Film to Digital - What about the lenses?

[FidelCastrovich]

Hello all,
First post : I have a nice little Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 5. Been happy with it, except for the part where you have to pay for developing film

For the last couple of years i've been eying the Minolta DSLRs, and now the Sony Alpha. Main reason - lens compatibility. Plus i just liked the idea of sticking with Minolta in a Canon/Nikon dominated world. I'm silly like that. :blushing:

ANYWAYS - now that i think more seriously about it, i realize that the crop factor changes everything. I'll no longer have my prime lens,which i love, nor will my 28-105 be able to satisfy my everyday needs - times 1.6 changes everything. I could probably live with the 70-210 turning into 110-340,though.

So, my question is - should i go the Canon/Nikon/Pentax path for digital? And keep a whole other set of lenses for that?
(I guess, at least in the beginning, one decent mid-range zoom lens would suffice).
Or go for the Sony, and just complete the lens line-up with the modern lenses, that Sony made available?


I'm sorry if this is a question that comes up a lot - I tried to use search, but didn't know what to look for. Will appreciate links to older threads, if they are in existence.

Thanks,
Emil.

 

[selmerdave]

ANYWAYS - now that i think more seriously about it, i realize that the crop factor changes everything. I'll no longer have my prime lens,which i love, nor will my 28-105 be able to satisfy my everyday needs - times 1.6 changes everything. I could probably live with the 70-210 turning into 110-340,though.

Well, but in that case you just got a fantastic and fast portrait lens (50mm in digital) that you didn't have previously. All you really need is an ultra-wide lens to cover that, what you already have covers everything else. Keep in mind it's not the lenses that are changing, it's just that everything becomes cropped. I'd stay stick with what you've got.

Dave

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Well, but in that case you just got a fantastic and fast portrait lens (50mm in digital) that you didn't have previously. All you really need is an ultra-wide lens to cover that, what you already have covers everything else. Keep in mind it's not the lenses that are changing, it's just that everything becomes cropped. I'd stay stick with what you've got.

Dave

Yeah, i know about the prime=portrait equation. Thing is, i don't shoot many portraits, but i love using the prime for street photography.

Not to hijack my own thread, but - this crop factor, what effect does it have on the viewfinder? A 50mm lens would produce the same image IN THE VIEWFINDER of both digital and film cameras, right?
So, the difference would be in the end result?
That means, that i see one thing in the viewfinder, but get a completely different thing once i press the shutter release?
How do you get used to that?

 

[Don Simon]

No, the difference is seen in the viewfinder too. More or less WYSIWYG, same as with any SLR film or digital.

I could probably live with the 70-210 turning into 110-340,though.

If it's the f/4 'beercan' I expect you could live with it doing many things... great lens

You'll still have your prime lens too, it just won't be the prime lens you remember, as the angle of view will be different. For example I find a 50mm still has many uses on my dSLR; they're just not quite the same uses as before.

I agree it sounds like all you really need is a wide-angle. In fact you could probably go for something like a 17-55mm and not bother carrying the 28-105 any more (I've never found the lack of a focal length between 50 and 70 to be a problem). Anyway if your lenses are good and you're happy with the Sony system and the Minolta/Sony lenses etc then sure it makes sense. Some folks will probably tell you that you need to dump it all and invest in Canon so you can have an upgrade path to multiple camera bodies and be able to buy any lens anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. I say take a look at what Konica-Minolta did in the past and take a look at what Sony are planning to do next (referring to the two new camera bodies expected within the next year) and you don't really need to fear. Now a fair point would be that Sony are overpricing many of their lenses, especially the higher-end ones... but IMO nature will take its course here ie Sony must realise this sooner or later. In the meantime you have your existing lenses, you have Minolta ones popping up on Ebay or in stores, and you have third-parties.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Edit : Any other opinions are welcome.

If it's the f/4 'beercan' I expect you could live with it doing many things... great lens

Yep, that's the one. :cheers:

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

CANON EOS is, not only the dominant player, but all their film lenses fit their digital cameras, and promise to do so pretty much forever.

It's the reason I picked Canon.

 

[selmerdave]

I thought Nikon and especially Pentax had more backwards-compatibility than Canon.

Dave

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

I thought Nikon and especially Pentax had more backwards-compatibility than Canon.

Dave

Yes and No, I'd like to qualify my answer. I specifically chose EOS, not FD or FL.

Pentax K mount lenses, and Nikon F-mount will work with the newer digitals. Sort of, and for now.

I would first like to say that I applaud Nikon and Pentax for responding to consumer demands by refusing to orphan their previous lens mounts.

But in hindsight, I think it will be a case of pulling the bandaid off slowly.

Well, I've got to get to class within the next forty minutes, so I don't have as much time to devote to this as I really should. So, I'll have to make statements without stating my supporting facts, and I hope you don't get too annoyed.

I beleive, that the venerable, and highly successful F-mount, introduced in 1959, and the equally good k-mount, introduced in 1976, are obsolete. These lenses were designed for the mature manual camera technology of those times.

The Canon EOS mount was designed for electronics from the ground up. It was an incredibly risky move to orphan the FL and FD mounts, and pissed off one hell of alot of loyal Canon fans, but in the long run, considering the very different needs of a mount used with electronics, it was a wise move. Prescient, one might say, considering that ten years later, electronic would become digital, something not at all certain when the EOS system was on the drawing boards several years earlier.

Furthermore, while Nikon has made a really valiant stand supporting its F-mount, the failings of this system will continue to make them work harder and harder, and have more and more complex camera body systems to make up for the obsolete lens mount system, and the result will be that it will have to abandon the F within the next decade, while Canon will be able to use its EOS lens mount system for thirty more years, if not longer. This is important to me, because I'm a young man, and I'd like to stick with the system I become invested in. In fact, if I can't, I'll have something to say to the local Canon rep.layball:

I think this is a classic situation of steam power v.s. gasoline engines. (England v.s. U.S.) Like steam, there is alot to be said for the F-mount, but at the end of the day, the benefits are outweighed by the limitations in everyday use.

You might not agree with my assertion that Nikon will not continue to support its old bayonet mount beauty.

But the writing is on the wall. I've realised that now, while writing this that it's not just my musing, but that I've heard some supporting evidence from Nikon itself. My photography professor mentioned yesterday that Nikon had decided to bow out of the technology race of one-upmanship with Canon of small and fast incremental improvements of product to market.

Since a technology based company cannot stop innovating and live, then the innovation must be something they are doing behind the scene's. The only reason not to advertise their R and D would be if they would actually harm present sales with the news of upcoming developments. And the only R&D development I can think of that could harm current sales and cashflow, is the news that they are going to orphan the F-mount.

Gentlemen and Ladies, I'm guessing that we are going to see an new Nikon Mount for the digital age, and that they are designing it, as we speak.

P.S. I guess I've missed my class now

 

[skieur]

The new Sony Alpha A700 looks interesting with a lot of innovative features.

By the way, Fidel,....Castrovich means SON OF Castro in Russian. I am not sure that this is what you meant by your handle:...Fidel son of Castro.

Pavel Ivonovich alias skieur

 

[Mike_E]

Yo Bob, sorry to disagree but the mount is just a connector. And as to the lenses themselves, they are not the engines but rather the wheels and are just as round as ever. The difference is that Nikon/Pentax saw themselves as primarily camera companies and made great cameras rather than great products.

There may come a time that cameras will be able to resolve more line-pairs/mm than current lenses are able to but you won't see them tomorrow or even the next day. R&D costs too much not to extract all the revenue you can from it.

A case in point, we now have due-core CPUs but the research at first developed a CPU with 8 cores. There are servers just coming along with 4 cores. Sell a little at a time and make all the money you can so that you can develop the next thing- whatever that may be.

mike

P.S. Congrats on the Crown!!!

 

[FidelCastrovich]

The new Sony Alpha A700 looks interesting with a lot of innovative features.

By the way, Fidel,....Castrovich means SON OF Castro in Russian. I am not sure that this is what you meant by your handle:...Fidel son of Castro.

Pavel Ivonovich alias skieur

Well, technically you're right. And technically, he is the son of Castro - Angel Castro. No one would know who Fidel Angelovich was.

But i was going for the combined effect of Fidel's image and my Russian origin. I love that crazy ol' bastard.

 

[Joxby]

Regarding the Nikon/Canon/Pentax thing, If you were to own a Nikon film body, you would now be in the strongest position possible to share lenses.
I dont see why Nikon would change their mount, all lenses cover full frame except DX lenses, its just a mechanical connection, I'm sure Canon could have easily incorporated electrical contacts in their original mount, but thats not going to maximise profit margins is it.
Whatever, nothing can change the quantity and quality thats allready been produced and in circulation that is compatable between Nikon film and digital bodys.

I won't even dignify the question of "F mount failings" or "England v USA**hole" with any kind of answer.
Missing classes will not help temper that horrendous inferiority complex....get a taxi, and say the fridge door fell off or something.

Personally, I think Minolta has had its day, only a move to one of the big two will give you the range and availability of glass.

 

[jstuedle]

Being a true Nikon snob, I found the comment "and Nikon F-mount will work with the newer digitals. Sort of, and for now" interesting to say the least. My first Nikkor bought in 1969, a 45mm 2.8 GN fits and works great on my D1 series body and I expect it and the rest of my MF glass to work on my D3. For now? I think Nikon will never go to G only glass for the pro bodies, meaning I don't think the D40 lens restrictions will expand to the rest of the line. I own no AF-S or G lenses and hope to never have too, we will see.

As for your original question FC, what are your long term goals in photography. Digital bodies are computers with lenses stuck on them. You most likely will upgrade in a few years to something newer, bigger, and badder. Do you expect Sony to grow their system and compete in the marketplace? If so stick with them. If not, make a jump now before investing in a system that has no upgrade path. As the worst Nikon snob of the forum, (or best - depends on how I look at it) I'd like to see you shoot Nikon, but I think you most likely will do fine staying with the system you already have invested in. Good luck with whatever you decide and keep posting.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Being a true Nikon snob, I found the comment "and Nikon F-mount will work with the newer digitals. Sort of, and for now" interesting to say the least. My first Nikkor bought in 1969, a 45mm 2.8 GN fits and works great on my D1 series body and I expect it and the rest of my MF glass to work on my D3. For now? I think Nikon will never go to G only glass for the pro bodies, meaning I don't think the D40 lens restrictions will expand to the rest of the line. I own no AF-S or G lenses and hope to never have too, we will see.

As for your original question FC, what are your long term goals in photography. Digital bodies are computers with lenses stuck on them. You most likely will upgrade in a few years to something newer, bigger, and badder. Do you expect Sony to grow their system and compete in the marketplace? If so stick with them. If not, make a jump now before investing in a system that has no upgrade path. As the worst Nikon snob of the forum, (or best - depends on how I look at it) I'd like to see you shoot Nikon, but I think you most likely will do fine staying with the system you already have invested in. Good luck with whatever you decide and keep posting.

Just to conclude the thread (although the discussion is interesting), i purchased a Canon 30D a few weeks ago. The deciding factor was serviceability and availability of equipment. I'm trying to break into the photojournalism field, and these things are important.

So that's it - today is my last day at work, (i guess i DID quit my day job) and i'm starting out in the field. Hunting down stories and pictures, trying to sell them to papers, and hopefully in a year from now i'll have established myself in some local paper.

Thanks all.

P.S. My beloved Minolta will be stripped of its battery grip and with the 50mm +TMAX 400 will turn into a tiny, discreet street shooter. I just adore that camera.