AI-conversion of my old favorites (24/2.8, 32/2, 55/1.2 and 105/2.5)...
Posted by: Dave in NM | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:29 PM
Does this mean I can throw away my Tilt-and-Shift lens 8-)
BTW we said "close enough for government work" in Hollywood.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:34 PM
Back in 1969 I brought a Nikkormat FTN with a 50mm 1.4 back from Okinawa with me. Loved the higher sync speed shutter on the Nikkormat vs an F or F2. I did finally give the Nikkormat body to my sister and went with an F2 but kept the lens.
Posted by: Mike Plews | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:41 PM
"Lighting is one umbrella at camera left."
What? Is this a guest post from David Hobby?
Posted by: Chad Thompson | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 01:45 PM
Nostalgia is good for the soul, I guess, and I have a lot of it seeing the Nikkormat. My first SLR was a black Nikkormat circa 1972, after I'd worked long enough at my first job to afford it--about a month. I bought the Nikkormat instead of the F because the shutter control was around the lens mount and I could quickly adjust both shutter and aperture with slight movements of my left hand. Wonderful! Then some bozos stole it our of our house in 1981 and Nikkormats were no longer available . With a family I couldn't afford Nikons, so I moved to Minolta and bought an XGM from a store going out of business. They'd marked it down enough that I could afford a telephoto, too. I later moved to Minolta X700s, but have all that gear from...hmmm...30 years ago and it still works fine. But it's not up to producing the image quality of my Canon 7D. I just finished an assignment with the X700 and shot some record shots with my 7D and the it's easy to see the image quality differences.
Posted by: Craig Beyers | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 02:04 PM
"Is this a guest post from David Hobby?"
Not hardly. I can guarantee you that David has forgotten more about artificial lighting than I ever knew.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 03:39 PM
I believe any Nikon SLR can use Ai lenses. I use them all the time on my F.
[Yes, AI lenses are back-compatible, but they won't auto index. Here's a page explaining the ins and outs of AI and AIS. --Mike]
Posted by: Kashapero | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 03:55 PM
Sell it.
I've had an FT2 in my bag for 20 years and I have never liked it. It is too heavy, too loud, has too much shutter vibration, and its edges are too pointy. And it has that stupid OM-like shutter dial. The lovely smaller more rounded FE's and FM's are just so much better for real-world use. I'd sell my Nikkormat, too, but the meter's off and the back door has a cosmetic dent and 1/1000s is slow, so I'd be lucky to get $25 for it.
Posted by: Semilog | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 05:23 PM
When you sell those Rolleis let me know. If they were from Bob Shell they're worth an extra $20!
Posted by: Frank | Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 09:37 PM
Uh, the first picture of a real camera I have come to find on this side.
Posted by: cb | Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 03:05 AM
"Uh, the first picture of a real camera I have come to find on this side."
cb,
I'm not understanding. On this side of what?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 03:58 AM
"The old Nikon will still be going long after the D800 is in a recycling bin."
I don't know that I'd agree with that. A friend bought my first digital camera -- a Canon D60 -- off of me when I upgraded around 2005. It's still alive and kicking, even after spending a night submerged in a creek when he rolled his car trying to avoid a deer. Just because we're in an age that encourages buying new bodies every few years doesn't mean the old ones need to be sent to the recycling bin.
Posted by: Chris | Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 10:03 AM
Talk about triggering nostalgia! Starting around 1967 I got my FTN, then five years later, got the FT2, and a year after the FT3 came along, adopted it -- by trading the FTN and cash to the Denver dealer. Decades later (and thousands of great family, theatre and fishing slides) I sold the FT2 to my new son-in-law and got the nearest to the spirit of the Nikkormats: the Pentax 67. Last year, my beloved but unused FT3 and 50mm 1.4 underwrote part of my new Pentax 45mm. As with several of your posters, I loved those cameras for the simple purposefulness they brought to the task. I've followed your D800/E saga with interest, knowing that's where I should go, soon, but lament that there's no digital parallel to the old Nikkormats or the Pentax 67. I don't want or need video. I want simple but reliable. I want a stout body to mount a fine lens on. I'd like to be able to operate it in the dark, by feel. I know I need at least "full" frame, because I shoot and sell really big pieces, but the cavalcade of new digital cameras seems so transitory to me -- unlike the unchanging adequacy of the old Nikkos and the P 67. What's a guy to do? I'm still "studying" on it.
Posted by: Larry (Johnson) | Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 10:42 PM