Why are DSLRs so huge ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:17:02 -0700, "Mark
    Fair enough -- sorry for the misunderstanding.
    John Navas, Apr 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fujifilm (among others) does indeed make an excellent digital back for
    medium format cameras http://tinyurl.com/29e4s . Of course, it's $20,000,
    but he wouldn't have to throw his MF gear away...

    Howard McCollister, Apr 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    Of course there are digital backs.
    Not for my medium gear as they are not SLR, but for the
    large format gear. But, I will probably not buy any back.
    Thats my choice. Just as I threw away all my photo paper.
    Digital Canon cameras can use older lenses, but not all.
    I am not all that familiar with Canon, but is that not
    also the case for film Canon?

    Roland Karlsson, Apr 18, 2004
  4. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:57:45 -0700, "Skip
    By reading his prior posts.
    Shoot and scan film. Not great, but better than nothing.
    I respectfully disagree. Canon heavily promoted the FD mount against Nikon,
    and then abandoned it, whereas Nikon maintained compatibility. Canon could
    have done that as well.
    Still a valid complaint.
    That's actually a far cry from having an extensive collection of real Canon FD
    SSC glass, as I do.
    Why? FD glass is still some of the best glass ever made.
    What old lenses?
    I respectfully disagree.
    I've used the new ones.
    Sheesh yourself -- it is very upsetting.
    John Navas, Apr 19, 2004
  5. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on 17 Apr 2004 18:03:07 GMT, Roland
    Which of my old nice lenses would those be? (Do you even know what old nice
    lenses I have?) For example, what lens outperforms my 50mm FD macro?
    John Navas, Apr 19, 2004
  6. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on 18 Apr 2004 16:53:14 GMT, Roland
    There is no digital body for any Canon FD lens.
    EF lenses are current, not older.
    John Navas, Apr 19, 2004
  7. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    John, do you just like to argue? I wasn't addressing my comments to you and
    you know it. So when commented that someone should try tie newer Canon
    lenses, it wasn't meant for you.

    Skip Middleton
    Skip M, Apr 19, 2004
  8. That's a relief.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  9. No. Only the modern lenses - which are in many cases not as good. And are
    certainly bulkier.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  10. Who knows? You post upside down. You don't trim. You don't provide context.
    It looks awfully like you are talking to yourself.

    And in any case that isn't how Usenet works.

    John and I are in virtually in agreement on this one. You can't
    realistically use FD lenses on any available digital backs or cameras
    [there is sort-of a way but if I tell you, I'll have to kill you]. EF
    lenses are frequently inferior to FD lenses. They certainly aren't as
    sturdily built. Neither of us is too fussed about autofocus which no doubt
    is why neither of us saw any reason to buy the often inferior EF lenses in
    the first place.

    And other manufacturers [notably Nikon] certainly has provided backwards
    compatibility to various degrees for older glass.

    Personally, I use my EF lenses [generally manually], but I'd certainly like
    to be able to use my manual focus lenses on a digital camera (or back) when
    I wanted. I doubt I'm going to get an EF replacement for my FD17mm in a
    hurry. I have got the EF100 macro alongside my FD 100 macro. I also doubt I
    will replace my 400mmFD lens any time soon either. My other FD lenses would
    certainly get used with a digital camera if one were available. I'd still
    buy one tomorrow.

    Besides, the entire point (which you persist in missing) was that I merely
    said that
    Roland Karlsson <> claiming:
    - 2. You can reuse your old lenses,
    isn't true.

    It isn't.

    And it had already been pointed out it wasn't true earlier in the very
    thread you didn't have the good manners to read before mouthing off.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  11. Indeed. Two of the cheaper Canon lenses and some rather nasty 3rd party
    zooms does not amount to a substantial investment in superior FD lenses
    which you'd particularly want a digital body to go with.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  12. Alfred Molon

    Chris Brown Guest

    Save up for an Epson RD1 - the shorter registration distance means that
    you'll be able to use them with an M-mount to FD adaptor. Of course, it's
    not an SLR, but you'll have the benefit of instant review.
    Chris Brown, Apr 19, 2004
  13. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    I was listing what I still have, not what I had. And the Vivitar Series One
    and Kiron lenses are not "rather nasty" third party zooms, if you didn't
    have you nose stuck up in the rarified Canon air, you'd know that, too.
    Sorry, I couldn't afford "L" glass 20-25 years ago. I kept the 50mm f1.4
    because my father gave that one to me, with the Olympics lens cap, as a gift
    that I came to treasure more after he died.
    And I don't keep missing your point about old lenses and digital, I just
    don't think it's a point worth making at this point in time.
    Skip M, Apr 19, 2004
  14. <snip>

    Still unable to post properly. You have been given two warnings.

    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  15. [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    At last! I understand what you are talking about.
    It is the semantics of the word "older" that is the
    problem (I think :).

    You call FD older and EF newer. Then, of course I
    am wrong.

    But, I meant pre digital lenses when I said older.
    And you sure can use those "older" lenses.

    So - we were talking about different things.

    Roland Karlsson, Apr 19, 2004
  16. Seems perfectly clear to me what "older" means.
    Er. That's because it's a matter of fact.
    I'm sorry. Is there some secret Canon lens range that is between the new
    lenses - ie EF - and the old lenses that immediately preceded them - the FD
    lenses? If so, I think we should be told.
    I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence at all. There were the FD lenses
    and then there were the EF lenses. What other lenses are you hiding?
    They aren't "older". They are the current range.
    I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. So I have no way to
    Simon Gardner, Apr 19, 2004
  17. [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    OK - have it your way.

    If you want to believe that I meant something else that I did,
    you are welcome. Case closed.

    Roland Karlsson, Apr 19, 2004
  18. Alfred Molon

    Tom Monego Guest

    I'll agree with skip about the Vivitar Series 1, they were designed by Perkins
    Elmar (the telescope folks) and were comparable to the top glass of the time,
    unfortunately they were almost as expensive, or not enough price break to sell
    well so Vivitar cancelled them. They brought out another Series 1 about 15
    years ago but the lenses were single aperture as the original S1. I have one
    lens from the original Series 1 a 90-180 flat field macro, great as a macro,
    mediocre at infinity, but alas a CanonFD.

    Tom Monego, Apr 19, 2004
  19. Alfred Molon

    MarkH Guest

    [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    You really don’t have very good reading comprehension do you? It is pretty
    obvious that Roland is referring to earlier EOS lenses as opposed to newer
    EOS lenses. If you had bought a Canon SLR eight years ago and a collection
    of EOS lenses to go with it, then you would have some older lenses that
    could still be used today on the latest film or digital SLR bodies.
    So the 35-350 L is not older than the 28-300 L?
    It is obvious to me what Roland is saying, maybe you should read it again
    slowly and see if you can make out what is clearly written.

    There are many examples of differences seen on EOS lenses between older and
    newer models, as well as discontinued EOS lenses. The 28-70 f2.8L is not
    current, but still works with new bodies. The 24-70 f2.8L is the current
    model which is newer and features environmental seals to go with the new
    weather sealed ‘1’ series bodies. The 70-200 f2.8L IS lens is quite new
    and features environmental seals and a 3rd generation IS that Canon rate
    for 3 stops of stabilisation, the 100-400 L does not have the O-Ring seal
    where it meets the camera body and has an earlier version of the IS that
    Canon rate for 2 stops of stabilisation, this is because the 100-400 is an
    older lens (but still current and still EOS).
    MarkH, Apr 19, 2004
  20. No it isn't. Compare and contrast Nikon lenses. Only current series Canon
    lenses can be used with Canon digital bodies. Old series of Nikon lenses
    can be used with varying degrees of utility on Nikon digital bodies. You
    cannot use old Canon lenses on its DSLRs - only its current series.

    Obviously not all lenses are developed on the day the first one is
    launched. But clearly you cannot use old Canon lenses on Canon DSLRs. They
    have to be the latest series.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.