Please provide a listing of which 35mm analog mounts can be employed for digital...

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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.

They remind me of hipsters. ;-)

 

[Yashinoff]

Use lenses on the cameras they were made for. /thread

 

[StoneNYC]

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 think it's that this is a film only forum, I recently was asking about film scanners and was shut down because scanning is not about film it's about computer which is digital, I would take this convo to the DPUG forum because its bound to be closed down soon anyway since its partially about digital cameras even if its about film lenses.

I don't like it either(these strange rules) but its how it is here. Also apparently DPUG is actually a Hybrid photo forum that IMHO was miss-named HPUG "h-pug" for Hybrid Photography Users Group or ADHPUG "add-pug" for Analog & Digital Hybrid Photography Users Group.

Anyway it's DPUG instead, but it's hybrid, this is perfect for their forum


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

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

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

* I still require one for the set.

 

[Yashinoff]

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.

They can use google.

Pretty much every mount that can be adapted has been adapted. Even Miranda and Icarex mounts. It would be a complete waste of time for anybody shooting film to complile a list, unless of course they own lenses in dozens of different mounts and are keen to profit on the recent fad.

How about this, if you have a lens and are curious if it will work on your digital camera - just look for an adapter. ​If one exists you will find it!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

Not neccesarily. Some of us don't even own a digital PHD camera.

 

[benjiboy]

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 ?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

PHD cameras, do they come with a doctorate built in now, as well as face recognition ?

PHD = "Push Here Dummy"

 

[benjiboy]

PHD = "Push Here Dummy"

I've never heard the expression before, it must be an Americanism.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've never heard the expression before, it must be an Americanism.

Or an Adirondackism. I don't remember where I first heard it, but it was well before the digital camera came on the scene. I have a Pentax IQ Zoom PHD film camera.

 

[elekm]

Regarding the original question, I think the list pretty much would be every lens mount ever produced, except for certain ones with electronic connections.

And this seems to be increasingly true of the Micro Four-Thirds and NEX mounts and the growing number of adapters for each.

 

[John cox]

Some lenses like those for the Braun Paxette which have leaf shutters probably can't be adapted to digital.

 

[wblynch]

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.

 

[Yashinoff]

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.

Is that so? :confused:

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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.

Darnit! I was getting some really nice images (or at least I thought so) with my NEX-6 using adapters for my Leica, Contax and Nikon glass. Now what am I gonna do?

 

[David Lyga]

I would love to see either strong confirmation or refutation on wblynch's comments. Is he correct or wrong here? Are, or are NOT, film lenses suitable for digital? No face-saving, no ego aggrandizemnt, just the facts for all to witness. - David Lyga

 

[wblynch]

It's well known that Leica wide angle lenses on micro 4/3 produce extreme smearing on the edges.

Even Leica digi's have software to correct distortions. That's why the lenses have to be machined with 'codes' for the digi computer to read and apply the corrections.

That's why digi's need firmware upgrades and the lenses need firmware upgrades too. To adjust the corrections. Non computerized lenses do not have firmware. Therefore, no corrections.

Because digi buckets can not capture light from an angle, their lenses are designed to straighten the light path to the capture device. This introduces bizarre distortions which, again, are corrected in software.

Smears or distortions. Choose your poison.

Chromic Aberrations are another problem.

Thank God film is still on this planet. No firmware required.

 

[Yashinoff]

Is that the lens's fault or the camera's though?

I would say that more elementary than that is that you lose most of the functionality of a lens when using an adapter, ie. diaphragm automation and meter coupling. I don't get why people will shell out $100+ on a vintage M42 lens which is neither as sharp nor as convenient as a modern kit lens. The prices I see people pay for some old lemons is amusing in a way.

 

[Halka]

Generally, wide rangefinder lenses on mirrorless digital bodies exhibit problems (excessive light falloff, even color shifts) due to sharper angles under which light hits the sensor. These are correctable in software (you have to generate a profile yourself, and then apply it to camera files), and several modern sensor models are advertised as built to accommodate this.

I've never heard of SLR lenses having similar problems. Perhaps the more invasive fisheye lenses that required mirror to be locked up.

As far as usability goes, it's not really that bad. Losing out on meter coupling doesn't matter that much, although you are pretty much stuck with A mode. If you'd rather set the exposure manually, you can just reshoot right then and there if you screw up. Yes, you have to stop down to shooting aperture manually (all adapters I've used keep the lens aperture stopped down to the value selected).

I agree with Yashinoff that the prices of old manual lenses have skyrocketed, but buying old glass is sometimes the only way for a digital user to get his hands on a decent glass without breaking the bank. Yes yes, if he didn't sign up for the 18 month digital programme he'd have the money, but baby steps, people After all, one of the reasons I've started shooting film was because I fell in love with my 50mm OM prime's aesthetics.

They just don't make them like they used to.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

Ditto for me, except I use Canon gear, and Iv'e had most of it so long I can't remember what it cost.