Is There An Adapter To Mount A Minolta Lense On A Nikon Camera
Apollo T • Forum Fellow member • Posts: 81
Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
Hi,
I need an adapter for my Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F mount. If anyone has done this successfully-- may I delight accept the info a/o a link. Right now I'm too encephalon fried and membranous eyed.
Thanks
Sarker • Regular Fellow member • Posts: 204
Re: Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
Sony a6000 Sony a7 Ii Sony DT 30mm F2.8 Macro SAM Sony Eastward 55-210mm F4.v-6.3 OSS Sony E xvi-50mm F3.5-5.half dozen PZ OSS +8 more than
Re: Minolta MC/Doc to Nikon F
I bought i similar that (not badged Fotodiox, but possibly from the same source) and I wasn't happy with information technology - it worked, just I was disappointed with the quality. I was fairly rigorous - I used an Adaptall 200/three.5 and used information technology with Minolta Medico mount + optical adapter, and a plain Nikon F mount.
I should add that I've posted many times on hither that I am pretty happy with my Kood M42 to Nikon optical adapter, so I'1000 not in the "all optical adapters are poor" camp.
Olympus C-300 Zoom Fujifilm X100T Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70 Nikon D80 +39 more than
Re: Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
2
Apollo T wrote:
Hullo,
I need an adapter for my Minolta MC/Medico to Nikon F mountain. If anyone has done this successfully-- may I please have the info a/o a link. Right now I'yard likewise encephalon fried and bleary eyed.
Thanks
The Nikon F-mount has a bigger distance from mount to film/sensor (flange distance) than the Minolta mountain. This ways that in that location is no space for a normal adapter. Only solution: an adapter with built in teleconverter.
This does two things: in narrows the FOV of your lenses quite a bit, and considering the optics are of simple blueprint, they by and large disappoint IQ wise.
Because of the narrow mountain bore and large flange distance, Nikon F-mountain cameras are non a skilful selection for adapting other lenses.
For DSLRs, Canon EF mount is the all-time candidate to adapt lenses to, but not for Minolta MC/Physician mountain. It too will demand TC eyes. Some people give some lenses a mountain conversion, just those are either complex or very expensive.
For MC/MD mountain, mirrorless cameras with their brusque flange distance are the preferred option, because there is enough room for a normal simple adapter. For APS-C mirrorless cameras (Sony, Fuji) you tin besides get an adapter with focal reducer which gives more or less the FF FOV the lens was designed equally. For MFT you can go those focal reducers too, merely they volition give a wider FOV than the APS-C solutions.
Re: Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
I like your style - specially your Due south T O P I T post - so I did a flake of work for you.
My adapter (see my earlier respond) is badged as Pixco - looks more than or less the same equally the Fotodiox, but with minor cosmetic differences. But no idea if the glass is the aforementioned or not. Examples follow not with the 200/3.5 I mentioned before, but with my fastest Adaptall - 90/ii.v 52BB. same every bit before - Adaptall Physician adapter + Pixco optical adapter and Adaptall Nikon AIs adapter with no optical correction. It's a very gloomy mean solar day here, but I think these will become some way to helping you out. These are Large + fine jpegs from my D7100, cropped but not resized. The end of the gutter is about centre of the shot, and the lesser right corner is included.
You'll need to await at the total size images to see the departure.
What Minolta MD lenses do you take, that you may want to use?
P.S. I call up I recall from your parallel post on the Nikon Forums that y'all've been gifted a D3200? If so you won't have the same machine exposure comfort on that body as I do on my D7100. Still workable, though.
Olympus C-300 Zoom Fujifilm X100T Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70 Nikon D80 +39 more
OP Apollo T • Forum Fellow member • Posts: 81
Re: Minolta MC/Doc to Nikon F
- Tonight is a flake of take hold of up. Every bit I noted elsewhere life intruded on my DPReview time.
- Sarker-- thanks, I have a Fotodiox for my Oly PEN. PL1 (M43) and enjoy using it. I'll certainly keep that link close at hand.
- Brightcolours- Unfortunately I am where I am. I have an OLY PEN PL1 and would have loved to stay with M43. None of this would have been a problem IF I had institute a suitable M43 replacement for PL1...heck I even have working adapter. Merely I received a D3200 hand-me-downwardly every bit a belated Xmas gift so I am where I am. Thanks for your fourth dimension and thoughts.
- JMW- cheers for your fourth dimension and efforts on my behalf. I'll exist posting a longer well thought-out (at least for me) reply in a bit.
ProfHankD • Veteran Member • Posts: 8,541
Re: Minolta MC/Md to Nikon F
John Michael Winterbourne wrote:
You'll need to await at the full size images to run across the difference.
Sadly, I can see the deviation clearly fifty-fifty without looking at the full size -- although it certain is dramatic (traumatic) at full size! That's even worse than I got on my Sony A-mounts using an erstwhile Spiratone glass converter from MC->A: all my converter did was add an unpleasant amount of glow (SA) -- it didn't smear things. In fairness, a Nikon glass converter should be slightly worse because the Nikon mount is a little farther back, so it has to magnify slightly more, simply I wouldn't have expected this much deviation....
I'll stick with my usual recommendation: if you lot love Nikon F bodies, stick to lenses that were fabricated for the longer rear focus unless you lot take a very compelling reason not to. Compelling reasons would be things like the Minolta 24mm VFC (variable field curvature), 85mm Varisoft, or the A-mount 135mm STF lens -- all lenses where there aren't F-mountain comparables.
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R 2 Catechism EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more than
OP Apollo T • Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: Minolta MC/Physician to Nikon F
Hi John,
I really appreciate the thought, time and attempt yous've given me in answering this post. A side-by-side comparison can actually exist an constructive learning help. And and then it was this time. I've spent a chip of fourth dimension with those images and your comments.
The first time I looked at all this was, on my iPad with 9.7" screen, quite late one night- 2:30 AM- on my fashion to bed. My initial take was that the second epitome was my more preferred one. Information technology seemed to take more color saturation and greater tonal range. This gives #two a sharper, crisper final form...or and so I idea.
The next time I looked at these was on my 21" Hard disk desktop monitor. The differences were much less marked. I repeated these divide views several times over a span of fourth dimension. The fast take-away on this is that the viewing device makes a BIG departure! Right now I accept your mail service on both devices and find the same thing in, literal, side-by-side-by-side... comparison. BTW- metadata (aka EXIF?) shows unlike f stops, I think.
This got me to thinking- ill equipped as I am for that- virtually how important these differences would be in a non-side-by-side context. Imagine seeing each of these images in different homes in your neighborhood. Unannounced would you, or most people, be able to remember them well enough to make a judgement? I don't think I would.
Let's look at this in another way. Imagine you're at the zoo opposite a tiger. Y'all make a dissonance and his ears perk up and he looks right intto your lens. You take the shot then he moves away. Would you really care that you used an optical adapter when it MAY have been ameliorate with the other 1? I can't see myself proverb, "I tin't utilise this! It was shot with ten and MIGHT take been improve with the other adapter." tin yous? or would a guess give u.s.a. lower marks considering of our faux pas?
You lot asked which lenses I'thou thinking of adapting; ii points: lenses are:
28mm f2,8 prime; 50mm f1.7 prime and 35-105 f3.5 zoom. But I'm going to filibuster adapting anything to this photographic camera for the time being. Ive spent a lot of time and frenzy when I should be learning to use better what I have. Since I have a eighteen-55mm kit lens only I willbe asking about adding different drinking glass for broader range.
THANKS once over again.
Re: Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
You are more than than welcome, and I'one thousand glad it was worth while for you - and your talk almost the tiger taught me something as well. I only have i 300mm prime number lens - a Minolta Medico f/5.6 - so I accept been a bit silly to deny myself the use of it because the optical adapter for MD to Nikon isn't that brilliant.
The EXIF thing is hands explained. On my D7100 (and other cameras above the "entry level" Nikon bodies) there's a menu setting that gives the ability to apply not-CPU lenses with full motorcar metering. You only choose the focal length (or the nearest in the list of options (there isn't a "90mm" choice, and then I used 86mm) and max aperture (f/2.5) and off you get. A lens with a proper Nikon AI mountain has a lever thingy that moves as the lens is stopped down using the discontinuity ring on the lens, and the meter does its calculation. Printing the shutter button and the aperture rings close down, and Bob's your uncle.
For the exam I was using an Adaptall 90mm f/2.5 lens with a Nikon AI mountain - the first shot has the lens mounted on the Doctor to Nikon adapter, which doesn't accept a "lever thingy" - so exif but shows the base aperture I'd entered. The second shot was just the lens straight on the camera, and so the exif is correct.
*If I'd been a bit cleverer at the time I might have idea about what effect the utilize of the optical adapter would take on the max aperture of the lens. It might accept been better to tell the camera it was f/ii.8, but I'm not going to actually do any calculations
If you do try your MD lenses on your 3200, you won't get automated metering, but with a chip of trial and fault and as long as the light isn't too variable, it would be perfectly usable, probably quite a flake of fun, and a skillful learning experience. You could use your Nikon lens as an exposure meter to get the full general light level, and then apply that as a baseline when you put the not CPU lens on.
P.Due south. I simply had another await at the exifs - although I had gear up the lens to f/5.vi for both shots, and the light wasn't irresolute much, the exposures are unlike: 1/50th for the shot with the optical adapter, and ane/125th with the apparently lens. I think that might exist something to practise with what I said at * to a higher place
Olympus C-300 Zoom Fujifilm X100T Catechism EOS 5D Nikon D70 Nikon D80 +39 more than
Source: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4105229
Posted by: hardwickwhin1969.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Is There An Adapter To Mount A Minolta Lense On A Nikon Camera"
Post a Comment