Who uses FD lenses on a digital camera?

<p>Have you checked for loss of sharpness when using an FD lens on a digital camera?</p>

 

<p>Can't say I've experienced any</p><div></div>

<p>Most of my shots with my Sony's, FF and APS-C, with FD lenses look very good</p><div></div>

<p>FD/FDn lenses are all I use on digital cameras and I've come to realize that and learned about "sharpening". But have seen nothing that suggests its an FD/FDn lens issue...apparently its an inherent characteristic of digital technology.<br />A "sharpening feature"seems to be imbedded in most digital post processing software packages.</p>

<p>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm</p>

<p> </p>

On my fujifilm X cameras and my Leica M 240. I get good pix.

<p>No more sharpness issues with FD lenses than any other legacy lenses on my digitals.</p>

<p>good to know as I'm hoping my FD's will have a 2nd life on either Sony or Fuji</p>

<p>An example of Before and After sharpening.<br /> Made a distant full length shot of a Red Shouldered Hawk on a limb with an FDn 300/4.0-L without a tripod.<br />Then when cropped way up for a head portrait I saw DoF was too shallow and also thought it was a bit soft.<br />Bumped it with a couple clicks of 'sharpening' for some improvement, made it worth keeping to me.<br /> <br /> <em><strong>BEFORE SHARPENING</strong></em></p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/roundball/PHOTOGRAPHY/EQUIPMENT/SHARPENING%20EXAMPLE/102014%20Red%20Shouldered%20Hawk%20300mm%204.0_052%20HEAD%20PORTRAIT%20CROP_zpsv2rwksy8.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="571" /></p>

<p><em><strong>AFTER SHARPENING</strong></em></p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/roundball/PHOTOGRAPHY/EQUIPMENT/SHARPENING%20EXAMPLE/A-102014RedShoulderedHawk300mm40_052HEADPORTRAITCROP_zps2d589011.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="731" /></p>

<p>shhh!<br>

The prices are already going up....</p>

<p>LOL...yes, BUT...everything is relative. Imagine taking the Hawk photos with a lens that cost around $1800-$2000 back in the 80's, which today only costs around $300-$400</p>

<p>My experience is that even a basic model such as the FDn 50mm f/1,8 can be very reasonable even on a Pentax Q (5.6x crop).</p>

<p><img src="http://raid.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-FD-17mm-on-M8/i-7cqGmHc/0/XL/FD%2017%20M8%20NOV-14-XL.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="652" />Thanks for your combined input. I have no very wide angle lenses for my digital RF camera, so I use the FD 17/4.</p>

<p>I’m not sure if you were offering this as an example of wanting to see what it would look like sharpened....and I don't want to assume…..so let me ask if you’d like to see a quick Before and After of it ?</p>

 

<p><strong>A hot off the press example of an FDn 400/4.5 on a Sony NEX-7 digital.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Tonight's 56% Waxing Half Moon.....239,000 miles away, orbiting at 2300 mph.<br /><br /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/roundball/PHOTOGRAPHY/SCENICS/MOON%20SHOTS/2015%20MOON%20SHOTS/2015-01%20JANUARY/012715%20A%20CROP%20PM%2056%20Waxing%20Half%20Moon%2002%20PBS25_zpsiasaks39.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="800" /></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

If you can sharpen the image, please show me how you go about doing it. I have never attempted to sharpen an image.

<p>Its a feature built into most "post processing software packages"...you display a photo you might want to see if it could be sharpened up a bit, and usually just click and slide a slider button on the screen while watching the photograph and you'll see the image sharpen up (or not)...and you can adjust how much, etc...just takes a few seconds. Here's a Before and After of your beautiful ocean / sky scene:</p>

<p><em><strong>YOUR PHOTO BEFORE SHARPENING</strong></em><br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/roundball/PHOTOGRAPHY/EQUIPMENT/SHARPENING%20EXAMPLE/012714%20FD%20Forum%20Sharpening%20Test%20-%20FD%2017%20M8%20NOV-14-XL_zpsbd3i4mxs.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="509" /></p>

<p><em><strong>AFTER SHARPENING</strong> </em><br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/roundball/PHOTOGRAPHY/EQUIPMENT/SHARPENING%20EXAMPLE/ed308cf7-5a60-44cc-b075-8519e1ff0da1_zpsg2wj86ht.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="509" /></p>

 

Raid's original looks more natural and pleasing.

<p>LOL...reminds me of the old saying about opinions being like noses...I suppose there are times when soft, even blurry photos have their purpose and appeal to some...but not to others.<br /><br />This example & discussion was specifically about "sharpening"... how to do it, etc...a positive attitude in a positive attempt to help a fellow photographer with a technical question...because bottom line there's no question the industry recognizes the inherent characteristic of digital images in general is that they can / usually do benefit from some degree of sharpening.</p>

<p>Thank you, Bill.<br>

I guess, it depends on what someone wants to show. My goal was pleasing colors of the Gulf of Mexico. I may have left the sharpening tool out from the start (for all my images) because I prefer the natural outcome.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thank you, Bill.<br>

I guess, it depends on what someone wants to show. My goal was pleasing colors of the Gulf of Mexico. I may have left the sharpening tool out from the start (for all my images) because I prefer the natural outcome.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p><em><strong>"...Have you checked for loss of sharpness when using an FD lens on a digital camera?..."</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

<strong>No sweat...just trying to help regarding your opening question which implied you may have been bothered by soft images.</strong><em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>I use mine on an EOS-M with an oddball adapter I got for less than $15 from DealExtreme. The two mounts are off by about 120 degrees so it's a bit inconvenient to set the aperture (and essentially impossible to use my 500mm mirror's tripod mount), but it works and the whole setup was probably cheaper than most new lenses.<br>

I haven't really noticed a lack of sharpness, but I haven't really been printing anything from it yet. And I haven't been staring at pixels.</p>

<p>The issues which I have seen, using FD lenses on a Sony Nex 5 and a Fujifilm X-Pro 1, are that it is often necessary to stop down, say to about f2.8 or f4, to get acceptable sharpness and that with very fast lenses the amount of light overwhelms the adaptor (I use Novoflex, so it is not a quality issue), so that a lot of additional stray light gets into the picture. </p>

<p>Interesting, haven't noticed any of that on the NEX-7.<br>

What does this mean? <em><strong>".....overwhelms the adaptor....."</strong></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What does this mean? <em><strong>".....overwhelms the adaptor....."</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hard to express, but it's as if there's too much stray light. You can see a bit of the effect in the image below - which is not strictly comparable, as this was taken with a Bower adaptor on an EOS 1Ds III, but it was shot at f1.2 on the FD 85mm f1.2L, so you get perhaps something of the idea. (I'm 6,000 miles from home at the moment, so this is the best I can do ... ).</p>

<center><a title="With Bower Adaptor @ f1.2 100% by JamesMT1, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8301/7988125101_b80df1d076_z.jpg" alt="With Bower Adaptor @ f1.2 100%" width="640" height="427" /></a></center>