People are even using them on their Canon EOS 5D or 1Ds MkII with adapters to get the best out of it. :)

out of curiousity; that would effectively change the focal length; and possibly make the image less crisp, and also render things like IS and autofocus useless?

D50 for me. My first SLR.

350D w/28-200

No such thing a IS or AF on a Leica. :) The focal lenght remains the same (35mm Leica film = 35mm Canon sensor) and the image quality is supposed to be sharper as say a EF 135 f/2.....

There's a lot of info (and profession users) over at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

edit: Looks like I'm the only one, who uses Minolta :bah: :D

this is my toy
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ics/13684b.jpg

You mean Sony ;)

A Nikon D70 with the firmware of the D70s.

There is a big photo-exhibition (hardware) in Germany (Dusseldorf or Dordmund) each year. Nikon is going to present their new D3-series there this year :P :P :P gimme gimme gimme.

Cheers

after posting that, i went out and searched the web about it... some interesting lenses. the M7 really does look 50 years old... but for most natural light instances, seems to work amazingly.

i've been told that film lenses actually have a built in light-distortion to match the slightly 'warped' film in such a camera; where digital doesnt since the CCD is flat for all intents and pourposes... any idea if that is true?

Nah, the only real difference is coating on the rear element. That's for example why Canon updated the 85 f/1.2 L (and slightly faster focus) and Sigma updated all their lenses to DG. The light can bounce up and down between the glass in front of the sensor and the rear element of the lens, thus producing flare/ghosting/other unwanted results. But I've yet to see a test where someone can show the difference between a lens with and without a special coated rear element.

But old film lenses on a CCD/CMOS are no problem.