hepcat
Former PH, USN
Just as an alternative, I've used 4/3rds for years, and I'm comfortable with those sensors, so I picked up a Panny GX-1 used for $200 including a kit zoom. It has the 2x crop factor, but here's what it can do... this was with the CV 75mm f/1.8...
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
Has nobody mentioned the Epson R-d1? I have a Sony Nex 5 also, and it works great with just about any lens, but it will never be as much fun as my R-d1 was. Don't let the 6mp scare you. It isn't a camera for architecture or sweeping landscapes, or giant prints, but for most other purposes it is great.
ssmc
Well-known
$200 for a GX-1 is a steal. The 16MP sensor is a real step up from the 12MP (not meaning resolution - the images look smoother) but the old sensor can still produce pleasing results. There is a really wide selection of m4/3 bodies but as others have said the downside is the 2x crop, where an APS-C camera definitely has an advantage.
Anyway here are a few pics from an "obsolete" 12MP body (Panny G2) with legacy lenses:
A couple of "glowy" ones with a wide-open Helios-103
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/144601754/original.jpg
Stop it down a bit and it gets sharp (f//5.6)
More flowers, this time with a Canon LTM 50/1.4, at f/2
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/148702841/original.jpg
At f/5.6; on-center it's pretty sharp even on a high-density sensor
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/147495534/original.jpg
Anyway here are a few pics from an "obsolete" 12MP body (Panny G2) with legacy lenses:
A couple of "glowy" ones with a wide-open Helios-103
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/144601754/original.jpg
Stop it down a bit and it gets sharp (f//5.6)
More flowers, this time with a Canon LTM 50/1.4, at f/2
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/148702841/original.jpg
At f/5.6; on-center it's pretty sharp even on a high-density sensor
Original here: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/147495534/original.jpg
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
This is an interesting question and involve money, as I see it.
You can buy 39mm film bodies cheaply like the FED 2 but they only take screw thread lenses. There are some M bayonet bodies out there that are also cheap. By cheap I mean cheaper than a digital body and adapters.
Film is cheap because you get it developed and printed for a very reasonable price. Try working out the cost of a print from a computer and you'll see that the three dozen or more prints I get from the lab are dirt cheap. Cheaper still, get the lab to develop and scan only. My one charges about three pounds for that when I'm testing a camera and don't want the prints. And they are "full frame" as well. And film is cheap if you look around.
Years ago I had a serious pro digital camera, used it and then sold it. Each file I downloaded from it was dearer than the film, developing, scanning and printing I got from film, per frame. Add the cost of printing and so on from the digital ones and you'll be shocked. Mostly because of depreciation. Also film cost make you think about the shot, with digital you take several and print one; so film tends to teach you more than digital ever will.
Lastly, a second hand digital and so on will have few pixels and limit the print size. 35mm film is not limited like that, and there's slides and so on...
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
This is an interesting question and involve money, as I see it.
You can buy 39mm film bodies cheaply like the FED 2 but they only take screw thread lenses. There are some M bayonet bodies out there that are also cheap. By cheap I mean cheaper than a digital body and adapters.
Film is cheap because you get it developed and printed for a very reasonable price. Try working out the cost of a print from a computer and you'll see that the three dozen or more prints I get from the lab are dirt cheap. Cheaper still, get the lab to develop and scan only. My one charges about three pounds for that when I'm testing a camera and don't want the prints. And they are "full frame" as well. And film is cheap if you look around.
Years ago I had a serious pro digital camera, used it and then sold it. Each file I downloaded from it was dearer than the film, developing, scanning and printing I got from film, per frame. Add the cost of printing and so on from the digital ones and you'll be shocked. Mostly because of depreciation. Also film cost make you think about the shot, with digital you take several and print one; so film tends to teach you more than digital ever will.
Lastly, a second hand digital and so on will have few pixels and limit the print size. 35mm film is not limited like that, and there's slides and so on...
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Sorry, I was thinking full frame.
I've had great luck using my NEX7 with adapted legacy glass, but I'm not going super wide. My favorites are a couple of Olympus OM lenses - a 24/2.8 and a 50/1.8.
I think a NEX6 might give you better results with wides, but I find the controls on the NEX7 to be superior.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I appreciate all the input everyone is offering.
I don't do much printing so digital isn't that pricey for me. My wife does more printing for her quilt scrap book than I do of my stuff.
I also don't have any super wides, a 35mm LTM is the widest I've got.
More important to me would be ease of focusing as I don't like wearing my reading glasses just to focus a camera when shooting. I guess that's why auto focus has me spoiled rotten, it rarely messes up and when it does it's usually me that's messed up something. I know I won't be getting auto focus with these lenses, but would there be something like the green lights on my D7000 when I'm using older manual focus lenses on it? I've found I can use that easily when shooting that camera.
I don't do much printing so digital isn't that pricey for me. My wife does more printing for her quilt scrap book than I do of my stuff.
I also don't have any super wides, a 35mm LTM is the widest I've got.
More important to me would be ease of focusing as I don't like wearing my reading glasses just to focus a camera when shooting. I guess that's why auto focus has me spoiled rotten, it rarely messes up and when it does it's usually me that's messed up something. I know I won't be getting auto focus with these lenses, but would there be something like the green lights on my D7000 when I'm using older manual focus lenses on it? I've found I can use that easily when shooting that camera.
Scrambler
Well-known
The first step is making sure you can see the VF clearly. Then the Sonys have both a magnifier function and focus peaking which is a color fringe around sharply focused edges. Fujis have the same I believe plus some have a split image system. Not sure personally how you use this.
The focus peaking fringe is pretty easy to use but does work better with a hires VF. And you can combine it with magnification though the scale of edges the camera looks for changes when you magnify.
But no "you got it right" dot.
The focus peaking fringe is pretty easy to use but does work better with a hires VF. And you can combine it with magnification though the scale of edges the camera looks for changes when you magnify.
But no "you got it right" dot.
ssmc
Well-known
It's funny, everyone moans about the early EVFs in m4/3 cameras (and I admit they are far from perfect, especially for contrast and dynamic range) but I find that even the one in the G2 - a measly 800x x600 - provides a very clear indication of whether you have the focus nailed (or not). It magnifies 5x or 10x which is more than enough. Unfortunately the older cams don't have zebras or picture-in-picture (which I would personally prefer) but almost any EVF is incomparably better than the rear screen if you wear glasses, since you don't have to hold the camera at arm's length to see it. FWIW the diopter on the G2 can go from -4 to +4.
On the other hand if 35mm is the widest you have in LTM then APS-C is probably going to be more useful, since you'll be starting at 70mm (equivalent field of view) with m4/3 where the Sony and Fuji cams will crop the 35mm lens to ~53mm.
On the other hand if 35mm is the widest you have in LTM then APS-C is probably going to be more useful, since you'll be starting at 70mm (equivalent field of view) with m4/3 where the Sony and Fuji cams will crop the 35mm lens to ~53mm.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Some good news people. I was talking with my neighbor and he still has his old Sony NEX 5n. I asked if I could borrow it if I bought an adapter. He said sure.
So, now the question is, which adapter?
So, now the question is, which adapter?
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've been using cheap ones from Rainbow Imaging with no issues (Leica M, N-Ai, OM), but if I were using legacy lenses more often I'd probably spring for a high quality adapter like a Novoflex. Cheap ones will get you started and would probably never really need to be replaced.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Thanks Ken, I'd picked out a Rainbow Imaging one on ebay based on how it looked from a machinists view point (ex-machinist here) and it looked like the best 'cheap' one out there. For a trial run at this experiment I think I'll get one of those. If I get the results I'm after and this proves to be the way to go I'd get a better one once I have a camera of my own.
Again, thanks for the input.
Again, thanks for the input.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
You're very welcome! I think you'll find the NEX makes a great platform for legacy glass - I remember when they first came out a few years back people here were surprised how well they worked.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I am really hoping that the character of the lenses can be captured. If so, I'll be happy as a pig in slop!
philcycles
Established
I've had excellent results with an NEX5N and my Leica and Nikon lenses.
Shooting with PC Nikkors is particularly easy and gives great results.
Shooting with PC Nikkors is particularly easy and gives great results.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Just unpacked my adapter and took a few quick shots.
I'm almost beside myself with excitement as the first pics are VERY encouraging as far as I'm concerned. WHOOOOHHHooooo!
I'm almost beside myself with excitement as the first pics are VERY encouraging as far as I'm concerned. WHOOOOHHHooooo!
jordanatkins
Established
Glad to hear you're enjoying your results! I use a NEX-7 and they are spectacular. However, I've just bought an A7 off a member here so I'll be selling the NEX-7 as soon as everything checks out...
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
So how is that A7 working for you?
I'm not thrilled with the focus problems I'm having with the NEX-5.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Can't speak for Jordan but the A7 is working very nicely for me. I use primarily Leica R lenses on it, along with a couple of Nikkors and one or two M-mount lenses. Great sensor, very good viewfinder, decent controls, clunky shutter but it works.
G
Scrambler
Well-known
What sort of problems?
With my a3000 (essentially a NEX) I find that focus peaking by itself is not accurate enough and that magnification is required for focusing unless I am heavily stopped down. Even then magnification is about as fast. I re-assigned the only assignable button to give focus magnification. The magnification + peaking gives acceptable results but wide open the depth of field of a moderately fast (f1.4 or f2) lens is pretty shallow.
Magnification makes the process of taking a shot a little like the Barnack Leicas - focus and framing are entirely separate operations. At least 1/2 pressing the shutter cancels the magnification. I set to magnify before bringing the camera up to shoot, focus, then 1/2 press shutter and reframe.
Scrambler
Well-known
And remembering that whatever focus problems you have on an APS-C camera will be amplified on full-frame and on higher resolution sensors. The only advantage of the A7 would be a higher-definition viewfinder. But even this will not help very much if the approach you are taking to manual focusing isn't working.