kenneth_logan

About using the D70 with manual lenses, and the focus issue, I recently tested a D70 in-store with a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5. Going into the test, I was really skeptical about how well I would be able to focus in the D70 without the "tooth" in the finder glass, etc. that I'm so used to now on the F3HP with the default focus screen. After testing focusing the D70 on many objects in the store, I conclude that, for me, there really was not as much difference as I thought there would be--and this was in largely low-light conditions! I suspect that each person simply has to try to finder for himself/herself.

This is in response to a post above by Bryan on 6/3 at 6:30, who said about the D70 and a 400mm manual lens, "it won't trigger the camera's focus indicator either". My question: Why? I've tried a manual 55mm f/3.5 Micro with the D70 and it DOES trigger the focus indicator--taking that to mean the green light that flashes/stays steadily when the camera means that focus is attained. I presume that the camera was simply telling when the image was in focus at the "sensor plane". So would this not also work with the 400mm manual lens?

The above posts may all assume that we're talking about 35mm film. Many if not most of today's digital SLR cameras have a multiplication factor of 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 x the image on a film SLR. This means that the digitals are "cropping" the frames in-camera. So the "corners" of the lens image in a 35mm film SLR are no longer the "corners" of the lens image in a digital SLR. Thus "corner" sharpness may not be an issue at all. I have a professional friend who just shot a lot on location with a 1.6 "multiplication factor" digital SLR. He's picky, too: he was happy with shooting wide open.

Mihut,

Were you using the same lens on the film camera as on the D70? And what was the film camera: was it of comparable quality to the D70? In good alignment internally? I'm not fundamentally disputing your results: I'm in fact quite interested in them because I'm considering getting a D70. But we need to be clear that extraneous variables are not affecting the outcome. And the lens (or lenses) will be an essential factor. One variable is clear: the D70 could not have shot at ISO 100, so we already are comparing ISO 100 film speed with ISO 200 (at least) digital speed.

In response to Dave: I tested w/ I believe the "kit" 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens on the D70 against the older mf Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 on the F3HP. I set the 18-70 at approx. 19mm focal length to equal the field of view of the 28mm (reflecting the 1.5x multiplication factor). The 3.5 apertures gave me similar testing conditions, although, of course, other lens variables affected the outcome slightly. Turns out the D70's screen is stated as being a matte screen. I think that I would have a lot more trouble manual-focusing with it than with the F3HP's default, which I used with pleasure again this afternoon.

My comments about magnification and brightness above, comparing the F3HP and the D70, are based on immediate, indoor but with some natural light, side-by-side comparisons, one to the other and back...

I spent time this week with the D70. Interestingly, I did not find

the D70's finder to be very different from that of the F3HP with the

F3HP's standard screen, for image magnification and brightness.

However, I want to know about others' experiences trying to do

manual focusing with a ground-glass finder such as the D70's. For

instance, would it make sense to use a manual Nikkor 55/3.5 micro

lens with the D70 (metering problem noted)? What about focusing with

a 75-150 E series Nikon manual zoom, with a D70 finder or similar

finder? I'd perhaps use a 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF as the main lens, with

special-cases use of other (manual) lenses.

 

No, I'm not planning to get rid of the F3HP! (;-)

Didn't you notice that fence in front of it? (;-)

Will an older electronic flash such as the Vivitar 3700 work w/ the D70, not for any sort of TTL flash but just as a manual or automatic flash? Does the D70 send the appropriate type of "fire now" signal to such a flash? Is such a flash capable of responding to the D70's 1/500th-of-a-second flash sync speed?

A lot with such a question depends on your ultimate use of the photos. If you are definitely shooting transparency (slide) film for use with projection, then your framing when you shoot is a prime consideration. If, however, you are going to scan film OR you are shooting digital, you can gain significant depth of field by not zooming in so close, then cropping. This, in term, may allow you to use a film that is one stop slower, which may affect your graininess and capture of detail very nicely.

 

I learned, I hope, a lesson the hard way recently while photographing this month some scenes of a play that was mostly outdoors. Much of my shooting was with a Nikon 75-150 E zoom and 2x teleconverter, yielding an effective maximum f stop of f/7. Now, if shooting at effective f/8 (f/4 set on the main lens, then the teleconverter reduces by 2 f/stops to yield f/8) and 280mm zoom position, I would have depth of field "x". If shooting without the tc and at 140mm zoom position and at f/8, I would have depth of field "x" times 4! Even going to f/5.6 I would have considerably greater depth of field at the 140mm zoom. Seems to me like focus latitude could be important in what you're attempting to do with large aperture.

Well, this became a most interesting thread! It seems to me that a real problem with Nikon/Nikkor non-continuing-full-compatibility really comes down at some point to whether real Nikon classics--55/3.5 micro Nikkor, 105/2.5, 180/2.8, etc.--can do on a digital what they were able to do on a film camera, for the benefits of digital over film which are many. So-so lenses may be dispensable to many. Maybe the answer is just getting a few classic lenses "chipped". I'm not planning to abandon F3HP anytime soon, but there have been situations in which using some fine old Nikkor manual lenses on a digital body would have been a great help. Anyway, I appreciate having the benefit from a variety of input on this subject.

Anyone know whether there is any Nikon digital SLR that will support

simple center-weighted exposure metering with Nikon/Nikkor manual

lenses (without the lens being "chipped")? Is there any Nikon DSLR

that supports multiple-zone metering with Nikon/Nikkor manual lenses

(without the lens being "chipped")? Yes, I've tried to research

manual metering/DSLR recently on photo.net, but if someone would

tell me with a quick list of any DSLRs that provide such support, it

would be greatly appreciated.

If in your circumstances you are able to focus very precisely on the subject and your ultimate print would go through PhotoShop or other program with good cropping capabilities, you probably would find the lens without a teleconverter would give you better results. A tc generally adds its own bit of distortion to what bit of distortion the main lens has. And, if I'm not mistaken, double the focal length (such as by adding a 2x teleconverter) and you divide the effective depth of field by a factor of 4.

 

I recently went through a lot of shooting events of a live play outdoors in which I used a 2x Nikon TC-200 teleconverter with my 75-150 E series Nikon lens, and I concluded that I probably would have been better off not using the tc and instead cropping in order to "zoom". I lost two stops of light to the tc. Of course, I was manual focusing, so in that sense I may have gotten sharper photos by using the tc and being able to see the subject that I was focusing on "closer"--but then I was seeing with two stops less light!

 

My suggestion would be that you might just try to 80-200 w/out the tc and crop. I understand that it is a fantastic lens--I've been researching it in the immediately past week--and would probably take a tc about as well as any zoom, but then why do that when you have such apparently-fantastic quality in the main lens?

I'm considering trying to supplement the F3HP that I frequently use,

with a D70. I visualize possibly switching back and forth, depending

on particular needs such as the ability to switch ISO levels freely

throughout shooting a live outdoor event (D70) versus closeup

photography with an MF 55/3.5 Nikkor (F3HP). I don't generally

anticipate going beyond 10" x 15" in enlargement, and if that is not

fine at the D70's effective 6.1 megpix, then, say, 8" x 12" would be

okay.

 

I've been reading D70 specs online, and I'm wondering, Would I find

it much of a disappointment to be using a D70 when I'm accustomed to

the F3HP?

It's so helpful on this photo.net when a seasoned pro takes the time to give a substantive, detailed answer like that of John S. above. We owe a lot to those who do, be we amateurs or also pros.

Re: Jim's comment about the 200 f/4 Q, it is refreshing to read a positive comment about this lens. My father was a professional photographer, and I've often wondered why he left this lens among his other Nikon/Nikkor lenses at his death about two years ago. If it is a mediocre lens, then why did Dad have it? Well, I have access to it now, and I'm encouraged to try it some more. Any more comments about this lens would be very helpful. How is it for medium-far-focussing, from 40-50 feet?

Why adapt? Mainly about a half dozen Nikon/Nikkor lenses that I have around for an F3HP that I have...a bird in the hand...no Canon lenses...now about an EOS body for digital... My idea is to perhaps buy an EOS body with a great Canon lens or two, and use some Nikon/Nikkor lenses for special purposes. Anyway, what an interesting string of responses: I appreciate having the benefit of the input!

 

BTW, when using an adapted Nikon/Nikkor lens with an EOS body, can one see the f/stop somewhere in the EOS finder?

I'm considering buying a Canon EOS but have a considerable number of

Nikon/Nikkor lenses, mostly manual-focus but one auto-focus 50/1.8.

Yes, I've done some forum searching, yet I'm wondering:

1) What are good, fairly low-cost adapters for using Nikon/Nikkor

lenses on EOS bodies?

2) Do any such adapters allow retention of basic center-weighted TTL

exposure metering on the EOS, or keeping of any other type of

metering?

3) Does anyone "chip" Nikon/Nikkor lenses to allow metering on EOS

(such as Rolland Elliott does for Nikon/Nikkor lenses for Nikon

bodies)?

Kodak apparently used .033 dof circle of confusion as an appropriate value for "critical work". Older Nikon F values appear to have been .033, and values Nikon has used have been said to be .03 or .025 (.025 apparently a more-recent value). You may wish to search photo.net under "circle of confusion".

The Housh list is indeed very helpful; thoughtful of you to forward the reference. Obviously longer focal lengths generally correlate with longer lens hoods, so, logically, a 2x teleconverter would be no problem with a hood that works on the main lens without the tc. I suppose that I'm mainly looking for confirmation of that.

Dave, I appreciate having your response. I assume because of the even longer focal length that adding a Nikon TC-200 2x teleconverter to this lens, with the HN-7 shade, would not be a problem with vignetting or corner shading, right?

I'm about to photograph a long live event w/ F3HP for which I intend

to depend greatly on my Nikon 75-150/3.5 E series zoom. I bought the

HN-7 hood recently, but, not having tested it much, I'm not just

sure regarding any vignetting or light-falloff issues. (The HN-7 is

not the one recommended for this lens: the HN-21, which is about 6mm

shorter = about 30mm long versus about 36mm, is the recommended

hood.)

 

Anyone out there know of any problems with this hood and the 75-150?

If there are problems would they tend to be at short end of

zoom/infinity end of focus? I'd prefer to know now rather than after

perhaps nine rolls of transparency film during the event! (;-)

The F3 does not respond significantly (and probably not at all) to changes in light level once it takes its reading at the very beginning of a long exposure. I recently tested this, starting two exposures with similar low-light levels, and letting one receive very low light and one with much drenching with light that I "painted" onto the scene. The exposures went similar lengths of time and turned out looking very different on the film.

I highly recommend the John Shaw book. Clear, yet quite deep, too. You may find it at online auction for significantly less than retail (which now is around $22. or $24.). It is from about 20 years ago: a lot has happened in photography since then. I bought a copy of it for someone in my household as a Christmas gift this past Christmas, gave it to the person. Know what? That person has not seen much of it since. (;-)

Regarding your lenses quandry, it would make a lot of sense to start with a quality zoom until you establish clearly the focal-length range in which you find yourself shooting most often. Case in point: I considered for a long time whether to purchase a 50-135 or a 75-150 "E" series Nikon zoom. I learned to know my typical urge better, that is, to get "closer and closer" to the subject and to frame more selectively. I chose the 75-150, and that was, for me, a better choice. Now, as I shoot with it, I'm learning which end of the zoom spectrum I use more. I have plenty of "normal" length lenses, and one prime 200mm, etc. Eventually I may buy an 85mm or 105mm prime. I experiment now with BOTH 85mm and 105mm focal lengths, because I have a 75-150 zoom (and, BTW, an 80-200 zoom).

 

For what it's worth, here's one photographer who very seldom shoots with a wide-angle lens, though I have a 28mm. Much depends on what you plan to DO with a lens.