Lenses for a Nikon F5

[CGW]

Not sure about the technology, but it sounds like the claims of being "whiter than white"

Difference is, this actually delivers. Impressive results with MF lenses via adapters with these and M4/3 cameras. Seems to be driving up the price of old fast primes, too.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Difference is, this actually delivers. Impressive results with MF lenses via adapters with these and M4/3 cameras. Seems to be driving up the price of old fast primes, too.

I realize that this is getting seriously OT, but...

While I can't speak for the Sony cameras, I do (also) extensively use a M4/3, with the primes I've had for years/decades.

First, the existing M4/3 cameras use a different and more accurate (albeit somewhat slower) AF method than the vast majority of (D)SLRs. In fact, in the test I previously mentioned, a M4/3 camera had the most accurate focusing results of all the cameras tested.

That said, manual focusing on my M4/3 viewfinder (not rear LCD) doesn't even come close to manual focusing with a *good* optical viewfinder/screen combination. Better than expected, yes, but the majority of my film cameras will reliably focus more accurately.

 

[CGW]

I realize that this is getting seriously OT, but...

While I can't speak for the Sony cameras, I do (also) extensively use a M4/3, with the primes I've had for years/decades.

First, the existing M4/3 cameras use a different and more accurate (albeit somewhat slower) AF method than the vast majority of (D)SLRs. In fact, in the test I previously mentioned, a M4/3 camera had the most accurate focusing results of all the cameras tested.

That said, manual focusing on my M4/3 viewfinder (not rear LCD) doesn't even come close to manual focusing with a *good* optical viewfinder/screen combination. Better than expected, yes, but the majority of my film cameras will reliably focus more accurately.

So stick with them. Manual focus optics will make up the long tail of film equipment, not the bodies. OLED finders will probably be common in a few years on most DSLRs if Sony's new A77 is any indication. These combined with colored focus peaking displays might be what ends the discussion regarding focus accuracy with manual lenses.

 

[jp498]

The ability of AF to deliver accurate focusing v MF is interesting. When sports photographers used analogue cameras, such as the F5, my impression was that nearly all the pics they took were in focus. If it was less than 50% then the photographers were wasting 50% of their films and presumably the hight burst rate of shooting that the F5 was capable of would not have helped.

pentaxuser

The pro nikons had an excellent and advanced focusing system that was basically transplanted into their pro digital bodies. However, much film is wasted shooting sports.

Sports photographers who adopted AF efficiently were those who came from a manual focus background and were accustomed to techniques that were proven to get more infocus shots. I used to shoot sports mostly manual focus and started a little bit of AF with the f4s, but it wasn't up to the grade the F5 AF provides. You'd learn the sport and players well enough to predict when they'd be making a move and you'd be prefocused for that. For basketball, soccer, or football, follow a player instead of the action for a bit and they will follow relatively predictable patterns that you can focus easily. I.e. in basketball, a defender will be paired up against an opponent and after a turnover or two you can figure out who's ordered to be on who. For track, pre-focus where someone will be at their peak in a long jump or focus on a marker on the track they will be running past or for long distance relays, they use the same point of handoff.

 

[pollux]

I would get a 20-35mm f2.8D which replaces lots of primes. Also a 35-70mm f2.8

 

[djacobox372]

I too would suggest a f100 over an f5, they cost half as much and are lighter and more refined (af points that u can actually see!).

However the f5 is a sexy beast and i cant blame u for going with it. Same is true for the f4.