As I've mentioned once or twice, my interest when not Templotting is landscape photography. It gets me some fresh air and exercise away from the computer. The results won't win any prizes, but I like them and looking back through my photos over the years is a pleasant way to spend an hour or two on a grey winter's day.

I've been in the habit of posting them occasionally on RMweb, but I don't see any reason not to post them here.

Here's the best of today's crop. It was a nice sunny day, but my fingers were too cold to work the camera controls properly so I didn't stay out long.



camera at SO 78670 67837

I swear that pylon wasn't there when I pressed the shutter.

Feel free to add your own photos if you wish. Not all of life is in BRT.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23949

I like moody photos!



__________
message ref: 23950

Heckington  - I think the only one left with 8 sails




Somewhere in Wales - must have fancied making a model.

Rob


__________
message ref: 23952

I too am in to landscapes, hence my Geograph interests. Here one from one of my usual walking spots, the Arch east of Devil's Bridge, taken on Tuesday:




Pity about the branch getting in the way, but I tried alternative viewpoints and they didn't work as well

__________
message ref: 23954

Paul Boyd wrote: I like moody photos!I like moody too. Here's a weary end to a long day. Although I'm not sure who was the wearier, the farmer or me -- hoping to get back to the car before losing the light. August 2016.





Martin.

__________
message ref: 23955

Rob Manchester wrote:Somewhere in Wales - must have fancied making a model.Shropshire:



Martin.

__________
message ref: 23956

Nigel Brown wrote:Pity about the branch getting in the way, but I tried alternative viewpoints and they didn't work as well Don't say that Nigel. I've been to the local camera club. You are supposed to say "I left the branch in, to lead the eye in to the focal point of the picture".

That looks a nice walk. Can you post the grid reference?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23957

Probably one of the most photographed castles in Britain:



__________
message ref: 23959

Martin Wynne wrote: Nigel Brown wrote:Pity about the branch getting in the way, but I tried alternative viewpoints and they didn't work as well Don't say that Nigel. I've been to the local camera club. You are supposed to say "I left the branch in, to lead the eye in to the focal point of the picture".

That looks a nice walk. Can you post the grid reference?

cheers,

Martin.
Thought of that, but couldn't even convince myself!  Grid ref in this Geograph link:

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5685844

It's halfway between Devil's Bridge and Cwmystwyth, on the B4574.

__________
message ref: 23960

Martin Wynne wrote: Rob Manchester wrote:Somewhere in Wales - must have fancied making a model.Shropshire:



Martin.
Thanks for the pic Martin. Some kind of workshop maybe ? What other buildings are left around the area ?

Rob


__________
message ref: 23961

Some great photos, keep them coming :-)

Most of my photography has tended to be at model railway shows I've found, most ending up on Flickr.

We all need something to distract ourselves from the pressure of life. For me it tends to be one of, reading science fiction or playing video games. But I also make jewellery as a therapeutic hobby, usually gifts for friends and family. Much cheaper than buying items for people and more personal. it helps distract me from the realities of life (mainly constant pain and fatigue).
Having said that, recently my other half has gotten a rescue dig who has brightened our lives.

__________
message ref: 23962

Rob Manchester wrote:Some kind of workshop maybe ? What other buildings are left around the area ?Hi Rob,

The recent use seems to have been agricultural. But it is the only remaining part of Walfords Mill, which was marked as disused even in 1902:



About 3/4 mile north of Cleobury Mortimer. The dotted line is the course of the Elan Valley Aqueduct pipeline.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23963

Nigel Brown wrote:Grid ref in this Geograph link:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5685844
 
Wow!

You have 11548 Photographs on there. That's an amazing record. How long have you been doing them?

I have a login on there, but I haven't logged in for ages. The last time I looked they were in the middle of a web site upgrade, but that seems to have been abandoned?

I've been intending to put more of mine on there, but it is quite time-consuming to locate an accurate grid reference, and find something meaningful to say in the caption. I can't imagine how many hours you must have spent uploading and captioning 11,000+ images.

I need a camera which puts the GPS data in the EXIF data. Most mobile phones do that, but its rare in full size cameras. I have a handheld GPS with bluetooth, but no bluetooth on the camera. However it seems I can pair the camera with my mobile phone and get GPS data that way. I intend to get better teched-up for this year's wanderings.

Thanks for the Devils Bridge ref. Next time I'm that way I shall definitely have a look.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23964

d827kelly wrote: Some great photos, keep them coming :-)

recently my other half has gotten a rescue dig who has brightened our lives.Hi Kelly,

Thanks for the pic.

This topic seems to have taken off like a rocket.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23965

Martin Wynne wrote:However it seems I can pair the camera with my mobile phone and get GPS data that way. I intend to get better teched-up for this year's wanderings.Hi Nigel,

You have spurred me into action.

I have downloaded the camera's app onto my mobile phone, and paired it with the camera. So I now have "Geotagged" GPS location data in the EXIF data on my photos. That's great. I expected it to fail with some incomprehensible error message, but in fact it worked first time. I can also now control the camera from the phone, which will be useful when it's on a tripod, instead of my old-fashioned cable release.

On the other hand, the cable release has been working for the best part of half a century without ever needing a new battery.

I have also re-activated my Geograph account, which apparently I haven't used since 2008. I'm sure I uploaded some photos, but they are not showing anywhere. I have submitted my photo above from yesterday, but reading their guidelines I fear it may be rejected for having my name on the corner. I found it a very tedious submission process, surely everything could be on one page? See:

 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5690562

It seems to be visible in all browsers, despite being marked "Awaiting Moderation" at the bottom left. That appears to be something of a contradiction if everyone can already see it?

I made a small donation to their funds.

cheers,

Martin.  

__________
message ref: 23966

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the mill details. It was used for corn according to the 1883/4 map ( when it was also not in use ). Did you take any more photos of the building. Get in close next time you pass by and find out what is under the chimney stack Are the bricks just stretcher bond ? I can't see any headers on the uploaded photo.

Rob



__________
message ref: 23967

Martin Wynne wrote: You have 11548 Photographs on there. That's an amazing record. How long have you been doing them?I was a keen hillwalker and always had a thing about taking snaps up mountains, probably inspired by W.A.Poucher's guide books. Pressure on finances meant I didn't get a decent camera until I inherited my father's Yashica rangefinder in 1979, and things then took off. An SLR in 1989, my first digicam in 2000, and so on. Pics mostly Scotland and Wales.

Spent 6 months in hospital in 2006 with spinal cord damage, courtesy of a rare medical event; thanks to the NHS I walked out. Recovering at home and scouring the web for my favourite haunts I stumbled across Geograph. Ideal. Over about 3 years loaded up my archive, with many great memories, and it was an incentive to go and explore places and take a reasonable number of pics. Couple of Scottish trips a year are a good source. Tailed off a bit last year due to bladder/kidney stone ops in the summer/autumn, but also because my Golf was giving trouble, after VW retuned it after the exhaust scandal. However, it's getting changed next week, so back on the trail

Nigel

__________
message ref: 23969

Martin Wynne wrote: Martin Wynne wrote:However it seems I can pair the camera with my mobile phone and get GPS data that way. I intend to get better teched-up for this year's wanderings.Hi Nigel,

You have spurred me into action.

I have downloaded the camera's app onto my mobile phone, and paired it with the camera. So I now have "Geotagged" GPS location data in the EXIF data on my photos. That's great. I expected it to fail with some incomprehensible error message, but in fact it worked first time. I can also now control the camera from the phone, which will be useful when it's on a tripod, instead of my old-fashioned cable release.

On the other hand, the cable release has been working for the best part of half a century without ever needing a new battery.

I have also re-activated my Geograph account, which apparently I haven't used since 2008. I'm sure I uploaded some photos, but they are not showing anywhere. I have submitted my photo above from yesterday, but reading their guidelines I fear it may be rejected for having my name on the corner. I found it a very tedious submission process, surely everything could be on one page? See:

 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5690562

It seems to be visible in all browsers, despite being marked "Awaiting Moderation" at the bottom left. That appears to be something of a contradiction if everyone can already see it?

I made a small donation to their funds.

cheers,

Martin.  
Martin

Well done. I like your method of updating the EXIF data with the position. Me, I don't carry mobile phones so that wouldn't work, but I'm happy working from maps anyway, and if I think it warrants it I'll take a Garmin.

There are two uploading methods. I prefer the first, although it can appear long winded. But for Geograph's purposes getting the positions of photographer and subject right matters. The stuff about classification is rather the brain-child of those who go to town on adding extra information and can get extremely tedious if you go the whole hog, but I just put in the minimum required.

The "awaiting moderation" bit means casual users (non-members) can't see it until it's been moderated. You may find a suggestion that you remove your name if possible.

Thanks for the donation, it will be appreciated. The site finances are a constant concern, although not desperate.

There's some good railway stuff on Geograph. In particular, Ben Brookesbank has uploaded a huge number of pics from the 1950s onwards.

Nigel

__________
message ref: 23970

Nigel Brown wrote:for Geograph's purposes getting the positions of photographer and subject right matters. The stuff about classification is rather the brain-child of those who go to town on adding extra information and can get extremely tedious if you go the whole hog, but I just put in the minimum required.Hi Nigel,

Thanks. Sorry to hear of your health problems, I hope you are now fully fit and ready to take to the hills again.

Here's my Geograph submission for today. I have hundreds of photos which would be usable, but the submission process is so time-consuming I don't think I can manage more than one a day. So it is going to take a while to catch up with your 11,548.



"On 22nd June 1402, Owain Glyndŵr marshalled his Welsh troops on these slopes. Sir Edmund Mortimer with a ragbag of English men stormed up the hill to engage them. The Welsh men had the advantage of height and the English were routed. 615 years later in June 2017 the cries of battle have long since fallen silent."

  http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5691536

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23972

Rob Manchester wrote: Thanks for the mill details. It was used for corn according to the 1883/4 map ( when it was also not in use ). Did you take any more photos of the building. Get in close next time you pass by and find out what is under the chimney stack Are the bricks just stretcher bond ? I can't see any headers on the uploaded photo.Hi Rob,

Next time I'm that way I will take a closer look. Of course the main mill building is long gone. Here are a couple of photos of it:

 https://catalogue.millsarchive.org/cleobury-mortimer

 http://www.cleoburymortimerhistory.co.uk/gallery/picture.php?/196/category/2

That last one shows the building in my photo on the right. It looks residential at that time. The photo also shows the Elan Aqueduct under construction. Here's a modern view on Geograph showing the 4 large pipes. The smaller blue pipe is, er, something else:

 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/769273

Here's my somewhat less satisfactory photo of the same thing with camera flare:



For readers in Birmingham, your cup of tea this morning came through those pipes.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23973

Nigel Brown wrote:I didn't get a decent camera until I inherited my father's Yashica rangefinder in 1979, and things then took off. An SLR in 1989, my first digicam in 2000, and so on.Hi Nigel,

My photographic history mirrors yours. A Konica coupled rangefinder in 1969 which I loved. Then an SLR in the 1980s -- bag full of lenses, filters, the usual. Then a digital in 2001.

But my problem has always been the viewfinder. Nothing since the Konica has ever been big or clear enough to see what I want. It must be my eyes, because others seem to manage.

So last year I changed to the Fuji compact X100F with its unique hybrid viewfinder. Brilliant! For the first time since the Konica I can see clearly what I'm taking a picture of. Also I was tired of walking with a heavy lump hanging round my neck. I wanted something which would slip easily into my pocket, but without losing image quality or full controls. The Fuji has been great -- in fact there are too many controls, I'm still learning my way around it after several months use. It does make a fair dent in the wallet though.

A fixed lens takes a bit of getting used to. But on the other hand that leaves you with one less thing to think about. With 24 million pixels to hand you can easily zoom and crop on the computer without losing much quality -- or any, if you are resizing for the web. And no camera shake from trying to hold a long zoom lens steady.

But GPS is the one feature missing, and I'm very disappointed with the Geotagging from the Fuji app which I installed yesterday. The camera takes several minutes to establish a connection to my mobile phone, loads the current GPS data, and then disconnects. It then applies the same data to all subsequent photos (until you repeat the performance) even if you drive 100 miles. I assumed I must be doing something wrong, but reading the forums it seems that is indeed the designed working. Needless to say no-one is much impressed with it.

But it seems that there are several apps which can apply GPS data to image files after the event. You record a GPS trace of the trip on the phone, which is then used to reference the creation date/time on each image file and apply the relevant GPS data for that date/time. It just needs the clocks synchronised between camera and phone before you begin (or know the difference between the two, and enter it into the app).

And I've now discovered that the Satsync app for my handheld GPS (Satmap 12) can do this. Since I always have that on anyway recording my route, I don't need the phone. So it turns out that I've had to hand the means to geotag my images for years without realising it. Thanks for nudging me towards the Geograph site to make me investigate this stuff.

The icing on the cake would be if these GPS apps used OS grid refs instead of worldwide Lat/Lon but you can't have everything. There are lots of converters available, including on the Geograph site.

I used to think that I would never forget where each photograph was taken ...

cheers,

Martin.         

__________
message ref: 23975

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the posting and the offer of more pics sometime. Don't put yourself out on my behalf though.....but if you need an excuse for a walk, great.

I have had dozens of digital cameras including top pro SLR's costing thousands. I too have a Fuji X100 ( the original 12mp one ) and it is my longest owned camera. It is great to use, fits a jacket pocket and I love the aperture ring being on the lens rather than on a control wheel. Being in a good location is 75% of producing decent photos but you still need some imagination with the composition and a capable camera. I considered upgrading the X100 to a later version but not sure it would actually produce better results for what I want. I find the battery life not too great so have a spare and a USB charger to use in the car between locations if required. The 24mm lens ( old money about 36mm ) is just about right for a walkaround camera in my opinion, any wider can cause issues and often won't be the same quality.

Thanks again Martin.
Rob


__________
message ref: 23985

Thanks Rob.

I haven't found a problem with battery life, but I believe Fuji upped the voltage and capacity for the latest version (7.2v 1260 mAh). The stats say 300-400 shots per charge, and I haven't yet needed more than that in a day. I do keep the rear screen switched off most of the time, and mostly use the optical vewfinder, which all helps.

My biggest gripe is the lens cap, which uses a friction fit rather than a taper or clip. With cold fingers it can take me longer to remove the lens cap than take the picture. I do like to keep the lens protected when scrambling about through brambles etc. Why is the best picture always on the other side of hawthorn bush?

Also, why can't the battery door clip shut? It annoys me every time I use it.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23986

Martin,

You need one of these or similar - Lens adapter - you can then use a standard size squeezey clip lens cap ( or even screw filters but ) and leave the expensive Fuji one at home. Just check the front of lens fit is the same as the earlier X100/X100S/X100T etc. With my original X100 the metal trim ring on the front of the lens bayonets off and you fit the adapter to that.

This is a good page too - Fuji stuff - and I also like these - Soft release - that make it easy when wearing gloves.

Rob



__________
message ref: 23987

Well I said one a day, but I thought I would do one more today:



 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5692380

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23988

Martin Wynne wrote:
My biggest gripe is the lens cap, which uses a friction fit rather than a taper or clip. With cold fingers it can take me longer to remove the lens cap than take the picture. I do like to keep the lens protected when scrambling about through brambles etc. Why is the best picture always on the other side of hawthorn bush?

Also, why can't the battery door clip shut? It annoys me every time I use it.
I tried a Fuji X-E2S last year. The lens cap kept on falling off! Doesn't happen on my Nikons

Here's a Scotland one on a very fine October day in 2016.



Loch Maree and Slioch; calendar territory. Nikon D3100 and 16-85 lens, a nice combination.

Nigel

__________
message ref: 23989

Thanks Nigel. Scotland is a foreign country to me. I'd better get a move on if I'm going to get to know it.

Thanks Rob. I've been thinking about getting a lens hood, and I do need one as you can see:



I have now ordered one of those. Strictly speaking I need only the X100 adaptor, because I have a pile of 55mm filters, close-up lenses, lens hoods and caps. And I have just found a brand new unused 49mm-55mm adaptor ring in the bottom of an old camera bag. Hopefully it will all fit. Yes, the thread cover ring unscrews off the lens.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23990

The photo of Slioch a couple of posts ago prompted me to show this alternative view of it from the most remote Munro in Scotland, A'Mhaighdean (Ah-vye-jun). Slioch is the mountain in the clouds on the left. This is probably the most stunning viewpoint in the country so Martin if you get up this way you might be tempted to see it for yourself although it's not quite a gentle ramble to get there. There's a heap more photos at my web site including one of A'Mhaighdean taken from the summit of Slioch on the opening page. I quite fancy having my ashes scattered up there but I don't think either of my offspring will be up for that. If you want a closer look at the panorama (almost 180 degrees) goto http://cairntoul.net/wateraid/photos/a'mhaighdean_pan.jpg and in your photo viewer zoom in until the picture fills the screen vertically then use the scroll bar to pan the picture.

 

 I just love it and maybe will get back there again as some friends are wanting to do the group that it sits in although getting the weather in that part of the world is pot luck with usually more pot than luck. Fraser
__________
message ref: 23994

Fraser

Great stuff. Like you I camped out there for a couple of nights. The first attempt the first night was the roughest I've ever known in a tent; I gave the two Munros a go but it was a gale and getting worse by the time I reached the col between. I might have done one of them but with no views and dire conditions decided on a tactical retreat. The second night shaped up to be as bad as the first so retired to the bothy at Carnmore. Went back a couple of months later and succeeded.



Dull, mild conditions, enough of a breeze to keep the midges off except for the first night. The cloud was only just above my head, as can be seen from the pic, but at least I got a view. Wonderful spot! 1999, Nikon F601 and Kodak Gold 100.

Nigel

__________
message ref: 23996

Nigel

You mean you didn't go for the six from Corrie Hallie in the day?? If you ever do, take a pair of wet suit boots for the river crossings and start very early or else bivvy in the shelter between A'Mhaighdean and Ruadh Stac Mhor. It's quite an expedition even if it's only five Munros and a Corbett now.

I'm glad you had the view at least.

Fraser

__________
message ref: 23997

Hi Rob,

Lens hood now arrived. Usual service from Amazon -- ordered 10.30pm last night, delivered with a smile 11am this morning. You can see why they are taking over the world. If they could just see their way to filling in a tax return...

I now understand the reason for the ventilation slots in a lens hood. You can see through the slot in the optical viewfinder to minimize the obstruction to the field of view.

The actual amount of shielding provided by the hood seems minimal. I think I shall be adding a home-made extension of some sort.

Thanks again,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23998

Hi Fraser, Nigel,

Thanks for the wonderful Scotland pics. There was a time when I didn't mind battling through cold wind and rain, but nowadays I do prefer a sunny day for my wanderings. And definitely no midges.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23999

FraserSmith wrote: Nigel

You mean you didn't go for the six from Corrie Hallie in the day?? If you ever do, take a pair of wet suit boots for the river crossings and start very early or else bivvy in the shelter between A'Mhaighdean and Ruadh Stac Mhor. It's quite an expedition even if it's only five Munros and a Corbett now.

I'm glad you had the view at least.

Fraser
Nope! My approach was a casual one; strenuous bagging as many in a day as possible was out! That way I got in more memorable trips; my main interest in Munros was simply being out there in the wilds. Beinn Tarsuinn and Mullach Coire Mhic Fhearchair were done by spending a couple of nights on Lochan Fada:



Another great spot. That's Slioch again across the water. Never did the remaining two. 2002, Nikon Coolpix 800 (all of 2mp and gave great results).

Nigel

__________
message ref: 24000

Fraser wrote:
" It's quite an expedition even if it's only five Munros and a Corbett now."

What is a Corbett, please? An undersized Monroe?

John
__________
message ref: 24003

Today's Geograph:



St Michael's Church and medieval village of Elmley Lovett
The undulations in this field mark the site of the medieval village of Elmley Lovett. There is a ROW on foot across this field to the gate in the churchyard wall.

 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5693410

Martin.

__________
message ref: 24005

Martin Wynne wrote: I now understand the reason for the ventilation slots in a lens hood.
Martin,

Would you believe you can get lens hoods with vented slots in sizes that would only fit SLR cameras ...as if you need the slots when the viewfinder is through the lens.

I used to buy metal lens hoods in the correct filter size and grind the front rim back a little at a time on a belt sander until the hood didn't mask the image at all. Much easier to do on a digi cam as you can test as you go. Cut a slot to suit the viewing arrangements if required. Beware though that a proper vented hood for rangefinder systems will be a bayonet fit to ensure the slots line up the same each time - a screw one may be good enough if the filters only have a single start point to the thread.

Was your SLR a Canon by any chance ? ( or a Contax if you were rich ). 49mm was a Pentax size, 52mm for Nikon etc. Obviously very wide, long or fast lenses would have bigger filters for each system.

Rob

P.S. If you use a rubber lens hood you can 'distort' the hood with your hand while shooting if the sun is to one side. Easy to check the pic and take another if you were a little too heavy handed.



__________
message ref: 24006

Local Landscape this morning, blurry detail is due to the cheap phone



This used to be the route by which the MS&LR ( Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway ) gained access to Manchester Central station. There was talk back in the 1950's of electrifying it to link with the Woodhead route electrics but it came to nothing. This link line closed completely in 1988 having been goods only for quite a while. Conversion to a cycle/foot route followed. Now its best use is as a pleasant 3 mile walk to Sainsburys for light shopping trips and a run for one of the dogs 🐶

Rob

__________
message ref: 24007

John Lewis wrote: Fraser wrote:
" It's quite an expedition even if it's only five Munros and a Corbett now."

What is a Corbett, please? An undersized Monroe?

JohnYep. John Rooke Corbett defined a mountain as being over 2500' high and with at least 500' of drop around it, a more precise definition than Munro used for his mountains over 3000'. There used to be the rather strange situation where some mountains over 3000' satisfied Corbett's criterion but weren't in the Munro tables, which has now been rectified by adding them to the tables. These days the name Corbett is used for mountains between 2500' and 3000' which have that 500' of drop around them.

Over the years various editors of the Munro tables have added mountains to the list and taken mountains off, for rather subjective reasons. Also, there's a band of enthusiasts going around using the latest satellite techniques to determine whether borderline 3000' mountains are over or under that height. The sixth Fisherfield Munro was found to be a fraction under, so was "demoted" to be a Corbett. Who cares, it's a fine mountain anyway.

Nigel

__________
message ref: 24008

I was trying to get a good shot of the chairs, but somebody parked his big engine on the spot.



Shot with a prototype Pentax Optio S4

__________
message ref: 24009

Rob Manchester wrote:Was your SLR a Canon by any chance ? ( or a Contax if you were rich ). 49mm was a Pentax size, 52mm for Nikon etc. P.S. If you use a rubber lens hood you can 'distort' the hood with your hand while shooting if the sun is to one side. Easy to check the pic and take another if you were a little too heavy handed.Hi Rob,

Yes, Canon. But the reason for the 55mm filter size was that they also fitted the Konica rangefinder before then.

Hence the need for close-up lenses, etc. On the Canon I used a collection of extension rings instead. Now with a fixed lens again the close-up lenses might come into their own again. And this time the camera will do the tricky focusing.

I also have a bellows slide copier with a 55mm reverse ring, so I could now fit the X100F on there if I so wished.

Also the X100F has an acclaimed black&white mode, so the yellow and red filters in different densities might see some use again. Whether they will have the same effect on digital b&w I'm not sure. I know I also have a green one somewhere.

Yes, I have a couple of 55mm rubber lens hoods. With my new-found brand new (but 25 years old at least) 49mm-55mm converter ring I can now use all this stuff on the X100F all over again. But of course at that diameter the rubber hood is obstructing the optical viewfinder rather severely, even when folded back. The big difference on the X100F is that you can flick to and from the electronic viewfinder instead (or even have both at once).

So I've also now ordered a 49mm rubber lens hood. I'm assuming the outside diameter is also smaller than the 55mm ones, and not just the fixing collar. Also a spare battery on your recommendation, and a 49mm click-fit lens cap.

This topic seems to be drifting further and further from Templot. I'm grateful to you and Nigel for rekindling my interest in this old photographic stuff from the 1970s. Having bought the X100F at the end of last year I've done little more than use it straight out of the box so far. The possibility of treating it as an upgrade to the Konica hadn't dawned on me. It even has a (digital) split-image rangefinder focusing mode.

Now then, what can I do with an unopened bottle of Acutol?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 24010