Slashdot Mirror

The EF mount was introduced in 1987. The EF-S mount was introduced in 2003 source

Nikon has been using the F mount since 1959. However, only certain lowend Nikon DLSRs (D40,D3100, etc) can actually use the oldest lenses. More expensive models are limited to using AI lenses (made after 1977).

However, this expanded lens compatibility comes at a price-- no metering on non CPU lenses, and no autofocus on non-AFS/AFD lenses.

So, if you have a Nikon D3100, as I do, you can use the Nikkor-S Auto f/1.4 50mm (1962), which won't meter, and won't autofocus, or you can use the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D (1995) which will meter, but won't actually autofocus, or you can use the AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4G (2009) which finally brings autofocus to the low end DSLR user.
Of course, it is f/1.4, so it costs $439.

I have the 1975 version Considerably cheaper, but no metering and no autofocus.

I suppose that if I had an EOS Rebel, the equivalent lenses would be just as inexpensive, but fully functional. Ah well.

The EF mount was introduced in 1987. The EF-S mount was introduced in 2003 source

Nikon has been using the F mount since 1959. However, only certain lowend Nikon DLSRs (D40,D3100, etc) can actually use the oldest lenses. More expensive models are limited to using AI lenses (made after 1977).

However, this expanded lens compatibility comes at a price-- no metering on non CPU lenses, and no autofocus on non-AFS/AFD lenses.

So, if you have a Nikon D3100, as I do, you can use the Nikkor-S Auto f/1.4 50mm (1962), which won't meter, and won't autofocus, or you can use the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D (1995) which will meter, but won't actually autofocus, or you can use the AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4G (2009) which finally brings autofocus to the low end DSLR user.
Of course, it is f/1.4, so it costs $439.

I have the 1975 version Considerably cheaper, but no metering and no autofocus.

I suppose that if I had an EOS Rebel, the equivalent lenses would be just as inexpensive, but fully functional. Ah well.

As if people in China can really afford a real iphone to begin with, they just buy a knock off. Only the snobs in China care about buying a "real" iphone.

You might find this article of interest. It's a few years old, but the basic story is that Nikon sell a low-end, mediocre-quality camera made by Cosina under their own name to developing markets like China because people there want to own a leading brand like Nikon, regardless of the actual quality of the camera. (As the article states, the Centon camera- which was intended for expert to the West- was a higher quality device).

Can't you solve this just with an optics dealigned wrt the camera CCD?
This is the way used, for instance, to get buildings straight while they are imaged from a point where obviously the perspetive would deform them entierely...
I think it is called 'axial correction' or something alike in ordinary photo, see for instance http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/35mmSHIFT.htm , by the middle of the page you get impressive examples...
(of course this is an hardware solution, so even as a simple one it should probably banned on /. )

Good lenses are becoming a lost art these days. When autofocus SLRs came out, Canon had a f1.0 50mm lens, some insane telephoto lenses, and many other items. Nikon had a 2000mm zoom lens. Lens quality was also better, because with digital cameras, the camera can recognize a lens, then apply corrections for lens imperfections to the data before it gets dropped into the memory card. This is impossible with film, so the image had to be perfect the first time.

Actually, I don't think most of those are an example of a real problem:

1. The f/1.0 lenses are simply not as important anymore, because quality at higher ISO sensitivities has gone up. If you used that f/1.0 lens with ISO 100 color film, you can probably get better results today by using f/2.0 at ISO 400 on a DSLR (more depth of field!). If you were using that f/1.0 with ISO 400 color film, then you could use an f/1.4 lens at ISO 800 on digital.
2. I think digital correction of lens imperfections is a perfectly fine idea. All lenses are tradeoffs between lots of factors. If by correcting curvilinear distortion digitally you can improve some other parameter of the lens, then that's a very good idea. (And the parameter improved could be price or size, for all I care). In fact, I recently bought a Panasonic DMC-G1, whose kit lens was designed with rather severe barrel distortion at the widest zoom setting, and digital correction thereof. I did so in full knowledge, and I'm not complaining; the lens is pretty sharp, small and light.
3. Which lens do you refer to by the "2000mm zoom"? Is it the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 zoom, or is it the 2000mm f/11 reflex? That kind of lens have always been built-to-order products that hardly anybody has ever seen, much less taken photos with, so for nearly everybody that has ever lived, the difference is zero. Which mega-exotic lenses are offered is really a function of demand by a very few users, but also the potential for substituting other products; for example, an APS-C sensor camera attached to a 600mm f/4 on a 2x teleconverter will produce the same angle of view as a 1800mm lens on a 35mm camera, and be a lot cheaper than asking Nikon to custom-make a lens for you. Though lens manufacturers still build some pretty exotic stuff, just not the same as before. Think of Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8 Not nearly as long as those Nikons, but it's f/2.8.

Good lenses are becoming a lost art these days. When autofocus SLRs came out, Canon had a f1.0 50mm lens, some insane telephoto lenses, and many other items. Nikon had a 2000mm zoom lens. Lens quality was also better, because with digital cameras, the camera can recognize a lens, then apply corrections for lens imperfections to the data before it gets dropped into the memory card. This is impossible with film, so the image had to be perfect the first time.

Actually, I don't think most of those are an example of a real problem:

1. The f/1.0 lenses are simply not as important anymore, because quality at higher ISO sensitivities has gone up. If you used that f/1.0 lens with ISO 100 color film, you can probably get better results today by using f/2.0 at ISO 400 on a DSLR (more depth of field!). If you were using that f/1.0 with ISO 400 color film, then you could use an f/1.4 lens at ISO 800 on digital.
2. I think digital correction of lens imperfections is a perfectly fine idea. All lenses are tradeoffs between lots of factors. If by correcting curvilinear distortion digitally you can improve some other parameter of the lens, then that's a very good idea. (And the parameter improved could be price or size, for all I care). In fact, I recently bought a Panasonic DMC-G1, whose kit lens was designed with rather severe barrel distortion at the widest zoom setting, and digital correction thereof. I did so in full knowledge, and I'm not complaining; the lens is pretty sharp, small and light.
3. Which lens do you refer to by the "2000mm zoom"? Is it the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 zoom, or is it the 2000mm f/11 reflex? That kind of lens have always been built-to-order products that hardly anybody has ever seen, much less taken photos with, so for nearly everybody that has ever lived, the difference is zero. Which mega-exotic lenses are offered is really a function of demand by a very few users, but also the potential for substituting other products; for example, an APS-C sensor camera attached to a 600mm f/4 on a 2x teleconverter will produce the same angle of view as a 1800mm lens on a 35mm camera, and be a lot cheaper than asking Nikon to custom-make a lens for you. Though lens manufacturers still build some pretty exotic stuff, just not the same as before. Think of Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8 Not nearly as long as those Nikons, but it's f/2.8.

In fact, it's not just an analogy, the movement of the aperture ring is directly linked to the aperture.

Though not impossible, that becomes harder with electronic control of the focus.

With the control on the camera body, the wheel moves in a different plane to the actual aperture and the lens barrel - not to mention it not being located anywhere near where the aperture is.

That probably depends on the camera, but on the Rebel XT the wheel that controls both shutter and aperture is in the same plane as the original fstop control. In fact, I believe (though beyond looking at one photo of one lens) that the direction that the wheel is turned is the same as the direction you would rotate the fstop ring on the old lenses.

The better cameras have the wheel on the back of the camera, but it's still the same plane and probably turned the same way as the fstop rings.

What? The Nikon F3 has a manual film advance where it should be, or the option of making it disappear with a motordrive.Thes self-timer was in the usual place. The ISO setting is where it belongs. The aperture setting is where it belongs.

The F3 is still a little before the era I was talking about there. The Canon Elan 7 has no manual film advance, puts the ISO setting in a place that I'm not sure I would be able to access without the manual, and puts the fstop wheel on the back of the camera. The self-timer is modal in the sense that once a picture is taken with it on it doesn't revert to one-shot, but there's a physical switch as opposed to the Rebel XT's mode-changing button.

These were cameras from the 80s and 90s, and they still had a proper aperture ring, which didn't disappear on Nikons until the digital age.

Hmm, I probably should have said that I'm biased in that most of my limited (I'm young and have photography just as a hobby) experience is from (as you can tell) Canons. From what I can tell, Canon had moved control of the aperture to the body at least as an option as early as 1989 on the EOS-1.

How is totally losing light metering with manual focus lenses "about the same way" as doing it on an AF 35mm SLR, where they worked just fine?

This may again just be a Canon thing, but I don't think I could put a manual lens on my Elan 7 any more than on the Rebel.

The Nikon mount has never been radically changed, they just kept piling on electrical contacts and the occasional mechanical linkage. Thus your old manual lenses will mount. As someone else pointed out, the metering systems may not like them very much because they give back no information, but they will mount. Same goes for Pentax (and I believe Yashica, which used the same mount). However, if you cannot live without your favorite 100mm soft-focus portrait lens, you don't have to. You'll have to back up quite a bit to get the same effective image size, as it will act like a 160 mm lens, but at least it will still work.

The "problem" with Canon is that when they went to AF, they changed the mount. Why? Because they decided it was cheaper in the long run to put the AF motor in the camera body rather than the lens. This meant a need for a complex mechanical linkage that could not be reasonably retrofitted to the FD series mount. Thus, the switch to the EF mount. This is not to say that they didn't try it the other way -- the Canon T80 had AF lenses using an FD mount. It just proved commercially unviable.

I say "problem" because Canon has been proven right in the long run -- one high-quality AF motor in the camera body is both cheaper than and technically superior to lesser motors fitted to individual lenses. The motor is both beefier (from not having to cram it into a lens housing) and better protected, wide angle lenses are considerably simplified, and you don't have to pay for a new AF motor every time you buy a lens. It was clearly a correct, if somewhat painful, decision.

Mal-2

I have been an avid photographer for almost 20 years and my lovely 29 year old Nikon F2AS with prime lenses is my current choice for photography. This will change when a 20MP+ DSLR comes out which I can afford. Putting my F2AS on the shelf saddens me, since I love it. The build quality is really amazing and the lenses are fantastic. I really appreciate the low flaring and chromatic aberration and high contrast and sharpness of decent lenses.

To the point however, my girlfriend wants to replace her old film compact camera with a digital compact, so she asked me (more than a year ago now) to research a good digital compact for her. I have been looking at a lot of review sites and at the sample pictures and I just can't bring myself to recommend one. The chromatic aberration in almost every single digital compact I have looked at, is terrible!

The only compact digital cameras which produce good to fantastic images (in the respect of low chromatic aberration, low flare, high sharpness and high contrast), are some of those from Leica. But the Leica's are really expensive. Like the Leica M8.

I am judging cheap compact cameras here and not pro gear. But I can't beleive that in this day and age of computer modelling of lenses and the large size of some of the lenses on some compact digitals, that they can't produce a decent lens on an affordable camera.

For the price of a Leica M8 plus lens, you'd be not far off the price of a brand new small car.

Stepping up to an affordable DSLR on the other hand, shows a dramatic improvement in lens quality and thus final results. The difference is amazing.

It's not for lack of trying to solve the problem but the biggest problem member has too much power.

I've got a coolpix 5400. I chose nikon for a digital camera because all my film equipment is nikon, and, more specifically, I can use my SB-25 -- it's a serious flash* and because it's about 150% of the size of the coolpix, it looks totally funny when mounted. But, it is bright (138 ft at 35mm setting, ISO100) and is less prone to redeye (because it's so far away from the lens), so I'm pleased with the combo.

My only complaint is that nikon doesn't do a good job of communicating with the flash, which is why I bought it (argh!). My n90 will tell the flash the zoom setting and it will adjust the light ouput angle accordingly; the 5400 is far more advanced, but the combo doesn't do that. I guess it's a marketing thing to sell newer flashes or pro cameras.

(*as serious as nikon gets; pros tend to use third-party flashes that are larger, don't overheat with constant use, and recycle faster)

All you need is a tiny crack between the curtains and a 2000mm lens.

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Fantastic advice.

Choose a make who builds great lenses. Nikon, Canon, Carl Zeis. Buy good lenses from that company (read reviews which do proper testing for resolution, distortion, contrast, etc, not just some subjective crap written by some self proclaimed knowledgable photographer) and then find a body to go with them. Buying expensive bodies and cheap lenses is a very bad decision. Spending $20,000 on lenses and $200 on a body is not a bad thing to do. The effects of the body with a good photographer are truely negligible as long as the shutter speeds are accurate.

If you really want to learn photography, get a fully manual camera with a built in light meter (to learn the flaws of built in light meters) and use either grey cards or a hand held light meter.

My personal favorite camera is my Nikon F2AS with the MD-2 motor drive.

Like the Pentax K-1000, it is built like a tank. Nikon takes two blocks of aluminium and machine the body and prism housing out of them. Very strong, 100% mechanical (besides the light meter). The AS variant is the best of the F2's which has a light meter, due to the sensor being silicon as opposed to the failure prone light dependant resistors of the previous models. The camera was released in 1977 and yet many current Nikkor lenses (and almost all Nikkor lenses) can be used with it.

I've been to places with friends where we've all tried to take a sudden "good shot", I've just had to raise my camera, focus and fire. My friends with automatics fumble and fight with thier camera because it is in some mode not apt to the photo at hand, with the camera refusing to activate the shutter. They miss the shot. I was able to just compose, focus and fire because it was a sunny day with little cloud cover, so I was able to take a light metering before hand, set my cameras shutter and apperture appropriately and then leave it for an hour or so without fear of over or underexposing! I can also meter seperately for direct sunlight and shade and then switch between the two with the apperture when needed. Very very effective techique that leaves hyper expensive automatics seem ineffectual and wasteful. Seeing someone run out of batteries is pretty funny too. My light meter battery last for a very long time and the batteries in my motor drive merely provide a convieniance.

People with "automatic" cameras continue to get erroneous results which would require them to correct or bracket (take 3 photos (for eg) with slightly differing metering and then at the end choose the best photo!), so what is the point of automatic! It is EASIER to do the lot than to figure out what the camera thinks of the scene and then manually adjusting.

Important point, understand the value of grey cards and hand held light meters! They are important and get around a huge problem with inbuilt camera meters. I'll try to explain it showing the extremes where error is worst...

When you have your camera pointing towards a scene, the scene may be composed of light shades (white, light greys, bright yellow, etc), or dark shades (black, dark greys, etc). The camera will assume (as they almost all do as part of their design), that the scene is composed of objects which on the whole reflect 18% of light (which appears as 50% grey). The end effect will be the bright scene and dark scene both coming out mid grey on average (in B&W). That means that the bright scene in underexposed and the dark scene overexposed.

This is because the camera cannot distiguish between bright objects dimmly lit and dark objects brightly lit. Here, both photos would also come out mid grey, when in reality, the bright objects should come out bright (high key scene) and the dark objects dark (low key scene) regardless of the amount of incident light present.

Metering for incident light with a hand

Fantastic advice.

Choose a make who builds great lenses. Nikon, Canon, Carl Zeis. Buy good lenses from that company (read reviews which do proper testing for resolution, distortion, contrast, etc, not just some subjective crap written by some self proclaimed knowledgable photographer) and then find a body to go with them. Buying expensive bodies and cheap lenses is a very bad decision. Spending $20,000 on lenses and $200 on a body is not a bad thing to do. The effects of the body with a good photographer are truely negligible as long as the shutter speeds are accurate.

If you really want to learn photography, get a fully manual camera with a built in light meter (to learn the flaws of built in light meters) and use either grey cards or a hand held light meter.

My personal favorite camera is my Nikon F2AS with the MD-2 motor drive.

Like the Pentax K-1000, it is built like a tank. Nikon takes two blocks of aluminium and machine the body and prism housing out of them. Very strong, 100% mechanical (besides the light meter). The AS variant is the best of the F2's which has a light meter, due to the sensor being silicon as opposed to the failure prone light dependant resistors of the previous models. The camera was released in 1977 and yet many current Nikkor lenses (and almost all Nikkor lenses) can be used with it.

I've been to places with friends where we've all tried to take a sudden "good shot", I've just had to raise my camera, focus and fire. My friends with automatics fumble and fight with thier camera because it is in some mode not apt to the photo at hand, with the camera refusing to activate the shutter. They miss the shot. I was able to just compose, focus and fire because it was a sunny day with little cloud cover, so I was able to take a light metering before hand, set my cameras shutter and apperture appropriately and then leave it for an hour or so without fear of over or underexposing! I can also meter seperately for direct sunlight and shade and then switch between the two with the apperture when needed. Very very effective techique that leaves hyper expensive automatics seem ineffectual and wasteful. Seeing someone run out of batteries is pretty funny too. My light meter battery last for a very long time and the batteries in my motor drive merely provide a convieniance.

People with "automatic" cameras continue to get erroneous results which would require them to correct or bracket (take 3 photos (for eg) with slightly differing metering and then at the end choose the best photo!), so what is the point of automatic! It is EASIER to do the lot than to figure out what the camera thinks of the scene and then manually adjusting.

Important point, understand the value of grey cards and hand held light meters! They are important and get around a huge problem with inbuilt camera meters. I'll try to explain it showing the extremes where error is worst...

When you have your camera pointing towards a scene, the scene may be composed of light shades (white, light greys, bright yellow, etc), or dark shades (black, dark greys, etc). The camera will assume (as they almost all do as part of their design), that the scene is composed of objects which on the whole reflect 18% of light (which appears as 50% grey). The end effect will be the bright scene and dark scene both coming out mid grey on average (in B&W). That means that the bright scene in underexposed and the dark scene overexposed.

This is because the camera cannot distiguish between bright objects dimmly lit and dark objects brightly lit. Here, both photos would also come out mid grey, when in reality, the bright objects should come out bright (high key scene) and the dark objects dark (low key scene) regardless of the amount of incident light present.

Metering for incident light with a hand

I learned on my mother in law's old Nikkormat FT2. Manual everything, with a built in light meter. Two lenses, both fixed - one 50mm macro, and a 200mm.

The manual everything forces you to think about the relationship between light, apeture size and shutter speed, which is the most important thing to learn. The fixed-length lenses force you to learn composition (the second most important thing) without the assistance of zoom.

And unless you're going to develop yourself (may or not be an option for you), be prepared to shell out a bunch of money getting film developed. It's a bitch, but it can't be helped.

As an exception I post that I agree totally. I own one for ~20 years now and I am still reluctant to go digital.

X700

The above already mentioned predecessor XD 7/11 is fine as well and has even more options.

XD 11

CC.

As an exception I post that I agree totally. I own one for ~20 years now and I am still reluctant to go digital.

X700

The above already mentioned predecessor XD 7/11 is fine as well and has even more options.

XD 11

CC.

I reccomend taking a look at this model .

Look here too.

It's a fully manual 35mm with some automatic functionality.

I won't post the specs here, you can find out anything you need by doing a google search. This camera has a pretty good user/fan base.

They're well made, reliable, take a beating, and can be found frequently enough that you can get an extra for parts if needed.

I have 2 of them. I got my first one in 87, and my second in 2001. Both built in 82, and both are still cranking away.

Pristine condition shouldn't cost you more than $200 at a used camera dealer.

Nikon Series E lenses aren't super expensive, but the quality is great. I reccomend that you at least get a 50mm Nikon lens to start with. The off brand lenses(vivitar, sigma, etc) are cheaper, but depending on what you're shooting, you might not care about the lower quality. Actually, I find that the Vivitar lenses are almost as good as the Nikon models.

wbs.

I started out with a Canon AE-1 I picked up for cheap. It has served me well.

So anyone even vaguely interested in photography won't give this a second look.

It's not the tools, it's how you use them.

Ever heard of Lomo, or the even-more-respected-by-"art"-photographers-but-not -as-hyped Holga? which comes with a lens that's not only crappy, but has serious camera-to-camera variance so you have to buy a few ($15 each in lots of 2-5), find & tape up the light leaks, then shoot to find out which distortion you like the best.

Every photographer doesn't have Greenspun's aesthetic.

Some people like cheap cameras 'cause you can shoot on any street in the world without worrying about getting ripped off. This guy has a Leica, but check out his ode to the lowly Canonet of the golden age of 35mm (1967-1988)

Do you know that Leicas from the 30s still work and are repairable, but LCDs have finite lifetime and spare parts mfg a the same time as the original cameras age the same way, so NO Nikon F5s will be operational in 50 years?

Well.. it's not Kodak that makes the, but maker of camera.
For example Nikon has 250 & 750 frame (check them out -- huge) 'backs'. You need to take back from your camera and change it.

Of course you need lots of film for that too. Pretty much standard is 100ft (30.5m) or 55ft (17m) rolls (with these you can fill standard 36 exposure canisters). That is enough for about 800 exposures.

Well.. it's not Kodak that makes the, but maker of camera.
For example Nikon has 250 & 750 frame (check them out -- huge) 'backs'. You need to take back from your camera and change it.

Of course you need lots of film for that too. Pretty much standard is 100ft (30.5m) or 55ft (17m) rolls (with these you can fill standard 36 exposure canisters). That is enough for about 800 exposures.