Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d

Only if you want everything in the picture to have no detail and look
like it was made of Barbie Doll plastic. Unfortunately, that is what
some people seem to think is a good photo today. This is the garbage
you see posted on the stock photo sites nowadays -- a complete lack of
texture of any kind.

 

I didn't say "use NN and set the power to 'faaar to high'" ...

If that is all you can manage, you should stay away from soch
tools.

-Wolfgang

 

They did make a clean cut. Cuts do hurt, yes.

And which of them work as well on a D40?
Do I love complicate dependencies?

-Wolfgang

 

Typical. You really do appear to enjoy playing the troll.

 

I'm using Nikon lenses that I've owned since before there *was*

They all work well enough. I'm entirely comfortable with manual focus
lenses, or I wouldn't still be using these lenses. I've used cameras
without a builtin meter as my primary camera, and still have one (4x5)
that can get hauled out for special occasions.

 

Do you have anything valuable to add, like why the D200 with
NN is ok, but the D30 with NN isn't? Or are you a troll?

-Wolfgang

 

I already made a valid point. Adding anything to the D200/D30/NN
debate isn't likely to add much of value, at least in this thread.
Coming back with "Or are you a troll" just confirms my point. There
are many types of trolls. Some are rather innocuous. Others, such
as you, seem to thrive if they find ways to vent their hostility or
post uncalled for, condescending replies. You do that very well.

 

Learn the subtle art of stroking and Wolfy will be eating out of your hand.





Rita

 

They work as well on the D40/D40x as they did on the original Nikon F
in 1959 - and that is what counts. One of the good things about the
D40/D40x is that I they work fine with unconverted pre-AI Nikkors.
Not even the D200 can do that.

Yes, you have to keep track of some exceptions to use old Nikon glass
Not a big deal if you're interested in old glass. If you're not, you
do as the Canonites do, and buy expensive current glass only.

Except that Canon has introduced yet another twist on the path towards
built-in obselence, the EF-S mount. The EF-S mount precludes use of
some very current Canon lenses on some digital bodies such as the D30,
D60 and 10D.

 

I've heard some pre-AI lenses will mount on newer Nikon bodies, I'm
assuming they won't meter on a D40, but is the mount actually different
enough that the D40 will mount more options than a D200? I doubt that.

 

The mount of the lens, or of the body?

The main difference for *some* pre AI lenses is that the
aperture ring does not act as a skirt around the body's mount plate.
For those, there is nothing to hit the "Fully stopped down" sensor that
the D70 (and presumably the D40) use, or the "How far stopped down below
maximum" sensor on the D200. (Or do the D40 and D40X actually not have
that sensor? I've never had my hands on one of those.)

An example of a couple of pre AI lens which has no "skirt" on
the aperture ring is the Medical Nikkor 200mm f:4, and the 500mm f:8
mirror lens. (The latter has no skirt because it has no aperture ring
at all.)

Most of the older Nikkor lenses had a skirt on the aperture
ring, to help keep dirt out of the body/lens interface. When the
Photomic metering pentaprism was added, a half-moon clip was screwed to
the aperture ring, to couple information into the Photomic head's
metering mechanism.

Then, Nikon started moving the metering system into the camera
body. This called for a system a bit less bulky than the half-moon
clip, so they started removing part of the skirt, letting the remaining
parts couple the information about the selected aperture into the body.
One of the early cameras (I forget which) had a fold-down hinge built
into the sensor link on the body, so it could clear the full skirt on
the older lenses (moving you to manual metering with those lenses which
you did not have modified with an AI skirt.)

As for DSLR bodies -- the D200's difference is the presence of
the "How many stops below maximum" sensor instead of the "Stopped down
to minimum" which the D70 has. This allows it to have enough
information to actually meter through the AI (and non-CPU) lenses..

Of course, the DX lenses have all of this information coupled in
via the CPU, so some camera bodies have none of the sensors. (The D40
and D40X *may* be among these, in which case you could again mount any
old lens on the body -- except for those which had sufficient
projection into the body cavity to damage the mirror, such as the 8mm
fisheye lens. The old Nikon F bodies had a control which would lock the
mirror up (after wasting an exposure) to allow using these extreme rear
projection lenses in that body). Another benefit from this is
minimizing the vibration introduced by the mirror mechanism.

Enjoy,
DoN.

 

Who is eating out of whom's hand is left to be seen.

(Beware! When feeding lions, your hand may be part of the food.)

-Wolfgang

 

Not in a post where your whole original text is "Typical.
You really do appear to enjoy playing the troll."

Unless showing yourself out of arguments and trollish is a
point you wanted to make.

You are right.
As long as some people find it fine to combat noise on the D200,
but doing the same on the 30D is evil, bad, and generating plastic
looks, I may as well try to convince white suprematists that
people of colour are as valuable as they are.

-Wolfgang

 

You can't be so stupid as to believe that one can't make a valid
post that someone (*you*, in this case) is an annoying, insulting,
troll-like poster without being forced to make an additional comment
about the topic of the thread. I chose to not join you in your
pointless, insult laden "Sound and Fury" style debate about the
relative merits of two cameras, neither of which I own.

Somehow, I get the impression that you're just the kind of
argumentative guy that would waste your time doing just that. I
also think that many 'people of colour' might take offense at you
being the arbiter of their 'value'. Please post a head shot with
your mouth open, we'd like to check your teeth.

 

Correct. Nor did they meter on a Nikon F (since it didn't have a
built-in meter).

The D200 (and almost any other Nikon body since the introduction of
the Nikon EM i 1979) has a mechanical coupling called "AI" (Automatic
Index) that is enganged by a matching coupling on the lens' aperture
ring. So-called Pre-AI Nikkors (produced fro 1959 to 1979) lack
this coupling. Instead, they have a raised collar that will
physically damage the AI coupling on the D200 or any other Nikon body
that have this coupling in place. Therefore unmodified pre-AI lenses
can not be mounted on a D200 or a F6.

In 1987, Nikon introduced bodies that used a microprocessor (CPU),
rather than a mechanical coupling to rely this information from
the lens to the camera. However, for backwards compatibility,
both lenses and cameras retained the mechanical coupling.

For the D40 and D40x, Nikon has removed the mechanical AI coupling
from the camera. Since the camera is only supposed to be used AF-S
lenses, which all has CPUs, the AI-coupling no longer serves a
purpose. Its removal is probably just to save cost, but as a
side-effect, you can mount pre-AI Nikkors on a D40 and D40x
without damaging the AI coupling (since it isn't there).

Of course, if you insist on retaining metering and AF, there is a lot
more lenses that will work perfect on the D200, than on a D40/D40x.
But if you can live with MF and are willing to use an external light
meter, the D40/D40x will give you a larger selecton of lenses than any
modern Nikon body (some older film bodies such as FE, FM, F3 and F4
have a hinged AI coupling that can be flipped away to accomodate
pre-AI lenses).

 

Unmodified pre-AI lenses typically can easly be mounted
on more recent model cameras.

Because the camera mount is not specifically designed
for those lenses it is *possible* that some lense
could cause damage. Therefore with such a lense it is
necessary to carefully determine if continued use
mounted on a particular camera is likely to damage the
camera. (Most likely not, but that *does* need to be
determined.)

I own several pre-AI lenses that I commonly mount on a
D2x. Only one of them happens to be a bit too tight
fitting, and does make me slightly nervous to use. The
others don't even come close...

I haven't tried a D40 or a D40x, but can't imagine using
an external light meter with either of them. Assuming
they do have both a histogram display and a blink on
over exposure display on the LCD, using either is by far
the most accurate light metering system available (even
with AF-S lenses that have CPU's).

 

#!/usr/bin/perl
$original = "a valid point";
$new_claim = "a valid post";
print "It's a strawman\n" unless $original == $new_claim;

Maybe I even would --- I believe in equal rights.

Compared to the KKK and company, I don't feel I have much to fear.

If you want your head shot, come over here while I get my gun.
How you'd check my teeth afterwards is, however, unclear to me.

-Wolfgang

 

Hmm. Once again, with no serious rejoinder to make, all you're
capable of is another moronic statement that falls flat even if you
wanted it to appear as an example of sick, black humor. Those that
*really* broadcast their murderous intents are most often either
cowards or they're insane. Keep it up. You're getting more and
more transparent as you go.

 

As you know, they don't meter on a D40. They didn't meter on my Fuji
S2, either, and I found them very useful anyway.

What's complicated about it, though?