Regular Camera OR Digital Camera...which do You prefer?

[chicks]

I just use those great old manual focus lenses (one German, one American) from a bygone era and work 'em on my small-sensor digital camera. Seems to work for me...

But I do still have people tell me it can't be done...

C'mon, Wiggy, you know those old lenses aren't worth spit! They're just takin' up space. Send 'em my way for proper disposal!

 

[2526]

I spent almost 40 years doing photography professionally as a sideline career - everything from weddings when I was in college, to car and motorcycle racing for magazines and sponsors, and always architectural photography (I'm an architect) for magazines, manufacturers, builders and other architects. I pretty stubbornly stuck to film, having negs and chromes scanned later on. But then I borrowed a Nikon D90 to try on a shoot and was blown away by how easy it was to achieve great results that I knew I had on the spot. I then invested in a digital Nikon slr system. I've sold off a few items over the past couple of years when I had an opportunity, but still have a large collection (at least 75) of my workhorses and many collectables. It bums me out that film is an anachronism now, basically for certain types of art photography, but I am also glad that almost anyone can take technically excellent shots and print them at home. If I want to shoot a roll of film I'll get out a Nikon rangefinder, a Rollei 6x6, or a Zeiss Ikonta and just have fun.

 

[Brian]

A Zeis Ikonta. Great camera. I have a 35mm model getting ready for shutter service. Bought it in '68 from a pawn shop as I was getting ready to travel to Israel. |It was my pocket camera for years before gertting a Minox LX and ML. Went back to the Zeiss after the ML died about 15 years ago.

I find it interesting to get what some want, they have tp back to film camera lenses. It may mean that current designs though advanced may noit be meeting the real wants and needs of the user as much as cost savings. I've been thinking of getting M39 and Leica M lense to Oly adaptors. Of course doing so disables a number of functions.

 

[chillwolf]

I find it interesting to get what some want, they have tp back to film camera lenses. It may mean that current designs though advanced may noit be meeting the real wants and needs of the user as much as cost savings. I've been thinking of getting M39 and Leica M lense to Oly adaptors. Of course doing so disables a number of functions.

That's one thing i like about my Sony DSLR, I can use all the nice Minolta AF film camera lenses on it. :thmbsp:

 

[2526]

I am continually amazed at the optical quality if my Nikon digital zoom lenses. I believe that they are every bit as good, if not better, than any of my older Nikon film lenses (and I have, or had, many of the best). Now with their plastic barrels, etc. these new lenses are not equal to the mechanical standards of the older film lenses, making them more delicate, but to build modern lenses to those standards the cost would increase manyfold.

 

[chicks]

Picked up this little beauty yesterday. Walgreens had some B&W film that uses C41 processing, will give it a try. Have a couple of alkaline buttons in it now, works great, but will get a 3V lithium for it.

Will it replace my digital? Hardly, too expensive, and fixed lens, but it should be a lot of fun to shoot.

 

[Cruzah]

Wow chicks...thats a beautiful lil camera.

 

[MichaelJ]

I like and use both digital and film cameras. I use a Nikon D200 for color images. For anything I want in Black and White, I use either my Yashica TLR, Holga, Nikon F3 HP, or my Calumet 4x5. I nearly always shoot Tri-X, I love the grain pattern. I process and print the Black and White in my home lab and use a large format Epson Printer for the color work.

 

[ofajen]

I just use those great old manual focus lenses (one German, one American) from a bygone era and work 'em on my small-sensor digital camera. Seems to work for me...

But I do still have people tell me it can't be done...

So, what small-sensor digicam works with those lenses? My G3 can use specific Canon wide and tele converters, but the lenses don't interchange. Or is APS-C "small" to you?

Cheers,

Otto

 

[AnalogDigit]

I like the convenience of digital cameras. You can take a ton of pics and share them with people instantly. But I do miss taking pics with my Canon AE-1 that I used to have.

 

[HiFiCanada]

I am for Digital.
Actually stopped taking pictures way back in the 1980's, since I just could not get anyone to develope my pictures properly. Any thing black in the pictures were grainy brown, just looked like they run it through the developer which averages the exposer, it got better a few years later, but not enought to spark any interest in continuing.

 

[normdeplume]

So, what small-sensor digicam works with those lenses? My G3 can use specific Canon wi50mm Summicron de and tele converters, but the lenses don't interchange. Or is APS-C "small" to you?

Cheers,

Otto

Can't speak for Wigwam but, yeah, I call < 35mm "small" since more often than not, the need for comparison arises when talking about old system lenses on an APS-C body. There's a TON of Canon EF/Nikon F gear out there.

Unrelated, but a pet peeve from POTN and the like: "My 50mm is really an 80mm on this body!" No, your 50mm is a 50mm - your sensor is just little.

I've since sold it off just because I had way too much incompatible gear, but I used to use a 50mm Summicron-R on an Oly E-1 body with a generic adapter, $20 on eBay. Fantastic results from that combo, and I'd get fun looks from the gearhead types who walk around with giant Canon L glass hanging from their neck.

 

[ofajen]

Can't speak for Wigwam but, yeah, I call < 35mm "small" since more often than not, the need for comparison arises when talking about old system lenses on an APS-C body. There's a TON of Canon EF/Nikon F gear out there.

Yeah, I've been pondering the choice of sensor and system. Regardless of which dSLR body I get, my old Mamiya/Sekor threaded lenses won't be very useful, as they are the SX line without an easy way to shift to manual aperture operation (unless I can figure out a way to lock the lenses in manual mode or have them modded, but it would probably be easier to just pick up some more suitable lenses). I guess I should say, they could only shoot wide open, unless modded.

I like the 4/3rds concept (more "square" aspect and expectation of multiple formats and video) but there doesn't seem to be a lot of commitment to dSLRs with optical finders (both Panasonic and Olympus are focused on mirror-less). Also, it's half the size of 35mm, which does have a little effect on depth of field.

APS-C is ubiquitous and lots of cheap options. These days, though, full-frame might be within reach in the form of a used EOS 5D body (maybe even MK II).

Not sure which way I'll go, but anything will offer some better options for some things I want to do, like portraits of kids and photos at their activities and games. I push the limits of my G3, but the auto-focus is often too slow (and its manual mode is only useful for stationary objects, not kids), it has some limitations in low light and can't really do distant action shots well, all of which a dSLR can improve on.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Wigwam Jones]

So, what small-sensor digicam works with those lenses? My G3 can use specific Canon wide and tele converters, but the lenses don't interchange. Or is APS-C "small" to you?

Cheers,

Otto

The Pentax dSLR cameras I use have an APS-C sensor in them. I am saving money towards a Samsung NX20, which also has an APS-C sensor in it. Not only will it be able to mount any of my older Pentax lenses (which I don't really want to do, since I have digital Pentax bodies), but it will be able to mount just about any manual focus lens ever made. For example, old Leica thread-mount lenses. Or my Canon FD/FL mount lenses (which is what I really want it for).

It will have the same 1.5 crop-factor that my Pentax does - but I've lived with that for a long time now and I'm OK with it. I'd be happy with m4/3 if it wasn't even smaller than APS-C. I'm OK with treating a 50mm lens like a 75mm lens, but not treating it like a 100mm lens.

But all in all, my point has been that I can do anything with my digital cameras that I could with my film cameras, including, in most cases, using the old lenses and all the advantages (and disadvantages) that comes with using them. I'm in full control of my photography if I want it - and I don't have to hunt and peck through levels of menus to get it. And if I want to put it on auto and bang away without thinking about things, I can do that too.

This weekend is the Dream Cruise in Detroit. I'll be out all day shooting photos of hot rods going up and down Woodward. I will have one camera body set up with AF lenses and I'll let it do the work. I'll have the other set up with manual focus lenses and I'll do the thinking for it. I like both. I use both.

And although I loved film and always will, I don't knock digital by saying "It won't do this" or "It won't do that." The truth is, yes it will, if you want to do it. If all a person wants to do is bitch and moan about how bad digital is, then I guess whatever floats their boat. Me, I found a way to do everything I wanted to do, and I'm happy with both digital and film. But like most things, I find myself disliked by the 'hate digital' and the 'hate film' groups because I refuse to see it as a religious war. I do what *I* want and don't care much what people think I *should* do.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

FYI, I shot this a couple years ago at the Dream Cruise. I used a Spiratone manual focus portrait lens on a Pentax digital SLR camera. No photoshop trickery, this is the photo I took.

WHAT? I thought it was impossible to do REAL photography with a digital camera? I thought you could not take manual control of a digital camera? Well, apparently, I can do what I want to do with a digital camera. Imagine that.


2009 Woodward Dream Cruise by Wigwam Jones, on Flickr

Edit: here's another:


2009 Woodward Dream Cruise by Wigwam Jones, on Flickr

 

[Cruzah]

Well personally I Love Photography in every aspect.
I prefer to use Film for Important Photographs because I don't feel comfortable with Digital...YET!
But I study about the Digital aspect and practice with a Digital Camera every chance I get.
I HAVE NO DOUBT...I WILL GET GOOD AT IT!

@Wigwam...Beautiful Soft Focus on those Car Pics.

 

[normdeplume]

Yeah, I've been pondering the choice of sensor and system. Regardless of which dSLR body I get, my old Mamiya/Sekor threaded lenses won't be very useful, as they are the SX line without an easy way to shift to manual aperture operation (unless I can figure out a way to lock the lenses in manual mode or have them modded, but it would probably be easier to just pick up some more suitable lenses). I guess I should say, they could only shoot wide open, unless modded.

I like the 4/3rds concept (more "square" aspect and expectation of multiple formats and video) but there doesn't seem to be a lot of commitment to dSLRs with optical finders (both Panasonic and Olympus are focused on mirror-less). Also, it's half the size of 35mm, which does have a little effect on depth of field.

APS-C is ubiquitous and lots of cheap options. These days, though, full-frame might be within reach in the form of a used EOS 5D body (maybe even MK II).

Not sure which way I'll go, but anything will offer some better options for some things I want to do, like portraits of kids and photos at their activities and games. I push the limits of my G3, but the auto-focus is often too slow (and its manual mode is only useful for stationary objects, not kids), it has some limitations in low light and can't really do distant action shots well, all of which a dSLR can improve on.

Cheers,

Otto

I really liked the 4/3 sensors too. I shoot a fair amount of 645, enough that I feel a little constrained by 35mm or APS-C frames. I believe the early Oly sensors (E-1, 300, 500?) were supplied by Kodak and had fantastic color rendition to my eyes, but those sensors are ancient now and didn't handle noise well by modern standards.

The modern glass available in 4/3s is very good but I never invested beyond the kit lenses and the original Zuiko 14-54mm since they weren't usable anywhere else. I eventually settled on a Nikon DSLR that fit in with my other system gear but sold that off while it was still worth a few hundred dollars because I just wasn't using it like I was my film bodies.

This will, of course, never happen, but I'd love to buy into a digital 35mm system with interchangeable digital backs. Give me something like an F100 with excellent build quality and ergos that I can keep, and pop a new sensor in when there's a compelling reason to do so. Don't make me pay again for a new body/shutter/whatever feature creep happened lately. And the buttons would always be in the same place, praise Jebus. I'm sure it's not viable, but I can dream, right?

 

[ofajen]

But all in all, my point has been that I can do anything with my digital cameras that I could with my film cameras, including, in most cases, using the old lenses and all the advantages (and disadvantages) that comes with using them.

I'd generally agree. I'm not one to whine about what digital cameras can't do, but I have come up against the limits of the (little, old) camera I have in doing some of what I want to do and I need a digital camera with more capability in those areas.

I don't necessarily expect that digital cameras will produce exactly the same results as my film cameras, as long as I'm able to get the results I need. And I can still shoot film when the mood strikes, at least for the moment. In practice, I mainly shoot with the digicam, and I'd expect that to continue when I also have a dSLR or similar camera.

Cheers,

Otto