Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,860   Posts: 1,583,159   Online: 775
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    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?

  2. #42
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,250
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    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?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #43
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,347
    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

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    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.
    - Bill Lynch

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    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.

  6. #46
    Halka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SVK, EU
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    38
    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.
    Last edited by Halka; 12-13-2012 at 04:22 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    722
    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.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,662
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,183
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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.
    Ben

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin