-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Minolta MC/MD to Nikon F
- Thread starter Apollo T
- Start date
Sarker
Well-known member
John Michael Winterbourne
Veteran Member
I bought one like that (not badged Fotodiox, but possibly from the same source) and I wasn't happy with it - it worked, but I was disappointed with the quality. I was fairly rigorous - I used an Adaptall 200/3.5 and used it with Minolta MD mount + optical adapter, and a plain Nikon F mount.
I should add that I've posted many times on here that I am pretty happy with my Kood M42 to Nikon optical adapter, so I'm not in the "all optical adapters are poor" camp.
I should add that I've posted many times on here that I am pretty happy with my Kood M42 to Nikon optical adapter, so I'm not in the "all optical adapters are poor" camp.
brightcolours
Forum Pro
The Nikon F-mount has a bigger distance from mount to film/sensor (flange distance) than the Minolta mount. This means that there 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 because the optics are of simple design, they mostly disappoint IQ wise.
Because of the narrow mount diameter and big flange distance, Nikon F-mount cameras are not a good choice for adapting other lenses.
For DSLRs, Canon EF mount is the best candidate to adapt lenses to, but not for Minolta MC/MD mount. It too will need TC optics. Some people give some lenses a mount conversion, but those are either complex or very expensive.
For MC/MD mount, mirrorless cameras with their short flange distance are the preferred option, because there is enough room for a normal simple adapter. For APS-C mirrorless cameras (Sony, Fuji) you can also get an adapter with focal reducer which gives more or less the FF FOV the lens was designed as. For MFT you can get those focal reducers too, but they will give a wider FOV than the APS-C solutions.
Last edited:
John Michael Winterbourne
Veteran Member
I like your style - particularly your S T O P I T post - so I did a bit of work for you.
My adapter (see my earlier reply) is badged as Pixco - looks more or less the same as the Fotodiox, but with minor cosmetic differences. But no idea if the glass is the same or not. Examples follow not with the 200/3.5 I mentioned before, but with my fastest Adaptall - 90/2.5 52BB. same as before - Adaptall MD adapter + Pixco optical adapter and Adaptall Nikon AIs adapter with no optical correction. It's a very gloomy day here, but I think these will go 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 middle of the shot, and the bottom right corner is included.
With the optical adapter - f/5.6
No optical adapter, also f/5.6
You'll need to look at the full size images to see the difference.
What Minolta MD lenses do you have, that you may want to use?
P.S. I think I recall from your parallel post on the Nikon Forums that you've been gifted a D3200? If so you won't have the same auto exposure comfort on that body as I do on my D7100. Still workable, though.
My adapter (see my earlier reply) is badged as Pixco - looks more or less the same as the Fotodiox, but with minor cosmetic differences. But no idea if the glass is the same or not. Examples follow not with the 200/3.5 I mentioned before, but with my fastest Adaptall - 90/2.5 52BB. same as before - Adaptall MD adapter + Pixco optical adapter and Adaptall Nikon AIs adapter with no optical correction. It's a very gloomy day here, but I think these will go 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 middle of the shot, and the bottom right corner is included.
With the optical adapter - f/5.6
No optical adapter, also f/5.6
You'll need to look at the full size images to see the difference.
What Minolta MD lenses do you have, that you may want to use?
P.S. I think I recall from your parallel post on the Nikon Forums that you've been gifted a D3200? If so you won't have the same auto exposure comfort on that body as I do on my D7100. Still workable, though.
Last edited:
- Tonight is a bit of catch up. As 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 found a suitable M43 replacement for PL1...heck I even have working adapter. But I received a D3200 hand-me-down as a belated Xmas gift so I am where I am. Thanks for your time and thoughts.
- JMW- thanks for your time and efforts on my behalf. I'll be posting a longer well thought-out (at least for me) reply in a bit.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Sadly, I can see the difference clearly even without looking at the full size -- although it sure is dramatic (traumatic) at full size! That's even worse than I got on my Sony A-mounts using an old 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, but I wouldn't have expected this much difference....
I'll stick with my usual recommendation: if you love Nikon F bodies, stick to lenses that were made for the longer rear focus unless you have 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-mount comparables.
Hi John,
I really appreciate the thought, time and effort you've given me in answering this post. A side-by-side comparison can really be an effective learning aid. And so it was this time. I've spent a bit of time 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 way to bed. My initial take was that the second image was my more preferred one. It seemed to have more color saturation and greater tonal range. This gives #2 a sharper, crisper final form...or so I thought.
The next time I looked at these was on my 21" HD desktop monitor. The differences were much less marked. I repeated these separate views several times over a span of time. The fast take-away on this is that the viewing device makes a BIG difference! Right now I have your post on both devices and find the same thing in, literal, side-by-side-by-side... comparison. BTW- metadata (aka EXIF?) shows different f stops, I think.
This got me to thinking- ill equipped as I am for that- about 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 recall 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. You make a noise 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 better with the other one? I can't see myself saying, "I can't use this! It was shot with x and MIGHT have been better with the other adapter." can you? or would a judge give us lower marks because of our faux pas?
You asked which lenses I'm thinking of adapting; 2 points: lenses are:
28mm f2,8 prime; 50mm f1.7 prime and 35-105 f3.5 zoom. But I'm going to delay adapting anything to this 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 18-55mm kit lens only I willbe asking about adding different glass for broader range.
THANKS once again.
I really appreciate the thought, time and effort you've given me in answering this post. A side-by-side comparison can really be an effective learning aid. And so it was this time. I've spent a bit of time 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 way to bed. My initial take was that the second image was my more preferred one. It seemed to have more color saturation and greater tonal range. This gives #2 a sharper, crisper final form...or so I thought.
The next time I looked at these was on my 21" HD desktop monitor. The differences were much less marked. I repeated these separate views several times over a span of time. The fast take-away on this is that the viewing device makes a BIG difference! Right now I have your post on both devices and find the same thing in, literal, side-by-side-by-side... comparison. BTW- metadata (aka EXIF?) shows different f stops, I think.
This got me to thinking- ill equipped as I am for that- about 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 recall 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. You make a noise 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 better with the other one? I can't see myself saying, "I can't use this! It was shot with x and MIGHT have been better with the other adapter." can you? or would a judge give us lower marks because of our faux pas?
You asked which lenses I'm thinking of adapting; 2 points: lenses are:
28mm f2,8 prime; 50mm f1.7 prime and 35-105 f3.5 zoom. But I'm going to delay adapting anything to this 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 18-55mm kit lens only I willbe asking about adding different glass for broader range.
THANKS once again.
John Michael Winterbourne
Veteran Member
You are more than welcome, and I'm glad it was worth while for you - and your talk about the tiger taught me something as well. I only have one 300mm prime lens - a Minolta MD f/5.6 - so I have 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 easily explained. On my D7100 (and other cameras above the "entry level" Nikon bodies) there's a menu setting that gives the ability to use non-CPU lenses with full auto metering. You just choose the focal length (or the nearest in the list of options (there isn't a "90mm" option, so I used 86mm) and max aperture (f/2.5) and off you go. A lens with a proper Nikon AI mount has a lever thingy that moves as the lens is stopped down using the aperture ring on the lens, and the meter does its calculation. Press the shutter button and the aperture rings close down, and Bob's your uncle.
For the test I was using an Adaptall 90mm f/2.5 lens with a Nikon AI mount - the first shot has the lens mounted on the MD to Nikon adapter, which doesn't have a "lever thingy" - so exif merely shows the base aperture I'd entered. The second shot was just the lens straight on the camera, so the exif is correct.
* If I'd been a bit cleverer at the time I might have thought about what effect the use of the optical adapter would have on the max aperture of the lens. It might have been better to tell the camera it was f/2.8, but I'm not going to actually do any calculations :-D
If you do try your MD lenses on your 3200, you won't get automatic metering, but with a bit of trial and error and as long as the light isn't too variable, it would be perfectly usable, probably quite a bit of fun, and a good learning experience. You could use your Nikon lens as an exposure meter to get the general light level, and then use that as a baseline when you put the non CPU lens on.
P.S. I just had another look at the exifs - although I had set the lens to f/5.6 for both shots, and the light wasn't changing much, the exposures are different: 1/50th for the shot with the optical adapter, and 1/125th with the plain lens. I think that might be something to do with what I said at * above
The EXIF thing is easily explained. On my D7100 (and other cameras above the "entry level" Nikon bodies) there's a menu setting that gives the ability to use non-CPU lenses with full auto metering. You just choose the focal length (or the nearest in the list of options (there isn't a "90mm" option, so I used 86mm) and max aperture (f/2.5) and off you go. A lens with a proper Nikon AI mount has a lever thingy that moves as the lens is stopped down using the aperture ring on the lens, and the meter does its calculation. Press the shutter button and the aperture rings close down, and Bob's your uncle.
For the test I was using an Adaptall 90mm f/2.5 lens with a Nikon AI mount - the first shot has the lens mounted on the MD to Nikon adapter, which doesn't have a "lever thingy" - so exif merely shows the base aperture I'd entered. The second shot was just the lens straight on the camera, so the exif is correct.
* If I'd been a bit cleverer at the time I might have thought about what effect the use of the optical adapter would have on the max aperture of the lens. It might have been better to tell the camera it was f/2.8, but I'm not going to actually do any calculations :-D
If you do try your MD lenses on your 3200, you won't get automatic metering, but with a bit of trial and error and as long as the light isn't too variable, it would be perfectly usable, probably quite a bit of fun, and a good learning experience. You could use your Nikon lens as an exposure meter to get the general light level, and then use that as a baseline when you put the non CPU lens on.
P.S. I just had another look at the exifs - although I had set the lens to f/5.6 for both shots, and the light wasn't changing much, the exposures are different: 1/50th for the shot with the optical adapter, and 1/125th with the plain lens. I think that might be something to do with what I said at * above
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum