SuperflyTNT wrote:
Well all Z lenses will be larger at the mount. The Z mount has a much larger flange than the F mount.
The Z mount was designed with backwards compatibility to the DSLR lenses. It was an amazing engineering accomplishment to add a converter that did not change the lens’ characteristics. Nikon is the only company that maintained the same lens mount for almost 70 years, and was still able to add all kinds of state of the art features to a mount designed in the 1960’s. The Z lens mount was a major departure from that policy and the Z adaptor bridged that gap, thus maintaining backwards compatibility; I can still use my 35-105 Zoom from my Nikon FTN manual focus I purchased in 1969. Kudos to the Nikon engineers.
A great lens is 14-30 f4.0; together with the 24-200mm lens makes a perfect travel package.
I should add that I don’t like the “Mirrorless” name. It sounds like a DSLR that is missing something. Whoever coined that name needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more appealing. Nobody named the DSLR “film-less”. I can suggest: “rangefinder-less”
.
With a new name, we will no longer have such extensive discussions.
Yes a IIIf, thanks for the correction. It has an f 2.0 50mm lens that collapses and makes a very compact camera.
BebuLamar wrote:
Do you have a picture of your Leica F?
Probably not, if I can find one it’s in B&W.
But I never had to worry about a dead battery, no mirrors to flop up and down and the rangefinder worked flawlessly, as long as I had time to focus and my f stops were not always perfect. But I had a lot more fun using that little box, because I had to think before taking a picture.
Mirror, mirror on the wall who takes better pictures for all.
I bet nobody can tell the differences between a DSLR picture and a mirrorless one. So the bottom line is if you want to spend the money don’t let anyone stop you. Otherwise you can make endless arguments for either camera.
I still have my Leica F rangefinder, is anyone willing discuss if I should trade it in for a mirrorless camera?
I understood the camera did not have WiFi. As I had previously indicated, the TP link is a bridge to your phone, but I failed to write “wireless bridge”.
What I tried to explain is to make sure your phone has the proper app to control your camera model. Without a dedicated app it is unlikely you can control the camera from a remote divide such as a phone.
Also make sure the camera connection to the TP link has a good cable. Some cheap cables are only capable of charging a device and do not pass data.
My all around lens is 24-200 FX for my Nikon Z. It has just enough wide angle to make it useful. I had the 28-300 but don't like to use the Z adaptor and sold it. My other Z lens is 14-30, which is a bit short for an everything lens. I don't walk around with it but carry it around.
The TP-Link router should be connected to your phone, hopefully you already paired the two. The next question is how to control the camera through the USB port. I am not familiar with that camera, however any time you want to remote control a device you would need an app that is specific to the device. I would go back to basics and find an app for a desktop or laptop then control the camera without the router (wired) from that computer. The wireless router only acts as a bridge between the camera and computer/phone and should be transparent once it is properly paired to the other side.
I will brag when I schedule my trip to Mars, then I bring a trunk with every lens I own; for now my best camera is my smartphone; a good smartphone has amazing features (Best panoramic images) and also helps to keep my shoulders even. The drawback is it makes feel that i am missing something, and I like to be seen with fancy equipment and long lenses. It gives me bragging rights and makes me look like I know what i am doing; also I get asked more often to take pictures from strangers. I use both, a good zoom with a mirrorless body and a smartphone; enjoy the trip and don’t let the gear get in the way of a great trip.
I will brag when I schedule my trip to Mars, then I bring a trunk with every lens I own; for now my best camera is my smartphone; a good smartphone has amazing features (Best panoramic images) and also helps to keep my shoulders even. The drawback is it makes feel that i am missing something, and I like to be seen with fancy equipment and long lenses. It gives me bragging rights and makes me look like I know what i am doing; also I get asked more often to take pictures from strangers. I use both, a good zoom with a mirrorless body and a smartphone; enjoy the trip and don’t let the gear get in the way of a great trip.
I have used off brands for various sources on my HP and had terrible results. Sometimes the printer would not even recognize the cartridge, resulting in throwing them away. I also realize there are reliable no-OEM cartridges that work well. But the money I wasted does not justify my savings searching for a good 3-party ink. Like someone said I trust HP and never had issues and I was willing to pay the additional cost. I will try one of the recommended sources above one more time and see if the savings are worth it. Thanks for the information.
Here is something to confuse everyone: If I take a picture with a 12 MPixel DX sensor and a 105 lens; then take the same picture with the same lens and 12 MPixel FX sensor; which image has the better resolution, if the published image shows the same size bird? In another way to look at this is to ask, what is the maximum recommended size of these two images to print, if they both show the same size bird. That should put things into perspective when considering the 1.5 size difference. I used an example of 12Mp to keep the print size within reason, no mural please.
Ysarex wrote:
Which can then result in a full-resolution view of the subject being identical between the two cameras -- same lens same image.
This true, but you cannot go from a DX image and make it identical to the FX image. The FX image has additional information which cannot be displayed if taken with a DX format and the same lens. Let me add that the lens has to be made for the FX format; just trying to confuse the argument.
So all things equal, the image is 1.5 times bigger. I can even do that in my head (I have been practicing).