I have thought about it, discarded it a few times, then got hyped about it again.
Getting a camera body solely for the purposes of adapting older goodies. I don't have to care what the native lens options are for the given body, all I care are the specs of the body and how it enables me to shoot adapted lenses.
The body should be perfectly fit for what I want to do (good workflow when working with MF lenses), and additionally I shouldn't really experiment with the lenses native to the body too much.
An interesting constraint! ...but why?
We could say every lens is designed for a body or a body specification -- a system. They work the best there. The AF works, if present. Apertures open and close automatically for taking and viewing. Informations get recorded into EXIF data.
Whenever a foreign lens is adapted to a world of native lenses and bodies, the experience is less. In some cases, with the help of electronical smart adapters you can get almost everything the native lens does, but we're talking mainly about Canon EF or Nikon G here.
The body is a master of the native lenses and a jack of all the adapted lenses.
In this sense maybe a body without native lenses (they can exist but maybe I just don't buy them: maybe they're expensive or not optically desirable) is a true great equalizer of glass. Whatever I mount on the body with the help of an adapter, has to be manually opened and closed, focused manually, metered closed down, no matter the make or model. This makes all my lenses equal to each other. I don't have to "favor" a native lens just because it's the most convenient to shoot: I have my entire catalogue available, without any second thoughts. Canon or Nikon, Leica or Pentax or Helios or a Schneider or Angenioux, all same to the system.
This is probably the notion that interests me so much. I have my Leica M which does so nicely with native M/M39 lenses and so poorly with adapted lenses. Same story with Nikon Df or Panasonic G9 or whatever. It naturally skews me towards their lens selection.
They say lenses are the system. I tend to agree! Maybe without native lenses I can make my system one with all the lenses?
What do you think? Insane to put big monies into a body that never will be used to its intended potential? Or that there's a liberating aspect about the "equalizer" angle?
A word about bodies
When it comes to body choices, the medium format Fujifilms are particularly favored among the adapters. They can handle a little cropping if your favorite SLR lens doesn't draw an image circle big enough, and it's always a most pleasant surprise to see your favorite 35mm lens covers the entire MF sensor.
Of course a 35mm sensor against 35mm system lenses is a good idea and nobody is preventing having a smaller sensor still. Fujifilms, APSC Sonys and Canons, M4/3 bodies, there's selection to choose from!
But I personally like the SLR lenses for their old-timey character, and that said character is most prominently found on the edges and corners of the image so for me a crop sensor doesn't sound too appealing. Your mileage may vary!
I have tangented this idea quite a few times before, sorry if you found this a bit repetitive or rewarmed.
Getting a camera body solely for the purposes of adapting older goodies. I don't have to care what the native lens options are for the given body, all I care are the specs of the body and how it enables me to shoot adapted lenses.
The body should be perfectly fit for what I want to do (good workflow when working with MF lenses), and additionally I shouldn't really experiment with the lenses native to the body too much.
An interesting constraint! ...but why?
We could say every lens is designed for a body or a body specification -- a system. They work the best there. The AF works, if present. Apertures open and close automatically for taking and viewing. Informations get recorded into EXIF data.
Whenever a foreign lens is adapted to a world of native lenses and bodies, the experience is less. In some cases, with the help of electronical smart adapters you can get almost everything the native lens does, but we're talking mainly about Canon EF or Nikon G here.
The body is a master of the native lenses and a jack of all the adapted lenses.
In this sense maybe a body without native lenses (they can exist but maybe I just don't buy them: maybe they're expensive or not optically desirable) is a true great equalizer of glass. Whatever I mount on the body with the help of an adapter, has to be manually opened and closed, focused manually, metered closed down, no matter the make or model. This makes all my lenses equal to each other. I don't have to "favor" a native lens just because it's the most convenient to shoot: I have my entire catalogue available, without any second thoughts. Canon or Nikon, Leica or Pentax or Helios or a Schneider or Angenioux, all same to the system.
This is probably the notion that interests me so much. I have my Leica M which does so nicely with native M/M39 lenses and so poorly with adapted lenses. Same story with Nikon Df or Panasonic G9 or whatever. It naturally skews me towards their lens selection.
They say lenses are the system. I tend to agree! Maybe without native lenses I can make my system one with all the lenses?
What do you think? Insane to put big monies into a body that never will be used to its intended potential? Or that there's a liberating aspect about the "equalizer" angle?
A word about bodies
When it comes to body choices, the medium format Fujifilms are particularly favored among the adapters. They can handle a little cropping if your favorite SLR lens doesn't draw an image circle big enough, and it's always a most pleasant surprise to see your favorite 35mm lens covers the entire MF sensor.
Of course a 35mm sensor against 35mm system lenses is a good idea and nobody is preventing having a smaller sensor still. Fujifilms, APSC Sonys and Canons, M4/3 bodies, there's selection to choose from!
But I personally like the SLR lenses for their old-timey character, and that said character is most prominently found on the edges and corners of the image so for me a crop sensor doesn't sound too appealing. Your mileage may vary!
I have tangented this idea quite a few times before, sorry if you found this a bit repetitive or rewarmed.
