I guess the dream has come true: full frame digital camera that fits FD lenses without crop

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>Check this out: Sony A7.<br /> Two versions, full frame, one 24 megapix, one 36 megapix, 2.2 megapix electronic viewfinder. <br /> Fits FD through lensless adapter. No crop.</p>

<p>I use an Olympus PEN with FD with great results, but can't use my wide angle lenses like the 14mm or 24mm f/1.4, I use my Canon F1 for that, film (Ektar 100) plus scan to print on 12 x 18 inch (15 megapixel scan) cost me $30 a film.</p>

<p>I ordered my Leica M last week because it also fits FD glass, but if this Sony lives up to my expectations I'm cancelling my order and going for the Sony. <br /> I'd say: don't sell your FD glass yet!! I almost sold my 20-35mm L. <br /> Bye,<br /> Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>I've been dreaming about this a long time too; I had hoped Canon would have come with a camera like that.<br>

On the other hand I wonder if the old Canon glass is really that good, compared to todays offerings. And AFAIK it's still quite cumbersome in use, No auto aperture, etc.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for the digital insert for the original FD-mount cameras (<a href="http://www.re35.net/"><em>link</em></a> - NB, it's an April Fool's post).<br>

Otherwise, I use my old FD-mount lenses on my still-working FD-mount bodies.</p>

Dirk I have recently got my new M and just started to play with FD glass on it. As expected the glass is good but not that

good. For example while the 85 f1.2 still does a good job it is not up to that standards of a new Leica lens. That said it is

perfectly usable. The problem (as ever) is that the lenses are more cumbersome than the ones designed for the body.

This was true of my 'M43 body and of the Leica. The resolution of the Leica shows up flaws of the FD lenses that we

always missed. It is early days but so far the 50 F3.5 is the best one I have tried out of the 85 f1.2, 24 F2, 17 F4 and 35

F2. I plan to try the 35 TS and 135 F2 next. I played with the 300 F2.8 and it does a much better job on the Leica than it

ever did on M43.

<p>The two new Sony's are interesting cameras, and have my attention. No intention of buying either one of them now, but maybe in the future once I read the reviews and see how these cameras works in the real world. An affordable full-frame sensor camera that takes FD glass would be nice.</p>

I am cheerfully using my FD lenses on my Leica M. Nothing wrong with FD glass in my view. More later sometime.

<p>Ten years ago, there were confident pronouncements in this forum that we'd never be able to use FD glass on digital, at least without the image being degraded by optics in between. I'm glad that turned out to be wrong.</p>

<p>For me, I'll wait for the reviews over the next few months, and see what the bugs are with the new A7 and A7r. I'll either go with this model, or wait for the next generation. (Heck, I've already got the Novoflex adapter, and no camera to put it on.)</p>

<p>After that, I might shoot film for a couple of reasons. One is that I like the color rendition of Portra. Another is if I want optical enlargements, but when that's the case I'll probably use medium format. Truth be told, I suspect I'll shoot my last roll of 35mm in 2014 or 2015.</p>

<p>Alex - it depends on the lens and I guess I am comparing them to the Leica or ZM lenses I use. Here is the 85 F1.2 and a crop from it. Taken at F1.2</p><div></div>

<p>Crop from eye - remember this is handheld at F1.2</p><div></div>

<p>So this crop is about 2" x 2" on my screen which would make the print size about 45" by 30". Interestingly I tried the 15mm Fisheye and the results were not bad but I had a lot of issues with pink edges and what appeared to be reflection from the sensor onto the rear lens element and back onto the sensor. This one shows the effect.</p><div></div>

<p>And this one shows the reflections!</p><div></div>

<p>You can see the reflection of the trees in the sky - these trees were well out of the shot - over my left shoulder!. By the way the star shaped light points in the first shot were not the result of a filter.</p>

<p>Absolutely nothing wrong with good FD glass IMHO (I'm talking L glass). Been using my 50mm f1.2L and 85mm f1.2L with digital for quite some time and the results are superb. </p>

<p>It'll be some time before I would be looking at buying an A7, but it's good to know the option is available. And my FD glass isn't going anywhere.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

<p>Mmm there's a couple of comparisons that used to get cited about this topic a few years ago. They were in articles written by Erwin Puts, a Leica expert who doesn't seem to be quoted as much anymore.</p>

<p>Anyway, in article #1, he did a systematic evaluation of the Canon 55/1.2 aspheric, the precursor of the L normal. He concluded it was probably a shade better than the comparable Leica offering, presumably the Summicron or lux, I can't remember. He described the Canon aspheric as arguably the best SLR normal lens that has ever been made.</p>

<p>Article #2 was a comparison of the plain-vanilla 50/3.5 macro with the modern 50/2.5 EOS version and corresponding normal macros from Leica and Zeiss. The old FD 50/3.5 compared favorably with all of these, although I think it was barely edged out by the Leica and Zeiss versions. Still, considering the FD macro sells second-hand for next to nothing, that's a pretty high recommendation.</p>

<p>When the dust clears, you probably won't see any meaningful differences except under rigorous conditions. Different lenses give different looks, but if you shoot hand-held, any putative resolution differences pretty much go up in smoke. Find a lens that you like and burn film. Or burn zeroes and ones.</p>

<p> </p>

As I said the 50 F3.5 gave the best results so far but it is early days. When the R series adapter comes available I will try

this. I am also intrigued to try medium format lenses as my Mamiya M645 lenses work very well on my full frame EOS

bodies - especially as tilt shift lenses.

<p>I think if your a good enough photographer that your out shooting your Canon FD lenses then you a way better photographer then I will ever become.</p>

<p>If you blow things up to 30x40 to see if the whisker on the cat is still sharp when you look at it with a loop. Then your a very different type of photographer then I am LOL.</p>

<p>Personally I have not bought my digital body yet. Thinking about doing that this spring. For the majority of what I do a 1.6 or 2.0 crop factor is a big big advantage. Nothing interests me more then using a 400mm f4.5 nFD and getting the same magnification as a 800mm lens when shooting birds or animals. Or a 200mm f2.8IF nFD with the field of view of a 400 WOW.<br>

Sure the 17mm and the 24mm become much less interesting as Waterfall lenses. But I plan on buying one wide angle system zoom with what ever body I chose.</p>

Mark. The advantage of digital is that it is convenient and gives instant feedback. The disadvantage is that I definitely use

my film bodies less. My MF bodies come out a lot less and my film Leica, Contax G and FD bodies also get used less.

 

In terms of FD lenses it is early days on the Leica M but as ever the best lenses work best! The issues I have seen are

CA, soft edges and colour shifts at frame edges depending on the lens. That said most lenses are great most of the time.

I have shot FD quite a lot on M43 and apart from the handling and 2x factor which are the bodies fault they have worked

well. One thing I have seen is that on M43 the lens suffers a lot more when shooting towards the sun - especially older

lenses. The contrast goes and flare can be a problem. With M43 I think what happens is the sun is within the viewing

angle of the lens but not the sensor (and therefore the EVF). Thus the light gets into the lens, reflects of the sensor onto

the rear lens element (which unlike digital lenses lacks an anti reflective coating) and back onto the sensor reducing

contrast. I think I Have seen this with the Leica M but only really with the fisheye or when the sun is in the shot.

 

Be aware that an adapted lens used with an EVF is a lot more clumsy than using it on the body it was designed for.

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing interests me more then using a 400mm f4.5 nFD and getting the same magnification as a 800mm lens when shooting birds or animals.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of my favorite combinations is my FL-F 500/5.6 on my Olympus OM-D. An effective focal length of 1000mm can make for some very dramatic photos.<br>

It does seem however, that a sensor can bring put the worst in a lens designed for film. My FD 200/2.8, when used on my OM-D, shows very apparent chromatic aberration. When used on one of my FD bodies, I can barely make out chromatic aberration. No such problem with the Fluorite lens though.<br>

</p>

<p>Jim I have not tried the 200s on the Leica yet but when I compared the 80-200 F4L and 200 F2.8 (IF) the zoom was better. The 80-200 suffered from bad CA and was softer wide open. Interestingly stopped down the zoom actually suffered from diffraction etc more than the prime. The 300 F2.8 is sharper but even here does not compare to new EF lenses. Interestingly the one old lens I have that is really sharp on a digital body is the 500 F5.6 Mamiya M645 medium format lens. I may have an exceptional copy but mine is really sharp - better than the Canon EF300 F4 IS shot on an APS-C body.</p>

<p>I have also just tried the 135 F2 which does very well and an old FL 50 F1.4. The FL looks OK on web size images and smaller prints but does not survive pixel peeping where it shows that it was quite soft.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the FL 50 F1.4. Doesn't look to bad at this size.</p><div></div>

<p>Manual focusing via an EVF is difficult unless some form of focus assist is provided, as with some ILCs. I have not seen any mention of focus assist on the A7 so far, but it might be available. </p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Manual focusing via an EVF is difficult unless some form of focus assist is provided, as with some ILCs. I have not seen any mention of focus assist on the A7 so far, but it might be available.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

From what I've read, it has focus-peaking. I assume this would work with legacy lenses, as well as the lenses designed for the camera.

 

<p>How much is this thing anyway? If it is under $50( ~my FTb) I might consider it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Manual focusing via an EVF is difficult unless some form of focus assist is provided, as with some ILCs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kinda hard to imagine that there won't be an MF-assist magnifier: it's standard on Nex cameras (and on the Fuji X series). That thought is reinforced by Michael Reichmann <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a7r_hands_on.shtml">touting it</a> as a body for Nikon and Leica lens owners (he has used Nex 7 in the past), although he likes focus peaking more than some of us. </p>

<p>Most reassuring is this: a screen grab from <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/">another</a> hands-on review (see the top line, not the highlighted one!):</p>

<center><img src="http://www.phiveas.co.uk/images/CtrBtn.jpg" alt="" width="321" height="234" /></center>

<p>I am with Philip, though: working out which of our FD lenses <em><strong>really</strong></em><strong> </strong>work with these new sensors is going to take a fair bit of trial and error. I have already found, as he has, that the 50mm f3.5 delivers very good results (in my case on a Sony Nex 5, which of course has less than half the resolution of the A7R), but other lenses have been less impressive (24mm f1.4L, for example) or have had to be stopped down a fair way to deliver acceptable sharpness (e.g., the 85mm f1.8 - though at f5.6 or so it <em>bites</em>!).</p>