They remind me of hipsters. ;-)
Agreed. It explains why some lenses are getting stupidly expensive while others can barely be given away.
The subject heading is perfectly clear. If you don't want to read about it then just skip over it. No need to post negative one-liners.
Agreed. It explains why some lenses are getting stupidly expensive while others can barely be given away.
The subject heading is perfectly clear. If you don't want to read about it then just skip over it. No need to post negative one-liners.
I wouldn't bet on that, word gets round on the internet pretty quickly. There aren't many really high quality lenses still available that don't attract stellar prices but there are one or two makes. DSLR using videographers are the main culprits for bumping prices because most prefer manual focus for the lack motor noise. One (nameless*) brand has seen 28mm lenses rise in the last six months from £25-30 to £80-90 and I've seen one selling for £200 this week. It seems a legitimate topic for inquiry, if just to show film users why their favourite glass has just gone through the roof.In other words, those that know ONLY digital could not possibly be expected to know the various lens mounts that us older folks grew up with.
Since we are discussing using lenses made for analog cameras for use on digital cameras EITHER forum can be considered to be proper for this thread. I could say something very impolite about posters who take it upon themselves to do the job of the monitors. But ENOUGH ALREADY and let's get back to the question of the OP.
While I am certainly 'available' to be criticized for posting upon the 'wrong' forum I did think carefully about the venue before creating this thread.
I honestly thought that people used to film lenses would be in the BEST position to determine which mounts go onto digital cameras. Reason: because the vast majority of film users segued INTO digital (and not the other way around). In other words, those that know ONLY digital could not possibly be expected to know the various lens mounts that us older folks grew up with. That was my reasoning but I am, again, certainly open to re-assessment. - David Lyga
PHD cameras, do they come with a doctorate built in now, as well as face recognition ?Not neccesarily. Some of us don't even own a digital PHD camera.
PHD cameras, do they come with a doctorate built in now, as well as face recognition ?
I've never heard the expression before, it must be an Americanism.PHD = "Push Here Dummy"
I've never heard the expression before, it must be an Americanism.
Olympus OM lenses suck on digital cameras. Better leave them alone for the film users.
Digi's have software to correct distortions and misshapen images because they are inferior to film and need that stuff to make a reasonable image. When you substitute 'legacy' lenses for the electronic ones, all the correction is lost and you get worse junk than the junk you normally get from a digi.
So, stay away from film lenses on digi's and kid yourself into thinking that computer generated junk is a real picture.
Olympus OM lenses suck on digital cameras. Better leave them alone for the film users.
Digi's have software to correct distortions and misshapen images because they are inferior to film and need that stuff to make a reasonable image. When you substitute 'legacy' lenses for the electronic ones, all the correction is lost and you get worse junk than the junk you normally get from a digi.
So, stay away from film lenses on digi's and kid yourself into thinking that computer generated junk is a real picture.
As a late adopter of digital technology two things struck me. One was how convenient digital is in a screen sharing environment, the other was how mediocre DSLR images are compared to medium and large film formats. Even 35mm that has to be scanned on a sub-optimum interface comes close to digital quality. DSLR fans rave about lenses costing thousands of pounds that are barely superior to equivalents that can be picked up for less than a hundred, in spite of another thirty or forty years technological development. Except for specific applications, it's easier to use film through the medium it was designed for.
I agree.
I looked in to what it would cost to replace my 35mm gear ( Nikon ca. 1970, two bodies, six lenses + acc) with digital gear of comparable quality; cameras, prime lenses, computer and software plus a high quality printer.
I have about $500 tied up in the Nikon stuff, I could buy a new small car with what it would cost to buy digital gear - which would never last as long as the Nikons, either.
Except as a pocketable P&S to use at social occasions and generally keep handy as a documenting / recording tool, digital holds absolutely no allure for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?