Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 1 Nov 2009 13:37 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:53:21 -0000, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hck4q7$d90$2(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during >flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of the >flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital equipment. >It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so on) so I'm >happy to use a film body. Which airline (by name)? -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Neil Harrington on 1 Nov 2009 13:48 "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message news:hck4q5$d90$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:011120090119001631%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> In article <4aed2654$0$1598$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer >> <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >> >>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either. >>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses, >>> >>> So there's no problems except for the problems. >> >> people who buy entry level cameras don't usually buy a lot of old >> lenses and people who have a lot of lenses don't usually buy entry >> level cameras, so it isn't actually much of a problem. > > In my experience, my friends who bought entry-level cameras wanted to keep > their spending to the minimum in case they weren't able to handle an SLR. > This meant that they tended to buy those second-hand old lenses. No offense, but I doubt very much that is "in your experience." I know a good number of people who bought SLRs for the first time and not a single one of them ever bought "second-hand old lenses" (meaning lenses so old as to be incompatible) for them. At least half of them in fact never bought any lens other than the one that came with the camera. Those who did buy a second lens in every case bought one suitable for the camera. People who buy additional lenses tend to be knowledgeable enough about what they're doing to buy something that they know will work.
From: Neil Harrington on 1 Nov 2009 13:58 "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message news:hck4q7$d90$2(a)adenine.netfront.net... > "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4aed24d3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> PaddleHard wrote: >>> I have a question about lenses, Canon in particular. I have a Digital >>> Rebel 300D and am looking to purchase a 50D in the next year. I'm >>> looking at a EF 28-135mm IS USM lense. Will this work with both >>> cameras? >> >> Yep. >> >>> What's the rule of thumb for Canon lenses and their >>> 'compatibility' with older and new cameras? >> >> Any EF (not EFS) lens should work fine on any Canon DSLR. >> >> -- >> W > > I believe it is also true that any EF lens should work on any Canon EF > mount body including their 35mm and APS bodies. > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so > on) so I'm happy to use a film body. I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to take pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when the door is open. No one has ever objected yet.
From: nospam on 1 Nov 2009 13:08 In article <87iqdu1681.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > You are still missing the point. The problem is not > with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide > camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses. exactly. if someone wants to use old lenses they should pick a camera with that capability. many users have no interest in old lenses (or for that matter, new ones other than the kit lens), so why pay for a feature that won't ever be used? nikon removed the motor that was never used which made the camera smaller, lighter and less expensive and it sold like crazy. > (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had > a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and > had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.) indeed. the fd mount sucked, to be blunt. minolta, on the other hand, didn't have a good reason to change mounts but they did anyway and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up with a wacky hotshoe too.
From: nospam on 1 Nov 2009 13:08
In article <9okre5tj6r1ip443fbhafnnsutp7sjef9j(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Personally, I stayed with the FD bodies and lenses until there was something > >better on offer. > > There's still nothing better on offer. > The issue is the lack of even one digital body. wrong. there are currently several digital bodies that take fd lenses with an appropriate adapter. |