Same vintage lenses for film vs digital.

[Chuck1]

so to cut to the chase (not trying to be rude-but probably am sorry about that) and for my specific purpose with a Nikon D3 and
D2x( bought for $100 solely to make my 80-200/2.8 into a max 280mm 2.8 lens and my $100 tamron 100-400 into a max 560mm/5.6_is it correct that the crop sensor effectively is a 1.4x teleconverter that doesn't reduce the light transmission), try to use designed for digital wide lenses with digital only but longer lenses are better options for the film/digital interchangeability.
and using a 4x5 to nikon F adapter (basically as one would have used polaroid) to visualize the look would be less than ideal with an old angulon 90/6.8 but much better suited to a modern APO schneider or rodenstock. (don't waste your money-to put it simply)
simple questions:
metering a scene with a digital camera for film exposure is less than optimal?
Is reciprocity failure similar or drastically different with film or digital?
I will research it and get out and try it for myself.
but this forum is a wealth of knowledge and I come here to learn. just want to keep the #of shutter actuations down

 

[bdial]

By not being compatible I meant they will suffer in terms of image quality to the digital format…!

My experience is that some do, and others don't. I tried out many of my film camera lenses on my Z mirrorless when I first got it. My 55 macro rivals any of it's newer brethren, others do ok, but not great in comparison to the digital oriented lenses. Two other stand outs are the Nikkor 180, and a Rollei 50 mm Planar, both are up to whatever level of pixel-peeping you want to do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
metering a scene with a digital camera for film exposure is less than optimal?
...

Why carry the extra weight and volume of an additional digital camera body? Invest in a good light meter instead. For example the Sekonic L-308s.

 

[Nikon 2]

Why carry the extra weight and volume of an additional digital camera body? Invest in a good light meter instead. For example the Sekonic L-308s.

I carry my iPhone with the myLightMeter pro…!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I carry my iPhone with the myLightMeter pro…!

Better than carrying an extra digital camera only to be used as a light meter.

 

[Chuck1]

I am trying to save weight by not carrying the good light meter

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am trying to save weight by not carrying the good light meter

So you would rather carry a bad light meter? Good to know.

 

[Chuck1]

so you do recommend carrying and using a light meter that was designed for film and further modified by an expert to get the best results?
thank you

 

[Nikon 2]

Better than carrying an extra digital camera only to be used as a light meter.

 

[Nikon 2]

so you do recommend carrying and using a light meter that was designed for film and further modified by an expert to get the best results?
thank you

Yes, the myLightMeter pro…!

 

[Nikon 2]

so you do recommend carrying and using a light meter that was designed for film and further modified by an expert to get the best results?
thank you

 

[Nikon 2]

Try this…!

 

[Pieter12]

Is reciprocity failure similar or drastically different with film or digital?

Digital does not suffer from reciprocity failure. Long exposures can be noisy, most modern digital cameras compensate for the with an additional noise exposure.

And I have never had any problems using an accurate light meter from the analog days to determine exposure for a digital shot. The advantage of digital is you can make minor (well, major too) tweaks to the exposure on the spot after reviewing the image and histogram.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Have you tried a DSLR on a 4x5” camera? It doesn’t work well with wide lenses, at least not at infinity, because the adapter, mirror box, and shutter all set the sensor back from the film plane. Then the sensor area is only what it is, so you won’t see the whole 4x5” image in the DSLR. You can slide and stitch, but you won’t get the whole 4x5” frame with a DSLR, because the adapter will vignette as you move away from the lens axis. You can get more with a mirrorless camera, and it works best with tabletop still life, so that the lighting is consistent and the subject doesn’t move.

You’ll still have to calculate reciprocity, whether you use an external meter or a DSLR. It’s not as if meters are “designed for film” or “designed for digital”—they’re designed to measure light. If you meter using a DSLR or a meter like Sinar used to make to measure exposure at the film plane, it automatically accounts for bellows factor and filter factor, but not reciprocity, which depends on the film you are using.

 

[Pieter12]

Have you tried a DSLR on a 4x5” camera? It doesn’t work well with wide lenses, at least not at infinity, because the adapter, mirror box, and shutter all set the sensor back from the film plane.

A mirrorless body suffers a bit less because the sensor can be closer to the view camera back plane.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There is the assumption that a vintage lens reviewed through a digital camera would not review as good if reviewed through a film camera, the one the lens was designed for.
Does film allow a vintage lens to show more potential than the same lens used on a digital camera…?

we should wait for Noma Duda (?) to answer this question), for my part, I'm using my old nickel lenses on the new digital cameras without any problem.

 

[Nikon 2]

we should wait for Noma Duda (?) to answer this question), for my part, I'm using my old nickel lenses on the new digital cameras without any problem.

So far we discussed how film was made for the vintage lenses before digital. I still feel digital sensors receive light differently than film which causes problems for the vintage lens. The vintage lens used with film was designed for that medium. The vintage lens was not designed for digital and when used with digital the flaws in the vintage lens are made more noticeable. The flaws are much less noticeable with film…!

 

[reddesert]

Technically: Digital detectors are more sensitive to light incident perpendicular to the sensor plane, so light coming in at a strong off-axis angle is less likely detected or may present color fringing. This is much less of an issue with film. However, this effect is unlikely to be significant with most SLR lenses/cameras due to the lens-sensor distance, and probably only really matters for non-retrofocus wide angles for RFs adapted to mirrorless cameras, or the odd example of trying to use a digital detector with a lot of tilt/swing.

Aesthetically: People write all sorts of stuff in lens reviews, and a lot of it has to do with their preconceptions. Many great photos have been taken with fairly humble lenses. And a lot of supposed issues with lens performance are addressed by stopping down to f/5.6-8. So don't get bent out of shape by lens reviews. If you want to use a lens, go ahead and try it regardless of whether some internet jockey reviewed it on a digital sensor or not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Better than carrying an extra digital camera only to be used as a light meter.

My micro 4/3 camera weighs and is sized about the same as my Minolta IVf Autometer (which I also have in my bag). The digital camera also provide histograms, blinkies and also can be used as a director's viewfinder and can store all my field notes in video mode recording the scene as well. Quite a tool.

 

[Pieter12]

My micro 4/3 camera weighs and is sized about the same as my Minolta IVf Autometer (which I also have in my bag). The digital camera also provide histograms, blinkies and also can be used as a director's viewfinder and can store all my field notes in video mode recording the scene as well. Quite a tool.

That’s a tiny camera. And lightweight, too. I think the Minolta meter comes in a bit over 4 oz.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That’s a tiny camera. And lightweight, too. I think the Minolta meter comes in a bit over 4 oz.

Sorry I have the Minolta IIIf Autometer not the IVf. It weighs about 7 ounces with the battery and 10 degree spot attachment. It measures 5 3/16 x 2 11/16 x 1 1/4" My Olympus E-PL1 weighs around 1 pound about twice the meter. It's 4 1/2 x 2.8 x 1.6" (when shut off) about the same size. I have neck straps on both.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Note that the camera provides spot metering to about 2-3 degrees in additional to matrix and center weighted.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

exclusively working with Nikon vintage lenses on Nikon digital cameras, I've simply never experienced any of the loans not performing well, digital cameras.

 

[Nikon 2]

Technically: Digital detectors are more sensitive to light incident perpendicular to the sensor plane, so light coming in at a strong off-axis angle is less likely detected or may present color fringing. This is much less of an issue with film. However, this effect is unlikely to be significant with most SLR lenses/cameras due to the lens-sensor distance, and probably only really matters for non-retrofocus wide angles for RFs adapted to mirrorless cameras, or the odd example of trying to use a digital detector with a lot of tilt/swing.

Aesthetically: People write all sorts of stuff in lens reviews, and a lot of it has to do with their preconceptions. Many great photos have been taken with fairly humble lenses. And a lot of supposed issues with lens performance are addressed by stopping down to f/5.6-8. So don't get bent out of shape by lens reviews. If you want to use a lens, go ahead and try it regardless of whether some internet jockey reviewed it on a digital sensor or not.

 

[juan]

exclusively working with Nikon vintage lenses on Nikon digital cameras, I've simply never experienced any of the loans not performing well, digital cameras.

I find the same. All of my old Nikon lenses are now AI or AI’d, and I like the look of them better than I like the newer glass. I’ve also got a few old M42 lenses and a Nikon adapter, and while they will not focus at infinity, I get some nice exposures with them. But then, I not obsessed with sharpness and like softer colors. Perhaps it’s where I live as most things are green, grey, or brown with high SBRs.