Best Digital camera to use old Rokkor Glass on?

[rdm]

<p>OK i know there are now many different avenues today to use the older Minolta Manual focus lenses on a digital camera via an adapter without corrective glass. Now i know about Olympus with their small four thirds sensor and seen several examples of photos taken with Rokkor glass, but i know now that there are the new Sony NEX and the Samsung NX10 cameras as-well as a modified flange on a Canon DSLR as an option. And yea if it needs to have an adapter with corrective lens to adjust for infinity focus register distance, than it should not be considered a real option.<br>

I was just wondering what digital bodies the owners of older Minolta glass opted to use their lenses on? I am trying to decide on a camera to buy for my lenses.</p>

<p>And for god sakes please, if you don't think the older Rokkor or MD lenses should be used on Digital bodies or don't like the Manual focus lenses, don't comment. And no I'm not interested in selling my lenses I still shoot film with them often. SO no one bother telling me to buy into a new system and sell mine. But i know this will always fall on def ears. Theirs always some idiot on the other camera site forums that does not understand what i ask and advises me to buy into the Nikon or Alpha DSLR system and or use an adapter with glass too.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Without a doubt, the best digital body for that job is the new Canon 1Ds</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>The Canons will be the only ones that are full-frame. But you won't be able to shoot them on your film camera anymore.</p>

<p>I partially modified my 58 1.2 to use on my Sony, but lost a lot of focus distance. So I converted it back to use on film for the time being.</p>

<p>I was thinking about getting a NEX for that purpose, but the lack of a decent flash puts me off a bit.</p>

<p>I'll probably just sell it off when I'm done with it. I'm thinking that only shooting it on FF would make it worth the hassle, and in that case, I should probably be shooting MF film.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Without a doubt, Sony NEX. This is a system for the future, so I wouldn't hesitate in picking up one to shoot digital rokkor with for a while. I see no reason why the "new" Canon 1Ds has any advantage over any other system with an 'old' mount, you still need a glassed adapter or a conversion.</p>

<p>For me, there are only a couple of Rokkors that I'd use to give me a different option over my a-mount glass, so a full conversion is easy for me. However, if I had a whole stack, a Sony NEX would be the better choice I think. In honesty, it's only the 58/1.2 that I use (which is of course fully reversible), which is for me is a speciality lens, rather than every day.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Rich,</p>

<p>What's the trick to making your 58 1.2 conversion reversable? I didn't see any simple way to get the mount slim enough to get the correct registration distance. <br /><br />Or maybe I just need to reduce the diameter of my chipped adapter to fit within the lip of the lens collar. IIRC, it's a bit larger than the stock mount so it sits "on top" of the back of the lens rather than in it.</p>

<p>If so, then you may be confirming that if I do that step and reduce the registration distance by a good portion of a millimeter, I may get infinity focus back.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>why the "new" Canon 1Ds has any advantage over ... the NEX cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>for one, it has 21 mp FF instead of 14mp cropped sensor, need to list more reasons?</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>John, what is the use of all that resolution when you're using a cheap/poorly made glass adapter? Also, you're mis-quoting me. I said any advantage over any 'older mount', ie, one from the film era that has a long flange distance and therefore requires an glassed adapter (there is a-mount, 24MP sensor for much, much less if those are the numbers you like).</p>

<p>Greg, it's relatively simple, there are quite a few people who have made them. I can give you the measurements if you know a someone with a workshop who would be willing to do the work for you if you'd like. Here is an example of one I made: http://rharris-images.com/Lens-Conversion/Rokkor-to-Sony/Rokkor-Conversion-Kits/12096410_scVDE#889763563_NDby5</p>

<p>It's a simple mount + shim essentially, machined to the right proportions so that you don't have to do anything to the lens other than unscrew the original mount (4 screws) and screw on the new one. If only all Rokkor lenses were like this, eh...</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>any advantage over any 'older mount', ie, one from the film era that has a long flange distance and therefore requires an glassed adapter (there is a-mount, 24MP sensor</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For the same Rokkor lens, better sensor<br>

gives better IQ. Yes, the A900 has a nice sensor too but to<br>

put a Rokkor on the A900 without glass and infinity focus<br>

 is not as easy as to do that with an EOS camera which a lot of people have done it</p>

<blockquote>

<p></p>

</blockquote>

[isaac_leung]

<p>I personally use a 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor on my NEX-5. Focus to infinity with a glassless adapter, easily obtainable from ebay. No lens modification needed. Manual focus assist helps. Simplicity condensed. And of course, a fairly cost-effective solution.<br>

The way I see it, the crop factor is only really an issue if you make it an issue. I love old lenses, but many of them are out-resolved by today's sensors. Using only the central part of the lens might actually be advantageous in these cases.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>I'm really not sure how you can make such a sweeping comment John. You really think the "best" digital camera for Dan to use his Rokkor lenses on is one that costs nearly £4000 GBP, at which point he would have to disassemble, machine, reassemble & adjust each lens he has individually, leaving most of them irreversible... Yes? I have a feeling you might be on your own there.<br /><br />There is really little difference between the process of converting to Canon EOS compared to Sony a-mount. Also, most of the lenses will require further adjustments/machining to avoid hitting the mirror on the 'new' Canon 1Ds, and then will still hit the mirror, preventing infinity wide open. You don't have this issue with the Sony Alpha, but I still wouldn't recommend it to the OP.<br /><br />My suggestion is still for Sony NEX Dan.</p>

<p>@Isaac - you don't need glass in an adapter for your Rokkor on a NEX-5, can you comfirm yours has glass?</p>

[isaac_leung]

<p>@Richard Sorry, I should have clarified more explicitly. The adapter is glassless, which is exactly the reason why I am so happy with it.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Sorry for the confusion Isaac! Got any samples to share from it?</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>digital camera for Dan to use his Rokkor lenses on is one that costs nearly £4000 GBP</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan didn't ask for a cheap body, he simply put "best". But if you look for a cheap body, then of course the NEX cameras are designed to be cheap</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>John, you're just twisting everything I say, so I won't waste my time anymore.</p>

<p>Good luck with your adventure Dan.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>And for a <strong>cheapest and best </strong>solution, it would be an SRT-101, which does not involve any irreversible damage, uses no adapter, focus to infinity, with <strong>Auto diaphram and wide open metering </strong>(which cannot obtain with the NEX system nor the EOS system), and the IQ is also great</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Except, John, that wouldn't be "digital", now would it? He's already got a film camera. And if he didn't, an XD-11 would be the best anyways.</p>

<p>IMHO, getting more than 10mp of useful data out of a 35mm piece of film requires a better scanner than most of us have. So, between film costs and scanning costs, it's not "cheap" anymore.</p>

<p>But you already knew that.</p>

[luiz_cavalcante]

<p>I also have some old Rokkor lenses and the necessity of using adapters sounds difficult to me.<br>

Hope someday, somebody will make a body with specific mount for such old and precious Rokkor lenses.</p>

[denis_davydoff]

<p>I have Olympus E-420 and E-510 and adapter Minolta MD -> 4/3. Works like a charm with legacy Minolta MF lenses :) Actually, having a proper adapter you can put nearly everything on Olympus 4/3 system. I have adapters for Olympus OM, Minolta MD, Pentax K, M42 and Yashika/Contax. AFAIK micro 4/3 is even better in this sense. You can put virtually everything on it, including rangefinder lenses, if you have a proper adapter. All the adapters I'm talking about have no glass elements therefore do not interfere with the image.</p>

[timb196]

<p>I bought a NEX for exactly the reason the OP asked about: a light tight digital box on which to mount my MC/MD lenses.<br>

I've tried the 58mm Rokkor F1.4 and Vivitar Series 1 24mm so far, the latter just to see about adapter fit. The Kipon adapter cost me $60.<br>

The 58mm works fine! I will say this, the NEX sensor is going to stress some of the lenses. I don't think my Vivitar series 1 28mm/1.8 will hack it but time will tell.<br>

I am looking forward to seeing what my 800mm RF and 2x adapter will do :-). It will look seriously funny. Sort of like a scaled down variant of that Zeiss 1700mm/f4 with a hassie V series body on the back.</p>

<p>So NEX would be my recommendation</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[scott_marcellus1]

You could always have "mount surgery" performed to adapt to just about any camera. A number of people have done this

with the 58/1.2, converting to either Sony or Canon mounts. Stop by the Alternative gear section at fredmiranda.com, and

you'll find discussions of many optics that have been adapted to different cameras. There's even a company called Leitax,

that makes replacement mounts, for Contax Zeiss, Leica R and others to be used on a variety of cameras. Don't think they

have a Minolta MD mount conversion yet though. Nice thing about going this route is that you can use the lens on a FF

body.

[frank_van_orsouw]

<p>E-PL1 works great with Rokkor glass; VF-2 viewfinder plus one button image magnification really enhance usability of legacy lenses. My favorite lenses for this body are the 58mm 1.2 and 100mm 2.5. Adapters are everywhere, mine cost $30 and works fine.</p>

[dan_moore5]

<p>One of the reasons I bought an Olympus E-620 was so I could use some of my old Minolta MD glass. The 2x crop raises some issues, in that a lens like the 24 2.8 (my favorite film lens) becomes a not so special equivalent of 48 2.8... or in terms of depth of field, 48 5.6. I did some quick and unscientific tests (I had intended to do more, and never got around to it) which seemed to indicate that the Minolta lens was slightly better than the Olympus kit lens (mostly due to increased contrast), but in practical situations it's pretty much a wash, and the auto-focus and aperture control with the kit lens make up for it. So for me, in practical terms, the Minolta lenses aren't an advantage for wide-angle (well, essentially they there is no wide angle because of the crop factor, unless you want to mount a 17mm MD for a 34mm equivalent) through to normal focal lengths.<br>

Now, in terms of portrait lenses, macro lenses and especially telephoto, my experience is different. I have a 50mm 1.4 MD that's pretty handy, and also a 50mm macro which performs very well. You can set up in live view, zoom in, and manual focus with precision and get excellent results. I also really enjoy my 135mm 2.8 MD, and my Tokina 100-300 f4 ATX. For the cost, try finding lenses that long and fast that perform that well! I'm linking to a couple of samples below. Sure, manual focus isn't always the easiest, but it really has gone better than I imagined it would. I just shoot a lot and focus-bracket. I just couldn't afford modern lenses like these, so the ability to use the MD lenses opens up opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have. In terms of image quality, I'd rate it as easily "good enough." At some point I'd like to upgrade to some of the Olympus telephotos, and I think I'd get better results with them, but I'm certainly happy enough with the Minolta glass that I'm in no hurry to spend $1,000 or $2,000 to upgrade.<br>

Hope that helps.<br>

Bison calf, taken with Tokina 100-300 f4 at 300mm and stopped down to f8: http://www.danillo.com/nationalparkphotography/yell006.htm<br>

A few concert photos taken with the 135mm 2.8, wide open: http://nationalparksartist.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/having-fun-with-concert-photography/</p>

[george_c2]

<p>So far some of the cameras which have been mentioned include: Sony NEX, Cannon EOS, Panasonic G1, Olympus E-620.<br>

Which of these require adapters for mounting Minolta Rokkor MC or MD lenses?<br>

For those requiring adapters, which are best? </p>

[andylynn]

<p>They all require adapters - the only cameras you can lose those lenses on without adapters are manual focus Minolta 35mm SLRs.</p>

<p>Which are the best? Pretty much, choose what you like and check the net for adapter availability. If I had to choose I'd probably take the NEX or the Panasonic because the mirrorless cameras are so compact.</p>

[george_c2]

<p>I meant: which adapters are best? If I understand correctly, I don't want any optical components, but some adapters have a chip to simulate some of the automatic lens features for the camera? E.g. <a href="http://www.eadpt.com/eadpen.htm">http://www.eadpt.com/eadpen.htm</a> Thanks in advance ...</p>