DSLR? Mirrorless? Full Format, micro 4/3? So many questions!

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
Hard to go wrong with Nikon. What shop did you go to if I may ask? Woodward Camera? I keep forgetting you're so close.
 

DC

Active Member
What were the deciding factors in choosing the D3500 instead of the others you were considering?
Hard to say, exactly, a number of things. Ease of use, ergonomics, and built-in guides may have pushed the Nikon over the edge, possibly with some help from the salesman. Canon has a proprietary battery thing (and some resulting challenges) going on and that was a concern, too. (I want reliability, not error-prone "control" issues.) The particular Nikon and lens combo he said is also a popular seller with Realtors looking for what I seemed to want.
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, Dennis at Woodward Camera was very helpful.
I've bought an old Nikon FM2 slr from them and some lenses. I need to get back there and see what Fuji lenses they have. Great to have a store nearby. I've not had the best luck with their developing but at least they do it. Congrats on the new camera!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC

fiddlefye

Senior Member
The D3500 is a really nice camera. My wife has one of the previous versions, D3200 and it does fine work. I had a D200 and then went from that to full frame with a D750 - bit of overkill for your purposes.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
The D3500 is a really nice camera. My wife has one of the previous versions, D3200 and it does fine work. I had a D200 and then went from that to full frame with a D750 - bit of overkill for your purposes.
To tell you the truth, I imagine full frame is a bit overkill for most of us amateurs. It certainly is for me, but I'm hoping that may change after awhile. A more flexible platform than the point-and-shoot I've been using is not overkill, however, it's been a neccessity.
 

fiddlefye

Senior Member
To tell you the truth, I imagine full frame is a bit overkill for most of us amateurs. It certainly is for me, but I'm hoping that may change after awhile. A more flexible platform than the point-and-shoot I've been using is not overkill, however, it's been a neccessity.
The biggest attraction for me with full frame is that I already owned a stable of manual focus Nikkors and while could use them on my D200 the comparative effective focal length would always be considerably longer than when used on 35mm film. With full frame I can use all of those lenses exactly as I always have.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
The biggest attraction for me with full frame is that I already owned a stable of manual focus Nikkors and while could use them on my D200 the comparative effective focal length would always be considerably longer than when used on 35mm film. With full frame I can use all of those lenses exactly as I always have.
While I did not have already have any lenses, I did shoot 35mm quite a bit years ago and have a fair idea of how a particular lens will work for a given situation, and I didn't want to be doing mental gymnastics for every picture I took. And I know I can ignore all that and just compose the picture to fill the frame, same as I used to do, and things will be alright, but sometimes glass isn't available to do that. Going fx eliminated that issue for me.
 
For work I carry a Sony p/s zoom camera, the DSC-HX80. Pretty decent quality, but a very small sensor with 30X zoom lens. Zooms out to 24MM (equivalent), which is a bit wider than the 28MM or so from most smartphone cameras. (I do shoot in some fairly cramped quarters.) But what I really wanted was the Sony RX-100 series. Much shorter zoom, but very wide constant apertures, Zeiss glass, and a great sensor, in a really small and durable body.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
For work I carry a Sony p/s zoom camera, the DSC-HX80. Pretty decent quality, but a very small sensor with 30X zoom lens. Zooms out to 24MM (equivalent), which is a bit wider than the 28MM or so from most smartphone cameras. (I do shoot in some fairly cramped quarters.) But what I really wanted was the Sony RX-100 series. Much shorter zoom, but very wide constant apertures, Zeiss glass, and a great sensor, in a really small and durable body.
Those are both far more advanced than my point/shoot, which is mostly functional for snapshots and documenting things for work, but not much else.
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
For work I carry a Sony p/s zoom camera, the DSC-HX80. Pretty decent quality, but a very small sensor with 30X zoom lens. Zooms out to 24MM (equivalent), which is a bit wider than the 28MM or so from most smartphone cameras. (I do shoot in some fairly cramped quarters.) But what I really wanted was the Sony RX-100 series. Much shorter zoom, but very wide constant apertures, Zeiss glass, and a great sensor, in a really small and durable body.
I played for a bit with a coworker's Sony RX-100v and it was phenomenal. The best small point and shoot I have ever seen. Just incredible the image quality and control you could get out of it.

Phone cameras are, I know, creeping in on this category of cameras. By creeping in I mean utterly destroying it in sales. But I still feel that they are only great to the untrained eye, as much as I use my phone for daily photos. They do a lot with a bit of trickery and there really is only so much you can do with multiple small lenses and a small sensor before the trickery starts to show (if not glaringly glow as is the case of Apple's horrid "portrait mode" and its fake limited depth of field "bokeh").
 

fiddlefye

Senior Member
I played for a bit with a coworker's Sony RX-100v and it was phenomenal. The best small point and shoot I have ever seen. Just incredible the image quality and control you could get out of it.

Phone cameras are, I know, creeping in on this category of cameras. By creeping in I mean utterly destroying it in sales. But I still feel that they are only great to the untrained eye, as much as I use my phone for daily photos. They do a lot with a bit of trickery and there really is only so much you can do with multiple small lenses and a small sensor before the trickery starts to show (if not glaringly glow as is the case of Apple's horrid "portrait mode" and its fake limited depth of field "bokeh").
Getting hard to find a small P&S to buy these days. My tiny old Nikon S5 developed problems with a microswitch that is no longer available and I have been pondering a replacement to carry in a pocket for teaching etc. but haven't found a good equivalent yet. The shortage of new product means that for some odd reason even older used P&S are starting to be worth something. I was looking on ebay and many of the sellers want as much for a used S5 as I paid for the thing new a decade ago. Stupid stuff.
 
Last edited:

DC

Active Member
I played for a bit with a coworker's Sony RX-100v and it was phenomenal. The best small point and shoot I have ever seen. Just incredible the image quality and control you could get out of it.

Phone cameras are, I know, creeping in on this category of cameras. By creeping in I mean utterly destroying it in sales. But I still feel that they are only great to the untrained eye, as much as I use my phone for daily photos. They do a lot with a bit of trickery and there really is only so much you can do with multiple small lenses and a small sensor before the trickery starts to show (if not glaringly glow as is the case of Apple's horrid "portrait mode" and its fake limited depth of field "bokeh").
Thought of you :p

BAD475CD-574F-48A1-A9F0-1C6EA8E61F99.png
 

GuyK

Junior Member
What are folks preferred methods of adapting older lenses to modern bodies? I'd like to get my uncle something so he can put his old Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens on his digital Nikon, but I'm seeing several options. Some indicate they don't allow infinty focus, some have an integral les that does allow it. Is there any real downside to this?
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
I have a drawer full of old manual focus lenses for my Fuji. There's several Minolta lenses (as I still use a Minolta film camera), variuos M42s including Super Takumars but also Mamiya, Helios and older Fuji, even Argus. I have a couple that have reverse elements in them to refocus the full frame onto the slightly smaller Fuji sensor, and some that just adjust focal length. I believe most of them focus to infinity, the ones without the element just have a crop factor on them but images still look good. In most cases, the current Fuji lenses are much better, but I just like the look of some of the old lenses and they're fun and cheap to play with. As for whether or not to use the reverse element adaptors like Speedbooster or Lensturbo, that's really kind of a personal preference. I have a speedbooster for M42 "universal screw mount" and Minolta, as that covers most of my old lenses, but sometimes I just use the basic adaptors as they're lighter/less bulky and I feel they might have a slight edge in crispness. They ones without the lens elements in them are super cheap, so you can get one for like $15 and just play around. As for the Speedbooster types, I have found Speedbooster to be much higher quality than Lens Turbo. There may be others around now, I haven't looked in awhile. I have bought them on both ebay and places like B&H.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
I have a drawer full of old manual focus lenses for my Fuji. There's several Minolta lenses (as I still use a Minolta film camera), variuos M42s including Super Takumars but also Mamiya, Helios and older Fuji, even Argus. I have a couple that have reverse elements in them to refocus the full frame onto the slightly smaller Fuji sensor, and some that just adjust focal length. I believe most of them focus to infinity, the ones without the element just have a crop factor on them but images still look good. In most cases, the current Fuji lenses are much better, but I just like the look of some of the old lenses and they're fun and cheap to play with. As for whether or not to use the reverse element adaptors like Speedbooster or Lensturbo, that's really kind of a personal preference. I have a speedbooster for M42 "universal screw mount" and Minolta, as that covers most of my old lenses, but sometimes I just use the basic adaptors as they're lighter/less bulky and I feel they might have a slight edge in crispness. The ones without the lens elements in them are super cheap, so you can get one for like $15 and just play around. As for the Speedbooster types, I have found Speedbooster to be much higher quality than Lens Turbo. There may be others around now, I haven't looked in awhile. I have bought them on both ebay and places like B&H.
Some of the reviews I've seen claim that the those adaptors allowing infinty focus look like someone smeared the lens with butter - not worth the time of day to me. Some reviews say those adaptors without the element will only allow focusing to maybe 3-4 meters, and some say that the lens will still focus to infinity, but the index mark on the lens is no longer correct. So the whole issue is confusing me no small amount. I'm not looking for something that speeds up the lens, or makes it longer (like a doubler), only something that lets us mount the Tak to the Nikon with complete functionality, even though it would be manual only. It's how that lens was always used in the first place.

This Tak was my grandfather's, and I'm not certain exactly which version it is. I vaguely remember hearing granddad had it before my dad brought his home from Singapore or Hong Kong while in the service, so it COULD be the Zeiss competing model with 8 elements. I do know it took SUPERB pictures. I think dad's was the second version with 7 elements, so not as special.
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
The difference in experience is that my mirrorless Fuji and the Nikon are just quite different in their lens/body/sensor builds, with the Nikon being much more limited in this regard. I believe its always going to be easier to adapt a lens to a mirrorless camera. There's more room to play with as far as getting those lens elements to focus on that sensor plane.
 
Top