Would you want AE-1 body with 1Dx internals?

Wilt, the glass of the front element of the 24-70 MkII has a diameter of about 65 mm. I just measured it!

I can't tell you why Canon made the flipping filter diameter 82 mm... It makes everything so much more expensive...

..And since you are an enquiring mind, I'll give you for free the front element diameter of the EF 70-200 MkII, approx. 75 mm and it takes 77 mm filter

Conversely, the 18-200 measures 67-68 mm and it takes 72 mm filters while

the old Vivitar Series 1 70-210 has a 55 mm front element and it takes 62 mm filters.

If you are any the wiser, let me know... I am not!...

EDIT: Maybe there is a trend, the FOV of the 18-200 is actually less than the FOV of the 24-70 on a FF. So, maybe they need the extra real estate so that you can't see the edges of the filter.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16600934
You may be getting something similar to that soon, google the Fujifilm X-T1

Ok. You got my attention...

Wilt wrote in post #16599481
Folks seem to misunderstand the motivation behind the retro look Nikon...it does this, not merely 'look retro'...

1. Directly supports the legacy Nikon lenses that so many long time Nikon users have in their gear inventory.
   
2. Allows full aperture control and metering automation with legacy Nikon lenses
   
3. Effectively speaking, it is like using an older Nikon film body with digital sensor retrofit...something which is easily done (in theory) with any film SLR with removeable film backs!

It is a functional need, not merely a ornamental one!

#1 is the real value, but Canon users do not have a need for supporting the old FD lenses, so no real need for a functional equivalent digital body.

^
For all the love that folks have for dSLRs, one needs to understand that dSLRs are bulky behemoths in comparison to what we used to carry in less volume for a kit with body and lenses! and therein is Reason #4 for wanting something similar to the Nikon digital 'retro' body.

And the pictured dSLR is a nD body, which is yet smaller than a 1Dn body!

BTW, both SLRs have removeable backs, and could readily be adapted to take a digital back, not unlike medium format film bodies with same capability. And the center camera is the equivalent to the Nikon F series bodies which appealed to so many pro photographers. Hand cramping didn't seem to be an issue for so many of us back then, why now?!

I'll take a Full Format digital OM-1 with the same big bright viewfinder as the old OM-1MD please Too bad Oly couldn't figure out how to do it and had to go M4/3 with an EFV.

Bob_A wrote in post #16601122
I'll take a Full Format digital OM-1 with the same big bright viewfinder as the old OM-1MD please Too bad Oly couldn't figure out how to do it and had to go M4/3 with an EFV.

I don't know how much of Olympus' decision was "don't know how", or merely the fact that they had decided to abandon the SLR market in favor of the larger P&S market, which they decided would be more lucrative. Without the genius visionary Maitani driving OM forward, it became a bean counter decision.

I still would love it if someone would design a digital sensor upgrade for removeable back cameras (like OM or Nikon F or Canon A-1) which could extend the height of the body similar to the film winders that could be mounted in place.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16601071
Wilt, the glass of the front element of the 24-70 MkII has a diameter of about 65 mm. I just measured it!...the old Vivitar Series 1 70-210 has a 55 mm front element

Thanks for the measurement. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 front element is 58mm. Still 7mm smaller.

The Soligor 85-300mm f/5 (constant aperture) has 53mm front element.

As a couple of you noted, I did not buy my 40D in 1997. It was actually September of 2007. Just a small brain cramp.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16599670
Here is a comparison of a contemporary camera with one from the days of yore...

A 5DIII with the EF 70-200 L MkII f2.8 and a Canon FT-b with a Vivitar Series I 70-210 f2.8-4.0

At the time Vivitar was the class in third party lenses and the Series 1 was touted as the first designed using computers...

Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=165​99670&i=i152979654
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Ergonomics indeed... 2350gr vs 1686 (5.18 lbs vs 3.72 lbs in Good Christian units)

...and oh the balance is soooo sweet in the FT-b combo... it doesn't need grips, counterweights... your hands fits naturally on the large zoom/focus grip and that's that...

Also, notice the narrow strap... you didn't need a $150 strap to carry the thing on your shoulder...

I remember having a Sigma 70-200 (or 210, I can't remember which) that was 2.8 throughout the range and cost under $400. Mine was Nikon mount and did service on FM2, FE2, FA and F3 bodies. Probably used it on one of my Nikormats as well. You could drive nails (literally) with those cameras. Lens the sharpest thing, but was not much bigger than the Vivitar 2.8-4.0.

I don't understand why the current FF zoom lenses are larger than most of the older ones. My non-L primes (see signature) feel about the same size as the film lenses I had and may be lighter due to the use of plastics.

Gobeatty wrote in post #16603585
I remember having a Sigma 70-200 (or 210, I can't remember which) that was 2.8 throughout the range and cost under $400. Mine was Nikon mount and did service on FM2, FE2, FA and F3 bodies. Probably used it on one of my Nikormats as well. You could drive nails (literally) with those cameras. Lens the sharpest thing, but was not much bigger than the Vivitar 2.8-4.0.

I don't understand why the current FF zoom lenses are larger than most of the older ones. My non-L primes (see signature) feel about the same size as the film lenses I had and may be lighter due to the use of plastics.

I've actually been eyeing that very lens, I currently shoot with the Vivitar S1 2.8-4 and love it, but would definitely enjoy having 2.8 at 200mm

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16603607
I've actually been eyeing that very lens, I currently shoot with the Vivitar S1 2.8-4 and love it, but would definitely enjoy having 2.8 at 200mm

Where?!?

Is it available? Just used and MF only?

I've held off on the excellent 70-200 f4 Canon (non-IS - only $600 - are you kidding for that quality?) only because I know with what I shoot I wouldn't want to lug it around most of the time. But if I could score a Sigma 2.8 that would work on my 6D for little money, I might just be there and have a fun zoo and longer-distance indoor dance competition lens. Yes - the canon 2.8 is utterly fantastic, but I might make do for my casual uses with the Sigma for pocket change. If it is MF, might need to get a split screen for my 6D.

Gobeatty wrote in post #16604980
Where?!?

Is it available? Just used and MF only?

I've held off on the excellent 70-200 f4 Canon (non-IS - only $600 - are you kidding for that quality?) only because I know with what I shoot I wouldn't want to lug it around most of the time. But if I could score a Sigma 2.8 that would work on my 6D for little money, I might just be there and have a fun zoo and longer-distance indoor dance competition lens. Yes - the canon 2.8 is utterly fantastic, but I might make do for my casual uses with the Sigma for pocket change. If it is MF, might need to get a split screen for my 6D.

Yea, MF only and only used. But you can find the Sigma for under $300, there is also the Tokina 70-200mm f/2.8 which goes for around the same price.

My Vivitar cost me $80 though and is an excellent lens, weighs about the same as the 24-105L but is thinner and about the same length. The fact that it can do 1:2.5 macro is awesome too, I've gotten some really great shots with it.

I use an EG-S screen and highly recommend it, makes MF super easy for me.

As for the Vivitar, it's not the sharpest lens ever, but I shot with it along side my dad's 24-70/2.8 mk1 and it was as sharp or sharper than that lens, so very useable

Wide open somewhere between 100mm and 200mm (Shutterspeed was a tad too slow, I think some of the softness here is due to that)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erydaygetaway/9​422488577/