Really stupid question from a complete ignoramus

MarkydeSad

MarkydeSad

Messages
573
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I have a Sony A200 and a couple of Sigma lenses to go with it

If (and it's a BIG if) I were to get a Nikon D300, is there some sort of a converter I could buy so that my Sony-fit lenses would then fit on the D300?

Please excuse my stupidity, but I am from Bolton.....:help:
 
That's why it is so important to consider the brand 'system' before you buy a D-SLR. And why the smart money goes on Canon or Nikon ;)

But the sooner you bite the bullet, the less the pain. D300 is worth a bit of pain :LOL:

Richard.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's why it is so important to consider the brand 'system' before you buy a D-SLR. And why the smart money goes on Canon or Nikon ;)

But the sooner you bite the bullet, the less the pain. D300 is worth a bit of pain :LOL:

Richard.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong there, mate - on both counts! :D

Having spent many hours looking at many, many cameras, the D300 is my number one choice at the moment. The Nikon has come a-nokin, as it were ;)
 
Can't help you with that, but I just listened to your stuff on myspace - really good. I (like you by the looks of it) am a massive Beatles fan, especially John, and your voice has a ring of him about it.

Or maybe you're just doubling your vox and using the same room verb that he used to ? Either way, top stuff.

I do a bit of writing and recording myself, but I realised this morning that I didn't write a single song in 2008 ! And now that the photography bug has bitten me, I probably won't in 2009 either :bonk:
 
Lasagne said:
Can't help you with that, but I just listened to your stuff on myspace - really good. I (like you by the looks of it) am a massive Beatles fan, especially John, and your voice has a ring of him about it.

Or maybe you're just doubling your vox and using the same room verb that he used to ? Either way, top stuff.

I do a bit of writing and recording myself, but I realised this morning that I didn't write a single song in 2008 ! And now that the photography bug has bitten me, I probably won't in 2009 either :bonk:
Click to expand...

Thanks very much - you're very kind :)

Well fellow Beatles fan, I do tend to double-track my lead vocals. Gives 'em a bit more oomph! I haven't written anything for a while, either. Damn this bloody photography!!!!!!!!! :(:D
 
cyclone said:
You can do it the other way, it appears to meter aswell, if it's any good who knows?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290281911220&cguid=92dd0a1911e0a0aad4f14ae1ffd2c62e

You may find the correct way round if you do some digging.
Click to expand...
No you won't.

In order for an adapter to work, there are two factors. The first is the "registration distance", which is the distance from the lens mount to the sensor. The second is the "throat size", which is the diameter of the mount. For an adapter to slip in between the body and lens of differing manufacturers, the registration distance of the lens must be greater than the registration distance of the body; and the throat-size of the lens must be smaller than the throat size of the body.

The Sony/Minolta mount has a registration distance of 43.5mm and the Nikon mount has a registration distance of 46.5mm. So you can put a Nikon lens on a Sony body (with an adapter which is 3mm thick) but not the other way round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top