feanolas1

<p>I would rather choose an A7II if you don't plan to use rangefinder lenses, electronic finder s better and you get image stabilisation. I am so missing the IBIS on my A7!!!</p>

<p>You can find neoprene sheets on the web, very much like the ones sold by Lenscoat. With a good cutter and glue, it's easy to make your own tailor-made version. Might not end as professional looking as Lenscoat, but it should offer the required protection nonetheless. If you know a seamstress, she might be able to put some stiches to reenforce the glue.</p>

<p>Remove the rubber band on the focusing ring and you will be able to access to the screws that attach the ring to the helicoid. Remove them and the focusing ring can be removed and you will be able to access the helicoid and replace the parts.</p>

<p>I think it is worth trying to fix it. I am not sure what you mean by slipping. A common problem is the screws that attach the helicoid to the focusing ring get loose. That is easy to fix, just remove the plastic band over the focusing ring and you will see the screws. If these are OK, it may be the pins underneath that slide in the helicoid. These are made of some plastic, maybe nylon or teflon, that degrades over time. Easy to replace if one can find something to replace them with.</p>

The lens has to be fine tuned for infinity focus, which is a simple job with lots of examples available on the net and discussed several times here. Remove the focus ring rubber band, slightly release the three screws hidden beneath, adjust for infinity, tighten back and reposition band.

Which is why most people here don't make a business out of their usage of FD stuff !

 

Alan, is you decide to jump into the digital wagon, consider the Sony A7, it's a huge game (as in fun) changer for us FD users. I even consider upgrading to the new A7II for the stabilisation feature: would be wonderful for using those big whites ! How about using that 800 without caring about vibrations !

I don't buy that about differences between digital and film ISO. ISO is a norm and cannot be different from one camera to another.

I tested lots of camera meters against each other and handheld lightmeter, there are differences, but nothing drastic. Some film cameras are calibrated to err towards over-exposing, typically low end cameras because they are supposed to use negatives. Others will under-expose because it works better for slides. Other than this kind of bias, they should all measure identically, digital or film.

I check my cameras from time to time to see if they are aligned. I compensate using exposure compensation on the camera, as I almost never use it in actual action.

Having a Alpha7, I think it looks much better than a T50, more like a A1... which is pretty nice!

Of course lens adapters keep the focal flange, or at least they should. So the lens works optically exactly as on a FD body.

I remember that the lens test at Chasseur d'images at the time conclude something like "this is the first zoom that bests all equivalent fixed focal lenses".

It was THE best tele zoom in that focal range, and since it came in late in the timeline of MF lenses, it's probably still the best MF tele-zoom in history!

<p>Maybe you could setup and mesure the scene before the subject is placed in it. Thus you can make a precise metering and avoid getting bitten!</p>

<p>Maybe the screen has moved slightly so that the cell is no longer fully illuminated?<br>

I would try to remove the finder and the screen and put it back together again to see what happens.</p>

Strange!

I first thought the shutter is not travelling uniformely, but after looking closely to the pictures, it might be that the shutter leaks light. The last example is obviously a long exposure, so the shutter stayed open longer than expected. The others look like they have two pictures overlayed, one a normal exposure and one a long exposure.

Maybe you could check the behavior with the back open.

The Nex-6 may be a more affordable body then the Nex-7... who needs 24Mpixels anyway !

I have a Nex-3 that I use sometimes with FD lens, but I find that focusing on the back screen is not very convenient. I plan to ask Santa to put a Nex-6 in my Christmas stocking !

 

I read that the 5dMk3 is good at nailing the focus with AF-confirm chips on adapters. But I would not recommend the cheap FD-to-EF lens adapters as they give awful results. So forget about adapting FD lenses on EOS bodies, outside of macro.

<p>I have made a adapter ring with nothing between the lens and the body, so as not to add more than necessary distance between them.<br>

It works OK with the 4.5/500L as it focuses to infinity, but just barely by going to the very end of the distance scale, past infinity. Doesn't work for the 2.8/300L, focusing is limited to about 50m, or with the 500/8... still usable, but limiting nonetheless.<br>

Tried some other lenses: 200mm focuses to about 18m, 135mm to 9m only, 85mm to 2m, etc.<br>

Adding an additional 0.5mm to the flange distance will give you slightly worse max distances, the difference increasing as the focal length diminishes.</p>

<p>I have the three actually, FD, FDn and IF... The IF is nicer to use because of the internal focus, its also slightly less bulky. Optically, it does exhibit quite some fringing, definitely more than the older design, and I did not see improved resolution. So I would rate it second on optics, but first on handling. The other two are optically identical, of course!<br>

Note that I may have a flawed exemplar of the IF, as it is not something that has been reported elsewhere.</p>

<p>Yes, not many people go the FD-EOS way today, as the EVIL way seems much nicer...<br>

Having the Canon FD-EF adapter, it sure is good; it is on par with the x1.4 converters, being basically a x1.26 converter with a different mount on each side. But it does not work for short lenses, only for lenses from 200m on.<br>

So if you are looking for 200 macro for macro work, a simple macro adapter without lens is OK.<br>

For a 400mm, you would need the Canon adapter; There are several Canon adapter available on eBay, but they are quite expensive, over $1000 ! Your probably better of buying an EF 5.6/400!<br>

And forget about the 50mm altogether: only physical adaptation of the lens is possible, and even then, may not be possible depending on the lens and body! I must say that I fail to see the interest for adapting a 50mm in the Canon FD range, apart maybe for a 50L or 55 Asph; which are the ones notorious difficult to adapt!</p>

 

<p>When you say "the meter display is not visible in the view finder", do you mean the shutterspeed scale (which should be always visible) or the meter needle? If the scale is not visible, it may be a problem due to light not reaching the scale: on the left of the viewfinder, there is a white plastic strip that provides light the the scale. If that is OK, than check that you can see the scale just underneath the left rail of the viewfinder (on the body). If that's Ok, the viewfinder may have a problem, this can be conformed if you cannot see a clear strip on the right of the viewfinder when not on the body.<br>

About the mechanical speeds, the battery has to be removed from the body to free the mechanical actuator. Check that the upper battery contact pin does drop down when the battery is removed, it might be stuck.</p>

<p>I too use a Nex with my FD lenses, and since focus peaking has been made available, manual focussing has been a treat. I can even get some sharp pictures of my small children, which says a lot about the technique!<br>

I was pretty glad to see how good most lenses performed, especially the 2/24, the 1.2/55 Asph and the 1.2/85L. Big disappointment with the 1.4/24L however! The 2.8/200IF is under par also, the non-IF version seems better, but the 80-200L is so much better that I don't bother with the former... gets big and quite awkward to handle, though. Would be interesting to test the 20-35L, as it would be a perfect walkaround lens, but I never got my hands on one at a reasonable price, and now that prices have gone up again...<br>

Hope to be able to upgrade to a Nex7 in the future, a viewfinder is much more to my liking than the rear screen.</p>

<p>To complete Philip's info, P is A-TTL where the slowest speed is limited to 1/60.<br>

Personally, I never use A-TTL, as I prefer to keep the possibility to choose the aperture and speed in simple TTL. I sometimes use P, as it is the real fool-proof setting. But the killer feature is FEL!</p>

<p>It is quite simple to measure the voltage on the flash contact! If it is below 10V, its safe, it is slightly over, it should be OK too, but if you read something in the hundreds, don't use it with an electronic camera. Note that the risk is essentially the same whether you plug it on the PC socket or on the hot shoe.</p>

<p>I think the second lens is the fluorite lens (not sure, and I could not find the diagram). In which case, you will have to be extra careful, as fluorite is more fragile then glass (les scratcj resistant and also reacts to water).</p>

 

<p>Why wouldn't it work? It simply transmits the information "shutter open" to the remote flash trigger! It will add lots of other stuff with an EOS digital camera, but for an A1, you don't need more!</p>

<p>Have you tested the lens in Speed priority? You need to mount the motor or the winder.<br>

If the aperture closes past 2.8 in this setting, you have a problem with the aperture ring mechanism, not with the cams or the aperture itself.<br>

Anyway, you will end up opening the lens, but it helps to know where the problem is located. If it is the aperture ring, opening on the mount side will give you access to the problem area; if the aperture itself has a problem, I think you should access through the front (not absolutely sure here, but from experience on other lenses, it is usually the case).</p>

<p>Actually, introducing a flat glass behind the optics has the property of modifying the focus by the thickness of the glass, thus modifying the theoretic flange distance. In order to keep focusing exact whether or not a glass is fitted to the lens, most manufacturers provide a clear glass as standard. Removing it will change the focus slightly; it is not really a problem since drop-in filters are fitted to telelenses, where a 1mm shift of the flange is not a big issue, as they focus past infinity.<br>

As a side note, adding a clear filter behind the lens is a way to correct flange distance and could well be used to mount FD lenses on EF bodies!</p>

<p>James, in FEL mode, the camera will expose independently of the flash, as if the flash was not present. Pressing the FEL button will fire a probe flash that enable the flash to achieve proper exposure of the item targetted with the spot meter.<br>

The best way to use FEL is to use the camera in manual mode: you decide your speed and aperture depending on the situation, then target your subject and trigger the FEL metering to memorise the flash exposure; finally recompose and take the picture.<br>

If you don't want to bother with manual mode, you should use other flash modes, like A-TTL, where the flash determines the distance to the subject through a IR pre-flash and give the body the information to choose the best exposure combination, or simple TTL (no button depressed on the flash). A-TTL works well with Program modes.<br>

For casual pictures, I usually use simple TTL in manual or Aperture mode with AEL. I never use A-TTL because the values selected by the camera are not often what I would choose; but you should experience and make youre own opinion.</p>