Thinking about a getting a digital camera...

[mooseontheloose]

I've been shooting film since forever and will continue to do so for as long as it is available. However, as a lot of my photography is travel-based, I've been forced to reconcile with the idea that it might not be possible to travel with film to certain destinations because of the odds that the new airport scanners will ruin it. In addition, the reality is sometimes I just need something that can handle low light and still produce really nice results without using a tripod. After Provia 400x was discontinued I bought a Fujifilm 100x camera specifically because it was small, didn't require any extra lenses, and had good low-light capabilities. I still like it for all those reasons, but the fixed lens is a real limitation, and I rarely use it since my phone is always at hand.

But...once travel opens up again I have plans to travel to both the Arctic and Antarctica, as well as various places across Africa and the Middle East. I want a camera that is capable of producing excellent results in those locations, has a good wide-angle and zoom options, but is smaller and more lightweight than a DSLR system (since I will probably still have at least one film camera with me, despite the odds). At the moment, I shoot with old Nikon cameras and lenses, but nothing I have now will force me to stay with Nikon, as I would need to upgrade my lenses, so I'm open to any camera manufacturer. I've been looking at bridge cameras as a possible option - like the Nikon P950 or Sony RX10 IV and wonder if anyone has had any experiences shooting with these (or similar) cameras. Or anything really. I feel like a real noob when it comes to digital cameras and since I haven't been keeping up-to-date with them over the years, it's a bit overwhelming knowing where to start.

Other things to consider for a new camera (but not essential) - good video capabilities, and the possibility of using it to scan negatives and prints (to avoid having to buy a new scanner, which is also needed).

I know there are a lot of articles and info on the internet, but I'm looking at this more as a film user using digital to supplement her current system, rather than to replace it entirely.

 

[madNbad]

I have been a dedicated film shooter since my teens. About two years ago I bought a Sony A7II mostly for scanning negatives. Previously, for digital cameras I had a Leica DeLux 4, a Nikon D2x and finally a Nikon Df. I found the DSLRs' to be heavy and unwieldy. The DeLux was a nice little camera but my phone was easier to use. I traded in a bunch of gear to KEH and had a credit that I wasn't sure what to do with it but eventually I put the money towards a Zeiss 35 2.0 Loxia. When it arrived I found I had a digital camera that wasn't much larger than my M4, it was manual focus and the whole combination was easy to carry around with the bonus of being full frame. I find the combination of manual focus with the digital body to be a nice balance. I added a 21 and 50 Loxia and may try the all digital route for a while. Good luck with your search.

 

[cdowell]

Lots of people know lots more than me, but when I decided on a system last year I ended up being persuaded by the full frame mirrorless Sony A7 series. I Could use all my old manual focus lenses with adapters and also Bronica medium format lenses, evening picking up Tilt/Shift in the bargain. The full frame is, in my opinion, key to low light performance. I thought Fujifilm looked fun but sounds like you want maximum flexibility. Sony has priced the A7iii in a way to make smaller sensor options less persuasive. Good luck!

 

[Moose22]

I'm shooting a Z6, going for a Z7ii next.

I have been Nikon for a long time, shoot Nikon 135 because I have lenses. The Z series are smaller and ridiculously capable, but with older lenses (Anything that uses the screw drive) they don't autofocus. Never bothered me as I use it for things that I prefer to manual focus, so old favorite lenses work really well for me. And the Z glass with the mirrorless cameras is phenomenal. It's too easy to take ridiculously good photographs. WAY too easy.

I had just taken a shot on velvia of the passenger train, saw the freght train coming (it was not scheduled, so I didn't expect it) and was able to stand out in the water to get this shot. The slides are better, but not by much. (this is a little overprocessed, I was trying to make it look like the Provia slide I took the same day, but out of the camera it is still fantastic).

I almost never use it locally. Always carrying a film camera. But when I travel I use a 24mm or the 24-70 zoom and this Z6. it is really a great combo. Even with the kit lens it si tack sharp and easy to handle. Everything you want walking around for travel at a light weight.

The Z6 is also really good with video.

If you prefer SLR the D780 uses the same sensor and works well with older lenses. The D850 (a friend has one) is about the most amazing camera ever and will focus with any Nikon lens you have. They're both a little larger though.

Now, that testimonial aside, the Canons are as good. Maybe even better in many ways. The Sonys are as good, better in some ways as well. Sonys have more native lenses and do things like pixel shift which might be fun for scanning negatives. In fact, you cannot go wrong with ANY of the newest digital cameras, they're all that good.

 

[Michael Teresko]

Another Fuji shooter here. I have a Sony A72R for scanning film, but I seriously dislike the handling and the menu system. I have a Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro2, and they both handle much more like my 35mm rangefinders, and produce beautiful files. I haven't found the smaller sensor size to be an issue in my work. Plus, Fuji lenses are fantastic. The X-Pro3 is tempting, as are the Leica M digitals, though of course significantly pricier. I'm still shooting film 90% of the time, but when the time comes for more than domestic travel, I may succumb to the Leica allure, as I already have a bunch of glass and generally don't mind focusing manually.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Fujifilm here as well. I do mostly landscape with an X-T2 and my wife does more birds/wildlife so she has an X-T3, which tracks fast action better.

I went with Fujifilm and the X-T2 for the way it feels while shooting in manual; it has ISO & shutter speed dials and lenses have aperture rings. I've been using the 16-80mm lens for about 90% of my images. Water and dust resistant. Their rangefinders are also very nice. Definitely a different beast from a different world, but has its feet firmly planted in old school manual film camera handling.

When photographing things like birds I'll put the ISO on auto, set the shutter speed and aperture for what I want, then use the + / - exposure dial to correct what the auto ISO is doing.

I never printed my 4x5 negatives larger than 11x14 and don't foresee going any bigger than that with the X-T2. Looking forward to making digitally enlarged negatives for alternative process prints and will accept whatever loss in quality there is compared to a scanned 4x5 for the resultant flexibility in ISO/shutter speed/aperture combinations, as well as being able to photograph from more extreme vantage points in steep mountainous terrain, or from the deck of our boat.

 

[reddesert]

If you're still going to bring a film camera, one avenue is to get a Nikon DSLR that works with the lenses that you'll use with film. The low-end Nikon DSLRs don't meter with MF lenses, but many of their upper-middle to professional bodies do. The professional bodies are too big to meet your requirements (IMO), but the upper-middle bodies from D200 (1.5x crop) to D700/D600 etc (full frame) do work with manual focus lenses. You could also get an AF film body like an N90s (very capable and now inexpensive) and have direct compatibility between the film and digital bodies. (Still have to watch out for aspects of the Nikon alphabet soup like very newest lenses not working with older bodies.)

The reason I suggest it is (a) easy transition to trying digital, and (b) if you aren't satisfied with an all-in-one bridge camera for one of either film or digital, you wind up carrying two systems, which is a nuisance.

I don't have experience with any of the really high end bridge cameras, but all the bridge- type cameras that I've dealt with have a user experience that is more like a very capable P&S than like a SLR - shutter/AF lag, some amount of fiddling to get into manual modes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm old and tired and gave up carrying too much equipment when I travel. My film cameras stay home and I carry a Sony RX100 in my pants pocket out of sight with no weight. It has a 1" sensor and their latest edition comes with 24-200mm. Sony does 4K great for small video grabs as well as stills. I use it to produce slides shows for my 75" TV of my vacation and travel. I shoot on P mode 99% of the time and save Raw + Jpeg but use Jpeg most of the time. I try to enjoy my trip rather than get bogged down with camera cases. Since I travel with my wife, she's happier as well. It becomes a travel trip rather than a photo expedition and we fight less when I want to take a picture.

This camera isn't for scanning. It may not fit all your needs for travel. But it fits in your pants or shirt pocket and that's a great advantage when you're on the move all the time. Good luck on whatever you choose.

By the way, here's a 35mm Kodachrome taken of Mt Fuji in Japan in 1965 when I was stationed there in the USAF. The Nikon F Photomic T I bought there is long gone. But I still have my Nikormat and N6006 Nikon film cameras.

 

[removed account4]

hi Rachelle

do you need to be able to change lenses, or would a fixed lens be OK ?
John

 

[jvo]

I. I feel like a real noob when it comes to digital cameras and since I haven't been keeping up-to-date with them over the years, it's a bit overwhelming knowing where to start.

hi rachelle,

to your point... i had to go completely digital from film about 6 months ago. choosing the camera was the easy part for me....

the digital learning curve was the challenge... i thought i could "replicate" what i did in the film and darkroom world - foolish me. once i realized my error, and accepted the variances, it's worked out fine.

good luck

p.s. i miss your postcards and the postcard exchange...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Excellent image quality... You must have one of those Japan only market phones, because regular phones have too tiny sensors to have even decent image.
Less than DSLR ... Yet, two 1kg bridge monsters with 1 inch small sensor.
Why do you need 600mm tele end? Normally only those who are birding, wildlifefing and been paparazzi needs it.
Panasonic LX10/15 has same sensor, 24-78 f1.4-2.8 zoom lens and it is tiny camera.
Or you could get compact M43 camera and set of compact primes and zoom's. Sensor is larger than 1" sensor. Means more image quality with still smaller than DSLR size.

As for taking film pictures with camera. You will need macro lens, camera with larger sensor (bigger camera! lens size) bulky rig and heck a lot of time for processing digital negative in computer, if film surface is not 100% perfect.
Dust and scratches removal is not something you will do quick...
Scanner will cost the same, do it hundred times more convenient and sufficient. Scanners have physical, firmware dust and scratch removal, done during scan. Taking picture of film - not.

Before Covid I meet Montreal designer, photog. He was showing me his Iceland trip pictures taken with... FujiFilm X100V.
Pictures were great and not in a split of the second I was thinking, he missed zoom for this shot.
Single prime will keep you consistent on results and fit on any trip.

 

[Paul Howell]

Like film cameras there are so many to chose from, in your case I would think about a Sony E body and an adaptor for your Nikon lens. As you are planning on traveling to the Artic and Antarctic I would get a A7 or if you have the funds an A9 and at least one weather proof lens. For you one film camera, A Nikonus IV or V. When I traveled to Iceland I took a Minolta weathermatic, duel lens 35 and 80, did quite well in the wind and rain.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

About Nikkor and film era F mount lenses on digital.
Here is worse case scenario. Nikkor-S Auto 50 1.4. I can't even mount it on EM, it is this old.

And this is Tokina 24 2.8 in F mount on digital. It is just as good as so called lenses for digital.

EVF in mirrorless digtials is most sufficient MF I have ever tried. Focus peaking. Way much better than old manual focus SLRs.

My images were taken with EOS RP. Small, light and not expensive full frame.
Nikon has some discounted FF mirrorless camera as well.

 

[mshchem]

I bought the XPro 3 when it came out. It's a great product. I'm not much for zooms. The "Fujicrons" small lightweight f 2 primes, are fabulous, readily available used, inexpensive new or used. There's adapters for all kinds of lenses. The last I checked the XPro 3 was still made in Japan.
You can do almost anything without touching a menu. Just mechanical dials

 

[jvo]

Excellent image quality...
Panasonic LX10/15 has same sensor, 24-78 f1.4-2.8 zoom lens and it is tiny camera.
Or you could get compact M43 camera and set of compact primes and zoom's. Sensor is larger than 1" sensor. Means more image quality with still smaller than DSLR size.

Rachelle,

another thought...

I, too went with Panasonic, gx9 - and would go with m4/3 all over again... Love the camera, optics and small footprint! In analog all I ever used were prime lenses. In digital I started with a prime/macro lens. Early on I switched to the (14-42mm) zoom lens, they are excellent and offer a lot of flexibility - it's all I use now. After handling dlsr and m43, decided the later was the way to go.

I usually don't print large and am told the quality in m43 isn't there. I haven't found that to be the case for the few large prints that I've done. If you're normally do the 16x20, 20x24 world, i think you need the larger sensor?

jvo

 

[4season]

For scanning film and documents with a camera, you really do want a macro lens, but size of image sensor isn't too important: M43, APS-C, FF or larger, it's all good. Some Olympus cameras offer resolution-quadrupling pixel-shift feature which I like lots for subjects that don't move. Pen-F + macro lens is my go-to choice for most eBay photos and film scanning. Really do like the size of the lenses. I also shoot with Sony RX100 and E-mount, and I must be pretty happy overall because my camera-buying has really slowed down since 2013 or thereabouts.

Today, I think the system decision comes down to choice of quality lenses in a size / weight / price that's agreeable.

 

[Craig75]

I would have thought the primary concerns would be weather sealed and able to operate - x degrees to +45 degrees for Africa and Arctic.

 

[MattKing]

I use my wife's Olympus OM-D when I need digital.
It makes really good 12x16 colour enlargements from jpegs straight out of the camera.
That is with the kit lens.
And it is cute and tiny!
But there are certainly a lot of menus.
By the way, James (jvo).
The Postcard exchange is the only APUG/Photrio exchange where digital prints from digital files are permitted.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another Fuji X shooter here - I have an X-T2 and love it. There are some outstanding lenses for it, both primes and zooms. I have the 10-24 zoom, 14 f2.8, 23 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2, the 18-55 zoom, the 55-200 zoom, and two third-party lenses: a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and a 7Artisans 60mm macro. And then my Contax lenses that I can use with it with an adapter. All of that becomes a burden to carry IF you insist on carrying all of it at once. I don't. When I travel, I typically haul around a trio or maybe 4 lenses, which all fit in the small Domke bag. Some examples from the Fuji below. The first two shots were done with the 23 f/1.4. The people shots were done with the 56 f/1.2.

 

[jeffreyg]

I still travel with film (medium format) when possible but also carry my Panasonic ZS100 (Leica lens - 20 megapixel). It has more features than I will ever use but has produced exhibition quality images a couple of which I recently used in an exhibition that was curated by a Pulitizer Prize winning photo journalist. A few are on my websites but it is hard to judge on the web. It can fit in a pocket.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[radiant]

Fuji X here too, XT-30. Totally happy with it. Film simulations give a really nice add. I've used Canon FD lenses with it in combo.

I was sure I would replace my film madness with digital but it has not happened - still. I shoot colorful & action with the digital, rest is still film still.

This sounds cliché but digital doesn't just have that something film has. I would never forgive myself if I shot everything on digital. So consider using film as much as you can.

 

[Jim Jones]

After decades of using Nikon film SLRs, I moved to a Nikon D3100 several years ago. When it had 40,000 shutter activations, I gave it to a friend and moved up to a D5100 and D5300. Image quality with these small APS-C sensors is adequate for my purposes: no prints larger than occasional 16x20s. Most images are delivered as unedited digital files. Low light performance far exceeds that of film. The 18-55mm kit lens is remarkably sharp. The basic 70-300 lens does well enough for nighttime football games. My Leica and Nikon film cameras worked perfectly in Arctic cold down to -60 degrees F with well-documented precautions. Perhaps others with experience using digital cameras in extreme cold can provide advice and warnings on such gear.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Fujifilm here as well. I do mostly landscape with an X-T2 and my wife does more birds/wildlife so she has an X-T3, which tracks fast action better.

I went with Fujifilm and the X-T2 for the way it feels while shooting in manual; it has ISO & shutter speed dials and lenses have aperture rings. I've been using the 16-80mm lens for about 90% of my images. Water and dust resistant. Their rangefinders are also very nice. Definitely a different beast from a different world, but has its feet firmly planted in old school manual film camera handling.

When photographing things like birds I'll put the ISO on auto, set the shutter speed and aperture for what I want, then use the + / - exposure dial to correct what the auto ISO is doing.

I never printed my 4x5 negatives larger than 11x14 and don't foresee going any bigger than that with the X-T2. Looking forward to making digitally enlarged negatives for alternative process prints and will accept whatever loss in quality there is compared to a scanned 4x5 for the resultant flexibility in ISO/shutter speed/aperture combinations, as well as being able to photograph from more extreme vantage points in steep mountainous terrain, or from the deck of our boat.

Having made digitally enlarged negatives from files from my original X-T1, those held up extremely well at 9x12". As a matter of fact, I'd defy you to tell they were shot digitally. Now, they won't compare to my medium format film prints at 11x14, but that's because medium format, not from any fault of the Fuji X-T1. And my X-T2 is of course a significant improvement over the 1.

 

[wiltw]

In my film days, I abandoned the 135 format for anything remotely professional, because of IQ advantages with medium format film and large format film. 135 became my 'travel kit' only. My 135 film kit was the small and light Olympus OM system. My medium format was Bronica ETRSi kit, and large format was Horseman LS kit. IOW, I had high expectations, unless shooting for documenting my travels.

My background provided for reference to what I use today...

• Fast forward to digital...APS-C Canon 7DII I find to be everthing I would need -- even for professional applications.
• For personal use, even a small 1/1.75 sensor makes photos with sufficient quality that in my home hangs a 20" x 60" canvas wrap print...equal to 200X enlargement! I resized the image to support 250 pixels/inch on the final print, sending a 5400x15000 pixel JPG to a commercial printer.
  The shot, and a closup of the canvas, to show visible detail...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=19256236

Point is, there are a lot of digital products out there which can provide even a critical eye with great shots, and it need not weigh a lot or be sizable.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Having made digitally enlarged negatives from files from my original X-T1, those held up extremely well at 9x12". As a matter of fact, I'd defy you to tell they were shot digitally. Now, they won't compare to my medium format film prints at 11x14, but that's because medium format, not from any fault of the Fuji X-T1. And my X-T2 is of course a significant improvement over the 1.

Thanks for that.

I'm nudging towards salt prints, and am guessing you won't be able to tell what source the original came from (scanned 4x5 or X-T2) especially at 11x14, because some print sharpness is jettisoned (compared to a silver gelatine print) for the hand coated watercolour paper magic to emerge.