Nikon lens compatibility...

Michelle Steiner wrote:

I have a Nikon 2008s that I bought in 1989 or early 1990. How well
would the lenses I bought with it work with a D70? Will the auto focus
work? How about the TTL metering and auto exposure adjustment?

Lenses from that era will work fine with the D70. I've got a couple
myself. The only thing you likely won't get is the "D" distance stuff
for 3D matrix metering, which I've never seen to actually matter anyway,
and for flash metering, where it might actually make some difference.
But it general the "D" stuff isn't anything to care about.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
(Ron Lacey) wrote:

"Crap factor" ??

*ahem* crop factor

LOL, that had me wondering toog.


That's the description of the brains of the people who think they're
getting some magic "magnification" of the focal length of the lens.

Peter

(Peter Hirons) writes:

In article ,
(Ron Lacey) wrote:

"Crap factor" ??

*ahem* crop factor

LOL, that had me wondering toog.


That's the description of the brains of the people who think they're
getting some magic "magnification" of the focal length of the lens.

From the point of view of field of view, that's exactly what you're
getting, particularly when you get your crop onto a sensor that
provides similar quality to some films you might have used _full
frame_

It all depends on what you mean when you refer to 'focal length'.

B

In article ,
Peter Hirons wrote:

There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main difference -
it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a 200mm on a D100
(same apertures of course).

Are you sure about that?

If you stand in the same place with your 300mm on your F5 and a 200mm
on the D100, make an exposure on each one, and print them both up to
the same size print, you might be surprised. Don't forget that the
extra enlargement from the cropped image size also affects perceived
depth of field.

In article ,
(Bruce Murphy) wrote:


From the point of view of field of view, that's exactly what you're
getting, particularly when you get your crop onto a sensor that
provides similar quality to some films you might have used _full
frame_


It depends on your definition of "quality". Again I think it's marketing
hype from the likes of Canon claiming MF quality.

It all depends on what you mean when you refer to 'focal length'.


By focal length I mean exactly what I say - you can't change the laws of
physics.

There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main difference -
it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a 200mm on a D100
(same apertures of course).

As well as film and digital 35mm kit, I use an MF body with 6x4.5 6x7 and
6x8 (all centimetres) backs. Changing the back does not alter the focal
length of the lens and nobody in the MF world would ever be heard saying
that it does. Swapping a lens from an F5 to a D100 is an equivalent
action.

As I've said before on other newsgroups - "magnification" is an invention
of marketing types who wanted something more positive-sounding than
"crop". Unfortunately it's been taken up by those who want to convince
their boss/the bank manager/their wife/their mates/themselves that the
purchase was a "good thing".

Peter

In article , (John Francis)
wrote:


There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main
difference - it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a
200mm on a D100 (same apertures of course).

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely! Search the web for "depth of field calculation" and do some
reading. I don't have time to explain the maths right now - I need to get
to bed as I have about 22 hours' travelling tomorrow - that's about 18
hours' driving and the rest on ferries (Netherlands to Ireland)!


If you stand in the same place with your 300mm on your F5 and a 200mm
on the D100, make an exposure on each one, and print them both up to
the same size print, you might be surprised. Don't forget that the
extra enlargement from the cropped image size also affects perceived
depth of field.


I have done it and I would only be surprised if they were the same :-)


Peter

(Peter Hirons) writes:

In article ,
(Bruce Murphy) wrote:


From the point of view of field of view, that's exactly what you're
getting, particularly when you get your crop onto a sensor that
provides similar quality to some films you might have used _full
frame_


It depends on your definition of "quality". Again I think it's marketing
hype from the likes of Canon claiming MF quality.

And I think you'd be an idiot if you didn't admit that consumer
digital SLRs have passed the quality points of numerous 35mm consumer
films already. Kodak MAX 400, anyone?


It all depends on what you mean when you refer to 'focal length'.


By focal length I mean exactly what I say - you can't change the laws of
physics.

On the contrary, people go around changing them all the
time. Regardless, the majority of people are talking abotu 'a focal
length effect' not the 'focal length'. If this weren't the case then
they'd be running around talking about how much their focal length
changed in this or that lens.

There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main difference -
it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a 200mm on a D100
(same apertures of course).

Yes, obviously. Do you know what it /will/ be the same with?

As well as film and digital 35mm kit, I use an MF body with 6x4.5 6x7 and
6x8 (all centimetres) backs. Changing the back does not alter the focal
length of the lens and nobody in the MF world would ever be heard saying
that it does. Swapping a lens from an F5 to a D100 is an equivalent
action.

Yes, we know. See above for qualifications on statement.

As I've said before on other newsgroups - "magnification" is an invention
of marketing types who wanted something more positive-sounding than
"crop". Unfortunately it's been taken up by those who want to convince
their boss/the bank manager/their wife/their mates/themselves that the
purchase was a "good thing".

And now you extrapolate from 'digital magnification is a misnomer' out
to 'all digital it bad'. Great.

B

In article ,
Peter Hirons wrote:
In article , (John Francis)
wrote:


There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main
difference - it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a
200mm on a D100 (same apertures of course).

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely! Search the web for "depth of field calculation" and do some
reading. I don't have time to explain the maths right now - I need to get
to bed as I have about 22 hours' travelling tomorrow - that's about 18
hours' driving and the rest on ferries (Netherlands to Ireland)!

Well, when you do find the time, I suggest that you might try to explain
it - to yourself, for a start. Don't forget to take the multiplication
factor during printing into account - that affects the size of the circle
of confusion. you can't use the same size circle on the two cameras.

If you stand in the same place with your 300mm on your F5 and a 200mm
on the D100, make an exposure on each one, and print them both up to
the same size print, you might be surprised. Don't forget that the
extra enlargement from the cropped image size also affects perceived
depth of field.

I have done it and I would only be surprised if they were the same :-)

Check your calculations, and be prepared for a surprise.

(John Francis) writes:


Check your calculations, and be prepared for a surprise.

The interesting part comes about when you consider that the aperture
size in those calculations is actually an explicit length rather than
a focal length ratio.

That's the unexpectedly invariant part that gives a somewhat
unintuitive result.

B

In article ,
Bruce Murphy wrote:

There is a lot more to the optics of a lens than just an arbitrarily
chosen area to focus it onto. Depth of field being the main difference -
it will not be the same if you put a 300mm on an F5 and a 200mm on a D100
(same apertures of course).

Yes, obviously. Do you know what it /will/ be the same with?

Actually, it *will* be the same, if the final print is the same size.
And it will be the same if you put that 200mm, or a 50mm, on the F5,
take a shot *from the same place*, and make a print from the cropped
portion of the negative.

The extra enlargement you need to do to fill the same area of the
print from a smaller portion of the negative decreases depth-of-field
(i.e. increases the size of the circle of confusion) by exactly the
same amount as switching to the longer focal-length lens.

Informally, I'm sure everyone is aware of this effect; an image that
looks sharp at 200 pixels wide can look soft when viewed at 400 pixels.
Part of the image that is out of focus on the larger view will appear
just fine at the smaller magnification. Well, that's about what you
are doing when you switch to a shorter focal length lens; a full-frame
image taken at 50mm will appear to gain depth-of-field if reduced to
about half the size, which roughly corresponds to the central portion
of an image taken with a 28mm lens.