Boot's Contact Sheets
- Thread starter Boots
- Start date
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Yay! Batter late than never!
Frames 28 & 29 are quite striking! Also like the looks of 34 & 35 but it's hard to tell when so small. Trip out somewhere?
Frames 28 & 29 are quite striking! Also like the looks of 34 & 35 but it's hard to tell when so small. Trip out somewhere?
Thanks!
Sorry, I should have said, day trip to Oxford, back when we could do such things.
28 worked for me, here it is with a bit of an edit:
29 bugs me, because I messed up the framing.
30 works too, I went for a softer look with this edit:
34 and 35 suffer from the "too many people have done this" problem, but here is 34:
Thanks! Yes, they both caught my attention too, and had some further work. Here are the edited versions:
This was the first film I had shot for many years, and I found I really enjoyed the whole process. Despite Covid restrictions I have tried to keep going.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree, but spotting it and taking it will provide a jumping off point for you to go forward. Quite liked the roller too.
Here is my second roll of film "of the modern era". Also taken in Oxford in January before all this health emergency.
Canon F-1, HP5+, mostly 28mm lens.
Frames 20-24 of the Radcliffe Camera from the steeple of St Mary's Church were intended at the time to be digitally stitched. Unlike most of my plans, I actually did do it.
Sadly, the next film roll is permanently Missing In Action. The film was mostly taken at Stowe before lockdown, then no progress because of the lockdown blues. I dragged myself back into action a few weeks back, finished the film locally, and sent it for processing. I heard from the lab a few days ago that "it was blank, no results". I am waiting for the returned negs to see if there is any clue why. The camera, on the face of it, seems fine.
Canon F-1, HP5+, mostly 28mm lens.
Frames 20-24 of the Radcliffe Camera from the steeple of St Mary's Church were intended at the time to be digitally stitched. Unlike most of my plans, I actually did do it.
Sadly, the next film roll is permanently Missing In Action. The film was mostly taken at Stowe before lockdown, then no progress because of the lockdown blues. I dragged myself back into action a few weeks back, finished the film locally, and sent it for processing. I heard from the lab a few days ago that "it was blank, no results". I am waiting for the returned negs to see if there is any clue why. The camera, on the face of it, seems fine.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
How do you find this? I have the F-1n and the 28mm combo and it's a really nice package. Alongside the 50mm f/1.4 I find I don't need anything else.
My guess would be that the film didn't wind on.
Really like frame 4 too, but the stitched photo has worked really well.
Thanks for looking!
I really like the F-1, I got it when I was 20 odd (nearly 40 years ago). Like most of my cameras, it was secondhand, a superceeded model and a fraction of the new price. I must have shot hundreds of rolls of film, mostly Kodachrome, but a lot of B&W too. It has always felt just right. Finding a battery that worked took a bit of time, but Zinc Air works very well.
I think I may have misunderstood the model naming (having gone to look something up). I now think it went F-1, F-1n (a facelift with minor changes) then New F-1. So I have the F-1n (not a great picture, but it's this)
Sadly, back in the 1980s, I underinvested in glass - money was tight to begin with. So I had two not great zooms and the 50mm f/1.8 prime. When I set out to try film again, I ditched the zooms (fungus in both) and bought the 28mm and a 135mm. They are both very good, but the 28mm got a lot more use, along with the 50mm, the 135mm less so.
I too thought about the film take up, but I am sure that I felt a hard stop on the wind on at the end of the roll. And I tend to check the rewind knob is turning from time to time as I wind on. There might be a clue from the returned negs, but I doubt it. Anyhow, the film is gone, time to move on.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice camera. I think mine is the New F-1 which I am sure I'll continue to erroneously call the F-1n. Because n stands for new 
A few weeks back I treated myself to an EOS 1v and I've just got the first film back (HP5+)
I'm really pleased with the camera, it's lovely to use. Also really impressed with the processing from Ag Photolab; excellent communications, fast turnaround and good quality.
I should point out that the low contrast images for the first two thirds of the film are mostly because it was misty (not probably the best weather to test a new camera!).
Thanks for looking!
I'm really pleased with the camera, it's lovely to use. Also really impressed with the processing from Ag Photolab; excellent communications, fast turnaround and good quality.
I should point out that the low contrast images for the first two thirds of the film are mostly because it was misty (not probably the best weather to test a new camera!).
Thanks for looking!
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a 1v and I love it. Feels secure in my hands and is responsive and easy to use.
Like the look of frame 15 & 20 and is that an ICM shot at the end? Looks really nice too.
Like the look of frame 15 & 20 and is that an ICM shot at the end? Looks really nice too.
Thanks Ian.
15 caught my eye too and is below. But 20 bugs me a bit, I rushed and didn't sort out the right hand side of the composition, so it's all jumbled. The ICM at the end (was intentional!) was mostly to finish the film, but I quite like it.
My favourite is
The one which surprised me most was this one. It shows what a good film HP5+ is when given a proper exposure. I would never have thought I could get such a good tonal range and smooth grain from 400 ISO.
(Most of the above have had a little editing)
So, New Year 2021, and the next film. I'm calling this roll number 5 in an attempt to bring some order to the chaos.
This marks an exciting new departure - this is the first film I have developed myself for 40 odd years. I begged, stole, borrowed and bought a motley collection of equipment. Dithered around for days trying to choose the developer to use - I plumped for DD-X.
Then spent about 50 man hours sorting out the garage with a plan to do the developing in there, but wimped out in the end, as it was just too cold. I told Mrs Boots, that it wasn't for my sake, but the sake of the chemicals.
HP-5 Plus @ 400 ISO, EOS 1v, DD-X 9 minutes at 20C
I was shocked at how much dust the negs picked up, but I didn't realise until after the scans, and I can't be bother to blow them clean and re-scan.
The first two frames are supposed to be dark, and the last six are a film exposure latitude test (-4, -2, 0, +2, +4 & +6 stops).
This marks an exciting new departure - this is the first film I have developed myself for 40 odd years. I begged, stole, borrowed and bought a motley collection of equipment. Dithered around for days trying to choose the developer to use - I plumped for DD-X.
Then spent about 50 man hours sorting out the garage with a plan to do the developing in there, but wimped out in the end, as it was just too cold. I told Mrs Boots, that it wasn't for my sake, but the sake of the chemicals.
HP-5 Plus @ 400 ISO, EOS 1v, DD-X 9 minutes at 20C
I was shocked at how much dust the negs picked up, but I didn't realise until after the scans, and I can't be bother to blow them clean and re-scan.
The first two frames are supposed to be dark, and the last six are a film exposure latitude test (-4, -2, 0, +2, +4 & +6 stops).
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
It's funny, looking at those last 6 exposures, how the adage "don't underexpose" is so clear. +6 still looks usable to me but -4 looks "unacceptable".
Great story. I think sometimes, the story is half the amusement/interest for me. I bet Mrs Boots gives you the same look, with the same unbelieveing arched eyebrow that Mrs H gives me at times.
1st self dev in 40 years? I say well done! The last 6 frames show that your dev is perfect. Any keepers from the roll? Quite like the looks of 1, 13 (lines!), 20 (that reflection!) and the best of your reference shots (frame 33 tbh!)
This made me laugh out loud. How many woman/Mrs Boots hours would that be?
Great story. I think sometimes, the story is half the amusement/interest for me. I bet Mrs Boots gives you the same look, with the same unbelieveing arched eyebrow that Mrs H gives me at times.
1st self dev in 40 years? I say well done! The last 6 frames show that your dev is perfect. Any keepers from the roll? Quite like the looks of 1, 13 (lines!), 20 (that reflection!) and the best of your reference shots (frame 33 tbh!)
This made me laugh out loud. How many woman/Mrs Boots hours would that be?
Oh yes!
Regarding the "don't underexposed". Yes, so clear. I've been shooting negative film (on and off) for fifty years, but it took me this long to learn that lesson.
Frame 13 really stands out... In fact it kept jumping out at me when the negs were hanging up to dry. Also 20 should be a keeper. But I am planning to do a thing on canal bridges, so many of the others should get some airtime.
Mrs Boots would go through the garage in about two hours...
... I would then spend the next three years trying to find anything.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 7,521
- Name
- Nige
- Edit My Images
- No
Where did you hang your negs to dry Paul? I hang mine in the shower cubicle. Before I start developing I run the shower for a couple of minutes so that the cubicle steams up and then make sure no-one goes in the bathroom after that until they've dried a few hours later (I have a printed sign and everything! ). I've found that I get very little dust on my negs this way - even less dust than the negs I get back from the lab in fact.
). I've found that I get very little dust on my negs this way - even less dust than the negs I get back from the lab in fact.That, Nige, is an excellent question. This film started drying in the garage, but after a couple of hours I felt uncomfortable (it's very dusty out there), so I moved it to the spare room.
I think next time I will hang it over the bath.
Film number 6
HP5+ @ 400 ISO, DD-X 9 minutes at 20C
Eagle eyed viewers will note that there are only 33 shots, and something is a bit amiss with frame 5. I used the film to test a couple of cameras, before finishing it off in the EOS 1v. Needless to say I messed up the frame counting when unloading & reloading, so there were a few frames with multiple exposures. I binned most of those, but left frame 5 in as I thought it might be redeemable.
I took more care over dust this time, and seem to have been quite successful.
HP5+ @ 400 ISO, DD-X 9 minutes at 20C
Eagle eyed viewers will note that there are only 33 shots, and something is a bit amiss with frame 5. I used the film to test a couple of cameras, before finishing it off in the EOS 1v. Needless to say I messed up the frame counting when unloading & reloading, so there were a few frames with multiple exposures. I binned most of those, but left frame 5 in as I thought it might be redeemable.
I took more care over dust this time, and seem to have been quite successful.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Some really nice compositions in there Paul. 22 and 33 look particularly nice. Wide lens... What were you using out of curiosity?
Thanks Ian, I've been mostly using a EF 17-40 recently, often at the wider end. The earlier shots on this sheet would have been with an FD 28.
The bridge in frame 22 is weird. It's a swing bridge over the middle of a lock. I hate to think how many problems that has caused.
I think the composition gods were with me those couple of days (unusually). There was some really nice light under some of the larger, modern bridges in 24 and 29. I generally like the older bridges, but that day modern had the edge.
Thanks Nige
Film number 7
HP5+ @ 1600 ISO, DD-X 13 minutes at 20C
This is my first experiment with push processing; +2 stops. And, I'll be honest, the first film where I think things have not gone completely to plan - and I don't know why. The film, especially the early frames, looks rather thin to me, that was my first impression when the film was hung up to dry, and is still my impression now. It doesn't really come across in the contact sheet. All of the frames seem to me to be perfectly usable, despite whatever I may have done wrong - and this is an excellent demonstration of the latitude of film and its rather forgiving nature.
The most likely mistake is just exposure errors in those early frames (up to the compass shots), but everything just looks a bit "thin" (can't really think of a better description). Comparing at a general level to earlier 400 ISO films, and specifically the frames with the same content of our kitchen Welsh Dresser shelves, it looks to me to be about one stop underexposed. I doubt I messed up the exposure generally, but perhaps I did.
I have rechecked the meter readings, and the camera looks fine. I have rechecked the data sheet, but 13 minutes in DD-X looks right for HP5+ at 1600 ISO. I double checked that with the Massive Dev Chart, that was in accord too.
I did think maybe it was a temperature problem - I use a water bath to control the temperature of all the chemicals to 20C, but have not been temperature controlling the tank itself. I took the tank out of our rather cold garage just prior to development (with the film already loaded), perhaps it was 10-13C. I did wonder if that might have caused the temperature of the dev to plunge from 20C to maybe 16-17C, and that might explain the under-exposure, since the 13 minutes would have been appropriate for 800 ISO instead at that temperature. But, I just did an experiment with the cold tank and 300ml of water at 20C. I checked the temperature every minute for ten minutes or so until I got bored - it didn't budge, clearly the plastic of the tank is an excellent insulator. So that is not the explanation alone.
I have another film part way through in the camera that is also rated at 1600 ISO. I will pay special attention to the exposure of the final dozen or so shots. I shall also be very careful with mixing the dev, temperatures and agitation.
They do say that we learn more from our failures than our successes - but that only works if you know what went wrong!
Has anyone seen anything similar?
Here is the sheet
HP5+ @ 1600 ISO, DD-X 13 minutes at 20C
This is my first experiment with push processing; +2 stops. And, I'll be honest, the first film where I think things have not gone completely to plan - and I don't know why. The film, especially the early frames, looks rather thin to me, that was my first impression when the film was hung up to dry, and is still my impression now. It doesn't really come across in the contact sheet. All of the frames seem to me to be perfectly usable, despite whatever I may have done wrong - and this is an excellent demonstration of the latitude of film and its rather forgiving nature.
The most likely mistake is just exposure errors in those early frames (up to the compass shots), but everything just looks a bit "thin" (can't really think of a better description). Comparing at a general level to earlier 400 ISO films, and specifically the frames with the same content of our kitchen Welsh Dresser shelves, it looks to me to be about one stop underexposed. I doubt I messed up the exposure generally, but perhaps I did.
I have rechecked the meter readings, and the camera looks fine. I have rechecked the data sheet, but 13 minutes in DD-X looks right for HP5+ at 1600 ISO. I double checked that with the Massive Dev Chart, that was in accord too.
I did think maybe it was a temperature problem - I use a water bath to control the temperature of all the chemicals to 20C, but have not been temperature controlling the tank itself. I took the tank out of our rather cold garage just prior to development (with the film already loaded), perhaps it was 10-13C. I did wonder if that might have caused the temperature of the dev to plunge from 20C to maybe 16-17C, and that might explain the under-exposure, since the 13 minutes would have been appropriate for 800 ISO instead at that temperature. But, I just did an experiment with the cold tank and 300ml of water at 20C. I checked the temperature every minute for ten minutes or so until I got bored - it didn't budge, clearly the plastic of the tank is an excellent insulator. So that is not the explanation alone.
I have another film part way through in the camera that is also rated at 1600 ISO. I will pay special attention to the exposure of the final dozen or so shots. I shall also be very careful with mixing the dev, temperatures and agitation.
They do say that we learn more from our failures than our successes - but that only works if you know what went wrong!
Has anyone seen anything similar?
Here is the sheet
I recently bought an Ikoflex off evilBay.
This is my first adventure into medium format and it has not been without difficulty!
Put briefly, because you're all busy people:
These are straight out of the scanner, but the scanner did a lot of work on exposure and contrast.
But to be honest, I was just shocked and delighted that there were images at all.
This is my first adventure into medium format and it has not been without difficulty!
Put briefly, because you're all busy people:
- I read the manual (before trying it myself) but failed to understand page 18 "For loading the camera disengage the the film stop mechanism..." means that it is highly likely when you pick up the camera that It Won't Work! Four hours and a few You Tube videos fixed that.
- Loading 120 film can be tricky, perhaps especially for this camera as the red window almost entirely prevents reading any marks.
- Re-spooling 120 film in the dark (twice) after you mess up the loading is not for the faint hearted
- When you mess up the re-spooling you may fail to get the roll tight enough to prevent light getting in (tick)
- When you mess up the re-spooling you may also unwittingly move the taped start of the film (tick - hence 10.5 frames)
These are straight out of the scanner, but the scanner did a lot of work on exposure and contrast.
But to be honest, I was just shocked and delighted that there were images at all.
- Messages
- 7,521
- Name
- Nige
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah, good old teething troubles. You'll hopefully have a stress-free experience for the next roll.
Folding cameras - 6x6 models in particular - are very portable. It's great having a medium format camera capable of high quality images that you can pop in a pocket. I'll have to give mina an outing again soon.
Folding cameras - 6x6 models in particular - are very portable. It's great having a medium format camera capable of high quality images that you can pop in a pocket. I'll have to give mina an outing again soon.
Thanks Nige - Yes, here's hoping the next roll causes fewer headaches.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Missed the notification sadly. Also can't help with the analysis.
I put a roll through at 1600 recently and was less than satisfied after earlier experiments. However I put mine through at 21.5 degrees. I watched a SFLAB video where he went 10 degrees either way with a film and it made barely any difference, so I got a bit sloppy after that. However I wonder if different films at different speeds are more/less sensetive. Like you say...
Also bad news on the light leaks. As Nige says - the next roll will be fine
Anyway - light leaks are fine art aren't they?Absolutely! There was so much messing around with this film that I am not too worried about light leaks on this one - next time I might start thinking about that. My aim with the next roll is to try and nail loading, focus and exposure.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Snip:
Can I suggest you have a look at the Canon FD 35-70 f/4 (the fixed f/4 min aperture one, not the later more plasticky variable min aperture version). It's still cheap as chips (around £40 to £50 for a mint-ish one with lens cap) and I think it's a very underestimated little lens. There's a review here: Canon FD 35-70mm f/4 (kenrockwell.com) and I agree with the findings. Amongst the usual things when buying a lens (such as fungus and seized aperture mechanism), also watch out for play in the zoom mechanism on this one, as this is caused by wear on internal pads which are no longer available as spare parts. Hope this is useful.
Can I suggest you have a look at the Canon FD 35-70 f/4 (the fixed f/4 min aperture one, not the later more plasticky variable min aperture version). It's still cheap as chips (around £40 to £50 for a mint-ish one with lens cap) and I think it's a very underestimated little lens. There's a review here: Canon FD 35-70mm f/4 (kenrockwell.com) and I agree with the findings. Amongst the usual things when buying a lens (such as fungus and seized aperture mechanism), also watch out for play in the zoom mechanism on this one, as this is caused by wear on internal pads which are no longer available as spare parts. Hope this is useful.
Thanks @Mr Badger
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
No problem. It's pretty much a permanent fixture on my AV-1 these days, and gives me that really handy 40mm field of view within its zoom range (I often find 50mm just a bit too 'tight'). Best of luck finding a nice one if you decide to try it.
Film number 8 (I will keep the numbering of 35mm and medium format films separate)
HP5+ @ 1600 ISO, EOS 1v, DD-X 13 minutes at 20C
This is my second film pushing by two stops, and I am much happier with the results. As I described above, I don't know what (if anything) went wrong with number 7, but this seemed much better to my eyes.
The exterior shots are better exposed than the interior ones, but many of those indoor shots were experimental, so far more inclined to be flaky. I'm perfectly happy with that. And, indeed I am very happy with this film and developer combination, and am really enjoying the EOS 1v. Perhaps that is one of the side benefits of experimenting with cheap, old cameras, you appreciate the good stuff more when you come back to it!
HP5+ @ 1600 ISO, EOS 1v, DD-X 13 minutes at 20C
This is my second film pushing by two stops, and I am much happier with the results. As I described above, I don't know what (if anything) went wrong with number 7, but this seemed much better to my eyes.
The exterior shots are better exposed than the interior ones, but many of those indoor shots were experimental, so far more inclined to be flaky. I'm perfectly happy with that. And, indeed I am very happy with this film and developer combination, and am really enjoying the EOS 1v. Perhaps that is one of the side benefits of experimenting with cheap, old cameras, you appreciate the good stuff more when you come back to it!
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I love mine. Only be another 12 months and all those EF lenses will be nice & cheap
I think you really knock up some lovely compositions Paul. I very much like the timepiece shots. I'm not a watch person, but I do like pictures of clocks and clock faces. 27 & 28 look nice. More bridges I see... 12 & 13 I'm guessing not part of the project, but very striking compositions even at this small size.
What was going on with those last 3 frames?
- Messages
- 7,521
- Name
- Nige
- Edit My Images
- No
#8 & #9 look interesting from the thumbnails. I'm in a similar boat to @Harlequin565 when it comes to watches. I think it's because the detailing and clean lines of the hands, numbers, other markings, plus the contast inherent in the object works very well with black and white.
I love mine. Only be another 12 months and all those EF lenses will be nice & cheap
I think you really knock up some lovely compositions Paul. I very much like the timepiece shots. I'm not a watch person, but I do like pictures of clocks and clock faces. 27 & 28 look nice. More bridges I see... 12 & 13 I'm guessing not part of the project, but very striking compositions even at this small size.
What was going on with those last 3 frames?
Thanks both!
I think clocks and watches are very iconic and can make strong compositions. I worry if the latest generation may not feel quite the same way, kids today are pretty uncomfortable with analogue clock faces.
Many of the bridges are for my project, but also just because my walking is mostly along the canal and there are only so many objects of interest. I always seem to struggle with composing interesting images with locks - perhaps something I should work on.
Other things, like the last three, are often for the film challenge, which I am finding very good for me creatively. Those last three are just a photo of my G&T, doesn't everyone do that?
Not sure we'll see the price of EF lenses plunge, but we'll see. I'm a firm believer in being a few steps behind on the upgrade treadmill (most of which I'm convinced is pure marketing hype).
Thanks for looking, and taking the time to comment.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Perhaps not I. And probably for good reason.
Of course it is. My 350D (6MP) from 2007(?) took great images. Huge MP sensor images are great for billboard printers but almost every photographer I know only shows their work on the internet or prints no larger than A3. You don't need many pickles for that! Canikon, Thomas Heaton and Jared Polin will be absolutely telling their customers that mirrorless is the way forward. And if only 20% of their base believe that, there will still be a nice fat second hand market for the rest of us.
Apologies for getting ranty. I'm half a bottle of red into Friday. MMO time.
Medium Format film #3
This is from my recently acquired folder, a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x9cm (model 817/2). There are no interlocks at all, but I must have had my thinking head on that day, because I didn't mess up. Really pleased with the results - really very pleased. Nice and sharp.
Not sure what happened with the last frame and half (i.e. the start of the film to go into the spiral). Perhaps it slipped out of the reels and rested emulsion side against another bit of film?
The bright band visible on the top of many of the pictures is, I'm pretty sure, not a light leak. The camera was in the ever-ready case whilst I was shooting, and anyway the film rebate is entirely clear. So maybe it is a bit of overspill image bouncing off the inside of the camera? It seems to be worst on the images with a lot of sky. Anyhow, it was really easy to apply a Lightroom graduated filter to get rid of it.
Sharp eyed readers may spot that this is medium format film number 3, but the previous MF film was number one. There was a film #2, but it was just a test roll to check out the TLR lens and see if I had fixed the light leak. I had, with the high tech solution of a large rubber band to hold the back properly closed. I decide that the test roll was soooo boring, I wouldn't waste your time with it.
This is from my recently acquired folder, a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x9cm (model 817/2). There are no interlocks at all, but I must have had my thinking head on that day, because I didn't mess up. Really pleased with the results - really very pleased. Nice and sharp.
Not sure what happened with the last frame and half (i.e. the start of the film to go into the spiral). Perhaps it slipped out of the reels and rested emulsion side against another bit of film?
The bright band visible on the top of many of the pictures is, I'm pretty sure, not a light leak. The camera was in the ever-ready case whilst I was shooting, and anyway the film rebate is entirely clear. So maybe it is a bit of overspill image bouncing off the inside of the camera? It seems to be worst on the images with a lot of sky. Anyhow, it was really easy to apply a Lightroom graduated filter to get rid of it.
Sharp eyed readers may spot that this is medium format film number 3, but the previous MF film was number one. There was a film #2, but it was just a test roll to check out the TLR lens and see if I had fixed the light leak. I had, with the high tech solution of a large rubber band to hold the back properly closed. I decide that the test roll was soooo boring, I wouldn't waste your time with it.
- Messages
- 8,315
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Love that swirl in frame 5 and the gentle curves in 6. It's really nice when you can say you're pleased with the results - especially with film. Gives a real sense of satisfaction.
I am contemplating a folder simply to shoot a bit more MF in a more practical carry-aboutable way. I really should give the TLR a bit more work, but I can't get on with it. I know Roger Lowe (SFLAB on YouTube) shoots the Nettar quite a bit and gets some great results with it. I guess you're pleased?
I am contemplating a folder simply to shoot a bit more MF in a more practical carry-aboutable way. I really should give the TLR a bit more work, but I can't get on with it. I know Roger Lowe (SFLAB on YouTube) shoots the Nettar quite a bit and gets some great results with it. I guess you're pleased?