Nikon Digital body for AI AIS lenses

[Dieter Schaefer]

he might well consider a used DX body with a DX and AFS kit lens

Seems like a sensible suggestion. Instead of the 18-55, the 35/1.8G DX might be a good choice - given that the OP seems to like the 50mm FOV (which the 35 on DX would provide). Manually focusing the 105 on a DX body is certainly doable - but I would prefer doing it on a body with a pentaprism rather than a pentamirror - so the D3x00 and D5x00 would be out.

[Matthew Currie]

The DK-21M magnifier, though it reduces eyepoint and requires that you stuff your eye pretty far into the viewfinder, makes the D3200 and its ilk fairly tolerable for manual focusing. If you're seriously farsighted it also moves the diopter more to the + side, allowing you to go beyond the measly +.5 that the normal eyepiece allows.

[mark_stephan2]

Best low budget imo is the NIkon D600, I purchased one a few weeks before Thanksgiving and I'm very happy with it. I also have a 10 year old D700 and it's even cheaper on eBay. If you don't need a log of megapixels I'd buy the D700, batteries for this camera last forever, I'm still using the battery that was supplied the camera plus a spare I purchased a couple of years later.

[robert_bouknight1]

IMO and with apologies to those that like the Df, there is not a Nikon full size sensor digital camera that is the digital equivalent (size and user interface) to the OP's FE2. A D700 or D600 could possibly be found for close to the OP's budget with some searching, not sure of the Euro market. The D600 is smaller, lighter and would have somewhat better image quality than a D700, but maybe a less preferable interface.

 

A D300 or D7100 DX camera with 35/1.8AF lens might be a good option to consider given the budget. I'm not a big fan of the D3xxx and D5xxx series cameras, or the D7000.

 

As others have mentioned, I have not found any Nikon DSLR that is easy to accurately focus with manual lenses used at shallow DOF settings. As RJ mentioned above, the Sony A series with adaptor should be considered. It's pretty easy to zoom the viewfinder image in order to achieve very accurate manual focus, or use peaking for more casual quick manual focus with a Sony. I did not pay much more than the OP's budget for an A7, which is now my go to manual focus digital camera. I do greatly prefer the Nikon DSLR user interface to the Sony, though, and likely will replace the Sony with a Nikon Z6.

Edited January 5, 2019 by robert_bouknight|1

[ShunCheung]

My impression is that the OP is old-fashioned concerning his camera preference. If one is used to FM/FE type cameras with AI/AI-S lenses, I kind of doubt that he'll be happy with a D3000 or D5000 family body with some plastic consumer AF-S zoom. Meanwhile, it'll be difficult to get something for his preference with a very limited 300 Eruo budget. The old D700 maybe the closest thing, but only the OP can determine whether he like to manually focus with that viewfinder.

[rodeo_joe1]

The 12 megapixels of the D700 is quite forgiving of focussing errors. I used to find the D700's green confirmation dot quite adequate with MF lenses.

[orsetto]

Aside from the budget limitation, which is unrealistic, the biggest issue here is Nikon never really did deliver a digital body that comes close to mimicking the user experience of their classic manual-focus film bodies like the F, F2, F3, or FE/FM. Ten years ago, many of us dreamed of owning the then-new D700, naively assuming it would be the perfect vehicle for our collection of AI Nikkors. When the price dropped from $3300 to under $900 second hand, I jumped on one, and like others was immediately disappointed to discover manual focusing was a chore akin to lost causes.

 

Under the right circumstances, with cooperative lenses and luck, you can nail manual focus on a DSLR. But most of the time it is far more difficult than it is with a classic MF film SLR, because DSLRs are basically AF film SLRs with a sensor attached: fantastic at AF, dismal for MF. The non-changeable "focus screen" is near-useless for anything but framing the shot, the viewfinder is noticeably smaller than an FM/FE, and the green dot electronic rangefinder drops into less-accurate mode the second the camera detects an MF lens with no electronics is attached (thanks for that, Nikon).

 

The unfortunate reality is that no DSLR is as easy to focus manually as a vintage MF film camera. So, there's no way to get quite the same functionality and performance from a 50/1.4 or 105/2.5 that you enjoy with your FE2. The only body near your price range is the D700: a fine camera, and perhaps the most beloved DSLR Nikon ever sold. It holds up nicely even today, esp if just coming from film and wanting to use it with old MF Nikkors. Its 12MP sensor does remarkably well: naysayers who compare it with today's latest super-duper sensors are missing the point (it is still FAR more flexible than film). But, the D700 is a huge heavy brick of a camera (at least twice the size/weight of an FE2, it dwarfs even the old F2AS). The focus screen sacrifices acuity and contrast for bright viewing, has no split image or microprism aids, and can't readily be changed for anything better.

 

Mirrorless full frame cams like the Sony A7, or new Nikon/Canon bodies, are the best platform for old MF lenses. The electronic viewfinders give a MUCH more accurate indication of focus, with the image showm being what the sensor will actually record. These bodies are more compact, closer to a vintage film body like a Nikon F. But, they're still relatively new so second-hand prices are out of your budget (cheapest would be the first Sony A7 at approx 480 euro). Many photographers can't stand the electronic viewfinder experience: it gives them a disconcerting feeling of being cut off from the reality of what they're shooting. That is a compromise one must accept for the better utility with manual lenses.

 

It may help if you consider perhaps the single biggest factor affecting digital imagery is focus: compared to film, digital is viciously unforgiving of the slightest error. As others have suggested, sometimes the best choice is to leave the MF Nikkors to your film kit, and go with a completely separate digital system. The cheapest digital with plastic kit zoom will blow the doors off anything you could wring from the 105/2.5 MF'd on a balky DSLR.

 

Other elements also come into play: digital bodies interact inscrutably with their electronic AF lenses to optimize each image (you'd be amazed how much this affects color tones and exposure). You can dip your toe in digital waters for as little as 170 euro, with something like a used Nikon D40 + 18-55mm AF kit lens (often sellers throw in the tele zoom as well) or newer D3100 etc. These will let you experiment crudely with your manual Nikkors, while demonstrating the benefits of full-on electronic digital. If you get on with AF digital, you can always trade up to something newer/better.

Edited January 5, 2019 by orsetto

[charles_escott_new]

For interest just looked at the Ffordes site to see what Nikons are available for under £250. D80, 20,000 shutter, £89. D300, 15,000 shutter, £219. D2X, 15,000 shutter, £249, tempts me! Just above, a D700, 30,000 shutter, £449. All with 6 months guarantee, no connection with Ffordes except as a very satisfied customer over many deals.Last purchase a Leica M8 which I LOVE. D2X, hmmn !! All the best, Charles.

[Vincent Peri]

For interest just looked at the Ffordes site to see what Nikons are available for under £250.... D2X, 15,000 shutter, £249,...

249 pounds is about $317.

 

Just did a quick google search for the D2X list price when it came out:

 

"Nikon D2X pricing and availability. Nikon has today announced that the D2X digital SLR will begin shipping on 25 February and its suggested street price will be $4,999(approx €3,818) and MSRP of $6,299 (€4,810)."

 

In other words, the used D2X is now selling for 5% of its original list price. That's some depreciation!

 

On the other hand, a Nikon F3HP with 50mm f/1.4 lens when it first came out sold for List price, $1,174.90. Today, almost 40 years later, it goes for approximately $350 on ebay. That's about 30% of its original price.

 

How much will a D2X be worth when it's almost 40 years old?

[Dieter Schaefer]

How much will a D2X be worth when it's almost 40 years old?

$5 - to be used as a paperweight or doorstop.:D

[charles_escott_new]

$5 more than I'll be worth in 2045. All the best, Charles.

[glen_h]

 

(snip)

 

It may help if you consider perhaps the single biggest factor affecting digital imagery is focus: compared to film, digital is viciously unforgiving of the slightest error.

 

(snip)

 

I suppose.

 

But if you have the same expectations as for film, then maybe not.

 

If you make 4x6 prints, and do a reasonable job at focus (and use appropriate ISO for enough depth of field) will you notice?

 

Next, compare projected slides to a DLP projected digital image from a DSLR.

(I still don't have a digital projector, so can't say much here.)

[charles_escott_new]

Just thinking about my list above, I would be interested in the D300 or D2X but wouldn't the £89 D80 be a way of seeing if you can work with digital?. Whatever the conclusion, after a few months you could hand the camera to a local school running a photography course, not every kid is well off, or donate it to a charity hospice shop. Charles.

[DavidTriplett]

I've just purchased a Nikon ES-1 slide copier to use on my D810 and Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AI with PK-13, as the kit to digitize my slides going back 40 years or more. The first few slides are a revelation! Admittedly, these particular slides were made on Ektachrome 200, and I've yet to play with those made on Kodachrome 64. Still, it is immediately apparent that the limiting factor in this equation is the resolution of the slides themselves (the vast majority taken with a Nikkormat EL, Nikon FM, and various Nikkor lenses). After accounting for correct lighting and white balance, assuring dead-on focus with my sharpest lens, and making multiple images of several test slides, it's indisputable that the camera sensor's resolution far exceeds that of the 35mm slide film. I've done a very abbreviated comparison with some comparable digital images, and the digital has far more resolution than the transparencies could ever offer.

 

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to the OP's original question, except to suggest that his expectations regarding digital versus film might not match the results to be obtained. Since he apparently does not process his own film, the issues of enjoyment found in photography + darkroom don't necessarily apply. I remain impressed that the OP should consider an entry-level, inexpensive, used body+lens digital kit as his first experiment. If he likes it, then he can invest in higher-cost and -capacity equipment, including that which will work with his existing MF lenses. Otherwise, the threshold for a modern, recent generation, MF compatible body remains above his budget.

 

On a side note, the OP indicated that cost and/or availability of photo labs was a prime issue for him. This suggests that a meaningful experiment into digital could very well lead to a move away from film, if only to avoid the cost and complexity of film purchase and lab work. In that, for me, the shift to digital has made an enormous difference in my willingness and capacity to shoot a lot, experiment freely, and improve my skills by leaps and bounds. The OP might well discover the same is true for him, if he has the chance to explore the full digital paradigm.

Edited January 6, 2019 by DavidTriplett

[ben_hutcherson]

$5 - to be used as a paperweight or doorstop.:D

 

To be fair, my D2XS was a $30 impulse "as is" purchase from KEH...added on to pad an existing order I think to meet a minimum for a sale that they were having at the time. I bought a $5 D100 at the same time.

 

The D100 is cosmetically perfect, but the mode dial is "glitchy" and what the camera reads doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the dial. This wouldn't be a huge issue if I could just set it to aperture priority and leave it, but the D100 requires you to use that dial every time you want to change the ISO. I've read reports of some higher mileage D100s having the same issue-if I had to guess it's probably the fact that the N80 body it's based on just wasn't made to be used as heavily as a lot of D100 owners did. I did, however, pay $50 for one a while back at my local camera store that is cosmetically and operationally perfect(I wish there was a way to check the shutter count on them).

 

In any case, the D2Xs was operationally fine, but looked like it had been run over by a truck and had over 200K actuations on it. Of course, at that price it came without a battery or battery door, and considering that I have two other D2 series cameras I didn't have any issue borrowing one just to try it(plus I have a decent stash of EN-EL4a batteries, both Nikon and aftermarket).

[Dieter Schaefer]

This suggests that a meaningful experiment into digital could very well lead to a move away from film, if only to avoid the cost and complexity of film purchase and lab work. In that, for me, the shift to digital has made an enormous difference in my willingness and capacity to shoot a lot, experiment freely, and improve my skills by leaps and bounds. The OP might well discover the same is true for him, if he has the chance to explore the full digital paradigm.

That certainly resonates with me as - my experience almost exactly - albeit some 14 years ago. At the time, I was shooting film and had not used AF even once. I got the first "affordable" DSLR (Nikon D70) to use alongside my film cameras (mainly FA, F3, F4); the intent was to experiment with digital but shoot the "important" stuff on film (slides mostly). I even purchased an F5 after I got the D70 - to achieve parity with regard to the metering and AF capabilities. Things quickly turned the other way - digital became the main medium and film soon faded into insignificance (and in those days, film and labs weren't as scarce as they are now). Within two years, the transition to digital was virtually complete (there were a few attempts to incorporate film into my workflow over the past decade but they were all abandoned quickly).

[ben_hutcherson]

That certainly resonates with me as - my experience almost exactly - albeit some 14 years ago. At the time, I was shooting film and had not used AF even once. I got the first "affordable" DSLR (Nikon D70) to use alongside my film cameras (mainly FA, F3, F4); the intent was to experiment with digital but shoot the "important" stuff on film (slides mostly). I even purchased an F5 after I got the D70 - to achieve parity with regard to the metering and AF capabilities. Things quickly turned the other way - digital became the main medium and film soon faded into insignificance (and in those days, film and labs weren't as scarce as they are now). Within two years, the transition to digital was virtually complete (there were a few attempts to incorporate film into my workflow over the past decade but they were all abandoned quickly).

 

I do still shoot a pretty decent amount of film, and do use it along side my DSLRs or sometimes completely on its own(the "along side" thing is why I love the F100 as it gives a similar UI to higher end DSLRs and shares much of the same lens compatibility).

 

A D70s was my first Nikon DSLR, and I bought it cheap WELL past is prime. At that point, I'd already gotten my toes wet with digital using a Digital Rebel, but most of my "serious" photography was still with Canon FD mount equipment. The lens compatibility attracted me, and the fact that I could use good MF glass on digital without needing adapters...it's also why I still make a big deal out of certain features like having an AI tab on the camera. Of course, I pretty quickly outgrew the D70s because it lacked that.

 

In any case, even the 6mp D70(s) is probably better at ISO 400 than your typical 35mm ISO 400 film, and it's certainly better when you get into the 800 and 1600 range(although 1600 on a D70 is not exactly pleasant). ISO 100 slide film still edges it out, but any advantage to film evaporates at higher ISOs.

 

I'd go one step further and say that at 12mp, digital beats film at comparable speeds-going much beyond that 35mm is a non-starter unless you're shooting tech pan on a tripod.

 

Of course, medium and large format are different stories, but whatever advantage a 100 speed slide film(or T-grain B&W film) has in my RB67 as compared to my D800, I'm still more likely to actually have the D800 with me :) . I don't mind carrying my 500C(and maybe one or two additional lenses) all day and it's a LOT more hand-holdable than the big Mamiya, but at the same time I'm giving up a fair bit of film real estate on it as compared to the RB67.

[jimnorwood]

Aside from the budget limitation, which is unrealistic, the biggest issue here is Nikon never really did deliver a digital body that comes close to mimicking the user experience of their classic manual-focus film bodies like the F, F2, F3, or FE/FM. Ten years ago, many of us dreamed of owning the then-new D700, naively assuming it would be the perfect vehicle for our collection of AI Nikkors. When the price dropped from $3300 to under $900 second hand, I jumped on one, and like others was immediately disappointed to discover manual focusing was a chore akin to lost causes.

 

Under the right circumstances, with cooperative lenses and luck, you can nail manual focus on a DSLR. But most of the time it is far more difficult than it is with a classic MF film SLR, because DSLRs are basically AF film SLRs with a sensor attached: fantastic at AF, dismal for MF. The non-changeable "focus screen" is near-useless for anything but framing the shot, the viewfinder is noticeably smaller than an FM/FE, and the green dot electronic rangefinder drops into less-accurate mode the second the camera detects an MF lens with no electronics is attached (thanks for that, Nikon).

 

The unfortunate reality is that no DSLR is as easy to focus manually as a vintage MF film camera. So, there's no way to get quite the same functionality and performance from a 50/1.4 or 105/2.5 that you enjoy with your FE2. The only body near your price range is the D700: a fine camera, and perhaps the most beloved DSLR Nikon ever sold. It holds up nicely even today, esp if just coming from film and wanting to use it with old MF Nikkors. Its 12MP sensor does remarkably well: naysayers who compare it with today's latest super-duper sensors are missing the point (it is still FAR more flexible than film). But, the D700 is a huge heavy brick of a camera (at least twice the size/weight of an FE2, it dwarfs even the old F2AS). The focus screen sacrifices acuity and contrast for bright viewing, has no split image or microprism aids, and can't readily be changed for anything better.

 

Mirrorless full frame cams like the Sony A7, or new Nikon/Canon bodies, are the best platform for old MF lenses. The electronic viewfinders give a MUCH more accurate indication of focus, with the image showm being what the sensor will actually record. These bodies are more compact, closer to a vintage film body like a Nikon F. But, they're still relatively new so second-hand prices are out of your budget (cheapest would be the first Sony A7 at approx 480 euro). Many photographers can't stand the electronic viewfinder experience: it gives them a disconcerting feeling of being cut off from the reality of what they're shooting. That is a compromise one must accept for the better utility with manual lenses.

 

It may help if you consider perhaps the single biggest factor affecting digital imagery is focus: compared to film, digital is viciously unforgiving of the slightest error. As others have suggested, sometimes the best choice is to leave the MF Nikkors to your film kit, and go with a completely separate digital system. The cheapest digital with plastic kit zoom will blow the doors off anything you could wring from the 105/2.5 MF'd on a balky DSLR.

 

Other elements also come into play: digital bodies interact inscrutably with their electronic AF lenses to optimize each image (you'd be amazed how much this affects color tones and exposure). You can dip your toe in digital waters for as little as 170 euro, with something like a used Nikon D40 + 18-55mm AF kit lens (often sellers throw in the tele zoom as well) or newer D3100 etc. These will let you experiment crudely with your manual Nikkors, while demonstrating the benefits of full-on electronic digital. If you get on with AF digital, you can always trade up to something newer/better.

Thankyou all for your comments and suggestions. The answer above is exactly what I was hoping to find out. I was looking for an FE2 experience with a modern digital. It seems better to either use the MF lenses I have with my 35mm systems and if I want to switch to digital to start a new system. My problem is that I love the cautious, conservative way I shoot with film, where each shot is an important decision and I know when I swap to digital this will no longer be the case. Thanks again.

Edited January 6, 2019 by jimnorwood

[glen_h]

Thankyou all for your comments and suggestions. The answer above is exactly what I was hoping to find out. I was looking for an FE2 experience with a modern digital. It seems better to either use the MF lenses I have with my 35mm systems and if I want to switch to digital to start a new system. My problem is that I love the cautious, conservative way I shoot with film, where each shot is an important decision and I know when I swap to digital this will no longer be the case. Thanks again.

 

Before I got my first DSLR, when I was mostly using the FM I purchased new in 1979, I didn't expect to use the automated modes.

 

But most often, the DSLR is set to P mode, and with AF turned on.

 

But mostly I do photography for fun, and sometimes that means using AI lenses on a DSLR.

 

I do use modes M, A, and S, especially in night shooting with unusual light sources, or

available light indoors.

 

The D200, D300, and D700, in M or A mode, will have some of the feel of the FE2.

 

With the FM, I did get pretty good at using the center split-image spot for focus, and agree with

the above, that focus is not so easy on many DSLRs.

[warren_williams]

I’m interested that the green focus dot is met with universal ridicule. When using my D800e the throw of the focus when the dot appears is almost always less then the depth of field mark on my manual focus lens. I’m usually using a normal to wide focal length and shooting at moderate aperture (f5.6 -f11). Are the complaints concerning wide open shots with a telephoto or am I missing something?

[BeBu Lamar]

I think the least expensive would be a D700. I wouldn't consider any DX body as a body for AI and AI-S lenses. They are all full frame lenses and need to be used on a full frame camera to get their full potential.

[BeBu Lamar]

And if you ask Shun he will say those old AI lenses don't have high enough resolution for modern sensors. So they work best with a full frame but low pixel count camera like the D700.

[orsetto]

I’m interested that the green focus dot is met with universal ridicule. When using my D800e the throw of the focus when the dot appears is almost always less then the depth of field mark on my manual focus lens. I’m usually using a normal to wide focal length and shooting at moderate aperture (f5.6 -f11). Are the complaints concerning wide open shots with a telephoto or am I missing something?

 

There are two components to this, which have come up again in recent threads. One is technical: its been credibly demonstrated that Nikon "downshifts" the sensitivity of the green dot system when lenses with no electronics are mounted. Two is subjective: some photographers have little to no difficulty focusing vintage lenses on DSLRs (via green dot or focus screen), while others repeatedly fail to nail true focus with the accuracy digital requires.

 

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of "Magic Lantern" hack that will force the Nikon green dot electronic rangefinder into AF-accurate mode when non-electronic lenses are mounted. The "downshifted" green dot mode is sufficient with wide to normal lenses at smaller apertures, but gets funkier as DOF narrows at f2.0 or f/1.4 (or with longer focal lengths). Some lenses are counterintuitively more difficult than others: I personally struggle way more with the 28mm f/2.0 AIS than with the 35mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 lenses (hardly any keepers with the 28mm vs 75% focus hit rate with the 35s).

[ben_hutcherson]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of "Magic Lantern" hack that will force the Nikon green dot electronic rangefinder into AF-accurate mode when non-electronic lenses are mounted. The "downshifted" green dot mode is sufficient with wide to normal lenses at smaller apertures, but gets funkier as DOF narrows at f2.0 or f/1.4 (or with longer focal lengths). Some lenses are counterintuitively more difficult than others: I personally struggle way more with the 28mm f/2.0 AIS than with the 35mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 lenses (hardly any keepers with the 28mm vs 75% focus hit rate with the 35s).

 

Do you know if this happens with AI-P lenses?

 

There aren't that many official Nikon ones(I'm sure I'm missing a few, but a few MF super-teles like the 500mm f/4 come to mind, along with of course the more recent 45mm f/2.8), but you have 3rd party ones like the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses and even aftermarket CPUs like the Dandelion chip.

 

I'd think that having it go into "high accuracy mode" with the 500mm f/4 AI-P would be advantageous, especially since in other respects this is an F4 era lens and the F4 is overall(IMO) one of the more pleasant AF-era bodies to use with MF lenses.

[orsetto]

The recent thread posts regarding apparent mode switching of the Nikon green dot haven't mentioned the uncommon AI-P lenses. Perhaps older threads included comparisons of green dot behavior with AIS, AIP, and AF lenses (in manual focus).

 

Presumably this hinges on how exactly the camera determines the green dot programming: does 'enhanced' mode simply require electronic contacts in the lens, or does the camera additionally query whether the lens is AF-capable?