Whats the best camera for if you want to use older lenses? like

>>2942481
Kys my man

are you paid to shitpost here or something

I've seen you post so many times with the same stupid questions

>>2942481
>>2942481 (OP)
Whats the best camera for if you want to use older lenses?
like the best value?
Canon 5D mark 1 with a split image focusing screen. Its by far the biggest bang for the buck. That said, manual focusing is more accurate with live view. Also, some cameras have in body stabilization. If you want full frame(and for old lenses you do), and in body stabilization there are no "best values". Everything is over 1500$.

>>2942481

Get a Pentax QS-1
Can be adapted to every known manual lens

>>2942481
If you want the cheapest camera that can adapt most lenses, get a Sony NEX, basically a p&s size camera that you can mount big lenses on and somehow not break the mount.
Most will just get Fuji, Sony alpha, or a Pentax for adapting legacy lenses though.

File: xa10.jpg (286KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 800x533px

>If you want full frame(and for old lenses you do)

So you cant multiply in your head

>Canon 5D mark 1 with a split image focusing screen

Why on earth would you not use a mirrorless cam with an EVF and focus peaking

Get either a fuji or sony mirrorless and as many adapters/speedboosters you want

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M3
Camera Software	DSC-RX100M3 v1.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:20 09:27:37
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	5.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	533
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.1
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2942514
>Why on earth would you not use a mirrorless cam with an EVF and focus peaking
It is unfortunately a thing in the photo world for DSLR users to try to convince new people to make the same mistake as them so that they feel better about their own mistake.

>>2942514
Well it goes to show that if it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.

>I built a pinhole lens for a rabal from a aluminum can and a cheese cracker.

>>2942514
I used to reply seriously to APS-cucks, but i don't have strength anymore. You will eventually understand.

>>2942514
Because its FF(which is pretty important) and because it costs 300$. For that amount of money you can't even get a used Sony or Fuji with an EVF.
LOL speedboosters... i quit

>>2942532
You can get plenty of cheap mirrorless cams with evf. An xt-1 or a7 can be had for around 700-800 dollars now

You still haven't explained why full frame is so important though. It's very easy to deal with the crop factor. Fast nifty primes become almost short tele and anything 20-35mm is fantastic for standard. It's harder to find good older wide angle lenses but if you go fuji or sony there's plenty of fantastic native lenses

As for speedboosters depending on the lenses they work incredibly well. There's a canon fd to fuji x speedbooster that has very minimal effect on image quality while giving you the native FOV of the lens on crop with a bit more (albeit easily corrected) barrel distortion

http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-metabones-speed-booster-canon-fd-to-fuji-x/

>I used to reply seriously to APS-cucks, but i don't have strength anymore

Because you're an autistic idiot that has so much of a problem figuring out the FOV that you'll post retarded threads complaining about FF dslrs being too expensive

>>2942514
>XA adapted
Fucking literally how

>>2942537
http://www.meinezersaegtenkameras.de/E3more.html

>>2942536
800$ is not exactly cheap. A7 is better then Canon 5D1 obviosuly, but its 170% more expensive, which means its not the best value for money. What is so hard to understand?

>You still haven't explained why full frame is so important though.
And i'm not going to this time. I will let you use old 28mm as a fantastic standard lens. You deserve it.

>speedboosters
They work incredibly well only for video, and they cost almost as much as a camera i suggested.

> if you go fuji or sony there's plenty of fantastic native lenses
Which cost more then the competition, and this is a thread about best value lenses/cameras, not the best ones. Also, even in that aspect Canon also has the cheapest and pretty decent 10-18mm. I hate fucking Canon and their dated sensors, but in their cameras have the best value for what OP wants. He should have just stated how much he is willing to spend.

>>2942536
LOL

>>2942481
> the sony with A mount
More likely a Sony E-mount MILC. Preferably but not necessarily one with IBIS.

>>2942551
>800$ is not exactly cheap

It is for what you get with either an a7 or xt-1. And it's really only twice as much. I don't see a single 5dmk1 anywhere for under 400

Even at that you could get a fuji xe-1 or a6000 and still be able to adapt tons of lenses and use an EVF with peaking

>I will let you use old 28mm as a fantastic standard lens. You deserve it.

I'm not even sure what you're implying here. Like are you trying to be snarky for no particular reason?

>And i'm not going to this time

So you're really just pretending to be retarded

>Which cost more then the competition, and this is a thread about best value lenses/cameras, not the best ones

Yes, and buying a 5dinosaur is far from the best value especially if you want to be able to pretty much adapt any lens and be able to focus them with greater ease due to EVF peaking

Why are you so convinced you have to have a full frame camera?

>>2942551
i was looking to spend little as possible. i have an eos m
i was wondering if a sony A mount would be a good upgrade and older minolta lenses with the same mount would be a good value.
i spent $155 for the eos. but would like to get something just a bit better. maybe $200-300

>>2942567
What dont you like about the eos m that you want to upgrade?

It sounds like you have no idea what you want but want to upgrade anyways

>>2942561
You have to wait a bit for a good 5d.They went a bit up i price recently, but i bought one in great condition to use as a backup for 250 Euros three months ago. I saw one for 200 Euros in bad condition, but still operational .

I wrote that live view is more accurate way of focusing in my first post.

Judging by his image, which shows one of the best vealues for money in low end segment paired with one of the cheapest old lenses you can find i assume op does not think 800$ is cheap even for what A7 offers.

Reasons why FF is important(very quick list because im too sleepy for more) :
Resolving power of the lens
FOV(wide angles, also 135mm which is a key focal length for portraiture, and unlike 85 very cheap)
High ISO(not applicable for 5D, but even 5D is still good at iso 1600 for modern aps-c standards)
Color depth/tonality (but thats negligible to my eyes)
Bokeh whoring

>>2942514
what the literal fuck is that

>>2942583
>Resolving power of the lens

Irrelevant considering a 5dmk1 is only 12 megapixels resolving any more is pointless

>FOV(wide angles, also 135mm which is a key focal length for portraiture, and unlike 85 very cheap)

You can several incredibly fantastic fast 85mm primes for crop either native or rokinon. Personally I prefer the rokinon its ~200 dollars for a fantastic 85mm/f1.4

Wide angles are harder to find but like I said fuji makes a ton of relatively cheap and versatile wide angle primes for x mount and sony are starting to come out with more like the loxia

>High ISO(not applicable for 5D, but even 5D is still good at iso 1600 for modern aps-c standards)

You're insane to think a 5d from 2005 has better high iso performance than any ~400$ body made today

>Color depth/tonality (but thats negligible to my eyes)

memes

>Bokeh whoring

wow its fucking nothing

You're the worst gearfag I've ever seen in my life. Go take photos instead of drooling over a ten year old relic while trying to do mental gymnastics to convince yourself it's all worth it

File: 1d4165ecb5d0836bf05e52cbf6533a10.jpg (51KB, 617x435px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 617x435px

>>2942514
>Why on earth would you not use a mirrorless cam with an EVF and focus peaking

because you hate your life and want to make it worse

>>2942561
>>I will let you use old 28mm as a fantastic standard lens. You deserve it.
>I'm not even sure what you're implying here
Most old 28mms are garbage.
Most old 50mms are excellent.
That's pretty much it.

>>2942594
Completely ridiculous. There's fantastic minolta, pentax, canon fd, olympus, nikon, etc 28mm lenses

Personally I have a pentax-a 28mm f2 that is absolutely fantastic and I'd say even on par with the pentax-a nifty fifty

Is that really a good reason to go full frame though? Just because old nifty fifties might be marginally better than an equivalent system 28mm? I'd also take the 40-45mm fov over 50 any day of the week as well but that's more of a personal preference

>>2942569
i like the eos m
but if i can get something with a better sensor and a real viewfinder it could be useful.

>>2942604
What makes you think you need a better sensor? Are you making prints and need the resolution or what

By real viewfinder do you mean that you need an optical viewfinder? Because if you get a chance try using something with an EVF or think about something with a hybrid viewfinder like an xpro or something

>>2942609
id like to do bigger prints than 11x17
a real optical viewfinder would be nice sometimes. spending extra on an electronic one seems stupid.
a sensor with lower noise at higher iso's would be nice.

>>2942481
a nikon.

>>2942640
which one? $200-$300

>>2942646
xpro1

File: Screenshot_2016-10-07-18-58-44.png (59KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 320x480px

>>2942647
are you high? a downgrade for 3 times money

>>2942649
It'll make him take better photos

>>2942651
How?

>>2942649
Xpro1 is a pretty bad camera for adapting.
XE1 or XE2

XE1 is $300 and less used
Add $100 for a speed booster later for the cheapest FF camera you can get

>>2942657
exactly

>>2942646
whatever the best in that range currently is, hell if i remember.
The mount has stayed the same (f mount) since like the 70s so you have a loooot of lenses to choose from.

>>2942686
im looking at the d3200
24mp
used $200-300

>>2942592
Resolving power of old lenses, especially at open aperture is not that great, and you are throwing away half of the image when you use apsc.
Also 12mpix on full frame in practice is very different from 12mpix on apsc. Nikon D3200 with its double pixel count is just on par in actual sharpness with Canon 5d.

Used 85s are much more expensive then used 135s. There are many dirt cheap, but usable 135mm f/2.8 lenses. Again you are listing an 85mm lens that is cheap for your standards(and most other photographers) but those 135s i mentioned go for 20-30 euros. Of course Samyang/Rokinon is f/1.4, but on apsc not much different then those dirt cheap old 135s are on full frame.

More then previous ones, this opinion really shows your lack of knowledge/experience with cameras. Actually its just as good as some modern 1000$ apsc cameras in RAW. The price is not indicative of the performance in this aspect. Some cheaper new cameras are the same as more expensive ones in this aspect. Canon 5D is still close to the best sony/nikon/canon/pentax offer today in apsc. Go research it if you don't believe me.

For me the difference between apsc and ff is pretty small, but If color depth and tonality are memes why are some people(usually very knowledgeable about photography) using larger formats? If it was a meme cellphones would have the same color as larger sensor cameras, and of course they don't.

Well if you care a lot about bokeh(i dont), FF is key, especially if you want it cheaply.

A gearfag that is recommending a 11 years old dslr. I'm a new kind of gear fag it seems, a retro gear queer!

>>2942594
Maybe the are garbage because you are putting it on apsc?

>>2942628
I hope you mean 11x17 inches, and if you are considering D3200 i have bad news. Its not sharper then EOS-m at all. You are not going to get big benefits with iso performance in the price range you stated.

>>2942834
>sharper then
Go back to school m8 and learn the difference between "then" and "than"

>>2942481
sony a7,
because it's full frame and you can use the lens as intended.
sure you can get a zhongyi lens turbo for apsc but that is another cost ($150) and you will be locked into a lens system.

>>2942741
Wtf? Do you know anything about cameras? That guy who recommended Nikon is obviously clueless. Nikon is the worst choice for adapting old cheap lenses. You lucked out with that eos M. Camera you already have is the best you can get up to 200$. You seem to have pretty big expectations considering the sum you are ready to spend. Nikon D3200 will be a big improvement in dynamic range at base iso, but nothing else. Nikons flange distance prevents it from fully adapting anything other then Nikon, and old Nikon glass is the most expensive in SLR world. Also low end nikons don't have any metering with tgose old lenses.

>>2942569
eos m doesn't have focus peaking and the peaking in magic lantern is trash.

>>2942842
Did you try all focus assist options Magic Lantern offers?

>>2942834
>Resolving power of old lenses, especially at open aperture is not that great, and you are throwing away half of the image when you use apsc.

So you're trying to tell me that you should still get a 5d to use with old lenses even though they might not even be able to resolve the maximum a 5d can handle

Also how the fuck is it 'throwing away' half the image? If anything you'd see more sharpness on crop due to older lenses losing out on corner sharpness with the same lens

>Also 12mpix on full frame in practice is very different from 12mpix on apsc

You're fucking kidding, right?

>Used 85s are much more expensive then used 135s. There are many dirt cheap, but usable 135mm f/2.8 lenses. Again you are listing an 85mm lens that is cheap for your standards(and most other photographers) but those 135s i mentioned go for 20-30 euros. Of course

How can you argue for the benefits of sharpness and at the same time suggest that a 20-30 euro lens is fine

>why are some people(usually very knowledgeable about photography) using larger formats?

Because they want to print or have large resolution formats available for use

>this opinion really shows your lack of knowledge/experience with cameras

You literally hold multiple contradictory ideals that make no fucking sense whatsoever that I almost have to assume you're being retarded on purpose

File: 5d3200.jpg (54KB, 832x677px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 832x677px

>>2942848
There are no contradictions at all. Remember the entire discussion was about biggest value for money in the lowest end segment.

>You're fucking kidding, right?
No, and i'm not going to bother replying anymore. Enjoy your aps-c, its ok, i'm using it most of the time too.

>>2942854
>Remember the entire discussion was about biggest value for money in the lowest end segment

Yeah and your suggestion was a 5d with a 20 euro 135mm

You're literally proving my point linking dxomark. It's an 11 year old camera with 11 year old problems that you'll completely disregard because you're only focused on the end result and forget the things that come with working with old digital cameras

You would literally rather sit here and try to explain to me in your twisted logic how 'apsc megapixels are different from full frame megapixels'

>No, and i'm not going to bother replying anymore

Thank fuck because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about

>>2942860
I thought you are just clueless and arrogant, but now i'm starting to suspect you are a Fuji shill. Are they paying you anything?

>I thought you are just clueless and arrogant

You know I thought the same thing about you. Not going to explain how 'Also 12mpix on full frame in practice is very different from 12mpix on apsc', huh?

>but now i'm starting to suspect you are a Fuji shill. Are they paying you anything?

Really? Because I recommended either a fuji or sony before primarily because the original criteria was 'Whats the best camera for if you want to use older lenses?, like the best value?' before I knew he couldn't spend more than 300 dollars that is

But yeah call me a shill for trying to suggest cameras that have all of the things to make working with old lenses that much easier

>>2942876
I acknowledged the importance of live view in my first post, EVF is great(and over OPs limit), but if i had to chose which camera i would use for adapting that 10 euro 50mm from OPs pic i would certainly get an FF one, because the result will be very different.

>'Also 12mpix on full frame in practice is very different from 12mpix on apsc', huh?
It is, especially for not so sharp older lenses. Its funny how you disregarded that DXO mark comparison. Also 11 year old problems? You sound like a salesman.

>>2942885
>but if i had to chose which camera i would use for adapting that 10 euro 50mm from OPs pic i would certainly get an FF one, because the result will be very different

Aside from the fov what would that difference be

>It is, especially for not so sharp older lenses

Yeah they'll look even worse on full frame. You'll notice far more softness in the corners

>Also 11 year old problems? You sound like a salesman.

Yeah fuck me for actually arguing for the usability of a camera, right? I'm talking 11 year old load times, ergonomics, screen size, viewfinder size, etc

>>2942854
dxo results for 5D are extrapolated, not measured; I remember seeing a couple lenses supposedly resolving 13 MP - that's on a 12 MP camera.

>>2942891
>Aside from the fov what would that difference
FOV is the most important aspect in this case, especially for portraits (which this particular lens is most frequently used for). But aside from that you are also losing detail putting it on aps-c.
I feel we are going in circles.

>viewfinder size
I know Fuji is great here but this is also one of the main reasons to get FF

>ergonomics
Whats wrong with ergonomics? Aside from size which is the reason why i also use apsc mirrorless often.

>11 year old load times
Yet startup time of that ancient 5D is faster then most mirrorless cams, especially in the price range.

>>2942898
Its 12.8

>>2942843
yes.
the peaking in sony is better.
you get peaking in eos m3 and m5 though.

>>2942930
my eos m with magic lantern has focus peaking.

before i even considered the d3200 i was considering getting an old 35mm f1.4 nikkor lens.
the d3200 would allow me to use any f mount lens. seems like a good way to go.

are you guys saying the d3200 is no better than the eos m? i thought the sensor was better.
and having an optical viewfinder would be nice.

>>2942910
Even if it's rounded up, this implies absolutely flawless quality across the frame.

For some reason, only FF sensors can achieve near 100% of stated resolution with any lens in dxo tests, while smaller sensors always score lower - which is understandable in principle, but the difference is so big that phone sensors should never be able to resolve over 1 MP if the trend is extrapolated.

>>2943088
D3200 does indeed have a better sensor than EOS M, but the optical viewfinder is near-useless for manual focusing (it's small and doesn't show proper DoF above f/2.8), and the meter is disabled for any non-AF lens because Nikon hates their users.

>>2942840
old lenses wont focus to infinity on my eos m. the adapters are made too thick.
it seems like too much of a hassle. maybe i should just get a nikon body and stick with nikon lenses.

>>2943100
And then you'll find out on most nikons in your price range you cant meter or focus

>>2943101
you mean autofocus? or focus at all?
i never specified a price range for lenses.
a good value in lenses does not mean cheap.

>>2943104
low-end Nikons only autofocus with new AF-S lenses, everything else becomes manual focus

also, for no reason apart from malice they won't meter with non-AF lenses, so you'll have to use an external meter or guess the exposure.

>>2943100
I'm the guy who recommended 5D. I had EOS M too, and focused without issues beyond infinity with cheapest chinese adapters, they are usually made that way. How many lenses did you try? How many adapters? Also, EOS M is pretty sharp when used with EF-M lenses like 22mm f/2. If you don't sell yours, get this lens. You can still find new ones for little over 100$.

D3200 is a decent choice, but its literally one of the worst choices for adapting old lenses, even autofocus ones. Maybe you should just stick to new lenses?

>>2942930
I liked high contrast/sharpness live view mode for MF. For me it worked better then focus peaking.

>>2943154
i have the 22mm for it. i love it.
i use a ef m to ef adapter. and a thin m42 to ef adapter on that with a heilos 44 lens and it wont go to infinity. i just ordered a em to m42 hoping it will place the lens closer to the body.

>>2943106
You're so wrong it hurts about metering. I'm at a loss as to what you could possibly think you know. I don't own a lens made after '83 and they all meter just fine on my d800. Shrug.

>>2943184
You either didn't read that post fully or you got that d800 a little bit early.

File: d3.jpg (243KB, 485x730px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 485x730px

>>2943184

>low-end nikons

>d800

>low-end nikons

>d800

>>2942601
>pentax 28mm f2
Which sells second hand for more than the new sony 28mm f2, which absolutely rapes it.

Not a bad lens brah, but fucking rare and not cheap. I'm guessing your shooting crop pentax too, check out the corners on ff, not good.

>>2943318
It's pretty much the same design as the zeiss 28mm f2.0 distagon

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/

The sony lens new is 400 and while they dont pop up much the pentax one can be had for 300-400

That being said if I was shooting full frame I'd just spring ~300 or so for that contax g 45mm f2.0 planar or a bit more for the 43mm f1.9 limited pentax lens to adhere to the same FOV but I don't shoot full frame and honestly prefer shooting crop because I've seen far more decent 28mm lenses than 40-45mm on full frame that I like

My personal favorites are those 28mm olympus zukio, either the f2.0 or f2.8. They can still be had relatively cheap and are really great

My point is that there's a lot of fantastic and for the most part budget 28mm lenses to use in place of a nifty fifty on crop

File: pentax28mmKvsMA.jpg (66KB, 463x610px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 463x610px

>>2943331
Only the K-version of the Pentax 28mm actually uses the Zeiss Distagon design.

The M and A versions are different, lacking that "floating element" that made the Zeiss version special. They're still good, and about half the price of the K version - which is essentially a collectors item these days (and priced pretty much the same as the real ZK Zeiss lens) - but not quite the same. The K-version is pretty hard to come across, the M and A versions pop up every now and then. I think I paid about threefiddy for mine.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:09 13:08:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	463
Image Height	610

>>2943100
usually they made it so you focus past infinity.
anyway, you can pop off the name plate, loosen the screw and adjust it so you can hard stop on infinity perfectly.

>>2942481
it depends, if you care bout evf , a6000, if you don't the nx500, assuming by best you mean cost value. Although you wont get any support for nx cameras anymore, they are still worth regarding IQ,