Discussion in 'Equipment' started by Mustafa Umut Sarac, Jul 20, 2014.

Digital Lens on Film Camera , Film lens on Digital Camera

Digital Lens on Film Camera , Film lens on Digital Camera

  1. Mustafa Umut Sarac

    Mustafa Umut Sarac Member

    Messages:
    4,521
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    İstanbul
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Mustafa Umut Sarac submitted a new resource:

    Digital Lens on Film Camera , Film lens on Digital Camera - Digital Lens on Film Camera , Film lens on Digital Camera

    Read more about this resource...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2016
  2. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,120
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't worry about such matters because I only use Canon FD cameras and lenses.
     
  3. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,116
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    i use nikon lenses on a dig camera, both digital and analog and never noticed a difference
     
  4. analoguey

    analoguey Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Location:
    Bangalore, I
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh Hogwash!
    Also, the comparison is what between 2 or 3 lenses? Every system currently has at least twice that number. One could spend a lifetime comparing, if there was to be a "generalisation".

    Also, What you are suggesting is very local to cameras without AA filters? (is it?) If so - wouldn't it mean that all current MFDBs attached to older cameras (V series, etc.,) would be out of whack?

    One of the better things about the Nikon system (SLR, not mirrorless) is that you have compatibility for most things right back from somewhere in the 60s to now (at least mechanically).
    I have used a current Dx "G" lens on a Mechanical Nikon and images came out fine - incidentally I shot them all at f22 cos it's a "Gelded" lens.
    Have also used the 50 f1.4 AI on then current D90 and it sparkles.
     
  5. snapguy

    snapguy Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2014
    Location:
    California d
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Nikon

    But Nikon cameras and Nikon lenses. Step up to the good stuff.
     
  6. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,116
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    meh,, nikon seems to work fine for me

    tomAtoe-- tomahtoe :wink:

    btw ...

    the arguments that the plane of focus will be off
    is the same stuff that i always heard and was warned about
    when i was told NOT TO use my normal graflex 23 roll film adapter
    on the back of my graflex series d slr.
    so i put it on ( used black masking tape ) and took a few rolls, wide open
    with my tessar 21cm f3.8 ... focus sharp as a tack.
    people just like to claim stuff and once in a while i turns out not to be true...
     
  7. ambaker

    ambaker Subscriber

    Messages:
    662
    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Location:
    Missouri, US
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The whole thing seems a bit off to me. Adapters vary in equality, and fit.

    At the same time is every sensor, from a given camera maker, equipped with the same thickness and quality of glass in the stack?

    Did Nikon and Canon lock themselves into a set filter thickness/composition for all time and eternity?

    It would be interesting to know if filter stack thickness has changed as sensors have evolved?

    Then again, what about emulsion thickness? Which is optimal?

    Or, are the differences too small to matter?
     
  8. Poisson Du Jour

    Poisson Du Jour Member

    Messages:
    3,941
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    ɹǝpunuʍop. F
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Erm... what??
    More likely (only as a possibility) it is chromatic aberration, not spherical. But infrared?? I don't think so.
    No, I don't believe the "decrease in MTF of 20%". How is this qualified, and in what specific circumstances?
    Articles like this are very generalised, vague and wordy. This should be better researched, published, subject to peer review, analysis and proof, and then cited. Some of us are not easily taken in by bald statements. And is it important? If proven, it might be. For what it's worth, all of my analogue lenses are totally functional on digital bodies (old and newest) without problem because they are from the manufacturer, not a third party — and that is where many lenses do give problems with bodies, especially digital (the marques do not licence metering and AF algorithms to third parties). And no, I don't have a digital to take those lenses because I do not use digital for my production (and never will).
     
  9. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,932
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Same here.

    Jeff
     
  10. fotch

    fotch Member

    Messages:
    4,821
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Location:
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ditto, never a problem.
     
  11. Terry Christian

    Terry Christian Subscriber

    Messages:
    690
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Okay, so the planes of focus could theoretically be off. But there's this thing called depth of field. We're all not using f/ <1 lenses for the OMGbokeh.
     
  12. Dan Fromm

    Dan Fromm Member

    Messages:
    3,979
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2014
  13. wiltw

    wiltw Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,071
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Location:
    SF Bay area
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    So every lens made by Nikon and Canon to fit their film cameras since the 1990s is NOT well optimized for use on Nikon or Canon digital cameras...so both manufacturers will have to formulate a digital line of lenses which is well differentiated from their film line of lenses, contrary to all their past claims (and everybody else's) that the same lens can be used on film and digital cameras!

    Wow, I perceive a massive increase in the bottom line of both companies once this revealing information gets widespread by them...their new lines of lenses (digital only) will go thru the roof in sales!!!

    (not) Maybe a massive plunge in their stock value (and the whole industry) due to the massive hoax that has been perpetuated for over ten years.
     
  14. k.hendrik

    k.hendrik Subscriber

    Messages:
    422
    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherla
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  15. naeroscatu

    naeroscatu Subscriber

    Messages:
    858
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Newmarket On
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I even attached my 50mm Zeiss Distagon from the Hasselblad to the Nikon D600 and it works beautifully. Yes, the focus works from very close to infinity. I would not carry that combo with me on a trip but I made the experiment just because I had the adaptor:smile:
     
  16. Richard S. (rich815)

    Richard S. (rich815) Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,800
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What was that old adage? In theory bumble bees cannot fly. But they go ahead and do anyway..
     
  17. Richard S. (rich815)

    Richard S. (rich815) Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,800
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have a Hasselblad to Contax/Yashica adapter. Also have a C/Y to NEX adapter. Stacking both I've used all my Hasselblad lenses on my NEX-6 and see no issues...
     
  18. Old-N-Feeble

    Old-N-Feeble Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,895
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Location:
    My wife give
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm assuming the "digital" designation of most lenses is mostly for marketing purposes. The one exception I can think of is wide lenses with a longer lens-to-sensor (or film) distance. This straightens the light path... to which digital sensors are more sensitive than film. I'd think normal and long apo or nearly apo lenses are effectively no different digital vs analog.
     
  19. analoguey

    analoguey Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Location:
    Bangalore, I
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  20. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,970
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The scientists change their mind. Apparently they can fly now!


    Steve.
     
  21. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,887
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Sensor stack size does matter, and I do use film lenses on my GH2 (micro four thirds), most lenses I use perform well, though who knows if they are performing as well as they can be. But most good lenses I have I can get to clearly out resolve the sensor which is over 130 lp/mm, and start mosaicing/aliasing badly on lines with a higher frequency than the sensor limit.
     
  22. digital&film

    digital&film Subscriber

    Messages:
    141
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Location:
    ny
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have used Soviet Era lenses, Carl Zeiss Jena, Nikon, Olympus, and Takumar lenses with digital camera (m4/3, APS-C) and I have gotten great results.

    My experiences have been to use Haze -or- Polarizers and a good quality adapter like Novoflex, and do test shots before.

    GX1 with Jupiter-9 85mm f2

    gx1.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2014
  23. dehk

    dehk Member

    Messages:
    891
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Location:
    W Michigan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My observations are: Put a "junk" lens on digital it makes it look decent. Put a "junk" lens on a film camera it's horrible.