David Dyer-Bennet writes:
On Wed, January 4, 2012 02:33, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
I ideally would prefer a full frame sensor but I'll take what I can, and
this looks like the one I'll be taking:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynexc3/
You do know you can buy a commercial adapter FD to SONY for less than
$50, right? And others, maybe with more features, for considerably more
(so much more that they'd *better* have other features, or I don't see the
point).
I can buy plenty of adapters to other cameras, knew this from the first FD
to pentax mount I fabricated.. I also mentioned using a Sony E to Canon FD
adapter but I'm guessing you're not talking about that. It's just that we
all know that for the SLR range they add a chunk of glass to the adapter
.. or lose infinity if there's no glass. I need a shallower registration
distance to use a glassless adapters and since FD's were about the
shallowest mount registration made it didn't leave a lot of wiggle room.
Camera makers to date seem to have avoided creating a camera with a
shallower registration distance 'coz it'd mean any clown could mount any
lens to the camera. Of course part of the issue is the 'let's use mirrors'
hangover from pre-digi days. it's lazy.
As Andy has said before, lens adaption is a possibility, but since I still
use FD's on my F1N's with film and on FD bellows, it's not really an option.
Also since cine cams and HD cines take manual lenses there's even more
incentive to leave them alone and not mangle them (sorry Andy ;)
As to features - I don't use face recognition or many of the other gadgets
included in a lot of the newer cams.. actually truth be told I do not use
AF, AE, TTF flash, shoe flashes or much at all. The little Sony has
tailflash, I like that. I like dual memory slots too.
I'd be keen enough to get a a900 full frame but I do not use autofocus or
autoexposure, and with the small fortune I have in lenses - eh..
I was planning on butchering a P&S to take the FDs but the NEX looks to give
a decent picture (the DPreview article, page 6 or so, was interesting when
lining up image quality, noise and such against the Nikon/Canon top o' the
line SLR's at 1:1 I have to say, gotta love a good image..) I'm also a big
fan of shutting the lightbox off from dust and not slapping mirrors around
inside the light chamber.
Ultimately, my investment was always in the glass.
Preserving and using the lenses I have interchangeably across film and digi
without the degredation of additional glass elements looks pretty appealing
and I figured others would be interested ..
k
