Ok time to blow off some steam...

<p>Ok I have to admit that I am mostly a film guy... I just really love film, and it;s simplicity, but I am also a realist as well... I know film is going the way of the dodo bird eventually and digital will soon rain supreme... It is technology and evolution I guess...<br>

SO this weekend my wife an I went out looking for a new semi-pro digital camera to buy...I am looking for a Nikon body that will use all Nikon lenses including the older Nikon's which I believe are far superior to the lens that are made today, i.e. VR, G Lens etc... The older lenses are built stronger and are much sharper than any new lens I have come across...<br>

Ok like I said we were shopping for a digital SLR Nikon,</p>

<ol>

<li>FIRST PROBLEM--All the cameras I looked at have Video built, my question is WHY!!! I am a photographer not a video-ographer... If I wanted video I would by a video camera... Why do all the new camera ave video, that would mean they are not cameras after all but video cameras...Yes.</li>

<li>SECOND PROBLEM--Why do all but a few camera not have the focus motor in the body that makes abut 80 percent of the Nikon lenses unusable... You have to use those new really bad plastic lens that have poor picture quality and slow AF, you know the ones Nikon calls them G lenses.. If it is about cost then remove the video option and put a motor back in the camera body. Nikon really missed the boat on that one I think. </li>

<li>Third Problem--Everything is made of plastic... are you kidding me no wonder I see so many Nikon digital cameras on the auction sites with notes like "warning crack in lower bottom screen cracked, crack in plastic prism housing but don't worry none of effect picture quality" give me a break. </li>

<li>Fourth Problem--Even the new crop of lenses that are coming out are made of plastic...Includeing the front and rear elements, not sure about the inner elements as I can not touch or feel them.. Don't believe me Take a real hard look at your G lenses, take a U.S. copper penny {made before 1985} after 1985 they went to zinc I think and it will not work for this experiment. Take the penny and lightly tap the front element and the rear element of a G lens the do the same thing an older Nikon non G lens and you will here a completely different tone. The g lens uses plastic elements on both the from and rear... I know because I was sent a G lens I bought off ebay for 15.00 and hen it arrived it was in pieces and you could clearly see the rear element that was popped out was plastic...</li>

</ol>

<p>Enough said I am going to stick to my old Film bodies and lenses...</p>

<p>Welcome in the 21th century.</p>

<p>1 you don't have to use video, this in both camera's cheaper than have 2 versions.<br>

2 that are starters camera's and you aren't a starter, starters don't have bags of old lenses.<br>

3 not everything is made of plastic, a lot with a gold ring has a lot metal in them, my two bodies are made of magnesium.<br>

4 you can't say "G"-lenses in general, there is a lot of difference between a 18-55 and 17-55.<br>

I'm not that shure that old glass is superior to the new 'G' glas, look at a 50/1.4, 85/1.4 or a 24-70.</p>

<p>What is the problem with a "G"-lens on a digital body?</p>

<p>When everybody had your attitude, we were still walking around in bear skins. </p>

<p>Hi Michael. I'll bite. I'll stick to your questions, rather than asking which older lenses you think are sharper than a current 14-24mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2, 500mm f/4, etc...<br />

<br />

1) Because they can. Some people want video, at least occasionally. It's a selling point. It started as a thing for reporters, I believe (although the difficult bit is solved once you've got live view - everything else is a Small Matter of Programming). You don't have to use the feature, but if the camera manufacturer doesn't make it, they lose out. TV shows are made (partly) on DSLRs these days - it's a significant benefit, at least as a halo effect.<br />

<br />

2) The cheaper bodies don't have an autofocus motor because it saves money. The cheaper lenses don't have AF-S for the same reason - newer lenses, designed to work on bodies without a motor, brought the price down. Having the motor in the lens is the right solution - as Canon proved while Nikon were losing lots of sales with the screw-drive autofocus mechanism. All optics being the same, most would prefer the ergonomics of an AF-S lens to an AF one.<br />

<br />

3) In the context of lenses, it's because plastic bounces. Thump a metal lens and it bends, and stays that way, which stops it working. Ding a plastic lens and you might break it, but if you don't it'll probably keep working. It also saves weight and cost. The higher end DSLRs are mostly metal, and people complain about how much more they weight than the competition.<br />

<br />

4) I would like more evidence of that. Plastic lenses are sometimes used, generally when aspherical optics are wanted, but the end elements I've seen are glass. Are you sure you can hear the difference in the material over the difference in types of glass, coatings, mountings, baffling, etc.? Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with plastic lenses.<br />

<br />

Old lenses, and cameras, have their place. I have some, and it's a big benefit to the Nikon system. It's not true that Nikon suddenly stopped making good glass, or that nothing has moved on.</p>

<p>Michael -</p>

<p>Please do not use this forum to spew untruths and your false beliefs.</p>

<p>1. Nikon has started to include video in new bodies because that is a feature many people want. I don't want it or use it...it's just there. A DSLR is still a "still camera" if that's how you want to use it. It's a "video camera" if you want to use it that way.</p>

<p>2. All of Nikon's semi-pro digital bodies have an AF motor. Only the consumer cameras do not and that's a cost/size/weight issue. You need to look at cameras with a price tag over $1000 to get an AF motor from Nikon. The current bodies with motors are D7000, D300s, D3x, D3s and D700.</p>

<p>3. Not everything is made of plastic on the semi-pro bodies. There is some plastic on all bodies, but go back to recent film cameras and you'll find the same thing...N90, N65, N75, etc. Look at a D7000 and you get magnesium alloy in addition to plastic...drop and SLR, (film or digital), and you get a crack (plastic) or a dent (metal)...both are blemishes. Do yourself a favor and hold on to your camera...DON'T DROP IT</p>

<p>4. No Nikon Lens currently made has a plastic front and rear element...PERIOD. The only lens Nikon ever made with a plastic element was the Fisheye-Nikkor 10mm, f/5.6 OP. The noise difference you hear has to do with lens coatings, not a non-glass element.</p>

<p>As for your belief that your older lenses are "far superior, built stronger, and much sharper" please put your older Nikon lens on a D7000 and a new lens of the same level and see for yourself...I assume you haven't yet.</p>

<p>Again...your rant is full of untruths and this really isn't the place for it. Read this again...and again...and one more time for good measure...what you're doing is called trolling and there's no use for it here.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>What Richard said.<br /><br />Michael: why get all upset about stuff that isn't even real? You're either mad at incorrect things someone else told you, and haven't bothered to do real research, or you're just making stuff up - and there's no accounting for that.</p>

I couldn't find a copper penny but do have a brass hammer so whacked my 200mm f/2 AF-S G VR with it. Now the

lens doesn't look so good. I think this was a bad idea.

<p>Kent - yes, if I did the same I'd not hear the sound of the glass over the sound of my screaming. I'm prepared to believe that the optics of older lenses are less damaged by having a penny dropped on them than some of the new ones...<br />

<br />

To be fair, Michael introduced his "new lenses are rubbish" rant with "I believe". It's possibly not factually inaccurate that he believes that, I suspect most of us just think he's wrong. There <i>are</i> a few older versions of some lenses that have different optical trade-offs than some newer versions, as Bjørn's site shows, and in some cases you could claim that a particular photographer would prefer the older lens; there are, for example, people who will argue for several different revisions of the 85mm f/1.4 being "best". In general though, especially in the money-no-object end of the range, I think most would say that Nikkors have been improving. Unless your old lenses are in rose-tinted glasses.</p>

@Kent: See Andrew's post. If you had whacked a plastic lens, all would have been OK. ;-)

<blockquote>

<p>"Please do not use this forum to spew untruths and your false beliefs."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eh, that's how some folks prefer to learn.</p>

<p>On the other hand, discussion forums are generally not the best places for polemics and manifestos. Personal blogs and websites are excellent for that sort of thing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Enough said I am going to stick to my old Film bodies and lenses..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net is a big house with plenty of rooms for everyone:<br>

<a href="../classic-cameras-forum/">Classic Manual Cameras</a><br>

<a href="../modern-film-cameras-forum/">Modern Film Cameras</a></p>

<p>1. If you're looking for a good semi-pro body that doesn't do video - I'd suggest a D300 (used) or D200 (used) - neither video, both are reasonably priced and they take great photos. Nikon is just responding to what consumers are telling them they want in a camera - D300s, D90, D7000, D5100, D3100 all have video built in. Does it replace a camcorder? Not hardly - but it is nice to have if you need a clip in a pinch.</p>

<p>2. The lenses with out the af motor in them are still very usable on the bodies that don't have an AF motor. You just have to switch to manual focus and away you go. It's about cost and weight - the Nikon's with an AF motor all are heavier and cost much more than the Nikon's without. Although - I don't think the D7000 weighs that much.</p>

<p>3. They don't affect image quality - Really - they don't. The challenge here is both cost and weight - and Nikon (insert other Manufactors here too) have decided to go for lower weight and less cost in manufactoring. The last all metal Nikon body that I'm aware of was probably the F3 or F4... The F5 and F6 both make use of a great deal of plastic, including the prism housing. It's like anything - you take care if it and it won't break. You drop it off a 10 foot ladder onto concrete - it will break.</p>

<p>4. I'm not aware of any Nikon lens that is made of plastic or that uses plastic for the lens itself - and I'd certainly be wary of any lens to be had for $15.00 off of FleaBay. - Seriously - though - even if they use plastic for the lens element - we've been using plastic for eye glass lenses for a number of years. Again lighter weight and more durable. So why wouldn't a camera company look at it the same way? providing they can get the optics right - I don't have any issues with that. As with the bodies - you get what you pay for - The Pro lenses are 100% glass and metal and weigh a ton - and I'd put any of them up against any lenses from the 60's, 70's, or 80's that Nikon built.</p>

<p>Whether you stick to film or go digital is completely up to you - everyone has an opinion - Mine is that digital has opened more doors and avenues than it has closed.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Much steam about nothing, IMO.<br>

Millions of people including me are very happy with the quality of "G" Nikkors and I'll challenge you to match the quality of say the 24-70 or 70-200 lenses with any comparable AF-D or Ai-S....<br>

However wrong with sticking to film.... once film really is disappearing, get youself a larger freezer, buy some film in bulk and stack up on developer.</p>

<p>1. There are people who want video in their DSLRs, and it adds very little cost. Probably it makes the camera cheaper as a DSLR with video included appeals to a broader market. You don't have to turn it on.</p>

<p>2. The smallest cameras do not have built-in AF motors - so don't buy them! You can get a D90, D7000, D300s, D700, D3s, or a D3X all of which have built-in AF motors in the body. Of current models, only the 3100 and 5100 bodies are without this feature, and those same bodies don't even have a glass prism so you can only see a fuzzy image through the viewfinder. They aren't for you.</p>

<p>3. Don't buy a camera body with signs of impact. It could be all warped up inside. Buy new or clean second hand from a reputable seller. In any case the lifespan of a digital SLR is 3-5 years at most at which point you won't want to use it because the newer models are so much better and cheaper there won't be any point, except perhaps as a backup.</p>

<p>4. Not everything in lenses is made of plastic. Look into higher end lenses. 24-70, 70-200, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 etc. they all have metal inside and I doubt there are plastic lens elements in them. The surface of the barrel is plastic because then it won't feel cold to touch in winter and it's more resilient to impact. There are some hybrid glass/plastic aspherics in some (mostly consumer) lenses but if the image is good why worry it's plastic?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>The F5 and F6 both make use of a great deal of plastic, including the prism housing.</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, I believe the F5 housing is <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF5/viewfinder/index.htm">titanium</a>. Not that this helps much except with bullets - lighter things have less kinetic energy and therefore tend to break less. If I drop my F5 from a height, I'd more expect it to break than my Eos 500 (kind of an F75 equivalent) or the cheap plastic compact I bought from a supermarket for £40. I believe the saying goes: if they fall off a building, a spider won't notice, a mouse will walk away, a person will be crippled and an elephant will splash. I'd be far more worried about dropping my (all metal) 135mm f/2 than my (all plastic) 50mm f/1.8, unless my F5 lands on top of it.</p>

Shooting video these days only requires a very inexpensive amount of electronics. Don't worry about it - if your camera

has video and you don't want it, don't use it. As for the rest, a D7000 or above is mostly metal, a D90 or above has a

focus motor, but most lenses Nikon is selling now have AFS motors anyway, and I've never seen a Nikon lens (or any

serious lens) with a front or rear element that wasn't glass and highly recommend not tapping on your optical glass

with a coin, regardless of what metal it is!

 

But anyway, if you like the older cameras, just use the older cameras.

<blockquote>

<p>Richard Snow<br>

I was spewing ntruths as you stated I was only pointing out my personalfelling toward the new crop of digital cameras an their plastic lenses. As for the newer glass being sharper, Maybe a few of the pro pieces are sharper, but if you compare the cosumer -mid pro lenses of today compared to the all metal all glass ones of earlier years you will find that the older glass in more cases are sharper than the new glass. Just check POP PHOTO Lens Charts and compare yourself.<br>

It seems you were offended in some ay and it was not my intention to offend anyone I was simply stating my experience while shopping for a new digital caera this weeked.<br>

As for the G lens with the plastic elements... They do exist and if you are going to stick to your statement that no G lens is made of plastic elements... Then I will gladly, at my cost send you the broken 28-85 G lens I bought off ebay with the popped out and broken rear element. The element broke in a perfectly straight line across it's diameter, just like a piece of plastic would and it was not shattered like glass would of been... The edges of the break are not sharp like glass but dull like plastic. And I think I can tell the difference between glass and plastic...</p>

<p>Also I have no ideat wha trolling is unless you are referring to fishing for Kings in the atlantic.. So I could not of been doing that.</p>

<p>Again sorry if I touched anerve and you are a bit sensitive, I do apologize for this and believe me it was not my intention. <br>

Best of luck to you and good shooting</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just noticed a bunch of typos, I sent the last post from my blackberry...</p>

<p>so this entire diatribe was spurrred by a $15 lens bought off of ebay? un-be-friggin'-lievable.</p>

<p>michael i was going to suggest you stick with what you have now because obviously DLRS arent quite up to your aesthetic standards. i'm not sure if you expected a different response than what you got for saying what you said the way you said it. but at least you were man enough to return to the thread after you stirred up the hornets nest and explain yourself. i can respect that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>5. Get off my lawn!</p>

<p>D700 and all of your problems are solved</p>

<p><a href=" 5DIII</a> and all our problems are solved.</p>

<p>Kent, that's tough brother. I used rebar on my 70-200 G VR rear element. It's too far recessed to use my brass hammer, let alone a penny.</p>

<p>@Michael Scott R</p>

<p>You in no way offended me, but since this is a highly visible, easily searchable forum I tend to jump on people that post factual untruths.</p>

<p>As for your ability to tell the difference between plastic and glass, well let's leave it to the lens specifications. There's only one lens that you could be posting about since it was the "kit lens" on nearly every "cheap" film SLR from 2001 - 2006. (N65, N75, and whatever WalMart sold).</p>

<p>It is the Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G<br>

6 glass elements in 6 groups<br>

The front element is a "compound aspherical element" (It means that they molded a thin layer of plastic to the outside of the front glass element making this a very inexpensive "aspherical lens")<br>

The last element is, in fact GLASS.<br>

The lens could be purchased new for $80</p>

<p>If you bought any 28-85mm "G" lens on Ebay it was not a Nikon lens since they never made a 28-85mm without an aperture ring. It was probably some knockoff brand which may, in fact, have a plastic rear element.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Michael, if you prefer film, just say so, go out and finish another roll. And stash enough film in the freezer. Some random attack on some random features of some unnamed digital cameras is not really useful to anyone.<br>

Just use the medium you enjoy most, and have a great time with it and let's talk about the results you got. Much more fun that way.</p>

<p>Michael - you're welcome to your opinions, and you're not alone in having your beliefs. It appears that some are based on what several of us would believe is misinformation, so forgive us if we dispute some of your statements - either the basis of them or the conclusions drawn. I hope we can do so in a civil manner, though - if I was rude to everyone whom I believed to be wrong about something, I doubt I'd have lived this long.<br />

<br />

Regarding sharpness of new and old lenses, I think we need to define what we're comparing. Is a new 28-300mm lens as sharp throughout its range as an old 50mm prime? Doubtful. Has Nikon made the occasional lens whose performance is questionable? Yes: the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 is widely considered to be a bit dodgy, for example, although you could say the same - and more - about the old 43-86mm f/3.5. (Not that I've used either of these myself.) That said, within the constraints of the focal length, the newer lenses are almost universally better. The 14-24 is much sharper than any of Nikon's wide primes; the 70-200 VR 2 is much sharper than its predecessors, the telephoto primes are all improved, the new f/1.4 lenses are much sharper (if not otherwise superior) away from the centre when used wide open, as is the 24-70... even the cheap glass like the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G that I carry around is pretty good if used responsibly. There are exceptions where other practicalities of lens design has trumped absolute sharpness, but they're very rare. (I'm thinking 300mm f/4.5 vs 300mm f/4 and possibly revisions of the 105mm micro, but it's not clear even then.)<br />

<br />

That said, I'm prepared to be educated, but I'm possibly struggling a little with popphoto's web site (and, not being based in the US, I can't trivially pick up a copy). Could you possibly give me an example that proves your case? There are modern lenses that aren't all that exceptional - I believe a 55-200 DX lens won't keep up with its 70-300 big brother, for example - but they're built on a budget. A not-very-good lens that you can afford is better than no lens at all.<br />

<br />

While I was typing, Richard posted his notes about the 28-80, which pretty much tally with what I was going to say. It's known for being very cheaply made, and the compound plastic aspherical element is part of why it's optically much better than you'd expect for the price (assuming it's not broken). The lightweight construction is also why it can focus faster (on an F5) than most AF-S lenses - this party try is why I have one, although I rarely use it. It's also discontinued, which is why there was surprise about current lenses with plastic elements. I'm not sure how the lenses with aspherical elements in Nikon's line-up are manufactured - I believe they found an economical route for glass moulding, but they may still use the hybrid approach - but I maintain that plastic is not necessarily detrimental to image quality; I don't think any current Nikon lenses have an aspherical front element, so if you concern was about scratches then it's moot. Canon have had bigger robustness problems for years with fluorite, and nobody complains...<br />

<br />

Michael - I wish you the best of luck with whichever kit you use, but I advise you against giving up on Nikon's newer lenses or cameras on the basis of the experience you've had. I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to use the 28-80, since its performance might have persuaded you to post differently.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not know if film with cease to exist before I demise. However, because I prefer to use film, I chose to move over to Leica. I started out with Nikon and still have Nikons, but Nikon (this goes for Canon, as well) produce lenses that are of varying grades. They include options that I do not intend to use. (There is an an axiom that is appropriate to all technology. The more that you put into a piece of equipment the more that can go wront; and the collarely purchase the best with the least.) This is why years ago I went to Leica. This might not be the best choice for you. All Leica lenses will work with the new cameras. Since I do not use long or vf lenses I will someday if I must go digital to the Leica. I am certain that if you puchased the Nikon D3X and the appropriate high priced lenses you would obtain the results as desired but the cost...that is and will always be the problem.</p>