 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2004Group dynamics
Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the form of whether Nikon really is better than Canon? IMO all Nikons built up to and including the Nikon F70 are better than anything Canon made. Except maybe the EOS 30... However, I strongly contend that apart from the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkors, most Canon EF lenses are better than Nikkors.  SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email >Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group >crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >However, I strongly contend that apart from the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm >f/2.8 ED Nikkors, most Canon EF lenses are better than Nikkors. I have never owned a Nikon SLR (I do have a Coolpix and a Coolscan though), so I mostly keep out of this type of debate. However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various ranges of lenses with various bodies. You guys must need to carry a notebook around with you! SignatureDavid Littlewood Notebook? They need a 200 page hardbound tome to keep it all straight. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > >crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ranges of lenses with various bodies. You guys must need to carry a > notebook around with you! >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to >spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various >ranges of lenses with various bodies. You guys must need to carry a >notebook around with you! Please refresh my memory: Which Canon EF lenses will fit a Canon AE-1 body? (When a Canon EOS user has the gall to criticise Nikon for a lack of compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. What lenses can you share between a Nikon F2 and an F65? What abotu between an F70 and an F80? How about between a D100 and an F2n? How about.... well, if you haven't gotten the point yet you never will, and since you own no photo equipment whatsoever and never have - go back to the killfile, troll. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of > compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an > AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. What lenses can you share between > a Nikon F2 and an F65? What abotu between an F70 and an F80? How about > between a D100 and an F2n? How about.... well, if you haven't gotten the > point yet you never will, and since you own no photo equipment whatsoever > and never have - go back to the killfile, troll. How about between a Digital Rebel and an EOS-1D. All EF lenses will fit all EOS cameras. There is a special lens(EFS) for the DRebel which fits only it. How many lenses for your FM2 will be fully compatible with the D100? How many for the FM3a will also work with a D65? Nikon is a nightmare of assinine incompatibilities -- including some new lenses designed for small sensor cameras like the EFS lens for the DRebel - or don't they count, since Nikon hasn't said they are goiung to build a full frame digital and therefore those lenses are only going to be incompatible with real OLD cameras -- like the F5? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an > > AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. What lenses can you share between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How about between a Digital Rebel and an EOS-1D. > All EF lenses will fit all EOS cameras. There is a special lens(EFS) for > the DRebel which fits only it. I bet future EOS cameras will also accept the EFS lenses, and there will be more EFS lenses too, similar to the > How many lenses for your FM2 will be fully compatible with the > D100? How many for the FM3a will also work with a D65? Nikon is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > build a full frame digital and therefore those lenses are only going > to be incompatible with real OLD cameras -- like the F5? Sure, they could simplify things the way Canon did, by just ditching the old stuff altogether. Instead of keeping what they can of it working, making users of legacy stuff have to face some complexity, but at least they can still use their stuff. I can just see doing things the Canon way. I banged my elbow last week, so I went to Dr. Nikon, and he tried to give me some medicine for it and told me to put an ice pack on it every day for a while. What a nightmare, too much stuff to remember, completely asinine. I went to Dr. Canon instead and he had a much simpler solution--he just amputated the arm. That's a far superior approach, it gives me so much less to think about. Dr. Canon also gave me some dope to smoke so I wouldn't realize that I was now missing an arm. > Sure, they could simplify things the way Canon did, by just ditching > the old stuff altogether. Pentax seems to have managed to maintain a fair degree of compatibility for their legacy lenses used on modern camera bodies. I wonder how they managed to do what the other camera manufacturers didn't . . . ? > Pentax seems to have managed to maintain a fair degree of > compatibility for their legacy lenses used on modern camera bodies. I can put a screwmount lens on a current Pentax? > I can put a screwmount lens on a current Pentax? I believe that you can. When Asahi introduced the K-mount they built in backward compatibility for their screwmount lenses. They could be mounted on the newer K-mount bodies via an adapter. Open aperture metering was lost, of course, and the lens had to be used in stop-down mode, but that was not really that big a deal, because only the very latest generation of screw mount cameras (the Spotmatic-F, the ES and the ES-II) ever had that capability, and they had it ONLY if the SMC Takumar lenses were mounted. All previous versions of screw mount bodies and lenses could not exploit wide open metering. I never got out of screw mount bodies, so I cannot comment with 100% certainty, but as far as I am aware, most, if not all, screw mount lenses can be used manually with current K-mount bodies. > > I can put a screwmount lens on a current Pentax? > > I believe that you can. When Asahi introduced the K-mount they built in > backward compatibility for their screwmount lenses. They could be mounted > on the newer K-mount bodies via an adapter. Cool, how about putting K-mount lenses on a screw-mount camera, the way you can put current AF Nikkors onto a 1959 Nikon F? BTW, here's someone modifying an old Nikkor with a Leica screw mount to work (including CPU) on modern Nikon DSLR's: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > Cool, how about putting K-mount lenses on a screw-mount camera That does not work. You can mount a screw-mount lens onto a K-mount, using an adaptor, but you cannot mount a K-mount lens onto a screwmount body. Asahi Optical designed the rear element to be a couple of milimeters larger than the M42 (42mm) rear opening. If memory serves me correctly, they were going to produce an f/1.2 normal lens, and the 42mm rear opening was too small to accomodate their lens design. Asahi developed the adapter (which has no optical glass element which can cause any image deterioration)--it was not something that some third-party put together. As I understand it, the excellent optical qualities of the Asahi Takumar M42 lenses were in no way compromised by using this adapter. The proper distance from rear element to film plane was maintained, and the lens operated properly throughout it range of focus. The only thing that was lost was wide open metering and, as I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, that affected only a portion of the screwmount users, because many of them were using older lenses. The Takumars, Auto-Takumars, Tele-Takumars and Super Takumars were not able to do wide open metering. Only the Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, which began being introduced with the release of the Spotmatic II/IIa, were set up for full aperture metering. And, in a strange twist, when the first SMC Takumars were released, Asahi did not even make a camera body that supported full aperture metering. The lenses came out first, and the bodies that could exploit full aperture metering came out later. The SMC Takumars first appeared in 1971. The first body that could utilize their metering feature was the ES, which released in late 1971, but is retailed for over $600 and was being outsold by the Spotmatic II and the SP-500, neither of which had full aperture metering. The ES-II came out in 1973 and the Spotmatic-F came out in 1974, both of which exploited full aperture metering. By 1975, the K-mount bodies came out, along with the K-mount lenses, and the M42 Screw mount stuff was history. I recall seeing Pentax screwmount lenses for sale for years afterwards, so there must have been planty of stock on hand, but once the K-mount bodies came out (Models KX ans KM) Pentax stopped promoting all the screwmount gear. So, to recap, from 1952 to 1971, no Pentax lens had full aperture metering. From late 1971 to 1975 one could buy SMC Takumars with full aperture metering lugs, but it wasn't intil 1973 that the entire Takumar line had been switched to full aperture metering. Pentax had always supported older lens designs on newer camera bodies. What was unusual was that they carried over that support when they shifted production from screw mount to K-mount. That took some doing. Other manufacturers (I'm thinking of Canon particularly) simply orphaned their gear when switching to new mount systems. Pentax looked out for their users and gave them a path to migrate to the newer designs without losing their investment in legacy gear. Those screw mount lenses and camera bodies were so rugged that many of them survive even today, and are in regular use. With regard to the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4, one article in the Luminous Landscape quoted an unnamed Japanese camera executive as saying if that particular lens could be manufactured and marketed today, it would probably sell for between $1200-1500.00 (Hello, Leica!!!). Nikon has made much of their lens mount's longevity, but I believe that Pentax has implemented their support of legacy lenses better than any other manufacturer, Nikon included. Yes - with an adaptor and it will have the full functionality it had on a Spotmatic. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > Pentax seems to have managed to maintain a fair degree of > > compatibility for their legacy lenses used on modern camera bodies. > > I can put a screwmount lens on a current Pentax? >> Pentax seems to have managed to maintain a fair degree of >> compatibility for their legacy lenses used on modern camera bodies. > >I can put a screwmount lens on a current Pentax? Yes, you can even put a screw mount lens on the Pentax *ist D and get aperture priority metering ... that's actually offering better compatibility than using Pentax K and KM lenses on the *ist D. >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: Paul Rubin http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >much less to think about. Dr. Canon also gave me some dope to smoke >so I wouldn't realize that I was now missing an arm. I think Dr. B&H might have an adapter to get that Nikon arm back on that Canon body, but if not the adapter, then its time to go to "Dr. Duct Tape" (or "Dr. Gaffer's tape") to Mickey Mouse that arm back together. "I say we amputate the head first, then go for the really important parts, what do you say Mr. Dingleberry?" - L. Lang from his invisible book "Sorry, Steve, that arm's got to come off now... I like pizza, Iiiiiiii.... Like It!" Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** > >Subject: Re: Group dynamics > >From: Paul Rubin http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > do you say Mr. Dingleberry?" - L. Lang from his invisible book "Sorry, Steve, > that arm's got to come off now... I like pizza, Iiiiiiii.... Like It!" LOL! - Actually, a real lens buff should have all the common bodies, since used bodies are reasonable cheap when compared to good glass....That way, one could buy virtually every used bargain lens one comes across, and one would have a body kicking around the house to put it on...... But wouldn't you end up having your body kicked around the house do to the expense of contiously buying new glass? That could be just painfull:) > LOL! - Actually, a real lens buff should have all the common bodies, since > used bodies are reasonable cheap when compared to good glass....That way, > one could buy virtually every used bargain lens one comes across, and one > would have a body kicking around the house to put it on...... Greetings, William et. al. ;-) I got into that situation indirectly, thanks to teaching underwater photography and having to supply much (tax deductible) equipment such as underwater housings and strobes etc. Used housings with cameras were often less than a housing alone, so I ended up with various bodies and mounts. Then again, those "divorce specials" provided full kits of bodies and flashes and lenses and bags and ... for $100 cash ;-) the good news, as you noted, is that you can pick the best lenses (e.g., best bokeh, best macro..) lenses for each camera mount, collecting these over time. The bad news is that you want to buy an entire lens line, which with 10 or 12 mounts could be serious $$ fast ;-0) My solution was to buy autodiaphragm interchangeable mount lenses (T4/TX) and T-mount items (microscopes, fisheyes, slide dupers, bellows..) to provide the general range of optics on any of these mounts, with a few adapters for each mount. Then you can pick up bargain original mfgers lenses with good reputations as you go along ;-) So you can have a wide range of lenses in each camera mount, including some of the classic lenses (e.g., nikkor 105mm). As pointed out, the bodies are relatively cheap, and the lenses where the $$ go ;-) So with a costly lens, it can make sense to simply buy a body for it (e.g., canon t/s) rather than have it modified or adapted at expense more than the cost of a camera body for it ;-) regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* No they can't. They have to pick and choose very carefully. There are some cameras that are completely incompatible - they will not take ANY of the same lenses. The only way to insure full compatibility is to buy the 2000 dollar F5. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > All EF lenses will fit all EOS cameras. There is a special lens(EFS) for > > the DRebel which fits only it. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > much less to think about. Dr. Canon also gave me some dope to smoke > so I wouldn't realize that I was now missing an arm. > No they can't. They have to pick and choose very carefully. There are some > cameras that are completely incompatible - they will not take ANY of the > same lenses. The only way to insure full compatibility is to buy the 2000 > dollar F5. Which was exactly my thinking when I decided to buy my F5. And, after the conversion, that's about what I had into it.....$2000. But, in the long run, I have gotten my money's worth with the fun I've had hunting down and using bargain lenses. I've got over a dozen of them now, and there are still a few I'm looking for........ Gee, all the fun I've missed by sticking to Canon all these years! No hunting down 28mm f 2.8 SSC's, since the FD mount won't fit my EF mount bodies. Hmmmm. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > > No they can't. They have to pick and choose very carefully. There are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bargain lenses. I've got over a dozen of them now, and there are still a few > I'm looking for........ I didn't say an F5 isn't a worthwhile camera. I wouldn't sneeze at one. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > No they can't. They have to pick and choose very carefully. There are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bargain lenses. I've got over a dozen of them now, and there are still a few > I'm looking for........ > I have gotten my money's worth with the fun I've had hunting down and using > bargain lenses. I've got over a dozen of them now, and there are still a few > I'm looking for........ I've done the same, in another brand. Funny thing, though. Now that I have over a dozen prime lenses, I find myself using the normal lens maybe 80% of the time and the 35mm lens 15% of the time, with the other lenses combined accounting for no more than 5%. My style of photography requires as little graphical imposition as possible, and I can barely tolerate the apparent perspective distortion of the 35mm. That foreground emphasis really bothers me. Had I known this much earlier on, I could have stuck to just 2 lenses--maybe even one lens. Go figure . . . greetings ;-) how can it cost $250 for a release button and spring? ;-) the much cheaper way would be to buy a transitional nikon, such as the nikon F3 or FE, which had these releases as a standard part of the camera, then use them for those manual lenses as designed ;-) then again, how come MLU is restricted to the top of the line models, when it used to be on even the nikkormats as standard? ;-) and how are you supposed to use bellows and other items without a DOF option? bah humbug ;-) grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an > AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. Uh, I suspect that that was the point...;-) > What lenses can you share between > a Nikon F2 and an F65? What abotu between an F70 and an F80? How about-- > between a D100 and an F2n? How about.... well, if you haven't gotten the > point yet you never will, and since you own no photo equipment whatsoever > and never have - go back to the killfile, troll. Let's see... All lenses that fit the newer Nikon bodies except the few "G" series lenses fit and work fine on all older bodies (this includes a LOT of lenses...); most older lenses can be modified to fit most newer bodies (with AI and CPU updates, from third-parties - and this includes a BIG LOT of lenses...). And, I thought this was a nice, pleasant, tongue-in-cheek thread...;-) SignatureDavid Ruether rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > > >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to > > >spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of > > compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) > Let's see... All lenses that fit the newer Nikon bodies except the few > "G" series lenses fit and work fine on all older bodies (this includes a > LOT of lenses...); most older lenses can be modified to fit most newer > bodies (with AI and CPU updates, from third-parties - and this includes > a BIG LOT of lenses...). Well, it includes some lenses, but CPU chips aren't available for a bunch of others. In my case I have the MF 28/2.0, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 55/2.8 micro, 100/2.8E, and 80-200/4.5 zoom. The 100/2.8E and 80-200/4.5 are the ONLY ones of those for which conversion is available, and they are the ones that need it the least. (The conversion for the 100/2.8 costs almost as much as the lens itself is worth). You can't have a war without some shooting - So take aim and don't wait until you see the whites of their eyes -- if it's with the focus screen of a Nikon FM the best you'll ever get is dingey grey. So how many current bodies will take the Nikkor 6mm Fisheye? What does it take besides a lot of money to have partial use of non-CPU lenses on the D100? Would there be any point in spending that money? How many newer camera bodies would be damaged by the rabbit ears of a pra AI lens? Nikon - and compatibility are not part of the same dictionary -- and T P is not part of anyone's dictionary. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of > > > compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) > So how many current bodies will take the Nikkor 6mm Fisheye? F3HP and F5 will both take it, I believe. That lens cost something like $6000 when it was made, so nobody cares whether it fits on an N70. Also, since there's no Canon 6mm fisheye, the comparison is not really relevant. Meanwhile, Canon's 18-55 EF-S shipped with the current Digital Rebel won't fit on an EOS-10D made THIS YEAR. Want to bet there won't be more Canon lenses like that? > What does it take besides a lot of money to have partial use of > non-CPU lenses on the D100? Non-CPU AI lenses already are partially useable on the D100 (metering doesn't work but you can manually set exposure and shoot just fine). > Would there be any point in spending that money? Depends on the lens. Yes if you spent $10K on a 600/4, you better believe it's worth spending $75 to get the CPU chip. For a $100 lens, it may not be worth it. > How many newer camera bodies would be damaged by the rabbit ears of > a pra AI lens? Nikon - and compatibility are not part of the same > dictionary The rabbit ears won't damage any Nikon bodies that I know of. You're thinking of the lack of the AI ridge on the aperture ring. You need to get the ring modified to fit on the newer cameras but you leave the rabbit ears in place. That way you can meter with both the newer and older cameras. Remember too that the lenses we're talking about were all made before 1974. You're complaining to use them on newer bodies you must first go through some hassle to get them modified. But Canon lenses of a similar age do NOT have such a modification available, so how on earth can you think having it available is a disadvantage? If you don't want to spend $25 getting your $1000 lens modified, you are still free to throw the whole lens away in the garbage (well, dump it on ebay) and buy a new incompatible replacement lens the way Canon makes you do. I'm betting there will be more such lenses. To fit the next version of the DRebel. Are you saying that the fact Nikon is producing full lines of lenses that will not meter on some cameras, and others that will not even mount on other cameras that one special purpose lens from one model of EOS camera makes Canon JUST AS INCOMPATIBLE? Nikonians live in weird world where the "full compatibility" claims need ten pages of single spaced "exceptions" to the rule - and find that one stopgap lens fro one Canon camera is an identical problem??? Ever notice that Pentax lens compatibility is about 1000% higher than Nikon - how come Nikonians never point out that Pentax actually lives up to the claim that Nikon makes - but fails to support? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > So how many current bodies will take the Nikkor 6mm Fisheye? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > on ebay) and buy a new incompatible replacement lens the way Canon > makes you do. > I'm betting there will be more such lenses. To fit the next version of the > DRebel. Are you saying that the fact Nikon is producing full lines of lenses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the rule - and find that one stopgap lens fro one Canon camera is an > identical problem??? Do you seriously think the 18-55 is the last EF-S lens? Or that future bodies won't support it? And you're the one who brought up the Nikon 6mm fisheye. How many dozen of those do you think were shipped? How many tens of thousands of 18-55 EF-S's will Canon ship? The EOS incompability zoo has begun. It's just a necessary consequence of supporting legacy hardware in a quickly evolving product line. Sure, Nikon could simplify its compatibility situation, by just declaring everything to be incompatible with everything else. But you see, they actually care about their customers. And Nikon proves it cares about customers by making two incompatible camera lines and approximately five semi-incompatible lens lines. This is the way of the Nikon little grasshopper - incompatible IS compatible. Blatant disregard for customers IS being loyal. Nikonians are a strange breed - they think the rest of the world has to endure the inconvienience of not having to worry about whether Nikon will ever produce a comsumer priced digital that will take their old lenses, or a AF camera that will meter with their old lenses. The things one does to kiss the ring of Nikon are pretty degrading, but as long as they see it as an advantage, I suppose they'll be happy. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > I'm betting there will be more such lenses. To fit the next version of the > > DRebel. Are you saying that the fact Nikon is producing full lines of lenses [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > declaring everything to be incompatible with everything else. But > you see, they actually care about their customers. "Subject: Re: Group dynamics From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 11:07 PM Message-id: <p9MIb.230599$I53.9644068@twister.southeast.rr.com> And Nikon proves it cares about customers by making two incompatible camera lines and approximately five semi-incompatible lens lines. This is the way of the Nikon little grasshopper - incompatible VR compatible. Blatant disregard for customers VR being loyal." Some, small changes and now you're Nikon sentences have full compatbility, Tony ;-). VRegards and Happy New Year, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: Paul Rubin http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >consequence of supporting legacy hardware in a quickly evolving >product line. What is/makes the 18-55 EF-S zoom incompatable w/ some bodies? Is it full incompatability or does it just lose some features on some bodies? Why would Canon make a (semi?) incompatable lens? Is this theie Nikon/Pentaxish el cheapo/entry level zoom that will cover only the smaller area of a DSLR? If so, I don't know why it wouldn't work on a Canon EOS 10D as I believe I remember someone in this thread mentioned... TIA Regards and Happy New Year, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** > What is/makes the 18-55 EF-S zoom incompatable w/ some bodies? Is it > full incompatability or does it just lose some features on some > bodies? Full, physical incompatibility. The 300D has a special swing-back mirror so "newer" lenses (EF-S) may protrude deeper inside the body. Mounting such a lens on any other Canon will damage the mirror when firing -- at least when using the wider settings of the zoom. >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: Magnus W vader@death-star.spam-trap.com [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >lens on any other Canon will damage the mirror when firing -- at least >when using the wider settings of the zoom. Thanks Magnus. Seems kind of dumb to me, though. Both Nikon and Pentax seem to do fine w/ both their full frame and smaller digi-sensor size-specific coverage lenses. I don't see why Canon needed to do this "kludge" - their mount , the regular EOS EF mount is backwards compatable (and, up till now,) forwards compatable. Canon just could have had as easily designed regular dual coverage (reg. 35mm and digi) just as they did w/ their EOS mount/APS mount compatable lenses. Really, really unecessary... Regards and Happy New Years, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** Because it's a fast way to get a wide to tele zoom on the market - for under 100 dollars. This is a cheap lens for the bottom of the line camera - most of the people buying the DRebel will buy that lens and only those who are truly interested in photography will ever buy another. IT's not at all like having a 6000 dollar lens that must have mirror lock up - and then reducing the line so only the 2000 dollar camera has mirror lock - that is plain criminal. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >Subject: Re: Group dynamics > >From: Magnus W vader@death-star.spam-trap.com [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, > PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** > Because it's a fast way to get a wide to tele zoom on the market - for under > 100 dollars. This is a cheap lens for the bottom of the line camera - most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the line so only the 2000 dollar camera has mirror lock - that is plain > criminal. The F3HP has MLU, they still offer it and I think it's around $1000. I doubt anyone with a 6mm (they don't make those any more though) will want to use it on an N80. Anyway, how many of those 6mm's did they make? Does it matter - the F3HP is a bit of an anacronism itself - and it won't take any "G" lenses now will it. The only current production model that can use all the lenses (maybe) is the F5 and that needs modification. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > Because it's a fast way to get a wide to tele zoom on the market - for under > > 100 dollars. This is a cheap lens for the bottom of the line camera - most [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I doubt anyone with a 6mm (they don't make those any more though) will > want to use it on an N80. Anyway, how many of those 6mm's did they make? >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of the people buying the DRebel will buy that lens and only those who are >truly interested in photography will ever buy another. SNIP Thanks for explaining it to me, Tony. Still.. they couldn't have made a cheap $100 lens of similar range in normal EF mount? Nikon and Pentax have done this, still don't see why it was necessary for Canon... Regards and Happy New Year, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** I haven't figured that one out, either, Lewis, and it disturbs me, as a Canon user, since what is to prevent them from gradually switching over to the EF-N mount... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >Subject: Re: Group dynamics > >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, > PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: "Skip M" shadowcatcher@cox.net [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to >the EF-N mount... Hi Skip: Let's hope its a temporary diversion in the EF line, a subset, rather than an entire course change. I would still expect Canon to be bringing out both film and digital bodies for some time, especially, since the 1Ds (and whatever its successors) is a full frame, and therefore, a full 1X mag factor, designed to take regular "film"/full 35mm format lenses. Time will tell whether this deviation in mount is a subset, a subset & dead-end, or the superceding of present full frame mount/"regular full frame 35mm film format" EF lenses. On an only tangentially related note, I wonder if Nikon will ever be smart enough to add metering compatability w/ their MF lenses in the N85. Their track record says no, but they would be winning a lot of good will (do they even care about this?) to at least have 1 affordable mid-level AF camera that could accept and meter/expose w/ Nikon MF lenses. Or they could alter the MF line and make them all "P" lenses so as to work on all their AF cameras (yes, I know about the chipping/conversions). Regards and Happy New Years, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** Do you know someone who would actually want the Canon EF-S 18-55mm? I don't. > > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an > > AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And, I thought this was a nice, pleasant, tongue-in-cheek thread...;-) > -- Yes.....Pretty near every Nikon SLR lens ever made will fit on my F5....Some must be used in manual mode, to be sure, but they will all go on the camera, and I can take pictures with them all. Will the pre-Ai lenses go on without breaking the camera? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > "Tony Spadaro" <tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > must be used in manual mode, to be sure, but they will all go on the camera, > and I can take pictures with them all. > > Yes.....Pretty near every Nikon SLR lens ever made will fit on my > > F5....Some must be used in manual mode, to be sure... > > Will the pre-Ai lenses go on without breaking the camera? Huh? That's what he just said, the F5 can use just about any Nikon SLR lens ever made. That would include pre-AI lenses. The problem with putting pre-AI lenses on cameras like the N70 is the AI aperture tab on the camera bangs into the aperture ring and there's a chance of damaging the tab (though damage doesn't usually occur and some people just squash the lens on routinely, not a good idea). The F5, like the F4 and F3 before it, has a little button on the lens mount that you can press when you want to mount a pre-AI lens. The button flips the aperture tab out of the way so it won't bump into the ring. Lower priced Nikons like the FM, FE, and Nikkormat FT3 also had the flip-away button for a while, but they stopped including it in the non-professional models once there weren't so many of those lenses around. I had a couple of pre-AI lenses and once asked a repair shop about getting the pushbutton release installed on my FM2n, and they said they could do it, but the price they quoted me was more than it would have cost to get my pre-AI lenses modified. So I got the lenses modified. > > > Yes.....Pretty near every Nikon SLR lens ever made will fit on my > > > F5....Some must be used in manual mode, to be sure... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > have cost to get my pre-AI lenses modified. So I got the lenses > modified. Unfortunately, the F5 doesn't come with this modification. However, it can be added for a fee (about $250) - I had the mod put on my camera by a local (Portland, OR) shop. As you mention, the lenses can be modified (By AIconversions.com) for about $35 each. John White does an excellent job....... > Unfortunately, the F5 doesn't come with this modification. However, > it can be added for a fee (about $250) - I had the mod put on my > camera by a local (Portland, OR) shop. As you mention, the lenses > can be modified (By AIconversions.com) for about $35 each. John > White does an excellent job....... Oh well. Oops. I'm not sure why I'd want to use an F5 with a pre-AI lens anyway though. The fast AF doesn't do anything for you, you only get stop-down metering, and so forth. I'd probably just use my F3 with them (the F3 definitely has the pushbutton), or get the lenses modified. You don't want to use an F5 with old lenses? But you are so certain that Canon coming out with an entirely differnt line screwed people out of using all those old lenses. Have we got a slight case of favouritism here? Are we willing to accept crap from Nikon that we wouldn't accept from any other company? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > Unfortunately, the F5 doesn't come with this modification. However, > > it can be added for a fee (about $250) - I had the mod put on my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with them (the F3 definitely has the pushbutton), or get the lenses > modified. > You don't want to use an F5 with old lenses? But you are so certain > that Canon coming out with an entirely differnt line screwed people > out of using all those old lenses. Have we got a slight case of > favouritism here? Are we willing to accept crap from Nikon that we > wouldn't accept from any other company? I'm quite surprised Nikon left that aperture tab release out of the F5. However, those old lenses can easily be modified to AI and still work on the old cameras. Someone who cares about this issue will have a mixture of old and new lenses, and old and new cameras, and will want to be able to keep using whatever they can. I don't see any way to use an EF lens on your F-1. I don't have an F1 -- never did have an F1. At the time the F1 was on the market I had a Nikon F2 and a Nikkormat Ft. Neither of which could use most of the used lenses available by 1990 -- pre AI only for both. I went to Canon beacuse the AF was so pathetic on all the Nikons available in 1992 and they couldn't use my lenses anyway. So I switched to Canon partly because of Nikon incompatibility. Now lets take all those poor abandoned Canon F1 users -- Canon continued to make and market FD/FL lens mount cameras and lenses for about 5 years after introducing the first EOS body and lenses. In that five years the demand dropped to pretty much nothing. My three Canon owning friends of that era went in two directions - two of them are still using F1ns and Ftbs etc and braggina about how they can buy SSC lenses for under 100 bucks now. The third bought an Elan about the same time I did and converted over to all EOS in a few years. None are unhappy about Canon and all still use Canon (one died a few years ago but he used Canon right up until the stroke that eventually ended his life. So the main people bellyaching about Canon incompatibility are Nikon users who refuse to notice what a nightmare Nikon has foisted upon them. If Nikon had been smart enough to see what the future was going to be they would have gone to a new mount too. They were stupid and now something as simple as a USM lens is a major expense from Nikon as it had to be kludged onto the old mount. This is why it took Nikon 6 years to make an IS lens, and why Nikon still cannot have eye contorl focus -- they have saddled themselves with a mount from the 1950s and it costs a bundle to partially get around those limitations. No wonder Canon is number one in world camera sales - they don't make life miserable for their customers. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > You don't want to use an F5 with old lenses? But you are so certain > > that Canon coming out with an entirely differnt line screwed people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to be able to keep using whatever they can. I don't see any way to > use an EF lens on your F-1. I'm not sure why I'd want to use an F5 with a pre-AI > lens anyway though. The fast AF doesn't do anything for you, you only > get stop-down metering, and so forth. I'd probably just use my F3 > with them (the F3 definitely has the pushbutton), or get the lenses > modified. Well, I found out early on that I didn't really care for AF.....I use the passive part of it, (the little green spot in the viewfinder that tells me I'm in focus) but I'd rather do the actual focusing by hand, by twisting the focus ring on the lens. I just like the idea of being able to buy any Nikkor I come across, at garage sales, second hand stores, and the like, and know that I can use it on my camera. It has enabled me to pick up some outstanding bargains. I get a real kick out of getting an outstandingly sharp photograph, and being able to tell my friends that I paid $75 for the lens....... Ahh - now it becomes clear -- the old Nikon - YOu can have it modified ploy - like putting CPUs in some of the non-CPU lenses etc. For 250 dollars I can buy a Rebel -- or a pretty decent 28-105 f3.5-4.5 zoom, instead of wasting money on "modifications" that should be standard. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > > > Yes.....Pretty near every Nikon SLR lens ever made will fit on my [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > AIconversions.com) for about $35 each. John White does an excellent > job....... So you can make the lenses fully compatible by buying the top of the line camera for 2 Grand? Wow. I can buy an Elan 7 and have a fully compatible EOS camera for under 400 dollars. In fact I can buy a Rebel Ti and do it for less or a Rebel GII for even less. In those price ranges Nikon dosn't even have full manual control over exposure. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > Yes.....Pretty near every Nikon SLR lens ever made will fit on my > > > F5....Some must be used in manual mode, to be sure... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > have cost to get my pre-AI lenses modified. So I got the lenses > modified. > So you can make the lenses fully compatible by buying the top of the line > camera for 2 Grand? Wow. I can buy an Elan 7 and have a fully compatible EOS > camera for under 400 dollars. In fact I can buy a Rebel Ti and do it for > less or a Rebel GII for even less. In those price ranges Nikon dosn't even > have full manual control over exposure. I never said I liked cheap Nikons.....I've owned a few that I have given away because they were such pieces of plastic junk....The 2000 (or was it a 2002?) for example. I don't know anything about cheap Canons.....I've never owned one. Just from the cameras I have handled in shops and friends houses and the like, I think that Pentaxes might have been a camera that I would have liked. - But I have an F5 now, and I can't afford to switch in mid stream what with all my Nikkor glass. So that's the way it is...... My second choice is also Pentax. When I went to AF they didn't have it though, and my wife already had a Rebel. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > So you can make the lenses fully compatible by buying the top of the line [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have liked. - But I have an F5 now, and I can't afford to switch in mid > stream what with all my Nikkor glass. So that's the way it is...... William Graham said: > I never said I liked cheap Nikons.....I've owned a few that I have given > away because they were such pieces of plastic junk....The 2000 (or was it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would have liked. - But I have an F5 now, and I can't afford to switch in > mid stream what with all my Nikkor glass. So that's the way it is...... Stick with the Nikkors. I made the cardinal error of ditching all my stuff to go digital when the D30 came out. I really regret it now, because to get the equivalent glass for my Canon system will cost a bundle. SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email >So you can make the lenses fully compatible by buying the top of the line >camera for 2 Grand? Wow. I can buy an Elan 7 and have a fully compatible EOS >camera for under 400 dollars. In fact I can buy a Rebel Ti and do it for >less or a Rebel GII for even less. In those price ranges Nikon dosn't even >have full manual control over exposure. Seems you spend more time berating Nikon for its lack of lens compatibility than Nikon users do berating Canon users for not being able to use the older FD glass. Lens compatibility on Nikons are not all that complicated. I have no problem with the mix of Nikon AF and MF bodies I have, and I have all AF lenses, and I know they all will work on the f100, and the ones that won't work on the FE. The one 'g' lens won't, and the VR 80-400 don't 'VR' on the FE. Simple. I don't need frigging charts and graphs to keep that straight. You keep deriding Nikon. I haven't and won't deride Canon. I could care les that your FD lenses won't mount on you EOS. Why do you care so passionately about the in/compatibilites of Nikon lenses? Can't stand to see an inaccurate statment? Read over your posts in this thread to see if you've posted any of those. > Will the pre-Ai lenses go on without breaking the camera? Yes, but I have to admit that I had a $250 modification added to the camera to make sure this wouldn't happen. It allows me to lift the little indexing latch on the top of the camera mount out of the way before mounting these lenses. But this was my whole reason for going with Nikon....So I could mount virtually any F-mount glass I came across.......And so the old Nikkor glass that I already had (for my old Nikkormat EL-W) would fit. > Yes, but I have to admit that I had a $250 modification added to the > camera to make sure this wouldn't happen. I thought the F5 had that built in, like the F3 and F4. It doesn't?! > > Yes, but I have to admit that I had a $250 modification added to the > > camera to make sure this wouldn't happen. > > I thought the F5 had that built in, like the F3 and F4. It doesn't?! No. - Mine came brand new, without it. I guess Nikon decided that very few people were going to need to use non-AI lenses on a pro model like that, so they could save a few bucks off the retail price by shipping them without it. And, for the few weirdoes like me, well, we can shell out the $250 to get it modified. There comes a time when backward compatibility becomes too uneconomical. It would be ridiculous to put Daguerreotype backs on a modern camera, for example....... David Ruether said: > And, I thought this was a nice, pleasant, tongue-in-cheek thread...;-) I'm loving it! Happy New Year! SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email It is Where's your contribution? Where are the Leica guys and the users of fantabulous Zeiss opticals? Did you know that 8 out of every 11 Contax buyers are blind and deaf? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > David Ruether said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Happy New Year! >Subject: Re: Group dynamics >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Where are the Leica guys and the users of fantabulous Zeiss opticals? > Did you know that 8 out of every 11 Contax buyers are blind and deaf? What? I would be insulted, but your words are not large enough for my poor eyes to hear! ;-) Regards and Happy New Years, Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** Tony Spadaro said: > It is > Where's your contribution? > Where are the Leica guys and the users of fantabulous Zeiss opticals? > Did you know that 8 out of every 11 Contax buyers are blind and deaf? I think we'll have to start a separate one about Leica and Contax. Actually having given this subject matter some really deep thought, I must say that all 35mm cameras are sh.t. I think I'm going to switch to MF and get myself a Hasselblad. Hopefully by the time film is extinct I will be able to afford a digital back for it. Seriously though, there is a sudden glut of used MF gear on the market which guys are dropping for cameras like the D100 and 10D. Crazy buggers... SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email Crazy buggers who have discovered that with digital they are saving money and their clients are too - so everyone is happy. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Tony Spadaro said: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Seriously though, there is a sudden glut of used MF gear on the market > which guys are dropping for cameras like the D100 and 10D. Crazy buggers... > Crazy buggers who have discovered that with digital they are saving money > and their clients are too - so everyone is happy. So you are suggesting the current crop of dslr's surpass medium format? <yawn Jim Waggener said: >> Crazy buggers who have discovered that with digital they are saving >> money and their clients are too - so everyone is happy. >> > So you are suggesting the current crop of dslr's surpass medium format? > <yawn> The purpose of this thread was to argue brand over FvD. PLEASE let's not get into the latter again!!! I actually used to own a Bronica MF system when I first got involved in photography. I couldn't figure out how to load the bloody 120 backs! Swapped it for an F5. SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email You started it! Nyaa Nyaa! Dallas went to FvD and ruint his own thread -- Nyaa Nyaa! Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Jim Waggener said: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > photography. I couldn't figure out how to load the bloody 120 backs! > Swapped it for an F5. > You started it! Nyaa Nyaa! Dallas went to FvD and ruint his own thread -- > Nyaa Nyaa! LOL .... yer twisted Tony Spadaro said: > You started it! Nyaa Nyaa! Dallas went to FvD and ruint his own thread > -- > Nyaa Nyaa! Stop trying to twist this, you Neanderthal! Film is definitely better than Medium Format and digital is definitely better than CCD's. See? No debate! SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email DVDs are longer that CCDs -- Nyaa nyaa! Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Tony Spadaro said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Stop trying to twist this, you Neanderthal! Film is definitely better than > Medium Format and digital is definitely better than CCD's. See? No debate! Tony Spadaro said: > DVDs are longer that CCDs -- Nyaa nyaa! Hmmm...they look about the same size to me. SignatureDallas www.imageunlimited.co.za Drop pants for email You've got one hell of a big digital camera. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Tony Spadaro said: > > > DVDs are longer that CCDs -- Nyaa nyaa! > > Hmmm...they look about the same size to me. >> What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an >> AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. > >Uh, I suspect that that was the point...;-) Indeed it was! ;-) > What an a.s you are - and an ignorant a.s at that. No EF lens with fit an > AE-1 and no FD lens will fit an EF camera. What lenses can you share between > a Nikon F2 and an F65? What abotu between an F70 and an F80? How about > between a D100 and an F2n? How about.... well, if you haven't gotten the > point yet you never will, and since you own no photo equipment whatsoever > and never have - go back to the killfile, troll. how do you REALLY feel Tony? :) : >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to : >spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various : >ranges of lenses with various bodies. You guys must need to carry a : >notebook around with you! : Please refresh my memory: : Which Canon EF lenses will fit a Canon AE-1 body? None. See how easy that was? :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Here's another dubm question. How many AE-1s have been made in the past ten years? Hint: its the same answer as the first question. And yet another: How many FD/FL mount cameras have been made in the last 10 years? Hint: As many as the number of AE-1s. Howeer, as everyone knows Nikon claims full compatibility without ever mentioning the fact that the Leica screw mount Nikons have also been abandoned by the company, and if you want a Nikonos lens -- look fast! Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > : > > : >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > None. See how easy that was? :-) >>However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to >>spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of >compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) Tony, you exaggerate (as I'm sure you are well aware). Canon made a single switch from manual focus FD lenses (which fitted all manual focus bodies in living memory) to autofocus EF lenses (which fit all autofocus bodies - I note the single new EF-S is an exception ). Which bit of that do you assert is complicated? SignatureDavid Littlewood > Canon made a single switch from manual focus FD lenses (which fitted > all manual focus bodies in living memory) to autofocus EF lenses > (which fit all autofocus bodies - I note the single new EF-S is an > exception ). Which bit of that do you assert is complicated? Rather than "single new EF-S" it's probably more accurate to say "first of the new EF-S's". EF-S is a very practical concept and Canon probably has enough sense to stick with it. They will make more EF-S lenses, more DSLR's that accept it, and more full frame DSLR's that won't be able to accept it. Welcome to an internally partly incompatible system in order to gain technical benefits where you find them without completely trashing your existing investment. Nikon users have dealt with it for years, it's not so bad. >>(When a Canon EOS user has the gall to criticise Nikon for a lack of >>compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >all autofocus bodies - I note the single new EF-S is an exception ). >Which bit of that do you assert is complicated? I made no assertion that it was complicated. I simply asserted (correctly) that Canon's lack of backward compatibility was somewhat greater than Nikon's, in that there is a complete - total - lack of compatibility between FD bodies and EF lenses. >>>(When a Canon EOS user has the gall to criticise Nikon for a lack of >>>compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >greater than Nikon's, in that there is a complete - total - lack of >compatibility between FD bodies and EF lenses. My original point (to which you were replying) was that it seemed complicated, at least to this Nikon SLR virgin. SignatureDavid Littlewood >My original point (to which you were replying) was that it seemed >complicated, at least to this Nikon SLR virgin. The post-AI Nikon F mount has a quite simple and remarkable compatibility, in that every single AI and later lens will mount to every single Nikon body ever made since 1959, and will focus manually. There's absolutely nothing complicated about that. Where I accept it *does* get complex is working out which additional lens and body features will work with which particular bodies and lenses. In some cases the metering won't work, especially with manual focus lenses on later, low end and mid range AF bodies, which is pretty fundamental and the source of much irritation to Nikon users of long standing. The other fundamental issue is that, with G lenses, there is no control over aperture with manual focus Nikon bodies, however it is unlikely that the majority of users of G lenses would care overmuch, although people like me do. These issues do need care to resolve and, in fairness, nothing similar has been experienced by Canon EOS users until the advent of EF-S. However, the fact remains that Canon's once-and-for-all wholesale abandonment of FD mount users was a massive and devastating blow against a huge and very loyal user base. Nikon's actions in gradually evolving a feature set and the inevitable resulting incompatibilities of detail should never be compared with a calamitous decision such as Canon's to abandon support for their FD users, showing a disregard for a whole SLR system user base that was callous in the extreme. >>My original point (to which you were replying) was that it seemed >>complicated, at least to this Nikon SLR virgin. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >These issues do need care to resolve and, in fairness, nothing similar >has been experienced by Canon EOS users until the advent of EF-S. Thus far, I think we are in agreement. >However, the fact remains that Canon's once-and-for-all wholesale >abandonment of FD mount users was a massive and devastating blow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >users, showing a disregard for a whole SLR system user base that was >callous in the extreme. I accept you have an arguable point of view; however, I think you overstate it substantially, and present as a one-sided no-brainer something which is in reality a much more finely balanced issue. As I understand it, the Canon decision was based on the fact that the FD mount throat was too restricted to develop a super-efficient AF system, other technical advances such as IS (or VR in Nikonspeak) and of course very wide aperture lenses. All product lines, however sensible they were at inception, reach the end of their development life sooner or later and cannot accommodate advances not envisaged at their birth. It is a matter of commercial judgement at what point the maker acknowledges this and abandons it in favour of a new start with a product with more development potential. That type of decision is routinely made is witnessed by the fact that we no longer have new pennyfarthing bicycles, Edison cylinders or 78 rpm records, analogue mobile phones, Daguerreotype plates, CP/M computer software and a host of other things. It can be argued that struggling on with a product line long after its limitations cause problems is unfair to consumers just as much as is premature termination of a still viable line. I do not try, and never have tried, to make dogmatic judgements that one was wholly right and one was wholly wrong; I accept that there are merits and demerits in either course. For my own part - and I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else - I mostly endorse the Canon decision, even though I had several thousand pounds invested in FD gear. After all, once I had decided to buy AF lenses and bodies, I was already committed to substantial upgrading costs; I am therefore grateful that the costs I incurred were invested in a new system with much more development potential, rather than in a legacy system that would have been straining at the seams from inception. Other people are perfectly entitled to come to a different conclusion, and if their system of choice satisfied their priorities and preferences I am happy for them. My original comment was purely based on what I perceived to be the complexity of compatibility in the Nikon line which appears to have been the consequence (whether logical or not I cannot say) of their decision. You have now agreed with this in the first part of your post. SignatureDavid Littlewood > Other people are perfectly entitled to come to a different conclusion, > and if their system of choice satisfied their priorities and preferences [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > say) of their decision. You have now agreed with this in the first part > of your post. The Minolta "abandonment" of the MD mount is another example. Minolta did it and introduced the AF line of cameras and lenses. Minolta's lens lineup is lean compared to Nikon and Canon, and there are no issues wrt to features that do and don't work amongst various bodies and lenses (although with the [D] lenses, this is beginning to emerge). With Minolta's announced intention to introduce a DSLR at PMA with AF and AFD compatibility (suggesting a special variant for digital cameras only). Personally since I never had any MD equipment, it was no big shakeup to me. I know a couple people with MD systems and they seem quite happy (and their photos bear them out). Cheers, Alan Hi y'all ;-) Pentax has somehow managed to maintain upward and downward compatibility between manual K lenses and later autofocus variants, with the oldest manual lenses working in manual modes on the main line latest AF camera models, including metering (a few low end consumer models excepted), and the latest AF lenses working on older manual bodies in manual mode, including metering and even many autoexposure modes (autoaperture..). This compatibility is why I have expanded my pentax K/KA series holdings... Nikon has gone out of their way, speaking as a nikon user, to make it hard to use their older lenses on newer camera bodies by preventing metering, dropping $.25 prongs from their lenses to prevent new lenses from metering (other than stopdown) in older bodies, and eliminating the full lens control rings on the new G series lenses etc. This has been done, IMHO, to solve Nikon's problem, namely, selling us new lenses when the old ones are at least as good ;-) Nikon claims to be unable to convert their older lenses to work on the newer bodies, but folks working with chips in their garage seem to be able to upgrade old lenses to work on new bodies. Again, this suggests to me that the current kludge of nikon's compatibility issues is a deliberate marketing ploy to promote sales of new lenses etc. and not some fundamental hardware issues unfortunately for nikon, the shift to digital is offering their user base an option to convert brands and buy new lenses for digital - but not nikon lenses. By obsoleting the base of user lens investments and orphaning those lenses from not even metering on the newer bodies, nikon has encouraged us to abandon their ship for more compatible ones. just my $.02 bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Pentax has somehow managed to maintain upward and downward compatibility > between manual K lenses and later autofocus variants, with the oldest Is Pentax doing a DSLR line that can take screwmount and K lenses?? >> Pentax has somehow managed to maintain upward and downward compatibility >> between manual K lenses and later autofocus variants, with the oldest > >Is Pentax doing a DSLR line that can take screwmount and K lenses?? The Pentax *ist D will mount and meter M42 screw mount lenses used with the Pentax M42 to K adapter that has been around for years. Unfortunately, the *ist D will not meter properly with a K or KM lens, although KA and later lenses work just fine. The Pentax experts will no doubt fill in the precise details ... as soon as I found that my K lenses were virtually useless on the *ist D body, I immediately lost all inter*ist in it. ;-) > As soon as I found that my K lenses were virtually useless on the *ist D body, I immediately lost all inter*ist in it. Yeah, right. You've probably never owned a Pentax lens in your life. hen are you going to display sone of your work, O Master Photographer? You're as phony as a $3 Dollar bill. ... >Nikon has gone out of their way, speaking as a nikon user, to make it hard >to use their older lenses on newer camera bodies by preventing metering, >dropping $.25 prongs from their lenses to prevent new lenses from metering >(other than stopdown) in older bodies, and eliminating the full lens >control rings on the new G series lenses etc. Maybe. Or, maybe it is easier to design new features without the restraint of having to accommodate backward comparability. BTW, I doubt the cost to Nikon of delivering that prong on each new lens they design is as low as twenty-five cents. >This has been done, IMHO, to solve Nikon's problem, namely, selling us new >lenses when the old ones are at least as good ;-) Nikon claims to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >kludge of nikon's compatibility issues is a deliberate marketing ploy to >promote sales of new lenses etc. and not some fundamental hardware issues I thought the original Nikon FT (?) add on prism meter and lens prong was a major kluge, that they have been trying to correct for the last forty years. >unfortunately for nikon, the shift to digital is offering their user base >an option to convert brands and buy new lenses for digital - but not >nikon lenses. By obsoleting the base of user lens investments and >orphaning those lenses from not even metering on the newer bodies, nikon >has encouraged us to abandon their ship for more compatible ones. Maybe, maybe not. This is something that will be determined by the market over the next decade. Considering Canon did a major lens mount switch to go to its product of "computer as a camera" in the EOS line, and has been successful, I don't think it is a slam dunk. There appear to be other factors involved rather than lens mount comparability. I am beginning to think that backwards lens mount capability may be such a trivial factor that it has no significant effect in the market. Best Regards. ***************************************** Boycott list: Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria, Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU, Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp, Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz Foods, Ontario & Quebec provinces, Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying." For those who are unclear about the situation, California is the Clinton - Davis model for the rest of the United States of America. >Pentax has somehow managed to maintain upward and downward compatibility >between manual K lenses and later autofocus variants, with the oldest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >including metering and even many autoexposure modes (autoaperture..). This >compatibility is why I have expanded my pentax K/KA series holdings... You are a little behind the times, Bob. Pentax have followed Nikon's lead and introduced incompatibility with older lenses into the *ist models. The film and digital *ist bodies differ, with the *ist D having less incompatibilities than the film*ist, but the thin edge of the wedge has begun to come between Pentax users with K and KM lenses and the latest Pentax bodies. Just so Canon doesn't seem the sole callous villain in this discussion, didn't Minolta do the same thing when converting to AF? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > > >My original point (to which you were replying) was that it seemed [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > users, showing a disregard for a whole SLR system user base that was > callous in the extreme. >Just so Canon doesn't seem the sole callous villain in this discussion, >didn't Minolta do the same thing when converting to AF? Yes. ;-) Any. Just buy an adapter. > >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to > >spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compatibility, it is instructive to recall the *total lack* of > compatibility with older Canon bodies offered by the EF lens range.) >> >However, just to keep the pot boiling, I always find my head starts to >> >spin when the Nikon users start to discuss the compatibility of various [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Just buy an adapter. I don't believe that is possible; the EF lenses have wider mounting rings than the FD body mounts, and I also suspect the respective lens flange to film distances would make it impossible. There *were* adapters to mount FD lenses on EOS bodies (the opposite of what you suggest) but these were not a practical proposition for most cases. SignatureDavid Littlewood > Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > www.imageunlimited.co.za > Drop pants for email Okay, I will take on your last statement, and claim that Nikkor shift lenses are better than Canon shift lenses. However, these are not commonly used items. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com But Canon does not make shift lenses -- they make Shift/Tilt lenses. Nikon makes shift lenses which are obviously better than nothing. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Alliance Graphique Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com >But Canon does not make shift lenses -- they make Shift/Tilt lenses. Nikon >makes shift lenses which are obviously better than nothing. Nikon does make an 85mm Tilt/Shift lens. Frank I was unaware of that. Obviously it is not going to impress anyone who wants the full line up of Canon Shift/Tilts but it's good to see poor old Nikon would still like to pretend it is in the game. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >But Canon does not make shift lenses -- they make Shift/Tilt lenses. Nikon > >makes shift lenses which are obviously better than nothing. > > Nikon does make an 85mm Tilt/Shift lens. > > Frank >I was unaware of that. Obviously it is not going to impress anyone who wants >the full line up of Canon Shift/Tilts but it's good to see poor old Nikon >would still like to pretend it is in the game. > > >But Canon does not make shift lenses -- they make Shift/Tilt lenses. Nikon > >makes shift lenses which are obviously better than nothing. > > Nikon does make an 85mm Tilt/Shift lens. > > Frank The 85mm TS (or the 90mm Canon TS-E) would be very useful for product shots, but not really for building photography; for that, the 24 and 45mm lenses are the most useful. Of course, I may just buy a 90 when I get rich (!) SignatureDavid Littlewood My wish is for the 24 - nothing else I would need in a T/S lens. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > >I was unaware of that. Obviously it is not going to impress anyone who wants > >the full line up of Canon Shift/Tilts but it's good to see poor old Nikon [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 45mm lenses are the most useful. Of course, I may just buy a 90 when I > get rich (!) >> Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group >> crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >are better than Canon shift lenses. However, these are not commonly used >items. I've never used a Nikon shift lens in my life, Gordon; all I can say is that if they *are* better than the Canon ones they must be paragons indeed. I have a 24 and 45 TS-E lenses and they are outstanding - the 24 could even be my desert island lens, if only desert islands weren't the last place to find a TS-E useful. They also have the huge advantage of the tilt facility, which is something I don't think Nikon (or any other 35mm maker) has. SignatureDavid Littlewood >I've never used a Nikon shift lens in my life, Gordon; all I can say is >that if they *are* better than the Canon ones they must be paragons [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the tilt facility, which is something I don't think Nikon (or any other >35mm maker) has. There is a former Soviet 35mm f/2.8 tilt-and-shift lens. > I've never used a Nikon shift lens in my life, Gordon; all I can say > is that if they *are* better than the Canon ones they must be paragons [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > advantage of the tilt facility, which is something I don't think Nikon > (or any other 35mm maker) has. Bjorn Rorslett also managed to adapt a Canon 24 TS-E to a Nikon D1, IIRC. > >> Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > >> crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > could even be my desert island lens, if only desert islands weren't the > last place to find a TS-E useful. I have tried the 24 Canon as a rental lens, and compared it to the 28 mm Nikkor. The Nikkor seemed to me to give slightly less distortion. I was doing interior architecture images at the time. Another rental lens that really impressed me was the 35 mm Nikkor shift lens. With that one, I felt the image results were even better, and did not think that the narrower angle of view was any limitation for what I was photographing. After a few rentals, I finally bought a 35 mm Nikkor shift lens. It could also be my desert island lens, though the normal 105 mm f2.5 might be a better choice. > They also have the huge advantage of > the tilt facility, which is something I don't think Nikon (or any other > 35mm maker) has. > -- > David Littlewood Nikon makes an 85 mm tilt and shift lens. When doing architecture images, I do not find myself wanting tilt, though with more creative imagery, it can be a nice to have effect. There are also some former Soviet block companies doing shift and/or tilt lenses, including one 80 mm that I know about. I think Schneider still make a shift lens for some 35 mm mounts, though I think it is even more expensive than any of the Nikon or Canon choices. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com The N70 (F70) was perhaps the WORST interface ever foisted on the public. The POS didn't even have DOF preview. Basically the N70 was the dogsbody of the worst era of Nikon. Happy? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, I strongly contend that apart from the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm > f/2.8 ED Nikkors, most Canon EF lenses are better than Nikkors. > The N70 (F70) was perhaps the WORST interface ever foisted on the public. The interface is clean and elegant - it is just not suitable for an SLR.. :-) -peter That I will agree with -- but I wouldn't want it for a VCR either. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > The N70 (F70) was perhaps the WORST interface ever foisted on the public. > > The interface is clean and elegant - it is just not suitable for an > SLR.. :-) > > -peter >>The N70 (F70) was perhaps the WORST interface ever foisted on the public. > > The interface is clean and elegant - it is just not suitable for an > SLR.. :-) > > -peter ...form follows function ... what they appear to have missed. According to some little known publication on the eve of Canon's release of EOS 1, way back when T90s ruled; "If we could get Nikon lenses to work on Canon cameras, we'd have the perfect combination". Personally having virtually 'dumped' $10,000 worth of Nikon gear to become a disciple of EOS, I can say with candour... There is not a single picture I took with either brand that could not have been duplicated with the other. True, Canon DSLRs currently lead the field in technological superiority but this may not remain. Dark horses like Sigma and Minolta could soon eclipse Canon's hold on the market. We've all got eyes in our bum. Given the benefit of hindsight, I should have just opted for a Nikon DSLR body. The weight of enthusiastic wannabe experts helped sway me into a $5000 loss and a $6000 expense just to have the same as everybody else. I like to think I'm a good enough photographer that I would have the same results from either brand. Oh well, that new Tarago will still be there next year! Doug ----------------------- > Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > www.imageunlimited.co.za > Drop pants for email > According to some little known publication on the eve of Canon's release of > EOS 1, way back when T90s ruled; "If we could get Nikon lenses to work on > Canon cameras, we'd have the perfect combination". Personally having > virtually 'dumped' $10,000 worth of Nikon gear to become a disciple of EOS, > I can say with candour... Good post. Such thinking has kept me in the faith. Hopefully Minolta will reward that faith at PMA. There is the 'promised' DSLR for the PMA and on sale in the fall next year. ...hoping it is at least as good as the 60D and hopefully better than the 10D... Cheers, Alan >Good post. Such thinking has kept me in the faith. Hopefully Minolta >will reward that faith at PMA. There is the 'promised' DSLR for the PMA >and on sale in the fall next year. ...hoping it is at least as good as >the 60D and hopefully better than the 10D... You can get a really good deal on Ebay on a Minolta RD-175 which will take all of your Maxxum lenses. Frank >>Good post. Such thinking has kept me in the faith. Hopefully Minolta >>will reward that faith at PMA. There is the 'promised' DSLR for the PMA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Frank Ever wonder why the deal is so good? The RD-175 was a good first step, then Minolta folded their cards for a few rounds... >Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group >crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >However, I strongly contend that apart from the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm >f/2.8 ED Nikkors, most Canon EF lenses are better than Nikkors. More to the point: anything I own is both necessary and sufficient, anything you own is either wildly superfluous and extravagant, or woefully inadequate. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > More to the point: anything I own is both necessary > and sufficient, anything you own is either wildly > superfluous and extravagant, or woefully inadequate. ...until I come along, that is... my stuff is not only more neccesary and more sufficient, it is more efficient and your stuff is criminally extravagant, needlessly superfluous and concomitanly inadequate to the real task of the real ... what are we talking about anyway? Signaturee-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> More to the point: anything I own is both necessary and sufficient, >>anything you own is either wildly superfluous and extravagant, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >extravagant, needlessly superfluous and concomitanly inadequate to the >real task of the real ... what are we talking about anyway? As in the irregular verb: "I am independent minded, you are eccentric, he is round the bend"? (With acknowledgements to "Yes, Prime Minister".) SignatureDavid Littlewood > Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, I strongly contend that apart from the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm > f/2.8 ED Nikkors, most Canon EF lenses are better than Nikkors. Who cares? Leica lenses beat all the rest.... : Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group : crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the : form of whether Nikon really is better than Canon? Those flame wars died down when it became clear to all that Canon is far superior to Nikon!! :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com But it is completely unimportant now that Sigma has bought out and discontinued both Nikon and Canon. Their latest acquisition, Daimler/Chrysler is being converted over to the new Mercedes line of digital Sigma cameras and will feature OnSat global positioning. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > : Geez, folks...too many film against digital threads are making this group > : crazy. Can't we go back to the good old days where real arguments took the > : form of whether Nikon really is better than Canon? > > Those flame wars died down when it became clear to all that Canon is far superior > to Nikon!! :-) > But it is completely unimportant now that Sigma has bought out and > discontinued both Nikon and Canon. Their latest acquisition, > Daimler/Chrysler is being converted over to the new Mercedes line of digital > Sigma cameras and will feature OnSat global positioning. But I understand that their windscreens have a lot of optical distortion........ Unimportant. You must get into the spirit of the Mercedes camera phone car - a little distortion is good for you. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > > But it is completely unimportant now that Sigma has bought out and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But I understand that their windscreens have a lot of optical > distortion........ > But it is completely unimportant now that Sigma has bought out and >discontinued both Nikon and Canon. Their latest acquisition, >Daimler/Chrysler is being converted over to the new Mercedes line of digital >Sigma cameras and will feature OnSat global positioning. ...Which will need to be returned for re-chipping every 18 months, and will break down just when you are part way through a 3-week trip. Audis are much better value, anyway! SignatureDavid Littlewood Audie Murphy? I thought he was dead? Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > > But it is completely unimportant now that Sigma has bought out and > >discontinued both Nikon and Canon. Their latest acquisition, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Audis are much better value, anyway! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.