Fuji X-T10, Canon FD lens find, and what to do next...

[Chronos5618]

Hello all,

 

So I've been thinking about investing in a decent camera for quite some time now. I have some experience with a crappy DSLR, enough that I'm feeling the itch to upgrade and happened to mention this to my grandfather. He then proceeded to dig out a mint in box Canon ae-1 that he bought in the 1980's and never used. While this was a nice find (and I'll definitely be hanging on to it), the real stars were the three Canon FD manual lenses he had bought with it, again never been used (and still in their original packing)- a FD 70-210 f/4, 28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8. 

 

Currently, I'm thinking of getting a Fuji X-T10 with the basic XC16-50 kit lens and was then going to invest in a 50mm prime for street work. However, if I have these FD lenses, it seems like such a waste not to use them!

 

So, my questions are these. Firstly, is the X-T10 camera worthy of my money (I know this is subjective, so any opinions are useful), and secondly, is it worth using these old-school lenses with it? I know I can get an adaptor, and the lack of autofocus will be a pain, but from a picture quality stand point would it be better just to go for a couple of modern lenses, or can these vintage ones hold their own (allowing me to save some $$ and increase my lens set)?

 

Any thoughts would be gratefully received!  

  

[bob345]

Hello all,

 

So I've been thinking about investing in a decent camera for quite some time now. I have some experience with a crappy DSLR, enough that I'm feeling the itch to upgrade and happened to mention this to my grandfather. He then proceeded to dig out a mint in box Canon ae-1 that he bought in the 1980's and never used. While this was a nice find (and I'll definitely be hanging on to it), the real stars were the three Canon FD manual lenses he had bought with it, again never been used (and still in their original packing)- a FD 70-210 f/4, 28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8. 

 

Currently, I'm thinking of getting a Fuji X-T10 with the basic XC16-50 kit lens and was then going to invest in a 50mm prime for street work. However, if I have these FD lenses, it seems like such a waste not to use them!

 

So, my questions are these. Firstly, is the X-T10 camera worthy of my money (I know this is subjective, so any opinions are useful), and secondly, is it worth using these old-school lenses with it? I know I can get an adaptor, and the lack of autofocus will be a pain, but from a picture quality stand point would it be better just to go for a couple of modern lenses, or can these vintage ones hold their own (allowing me to save some $$ and increase my lens set)?

 

Any thoughts would be gratefully received!  

The fuji x t10 is from what i hear a great camera. One thing to note about older fd lenses is that they are not as sharp as many modern prime lenses. They do however give an interesting character. I have been using manual lenses on my new fuji x pro1 for a few days and have had some great results with them so far. I have used my fd 50mm 1.8 with it hand have gotten some nice results, you just have to learn to work around the lenses quirks. There are also some great manual lenses for the minolta mc/md mount that go for quite cheap. I was able to pick up a vivitar 28mm f2.5 for $10 at a thrift shop and it is surprisingly sharp for its age.

 

Here's an example of the two lenses

 

 

Huracan by Tauss ., on Flickr

[Captain_Slow]

Hello all,

 

So I've been thinking about investing in a decent camera for quite some time now. I have some experience with a crappy DSLR, enough that I'm feeling the itch to upgrade and happened to mention this to my grandfather. He then proceeded to dig out a mint in box Canon ae-1 that he bought in the 1980's and never used. While this was a nice find (and I'll definitely be hanging on to it), the real stars were the three Canon FD manual lenses he had bought with it, again never been used (and still in their original packing)- a FD 70-210 f/4, 28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8. 

 

Currently, I'm thinking of getting a Fuji X-T10 with the basic XC16-50 kit lens and was then going to invest in a 50mm prime for street work. However, if I have these FD lenses, it seems like such a waste not to use them!

 

So, my questions are these. Firstly, is the X-T10 camera worthy of my money (I know this is subjective, so any opinions are useful), and secondly, is it worth using these old-school lenses with it? I know I can get an adaptor, and the lack of autofocus will be a pain, but from a picture quality stand point would it be better just to go for a couple of modern lenses, or can these vintage ones hold their own (allowing me to save some $$ and increase my lens set)?

 

Any thoughts would be gratefully received!  

 

Fujifilm Cameras handle really well but they dont get the best images

if you must have mirror-less then sony's will get better image quality although personally I prefer fuji but only the range finder ones (XPro 1 or X100T). 

[Chronos5618]

@bob345- Cheers for the insight. Sounds like they are definitely worth holding on to. I'm just a hobbiest really, so can forgive a bit of decreased sharpness if I can still get a great snap. I've been looking at several example shots (like the ones you've included) and they look like they hold up nicely. Might still invest in a XF35 f/1.4 somewhere along the line for street work, but it's nice to have a selection of glass straight from the off.

 

@Captain_Slow- From what I can tell, there is very little in mirrorless at that price range, though I am definitely considering the Sony A6000. However, everyone says the Fuji are really fun to shoot with, so even if they don't give quite the best image I am still tempted.   

[ALwin]

The Fuji is a good camera and when someone says "best images" that's a really subjective phrase they are using.  Aside from camera hardware playing a small part, the biggest factor that determines the quality of an image is the large mass of biochemical organic matter that is holding the camera.

 

I'm a Fuji shooter myself, and the only reason I know that the photos I've taken were done with my Fuji and not with the more expensive Nikon D4 I own... is because I'm the one that took those photos.  I show the photos to my friends and colleagues, they can't tell the difference.

 

If you like the handling of the Fuji then I say it is worth it for you.  None of us here can tell you whether something is worth the price or not.  You can't always worry about "best bang for the buck" when it comes to buying cameras.  They are VERY different from buying a computer where the specifications have a direct relation to performance.

 

As for using lens adapters to mount old lenses... I can tell you that you will have lots of fun playing around with a variety of lenses.

 

Too many people who post and comment in this section of this forum read this kind of book:

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Freemans-Perfect-Exposure-Professionals/dp/0240811712/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1451219019&sr=8-6&keywords=freeman+photography

 

And I believe very few to almost none here ever read this kind of book:

http://www.amazon.com/Within-Frame-Journey-Photographic-Vision/dp/0321605020/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1451219122&sr=8-3&keywords=david+duchemin

 

One of these two books will make you a better and more creative photographer.  (Hint: it's the second book)

[Chronos5618]

-snip-

Thanks for this, very helpful And you are absolutely right. I always think buying a camera is more like buying a car. Might not get the one with the most horses, but you get the one you enjoy driving the most. Good to hear the Fuji holds it's own though. And I'll grab a copy of the book as well. Just getting into the hobby with any real interest, so eager to learn how to improve. Any recommendations for good starter lenses per chance? I'll probably just get the 16-50 kit, but the 18-55 is tempting as well...or even the 50 prime (can't imagine FD's can be very good for anything that requires rapid focus).  

[ALwin]

The 18-55 is slightly faster than the 16-50 when it comes to aperture and the 2mm difference at the wider end of the focal length is not a very big difference.  But the 16-50 is also a good lens.  I recommend you read the reviews for the two lenses and see which is your preference.  Some say that the 16-50 offers better edge sharpness than the 18-55.

[zenodio]

-Snip-

I went for the Fuji X-T10 + XF18-55mm, the more I use it the more I love it.

It's absolutely wonderful for street-photography, even though I rarely take candid photos of random people in the street, I still feel like I can get around unnoticed quite easily with my current setup.

 

I haven't personally used the XC16-55 lens but I've heard it should be alright, a fairly standard kit-lens, the image quality should be quite good for what it is but I've heard he build-quality isn't anything to write home about.

The XF18-55 on the other hand is probably the best kit-lens you can get compared to the kit-lenses you usually get from other manufacturers, it's quite sharp and the build-quality is quite nice as well.

 

I am planning on picking up the new XF35mm f2 prime-lens relatively soon though.

 

Take my advice with a grain of salt though since I'm still relatively new to photography compared to some of the other guys here and I may have become a Fuji-fanboy

[Chronos5618]

-snip-

Thanks for the info. Always nice to hear some hands on opinions. I went instore today to have a feel and was really happy with it. I was also considering the Sony A6000, but after messing with the Fuji for 5 minutes I found the A6000 just didn't feel anywhere near as nice in hand. I would love to get the 18-55, but alas the budget doesn't quite stretch. As long as there isn't anything functionally wrong with the 16-50, I think it will do as a kit. Out of curiosity, why the 35mm prime and not the 50mm?  

[zenodio]

-Snip-

After you get used to all the dials and that kinda stuff, you really start to appreciate them being there, it feels good when you change settings and it becomes quite convenient to easily and swiftly change settings while you're out n' about.

Having the dials is one of the main reasons why the Fuji system appeals so much to me.

 

I went from an entry level Canon DSLR to the Fuji, so at first I found it a little awkward to hold since the ergonomy is completely different, I can imagine it being easier for you since you have those film cameras and isn't really used to a big DSLR camera.

Either way, I'm used to handling the Fuji now and I honestly prefer the compact size over the large ergonomic design of a DSLR.

 

The XC16-50 will do just fine if you really don't have the spare cash for the 18-55 from what I've heard

At least in the beginning.

 

To answer your question, I'm not sure if you're aware but the Fujifilm cameras and the Sony a6000 use APSC size sensors, what it means when you pick up a lens is that the focal-length/field of view will be different from a full-frame camera such as the Canon 5DIII or Sony A7RII.

A 50mm lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera will give you the focal-length of 50mm, but a 50mm lens on a camera with an APSC size sensor will give you the focal-length of 75mm.

 

Usually when people say stuff like "For street photography, I like using my 50mm lens" they're referring to the 50mm focal length of a film or full-frame camera.

An easy way to remember what the focal-length on an APSC size sensor camera will look like is if you multiply the focal-length of the lens with 1.5, simply because a full-frame sensor is 1.5 times the size of an APSC sensor. (Or 1.6 times the size of an APSC sensor on Canon-APSC cameras because those are slightly smaller than normal APSC sensors)

 

You should also do the same for aperture, f1.4 on an APSC camera will not give you the same shallow depth of field as f1.4 on a full frame camera, for some reason a lot of people don't keep that in mind when they're looking at lenses for their APSC camera.

 

So, a 35mm lens on a Fujifilm camera such as the X-T10 will give me roughly the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a film-camera, that's why I'm going with the 35mmf2 lens from Fuji, it works for what I do.

I also want to pick up a slightly wider prime lens later on, such as the XF23mm f1.4.

Those are the focal-lengths I tend to use the most for my cityscape/landscape and street-stuff.

 

I'm sorry if I overcomplicated or somehow explained all this in a weird way, I'm feeling quite sleep-deprived so I will probably link you to a video in this post of someone who can explain it far better than I do.

 

[ALwin]

snip

 

Please do NOT post this video, while Tony Northrup brings up a good point he makes a few misleading statements.

• The main equivalency to calculate is the field of view in regards to focal length.  Everything else like DOF and Aperture can be for the most part ignored unless you are anal about being technically precise.

I explain it here

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/505970-question-about-aps-c-sensors/

 

Basically:

 

If a Nikon D700 and a D7000 were placed next to each other aimed towards a person standing 2 meters away from both cameras, and both cameras were using the same 50mm lens set to f/2.8.

• The composition of the scene will be different due to sensor size and field of view differences.
• But DOF and Aperture will be the same, no need to do equivalency calculations.
• Ideally the exposure settings should be the same (e.g. if the D700 calculates the ideal exposure for 50mm f/2.8 ISO100 1/100th of a second, the same it should be for the D7000).
• HOWEVER, because digital cameras' internal metering systems use reflected light from the subject to measure the exposure, if the subject is wearing, for example, a pure white t-shirt with a large black circle in the middle then due to the different field of views the black circle could cover a larger percentage of the D7000's image sensor (due to the sensor being smaller) and the cameras can give two different exposure values.  But if you use an external light meter, such as a Sekonic, just dial in the Aperture, ISO and the shutter speed it calculates will work for any camera.
• Basically the photo taken by the D7000 will be the same as taking the photo from the D700 and cutting out the center portion to show only the part that the D7000 sees.

However, again for the same position of both cameras, but this time the only thing that changes is the Full Frame D700 is now using a 75mm lens and keeping the same 50mm lens on the D7000. Both lenses set to f/2.8.

• Composition will be similar due to the APS-C camera's crop factor being similar to a 75mm lens' field of view.
• But DOF and Aperture will be different because of the differences in focal length.  The measured diameter of the aperture of a 50mm @ f/2.8 is different from the diameter of 75mm @ f/2.8.
• So to make sure that the photos remain identical, Aperture and DOF equivalency calculations have to be performed if you want to be 100% precise.

OK back to using the 50mm lens on both cameras but this time the position of the D7000 has been moved 1 meter back, so that it is 3 meters away from the subject while the D700 remains 2 meters away.

• Composition will be similar because the APS-C D7000 camera has been moved further back.
• But DOF and Aperture will be different because of the change in focusing distance.
• So to make sure that the photos remain identical, Aperture and DOF equivalency calculations have to be performed if you want to be 100% precise.

[zenodio]

-Snip-

Hmm.. Intersting, never really thought about what you described in your post, that actually makes more sense.

I just wish I wasn't so friggin' tired so I didn't have to read it 4 times just to understand it.

[ALwin]

Hmm.. Intersting, never really thought about what you described in your post, that actually makes more sense.

I just wish I wasn't so friggin' tired so I didn't have to read it 4 times just to understand it.

 

I forgot to add to my previous comment:

 

But in the real world, the only significant thing to consider is the field of view differences due to the different sensor size.  Aperture and DOF, just use your gut feelings or instinct and use whatever you feel is right.  Because unless you are taking a photo of a ruler laid out lengthwise to the camera, you can't really measure how thick the DOF is on a portrait.  The DOF of a 50mm @ f/2.8 on a Full Frame D700 or on an APS-C D7000, the difference will be mere millimeters.

 

Don't bother yourself over these technicalities, just focus on capturing the photo you want with your own creativity and vision in mind.

[Chronos5618]

@KaptajnKnass @ALwin That's super helpful, thanks guys! Looks like I'll probably be in the market for a 35mm sometime down the road then, but with these FD lenses just begging to be played with I'm guessing it won't be for a little while.