suggestions and advice

[bcp]

Im going to start looking for a real camera to take along on our trips.
I have an older Cannon 35mm with a good deal of lenses that as I remember were not at all cheap back in the day, also have a bunch of filters that fit these lenses.
Is there a fairly decent digital that will be able to use these lenses?

I was looking on line at this one

Model: K200D & 18-55 Lens | SKU: 9217297

18-55mm lens included; Pentax lens mount; 2.7" color TFT-LCD; Dust Reduction system; PRIME technology; direct-print capability

and it does have the ability to use different lenses with it, but Im not sure if the new cameras have the same size lenses.

If they dont, does anyone know of any adapters that are made that would enable me to use my existing equipment with it?

should I stay with Cannon and do you think there would be a better chance that the older lenses would work on it?

 

[bcp]

another question
if I brought one of my smaller macro lenses to the store, what do you think the chances of them letting me try to fit it on their camera would be.

 

[MrX]

Canon lenses typically will not mount onto another brand camera, you may want to swing by a store such as Penn Camera and talk to them about what lenses you have. They shouldnt have an issue letting you try your lens out on a camera body, and they could tell you which bodies would work best with the lenses you own.

 

[forceofnature]

If you have really good lens' for the canon then stick with a canon system otherwise you can change to Pentax. They may have an adapter for the pentax to fit older Canon lens'

 

[crf291]

It depends on they mounting style of your camera. Canon had a different mounting system (FD..i think) for their old cameras. When they started with the EOS cameras they changed to the current mounting system (ES...i think). The old AE-1 camera lens's will not work but the EOS Rebel (film) len's will work. Not positive on this but i don't think any of the old FD style lens's were autofocus. I also ran into a problem with two older Sigmas. Both mounted up but autofocus wouldn't work on either. I contacted Sigma and was able to send one lens in and have it updated to work with my digital but was not able to update the other lens.

It's pretty obvious by looking at them when they are not the same. If i remember correctly the old mournt is smaller and also the opposit sex as the current style.

I would google your camera and lens and you will most likely find all the information you need.

A quick search on FD mount and i found this @ http://wapedia.mobi/en/Canon_FD

Wiki: Canon FD lens mount (1/9)
The Canon FD lens mount is a physical standard for connecting a photographic lens to a single-lens reflex camera body. The standard was developed by Canon of Japan and was introduced in March 1971 with the Canon F-1 camera. It was the primary Canon SLR lens mounting system until 1987 when the cameras from the Canon EOS series were first produced using the new EF lens mount. The last camera in the FD system was the Canon T60, from 1990. The FD mount replaced Canon's earlier FL mount; FD-mount cameras could use FL lenses in stop-down metering mode. There is no known meaning for 'FD', and Canon has never disclosed what, if anything, it stands for.

Although the Canon FD system enjoyed huge popularity in the 1970s and 1980s, the mount system is now obsolete, and Canon FD cameras and lenses are available for low prices on the second-hand market. This makes the system very attractive to 35mm film photographers who demand the highest optical quality, but who do not need autofocus capability.

Contents:

 

[bcp]

My existing lenses dont seem to be compatible with any camera on the market today.

bummer.

what about Sony? do they make a good camera or would you steer clear.

and, biggest question, back in the day I was well versed on getting the most out of my pictures, even got really neat photos using infrared film.

now, is my knowledge of settings for the camera going to be adequate for the digital or am I going to have to relearn new rules for exposure, speed F-stops and all that happy crap.

does the digital follow the same rules as the 35 with film did.

be easy on me, Im really fairly new at this with the new technology... but I can give you a run for your money with the old Cannon AE-1 and all my lenses and filters. even have filters for my flash to create mood with the light.

 

[bcp]

And I thought of one more question.
Since I mentioned using the infrared film before. Can the same effect be produced with the digital?

its a really slow film, but the pictures of storms are incredible, much better than using a red filter on a black and white photo to enhance the sky.

 

[jbr13]

Yeah, digital is pretty much the same. Shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (ASA) but the metering of the cameras have gotten better and easier to ready. Plus now, with digital, you have the instant preview of the photography to make adjustments from, a histogram, and highlights preview to all assist your photo taking.

 

[bigluke33]

what about Sony? do they make a good camera or would you steer clear.

I just purchased a Sony Alpha a300 about a month ago and am impressed with it's capabilities and quality of photo that I get out of it. I used Nikon for years and got a good deal on the Sony and don't regret my purchase at all. I'm using the kit lens that came with it, but it is also compatible with older Konica/Minolta lenses.

 

[jbr13]

Here is the place you can compare Nikon, Canon, or whoever else.

http://forums.dpreview.com/


Go to buyers guide on the left hand side, and you can do a side by side compare of just about any model cameras out there.

J

 

[mamissa3]

I have a Sony Super Steady shot from about 5 or 6 years ago. I love it.

 

[bcp]

I got the Sony.
its the A300K

not the highest pixel camera that they had, but for what I really want it for Im sorta guessing that 10.2 should be enough for me.

now I just have to get the 300 mm lens for it before I leave for vacation.

 

[bcp]

I just purchased a Sony Alpha a300 about a month ago and am impressed with it's capabilities and quality of photo that I get out of it. I used Nikon for years and got a good deal on the Sony and don't regret my purchase at all. I'm using the kit lens that came with it, but it is also compatible with older Konica/Minolta lenses.

just saw your post, looks like I bought the same camera.

 

[bcp]

playing. just left it on auto for now.

 

[bcp]

might want to leave the dog alone, dont think he is loving the flash.

 

[hvp05]

Yeah, digital is pretty much the same.

Not when it comes to the dynamic (exposure) range. They have gotten considerably better on this in the past couple years, but most cameras, even up to the pro-sumer level can not touch film. I shoot with a Canon 40D, which is enabled with highlight priority, and they still get blown out in places where film could save the detail.

Thus, this continues to be one of the key areas I think developers need to fine-tune. Most other areas of digital do surpass film, as far as I'm concerned, but film is hanging in there.


As for the infrared: there are companies that can alter your camera to shoot in infrared, but I think that once it's done you can not shoot 'normally' any longer. DeadEye had that done to one of his cameras, so you could ask him.

Or, of course, you could tweak things in your editor and come pretty well close to the film effect. I have done that with a few photographs and gotten interesting results.

 

[jbr13]

Not when it comes to the dynamic (exposure) range. They have gotten considerably better on this in the past couple years, but most cameras, even up to the pro-sumer level can not touch film.

Yes HVP I was answering BCP's question on weather their knowledge of setting is still useable with digital, and in that area things are pretty much the same. Yes film has way more dynamic range. As for the highlights with film, that is do to digital only seeing about 4 stops of light and film seeing around 9 stops. Twice the stops give you more detail in highlights and shadows.

 

[bcp]

Not when it comes to the dynamic (exposure) range. They have gotten considerably better on this in the past couple years, but most cameras, even up to the pro-sumer level can not touch film. I shoot with a Canon 40D, which is enabled with highlight priority, and they still get blown out in places where film could save the detail.

Thus, this continues to be one of the key areas I think developers need to fine-tune. Most other areas of digital do surpass film, as far as I'm concerned, but film is hanging in there.


As for the infrared: there are companies that can alter your camera to shoot in infrared, but I think that once it's done you can not shoot 'normally' any longer. DeadEye had that done to one of his cameras, so you could ask him.

Or, of course, you could tweak things in your editor and come pretty well close to the film effect. I have done that with a few photographs and gotten interesting results.

Im still using an old AE-1, and Part of my issue with the digitals is that I have never been able to get a picture that compaired with the detail from film.
the downside to the AE-1 is that when I shoot with anything greater than my 200mm it starts to get grainy.
Im hoping that the digital can overcome at least this one issue.

 

[hvp05]

Yes HVP I was answering BCP's question...

And I was rounding it out, because you addressed his points except that one.

Yes film has way more dynamic range.

I miss developing film. I am still figuring on having my own darkroom someday. At least the equipment is going for next to nothing.

 

[jbr13]

HVP, Someone has a darkroom for a good price right now on SOmd classifieds.

Advertisement - Everything Electronic


J