Selling my gear and going FF with MF alt glass!

[HBOC]

So I am probably crazy, but I think this will make me more creative and really improve my skills, plus get me out shooting more and new subjects. I mean I am like 5 minutes from downtown PDX, and many bridges, buildings, people, etc to shoot.

So I am hoping by next week I will have a 1Ds or a 5D. I really want the 1Ds as the VF is brighter and better than the 5D. The 1Ds is crazy old and slow (takes like 30 seconds to dump 10 RAW files from the buffer), but the AF, build and quality is still top notch. I don't shoot higher than 400 (800 is pretty bad on the 1Ds) and have a tripod with me most of the time.

Anyways, there are a TON of crazy glass that is cheap and top notch. Of course the person behind the camera has a lot to do with it but still. Here is a great read of all the amazing glass to be had. Of course not all is cheap..

FM Link

 

[acearchie]

Anyways, there are a TON of crazy glass that is cheap and top notch. Of course the person behind the camera has a lot to do with it but still. Here is a great read of all the amazing glass to be had. Of course not all is cheap..

FM Link

Don't know it would be possible but I have been using some Hasselblad Glass recently on a Hasselblad Body and it has been some of the sharpest pictures I have ever seen and taken!

 

[Edge100]

Sounds great. I'm sure you've heard this, but if you can swing it, I absolutely recommend getting the 1Ds2 over the 1Ds.

The 1Ds2 is probably the best deal on the used market at the moment. If you can't swing the 1Ds2, then I'd really recommend the 5D over the 1Ds. The 5D at least gives you the option of decent high ISO performance, and if you're not shooting things that require the AF performance of a 1-series body, then its AF system is more than adequate.

So 1Ds2 > 5D >>> 1Ds, IMHO.

Good luck.

 

[pdxflint]

If you're selling all your gear and going with vintage glass, you could go for a D700.

 

[HBOC]

That is true PDX, but a D700 is more than I want to spend (I believe)..
While most would agree that the 5D "is" better than the 1Ds, I think it boils down to individual needs.

The VF in the 1Ds IS better than the 5D. The build, AF are killer on the 1. I have my tripod with me 90% of the time, and thus I don't shoot over 100 very much. I will be getting fast glass (1.2/1.4, etc), so even in the daylight, I should be fine.

Only thing that will suck is the write speed (never used the burst on my 40D). I heard it takes 30 seconds or something to dump 10 RAW images off the buffer.

If I am going to be manually focusing for now, I want the best VF i can get. I just want to try the 1Ds. If I don't like it (don't see why not), I can sell it and get a 5D. I want a 1Ds2, but I can wait (have to, lol).

 

[Phrasikleia]

That is true PDX, but a D700 is more than I want to spend (I believe)..
While most would agree that the 5D "is" better than the 1Ds, I think it boils down to individual needs.

The VF in the 1Ds IS better than the 5D. The build, AF are killer on the 1. I have my tripod with me 90% of the time, and thus I don't shoot over 100 very much. I will be getting fast glass (1.2/1.4, etc), so even in the daylight, I should be fine.

Only thing that will suck is the write speed (never used the burst on my 40D). I heard it takes 30 seconds or something to dump 10 RAW images off the buffer.

If I am going to be manually focusing for now, I want the best VF i can get. I just want to try the 1Ds. If I don't like it (don't see why not), I can sell it and get a 5D. I want a 1Ds2, but I can wait (have to, lol).

If you're going to get a bunch of manual focus lenses, then why do you care about the AF of the 1Ds? Also, if you're going to be using a tripod most of the time, then you might miss having Live View for manual focusing. It's really nice to be able to zoom in 10x and dial the focus right in that way. It's better, I think, than focusing manually through any viewfinder, especially when the tripod is down low or up high, where looking through the viewfinder is uncomfortable.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you are interested in good, cheap mf lenses, you definitely should reconsider Nikon: Canon has switched mount when going from mf to af while Nikon hasn't. There is a ginormous amount of Nikon AI(-S) lenses on the used market that can be picked up for a reasonable amount of money (unless you're interested in something rare, e. g. the 50 mm f/1.2 or so).

I don't get why the AF systems enters into your thought process: you expressly write that your motivation is to go full frame + manual focus. Also write speed shouldn't be that important if you use mf lenses: in all likelihood, you won't shoot that many bursts and the more you have to do manually, the slower your work flow gets (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). And lastly, if you use a tripod a lot, why do you need f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses?

If I were you, the 1Ds (Mark I or II) would be way too bulky for the type of photography I associate with manual photography. Have you thought of getting a film camera? There are tons of film bodies for next to nothing these days. Even Leica bodies are `affordable' these days (as in they don't cost an arm, a leg and a first-born anymore). Something like a Canon T90 (if you like Canon bodies) or a nice Nikon FE2/FM2/F3 would be much better suited for the type of photography you have in mind?

In any case, if you decide to go for any dslr, if you want to work with mf lenses a lot, you need a proper mf focussing screen.

 

[gnd]

If you're going for the old manual focus lenses you should also reconsider Pentax. By far the largest amount of old glass is available for the Pentax K mount. On most Pentax DSLR cameras you can change focusing screens to help with the manual focusing. All M42 lenses will work on any Pentax DSLR camera with a simple converter ring (which keeps infinity focus), M42 and K mount have the same registration distance. You'll even be able to meter with the M42 lenses on Pentax cameras.
Rumors are Pentax will announce their FF camera in a couple of months.
Just some food for thought ...

 

[Ruahrc]

I fail to see where getting a completely new set of camera gear makes you more creative and improves your skills. Maybe there will be some novelty factor involved but creativity comes from within, not by artificialy limiting the capabilities of your gear. Skills are learned by discipline and practice, not magically absorbed by forcing oneself to use subpar or old equipment. There's nothing wrong with AF or other modern "features"- as long as you treat them as a tool and not a crutch.

And if your sig is anything to go by- (40D and 17-40L?) then really the thread title should be "upgrading my gear to better body and then saving money by using MF glass"...?

To put it frankly- IMHO you are crazy and I don't think your creativity or skills will improve any. The only real result will be a lighter wallet.

Ruahrc

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

That is true PDX, but a D700 is more than I want to spend (I believe)..

After photokina, I would be willing to bet a D700 might be an incredible value, especially if you don't care about video or printing something for a billboard.

 

[HBOC]

well to answer some questions. ..

The viewfinder on the 1 series is BETTER than the 5D. The 5D has .95%, whereas the 1Ds (even though it is from late 2002) has 100%. I never used an LCd screen for anything before. I didn't even know the 40D had "live view".

Also, I am not going PRIMARILY MF forever. Just right now I cannot afford a FF AND good AF glass. The 5D cannot accept a lot of the Zeiss glass as the mirror box isn't as recessed as the 1 series..it will hit the mirror. I really want a C/Y 35-70! It cost almost as much as a used 24-70L and is ONLy MF in EOS or Nikkon mount.

i know I can get the zeiss CY 28/2.8 and the oly 50/1.4 for about $400. From what I have seen they are super sharp. Also, that depends on the person behind the lens.

This is just a hobby for me and I think this will be fun. Worse case scenario is i sell the 1Ds and get a 1Ds2 (will take some work, lol). Also, I think after September, EVERYTHING will decrease in price, except for old bodies, such as the 1Ds. Old OG 1D are at about $500-600, and probably will bottom out at $400.

I will post what i come up with next week.

 

[Ruahrc]

Also, I am not going PRIMARILY MF forever. Just right now I cannot afford a FF AND good AF glass.

The way I understand it, you will spend more on replacement gear than you will get back from selling what you have. Therefore, you're spending money. Why don't you just use that money you would have spent anyways to buy/save for a good AF lens?

Why do you need FF? Clearly it isn't high ISO as you're going to be forced to shoot at low ISO with that early generation body. And clearly it isn't high resolution, because those old gen bodies probably have less MP than your current body does. So what then is the need for FF? What will this new gear do for you that your current gear cannot currently do? What exactly is the deficiency with your current body (paired with a solid lens)? I can tell you right now these high end botique primes are going to outresolve your current sensor, and for sure the sensor on the early generation 1Dx bodies. So will a good AF lens. In other words, you are not going to really be taking full advantage of these lenses in the swap. In fact you probably will be taking less advantage of them vs. just buying the lens now and putting it on your current body.

I'm not trying to sound too critical, your words "hobby" and "fun" are not to be underestimated. But it just seems to me that your long term goals and your short term actions are in conflict here.

 

[OreoCookie]

The viewfinder on the 1 series is BETTER than the 5D. The 5D has .95%, whereas the 1Ds (even though it is from late 2002) has 100%. I never used an LCd screen for anything before. I didn't even know the 40D had "live view".

Also, I am not going PRIMARILY MF forever. Just right now I cannot afford a FF AND good AF glass. The 5D cannot accept a lot of the Zeiss glass as the mirror box isn't as recessed as the 1 series..it will hit the mirror. I really want a C/Y 35-70! It cost almost as much as a used 24-70L and is ONLy MF in EOS or Nikkon mount.

Now your plan makes even less sense to me: if you want a full frame body, then getting MF lenses is not really cheaper. You can get a 50 mm f/1.8 for less than I'd say most MF lenses -- especially if you include an adapter. Then you add one or two more cheap AF lenses and you have a full frame body with lenses that can autofocus.

To me, your plan seems half-baked and I get the impression you'd just like to get a full frame body just because. The full frame bodies you're considering have only two advantages as far as I can tell: shallower depth of field at equivalent focal lengths and a larger viewfinder. You will not get anything in terms of better high-ISO performance, image quality or speed.

If I were you, I'd treat myself to a nice lens to your current body and stop worrying about full frame.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I really have to agree with the others. If your goal is to move your photography forward, your money is much better spent on lenses or lighting. How about a Speedlite or two and some radio triggers so you can get into doing some off-camera flash? How about a 10-22mm lens so you can do some ultrawide-angle shots? Or how about, as OreoCookie suggested, a "nifty fifty" so you can experiment with shallow depth of field?

Of course, none of that stuff will necessarily make you a better photographer, but if you're going to spend some money, those items would be better investments than what you are considering.

I can't imagine why you would want to throw money away on the lateral step you have in mind, unless you just think it would be cool to have big 1D body in your hands. Heck, if that's the case, just add a battery grip to your 40D. It will look and feel much bigger with a grip on it. If you're doing mostly tripod work, you don't need to use the viewfinder anyway. Maybe it's time you got to know your camera better by using its Live View feature for manual focusing.

 

[TWLreal]

If you are interested in good, cheap mf lenses, you definitely should reconsider Nikon: Canon has switched mount when going from mf to af while Nikon hasn't. There is a ginormous amount of Nikon AI(-S) lenses on the used market that can be picked up for a reasonable amount of money (unless you're interested in something rare, e. g. the 50 mm f/1.2 or so).

If you're going for the old manual focus lenses you should also reconsider Pentax. By far the largest amount of old glass is available for the Pentax K mount. (...) All M42 lenses will work on any Pentax DSLR camera with a simple converter ring (which keeps infinity focus), M42 and K mount have the same registration distance. You'll even be able to meter with the M42 lenses on Pentax cameras.

It's simply terrific that you guys mention that Nikon and Pentax have such large libraries of lenses that you can use.

The fact remains that those same lenses you mention can also be used on Canon. In fact, the Canon EF system is by far more compatible with other lenses than anyone else.

The EF system is actually able to take Contarex, Contax RTS, Leica R, Nikon F, Olympus OM, Pentax K, M42 and some other lenses with a simple adapter.

So in essence, every lens you might want to use on your Nikon or Pentax, you can use on a Canon. And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses.

 

[compuwar]

Anyways, there are a TON of crazy glass that is cheap and top notch. Of course the person behind the camera has a lot to do with it but still. Here is a great read of all the amazing glass to be had. Of course not all is cheap..

Can't you use that glass on your current body?

Don't know it would be possible but I have been using some Hasselblad Glass recently on a Hasselblad Body and it has been some of the sharpest pictures I have ever seen and taken!

Funnily enough, I just ordered a Hasslelbad to Nikon F-mount adapter and a used chrome C-mount Planar 80mm f/2.8 today.

After photokina, I would be willing to bet a D700 might be an incredible value, especially if you don't care about video or printing something for a billboard.

How much do you want to bet?

And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses.

Seriously? A 5DMk1 or 1Ds? I think not.

 

[TWLreal]

Seriously? A 5DMk1 or 1Ds? I think not.

Every lens you can mount on a Canon EF body will meter and confirm focus. That includes every Nikon F lens you can mount on it, which is just about every single one, except a handful of exceptions.

This means you can meter and confirm focus with a $300 Digital Rebel just like you can with a $6,000 1Ds Mark III.

Nikon D40, D60, D3000, D5000, D50, D70, D80, D90, D100, which make for the bulk of digital Nikon bodies currently out there, cannot meter with AI lenses. Any Canon EF body can meter with AI lenses.

Which explains "And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses."

So yes, seriously. I think so.

 

[TWLreal]

well to answer some questions. ..

The viewfinder on the 1 series is BETTER than the 5D. The 5D has .95%, whereas the 1Ds (even though it is from late 2002) has 100%.

For the record, the EOS 5D has a larger viewfinder than the EOS-1Ds and EOS-1Ds Mark II as well.

The EOS 5D has a 96% coverage, 0.71x magnification viewfinder.

Both the EOS-1Ds and EOS-1Ds Mark II have 100% coverage, 0.7x magnification.

That means that while the EOS 5D is slightly larger than both EOS-1Ds models, the 1 series models are more accurate since they have full coverage.

As a random tidbit, the EOS-1Ds Mark III currently has the largest viewfinder of all digital SLRs at 100% coverage and 0.76x magnification

 

[OreoCookie]

It's simply terrific that you guys mention that Nikon and Pentax have such large libraries of lenses that you can use.

The fact remains that those same lenses you mention can also be used on Canon. In fact, the Canon EF system is by far more compatible with other lenses than anyone else.

When you use non-Canon lenses with adapters (that cost ~$40 a piece), you only have stop-down metering. That may get very cumbersome. And there aren't only adapters to use non-EF mount lenses on Canon bodies, there are adapters that allow you to use, say, Leica lenses on Nikon bodies or Olympus OM lenses on 4/3 bodies, for instance.

If you use AI Nikon lenses on full frame Nikon bodies, you have full functionality -- with the obvious exception of the AF. This includes AI converted lenses from as early as 1959. I'm just saying that you get better functionality with a native body.

And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses.

Let's not degrade this thread into a pointless flamewar. The OP thinks of buying either an 8-year old camera or a 5-year old camera. Do you really think they'll deliver better IQ than current-gen bodies from any manufacturer that offers FF bodies today (Canon, Nikon and Sony)?

The OP thinks of getting used MF lenses -- and there are plenty of them for Nikon's F-mount (and other mounts). He's also interested in getting a full frame body (which, as I understand, is the reason for switching away from a 40D which is a nice camera).

Canon: they have FF bodies, but only used EF mount lenses work natively. FD lenses will not work without an adapter. EF-S lenses will not work at all.

Sony: they have two FF bodies, but older SR mount lenses won't work.

Pentax: although you can still use older K-mount lenses, Pentax currently doesn't have a FF body.

Nikon: obviously they most compatible since they haven't changed mounts when making the MF-AF transition. You can use very old lenses with minimal loss of features.

 

[OreoCookie]

Every lens you can mount on a Canon EF body will meter and confirm focus. That includes every Nikon F lens you can mount on it, which is just about every single one, except a handful of exceptions.

This means you can meter and confirm focus with a $300 Digital Rebel just like you can with a $6,000 1Ds Mark III.

Nikon D40, D60, D3000, D5000, D50, D70, D80, D90, D100, which make for the bulk of digital Nikon bodies currently out there, cannot meter with AI lenses. Any Canon EF body can meter with AI lenses.

Which explains "And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses."

You're just missing one key piece here: the OP wants to get a FF body (that's the reason for selling a very good crop dslr). In case of Nikon this means, he'd be looking at the D700, D3, D3s or D3x. All of these lenses support even matrix metering on old lenses. The only thing that isn't working is the AF.

 

[TWLreal]

When you use non-Canon lenses with adapters (that cost ~$40 a piece), you only have stop-down metering.

It's a simple metal ring. They cost less than $10.

In fact, I paid $15 for mine and it includes focus confirmation.

Does stop-down metering prevent you from using the lenses?

The fact remains, Nikon AI lenses will meter on any Canon body. It's also a fact that D40, D60, D3000, D5000, D50, D70, D80, D90, D100 bodies will not meter at all with those.

It's pretty simple.

And there aren't only adapters to use non-EF mount lenses on Canon bodies, there are adapters that allow you to use, say, Leica lenses on Nikon bodies or Olympus OM lenses on 4/3 bodies.

Yes, sure.

But those will also work with Canon bodies. If you are touting about Nikon F and Olympus OM compatibility, you are only increasing the lens library available to Canon EF as it will also take those. The EF system emcompasses all of them, think Venn diagram.

If you use AI Nikon lenses on full frame Nikon bodies, you have full functionality -- with the obvious exception of the AF. This includes AI converted lenses from as early as 1959.

You will need a body above a D200 in order to claim full compatibility with the entire Nikon F lens library.

You can meter and confirm focus with Nikon AI lenses a $300 Digital Rebel. You can't meter with any Nikon body below a D200.

I am not dismissing the fact that what you said is true. I've only stated my fact in the first place as a statement.

Let's not degrade this thread into a pointless flamewar.

It's not like I started it. I only had to come in and clarify something.

The OP thinks of getting used MF lenses -- and there are plenty of them for Nikon's F-mount (and other mounts).

And these "plenty of them for Nikon's F-mount" can also be used on a Canon, which means he won't have to switch systems for.

 

[TWLreal]

You're just missing one key piece here: the OP wants to get a FF body (that's the reason for selling a very good crop dslr). In case of Nikon this means, he'd be looking at the D700, D3, D3s or D3x. All of these lenses support even matrix metering on old lenses. The only thing that isn't working is the AF.

That was an unrelated post to what the OP said since I was only answering someone questioning my "And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses" statement.

It has little nothing to do with what the OP wants but may provide some information to him but is really an arc from the original point.

If you take the time to read my posts, I am replying to 2 other people and not the OP.

 

[compuwar]

Nikon D40, D60, D3000, D5000, D50, D70, D80, D90, D100, which make for the bulk of digital Nikon bodies currently out there, cannot meter with AI lenses. Any Canon EF body can meter with AI lenses.

Which explains "And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses."

So yes, seriously. I think so.

"Do better" is generally about the image results, not the ease of useuse- all the older lenses have aperture rings, shooting in manual mode isn't that big a deal, especially on digital where you can chimp the histogram. So, seriously an 8 year old body from any manufacturer isn't going to produce better results than a current one. That's like saying that a P&S is much easier to use than a DSLR, so they "take pictures better." Not buying it.

It's disingenuous to also ignore the fact that the OP was talking about 35mm-sized sensor bodies.

Paul

 

[OreoCookie]

That was an unrelated post to what the OP said since I was only answering someone questioning my "And the Canon might actually do it better than most Nikon bodies even using Nikon's own lenses" statement.

It has little nothing to do with what the OP wants but may provide some information to him but is really an arc from the original point.

You post here explaining why the OP can use Nikon lenses on FF Canon bodies, but construct a rather artificial scenario under which Canon bodies do have an advantage (wanting to use Nikon MF glass on Rebel-class cameras is irrelevant to the discussion here since the OP wants to sell his mid-range crop body in favor of a FF body). You just come across as a Canon fan boy at this point.

BTW, quite a few posters here (myself included) have suggested an entirely different route if the OP wants to stick with Canon bodies: getting cheap(er) EF lenses rather than non-EF mount MF lenses. He already owns one according to his sig. We aren't pushing him to switch systems at this point.

If you take the time to read my posts, I am replying to 2 other people and not the OP.

There is no reason to be rude. I'm not the only one who interpreted that part of your post as pertaining to image quality.

 

[TWLreal]

"Do better" is generally about the image results, not the ease of useuse- all the older lenses have aperture rings, shooting in manual mode isn't that big a deal, especially on digital where you can chimp the histogram. So, seriously an 8 year old body from any manufacturer isn't going to produce better results than a current one. That's like saying that a P&S is much easier to use than a DSLR, so they "take pictures better." Not buying it.

The lenses will provide similar image quality, provided the sensor capturing the image behaves the same.

If everything else being equal, I'll take the body that will meter and confirm focus rather than the one that can't.

And your analogy is not that relevant at all and is pretty farfetched.

It's about the fact that one will do something that the other cannot.

It's disingenuous to also ignore the fact that the OP was talking about 35mm-sized sensor bodies.

I have never even replied to the OP at all except for the random fact about the viewfinders.

Nothing I have said should be read as a reply to him, as I clearly didn't mention him at all.

It's not that difficult to see who I am replying to.