- Messages
- 10,052
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As well as Canon or Nikon, check out Pentax. The K mount cameras were very good, The ME super, the MX or my favorite the LX. all cracking cameras and theres a ton of lens that will fit them.
Ah many people think like you and I always say "do you want to take pictures or be a poser".Whilst the T70 may take great shots, and Canon made some lovely FD glass (my collection has been appropriated by my son for video work), a T70 has no kerbside appeal ( IMHO), it’s not a camera I would reach for ( and I’m sure this viewpoint would be shared by many Fujifilm owners!)
Ah many people think like you and I always say "do you want to take pictures or be a poser".It was well designed camera by Canon in that they were thinking of possible problems by Joe public e.g. doesn't need light seals replacing as it doesn't need them also a feature called safety shift i.e. if you forget to change the shutter speed because of different light conditions it will select the correct shutter speed if not using it on manual. Of course there are cameras that are superior e,g, Canon T90 (which I have) but when the T70 was going for about £5 to £10 (bought two) it was a no brainer to use on sandy beaches with my grandchildren as if sand in the works......just throw it away.
Well I've handled many cameras from Nikon F4 to Praktica MT3 and the T70 feels ok to me ...but there you go. At least the T70 doesn't annoy me when using the Nikon FM (which I like) when using it in the vertical position because to operate the exposure meter the wind on lever has to be open by about 45 degrees and sometimes it gets up my nose.I get that, but for me the tactile feel and handling of my camera equipment is important to me
Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).I get that, but for me the tactile feel and handling of my camera equipment is important to me, its not about being a poser! The T series like a lot of the cameras of that era has a very brutallist approach, function over form, nothing wrong with that, its just not what I would choose to use.
The same £10 arguement can be applied to a lot of the 90's/00's plastic fantastic cameras - they are equally capable (most even have AF) - but AF glass will not suit the OPs requirement to adapt to his mirrorless body.
As I previously said, the OP should look at ranges of glass (quality v affordability) and base his decision on that, in this scenario the body is less important, since I suspect more shots will be taken on adapted lens solutions than on film.
Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).
The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.
So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?
That would be the toughest decision for me.Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).
The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.
So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?
Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).
The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.
So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?
Chiefly I am more interested in the wider angle lenses (anything below 50mm) as they'll be more useful on the Fuji re: crop factor.Look at the focal lengths you are interested in and their availability/costs - that should help with the decision process.
Ah, just to muddy the waters a bit, if you go with Pentax you will also have access to Chinon and Ricoh lenses.
Now that Tamron has been mentioned, have you considered the AD2 range?There looks to be some really nice Sigma, Tamron and Hoya lenses (judging by eBay) and theres even a pancake lens all in K mount...
You'll have to pixel peep on a digi to find any difference (if any) between recommended lenses for Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc as on a film camera it will not show.....well in saying that there is caveat emptor as you might see a difference between copy variation in manufacture and pick a lemon, but then it still might not show on film?Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).
The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.
So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?
Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).
The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.
So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?
As long as its an interchangeble lens range finder; sure. However I do like the idea of the SLR in so far as its a back-to-roots photography and I think it'll help me understand my digital photography a little better. Plus the general availability of all the aforementioned lenses in the more popular systems.I have quite a few film era lenses including Nikon, Canon FD, Olympus Zuiko and Minolta Rokkor. Of them I like the styling and compactness of the Olympus Zuiko best but I find their aperture control clunky and overall I think I prefer the Rokkors and especially the earlier all metal body lenses with their scalloped focus rings. They are IMO beautifully made and a similar all metal and glass build to the much larger Nippon Kogaku lenses I also have.
However... Can I suggest something different to a SLR? How about a Range Finder?
I had two, a fixed lens Canonete and a Voigtlander Bessa. If I had to go back to film (it'd be with a gun to my head) I think another one of those would be high on my list rather than a SLR. Keep in mind that they don't do close up shots too well (longer minimum focus distance and parallax error) so if some film era macro or just close up shooting is on your list of things to do these may well not be suitable.
I had a Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 color scopar on my Bessar and I bought another one in recent times to use on my FF Sony A7 via a cheap adapter.
Just reiterating that vintage lenses on my APS-C is (slightly) higher on the priority list; getting a camera body and playing with film is just a nice bonus and welcome, hands on distraction.
Yup I'd taken that into consideration. I'm interested in any lenses 35mm or wider; they'll work nicely on APS-C. Anything else I get will likely be something like a macro or fisheye; you know for the funFilm era lenses on APS-C digital will be subject to the crop factor and depending on how you feel about it this could be either a good or a bad thing. For example 50mm f1.8 lenses for film can often be found at cheap to reasonable prices but on APS-C digital you lose the 50mm FoV and to get that sort of FoV back you'd need to go to a 35mm and you'd probably be at f2.8 rather than f1.x or paying a lot of money for a wider than f2.8 aperture. You could go for a cheap 28mm f2.8 giving a FoV of 42mm or there abouts. Of course if you like a longer FoV APS-C digital and film era lenses might work out ok for you.
Good luck choosing.
always a good selection of Nikon, Canon and Pentax bodies/lens on eBay - my favourites were always the Canon A1 and Pentax ME (super) which was called the Pentax Leica in it's day - it is a ;lovely size - most of the early Nikon's were quite big and heavy but then came the later FM's and similar, which were lighter and smaller - but Nikon did make some ground breaking cameras at the time.
Olympus OM2n.
Superb camera and the Zuiko lenses are also brilliant.
As well as Canon or Nikon, check out Pentax. The K mount cameras were very good, The ME super, the MX or my favorite the LX. all cracking cameras and theres a ton of lens that will fit them.
All the adapters for 35mm SLR lenses will be about the same sizeHaving said that the MD Adapter from KF looks about the same size
*sigh* okay; so probably Pentax MX OR Minolta XD then
How come the Leica M / L39 mounts are so thin then? I suppose they're mostly rangefinders that didn't use mirrors for the viewfinder?It’s because basically the adaptor is making up the space for the mirror box - there will be small variations in distance between different camera manufacturers of the lens flange to film distance, but these are in the range of sub 5mm
Correct - no mirrorboxHow come the Leica M / L39 mounts are so thin then? I suppose they're mostly rangefinders that didn't use mirrors for the viewfinder?
Which raises the question of whether the lens is bayonet or screw mount.Correct - no mirrorbox
The adapter has to put the lens in the same place relative to the film of the original camera
This is a wise choice. One of the best viewfinders in the business, compact, amazing selection of lenses. Meter is pretty good. I usually meter off the foreground as well as the scene in general before deciding on exposure. The MX has a little tell-tale window at the top of the viewfinder, where you can see the aperture selected, and of course you can see the current shutter speed with the light meter LEDs, so all the information you need is right there. The shutter speed dial is a bit stiff; I have to take the camera away from my eye to change speeds. I've just got used to this!I think based on lens mount and compactness of lenses I am probably going to commit to the Pentax K system; and based on research will probably aim for a Pentax MX body
Tamron's AD2 17mm is rectilinear and that's fun as well, on a full frame body...
The beauty of the AD2 series is that they'll fit pretty much every 35mm SLR ever made, provided you can find the correct adapter for the camera. Interestingly, 3rd party manufacturers have started making AD2 adapters for digital bodies.I was commenting on the lens being used in a 35mm camera thread.
I've found the Samyang 7.5mm to be very nice on an M43 camera and some people like it on APS format cameras. It's also available under several other names.The first look through the viewfinder in the shop was enough to tell me it wasn't the lens for a crop camera.
Having said that the MD Adapter from KF looks about the same size
I don't know if it's the same for the Pentax>Fuji version, but worth looking into. If you do decide to go down that route, don't buy it direct from K&F unless you're prepared to wait. They're posted from China and mine took about two and half weeks to arrive. while I was waiting, I ordered one from Amazon which turned up the next day.
My Pentax K to Fuji F K&F adapter was a single unit - unfortunately I sold it about a year ago, otherwise I would have gifted it to @colourofsound
Bless you sirI would have gifted it to @colourofsound
The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.Personally, I'd advise against K&F.
I bought one (two actually) for Minolta>Sony. I liked the look of them (the black and orange looking fairly OEM for the Sony) and they didn't get too many bad reviews. But the black and orange sections are two different parts, and on one copy, those two parts started coming apart. Probably in less than a month of what I would say was fairly light use. The second one was going that way and felt a bit loose.
I don't know if it's the same for the Pentax>Fuji version, but worth looking into. If you do decide to go down that route, don't buy it direct from K&F unless you're prepared to wait. They're posted from China and mine took about two and half weeks to arrive (with no updates as to when it would turn up). I wanted to get using the Sony, so while I was waiting, I ordered another one from Amazon which turned up the next day - but that's how I ended up with two.
On further recommendations I bought a Fotasy one for my Sony A7 and then when I got the Canon R6II, I bought an Urth one.
Very happy with both of those.
Bless you sir
The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.
I'm reading a lot about speedboosters as well, with mixed reviews. Some saying the extra glass has negligible effects whereas others saying it really effects sharpness and fringing. Any experiences?
I know nothing about the speedboosters.Bless you sir
The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.
I'm reading a lot about speedboosters as well, with mixed reviews. Some saying the extra glass has negligible effects whereas others saying it really effects sharpness and fringing. Any experiences?