Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Vintage vs New, Digital vs Film, Crisis..
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Since you have Nikon SLR bodies, I assume that most of your lenses will fit Nikon?

It sounds like you WANT to use MF lenses, and you want to learn your craft as a photographer...... but you really don't want to process your own film. Is this true?

So I suggest you use your MF lenses on a DSLR (or mirrorless) in full Manual mode, and turn off auto ISO. This way, you have to manually focus, select shutter and aperture yourself.



Then all you have to do is select the camera.

- A Nikon FF DSLR will allow you to use your MF Nikon lenses (except for Pre AI).
- A Canon FF DSLR will allow you to use MF Nikon (including Pre AI), Olympus, M42, via an adapter. (and Canon AF lenses in MF mode)
- A Sony A7 (which is FF) will allow you to use just about any MF lens: Nikon, Canon FD, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta (both MF & AF used as MF), M42, Konica, Zeiss, etc....


Manual Focusing.
You need some help with this, as a standard DSLR will not give you enough viewfinder for accurate MF. You can:

- Use "liveview" as a focusing aid.
- On a Canon DSLR, you can buy an adapter with a chip that gives a beep when it is focused. You can adjust front/back focus on the good ones.
- On the DSLRs, you can get an after market split screen ground glass focusing screen. In this way, you can even focus like an old film SLR.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dnas wrote:
Since you have Nikon SLR bodies, I assume that most of your lenses will fit Nikon?

It sounds like you WANT to use MF lenses, and you want to learn your craft as a photographer...... but you really don't want to process your own film. Is this true?


I already use MF lenses for 90% of my shots and I use full Manual mode setting up everything myself. I rarely use any thing else. This isn't about wanting to use MF lenses as I do that already. The initial post was about GAS and the tug between collector and photographer. It would be easier if there weren't family members reguarly going - hey you got way too many lenses! That triggers my practical side who starts thinking of downgrading and how much these lenses I enjoyed buying is sitting here collecting dust. I believe there has been some solid advice here and I gotta just make a decision and go with it - one that I can live with without acting out of guilt that I bought so many lenses.

The issue with film is that there is no place here that I can easily take my films to develop and I don't even know where to buy the chemicals to develop them myself. It is a case of being a foreigner in a foreign land. It would be much easier if I was back in Canada. Yet, I still WANT to shoot film, but with all the obstacles my way, my practical side is just saying why not just sell your gear and just use MF lenses on digital body.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cameras have always been fascinating bits of kit, with all their intricate mechanisms, but to be honest, before autofocus made things a bit more complicated, the camera body was actually the least important part of the equation. To get a high quality image, you needed to put a high quality lens in front of a high quality film emulsion, and anything from my lowly Praktica to the top end Nikon could do a similar job with the same film and a good lens. Sure top end cameras had lots of features to help take good pictures, but a camera like my Spotmatic F from the early 70s or my MTL3 (basically a ripoff of the Pentax) did 99% of what you needed a camera body to do. The viewfinder gave decent focus assist, and the metering was pretty accurate with practice. To get a real step up in quality, you didn't need a top SLR, you needed medium format - even a lowly twin lens reflex could produce a higher quality image than a top SLR - just the laws of physics.

Now the camera body is more important, because the sensor is the film, and you can't change it. But in a way it is less important, because all sensors are pretty good and similar. A bit like the old Kodak vs Fuji argument, we have different sensors, but it is mostly Sony vs Canon. The truth is, that DSLRs have evolved for fast autofocus zooms, OVFs optimised for f2.8 lenses. If you are shooting manual primes, even Nikon primes, then mirrorless is the best way to go - where you can get a lot closer to actually seeing what you are shooting. Currently Sony is the only affordable game in the full frame town. If I didn't need auto focus I would sell my Nikon D600 tomorrow and switch to an A7 - it is tragic that I have a load of MF lenses that I can't use on this excellent sensor.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maldaye wrote:
I already use MF lenses for 90% of my shots and I use full Manual mode setting up everything myself. I rarely use any thing else. This isn't about wanting to use MF lenses as I do that already. The initial post was about GAS and the tug between collector and photographer. It would be easier if there weren't family members reguarly going - hey you got way too many lenses! That triggers my practical side who starts thinking of downgrading and how much these lenses I enjoyed buying is sitting here collecting dust. I believe there has been some solid advice here and I gotta just make a decision and go with it - one that I can live with without acting out of guilt that I bought so many lenses.

The issue with film is that there is no place here that I can easily take my films to develop and I don't even know where to buy the chemicals to develop them myself. It is a case of being a foreigner in a foreign land. It would be much easier if I was back in Canada. Yet, I still WANT to shoot film, but with all the obstacles my way, my practical side is just saying why not just sell your gear and just use MF lenses on digital body.


Film is fun, but a lot of work in processing and printing. I wouldn't go back there, though I shoot the odd reel for nostalgia (and send it off and get it scanned). If you want to spend your time creating images, digital is a miracle. If you want to spend your time playing with kit and chemicals, go ahead, but be prepared for frustration, and a lot fewer pictures at the end.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:

Film is fun, but a lot of work in processing and printing. I wouldn't go back there, though I shoot the odd reel for nostalgia (and send it off and get it scanned). If you want to spend your time creating images, digital is a miracle. If you want to spend your time playing with kit and chemicals, go ahead, but be prepared for frustration, and a lot fewer pictures at the end.


You were commenting about MF being a real step up from high end digital. Is it worth it to keep my Mamiya RZ PRO?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maldaye wrote:
philslizzy wrote:
Creating digital files from film is not the same as shooting digital. You have the opportunity to play with your cameras and keep them alive. Make prints from the negs or project your slides but enjoy using film.

We dont use film because its cheap or easy, we use film because we like the camera and the image quality it produces.

I suspect if there were ever a universal digital 'film' that fitted in ANY old camera the sales of advanced cameras would plummet. At least on this forum.

Enjoy your cams, perhaps try to theme your collection somehow.


Please explain this to me more. I did some development here in the Philippines and the quality of the prints looked like utter crap. Someone said it was the development lab issue. I can learn to develop it myself, I guess, but what is the exact benefit here compared to a D800 36MP lens. I get the camera part, because I get the MF lens part, so I am sure it would extend to a Camera type as well. However, you said image quality, and from what I understand high resultion digital is way better image quality than any film. I admit that I haven't seen high quality film print out (no counting mall lab development 10 years ago).


others have given good answers since my post. Look at film versus digital like vinyl versus CD. Film/vinyl has an organic feel to it, it is not digitised. This is the attraction. I'm sorry you have had bad results from your lab but it is unfair to compare your film results with your 36mp digital. Both are good but in their own way.

I suggest you forget film, not because it is in any way inferior, but because you seem happy with your digital images. MF lenses is all you need.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maldaye wrote:
You were commenting about MF being a real step up from high end digital. Is it worth it to keep my Mamiya RZ PRO?


Some places (Islands) in the UK ban cars, so if you love cars, and live there, you have to forget about motoring...well if using film is such a hassle then maybe it's best not to use it.
A medium format film camera is a great step up from 35mm film for colour\BW negatives and the general opinion is:- top 35mm digital gear is now equal to Medium format film....but maybe 35mm digital owners would agree that they would be hard pushed to equal the overall results compared to Medium format slide film.
Anyway is you have a hobby, then you don't mind spending money on something that you enjoy, so you could use your digital gear and just use a medium format camera (RZ) now and again and accept the expense of sending your film abroad for development, and with only 10 shots per roll of film can still get the satisfaction of getting a shot right 1st or 2nd time.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
maldaye wrote:
You were commenting about MF being a real step up from high end digital. Is it worth it to keep my Mamiya RZ PRO?


Some places (Islands) in the UK ban cars, so if you love cars, and live there, you have to forget about motoring...well if using film is such a hassle then maybe it's best not to use it.
A medium format film camera is a great step up from 35mm film for colour\BW negatives and the general opinion is:- top 35mm digital gear is now equal to Medium format film....but maybe 35mm digital owners would agree that they would be hard pushed to equal the overall results compared to Medium format slide film.
Anyway is you have a hobby, then you don't mind spending money on something that you enjoy, so you could use your digital gear and just use a medium format camera (RZ) now and again and accept the expense of sending your film abroad for development, and with only 10 shots per roll of film can still get the satisfaction of getting a shot right 1st or 2nd time.


Sound advice! Sadly, it came a bit late for I decided to sell my MF camera and have a buyer waiting. The RZ Pro is too much film camera for me. I am struggling with its controls and buttons and that ain't fun. On the flip side, I love love its viewfinder and the bellow focusing!

It may sound that I am harsh on film, but really I love the feel and handling of these cameras and gives me way more pleasure in taking pictures then digital. It is why I love manual lenses too.

What I decided to do is keep 1 film camera for now - maybe 2 - and just use these with my MF lenses. I'll try in the mean time to find either an accessable development lab or someone to teach me how to develop film. At which point, I can decide if it is worth it for me to upgrade or this was just a passing phase. If I decide I am in love with film then i'll skip the MF all together and go for LF. It would make more sense at that stage to get something beyond my digital for quality work.

I have a:

Nikon F3
Nikon EM
Nikon N2000
Canon QL
Bessa T

I realize 2 are range finders and 3 are old 35mm film, but from where I am standing I haven't shot a single roll with any of them. I don't know these cameras past reading about them. I can shoot a roll with each and get a feeling of it, which is worth tying. However, it isn't enough to make an informed full decision. So, my fellows, which one do you recommend for this film newbie as far as handling and ability to produce quality work. I know that I have a lot of MF lenses so a Nikon would make more sense, but if Bessa T is the way to go, I am happy to pick up lenses for it later.

Looking forward to your answers Smile


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maldaye wrote:


Sound advice! Sadly, it came a bit late for I decided to sell my MF camera and have a buyer waiting. The RZ Pro is too much film camera for me. I am struggling with its controls and buttons and that ain't fun. On the flip side, I love love its viewfinder and the bellow focusing!

It may sound that I am harsh on film, but really I love the feel and handling of these cameras and gives me way more pleasure in taking pictures then digital. It is why I love manual lenses too.

What I decided to do is keep 1 film camera for now - maybe 2 - and just use these with my MF lenses. I'll try in the mean time to find either an accessable development lab or someone to teach me how to develop film. At which point, I can decide if it is worth it for me to upgrade or this was just a passing phase. If I decide I am in love with film then i'll skip the MF all together and go for LF. It would make more sense at that stage to get something beyond my digital for quality work.

I have a:

Nikon F3
Nikon EM
Nikon N2000
Canon QL
Bessa T

I realize 2 are range finders and 3 are old 35mm film, but from where I am standing I haven't shot a single roll with any of them. I don't know these cameras past reading about them. I can shoot a roll with each and get a feeling of it, which is worth tying. However, it isn't enough to make an informed full decision. So, my fellows, which one do you recommend for this film newbie as far as handling and ability to produce quality work. I know that I have a lot of MF lenses so a Nikon would make more sense, but if Bessa T is the way to go, I am happy to pick up lenses for it later.

Looking forward to your answers Smile



Well if you want to use M42 lenses on a film camera then forget Nikon...


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
maldaye wrote:


Sound advice! Sadly, it came a bit late for I decided to sell my MF camera and have a buyer waiting. The RZ Pro is too much film camera for me. I am struggling with its controls and buttons and that ain't fun. On the flip side, I love love its viewfinder and the bellow focusing!

It may sound that I am harsh on film, but really I love the feel and handling of these cameras and gives me way more pleasure in taking pictures then digital. It is why I love manual lenses too.

What I decided to do is keep 1 film camera for now - maybe 2 - and just use these with my MF lenses. I'll try in the mean time to find either an accessable development lab or someone to teach me how to develop film. At which point, I can decide if it is worth it for me to upgrade or this was just a passing phase. If I decide I am in love with film then i'll skip the MF all together and go for LF. It would make more sense at that stage to get something beyond my digital for quality work.

I have a:

Nikon F3
Nikon EM
Nikon N2000
Canon QL
Bessa T

I realize 2 are range finders and 3 are old 35mm film, but from where I am standing I haven't shot a single roll with any of them. I don't know these cameras past reading about them. I can shoot a roll with each and get a feeling of it, which is worth tying. However, it isn't enough to make an informed full decision. So, my fellows, which one do you recommend for this film newbie as far as handling and ability to produce quality work. I know that I have a lot of MF lenses so a Nikon would make more sense, but if Bessa T is the way to go, I am happy to pick up lenses for it later.

Looking forward to your answers Smile



Well if you want to use M42 lenses on a film camera then forget Nikon...


True dat! I do use M42 lenses on my Nikon. I just don't focus to infinity, which is ok, I rarely need to for the style of shooting I do. Seriously, I am less worried about lens-to-camera fit and more about which of these bodies are worth keeping and which are eh whatever.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well my choice would be the F3.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maldaye wrote:
Basilisk wrote:

Film is fun, but a lot of work in processing and printing. I wouldn't go back there, though I shoot the odd reel for nostalgia (and send it off and get it scanned). If you want to spend your time creating images, digital is a miracle. If you want to spend your time playing with kit and chemicals, go ahead, but be prepared for frustration, and a lot fewer pictures at the end.


You were commenting about MF being a real step up from high end digital. Is it worth it to keep my Mamiya RZ PRO?


No - I said Medium Format was a real step up from 35mm film in pre-digital days. The evidence was that top studio photographers preferred it. Now they are nearly all shooting digital, and most are shooting DSLR. Is digital medium format better? Maybe, but it has become a very small expensive niche for benefits that are increasingly marginal.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:
maldaye wrote:
Basilisk wrote:

Film is fun, but a lot of work in processing and printing. I wouldn't go back there, though I shoot the odd reel for nostalgia (and send it off and get it scanned). If you want to spend your time creating images, digital is a miracle. If you want to spend your time playing with kit and chemicals, go ahead, but be prepared for frustration, and a lot fewer pictures at the end.


You were commenting about MF being a real step up from high end digital. Is it worth it to keep my Mamiya RZ PRO?


No - I said Medium Format was a real step up from 35mm film in pre-digital days. The evidence was that top studio photographers preferred it. Now they are nearly all shooting digital, and most are shooting DSLR. Is digital medium format better? Maybe, but it has become a very small expensive niche for benefits that are increasingly marginal.


What about large format? What are your thoughts on it?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Large format gives you - options. Like odd processes. These shot on photo paper.



Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2