 |
 | 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 2006Minolta Thoughts..
Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the cameras at the level just above a digital Rebel is a good example). I have a large investment in a Maxxum 7 and eight nice lenses that I am holding on to and I was thinking that IF I only had to wait a year or two for Sony to have a full size sensor in their Alpha's, I could make do with slide film for my KM stuff and my trusty Panasonic FZ20 for the family digital snapshots. It's not like a new kit lens is expensive, it is just that it would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it gives me something to look forward to as well... > Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it > gives me something to look forward to as well... There's no guarantee that Sony will make this move, but all the signs (especially the retention of some key full frame lenses, and the new Zeiss range including full frame lenses) are positive. If I had to guess their possible course of action, I would bank on Sony 'stitching' two of the 1.7X factor CMOS sensors used currently in the R1 to make a 21.5 x 28mm sensor of approx 20 megapixels - or using the same sensor architecture for a larger sensor approx 20 x 30mm, not quite full frame but able to operate with anti-shake - again in the order of a 20-22 megapixel design. The trade rumour right now is that Canon will show a medium format DSLR using stitched 16 megapixel sensors for a 4 to 3 ratio 32 mpixel Hasselblad-beater, probably with a range of half a dozen very good lenses. Actually you get used to using full-frame lenses with the crop factor quickly enough. I was shooting today with a 500mm Min mirror lens and had to remind myself.. this is like 750mm! It does rather change your world. David > Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > become the norm rather than the exception. What leads you to believe that they will ever become "the norm"? Canon is the only manufacturer that is making any real effort to produce full frame cameras. > (Like when they reach the > cameras at the level just above a digital Rebel is a good example). I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it > gives me something to look forward to as well... Not gonna happen from Sony in "a year or two". May never happen from them. They've got enough on their plate getting the APS-C line out the door in Sony-ized form. If you've got 8 lenses then the only area where you might need a new lens would be on the very wide end, unless you need a "walking around" lens that goes from somewhat wide to somewhat long and don't have one that would suit.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it > gives me something to look forward to as well... I am disappointed in the A100 as it is more P&S than serious system camera. Sony have to come up with a Maxxum 9 class machine to keep the confidence of lens owners such as myself and likely you as well. The only time I miss full frame is when I have my 20 or 28-70 f/2.8's attached to the 7D. I'm heading off to Colorado tomorrow morning and the bag will have my Maxxum 9 and 20mm as well as the 'blad and the 7D. The lack of a FF has also dampened my ardour for a 135 STF lens. If they FF a body, then I would buy that lens as well (and that rather than the new Carl Zeiss lens). I won't be very upset if Sony never produce a FF body; but I will be upset if they believe the A100 is acceptable for serious photographers. IOW: kudos for the pixles, now take a serious look at the Maxxum 9 and make a real camera. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the > cameras at the level just above a digital Rebel is a good example). Never. Or, about the same time that 6x7 negatives will become the norm rather than the exception. 35mm film quality was good enough that it had lots of uses, and the convenient small camera size and short lens focal lengths had advantages. Hence 35mm film became the most commonly-used format. Well, the 1.5x sensors are somewhere in that area now. People buying Digital Rebels now mostly wouldn't pay another $100 for a full-frame sensor. Full-frame will take on roughly the niche that medium format did in film -- a professional format for special situations that need it's special capabilities. Predicting the future is always *very* iffy; I won't be surprised to be wrong -- but quite possibly not wrong in the most obvious way, either. 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/> >> Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors >> become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the >> cameras at the level just above a digital Rebel is a good example). >Never. Or, about the same time that 6x7 negatives will become the >norm rather than the exception. >35mm film quality was good enough that it had lots of uses, and the >convenient small camera size and short lens focal lengths had >advantages. Hence 35mm film became the most commonly-used format. >Well, the 1.5x sensors are somewhere in that area now. People buying >Digital Rebels now mostly wouldn't pay another $100 for a full-frame >sensor. >Full-frame will take on roughly the niche that medium format did in >film -- a professional format for special situations that need it's >special capabilities. >Predicting the future is always *very* iffy; I won't be surprised to >be wrong -- but quite possibly not wrong in the most obvious way, >either. I agree with you but would modify it a bit. If you generally use long lenses, you *love* 1.5x sensors. If you generally use wide lenses, you *hate* 1.5x sensors and would much prefer full frame or larger. In my particular case I do both (and rather little with "normal" lenses) and simply have to get along. In that case cost was important and so I went with 1.5x (acually Canon 1.6x). There is no perfect format for all uses. ---- Paul J. Gans > >> Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > >> become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > case cost was important and so I went with 1.5x (acually > Canon 1.6x). I use both -- but the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 mostly solved that. I don't find much need for fast ultra-wide lenses. In fact, I sold a Nikor 20mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 when I bought my D200; I find the slower Tokina a satisfactory replacement. > There is no perfect format for all uses. Absolutely true. Which is why 4x5 cameras and lenses are still made, never mind 6x7. Or 8x10, even. 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/> >> >> Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors >> >> become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> case cost was important and so I went with 1.5x (acually >> Canon 1.6x). >I use both -- but the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 mostly solved that. I don't >find much need for fast ultra-wide lenses. In fact, I sold a Nikor >20mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 when I bought my D200; I find the >slower Tokina a satisfactory replacement. Strange. I use the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 also. I rather like it. If I follow the usual wide-angle rule (shot head on) I have rather little distortion. >> There is no perfect format for all uses. >Absolutely true. Which is why 4x5 cameras and lenses are still made, >never mind 6x7. Or 8x10, even. Yup. For me there was another consideration. I've never been able to really set up a darkroom. That's what happens when you live in a large city. Digital has allowed me to have a darkroom on my computer. As a result I've been able to make many more of my photos come out the way I've envisioned them. ---- Paul J. Gans > Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors > become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it > gives me something to look forward to as well... What is being called "full frame sensors" are really 35mm sized sensors. With cameras like Nikons D2X or D200 and the Canon 30D you have a smallish sensor capable of giving nice 16x20 prints with good lenses. The standard DSLR sensors are better than all but the best lenses. You have costs too last I heard the estimate of the cost difference between a standard DSLR sensor and a 35mm sized sensor is 5-15X, big range but hard figures to get. That is hard on market share. Since most lenses for DSLRs are 35mm based there is a desire for them to work as they worked with 35mm film, after all it is where most current pros started. Canon currently has 2 35mm sized models out and they are the only ones. Nikon may have one at Photokina or PMA next winter but that is mainly based on hearsay. There is also the question of how many units will they sell at $8-10000 dollars. Won't be your vacation camera. Tom >> Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame >> sensors [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Tom Besides, the smaller sensors encourage customers to purchase new lenses, rather than continue using their trusty old 35mm lenses. The use of classic lenses is not good for the new "throwaway" mentality. > Besides, the smaller sensors encourage customers to purchase new lenses, > rather than continue using their trusty old 35mm lenses. The use of classic > lenses is not good for the new "throwaway" mentality. Yes but I have bought 4 2nd hand lenses for my d200, very happy with 2 (55 f2.8 Nikor micro, 24mmf2 AIS) happy with one (Tokina 17mm f3.5) and OK with the other (70-210mm f4) all are full format lenses and I've spent less than $1000, so my wife is.... The only real lenses you need in APS format are the super wides but then Canon has the 24-105, Nikon the 17-55 and the 18-200 (one of the only decent 18-200s or 28-200 ever made). So consumers HAVE to have them. For the OP, it would be interesting for Sony to bring out a 10mp camera based on the Minolta 7D for $1200, to compete with the Canon 30D and the Nikon D200. Tom > Yes but I have bought 4 2nd hand lenses for my d200, very happy with 2 > (55 f2.8 Nikor micro, 24mmf2 AIS) happy with one (Tokina 17mm f3.5) and > OK with the other (70-210mm f4) all are full format lenses and I've > spent less than $1000, so my wife is.... I'm glad that your setup pleases you. But I started in photography using a TLR, at the age of 9, along with a Sekonic "Brockway" incident light meter (the TLR had no metering). When I was 22 I bought my first SLR, a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic IIa. And there is a sense of tactile gratification that I get from using this classic equipment--a sense of gratification that just is not there when using digital, with its menus and buttons and the need to learn how to use a camera all over again, after I've spent 3 decades being able to photograph in my sleep, figuratively speaking. I have a full compliment of really fine, classic prime lenses. Metal barrels. Aperture rings. Distance scales. Smooth-as-silk focusing. Beautiful bokeh. Multi-coating. Metal lens mounts (I will never be comfortable with a plastic lens mount!) It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And there is also the cost factor. I can flesh out my contingent of lenses in the used market for dirt-cheap prices (I have 17 primes and 4 zooms already, so I need very little.) I do have a digital camera, I do use it, I do appreciate its convenience and versatility. But there is no thrill in using it. It is great as a take-along camera, because it is small and light and has a 3x zoom, built-in flash and requires no film. But there's no thrill in it (I am an amateur, who shoots only for his own pleasure, not to satisfy an editor or deadlines. So my perspective on photography is different than, say, a newspaper photographer or sports photographer.) I stumbled across this web page for the first time today. Have a look at the comments, and see if they don't strike a chord with you. http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/old-slrs > It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to > a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And > there is also the cost factor. I can flesh out my contingent of lenses in > the used market for dirt-cheap prices (I have 17 primes and 4 zooms already, > so I need very little.) Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it. It's good that you have fun with your old camera system. That's what it's all about, after all. But your idea of fun and mine differ. I don't find changing the roll of film every 24-36 shots to be fun. And it's no fun having to change film just to change ISO. And waiting days or even hours to see my pics only to discover that Mongo at the lab messed them up or scratched the negatives is definitely NOT fun. Choosing which lens to use from my 17 primes might be kind of fun, I guess. >> It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over >> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Choosing which lens to use from my 17 primes might be kind of fun, I > guess. I acquired all this stuff over a 30+ year period. Only a few pieces were bought new. The rest were in used, but near-mint, condition. In any given year I'd pick up one or two items. It sounds like a lot, but I built my kit over a very long time, and I paid low prices for what I did buy. If I were just starting out, or if I had only a few pieces of film gear, I'd probably follow the crowd and commit to digital. But my particular circumstances are such that I am unwilling to part with equipment that has given me much pleasure over the years. It all falls within my comfort zone. And, remember, I am an amateur that does mainly landscapes, cityscapes and documentary photography--not sports, news or fashion work--so my present setup already meets my modest requirements very nicely. Finally, if I did elect to switch I would have to either pay out a small fortune to duplicate my current setup or I would have to make do with less in terms of lenses, bodies and accessories. The numbers just don't justify my abandoning film, especially since I am basically satisfied with what I already have. The digital P&S takes care of those situations where I need speed--and there are really few times that I require fast turnaround. I admit that my situation is somewhat unusual, but it just serves to underscore that digital photography is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution. > > It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to > > a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Choosing which lens to use from my 17 primes might be kind of fun, I > guess. Bret, no one cares what you think. He's using film and he's happy with it. That's all that counts. > Bret, no one cares what you think. He's using film and he's happy with > it. That's all that counts. Bite my crank, dipshit! Isn't that exactly what I wrote? Here, I'll reprint it one more time for your dumb a.s: "It's good that you have fun with your old camera system. That's what it's all about, after all." > > Bret, no one cares what you think. He's using film and he's happy with > > it. That's all that counts. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "It's good that you have fun with your old camera system. > That's what it's all about, after all." Yeah, and then you went on write paragraphs about how great it was to not have to mess with ISO settings and change film. Did he ask you about that? Does he care? You are such a broken record ... it's pathetic. Why don't you start learning how to "play nice" with people in these groups instead of being a distraction. If he asked you for info on the positive aspects of digital photography then your response about not needing to change film and the advantages of changing ISO electronically would be appropriate. But you instead hear someone saying they are using film bodies, and you enter in a list of why digital is better. Again, you're a broken record. Take your blinders off and start seeing the big picture -- just because you enjoy your way doesn't mean that it's the only way. > Why don't you start learning how to "play nice" with people in these > groups instead of being a distraction. If he asked you for info on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > picture -- just because you enjoy your way doesn't mean that it's the > only way. Pardon fuckin me! I thought this was a group for discussion. Your vendetta against me adds nothing to any discussion of camera equipment. BTW, anybody seen D-Mac? > > Why don't you start learning how to "play nice" with people in these > > groups instead of being a distraction. If he asked you for info on the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > BTW, anybody seen D-Mac? It's hopeless trying to use common sense with you. I bet that you've been having these types of issues with people your whole life, right? > It's hopeless trying to use common sense with you. I bet that you've > been having these types of issues with people your whole life, right? No, just stalkers. > > It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to > > a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on > top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it. Not if you need to zoom during the shot! It's easy to end up with large numbers of lenses, if you don't clean out the lenses you replace. It's even easier if you buy used stuff that looks "interesting" :-). Before my big cleanout when I bought my D200 and committed to 1.5x digital as my primary photo system, I had 11 primes and 6 zooms, I think; the zooms especially had leftover lenses sitting around. (And I've bought two more lenses, one zoom and one fixed length, since the cleanout.) I got my numbers without having either a full-frame or a circular image fisheye, and without a prime wider than 17mm or longer than 500mm (300mm if you ignore the 500mm f/8 mirror). Then there's special portrait lenses (Nikon's 105 or 135 DC models for example). One might easily want more than one macro lens (significantly different focal lengths). PC and/or tilt/shift lenses -- perhaps the 28mm PC *and* the 90mm or whatever it is tilt/shift. And I'm weak on the long end; you could add three more there easily, without going over 600mm. I think I could come up with 17 primes that each served a valid purpose and which I wanted to keep. I couldn't *afford* them, though -- I have to include the exotics on both ends to get that many :-). (I have probably two dupes in my 11 primes, so 9 unique lenses, I need 8 more -- but I've got more than 8 referenced up there.) It's harder to justify them all along with the zooms, though. For example it's kinda questionable whether one really needs *both* the 180mm f/2.8 *and* the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom. (Many of you will have figured out by now I'm talking in terms of Nikon; I know them better, it's what I actually have.) Similarly for the 17mm f/3.5 and 20mm f/2.8 if you've got the 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom. But most people with that many lenses *do* have a fair amount of overlap, and some entirely vestigial lenses. > It's good that you have fun with your old camera system. That's what > it's all about, after all. But your idea of fun and mine differ. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mongo at the lab messed them up or scratched the negatives is > definitely NOT fun. Yep. That's why you should *also* give yourself the fun of processing them yourself. Well, at least for B&W; you can do a LOT better than the lab, and do things they won't even try. The color processes are made for automated processing with precise control, and IMHO there's little point except perhaps immediacy in doing those yourself. Also you should use a lab that doesn't employ Mongo :-). Though sometimes he slips in even in the best places. I've Mongoed a few rolls of my own for that matter (especially back at the beginning). > Choosing which lens to use from my 17 primes might be kind of fun, I > guess. Not if you actually carried all of them at once; the pain in your shoulder would cancel out the fun. 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/> > It's easy to end up with large numbers of lenses, if you don't clean > out the lenses you replace. It's even easier if you buy used stuff > that looks "interesting" :-). That's me, allright! I never got rid of anything. I bought a couple of selected pieces each year that were in excellent condition and were bargain-priced. Sure I have a lot of stuff, but I built this system over three decades. It didn't cost me very much, expecially when amortized over that many years. But, regardless of how I acquired it, I now have it, and it seems rather silly to even think of dumping it. I have taken very good care of all of it, and my camera bodies and lenses all look like they are less than a couple of months old. And it all works. SMC Takumar lenses still compare favorably with their modern-day counterparts, and remember--I have very modest equipment requirements for the type of shooting that I do. Trading up would offer me little or nothing in the way of better results. > But most people with that many lenses *do* have a fair amount of > overlap, and some entirely vestigial lenses. I was careful to buy only SMC Takumars after I the first couple of off-brand lenses. After that first round of disappointments I bought OEM everything--even Pentax filters, body caps and lens hoods. As for the zooms, I got them with a few of the camera bodies. I didn't buy them because I wanted zooms. I carry two zooms in my bag, just in case I need an odd focal length on that particular shoot. I am not much of a "zoom" guy, but they come in handy in a pinch. My situation is off the beaten track, I admit, but it's nice to have all that equipment available whenever I want it. Sometimes the prospecting of choosing what to carry with me can be daunting. Decisions, decisions . . . >>> It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to >>> a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lenses sitting around. (And I've bought two more lenses, one zoom and > one fixed length, since the cleanout.) I had a bad feeling reading this & decided I'd just count my 35mm primes... Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: Exakta mount Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: M42 mount Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: Retina mount Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.8: Exakta mount Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.8: Rolleiflex mount Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4: Rolleiflex mount Leitz Summicron 35mm f/2.0: M mount Leitz Summicron 35mm f/2.0: R mount Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AIS: Nikon mount Jupiter 12 35mm f/2.8: M39 mount Jupiter 12 35mm f/2.8: Contax RF mount Voigtländer Skoparex 35mm f/3.4: Bessamatic mount Arsat 35mm f/2.8 Shift lens: Nikon mount "Only" 13, though I've gone through many more. Don't ask about other FLs... I guess it's time to sell a few (and these are all carefully selected "keepers")! :-( >>>> It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses >>>> over to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > "keepers")! > :-( I give myself credit for at least staying with only two lens mounts--the M42 and its successor, the K mount (and I only bought a few Ka mounts in the "A" series--not any others.) > > Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on > > top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lenses sitting around. (And I've bought two more lenses, one zoom and > one fixed length, since the cleanout.) Boy, you've got it bad! And I thought my lust for new gear made me an equipment junkie. But next to you guys, I'm a rank amateur. I suppose if price was no object I might have these lenses (all for Canon, of course): 14 f/2.8L 24 f/1.4L 35 f/1.4L 50 f/1.4 85 f/1.2L II 100 f/2 200 f/1.8L (discontinued, but still the daddy) 300 f/2.8L IS 400 f/2.8L IS 500 f/4L IS 600 f/4L IS 1200 f/5.6L 90mm TS-E 65mm MP-E Macro 180 f/3.5L Macro 16-35 f/2.8L 70-200 f/2.8L IS That's 12 primes, 1 Tilt-shift (they make 3 of them), 2 Macros, and 2 zooms. That's a total of 17 and I went crazy with the list. I could probably live without many of those as long as the complete range was covered. The sad thing is that I only own 1 of those lenses. Looks like I got some shopping to do! >> > Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on >> > top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > The sad thing is that I only own 1 of those lenses. Looks like I got > some shopping to do! What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses! What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay > more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of > thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses! No, but it can give you a social disease....Divorce! > What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay > more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of > thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses! Hey, I like the way you think! Maybe we should start a campaign? "Stop Lung Cancer. Buy more L glass!" > What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay > more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of > thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses! Agreed, but I have them spread out over 4 camera systems, my Nikon digital D200, a Canon FD system (that is probably going with my son to college where his classes require film), 1 Leica M2s 3 lenses 25 f3,5 Canon, Sumilux 35 f1.4, Nikon 85 f2, a Rollei twin lens (f2.8 Planar) and 2 4x5s, a Linhof and a Calumet monorail, 90f8 Schneider linof Super Angulon, Voigtlander 150f5.6 Apo Lanthar, Nikon 120mm f5.6 Macro Nikor, and a 300mm Rodenstock f9 Apo Ronar. Where i agree with you a digital P&S has no soul, shooting high end digital is more like film , better in most cases too (let the flames come). I printed large format digital for 4 years and know what files, film and digital, look like. Also I am loosing professional outlets, the one pro store in my area closed their doors, the only processing lab in the area is being run only by the owner (layed off his staff), he is not getting any younger and I'm seeing it is only a matter of time. Having spent most of my pro career 30 years with 4-24 hour E6 service, I just wouldn't be able to wait weeks for film to come back. Tom In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote: >>> > Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on >>> > top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> The sad thing is that I only own 1 of those lenses. Looks like I got >> some shopping to do! >What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay >more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of >thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses! Back aches? ---- Paul J. Gans > Boy, you've got it bad! > And I thought my lust for new gear made me an equipment junkie. But [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The sad thing is that I only own 1 of those lenses. Looks like I got > some shopping to do! IMHO you'd have a *huge* hole between 14 and 24mm. I find a 20/21mm one of my favorite and most useful lenses. All those f/1.4 (and 2.8 teles) lenses: Is the idea of a compact, light alternative even considered by Canon. Great for body building but not for getting places on foot. Also the 24mm TS - the only reason I'd ever buy a Canon body... ;-) > IMHO you'd have a *huge* hole between 14 and 24mm. I find a 20/21mm one > of my favorite and most useful lenses. P.S., I forgot, your 14mm *would* be a 21mm... So you'd be missing one or two *real* wides. > > IMHO you'd have a *huge* hole between 14 and 24mm. I find a 20/21mm one > > of my favorite and most useful lenses. > > P.S., I forgot, your 14mm *would* be a 21mm... > > So you'd be missing one or two *real* wides. Dude, if I could afford all those lenses I could spring for the full frame 1DsMKII. >>> IMHO you'd have a *huge* hole between 14 and 24mm. I find a 20/21mm one >>> of my favorite and most useful lenses. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dude, if I could afford all those lenses I could spring for the full > frame 1DsMKII. Well, all those (good quality super-wide) lenses *are* available cheaply, if you just give up being "on the cutting edge of photographic technique". Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh no! - you'd have to use film and they aren't branded Canon... > Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used > Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh > no! - you'd have to use film and they aren't branded Canon... A friend of mine has a Lecia M3 which I have used on occasion. What would be the sharpest lens I could find (reasonably priced, used) that would fit the M3? He has a Summicron 50mm f/2 (screw on, I think). Chris Loffredo wrote: > Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used > Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh > no! - you'd have to use film and they aren't branded Canon... A friend of mine has a Lecia M3 which I have used on occasion. What would be the sharpest lens I could find (reasonably priced, used) that would fit the M3? He has a Summicron 50mm f/2 (screw on, I think). Check here for a detailed comparison of the three normal lenses currently available, plus some comments on how previous Leica lenses look by comparison: http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/putskolumne/10.pdf >> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used >> Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would fit the M3? > He has a Summicron 50mm f/2 (screw on, I think). The sharpest? What FL? The "sharpest" are probably the latest Leica ASPH or the new Zeiss-Ikon models. And old Summicron screw-on lens is probably better for its special "look" than for super-sharpness (meaning it is still plenty sharp but not a record holder and not the main reason to get it). The Cosina/Voigtländer lenses are generally comparable to the previous generation Leica lenses; as value they are very hard to beat. In the super-wide category I can recommended the 15 & 21mm. The 12mm also has a good reputation (excellent for its FL & price). There are also the Konica KMs and the *many* M39 screw mount lenses made by many manufacturers, including the old Soviet stuff (great old Zeiss designs; great quality - if you are lucky) and even many old Canon lenses (including the infamous 50mm f/0.95; record holder but a real dog - Canon in a nutshell!). Executive summary; lot of sharp lenses out there, just what do you want and how much do you want to spend? >> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used >> Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would fit the M3? > He has a Summicron 50mm f/2 (screw on, I think). Not sure about _the_ sharpest at this time, but the 50mm Summicron leaves little to be desired in that regard. If it is clean and in good working order it is certainly adequate for any purpose which can be served by a 50mm f/2 non-macro lens on a rangefinder camera. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Chris Loffredo wrote: > Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used > Cosina/Voigtländer super-wides and you can have LOTS of fun, but - oh > no! - you'd have to use film and they aren't branded Canon... A friend of mine has a Lecia M3 which I have used on occasion. What would be the sharpest lens I could find (reasonably priced, used) that would fit the M3? He has a Summicron 50mm f/2 (screw on, I think). I don't think Leica made an M3 with a screw on lens mount. All the M series have a bayonet type mount. > Chris Loffredo wrote: >> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't think Leica made an M3 with a screw on lens mount. All the M series > have a bayonet type mount. => Adapter. >> I don't think Leica made an M3 with a screw on lens mount. All the M >> series have a bayonet type mount. >> > => Adapter. Gotcha. > Chris Loffredo wrote: >> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't think Leica made an M3 with a screw on lens mount. All the M > series have a bayonet type mount. All Leica Ms take M39 screw mount lenses with the appropriate adapter, sold by Leica for the purpose and attaching to the lens so precisely that if you don't know that it's a screw mount lens you probably wouldn't guess by examining it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Chris Loffredo wrote: >>> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > don't know that it's a screw mount lens you probably wouldn't guess by > examining it. Oh.....I wonder if the old collapsible lenses will fit on the M series too? >>> Chris Loffredo wrote: >>>> Buy a used Leica M / M39 compatible body and some used [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Oh.....I wonder if the old collapsible lenses will fit on the M series > too? Sure, with the exception of the M5 and the CL which put the meter on an arm in front of the shutter--the arm will interfere with the collapsible lenses in the collapsed position. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Also the 24mm TS - the only reason I'd ever buy a Canon body... > ;-) I rented one and wasn't overly impressed with it. Of course, it hardly suits the type of shooting I do the most. If I was into architectural photography or shooting a lot of interiors, then it would be a boon. > > Boy, you've got it bad! > > And I thought my lust for new gear made me an equipment junkie. But [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > alternative even considered by Canon. Great for body building but not > for getting places on foot. That's the Canon way though: they make long lenses that suit sports types extremely well, but their wide stuff is pretty sucky. Of course, if you want to use the professional market as a selling tool - which is what Canon has done, taking a sales technique developed by Nikon and beating them at their own game - then long lenses are the ones that get seen being used at all the televised events, so from a marketing perspective they've put all their effort into the end that makes the most sense. Very smart. That means the Canon lens range suits some types of shooter MUCH better than others. Personally I don't like the 'look' Canon glass gives anyway, but their long lenses are certainly plenty sharp and free from chromatic aberration - which their wides are not. Peter I just got back from a 3 week trek through southern France, using only a digital SLR. This is the second such trek I have completed since moving to digital. My photographic experience dates back to the original Minolta SR7, handed down to me by my father. Film and me go way back. I wish I still had that frigging camera. Prior to switching to digital my trek camera of choice was my beloved Nikon N80; however I have also made similar treks with vintage Minolta gear (1970s and 80s, not all the way back to SR7 days). While it is inconvenient and more expensive to use film, and there is the worry of umpteen airport x-ray searches, there is one uncontestable advantage to film cameras. They weigh a lot less than their dSLR counterparts. This is a big consideration for us aging baby boomers. While I love the quality of raw images from my Nikon dSLR I am not all that fond of having it dangling from my neck while traipsing through, over and up a variety of terrains. I see some people struggling with really high end dSLRs which weigh even more than prosumer dSLRs. There has to be a better way. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >I just got back from a 3 week trek through southern France, using only a >digital SLR. This is the second such trek I have completed since moving to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >dSLRs which weigh even more than prosumer dSLRs. >There has to be a better way. You speak much truth, but I worry about one thing: I find dSLRs much lighter than film SLR's. My Canon 300D is nowhere near the weight of my all metal Minolta SRT-101 or my Pentax K-1000. ---- Paul J. Gans > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > >While I love the quality of raw images from my Nikon dSLR I am not > >all that fond of having it dangling from my neck while traipsing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > near the weight of my all metal Minolta SRT-101 or my Pentax > K-1000. Compare it to the equivalent modern film SLR, though. My Fuji S2 weighed a lot more than an N80, but not more than an F5. My D200 weighs considerably more than my Fuji S2 -- but still not more than an F5 I don't *think*. 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/> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >While I love the quality of raw images from my Nikon dSLR I am not >> >all that fond of having it dangling from my neck while traipsing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> near the weight of my all metal Minolta SRT-101 or my Pentax >> K-1000. >Compare it to the equivalent modern film SLR, though. My Fuji S2 >weighed a lot more than an N80, but not more than an F5. My D200 >weighs considerably more than my Fuji S2 -- but still not more than an >F5 I don't *think*. Ok, that's true. I still want a K-1000 with a digital back <grin> - --- Paul J. Gans > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - --- Paul J. Gans Have you seen the K-1000 Digital, featured on the Pentax Web Site? >>Ok, that's true. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have you seen the K-1000 Digital, featured on the Pentax Web Site? One too many zeros. K-100 ... actually K-100D Looks like a rebadged *ist-Ds with image stabilization (apparently from Konica-Minolta, licensed thru Sony). In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote: >> Yes but I have bought 4 2nd hand lenses for my d200, very happy with 2 >> (55 f2.8 Nikor micro, 24mmf2 AIS) happy with one (Tokina 17mm f3.5) and >> OK with the other (70-210mm f4) all are full format lenses and I've >> spent less than $1000, so my wife is.... >I'm glad that your setup pleases you. But I started in photography using a >TLR, at the age of 9, along with a Sekonic "Brockway" incident light meter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >learn how to use a camera all over again, after I've spent 3 decades being >able to photograph in my sleep, figuratively speaking. >I have a full compliment of really fine, classic prime lenses. Metal >barrels. Aperture rings. Distance scales. Smooth-as-silk focusing. >Beautiful bokeh. Multi-coating. Metal lens mounts (I will never be >comfortable with a plastic lens mount!) >It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to >a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And >there is also the cost factor. I can flesh out my contingent of lenses in >the used market for dirt-cheap prices (I have 17 primes and 4 zooms already, >so I need very little.) >I do have a digital camera, I do use it, I do appreciate its convenience and >versatility. But there is no thrill in using it. It is great as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So my perspective on photography is different than, say, a newspaper >photographer or sports photographer.) >I stumbled across this web page for the first time today. Have a look at >the comments, and see if they don't strike a chord with you. >http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/old-slrs Why don't you stick with film? I'm not being nasty. I understand *exactly* what you are saying. My photographic knowlege was all in my fingers back when I used similar cameras. I just looked at the image in the viewfinder and my fingers adjusted focus, exposure time, and aperture. The only real gain with digital has been variable "film speed" which I would have died for way back when which would have meant that I no longer had to carry two bodies. On the other hand I'd given my good Minolta equipment to my daughter and not done much photography for a while. So when digital came up I was primed for it. And I love it, but it isn't quite the same. In your case though, I repeat: why not stick with film? ---- Paul J. Gans > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans I do enjoy the convenience of digital imaging, but I am not about to make a huge investment in it, as I already have my film equipment. I use film for what I consider my more important work. After some careful consideration, I've decided to use both systems. I use digital for the more casual stuff and I use film when I need to exploit the capabilities of my excellent lenses. This works for me, and it allows me to take advantage of the best of both worlds. I do find it curious why the conventional wisdom always seems to dictate that one must choose one system over the other. After all, it's not like a marriage. Variety is the spice of life. (Please don't repeat that to my wife . . . ) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote: >I do enjoy the convenience of digital imaging, but I am not about to make a >huge investment in it, as I already have my film equipment. I use film for >what I consider my more important work. >After some careful consideration, I've decided to use both systems. I use >digital for the more casual stuff and I use film when I need to exploit the >capabilities of my excellent lenses. This works for me, and it allows me to >take advantage of the best of both worlds. >I do find it curious why the conventional wisdom always seems to dictate >that one must choose one system over the other. After all, it's not like a >marriage. Variety is the spice of life. (Please don't repeat that to my >wife . . . ) I won't... ;-) I think that this is a wise choice for you. I do something similar. I've got a Canon dSLR (the early 300D) and a couple of decent lenses. It is a nice starter kit and I've done some work that I find very pleasing with it. But I carry a minicamera, the Canon SD450 around with me almost every day. It is a very nice camera but it is a point-and-shoot. Nevertheless, I've managed to take some rather pleasing (to me, if nobody else) shots with it that I just happened to come across. I'm not going to walk around town every day wearing a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. My neck would break. So two tools for two different needs. ---- Paul J. Gans >>> Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame >>> sensors [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> Tom >Besides, the smaller sensors encourage customers to purchase new lenses, >rather than continue using their trusty old 35mm lenses. The use of classic >lenses is not good for the new "throwaway" mentality. I don't agree with this at all. Your trusty old 35mm lenses just don't cover the same angular dimensions any more. But they are perfectly good lenses. I shoot portraits now with my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I'd have used an 80mm with 35mm, but I never had one then -- couldn't afford it. Now I've got a neat portrait lens and I didn't even have to buy it with my digital camera! ---- Paul J. Gans Well, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part then... I admit that I don't spend very much time researching digital camera technology, so forgive me for my ignorance. To be honest, the lenses that I was holding out hope for were my 28-70 2.8, 20mm and 24mm Minoltas. If I have to buy a new digital body, couple of new lenses to get my wide angles back, new flash that works with the new digital body (mine is an oldie but goodie) then I am going with either Canon or Nikon. Much more availability in my area and I can then rent lenses etc... Most of my investment is in quality wide angle lenses, so I am out of luck in my opinion.... > Well, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part then... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in my area and I can then rent lenses etc... Most of my investment is in > quality wide angle lenses, so I am out of luck in my opinion.... Tokina 12-24 (have they started to make a Sony/Minolta mount?) Sigma 10-20 and 12-24 Tamron 14mm f2.8 Minolta 14mm Tamron 11-18 Sigma 14mm f2.8 Tokina 17mm f3.5 The Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 have a following, I have the Tokina 17mm and it is almost as good as my old Canon 24mm f2.8. The 14mm Tamron has good ratings as I imagine the Minolta does. It would be nice for you if Sony has Zeiss make a wide zoom for their cameras, so not all gloom and doom. Tom >>Well, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part then... >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nice for you if Sony has Zeiss make a wide zoom for their cameras, so > not all gloom and doom. no Minolta 14mm - never has been DK Kramer skrev: > It's not like a new kit lens is expensive, it is just that it > would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it > gives me something to look forward to as well... I'm a Minolta user, my current body is a 700si (what 800si replaced, then the 7 some years later) - It's about 12 years old i think. Works like a charm, never had any problems at all in those years. So I've been wanting a 8mpixel or more cam for ages. The Minolta 7d was nice, but at 6 megapixles it wasn't all what I wanted. The a100 looks fairly good. the inclusion of picture modes might tip some off but as long as I can tune in to aperature priority or shutter priority I don't complain. But what I wonder is - what is wrong with the a100 that I haven't noticed? My 700si I've used on aperature priority most of the time I've had it, a couple of times on shutter priority and on program only the times I've lended it to others without the right knowledge. But I have never had a digital camera before. |
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.