My father just gave me his really old SLR from GDR times. The "Praktica MTL3" with 3 lenses. Is there anyway I can still use these really old lenses on newer digital SLR cameras?
Is there anyway I can still use these really old lenses on newer digital SLR cameras?
I doubt it. The way to connect a lens to a camera body has changed over the years, and become more proprietary (Nikon on Nikon, Canon on Canon), then it got standardized. That old one still is a simple screw on lens. Why not use that to take pictures? Film is still awesome.
Why not use that to take pictures? Film is still awesome.
I know, I love film. Still I can't afford to take all the pictures I want to take on film, especially when I'm just "experimenting" around. I was originally going to get a scanner for developed film, but decided to upgrade to a DSLR, since it offers a lot more possibilities as-well (and is easier to use).
Still I can't afford to take all the pictures I want to take on film
That's a very good reason, I had not thought about that. I think it's best if you just take one of those lenses to whatever local photography shop and ask them for the technical possibilities on reusing those old lenses on newer DSLR cameras. Though I highly doubt it is possible at all, never shot is always a miss.
I've used older lenses on the rebel with success, of course with no auto-focus and the in camera light measuring wasn't really spot on.
It all depends on the type of mounting bracket the lens has, there are some "Universal" converters that work on some 3rd party lenses, but are not as "Universal" as they claim.
The problem with a mirrorless camera is the fact that your rangefinder is a powered LCD, you depend on the quality of said LCD to frame the shots, focus, etc. Depending on your light conditions this could be harder to do, and the light of the LCD in low light conditions would actually be a bad thing as it would leak light into the shot unless the LCD shuts off while taking the picture. The other problem with the LCD rangefinder is shortened battery life.
The other thing is, if you are buying a camera with exchangeable lenses, you have the space to carry a slightly bigger camera body.
So I've purchased a refurbished Nikon D90, and I have a 28-80mm kit lens and a 70-300mm telephoto since my dad no longer uses them. I'm considering buying a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, since it's inexpensive and I'd like to work with a prime lens for a bit. Is this a good idea? Y/N
50mm is considered the standard for fixed lenses. However this is for full frame sensors (35mm) and the D90 has a DX sensor. To get the same field of vision you want to aim for a 35mm lens.
That being said, any 1.8 lens will be a joy to take pictures with, so yes, it is a good idea.
50mm is considered the standard for fixed lenses. However this is for full frame sensors (35mm) and the D90 has a DX sensor. To get the same field of vision you want to aim for a 35mm lens.
That being said, any 1.8 lens will be a joy to take pictures with, so yes, it is a good idea.
I just finished looking at 35mm lenses. There's this lens, but aside from that, nothing under $400 that's a 1.8 lens. It appears that aperture info is fed directly to the display on the body.
It's $80 more than I wanted to spend, but I'm seriously considering it.
50mm is fine. It's a great lens for taking photos of people. If you need a wider angle to fit someone in, you can always step back a bit. Of course 35mm is slightly better on a crop sensor, but the price is way more the the benefit if you're just starting out with a DSLR.
50mm is fine. It's a great lens for taking photos of people. If you need a wider angle to fit someone in, you can always step back a bit. Of course 35mm is slightly better on a crop sensor, but the price is way more the the benefit if you're just starting out with a DSLR.
50mm is fine. It's a great lens for taking photos of people. If you need a wider angle to fit someone in, you can always step back a bit. Of course 35mm is slightly better on a crop sensor, but the price is way more the the benefit if you're just starting out with a DSLR.
What he said.
It has great light performance and those f/1.8 shots look real artsy with their short depth of view.
50mm is fine. It's a great lens for taking photos of people. If you need a wider angle to fit someone in, you can always step back a bit. Of course 35mm is slightly better on a crop sensor, but the price is way more the the benefit if you're just starting out with a DSLR.
What he said.
It has great light performance and those f/1.8 shots look real artsy with their short depth of view.
EDIT: Never mind. I just learned about Nikon's practice of "lens gelding," so I'll get the normal AF model and learn something about how aperture ring markings work. Also, the normal AF stops to f/22, while the AF-S only stops to f/16. Just learned the significance of f-numbers because of that. Learning!
If you care about the difference between f/22 and f/16, you are worrying about the wrong things. Seriously. Just get a 1.8 50mm and learn whats up. Once you get that sorted, then you'll know what you really want from a lens.
EDIT: oops. Mixing up Canon (my gear) with Nikon (your gear). If you can afford it, get the AF-S, but you won't notice the difference in image quality for another two years or so.
All things considered, I probably could have afforded the AF-S, but I went with the less expensive lens. Oh well. I still saved $80-$100.
Good choice, you can almost always make up the difference in the field of view by using your inbuilt leg-zoom. The only downside you're really going to have is some hipsters telling you how you should have gone for a 35mm lens to to get the 50mm equivalent ;-).
DSLR wizards, what are your suggestion for a £40-£80 ($65-$130) tripod. I have only used a busted up Gorilla Pod and want to upgrade, if possible with spirit levels and other fanciness. Also I need to be able to ship/buy it inside the UK or at least Europe. (For reference I have a Nikon D90 with the standard kit lens, the 50mm f/1.8 and a Optika 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye)
They have a full line up of all costs. The good thing about all of them is that they are good quality. Even the cheapest is a very good tripod which won't break. Unfortunately the cheaper they are, the heavier they are. When you pay more, you get lighter tripods with more features. This is different from most no-brand tripods where the cheaper the tripod, the lighter and shittier it is, to the point where you might as well not buy it. With Manfrotto, the cheapest are metal, then aluminium, then carbon fiber, but the basic design is the same.
Also they are modular, so if you buy one with a decent head, you can swap it to another later.
If you really intend to use the tripod a lot, then it certainly pays off to buy a slightly more expensive one. In addition to what Luke already said you have to consider ease of use. The smoothness of the gimbal as well as how easy it is to tighten/release make a big difference. I have a really cheap ($20) plastic tripod which I use when I go biking but with which it is practically impossible to get the horizon level in a shot.
Also consider whether you want to take video at some point in the future. Then the smoothness of the head becomes paramount, as well as the ability to lock the vertical orientation separately from the horizontal.
So obviously I can't take many bags with me in my travels. What's the best way to transport all this camera gear? I was thinking fitted cases in my main pack instead of one singular camera bag.
So obviously I can't take many bags with me in my travels. What's the best way to transport all this camera gear? I was thinking fitted cases in my main pack instead of one singular camera bag.
Luke, your input would be very much appeciated.
I'm going to make a video about the ways I carry my camera gear about. There's too much to go into in a forum post.
Also someone is asking me more camera questions on Facebook, so I might have to compile all thoughts and use of gear into a FAQ blog post I can point people to at times like this.
Comments
My father just gave me his really old SLR from GDR times. The "Praktica MTL3" with 3 lenses. Is there anyway I can still use these really old lenses on newer digital SLR cameras?
It all depends on the type of mounting bracket the lens has, there are some "Universal" converters that work on some 3rd party lenses, but are not as "Universal" as they claim.
Do Mirrorless Cameras Spell the Death of DSLRs?
The other thing is, if you are buying a camera with exchangeable lenses, you have the space to carry a slightly bigger camera body.
That being said, any 1.8 lens will be a joy to take pictures with, so yes, it is a good idea.
It's $80 more than I wanted to spend, but I'm seriously considering it.
EDIT: Never mind. I just learned about Nikon's practice of "lens gelding," so I'll get the normal AF model and learn something about how aperture ring markings work. Also, the normal AF stops to f/22, while the AF-S only stops to f/16. Just learned the significance of f-numbers because of that. Learning!
EDIT: oops. Mixing up Canon (my gear) with Nikon (your gear). If you can afford it, get the AF-S, but you won't notice the difference in image quality for another two years or so.
Also they are modular, so if you buy one with a decent head, you can swap it to another later.
Also consider whether you want to take video at some point in the future. Then the smoothness of the head becomes paramount, as well as the ability to lock the vertical orientation separately from the horizontal.
Luke, your input would be very much appeciated.
Also someone is asking me more camera questions on Facebook, so I might have to compile all thoughts and use of gear into a FAQ blog post I can point people to at times like this.