Choosing older DSLR beater to tinker with?

[jay moussy]

Silly question... I may be looking to get an older DSLR beater to tinker with, that is, play around with odd lenses (enlarger, projector) and macro setups, using plumbing supplies, epoxy, bellows, etc.

What would be good choices in older Canons, or others?
Easy access to ring adapters may be a factor?

As I am new to the forum, I wonder if there is a subforum for tinkerers here?

 

[Kino]

Nikon D200. Access to the F mount and AF Nikon lens line. Controls largely like last gen film cameras.

My 2 cents...

 

[jim10219]

Since you're wanting to play with odd lenses, maybe look at a rangefinder. Maybe even a micro 4/3 like a Panasonic Lumix. DSLR's have the flange out further to accommodate for the mirror. You can always pull the lens further out with some extension tubes, but you can't set the lens further in if there's a mirror in the way. Something like the Panasonic Lumix will give you a very short flange focal distance which you might find useful, and it has a very small sensor, which can also be an issue with some makeshift lenses that won't cover a full sized frame. That's especially useful for things like 16mm movie projector lenses, which won't work at all in a DSLR.

Having said all of that, it mostly just depends on your budget, what you like, and what you can find used. If you have a specific lens in mind that you wish to use, you might base your decision on that. If you're just wanting to play around, you might consider a camera body that also works well with any current lenses you already own.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I'm a big nikon fan but... I think the first gen Sony A7 is the right camera for this. For what you described, a mirrorless makes a lot of sense, these are fairly cheap and work great for mounting all kinds of oddball stuff on. There are a zillion types of cheap E-mount adapters + they have a really good sensor. I have one I use for this and highly recommend it. If the full frame A7 is outside of your budget, the APSC models would also be a good option, just would obviously be limited by their smaller sensor, which for closeup work might not be an issue.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'm a big nikon fan but... I think the first gen Sony A7 is the right camera for this. For what you described, a mirrorless makes a lot of sense, these are fairly cheap and work great for mounting all kinds of oddball stuff on. There are a zillion types of cheap E-mount adapters + they have a really good sensor. I have one I use for this and highly recommend it. If the full frame A7 is outside of your budget, the APSC models would also be a good option, just would obviously be limited by their smaller sensor, which for closeup work might not be an issue.

B&H still sells new A7 but they sell it for the same price as the A7 II. However, I think an old one would be fairly inexpensive.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use a Sony 3000 E body, have adapters for M42, Miranda, Konica, and I use with a M42 bellows and extension tubes. Payed around $100 for it. The EVF is nothing to write home about, still works. 20 MP sensor, easy to print up to 11X14.

 

[4season]

Do you need the lenses to focus to infinity? If so, mirrorless is king, and Sony's A6000 is one of the best bargains out there, especially if you can score a refurbished unit from the likes of Secondipidy (~$350 with lens). If your budget allows, Sony A7 and A7 Mk II may be even better for the task due to full-frame coverage.

If you have your heart set on an SLR, I think Canon 5D Mk II would be a great buy - I had a sub-$300 unit in my hands, maybe should have taken it? EF-mount has one of the shortest flange-to-focal-plane distances of any DSLR, and that's exactly what you want when you plan to adapt other lenses to fit, and I think it's why this lens enthusiast chose it:
http://www.ksmt.com

 

[jay moussy]

helpful answers, but I think my direction is more like Kino's idea post #2
No modern lenses here, few legacy Canon and Nikon ones for film bodies, which is why I need any old DSLR body to graft whatever I may fancy.
This is a tinker about project.

EDIT: Ah the Sony idea has potential!

 

[jim10219]

helpful answers, but I think my direction is more like Kino's idea post #2
No modern lenses here, few legacy Canon and Nikon ones for film bodies, which is why I need any old DSLR body to graft whatever I may fancy.
This is a tinker about project.

EDIT: Ah the Sony idea has potential!

If you're deciding between the Canon and Nikon, go with Canon. The reason being is that Nikon has a longer flange distance than any of the other major companies when it comes to DSLR's. This means that Nikon lenses are a lot easier to use on other brand's bodies with simple adapters, but other brand's lenses won't work on Nikon bodies without using an adapter with a corrective focal element (and still allow you to focus far off). Since these adapters have additional lenses in them, they are both more expensive, and degrade the image quality.

That again is the reason why rangefinder or mirrorless digital is the way to go. The Sony A7 line of cameras is a great option if you have the money. A lot of people choose these cameras specifically because they work so well with so many different lenses from so many different manufacturers.

 

[blockend]

If you're deciding between the Canon and Nikon, go with Canon.

Bear in mind Canon manual lenses cannot be used on Canon DSLR bodies*. Frankly, old lenses are easier to use on mirrorless bodies because of the readout and mount flexibility, though old DSLRs are often less expensive.

*with a plain non-optical adapter.

 

[MattKing]

Bear in mind Canon manual lenses cannot be used on Canon DSLR bodies*

By this, I assume blockend means that the older Canon FD or FL mount lenses cannot be used on Canon DSLR bodies.

 

[foveon_m]

I´m a long time Nikon user and long time ago I have had a D200 and I loved it, it`s a real good body, but for playing the long flange isn`t helpfull, mirrorless is much more versatile,

 

[Paul Howell]

Pentax and Nikon did not change their basic design of their lens mounts, any K mount will work on a Pentax DSLR and any F lens with mount on a Nikon DSLR, but lens did evolve in terms of how the lens electronics and how the aperture is set. Some DSLR bodies will work with all lens, others are crippled and will only work with newer AF lens. Canon and Minolta changed mounts and flange distance with their AF bodies. Olympus developed a new mount for it's DSLR cameras as well. My guess is in terms of a DSLR a Pentax body will be more adaptable as you can use F and M42 lens. But nowhere the range of adapters available for a Sony E body.

 

[blockend]

By this, I assume blockend means that the older Canon FD or FL mount lenses cannot be used on Canon DSLR bodies.

Correct. The flange distance is slightly shorter than others. Minolta MD is another SLR mount that doesn't readily fit DSLRs without an optical adapter. From memory pretty much everything else is adaptable. Some people use cheap glass adapters, but I've never been impressed by the results. There is the original Canon FD to EOS adapter that sells for silly money, but the world is awash with film era glass so it isn't necessary. If I had a collection of FD or FL lenses I would go the mirrorless camera route.

 

[blockend]

Something like the Panasonic Lumix will give you a very short flange focal distance which you might find useful, and it has a very small sensor, which can also be an issue with some makeshift lenses that won't cover a full sized frame. That's especially useful for things like 16mm movie projector lenses, which won't work at all in a DSLR.

Absolutely. Manufacturers like Kern Paillard and Angenieux produced exquisite C-mount lenses that were more or less redundant since the demise of 16mm movie cameras. These could be bought cheaply a few years ago, usually attached to a Bolex camera and are still very reasonable. Also Olympus half frame lenses.

The downside of M4/3 is focal lengths have to be doubled, the upside is the optimum part of larger format lenses is used.

 

[MattKing]

The downside of M4/3 is focal lengths have to be doubled,

Which is an upside if you are into bird photography or anything else that benefits from longer lenses/narrower fields of view.
Being a fan of lenses tending to wider fields of view, I'm slightly disadvantaged by my M 4/3 choice, but I persevere .

 

[jim10219]

Pentax and Nikon did not change their basic design of their lens mounts, any K mount will work on a Pentax DSLR and any F lens with mount on a Nikon DSLR, but lens did evolve in terms of how the lens electronics and how the aperture is set. Some DSLR bodies will work with all lens, others are crippled and will only work with newer AF lens. Canon and Minolta changed mounts and flange distance with their AF bodies. Olympus developed a new mount for it's DSLR cameras as well. My guess is in terms of a DSLR a Pentax body will be more adaptable as you can use F and M42 lens. But nowhere the range of adapters available for a Sony E body.

Kind of. I'm not sure about the Pentax, but I bet you're right there. I haven't heard of any complaints there.

The Nikons, however, have some small caveats to consider. The older pre-ai ones may not fit on some DSLR's. Usually it's the more expensive bodies that have this issue. The lenses can be modified to fit, but it requires a bit of work like filing away parts on the rear of the lens. Also, the newest Nikon lenses, the AF-P, won't work with the older digital or film bodies. The switch to toggle between auto and manual has to be controlled within the camera body's software, and if the camera doesn't have that option, then it's stuck in autofocus, only the camera can't use the newest form of autofocus, making it a lens that can't be focused. That might be less of an issue for the OP though. Beyond that, there are often issues with exposure indexing and autofocus, but they won't make a lens unusable, just more difficult to use. Things like trying to focus a plastic AF-S lens with a shallow depth of field using manual focus only can be very difficult, especially with a touchy plastic focus ring that doesn't like to stay put or turn smoothly.

 

[blockend]

Which is an upside if you are into bird photography or anything else that benefits from longer lenses/narrower fields of view.
Being a fan of lenses tending to wider fields of view, I'm slightly disadvantaged by my M 4/3 choice, but I persevere .

True. Honestly, I've found the cheapest M4/3 kit zoom outperforms any of my old glass for sharpness and resolution. The benefit of heritage glass is for portraits, long telephoto work and video where absolute resolution is not an issue at 4k/8mp. Depending on the digital format old lenses can also fill an expensive focal length gap, for example a 75mm APS-C or 100mm M4/3 lens can be "made" from a vanilla 50mm f1.4.

 

[Devin@RFCo]

Canon 20D (65$ or less)