graham_line

<p>Still using the DSLR for photos of small products, wildlife, and projects requiring stacking via Helicon Focus</p>

<p>Sony's 20/2.8 eliminates the need to set and reset focal lengths. The 16-50 zoom is fine, but a little bit slow sometimes. People who actually shoot with them don't complain much about the quality.</p>

<p>Sounds like the guy who borrowed a body from me ("need a backup") and never returned it. Some people are self-centered jerks and will ruin your life if you let them take advantage of you. Dump him, and don't answer his calls. He will thrive on your attempts to straighten out the situation.</p>

<p>I'm kind of stuck on the "Wikipedia quoting Rockwell" comment, and am late to the thread, again. <br> My M-mount lenses (28 through 90) are all very happy in use on a Sony Alpha 6000, using a Fotasy LM-NEX adapter. The images are as good or better than on M-mount film bodies.<br> The only sticking point is the 1.5x factor in going from the full 35mm frame to APS-C, but that's not impossible. <br> Using aperture priority (or manual, sometimes), all I have to do is focus the image in the finder or on the LCD. The same body accepts my Nikon lenses as well. No need to sell off stuff you like.</p>

<p>Don't remember ever scratching eyeglasses on my CLE's finder. The Pentaxes I had earlier were a very different story. </p>

<p>My family is German-speaking but isn't, and wasn't Jewish. I remember hearing these stories from older relatives back in the 1960s. Many people got out of Germany as "Leica representatives." By the late 1930s, it was almost impossible for anyone to emigrate.</p>

<p>Shorter focusing throws require higher-precision fingers. Unless you're collecting them "just to have" the more-common lenses with 180-degree or greater motions are completely adequate.<br> Voigtlanders are excellent lenses. I used a 35 a great deal for news work as an all-purpose close-in lens, when there would not be an opportunity to change lenses. </p>

<p>The M5 and the CL were the first Leica bodies with internal meters. The Minolta CLE, most of the 35mm-format Voigtlander Bessas and ther Zeiss Ikon all have meters. Some of them, as mentioned have clearance problems with individual lenses, and some of the lenses will block the low-mounted metering cell in the Minolta.<br> When I bought Voigtlander LTM lenses years ago, the LTM-M adapter was added at the same time. To me, they're M-mount lenses. <br> They include the 28/3.5, 35/2.5 and the 50/2.5 and none have caused metering problems.</p>

<p>You can move closer or farther away, but I suspect this is not what you mean . . .</p>

<p>The lens you are shooting with always makes better photos than the one you only wish you had. I enjoy the distinctive rendition in Cartsens' photos.</p>

<p>Even as an A6000 user, I agree with Shun's point -- if you want a smaller, lighter body to use with your Nikkors, Nikon has several alternatives.<br> On the other hand, much of my work involves photographing small products, and the A6000 combined with the 50/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (sometimes a 75-150E with short tubes) does very nicely. But -- these are situations with fixed lighting and the camera on a support. Shooting in aperture priority is very straightforward. My Nikon-to-Sony adapter is a simple aluminum tube from Kiwi. No electronics or optics.<br> For more dynamic situations, I favor using the A6000 with its own lenses, generally the 20/2.8 or the newer 16-50 OSS. It is a very nice small camera and the menus on the A6000 are a breeze compared to the earlier NEX5 and its siblings.</p>

<p>Send money and portfolio. I will ponder the question.</p>

<p>Don't have any Nikon G lenses, but am using a Kiwi LMA-NK(G) adapter to use an old 50/3.5 Micro-Nikkor on a Sony A6000 and the results are excellent.<br> Am also having good results with a Fotasy Leica M-mount adapter. As the man said, there is no glass in either one of them, and the lenses mount securely.</p>

<p>Except on certain web boards, the Sony 16-50/3.5-5.6 seems pretty decent if you can work with the lens speed and focal lengths. Have you read of a particular problem? I've seen some very good photos made with the 20/2.8 as a walk-around lens, as well. </p>

<p>On the A6000, there's a delayed release available in several increments. Same on most other cameras.</p>

<p>So far, the 20/2.8 and the 16-50/3.5-5.6 OSS are fine. Also use my old Nikkor 50/3.5 Micro and other close-up stuff with an adapter.<br> Why does the firmware need updating? </p>

<p>The size difference comes from SLR lenses being generally larger than an RF lens of the same focal length and speed. Without the pentaprism up top, a RF has a different balance point than an SLR, as well. "Stealth" is up to the individual photographer and highly overrated.</p>

<p>They are also offering the rare VW-Fahrvergnugen variation</p>

<p>For certain types of work, my choice for years was either a Minolta CLE or a Leica M4P, with a 28-35-50-90 lens set. I'm now able to get excellent results from a Sony A6000 with a 20mm and the 16-50 lens. The Sony photos do not look exactly like the M-mount work, but they fit the current flow of work, and the time frame that clients expect.<br /> With an adapter, all of the M lenses can and have been fitted to the Sony.<br /> The only downside is the battery capacity -- it takes a minimum of two batteries and preferably three to get the Sony through a long day.</p> <p>Edit: I would strongly disagree with the tag line at the top: "Pros bring the entire arsenal . . . " A professional will assess the shoot and bring whatever is needed. An amateur will bring everything "just in case." </p>

<p>B&H has excellent service. Another mail-order site for a variety of film is http://www.freestylephoto.biz/<br> Another is http://www.prophotosupply.com/products/p-film.htm</p>

<p>No complaints here. These are on 1970s Plus-X.<br> www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/sets/72157623619389180/</p>