film lenses on digi body

C

colpepper

Messages
655
Edit My Images
No
Despite announcing recently that a compact fulfils all my digital needs and film SLRs look after the creative stuff, I'm minded of the old adage that hypocrisy never goes out of fashion and am tempted by a digital SLR.

I have a selection of Nikon and Nikon fit lenses, mostly of the autofocus period with a few earlier manual ones. Is it worth buying a Nikon DSLR body to use them, will the camera function and what impact will the lenses have on the operation and image?
If it's a non-starter I may upgrade to a classier compact so don't hold back on the grief.
 
If you have old lenses then it maybe best to go to an FX format camera - they will work on the DX body but have a different effective focal length so it's worth taking that into account depnding on what type of photography you do?

You can pick them up second hand on here in the classifieds from time to time
 
they work great, but won't autofocus on the D40/40x/60/3000/5000, but every other nikon dslr will be good :)
 
I was thinking more of a boggo Nikon body as a digital 'back' to use the lenses on, rather than an expensive DSLR to explore creative potential. I still see film as the medium I like using most so it wouldn't be a big investment in digital, just an excuse not to flog the lenses when my last Nikon film body dies. Manual focus and lack of fancy exposure modes with my old lenses wouldn't be an issue but I'm unsure of focal length translation.
 
If you buy a non full frame Nikon body you will be adding 1.5x the 'magnification' to your final images. I've quoted 'magnification' because it's not really a magnification factor, but a crop factor, as the sensor is a crop of fullsize 35mm sensors/film.

So basically, 10mm becomes 15mm (etc), so your wide angles won't be so wide anymore, unless you invest in a full frame body...
 
Basically all Nikon digi bodies bar the D700/D3(s/x) have smaller sensors than a 35mm film image. Subsequently you generally multuiply the focal length by 1.5 to get an 'effective focal length'. Note that this new 'effective' length will act differently to the same effective lenth on FF/Film.

To utilise your lenses I would go for a Nikon D50/70. Both less than £180 and with AF motors.
 
Thanks for all the replies. One thing I'm not totally clear on:

Sam_G said:
Subsequently you generally multuiply the focal length by 1.5 to get an 'effective focal length'. Note that this new 'effective' length will act differently to the same effective lenth on FF/Film.
Click to expand...

Giving an example of a 28mm lens, the x1.5 formula turns it into a 42mm lens but surely a lens with elements designed for good wide angle resolution won't act so well as a widish standard lens? Is this what you mean by acting differently? I'm guessing standard to long lenses won't have the same issues.
 
You *are* only using the middle (good) bit of the glass remember, I would personally think that if it's good enough for full frame film it's certainly good enough for crop digital.
 
If I were you I would buy a nice secondhand Nikon D200. should set you back about £400 or if you really want to go cheap, try and find a nice D70s.
 
Trencheel you've answered my question. It's a crop issue, not a lens resolution issue. Cheers, I can live with that.

trencheel303 said:
If you buy a non full frame Nikon body you will be adding 1.5x the 'magnification' to your final images. I've quoted 'magnification' because it's not really a magnification factor, but a crop factor, as the sensor is a crop of fullsize 35mm sensors/film.

So basically, 10mm becomes 15mm (etc), so your wide angles won't be so wide anymore, unless you invest in a full frame body...
Click to expand...

Edit: thanks everyone else too, I'm up to speed I think. Will look for a D50/70.
 
Sadly, my D70 is off the market but even were it still there I would have steered you towards a D70s at least... as Ed says.
 
Be very careful! once I bought a digital body to use my Nikon 'film' lenses on, I never looked back.
 
This is probably an impossibly subjective question to answer but I'll pose it anyway. I don't intend to use digital for print purposes, just for screen/web sharing. Here's an image I took on holiday in Devon last week on a Canon A530, a very basic 5mp compact I use as an info gathering tool. Forget the photo content, the question is would I expect to get substantially higher resolution for web images using a DSLR or does a compact like the Canon max out what most computer screens show?

027.jpg
 
Well a DSLR may help you to get the horizon straight :p
 
I have a thing about wonky horizons. Don't tend to shoot with the sun over my left hand shoulder or use the golden section to compose either! It is a serious question though so I'll try one more piccie of a more conventional nature. If someone says it's lacking screen sharpness I'm happy to buy a DSLR, if not I might save my money, for a while at least.

010-1.jpg


BTW, I appreciate it may be perceived as thread drift but it's part of the same issue, though I appreciate my Nikon lenses will give me more range on a DSLR (as well as satisfying the spirit level horizon police!) Basically I have nothing to compare the compact to, digitally at least. A film and conventional board may not be the best place to ask the question either - sorry about that.
 
Unless I really want the resolution, I have a couple of film cameras (bw and colour) and an Ixus 50 5mp digital in my pocket... The D70, the 400D and the 10D seldom go out these days.
 
colpepper said:
I have a thing about wonky horizons. Don't tend to shoot with the sun over my left hand shoulder or use the golden section to compose either! It is a serious question though so I'll try one more piccie of a more conventional nature. If someone says it's lacking screen sharpness I'm happy to buy a DSLR, if not I might save my money, for a while at least.

010-1.jpg


BTW, I appreciate it may be perceived as thread drift but it's part of the same issue, though I appreciate my Nikon lenses will give me more range on a DSLR (as well as satisfying the spirit level horizon police!)
Click to expand...

I wouls suggest that although the image looks sharp at first glance, whan you really look at it (especially the edges) there is a loss of resolution in comparison to other shots.

The big differences between a compact and a DSLR are the sensor size, the quality of the glass and the exposure control, all of which can aid in getting a sharper more resolved image.

There are some reasonable compacts to be had, but a DSLR will usually out-resolve them just as a FF camera will usually out resolve an APS-C sensored camera.

As I do not have the original file or know your PP workflow it is difficult to say how sharp the image from your compact would be in relation to a DSLR image, but to give an example, look at this post, all the images of which were taken on a Sigma 12-24 EX DG (not renowned as the sharpest of lenses) mostly at 12mm and they all look to show much finer detail, even in the corners.

Sorry you were not impressed with my horizon quip!
 
Thanks again for the replies. The horizon thing wasn't taken to heart Ed, it's just that Quick Reply lacks smillies to season the response. I hadn't intended to turn the thread into a photo gallery as people inevitably look at the aesthetic qualities rather than the impression of sharpness.
Essentially I enjoy the process of film, the craft skill creative darkroom angle, but that doesn't blind me to the opportunities digital offers. As all my gear is getting on a bit and owes me nothing I'm faced with a choice, buy another Nikon film body as back up for my lenses and use the Canon for point and shoot, spend some more money on a quality compact because it'll show on screen, or go the whole hog and buy a DSLR body or two and new lenses?

The risk with the latter is I may miss the darkroom alchemy and blow a load of dosh on DSLRs that stay in their cases. I'm also aware I've been weaned off the SLR view by film rangefinders and compact viewfinders. Also mindful that I shoot most stuff (like Ambermile) on film or digi compacts these days and don't miss lugging the Billingham round like I did for 30 years.
Tricky stuff all round but I dare say I'm not the first facing the decision and won't be the last. Thank you for your indulgence.
 
Yeah Get an SLR, I can't even work out if that's a Specialized MTB in that picture or not! ;)

I'm lucky in that I use a Four Thirds Panasonic DMC-L1 and I can get converters to use most older lenses on this camera, OK it means manual focusing and stopping but I can use my older Nikon lenses and OM lenses on this one camera.
 
pepper said:
I'm lucky in that I use a Four Thirds Panasonic DMC-L1
Click to expand...

Just looked that up - nice camera! The price had me rummaging in the cupboard for my Lubitel. :crying:

Also found a Konica and Olympus compacts I'd forgotten I had.(y)
 
In fact I've just dropped a whole twelve pounds on a 4/3 converter this very evening, so I can use Leica R lenses on it too. So apart from Canon lenses I have OM, Nikon and Leica SLR lenses all covered with adaptors for less than £40 from good old Ebay.

Yes the crop factor on the Panasonic is more than the Nikons at X2 but the lenses are still amazing. I used a 85mm 1.8 AF D Nikon lens the other week on an old F5 but once I saw the results I just had to give it a go on digital and its like having a 170mm f1.8 lens! The stock 50mm 1.8 becomes 100mm on a 4/3 system so you get fantastic portrait lenses with lovely wide openings for relatively little money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top