 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006My Buggy Whip Will Not Work On A Toyota
I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be sure that my old buggy whip will still work. So I took it to the Toyota dealer, and I could not find a mount for my buggy whip anywhere on any of their models! Not only that, no matter how much I beat the automobile with the buggy whip, it just sat there. I don't understand how Toyota can be so irresponsible as to not make their cars compatible with my buggy whip. My great-great grampa spent a lot of money for that buggy whip back in 1893 and it has served four generations very well. Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells and whistles on it. Anybody know whether I can use my old view camera lenses on it? I know they are all manual and don't autofocus or anything and won't use a single feature that the digital camera offers, but I just like paying for all kinds of camera features that I will never use. I just won't buy a camera unless it can use my old leaf shutter lenses. Is that so unreasonable? > I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be > sure that my old buggy whip will still work. So I took it to the Toyota [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > never use. I just won't buy a camera unless it can use my old leaf > shutter lenses. Is that so unreasonable? I'm looking for an a.shole vapouriser. Does anyone know where I can find one?  SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ > I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be > sure that my old buggy whip will still work. So I took it to the Toyota [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > never use. I just won't buy a camera unless it can use my old leaf > shutter lenses. Is that so unreasonable? Very weak troll--anybody who knows anything about buggy whips knows that you beat the _horse_, not the _buggy_. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be > > sure that my old buggy whip will still work. So I took it to the Toyota [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Very weak troll--anybody who knows anything about buggy whips knows that you > beat the _horse_, not the _buggy_. But the man said there was more than 100 horses in there! They must have been very small... > > I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be > > sure that my old buggy whip will still work. So I took it to the Toyota [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Very weak troll--anybody who knows anything about buggy whips knows that you > beat the _horse_, not the _buggy_. But the man said there was more than 100 horses in there! They must have been very small... > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > never use. I just won't buy a camera unless it can use my old leaf > shutter lenses. Is that so unreasonable? Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on current cameras. > > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on > current cameras. I've bought 2 20 year old lenses (AF) for my Nikon D200 one is OK, the other is incredible (55 micro Nikor f2.8AF). But I had to give up my Canon FD system (2 F1 AE bodies etc). I'm looking forward to the new didgtal Leica M, so I can use my 40 year old lenses on that (can't afford it though). A printing company I know went out of business because the owner bought one computer system in 1995 and refused to update it, because he bought equipment to last 20 years. By 2000 he was hopelessly out of date and couldn't understand why he was loosing business, after all he had those typesetters he bought in the early 90s. Tom > > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on > current cameras. Damn. I was really looking forward to using my 30 year old 50mm f/1.4 modified lens on my D2H (which arrives tomorrow). I guess I might as well toss the 24mm, 35mm, 105mm and 180mm lenses in the bin now. Signaturehttp://www.nikongear.com/ > > > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > > > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > http://www.nikongear.com/ DD, can you please toss them as far as Louisiana? SignatureBill in Lake Charles . > > Damn. I was really looking forward to using my 30 year old 50mm f/1.4 > > modified lens on my D2H (which arrives tomorrow). I guess I might as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DD, can you please toss them as far as Louisiana? If I could toss things that far I'd be in the record books for sure. That would be like 10,000kms or more... Signaturehttp://www.nikongear.com/ > . > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > http://www.nikongear.com/ A lot of the old lense's optics are far better than what you'll find on lots of digital cameras. Excuse me, but I'm a musician. I have an upright made in 1830s. Better one's were made in the 1700s. My piano was made in 1905, they heated the factory with better wood than they use today. I believe it can play tunes written yesterday. I have a 1963 Gibson Hummingbird, a 1960 Guild Archtop, and a pre CBS Fender P. They are older than 30 years. They play the music today. I'd rather have a Macintosh Amp than most any amp today. I much prefer the old carved desk than most anything you can see in Office Depot. A bedroom set of nice Cherry Wood. I think they work just fine today. My friend bought a 1974 Ferrari in 1980. It's worth how much today? So explain to me why a lense with great optics and perfect shape shouldn't be used? > Excuse me, but I'm a musician. > I have an upright made in 1830s. Better one's were made in the 1700s. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'd rather have a Macintosh Amp than most any amp today. I play a 26-year old Strat through an almost as old Mesa Boogie. But the analogy isn't really the same. (Got a B3?) > Excuse me, but I'm a musician. > I have an upright made in 1830s. Better one's were made in the 1700s. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So explain to me why a lense with great optics and perfect shape > shouldn't be used? Uh...I think the sarcasm has been lost in the ocean someplace. I would never part with my old manual focus lenses. It's also why I still shoot with my 1962 Leica M3 and its lenses from the same era. Nice guitars you have there. I would like to see a picture of the Guild archtop. Signaturehttp://www.nikongear.com/ > > . > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > So explain to me why a lense with great optics and perfect shape > shouldn't be used? No reason at all. But why buy a digital camera for them? But let's face it. Older does not mean better. Even a Stradivarius can be worthless (in fact, more and more of them are becoming exactly that). Lens technology has made great strides in the last thirty years. A lot of those old lenses simply will not hold a candle to a modern lens. >> Excuse me, but I'm a musician. >> I have an upright made in 1830s. Better one's were made in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> My friend bought a 1974 Ferrari in 1980. It's worth how much today? On the other hand, that 2MP digital camera I bought for $500 in 2000 wouldn't be worth a tenth that today. And how about that computer I paid $2000 for in 1984? And a 1920 gramaphone won't come remotely close to modern turntable in audio quality. Sometimes progress really is progress. It isn't immediately obvious whether lenses would have more in common with pianos or with computers in terms of progress. I'm sure they share elements with each in this respect. To really understand whether a given older lens was actually an improvement - or even just "close enough" - in quality over what is available today, you'd really have to test. Not rely on some sort of gut feel based on how certain other commodities behave. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> Excuse me, but I'm a musician. >>> I have an upright made in 1830s. Better one's were made in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> My friend bought a 1974 Ferrari in 1980. It's worth how much >>> today? Which one? My friend bought a 1974 Ferrari in 1974. He's traded-up every so often, is now on his fifth new one (year before last) and he maintains overall it was his first "free" Ferrari. And, how much would you have to spend today for similar performance, inflation-adjusted? > On the other hand, that 2MP digital camera I bought for $500 in 2000 > wouldn't be worth a tenth that today. And how about that computer I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > really have to test. Not rely on some sort of gut feel based on how > certain other commodities behave. And I would certainly—certainly—not make that or any analogous concern the center of my daily photographic existence. Should I sing and play, or just learn to read lyrics and music? SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward > Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on > current cameras. Yet a 30 year old Pentax lens WILL work on any of the Pentax dSLR bodies... I am using several SMC Pentax-M lenses (circa 1982) and a SMC-M 50mm Macro that is likely circa 1976. On my *ist D body Darrell Larose http://DarrellLarose.ca/gallery > Yet a 30 year old Pentax lens WILL work on any of the Pentax dSLR bodies... > I am using several SMC Pentax-M lenses (circa 1982) and a SMC-M 50mm Macro > that is likely circa 1976. On my *ist D body That auto-focus working pretty good for you? How about that aperture automatically stopping down when you press the button? >> Yet a 30 year old Pentax lens WILL work on any of the Pentax dSLR >> bodies... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That auto-focus working pretty good for you? How about that aperture > automatically stopping down when you press the button? I can manually focus quite well, and my aperture does automatically close. I also have metering on my *ist D body, just like Nikon can do now with the D200. I use my AF 50mm f:1.4 in manual focus mode, and I use my manual focus 85mm f:2 all the time in the studio. I am a better judge of focus in portraits and glamour headshots than a machine. For macro manual focus is normally better than a machine. Over all I don't have your perceived problems. Hell I can usually guess my exposure and be pretty close, but that comes from skill and experience. It's the photographer not the camera... Darrell Larose http://DarrellLarose.ca/gallery >>> Yet a 30 year old Pentax lens WILL work on any of the Pentax dSLR >>> bodies... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Darrell Larose > http://DarrellLarose.ca/gallery Good point. My old Nikon lenses work perfectly on my new DSLR. I just have to use old technology to use them. No autofocus. No autoexposure. No TTL flash. Works just like my old Nikon, I just get digital images instead. Now, let's get to your line, "It's the photographer, not the camera." Very true, and once you've been spoiled by all the auto stuff, and realize it works pretty damn well, it allows the photographer more time to create a great image, instead of wasting time doing things the camera can do for you. > Over all I don't have your perceived problems. Hell I can usually guess my > exposure and be pretty close, but that comes from skill and experience. It's > the photographer not the camera... After almost 40 years of doing photography, I can usually come pretty close for exposure too. But these digitals have such fine screens, it's difficult for these old eyes to focus (too many years shooting with a soft-focus lens in the studio?). I came to digital from the medium format world (mostly Hasselblads) and never really cared for 35mm. My 35mm film camera is a 1969 Spotmatic (still works), but I always hated printing those dinky negatives. > > Yet a 30 year old Pentax lens WILL work on any of the Pentax dSLR bodies... > > I am using several SMC Pentax-M lenses (circa 1982) and a SMC-M 50mm Macro > > that is likely circa 1976. On my *ist D body > > That auto-focus working pretty good for you? How about that aperture > automatically stopping down when you press the button? Are you going to crush your Canon bodies when they finally implement dust-control in new ones? > Are you going to crush your Canon bodies when they finally implement > dust-control > in new ones? Are you ever going to buy a camera? > > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on current > cameras. I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why would anyone expect otherwise? > > > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > > > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why > would anyone expect otherwise? Canon owners? SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why >> would anyone expect otherwise? > > Canon owners? I forget the year Canon introduced the new mounts and bodies, both being incompatible with their previous mates. And I don't know whether they were so far behind in contact rely info that they just had to change, and some others didn't need to, and perhaps still don't, but possibly will in the future. But I did get over it. SignatureJohn McWilliams > >> I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why > >> would anyone expect otherwise? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > change, and some others didn't need to, and perhaps still don't, but > possibly will in the future. But I did get over it. 1987 was the EOS650 introduction, according to <http://www.photoxels.com/history_canon.html>. The Nikon AIS mount didn't use any electrical relay contacts; those were all added in the extension to AF. I don't *think* the Canon FD mount was already so crowded there was no room for contacts. On the other hand, there are some clear advantages to starting from scratch every now and then. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>>> I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why >>>> would anyone expect otherwise? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > other hand, there are some clear advantages to starting from scratch > every now and then. Thanks, David. Just pulled out an EF [FD] and FD 50mm 1.4 lens, but what I don't know about lens mounts could be put into several books. Looks like plenty of room, but the main difference besides removing the two mechanical links that I see is the blades of the mount project outwards from the lens, rather from the mount on the body, and the release is now on the body not the lens. Somehow, it seems longer ago than that.... Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the >> > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have plenty of 30-year-old lenses that work on a current camera. Why > would anyone expect otherwise? Because they are children to who "30 years ago" the Roman Empire was in charge of the world. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the >> autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, it amazes me that people expect 30-year old lenses to work on > current cameras. FWIW I'm using a 120 year-old 135mm barrel lens on my D200 and it works great. Metering is spot-on. I've also adapted a couple of decades-old Olympus macro lenses (20 and 38mm with RMS mount). Ditto. As with my microscope. Instant viewing. White Balance. On-the-fly ISO adjustment. Life is sweet. Toby > Next thing I want to do is get one of them digital SLRs with all the > autofocus, advanced metering, high definition, and all the other bells And yet, the laws of physics haven't changed significantly in the last 30 years. A lens that has high resolution, low chromatic abberation, and smooth operation is still a good lens. It doesn't really matter what camera you hang on the back of it. Digital cameras don't use different light than film cameras. >I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be > sure that my old buggy whip will still work. The buggy whip does work on TROLLS ... How is this for retrofit, got my old camera to work with the new stuff..... http://www.geocities.com/tonguesten@sbcglobal.net/kodaknikon.jpg >>I am thinking of getting a new-fangled automobile, but I wanted to be >>sure that my old buggy whip will still work. > > The buggy whip does work on TROLLS ... |
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
|
©2009 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.