Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor It's for M42 lenses that Nikon bodies aren't adequate and that alone would make me prefer a Canon body over a Nikon if I'd decide to move away from Pentax. But I agree that use of old glass is only of interest to a small segment of the market (to which I belong).
I only have one M42, but you make a good point. "Long in the tooth" or not, many of them perform very, very well. Particularly with lenses, "new" isn't necessarily "better". I also love the LTD line; nobody else has anything like it (except the Bavarian companies).
You can't really see it in color print film, but in slides, I could see a marked difference between my Canon lenses and Leicas I borrowed from the shop. The Leitz glass rendered skies as though there was a polarizer built in, and colors were deeper, more saturated.
Then one day I took home an LX with a beautiful 85mm and shot some pictures with it, and, lo and behold, there was that look - saturated colors, dark blue skies, great microcontrast (although most people called it "acuity" back then). Not to the same extent as the Leitz or Zeiss, but closer than anything else I could actually afford. But used pro Pentax gear was hard to come by, so I didn't swap out.
The glass is why I use Pentax now.
Quote: Is that the consensus now? I thought Canon had faster AF, but I don't really keep an eye on these things, so I'm just asking.
Huh... You could be right. I don't stay "UP" on such things either; I know that the magazines have announced their place-swapping a couple of times, so *shrug*. AF speed doesn't much matter to me - I don't shoot a lot of sports, and when I did, I used a manual focus 300mm f2.8, and I reckon I can do it again