Slould we discuss digital cameras results on that forum

[User_4525289]

<p>People,<br>

I am kind of new on that forum, however something just been brought to my attention. People are using classical lenses like Helios-40 on the digital camera all the time. Should they discuss that issue on that forum of "classical manual cameras". Arent we voluntirely restrict ourselves for classical film cameras? Otherwize we will be flooded with pics of ancient optics stick to Canon 5D MarkII<br>

Respectfully<br>

Kozma </p>

[tomscott]

<p>Well I'm kind of new to this forum as well, but I will agree with you. I don't think there were any digital cameras before 1970 (at least none that I know of) and besides, I come here to get away from digital vs film and all that nonsense.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As a good old boy once told us, deep in the heart of the Black Bottom of the Ohio River [<strong>warning</strong> . folkish language follows],</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't make me no nevermind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are the kinds of words one can live by.<br>

I personally think that one of the beauties of these old lenses is how nice they are even on the newest cameras.</p>

<p>Seriously, one of the nice things about the classic camera forum is that we haven't worried about this sort of "purity of essence".</p>

[gene m]

<p>Digital cameras are digital cameras. Whether it's got an overpriced, underperforming, autfocus lens or a Plasticon taped to it. I don't care to see digital camera stuff posted here.</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Gene,<br>

All pics here are digitalized, no question about that. Even you mastered yourself in the PS.<br>

JDM,<br>

Classic cameras are classic cameras, we here are collectors, not like they said on the Russian forums "photo onanists" (i hope that I will not banned for such kind of lanquage). If they come with Industar-50-2 stick into MarkIIs we will be all start looking on wanderful pictures of the brick walls and newspapers. </p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I would support the change, but maybe create another forum, such as "Classic Manual Focus Lenses"? This forum has been pretty flexible. It used to just be for cameras made before 1970. I would hate to see flame wars erupt over who has the best Nikon or Canon digital body for classic lenses.....<br>

I think if you make a subtle post featuring the lens, and not mentioning the digital body things may work. But I don't want to see posts by people fretting about switching from Canon to Nikon, and back again each time a new digital body comes out.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I thought the rules were laid out pretty clear when they changed the name of the forum here that Gene had originally started, to the new name. It was stated "no electronics except for minor light metering". I believe that is what Josh said. Anybody know where that post is?</p>

[timwitt]

<p>I don't have enough seniority on this forum for my opinion to count but here it is anyway: Leave digital somewhere else, put old lenses on digital cameras in it's own forum, leave Leica where it is, allow rangefinders here (was any made after the early 1980's?), allow film AF P&S here because there is nowhere else for them (you know we like them and use them) I'm going to drop a post here soon about specific P&S models anyway. The 1980's was over 20 years ago, is that not classic? I would expect to get more responses to non-Leica rangefinders and good film P&S cameras questions on this forum anyway.</p>

[gene m]

<p>"All pics here are digitalized"</p>

<p>You're not going to get me into that endless argument.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Here are some of Josh's comments on the subject.</p>

<p><strong><em>Sep 11, 2008; 03:26 p.m.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Howdy Classic Camera folks. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>I have changed the name of this forum slightly. As we move further and further along the photographic timeline, the "pre 1970" date designation was getting more and more useless. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>So the name of this forum is now "Classic Manual Cameras" with the goal that it encompass all cameras up to the electronic/autofocus era. If it's manual, it has a home in this forum. Although, obviously, some camera systems are probably better served in their respective forums (Canon FD, Leica, or Medium Format being good examples). But you get the point.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> Nov 19, 2008; 08:10 p.m.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>No digital. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>No AF. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Aside from a few exceptions, no electronics. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>We've been through this before. No reason to revisit the issue. The forum is working just fine as is.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> Sep 11, 2008; 06:56 p.m.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>.. Come on. It's pretty obvious what cameras fit into the discussion realm here and which do not. Just take half a minute to read the threads.<br /></em></strong></p>

[User_4525289]

<blockquote>

<p>You're not going to get me into that endless argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No I am not, not that I am intent to. I will try to shoot couple Dufay rolls tomorrow and see the results.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Aside from a few exceptions, no electronics.</em> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>It really don't make me no nevermind, as I (or my farmer friend, anyhow) said, but surely one of the "few exceptions" would be cases where the manual focus, stop-down aperture lenses are being compared in terms of optical quality. What exactly is it about that comparison that requires that the box behind it have <em>film</em> in it?<br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p><strong><em>[by the way, this is in quotes, because for the second time in the last few days, after pasting in a line and choosing "quotes", I am unable to turn this off in the editor.]</em> </strong></p>

<p><strong><em>And I will add that the problem persists after I try the 10-minute editor. I'm suspect it could be fixed if I went into html. but I shouldn't </em> </strong> have<strong><em> to.<br /> </em> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

[joshroot]

<p>I would prefer to keep digital cameras, no matter what lenses they are using, out of this forum. There are many other great places on photo.net to talk about digital cameras. Let's leave this forum to the classics as intended.</p>

<p><strong>JDM</strong> ,</p>

<p>To quote something, do exactly this:</p>

<ul>

<li>Copy the text you wish to quote</li>

<li>click on the text box so that the little cursor is blinking there</li>

<li>click the quote button ONCE</li>

<li>paste in your text</li>

<li>press return ONCE</li>

<li>click the quote button ONCE again</li>

<li>Start writing the non-quote part of your reply</li>

</ul>

<p>If you end up with a mashup like above, you can always go in and edit the HTML and remove any extra [blockquote] tags. Or, you say "forget this" to the text editor and turn it off as <a href="../site-help-forum/00SKZX">described here</a> .</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I am a fanatical lover of all things photographic and that includes digital photography. My DSLR is one of the most amazing and fun things I've ever owned, but so is my 'new' Minolta SR-T 102. I come to this forum to get away from anything related to the digital rat-race and would love for things to remain that way.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Look, as I have said when I reported this 'feature' earlier this week, I really have one or two clues to how to post, as I have been doing it a fair amount. I did the things noted precisely as you suggest, in the order you suggest, and the quotes would <strong>not</strong> turn off at one or a dozen clicks on the button. Of course, I could do it in html, but isn't the point of the graphic editor that it is supposed to work as featured. This is not a big problem for me and if you don't think it worth fixing, so be it.</p>

<p>Josh: on the topic itself.<br /> I understand the need for "purity" I guess, but as the poster in the case on this forum that started all this said, the LENS was being discussed, not the camera it was on.</p>

<p>Just <strong>where</strong> will old manual lenses be discussed if not <strong>here</strong> ? Can you really see a post about Zeiss Jena Tessars and their quality receiving any kind of useful discussion on the Canon EOS forum where most of the questions seem to be "which wide angle should I buy" and similar such things? The OP in question never mentioned what camera at all, until he was "challenged" by Kozma.</p>

<p>I am also a little surprised by the more general response. I thought this was a pretty broad-minded forum.</p>

<p>I wonder if a Zeiss Jena Tessar that has been touched by a digital camera is forever spoiled after that?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>I don't know what to tell you about the quotes thing. Something is going wrong. But as thousands of quotes are made every week correctly, that would point to the issue being on your end (browser, plugins, java issues, etc) if you are following my instructions exactly and it still isn't working. I suggest just turning off the graphic editor if it is causing you that much frustration.</p>

<p>As for this forum, the fact is that there isn't a specific place for every little thing on photo.net. Otherwise we would have 500 forums with 2 posts in each. The majority of people on this forum don't seem to want to have digital discussions here and as I have said, digital cameras aren't what this forum was set up for.</p>

<p>Post those threads in Casual Photo Conversations or the Alternative Camera & Lens forum or the Canon/Nikon/whatever forum. Classic camera forum stays as is, classic cameras.</p>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>1 agree with Gene M; there are other forums where people can discuss, or cuss about using older lenses on digital camera. Lets keep this forum for what it is intended for. PLEASE!</p>

[tomscott]

<p>JDM, how about in Casual Photo Conversations forum. I see those type conversations in there quite often as it is. Oh well looks like Josh and I were writing at the same time.</p>

[skygzr]

<p>I posted some results from a 80mm Jupiter on a Sony a100 a while back. No one complained, in fact, the response was just the opposite. <br>

By my way of thinking, the post is mostly about the lens and incidentally about the camera. However, if them's the rules, I will happily abide.</p>

[gt1]

<p>I 100% agree with Josh. I see absolutely no reason that digital cameras should be discussed here, even if a classis lens was used on it. The image capturing medium is still highly relevant so to me it would be very unuseful to read about the results of classic lenses on DSLRs.</p>

<p>And if I was interested in using a classic lens on my DSLR I would be going to the Canon forums. </p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Well,<br>

The administration said the word.<br>

In my opinion people should be strongly discourage to use classical lenses on modern DSLRs for a number of reasons:<br>

1) They have their own specifically designed for the digital SLRs.<br>

2) They should stimulate economy and buy more newly designed products.<br>

3) They should drive the progress up.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>It just seems logical to discuss use of old lenses on DSLR's in whatever forum covers that make. If I wanted to ask a question or post some observation about old lenses on my E-410 well then naturally it would go to the Olympus & 4:3 forum. If I had a question about such use thats were I'd start my search of the archives.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>I agree 100 percent with Josh. I came here to read about and discuss classic cameras and film. We are completely flooded and inundated with digital cameras. This is like one of the last places left where people who like to use film and vintage cameras can hang out and talk. Please keep it that way. <strong>No digital cameras.</strong> Sticking a vintage lens on a digital camera is still exactly the same as using a digital camera.<br /><br />In fact, to be honest, even seeing a subject with "digital" in the title in <em>this</em> forum just annoyed me. If I wanted to be around digital cameras again, I would just go back on MySpace. <br /><br />Thanks Josh for keeping things clear. </p>

[gt1]

<blockquote>

<p>If I wanted to be around digital cameras again, I would just go back on MySpace.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or flickr. heh</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I see. Well. as I say, I don't see it as a big violation of ritual purity, especially as in the case that brought this up <em>there was no mention of digital anything until Kozma raised the point,</em> and in fact one of the other posters complaining above had praised the first picture in question, but now that it is identified as contaminated by the touch of digital rather than being scanned film, I guess that's all there is to it.</p>

<p> </p>