Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
excession wrote:There's not as much there as you might think. Old Nikon manual F-mount lenses built from 1959 to the late 70s can usually be modified to work (in fully manual mode) with modern Nikon DSLRs. You can also use those old Nikon manual F-mount lenses (in fully manual mode) with a Canon DSLR with a cheap adapter.Interested in the Canon/Nikon debate, I like the fact that old Nikon lenses work on new cameras and vice versa...
excession wrote:You give up a little in sensor performance, but still fine. D70 on the Nikon side would probably be a bit cheaper and uses a newer version of the same sensor with almost the same feature set. D50 is similar with a few fewer controls. I wouldn't look any further back in time on the Nikon side.Thanks for all the above
What are your wise views on older digital models such as the Nikon D100 or the Canon EOS 20D?
excession wrote:When you need stabilization the most (long focal lengths), in-body doesn't do as well. However, it's better than nothing and you get it with all of your lenses.I will have a look into the Sony range.
[edit] I see the Sony cameras have in-body image stabilisation. Is this comparable to the Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses in effectiveness? [/edit]
Hoser wrote:Don't forget the Sony Alpha cameras. The best thing about them is that you can use all the old Minolta AF lenses on them. That gives you a huge variety of lenses available to you at a generally lesser cost than most Nikon/Canon lenses. You can pick up a used Alpha 300 or 350 pretty cheap on eBay.
I'm not looking to start a Sony/Canon/Nikon battle, but if you're just starting out, don't throw Sony out of the mix. I'm quite happy with my Alpha 300.
etilena wrote:As for Canon vs Nikon, it's really personal preference for the shape of the body, features and price at the low end for what you want. Both camps offer pretty much the same lenses at the low end. It doesn't really get differenciated until you go towards the high end gear. Nikon D3s super high ISO or a 21mp FF camera in the Canon 5d MkII etc etc available at different price segments.
Voldenuit wrote:18 MP in APS-C is more than I need, or indeed, want. The Sony mount is somewhere in between these extremes, but don't have as many thrid party adapters for the system.
End User wrote:Voldenuit wrote:18 MP in APS-C is more than I need, or indeed, want. The Sony mount is somewhere in between these extremes, but don't have as many thrid party adapters for the system.
Low light performance is substantially better in the current crop of APS-C cameras. If manufacturers can deliver that and give us 18 MP at the same time then I say that is a win for us. More MP equals more detail - that's OK with me.
Voldenuit wrote:* I'm discounting Sigma, because although they are the world's largest independent lens manufacturer, they haven't been nearly as successful with their digital bodies.
End User wrote:Voldenuit wrote:18 MP in APS-C is more than I need, or indeed, want. The Sony mount is somewhere in between these extremes, but don't have as many thrid party adapters for the system.
Low light performance is substantially better in the current crop of APS-C cameras. If manufacturers can deliver that and give us 18 MP at the same time then I say that is a win for us. More MP equals more detail - that's OK with me.
JustAnEngineer wrote:I believe that there's more difference between Canon and Nikon at the low end than in the middle. The low-end Nikon cameras cannot auto-focus with the older and less expensive AF -D lens designs. The lowest-end D3000 uses a CCD sensor.
mattsteg wrote:End User wrote:Voldenuit wrote:18 MP in APS-C is more than I need, or indeed, want. The Sony mount is somewhere in between these extremes, but don't have as many thrid party adapters for the system.
Low light performance is substantially better in the current crop of APS-C cameras. If manufacturers can deliver that and give us 18 MP at the same time then I say that is a win for us. More MP equals more detail - that's OK with me.
More MP is more detail captured, if your glass (including all optics like the aforementioned AA filter I guess) and technique are up to delivering it. HigherMP cameras put the onus on you if you want to deliver pixel-perfect results. If you don't care about pixel-perfection, then other aspects of sensor performance are more important. In any case, we're only talking about a 20% bump in pixel count.
etilena wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:I believe that there's more difference between Canon and Nikon at the low end than in the middle. The low-end Nikon cameras cannot auto-focus with the older and less expensive AF -D lens designs. The lowest-end D3000 uses a CCD sensor.
True. But are these the differences that sway you from one camp to the other?
etilena wrote:How about the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D, for example?As for AF-D lenses, the only less expensive one would be the 50mm f/1.8, and due to DX, you'd be better of getting a 35mm f/1.8 DX lens for the same angle of view. There aren't very many other AF-D lenses that are cheap and of good quality. The new lenses are more plasticky, but the optics have been much improved over the years.
bhtooefr wrote:I don't believe Sony does full-frame.
excession wrote:Hi guys
What I was thinking was maybe starting with a decent fast prime lens (say a 50mm f/1. which is about £70 or so new but what back to get? I could get a good prosumer second hand 35mm film back (eg Nikon F80) with which to start learning how to produce the results I want... or if i went digital it would have to be a low end model (EOS 300D maybe?) Then I could upgrade bit by bit... but what's the deal with the digital sensor size versus 35mm film size? Avoid film altogether maybe?
Any thoughts on how to get started? Also interested in the Canon/Nikon debate, I like the fact that old Nikon lenses work on new cameras and vice versa...
Hope you guys have lots of opinions
J
Voldenuit wrote:The one downside of Nikon and Pentax are that because they have the largest flangeback distances, their bodies are the least compatible with legacy and cross-format lenses. Canon's EF mount meanwhile is very compatible with legacy lenses from Canon FD, Nikon F, Olympus OM and Pentax M42 and K. So if you like bargain hunting in flea shops and finding old lenses, the Canon is the safest bet (especially with the huge number of adapters available for EF mount). My beef is that I think Canon has gone overboard with the pixel density of their recent cameras - 18 MP in APS-C is more than I need, or indeed, want. The Sony mount is somewhere in between these extremes, but don't have as many thrid party adapters for the system.
bhtooefr wrote:I still haven't gotten over the rootkit,) so I didn't know about those.
wasser wrote:I can back that up. I have been passed down a set of film lenses from the late 70's (50mm f/1.8, 18mm f/1.7, 80-200 f/4.5) that were originally used on a Pentax MX, then on an ME-Super, that still work on my K100D and K-7. Downside is mostly some difficulty quickly focusing without split focus, but for controlled shots (i.e. tripod, non-moving subject), it's doable.I've no idea about cross-format lenses, but Pentax certainly doesn't lack for compatibility with legacy lenses. Pentax DSLRs are compatible with every Pentax K mount lens straight out of the box. This means, straight out of the box Pentax is compatible with every lens they produced since 1975. With a simple M42 adapter you can extend this compatibility to all their M42 lenses with no issues. I use my 40 year old M42 Pentax lenses on both my equally old Pentax SLR and my modern Pentax DSLR.
mortifiedPenguin wrote:wasser wrote:I can back that up. I have been passed down a set of film lenses from the late 70's (50mm f/1.8, 18mm f/1.7, 80-200 f/4.5) that were originally used on a Pentax MX, then on an ME-Super, that still work on my K100D and K-7. Downside is mostly some difficulty quickly focusing without split focus, but for controlled shots (i.e. tripod, non-moving subject), it's doable.I've no idea about cross-format lenses, but Pentax certainly doesn't lack for compatibility with legacy lenses. Pentax DSLRs are compatible with every Pentax K mount lens straight out of the box. This means, straight out of the box Pentax is compatible with every lens they produced since 1975. With a simple M42 adapter you can extend this compatibility to all their M42 lenses with no issues. I use my 40 year old M42 Pentax lenses on both my equally old Pentax SLR and my modern Pentax DSLR.