fred_c1

<p>Get the Japanese 50 Nokton 2nd hand (discontinued.)</p>

<p>Sony A5000. Why get a P&S with a tiny sensor when you can have APS-C?</p>

<blockquote> <p>i typically shoot portra 800, and do not want to stop down to 5.6 or 8.</p> <p>Use slower film or an ND filter</p> <p>that wouldn't do much for getting ambient exposure without dragging the shutter too long.</p> </blockquote> <p>You do know that "not stopping down" already means higher shutter speeds, at the same ISO without filters?</p> <p>Or should your original question be phrased like "recommend a weak flash for<strong> indoor use</strong>"?</p>

<p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Heads become distorted at the edges of a wide angle lens, much more for a 28 than a 35</p> </blockquote> <p>Then don't put heads at the edge. ;)<br> <br />On full frame, 28mm is merely a standard wide angle, while the 35mm can be regarded as a wide-ish normal. When in doubt, pick the shorter lens. You can always crop but you can't always step back.</p>

<p>The 28mm you already have, works well on film, and APS-C for environmental portraiture (for which the 40mm might be a little long.)</p>

<p>Yashica had a HK factory that made Electro 35 cameras way before 2008. From the teleconverters' descriptions, they should belong to that era. By 2008 even the Yashica SLRs were long gone, let alone such accessories.</p> <p>I don't think the converters were ever marked "ML", though it wouldn't preclude them from having mult-coating. A visual inspection of the glass may well confirm. The grip pattern of the X2 version does match those found on ML lenses.</p> <p>The Mutars have T* if you're willing to pay for them. http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/sbko-hq/YASHICA_ML/2x.html</p>

<p>I really don't see the point of compacts anymore with their tiny sensors when many mirrorless models are in the same price range. Consider a used/refurbished Sony A6000, NEX 6, or the soon-to-be-discounted A5000 with the pancake zoom.</p>

<p>Try these tips on the XT-1 first, though not limited to Sony cameras which are used successfully by many for video: http://cameradojo.com/optimizing-your-sony-nex-5n7-for-shooting-video/</p>

<p>Mark, I did care enough to read your posts.</p> <blockquote> <p>I own a Nikon FM3a, 45 2.8P lens, 85 1.4 ais and other items: all items that might supposedly have been low-demand items that now demand very high used prices at KEH or anywhere else because people actually wanted them and don't quickly get rid of them. The lens I'm describing would sell pretty well I think.</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone is adapting those old SLR lenses to digital bodies, even full-frames. That's why they have a high resale value. One would have thought you wanted or liked something similar. But then you said:</p> <blockquote> <p>I think the Nikon 24 f2 has a 52mm front filter instead of my 20's 62mm, but the barrel and overall size is about the same (lens on far right in my picture): not particularly small for a camera that only needs an aps optimized lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 24/2 Nikkor is about the same size as the your 20mm Nikkor which doesn't seem to bother you. In fact, I'm little surprised Nikon could keep the 24/2 as small as its f/2.8 brother, when the 28/2 Nikkor was noticeably larger.</p> <p>Anyway, I don't think any lens in the market will fit your particular set of requirements or preferences the way they are stated, except maybe the SLR Magic which I don't see as good value now or during resale.</p>

<p>Old saying: fast (or in this case, small), cheap, good -- pick any two. And why mention the Nikon film outfit if full-frame compatibility is not required or even wanted?</p> <p>Anyway, I was in the same boat last year, only with a lower budget and less picky about size. Opted for the 24/2 Nikkor instead of the $400 SLR Magic. Cost me about $200 plus shipping.</p>

<p>With a $500 budget and already a Nikon outfit, get the 24mm f/2 Nikkor. Canon's FD equivalent should be better but not compatible with Nikon SLR.</p>

<p>Why bother searching for a rare MD adapter when you can get 100% compatibility with a low-cost, used Nikon body?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Canon EF lenses have a register distance of 44.0 mm and Minolta MC MD lenses have a register distance of 43.72 mm. So any adapter is going to be way too thick to work.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. The M42 and Pentax K mounts have the same 45.46mm register distance, yet M42-K adapters have been in use for decades.</p> <p>That said, it'd be way less hassle getting a camera like the Nikon FM for the F-mount lens than a custom adapter to Minolta bodies.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If money wasn't an issue, something like the Leica T and it's 11-23mm zoom (17-35mm/35mm Equivalent), would be an amazing compact combo...</p> </blockquote> <p>Sony's $750 10-18mm is about the same size, with OSS and constant f/4 aperture.</p>

<p>The Sony NEX 5 came out five years ago, with stabilized zooms. No need to get a factory adapter for manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>AFAIK the Metabones Smart Adapter^TM series is only available for Canon EOS lenses which already contain electronics for P and Tv modes http://www.metabones.com/products</p>

<p>If you're looking for auto diaphragm, the first response already answered your question:</p> <blockquote> <p>For all practical purposes it is a non-issue 99% of the time, as the EVF adjusts light intensity to a norm for focusing. </p> </blockquote>

<p>Seems to me the OP means "shutter priority" by "auto aperture", not auto diaphragm.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Fuji lenses are among the best, but you are still denied ultra-wide performance.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 14/2.8 and 10-24/4 Fujinons are plenty wide for me.</p>

<p>There is no "AUTO setting" for aperture. Stop down or step back if you are overexposing flash shots. Also make sure the exposure compensation dial isn't adding exposure.</p>

<p>The Contax G bodies have manual focus dials as well as a distance scale in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Why not use everything on a Leica M body instead of screwmount? Way easier to get adapters and much more ergonomical.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The subjective (bokeh) characteristics seemed to depend on the shapes of the OOF objects, distance from the camera, whether it was foreground or background, etc.</p> </blockquote> <p>This actually applies to all lenses, unless you have bokeh-specialized lenses such as the Minolta/Sony STF and DC Nikkors.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am under the impression that all lenses, even those labeled Zeiss, are manufactured by Sony and that the Zeiss moniker only points out that the lens has a design approved by Zeiss (note that I didn't write: has been designed by Zeiss).</p> </blockquote> <p>Not true. Zeiss-designed E-mount lenses have their own special names: Touit and Loxia, sold and serviced by Zeiss. AFAIK they are not made by Sony either.</p> <p>The ZA lenses are really Sony products. Sales and service are by Sony.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The old, original M39 bottom-feeding was worse, IMHO.<br /> Leica could have fixed it,<br /> FED managed to do so, anyhow.</p> </blockquote> <p>Bottom-loading is the eucharist in Leicadom. </p> <p>http://leica.nemeng.com/000b.shtml</p>