Thinking about a getting a digital camera...

[Dismayed]

Yes the Nikon Z when I tried them are quite familiar and also how it feels on the hand. The Z cameras are quite natural to migrate from a Nikon dSLR or a autofocus film SLR. The Z electronic viewfinder is also quite good without that sense of motion sickness. When I held it at a NZ wedding expo show here and they had the diff many brand sales reps letting you try the gear.

I went with a Fuji X-T1 cos cheaper and sick of paying retail new prices. It is more different than a Nikon Z but it is more compact.

Correcting myself before. M4/3 is 2x the lens to make it equiv to 35mm format. I know some photography friends one who has a 300mm prime 2x is 600mm he also has a TC so he can do wildlife and plane photography. 1.5x is APS-C which is my Fuji and others like the Sony A6000 series. I think full frame is superior but APS-C even a dated one like the one I have does the job for me .....

The X-T1 is still an excellent camera. I've never handled one, but every X camera that I have handled has seemed really well designed.

I myself just picked up an X-T20 that's an open box camera with warranty. I'm giving it to my son for an upcoming trip to Europe.

 

[JWMster]

Scott (Davis "the Flying Camera") Great to see you on this thread! Man after my own heart in this! The man whose encouragement to take a Rolleiflex TLR to France made that trip for me! Thank you... and again here.

Oddly, I've just rebought into the Fuji X line... after pondering the GFX as a body to put behind a 4X5 (but decided not to for now). So re-assembling the Fuji-X line with an X-T4 and some primes as before. In the interim, I've had Nikon DSLR's, I've had Sony AR7 series (2 of them), a slew of Fujis... and then dove into film.

Film remains a passion. But digital has its place, and Fuji X cameras are the closest to my favorite 35mm... the Nikon F4, and so a trip to Service Photo in Baltimore sealed the deal.

Digital is completely capable, and though I've pretty much found one menu system the same as another, I think Fuji has some uncommon features and a commitment I'm beginning to see in making in-camera JPEGs a route to staying off Capture ONE / Photoshop except for those more complex shots. That plus manual controls on top of the camera... as you say, "It's a huge deal".

I'm reading that with custom setups, individual film profiles that can be tweaked, and even whole series of camera settings that can be saved to buttons and/or disk.... that too could be a huge deal. AND the small primes, and smaller lenses of APC per mm equivalent....

Geezing and now much more experienced than some years back, I'm less distressed about the whole "full frame" biz. Yes FF has its merits, but also limits and downsides. Yes, FF can be better.... but printing 16X20 and less, I've didn't miss it before, and perhaps less compelled by the siren song of FF (now that I also shoot 4X5 and other formats), I'm just not going to get hung up on details. Light weight when you want a lightweight rig? APC or even 4/3rds have an advantage.

No one else should either. Whatever someone needs to use to make their photos.... that's what they should use. All cameras are capable, and my preferences be damned. Follow your own hearts here. Scott... thanks for your balanced thoughts and encouragement! Solid stuff! People may forget that some of the early 35mm shooters were demeaned as shooting too small, but yes, they were, and no, it didn't really limit their output and what we see in it today without the blinders of decades ago.

 

[Pieter12]

I recently acquired a CCD MF digital back, and the compared to images made with that and FF DSLRs or mirrorless APS-C the difference is remarkable. So size does matter. I'm not talking pixel-peeping, but just the overall image quality. It just doesn't have as much of that digital curse, even though the the pixel count is actually less than my Nikon D800.

 

[wiltw]

A strong reason for going to digital is that increasingly the airports we have to travel thru are using CT machines at the Security area prior to going to the Gate, and these do damage unprocessed film, and we have no assurances that International security staff will honor (or even seem to hear) a request for hand inspection of clear plastic bags full of film.

 

[JWMster]

Stronger reason for going digital is color, and between Fuji's wavering commitment and Kodak's wavering financial viability, digital may be THE option at some point. Meanwhile, digital is useful, most of us have digital ink printers (many do not) or use services that do, and it's part of photography today. Film may be a better medium for learning digital in depth in terms of understanding editing software, exposure, and the like and offer a depth of understanding that improves digital, too - especially in terms of understanding what the tools are trying to do.... but its fair that digital may ease the ability to show students the impact of shooting choices in terms of lighting, composition and other conditions that would otherwise be more delayed. Then again, delay and the effort involved with film can be an asset as well. As someone who returned to photography, digital's initial ease was like learning Spanish where it was easy until it wasn't, and then a bit of depth in working with film made digital controls easier and more intuitive to understand (for me), and meant I wasn't playing with some control to get something it couldn't do. Maybe its not the medium, but the talent and commitment of the teachers? Don't know. But I'd also argue that I see many of the contemporary LF shooters I respect and admire also use or switch to digital seamlessly.... or at least use it as a tool in their work (e.g. Clyde Butcher, Ken M. Lee), and do so without apology. Some even use their digital cameras to help set their film exposure (Alex Burke comes to mind).

Maybe instead of a "strong reason for going digital", we need to allow for film and digital as companion mediums. Sargent painted (sketched) with watercolors, and painted with oils. Ditto for most other artists (Durer's charcoals were as amazing as his painted work, too, and ditto for most great artists).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most film shooters today I would think also shoot digital if only on their phones, for convenience if not necessarily for artistic reasons. On vacation, I take a small digital camera rather than lugging my film equipment. Making digital slide shows with music, narration, credits, and titles afterward is convenient and I find the results to be quite good as well as fun to create. I leave my film endeavors for contemplation and relaxing while home when I can get out by myself and relax while spending a few hours getting some shots. It's a hobby after all. I don't know if companion mediums are the right term. But both have their use depending on the circumstance makes sense to me and serves me well.

 

[JWMster]

One hears this. Two think about it, and three... well, y'know what happens in crowds.

My point is the need for a "strong case" shouldn't be necessary, right? Wiltw suggested this rather well, and quietly. I just wanted to amplify that. To your point, here the case was (formerly) often as though digital was banned and an effort at film-centric emphasized. Similarly but contrarily, Luminous Landscape banned film coverage (straight from the editor's mouth and email). Mixed seems a better approach.

The medium is a tool, and either it helps expression or it doesn't; serves a particular function or purpose for a particular intent - or it is a tool of learning, etc. and can be useful in that way as well. Maybe the medium isn't always the message and its just what we have at hand, but why all the arguments? They still make musicians learn scales and some get something out of it - even play them musically, but somehow we have to defend digital or defend film? Maybe that says more about the stage we're at and about ourselves than we want? The more time I spend at this, the more I'm finding appeal in different approaches, and even interest in things I thought I never would - like alternative printing processes - which I would love to find the time, place and materials to do if I could. Just saying.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Scott (Davis "the Flying Camera") Great to see you on this thread! Man after my own heart in this! The man whose encouragement to take a Rolleiflex TLR to France made that trip for me! Thank you... and again here.
...
No one else should either. Whatever someone needs to use to make their photos.... that's what they should use. All cameras are capable, and my preferences be damned. Follow your own hearts here. Scott... thanks for your balanced thoughts and encouragement! Solid stuff! People may forget that some of the early 35mm shooters were demeaned as shooting too small, but yes, they were, and no, it didn't really limit their output and what we see in it today without the blinders of decades ago.

I didn't know you followed my example and took just a Rollei TLR to France! I made some of the best photos of my life on that trip. Now I'm going back through my archives and making a whole bunch of (mostly) 5x5 palladium prints from all my travel shots. I'm mixing up the media - most are from the Rollei, some others from my former Hasselblad kit, a few are from an RZ67, and some are from my Fuji XT1/XT2. Aside from the aspect ratios, there's little to tell between which camera shot which.

 

[PerTulip]

... but somehow we have to defend digital or defend film? Maybe that says more about the stage we're at and about ourselves than we want? The more time I spend at this, the more I'm finding appeal in different approaches.....

That's how I see it. I don't see film and digital as being exclusive. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I don't understand the almost fanatic, entrenched views of some. Shooting digital photos of sports doesn't diminish my landscapes on film. Digitally post-processing a scan, for some almost heresy, enables me to do things that I just can't accomplish otherwise. And whatever film teached me (careful composition, proper exposure,..) I apply to digital shooting.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I agree with that; It's actually difficult to buy a bad digital camera these days.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I agree with that; It's actually difficult to buy a bad digital camera these days.

I don't disagree with this - I think, like film cameras, it's about finding the right one that fits your shooting style and what you want to achieve.

 

[wahiba]

If you are happy with 4-6 MP go for a later compact model that still has a proper view finder. Can did a pretty good range. The A430 and A460 I have both use SD cards and AA batteries. I have a Canon S70 that does RAW but it does use a CD card and Canon battery. Picture of the S70 and A430

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Nikon D90, 105mm Micro

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Rachelle, have you narrowed down your choices? I picked up a Nikon D850 a couple of years ago. I thought to myself if I'm going to get digital, it should at least compete with medium format. Cost me an arm and a leg for the body and lens, but it's been worth it. When I go to Japan, it would be my main camera, as I'm worried about airports buggering up my film.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Rachelle, have you narrowed down your choices? I picked up a Nikon D850 a couple of years ago. I thought to myself if I'm going to get digital, it should at least compete with medium format. Cost me an arm and a leg for the body and lens, but it's been worth it. When I go to Japan, it would be my main camera, as I'm worried about airports buggering up my film.

In theory, yes. I've gone for the new Nikon Zfc - not one that was on my radar because I was looking for full-frame, but being recently released, and having handled one at Yodobashi I have to admit I really liked the ergonomics of it. Of course it means new lenses across the board, but I hope I can keep it down to 2 or 3 (one prime and 2 zooms most likely). That said, in looking for cameras I was really dismayed at the cost of them all (since I also need to buy a new iMac to replace the one I had that died last year) but realized if I could put the right spin on it, that I could use my research budget from work to pay for the camera and one lens and a few accessories. They agreed so I'm good to go that way.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

In theory, yes. I've gone for the new Nikon Zfc - not one that was on my radar because I was looking for full-frame, but being recently released, and having handled one at Yodobashi I have to admit I really liked the ergonomics of it. Of course it means new lenses across the board, but I hope I can keep it down to 2 or 3 (one prime and 2 zooms most likely). That said, in looking for cameras I was really dismayed at the cost of them all (since I also need to buy a new iMac to replace the one I had that died last year) but realized if I could put the right spin on it, that I could use my research budget from work to pay for the camera and one lens and a few accessories. They agreed so I'm good to go that way.

That's a really nice looking camera! You chose well!

 

[Moose22]

have to admit I really liked the ergonomics of it. Of course it means new lenses across the board, but I hope I can keep it down to 2 or 3 (one prime and 2 zooms most likely).

I'm going to say straight up that handling is more important than FX vs DX anymore. I mean, unless you're shooting to print billboards or something. Or one of those guys who wants to spray and pray then crop later.

During the lockdowns I dug into my old photos and started printing again, and I got phenominal 8x10s and 8x12s even with my old D70, a very modest camera.

One of my favorite shots was from a D7100:

This is a tiny version to share, but I had that printed 12x18 and it's tack sharp and beautiful, and that's from a 2013 vintage DX camera. I love me my z6 and z7, but they're overkill for everything I do.

Modern sensors are WAYYYYYYYYY better than in the old days, too. The dynamic range is off the hook compared to even 6 or 7 years ago. The FX advantage is well outweighed by being enjoyable to shoot.

You did good.

Also, the Z lenses are pretty incredible, even the more modest ones. It hurts buying different glass, but mirrorless is a revelation.

I just got a 24-200 for a walkin' around, do everything lens, and even a non-S lens is almost as good as anything non-prime I had in F mount. Up to now I used the kit 24-70 for walkin' around, and for landscape a 20 1.8s, and some F mounts on the FTZ for when I needed something fast. I never felt the need for a normal prime with the 24-70, it's really amazingly good for a kit lens.

I'm guessing the dx lenses will be similarly fun.

 

[bdial]

I just bought a second-hand Z6, haven’t had a chance to much with it, hopefully i can get out with it today.

The direct controls of the Zfc are certainly appealing. The shop where I bought the Z6 doesn’t have stock yet for the Zfc, otherwise I’d have been sorely tempted. A big part of my motivation for a full frame digi is not dealing with “crop factor “, and perhaps more so cobbling up a collection of short focal length lenses to match what I’m used to with a film cameras.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I'm going to say straight up that handling is more important than FX vs DX anymore.

Even smaller formats, 1" or 1/1.6", can produce great results if you're able to adapt your shooting style to the format. Compacts/rangefinders rarely bear any ergonomic resemblance to their SLR/mirrorless counterparts but are well-suited to certain situations.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I’m really liking my D780.

 

[Auer]

Consider Pentax as well, I still get a lot of use out of a K-5 IIs.



City Frame-260 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[NedL]

Rachelle, I hope you will come back to this thread and tell us how you feel one you've used your Zfc for a little while.

I see that they make an adapter so that it can use F mount lenses... that's a plus. I would like to be able to use my 55 micro nikkor for copy work... but worried about whether the lens will really work well with APS-C... I wonder if it has a focus indicator like some of their earlier digital cameras had for using manual focus lenses... and options for white balance...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Rachelle, I hope you will come back to this thread and tell us how you feel one you've used your Zfc for a little while.

I see that they make an adapter so that it can use F mount lenses... that's a plus. I would like to be able to use my 55 micro nikkor for copy work... but worried about whether the lens will really work well with APS-C... I wonder if it has a focus indicator like some of their earlier digital cameras had for using manual focus lenses... and options for white balance...

Do a search on Flickr for shots made with that combo- it may or may not have mild to significant purple fringing, because the lens wasn't designed to be used on digital sensors. I've had that before when using my Contax 85mm f1.4 on a Canon 5D mk1, and with my Contax 300 Tele-Tessar on my Fuji XT2. It only happens on the Fuji in certain circumstances, and is not horribly pronounced, so it can be dealt with in post, and the cost of getting a native Fuji lens with the same reach would be prohibitive, so I can live with it at the price point (I'm into the lens and the 2x teleconverter to the tune of $300-ish. A Fuji 100-400 zoom would run me close to $2K).

 

[bdial]

Rachelle, I hope you will come back to this thread and tell us how you feel one you've used your Zfc for a little while.

I see that they make an adapter so that it can use F mount lenses... that's a plus. I would like to be able to use my 55 micro nikkor for copy work... but worried about whether the lens will really work well with APS-C... I wonder if it has a focus indicator like some of their earlier digital cameras had for using manual focus lenses... and options for white balance...

I've been making some test slide copies with my 55 micro nikkor on a Z6. I've not noticed any optical problems, so far, knock on wood.
For the FTZ adapter, Nikon states that the non-ai 55/f3.5 isn't compatible. I am not sure why, but I assume it may hit the contact pins. FWIW, they also call out the K2 extension ring as incompatible.
I am still deciding whether to do my copying with the 55 or get a 60mm G lens so that autofocus works. There are some aftermarket F to Z adapters that don't include the electronic linkage that are a lot less dear than the FTZ, which would also avoid any compatibility issues.
The adapter plus extension tubes makes for a lot of stuff on the front of the camera. It has made me think that a Z mount micro might be a better approach.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My Fujifilm X-T2 has an ISO dial, a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, and has manual focus. Handles pretty much like my Pentax K1000 if I want.

Capture One and Fujifilm partnered up, so Capture One has inside information on Fujifilm's X-Trans sensors.

I never printed my 4x5 negatives larger than 11x14, so figure this little beastie should do just fine at that size & smaller.