Baseless complaint I saw once....

[Ironclad Alibi]

I've always wondered if I could get a DSLR camera that would use the lens from my old SLR film camera (Canon TLb, circa 1974, FD series lens). Maybe someday I'll research it. Probably be better just to get a whole new rig. Although I'm doing fine with the point and shoot digital cameras I presently have.

What would be really neat would be to get some kind of digital adapter that would fit in the WWII era Rolleiflex camera I have. But if there is such a thing, I doubt I could afford it.

[mikoyan29]

I've always wondered if I could get a DSLR camera that would use the lens from my old SLR film camera (Canon TLb, circa 1974, FD series lens). Maybe someday I'll research it. Probably be better just to get a whole new rig. Although I'm doing fine with the point and shoot digital cameras I presently have.

Nope. Canon changed to the EF mount in 1987.

[Stressball]

I've always wondered if I could get a DSLR camera that would use the lens from my old SLR film camera (Canon TLb, circa 1974, FD series lens). Maybe someday I'll research it. Probably be better just to get a whole new rig. Although I'm doing fine with the point and shoot digital cameras I presently have.

What would be really neat would be to get some kind of digital adapter that would fit in the WWII era Rolleiflex camera I have. But if there is such a thing, I doubt I could afford it.

You will not find a digital adaptor as almost all modern lenses use an electronic aperture instead of a manual aperture ring; you would not be able to adjust the aperture at all, so I doubt anyone would make a ring to fit a new lens on an old camera.

As for an adaptor ring for old lenses onto a Canon body, they certainly do exist. I myself have a Pentax M42 mount-to-Canon-mount adaptor to use my dad's old lenses. You can find adaptor rings for canon, nikon, pentax, and sony bodies to use almost any old lens you can find. The Olympus market is quite small, so rings would be few and far between.

[Chrismor]

I am a big Canon fan (owning an EOS 350D and part owning a 300D) along with a Sigma 70-300 w/Macro lens, and a 100-300 Tamron lens. Great lenses, no. Good lenses, yes. Can I take nice, interesting pictures with them, of course I can. That said, I can also take nice, interesting pictures with my old, cheap, point and shoot Kodak camera.

Would love to upgrade the body and lenses at some point, but for the amount of work I do with them, and the cost involved, there is not much point. If I was to get more serious about it, then I would look at the bigger, better equipment. Until then, I use what suits me best.

C.

[BeeMused]

I disagree emphatically Although, the high ISO performance of the D3s is unbelievable Set that thing on iso 24000 and it shoots about the same as my Canon 7D at around 3200.

I prefer Canon's UI though, and their range of lenses tends to be a little wider than the Nikon range.

It's one of those Holy Wars. It's up to personal preference, I've always liked the way a Nikon SLR fits into my hand better compared to Canon. And now I'm used to Nikon.

Incidentally, I own the Canon 70-200 f2.8L that was mentioned in the OP (but without image stabiliser) and I thank god I convinced myself to lay down the $1500AUD on it 18 months ago. I own that, a Canon 17-40 f4L, and the cheap Canon 50 f1.8. I have used Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I can safely say I have not found a single one that can match good quality Canon glass.

Good lenses are expensive, there are no shortcuts. While Sigma and Tamron make decent low end lenses, once you've tried the real stuff, be it from Canon or Nikon, there's no way back. I'm quite happy that I shelled out €500 for a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5-5.6. It's the perfect allrounder. Currently I'm drooling over a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8, but €2000! I can't really justify buying it, but still... *sigh* Ooooh, and that D700 looks soooo nice!

Going digital with a SLR is so great, you don't have to think about film costs, but you still have the ultimate flexibility of a SLR.

<shameless plug> I've got some shots up here www.rossponting.com.au </shameless plug>

Nice ones!

[mikoyan29]

I am a big Canon fan (owning an EOS 350D and part owning a 300D) along with a Sigma 70-300 w/Macro lens, and a 100-300 Tamron lens. Great lenses, no. Good lenses, yes. Can I take nice, interesting pictures with them, of course I can. That said, I can also take nice, interesting pictures with my old, cheap, point and shoot Kodak camera.

Would love to upgrade the body and lenses at some point, but for the amount of work I do with them, and the cost involved, there is not much point. If I was to get more serious about it, then I would look at the bigger, better equipment. Until then, I use what suits me best.

C.

I think it still comes down to knowing your equipment and it's limitations. Spending $5000 on photography equipment isn't going to turn you into Ansel Adams. I like doing my night shots and watching people try to take pictures of the Mackinac Bridge with a flash. More often than not they will be carrying some sort of expensive setup (DSLR's are not cheap). Occasionally they will see me and see the picture on my camera and ask "How did yours turn out so nice?".

[BeeMused]

I think it still comes down to knowing your equipment and it's limitations. Spending $5000 on photography equipment isn't going to turn you into Ansel Adams. I like doing my night shots and watching people try to take pictures of the Mackinac Bridge with a flash. More often than not they will be carrying some sort of expensive setup (DSLR's are not cheap). Occasionally they will see me and see the picture on my camera and ask "How did yours turn out so nice?".

Those people will also have a huge SUV

If you don't know your equipment and how it's used properly, expensive equipment is worthless. Photographing in huge historic buildings is fun to watch too, most people seem to have no clue about the abilities of flashes and rely on the automatic settings of their cameras. Hey, I do that too, but not when the light is tricky.

[Chrismor]

That's just it. Knowing what your equipment can and can't do, and knowing how to do it will always trump someone trying to look like they know what they are doing with the top of the range equipment. At consumer level it is the skill of the person behind the lens that is most important. At professional level the equipment itself does help.

C.

[Ashaela]

My husband and I have been shooting with film for a while now; when he got his 20D a couple of years ago, I was glad that the collection of lenses we already had for the film cameras could be used with the digital as well. If the dude hadn't ever owned anything besides the little 35mm point-and-shoot, I can kind of see his frustration; but then, it's like trying to explain to someone that buying a new CPU doesn't always include the monitor, keyboard etc.

I have a little Canon Rebel that I use occasionally; but I like my 1-N better for planned shooting trips. DH has been thinking about Nikon on and off for the last few years, but the prospect of trying to pick up the same equipment we already have in a whole different proprietary line is a little daunting.

[BeeMused]

Yeah once you've started with one manufacturer... that's it. Unless you can sell the whole stuff for a decent price, switching systems is more than a little daunting. I've never tried adapters, and I'm more than a little skeptical, if those really work good.

[Shalom]

If you don't know your equipment and how it's used properly, expensive equipment is worthless. Photographing in huge historic buildings is fun to watch too, most people seem to have no clue about the abilities of flashes and rely on the automatic settings of their cameras. Hey, I do that too, but not when the light is tricky.

This is the only reason I have a few M2 flash bulbs in my camera bag. I haven't got (nor can I afford) any kind of strobe that can light up a huge room anywhere near as well as a couple of grams of zirconium burning in oxygen.

(M2's are fast-peak bulbs for X-sync cameras, therefore useless with old cameras that have only an M-sync terminal. The M3's and M3B's work best with M sync, probably acceptably with FP sync as well. My old SRT101 had both X and FP sync sockets; the XD11 only has X-sync, so I have to use the M2's if I want to use bulb flash with that one.)

[Stressball]

I've never tried adapters, and I'm more than a little skeptical, if those really work good.

I've made a little bit of use of my M42-eF adaptor, it works quite well. The only problem I have with it is that the ring has been manufactured slightly too largely, so it's stiff when you are trying to remove it from the camera body. Since M42 mount iss a screw-type, holding the lens and twisting just unscrews the lens from the ring instead of removing the ring from the body. Potentially your unlimited-focal distance may be affected too, since the lens is not mounted flush where normal lenses are, so the light has a couple of extra mm to travel to the sensor.

I've been teaching myself off-camera flash and low-light photography, hand-holding a 580EXII flash to fill trees silhouetted against backlit trees etc. Not much experience with it, but I'm getting there. Most of my night photos have been of static cars at a weekly meeting called Munchies, fluoro lights and significant crowds to contend with, but it's all pretty simple.

[mikoyan29]

Low light stuff is fun especially with long exposures. I was playing around with my action figures and the flashlight tonight (It's on my blog).

[dalesys]

This is the only reason I have a few M2 flash bulbs in my camera bag. I haven't got (nor can I afford) any kind of strobe that can light up a huge room anywhere near as well as a couple of grams of zirconium burning in oxygen.

I remember the electronic flash my dad passed down to me and my buddies when I was a teenager (circa '68): It was powered for the color film of the late 50s / early 60s: ASA 25.

We were shooting Tri-X (ASA 400), so the minimum range was something like thirty feet!

[BeeMused]

We were shooting Tri-X (ASA 400), so the minimum range was something like thirty feet!

This is not a flash, but a light weapon! This thing must eaten batteries.