Thinking about a getting a digital camera...

[mooseontheloose]

Thanks everyone. I'm writing these all down so I can read more about them, and hopefully go check them out in person at Yodobashi Camera this weekend. As a film shooter I normally stick to prime lenses (28, 50, maybe 105) with 35mm and shoot with a Rolleiflex for MF, but if I am going to go digital I'll want to do things I can't quite do with my current set up. I'm not fond of rangefinders (my Mamiya 6 has been languishing for years, as well as the Fuji) but perhaps I should give them another chance to see if I can get myself resolved to shooting that way.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I'll throw in a vote for a Nikon body as a fan of Nikkor glass. Personally I think the Pentax Q system is really interesting but it might be an odd choice for a first digital camera.

 

[Valerie]

My only digital camera is a Fujifilm X-E2. Bought because it is a nice small travel size, designed like a film camera, and the image quality is wonderful (for my needs.). There are several newer versions now, but not in a hurry to upgrade.

 

[Radost]

If you want to shoot digital and feel different nothing beats M43 cropped sensor. Amazing cheap and light glass for it and it feels different than shooting full frame.
Lumix GX9 with a pancake Panasonic 20mm F1.7.
Then get a long zoom if you like to get really close.
The smaller sensor and smaller glass size allows for cheap extreme zooms.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks everyone. I'm writing these all down so I can read more about them, and hopefully go check them out in person at Yodobashi Camera this weekend. As a film shooter I normally stick to prime lenses (28, 50, maybe 105) with 35mm and shoot with a Rolleiflex for MF, but if I am going to go digital I'll want to do things I can't quite do with my current set up. I'm not fond of rangefinders (my Mamiya 6 has been languishing for years, as well as the Fuji) but perhaps I should give them another chance to see if I can get myself resolved to shooting that way.

Digital rangefinders? It is two and half. Old Epson R-D1 series. It has outdated sensor on release day. Odd Pixii digital rangefinder from France. It is mostly project, than retail camera. And then were are Leica digital M rangefinders. Any of those are fortune in cost, even if no service, parts are available. Or remote, slow and overpriced service.

Fuji 100X series are never been rangefinders. They can't even focus manually in convenient way.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The smaller sensor and smaller glass size allows for cheap extreme zooms.

For sure; the J5 with a telephoto G VR is one of my favorite combos

 

[MattKing]

Handheld Olympus OMD with the kit lens at 42mm.
(hope the downloader doesn't mess it up)

 

[4season]

Thanks everyone. I'm writing these all down so I can read more about them, and hopefully go check them out in person at Yodobashi Camera this weekend.

Something about visiting a Yodobashi store causes my brain to seize up, I think it must be sensory overload caused by sheer number of items on offer, plus the store song playing continuously.

 

[MattKing]

The Postcard exchange is the only APUG/Photrio exchange where digital prints from digital files are permitted.

For clarity, that means prints from scans. The Postcard Exchange requires that you start with a film negative or transparency, unless you are making something like a darkroom photogram.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will put off digital cameras for now. When I travel internationally again, I will see about preshipping my film and having it processed on location. When the time comes, I will probably invest in a digital Nikon body. I do not know what I will do about the Hasselblad as I want a square format, not a 645 that are costly and not all that much better than full frame Nikon digital bodies.

 

[wiltw]

I will put off digital cameras for now. When I travel internationally again, I will see about preshipping my film and having it processed on location. When the time comes, I will probably invest in a digital Nikon body. I do not know what I will do about the Hasselblad as I want a square format, not a 645 that are costly and not all that much better than full frame Nikon digital bodies.

And Hasselblad with digital backs are, at best, smaller than 645 format (56mm x 43mm)

• H1D: 43.8 x 32.9mm Sensor
• H6D: 53.4 x 40.0mm Sensor

The Phase One back...

• IQ3: 53.7mm x 40.4mm sensor
• IQ4: 53,4mm x 40mm sensor

 

[Foto Ludens]

Thanks everyone. I'm writing these all down so I can read more about them, and hopefully go check them out in person at Yodobashi Camera this weekend. As a film shooter I normally stick to prime lenses (28, 50, maybe 105) with 35mm and shoot with a Rolleiflex for MF, but if I am going to go digital I'll want to do things I can't quite do with my current set up. I'm not fond of rangefinders (my Mamiya 6 has been languishing for years, as well as the Fuji) but perhaps I should give them another chance to see if I can get myself resolved to shooting that way.

I'm a bit late to this thread, but if you haven't yet: consider a Ricoh GR. I had one (I think it was the GR or GRII; they're up to GR III now IIRC) and really liked it. It has a fixed prime lens, and very good image quality. I shot it almost exclusively in square format and in black and white (the RAW files will have color, of course, but I often found the in-camera JPEGs to be quite good.

Here are a few samples.

EDIT: here's a handheld low light shot:

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Digital rangefinders? It is two and half. Old Epson R-D1 series. It has outdated sensor on release day. Odd Pixii digital rangefinder from France. It is mostly project, than retail camera. And then were are Leica digital M rangefinders. Any of those are fortune in cost, even if no service, parts are available. Or remote, slow and overpriced service.

Fuji 100X series are never been rangefinders. They can't even focus manually in convenient way.

You are completely forgetting/ignoring the Fuji XPro cameras. Those are rangefinders, unless you're saying that having the EVF as an option disqualifies them.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Also, most alternative/historical processes are lower resolution than silver gelatin anyway, with the possible exception of albumen.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but if you haven't yet: consider a Ricoh GR. I had one (I think it was the GR or GRII; they're up to GR III now IIRC) and really liked it. It has a fixed prime lens, and very good image quality. ..

GRs are very popular and originated from OP location. GR III (current one) has 28, 35 and 50 modes. 35/50 via crop of 24MP sensor.
These cameras have very mixed real world users reviews. Many shows issues with shutter and lenses stopping working.
I opted out GR III for now, because it is 900 USD camera, with mixed reviews on reliability.
But I'm digging GRD III ! Paid 160 USD for it few weeks ago.



BW from RAW, 8x11.5 inkjet print on craft paper.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You are completely forgetting/ignoring the Fuji XPro cameras. Those are rangefinders, unless you're saying that having the EVF as an option disqualifies them.

Please.... X Pro have no rangefinder optical module at all ! It just an ERF with typical rangefinder body style.
https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-pro3/taking_photo/manual-focus/index.html

This is how true and only rangefinder module looks like:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...a-m-rangefinder-lens-mechanically-transmitted

No Fuji X series has it like this. Rangefinder needs two optical images to focus. Two! X Pro has just one optical image. The tiny window on the over side from OVF is AF-assist illuminator, Self-timer.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Please.... X Pro have no rangefinder optical module at all ! It just an ERF with typical rangefinder body style.
https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-pro3/taking_photo/manual-focus/index.html

This is how true and only rangefinder module looks like:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...a-m-rangefinder-lens-mechanically-transmitted

No Fuji X series has it like this. Rangefinder needs two optical images to focus. Two! X Pro has just one optical image. The tiny window on the over side from OVF is AF-assist illuminator, Self-timer.

Okay...rangefinder style camera.

Being mirrorless, it took some getting used to what amounts to a live view high resolution video screen in the viewfinder in my X-T2. Having set up focus peaking (very fine white/red lines appear along sharply focused edges) in manual focus mode, and photographing small songbirds flitting through tree branches, I'd never go back to an optical focusing system in a hand held camera. When those head feather/beak edges come into focus, there is no doubt!

Another killer app is, while in full manual, every adjustment is seen in the viewfinder...no having to keep an eye on a histogram because you can see, in real time, when those cloud edges just barely attain a wee bit of tonal value for example.

 

[Moose22]

Okay...rangefinder style camera.

Being mirrorless, it took some getting used to what amounts to a live view high resolution video screen in the viewfinder in my X-T2. Having set up focus peaking (.

Focus peaking is the shiz.

I got the Z6 and went to take pictures at an open mic -- low light -- and it kept focusing on the mic, not the musician's face. The next week I learned about focus peaking and was using my 105DC manual focused, nailing tack sharp focus on whatever I wanted by hand. For a while there a band was on and 8 or 10 friends all pulled out their phones to record it, so I sat in the back focusing on the cell phones, taking pictures of the musicians through other people's pictures of musicians. Then I really saw the value.

When I do wildlife -- I do lizards with long lenses so these 4" lizards fill the frame -- I can get the eyeball perfectly in focus and visualize the depth of field instantly. That's the trick to a good shot like that, where depth of field at 6' using 200-400mm is ridiculously narrow. You get the eye in focus. Mirrorless are a godsend for those situations.

I shoot film differently. I care about sharpness, but it isn't everything. I think about composition and exposure before all else. I also don't spend half an our lying on the ground to bang out a hundred shots of something stupid like a lizard trying to show off for a girl lizard, just to see if I can do it.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Re: my rangerfinder comment. As Murray mentioned, I guess I was referring to rangefinder-like type cameras. To me, anything that I cannot see directly through the lens, but has a viewfinder, is a rangefinder. I know that it's not in actual fact, but to me they work similarly, in that it's hard for me to get the result I want because I can't focus as close as I would like and I can't see the exact frame of what I'm shooting. As Scott mentioned as well, the Fuji X cameras function like rangefinders, and since I have one already, that's what I was thinking of.

I'm not against a DSLR, but they are HEAVY without the glass, and pricey. And since this is meant to be a travel camera, the reality is, especially for those of us outside the North America, you often can only fly with ONE carry-on bag. Not a bag and a personal item, one item full stop. And often 7kg max. I don't have to tell anyone here that even a pared-down camera bag and enough film for a trip can easily tip those scales. I always fly with a photo vest now in the event that I need to unpack some items at check-in because my camera bag is almost always overweight, or very close to the limit. So yeah - I just want a full-system with excellent glass and image quality, is lightweight, and not too pricey. That should be easy to find right? I know I'll have to give up at least one of those things, it's just deciding what the trade-off should be and why.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And Hasselblad with digital backs are, at best, smaller than 645 format (56mm x 43mm)

• H1D: 43.8 x 32.9mm Sensor
• H6D: 53.4 x 40.0mm Sensor

The Phase One back...

• IQ3: 53.7mm x 40.4mm sensor
• IQ4: 53,4mm x 40mm sensor

And I have problems with that. Why bother to shoot medium format when the barn and the farm are given away.

 

[removed account4]

Re: my rangerfinder comment. As Murray mentioned, I guess I was referring to rangefinder-like type cameras. To me, anything that I cannot see directly through the lens, but has a viewfinder, is a rangefinder. I know that it's not in actual fact, but to me they work similarly, in that it's hard for me to get the result I want because I can't focus as close as I would like and I can't see the exact frame of what I'm shooting. As Scott mentioned as well, the Fuji X cameras function like rangefinders, and since I have one already, that's what I was thinking of.

I'm not against a DSLR, but they are HEAVY without the glass, and pricey. And since this is meant to be a travel camera, the reality is, especially for those of us outside the North America, you often can only fly with ONE carry-on bag. Not a bag and a personal item, one item full stop. And often 7kg max. I don't have to tell anyone here that even a pared-down camera bag and enough film for a trip can easily tip those scales. I always fly with a photo vest now in the event that I need to unpack some items at check-in because my camera bag is almost always overweight, or very close to the limit. So yeah - I just want a full-system with excellent glass and image quality, is lightweight, and not too pricey. That should be easy to find right? I know I'll have to give up at least one of those things, it's just deciding what the trade-off should be and why.

Hi R
I was asking about the single lens cause if you have the $$. I've seen ( and played with ) the Leica Q. I think that is what it is called, It is a nice little camera and only 1 lens but its a Leica which for some folks is more $$ than they are willing to pay... too bad there isn't a knock off yet .. its a pretty nice idea..

 

[Dismayed]

I've shot with Nikon cameras since the 1980's, including DSLRs for sports photography. I opted for the Fuji X system for my lightweight travel camera. The bodies are nicely laid out, the results are excellent, and there are plenty of lens choices. I passed on the Nikon mirrorless cameras because the lenses are limited, large, and expensive.

 

[Paul Howell]

My travel cameras are old and cheap, a Pentax K 2000 and a Samsung clone of the Pentax 1stD, I have the Pentax K2000 set up for monochrome, the Samsung for color. Although the Samsung is only 6MP I've gotten sharp 11X14 from it. Both take AA batteries, no need to fuss with chargers and adaptors. Both have Sony CCD sensors, color is really nice, dramatic range is fair, low light not so good. The Pentax is somewhat better. I take a 50 and 28 prime and a 70 to 300 zoom for long shots. Would I take these to the artic, well no, they are not weather sealed, but for general travel, total expensive is around $300, no worries about get lost, robbed, or going up in a hotel fire. When I drive I take my Sony 900 or A77II.

 

[Wallendo]

I also am thinking about getting a new digital camera. My current dSLR (actual an dSLT but that is a minor thing) has a crop sensor and was bought in December 2011. It still works and has 24 megapixel images. It can use all my Minolta A-mount glass and works well with m42 adapters. On the other hand, the lenses behave quite differently with an APS sensor. I shoot mostly film, but with the new CT scan equipment at airports becoming more common, foreign travel with film may more difficult. I personally am looking at a Sony A7 Rii since adapters are readily available to use almost all of my existing lenses.

The only thing that has stopped me from picking this up so far is the fear that I would be compelled to pick up a number of full frame e-mount lenses to go with the camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

I personally am looking at a Sony A7 Rii since adapters are readily available to use almost all of my existing lenses.

The only thing that has stopped me from picking this up so far is the fear that I would be compelled to pick up a number of full frame e-mount lenses to go with the camera.

You can get a Sony A to E adaptor, KEH has few on it's site. I have 3 Sony A mounts, a A700, A900 and A77II, although the A77II is the last model of the A mount, well the A900II came out later, I prefer the 700 or 900, just don't like the EVF. I've looked at Canon and Nikon, Nikon seemed better, but still not the same as an optical. I know that some point I will need to either change systems or get an E mount. Might go with Pentax, seems Ricoh is committed to the traditionally DSLR. I know that the new Sony A1is 50mp and can shoot 30 FPS, don't know why anyone needs 50MP, and who wants to edit all those shots.