Best 'Budget' DSLR or Mirrorless - Nikon AIS Lenses

$322 seems low enough. It looks as though an A7 would be about $200 more, but would have a full frame sensor with a little better IQ. One of the advantages(?) of mirrorless is that the "viewfinder" image size is not related to the sensor size like it is in a DSLR.

 

If you go the A6000 route, the 16-50 OSS kit lens is small and pretty good, worth having. I have not used an A6000, but do use an A7 on a regular basis for travel and for using older (mostly vintage rangefinder) lenses. The A7 seems to have nice punchy colors in daylight, but seems not as good as my Nikons (including the D600 I used to have) in poor artificial light. The user interface is more awkward, as well.

 

Also note that the A6000 is DX format, so WA lenses will not be as wide, but tele's will be "longer" with the 1.5x factor vs full frame. Your 55 will effectively perform as an 82.5MM, which may be an advantage for your purposes.

There's adapters that fit lens and body together and then there's adapters that allow differing levels of control.

 

Just fit, all manual adapters are ~£10.

 

Full AUTO adapters seem to be about £350, is that right??

I'm sure the A6000 will be more than adequate for my needs. If I change my mind I can sell it and get something else.

 

BTW, I'm no newb to analog and digital photography. Calculating effective focal length isn't an issue. I started with digital in about 1992 using Kodak's first 2MP commercial offerings. You can imagine the challenges we had with those dogs. The latest Photoshop was version 2.0. We had PowerMac computers with a whopping 24MB of RAM. However, it's been about fifteen years since I've used DSLR cameras and those were 6MP. So just about any relatively recent offerings will be far better than what I'm accustomed to. I started analog photography when I was thirteen and moved up to 4x5 at fifteen. I did my own processing and printing. I used Ansel's methodologies.

 

Regarding lens adapters: I don't need auto focus but do want aperture priority auto exposure. I also want auto contrast and color balance (defeatable). I'll get a straight adapter tube and one with swivel to shift plane-of-focus for macro images. I think those will cost about US$25 and $50 respectively.

Hmm, I can't edit my previous post.

 

I should have added that the smaller size of the Sony mirrorless body and the swiveling view screen are definite advantages for shooting macro.

An interesting option for adapting Nikon lenses to Sony is a so-called speedbooster. This is an adapter with a concave element in it, that reduces the effective focal length of the adapted lens while increasing the effective maximum aperture by one stop. When used on an APS-C camera like the A6000, it effectively cancels out the crop factor of the lens. Naturally, the concave element does change the optics of the lens—usually, I imagine, for the worse. But that's a tradeoff that could be acceptable some of the time.

I had a look at the Speed Booster. It's an interesting and compelling option. I like that it corrects for the crop factor but I worry the extra optics will affect lens sharpness. I'll look for some tests.

I went through a box of lenses and located my old Nikon mount Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5 Aspherical. It's nothing special but will be okay for my purposes. Equivalent focal length on 135 format is about 27-53mm. The 55mm Micro Nikkor calculates to about 84mm equivalent on APS-C. If I decide I need something longer or wider then I'll research it later.

I've been looking for a good affordable tilt adapter that works as well as a fixed version, when not tilted. So far, the least pricey very good ones seem to cost US$100+. Am I missing something or are decent ones really that pricey?

I really wish the time to allow editing was longer.

 

I've decided against a tilt adapter. The only one I've seen which I like is made by Kipon and the cheapest I can find one is $113. That's far more than I want to spend just so I can have tilt. I don't like the designs of the others I've seen.

 

It seems the straight tube adapters are more or less the same regarding quality, regardless of price. Are there any I should avoid? Any suggestions for an inexpensive one of good quality?

Maybe the guys on the Sony/Minolta forum might have an input here?

Or the Mirrorless one perhaps?

Thank you. I'll ask in that forum also.

If you just want a manual adapter, I can recommend the K&F Concept ones. They're exceptionally well made for the price. I have 3 of them for Nikon, M42 (Pentax screw) and M39 (Leica screw).

 

K&F's Nikon adapters come in two versions. One of them gives aperture control over 'G' lenses and is well worth the slight extra cost IMHO.

 

For extreme macro you could do worse than buy an M39 adapter and a set of Leica-screw bellows. You can then use a wide variety of enlarging lenses as macro lenses. Top quality enlarging lenses can be bought dirt cheap nowadays, since almost nobody does wet printing.

 

I was lucky enough to pick up a 50mm f/2.8 Apo Rodagon for the equivalent of around $35 US. The bargains are out there! So good luck with your adventures into macro.

Thanks Joe. Those K&F adapters look just like the Fotodiox offerings at far lesser price. For extreme macro, I'd probably search for an affordable Nikon PB-4 bellows. I have some nice enlarging lenses. But I'm keeping the digital stuff pretty simple.

Sorry I'm a bit late to this party...

 

For tilt adaptors, bear in mind they're an alternative to a dedicated tilt shift lens, and they're very expensive. $100 is a bargain.

 

Worth mentioning that the D3500 has just been announced, appreciably cheaper than the D3400 and quite a bit smaller and lighter; it might affect some prices. You need the D5x00 series for a tilt screen, though. And neither does aperture priority with non-electronic glass.

 

Focal reducers/speed boosters sometimes actually increase the image quality compared with using the lens bare, since they reduce the effective frequency at the lens output. It depends how good the lens is in the corners, though. Bear in mind you might prefer the crop factor on a macro lens.

 

But I'd try the Sony in a store and see how you get on. They've been slow to update their crop bodies, so the interface is more clunky than the A7 series. I wouldn't rule out the D7100 idea, or a D6x0 if you like sensor over autofocus.

 

Good luck!

"Focal reducers/speed boosters sometimes actually increase the image quality compared with using the lens bare, since they reduce the effective frequency at the lens output."

 

- Gosh Andrew, that's a rather overly-technical way of saying 'squash the image size'. And surely they increase the spatial frequencies, not reduce them?

 

"I'd probably search for an affordable Nikon PB-4 bellows."

 

- The PB-4 is a nice bit of kit to have, but darned heavy and bulky, and limits how close you can get an attached lens to the camera. Whereas Leica-fit bellows can be got quite cheaply and are generally smaller, lighter, and have a shorter minimum length. This allows infinity focus with non-retrofocus 80mm or so lenses, which can be fun to play with.

 

However, the larger throat of a PB-4 does allow small diameter lenses to be reversed onto an adapter flange and inserted right into the bellows. Remembering to stop the lens down to working aperture first!

Edited August 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

"Focal reducers/speed boosters sometimes actually increase the image quality compared with using the lens bare, since they reduce the effective frequency at the lens output."

 

- Gosh Andrew, that's a rather overly-technical way of saying 'squash the image size'. And surely they increase the spatial frequencies, not reduce them?

 

Um, yes, it was. :-) They're basically the reverse of a teleconverter, with all that entails, which is probably the simplest way to think about it:

• A teleconverter takes a subset of the lens image and stretches it across a larger frame. A focal reducer takes a wider image output by the lens and squashes it to a smaller frame.
  
• A teleconverter magnifies optical aberrations. A focal reducer shrinks them.
  
• A teleconverter spreads the light out and reduces the effective aperture. A focal reducer squashes the light together and increases the effective aperture. (But remember equivalence as it applies to aperture.)
  
• A teleconverter takes the middle of the lens output and avoids the corners, which may be softer. A focal reducer pulls in the corners.
  

I meant to say that a focal reducer is taking low spatial frequencies from the lens output and converting them into high frequencies at the sensor. So the sensor's resolution corresponds to lower frequencies coming from the lens than a simple adaptor. But I've had trouble sleeping, so I'm not surprised I was incoherent.

Worth mentioning that the D3500 has just been announced, appreciably cheaper than the D3400 and quite a bit smaller and lighter; it might affect some prices. You need the D5x00 series for a tilt screen, though. And neither does aperture priority with non-electronic glass.

 

Also of note with the more recent D3x00 and I think D5x00 bodies is that they don't meter with ANY lens that has an aperture ring.

 

Even relatively modern lenses like my 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S won't meter on those cameras(I'm not sure if AF works with that lens-I haven't tested it). For someone interested in legacy lenses, this also means that you don't get metering/AE if you "chip" them.

Good point, Ben. Although I believe it applies only to the D3400 and (not that I've looked closely at the mount) D3500 - I think the D5x00 series still have the EE post position switch like the D3300 and the Z mount adaptor, so those should still meter with non-G electronic lenses so long as you control the aperture from the camera.

I think I'm figuring this out. I'm starting a new thread asking only about lenses.

Hi guys, i just joined the photo thing perhaps i've always liked a lot and i'm graphic designer but i just have my very first D-SLR (Nikon D5000). I have seen lots of adapters from M42 to Nikon F to fit my camera but still i'mnot pretty sure of their quality or abilities. Anyone has a suggestion or hiden trick to make this work? Thanks in advance. Also, if there is any other better thread to discuss this please let me know.

I have seen lots of adapters from M42 to Nikon F to fit my camera but still i'mnot pretty sure of their quality or abilities.

 

- Basically trying to fit an M42 lens to a Nikon DSLR just doesn't work unless you only want to focus close up.

 

Any adapter that offers infinity focus will have a crappy, cheap lens element fitted into it, and will ruin the image quality of any lens fitted to it. Save your money, and don't waste your time!

febres

 

I haven't dealt with digital equipment for nearly two decades so my knowledge regarding the latest cameras and lenses is nearly nil. I don't know if there's a M42-NF adapter that will allow infinity focus. I have non-electronic (manual everything) adapters for NF-NEX and M42-NEX that work very well but they're used on a mirrorless body. The inexpensive 'smart' adapter I have doesn't work properly with my Sony A6000 and Nikon-G lenses. From what I can gather from research, the pricey smart adapters work 'fairly' well but they cost US$300-400 each, so not worth it (IMO) unless you have a valuable cache of lenses in a mount different than the body.

...I meant "I don't know if there's a M42-NF adapter that will allow infinity focus on a DSLR".

A little late here, but I'd point out that although the D3x00 family will work just fine with the old manual lens, and although metering is really very little of an issue with macro, especially after a little practice, if you go that route you may find that the small viewfinder makes macro focusing more difficult. When I was doing a lot of manual macro work with the D3200, I found a DK-21M eyepiece magnifier very helpful, even though it makes full-are viewing a bit more difficult. With that said, I have a 55/3.5 that's been AI converted, and it's very nice on DX format.

 

The D7100 is well ahead of the 3200, both with its better viewfinder and its ability to meter with manual lenses, and if at all possible I'd go for that one, even if it runs a bit over budget. If you're going with a D3x00 I'd look at the D3300, which is the last of that series that meters with AF lenses that have an aperture ring, has both front and rear IR sensors, and a sensor shaker, but drops the anti-aliasing filter that was on the D3200.