Yet Another Request for Camera Advice

[jrh108]

New to this forum, and new to digital photography. I am asking for input on equipment choices, as I have talked myself into a corner.

I am not new to photography, but dropped it when I lost access to a darkroom and work became so demanding of my time. I tried, unsuccessfully, to learn on a Canon PowerShot G (1 or 2?), and never adjusted, particularly because with work, I simply didn't have the energy reserves or time to make the switch into digital workflow to take the pictures, nor to learn Photoshop.

At that time, I was using a Leica M6 and Rolleiflex TLR, primarily doing B&W, people and street shooting, some architectural, some Miksang/whatever catches the eye. That kind of equipment and shooting is ridiculously simple in terms of using the tools, once you have an understanding of the basics of the variables of exposure and experience in seeing the light qualities, and I do long for that again, but not the requirements and cost of using film (but I am thinking about it...).

It didn't help my reluctance to go into digital as nothing in early digital seemed to stand up to those cameras/lenses/film, but so much has changed and improved over the last 18-20 years. I am trying to find equipment with which I can also get that "look", but when I look at the current Leica M and M lenses, I would have to forego ever retiring, as an M10 body and 50/1.4 lens alone would run almost $11,000. I can just barely talk myself into a Leica Q, but have reservations about having only a 28mm fixed lens.

Can you help me think through this, or make specific suggestions?

Thank you,

Bobby

 

[Ysarex]

First, been through the film era stuff like you and had that experience. Shot Rollei, Hassy, Linhof, you name it been there done that for the last 40 years. So here's what you do; get a good quality APS digital camera and learn to use it. One of the Nikons would be my recommendation, but if you want to feel more comfortable with a camera that throws back in design like what you're used to get one of the Fuji cameras. Your retirement account will thank you.

Joe

 

[chuasam]

Leica is soooo overrated.
For what you do, I would pick up an A7S II with a matching lens of your choice.
If you want to save more, get a Fujifilm XPro2 with a lens you like.

 

[Designer]

Can you help me think through this, or make specific suggestions?

Want "entry level", "enthusiast level", or "pro" level? What is your budget?

 

[Derrel]

I say SKIP the APS-C size camera...if you liked the medium format quality,low-grain, enlarge-ability/crop-ability, then go 24 or 36-megapixel Nikon fulkl frame digital.

In my opinion, Nikon D3x, D600,D60,and D750 all offer BETTER image quality than 120 roillfilm of the 1990's ofdered, in term sof low grain, high acutance, and the ability to crop-in on images.

EASY to use? Nikon d-slrs in FX are simple. The D600 or D610 is inexpensive.

I spent years on 24 x 36mm film: I vastly prefer that format to APS-C I want my 24,35,5,0,85,and 105 and 70-200 lenses to act the way they did for the first 35 years of my photo background...I have NEVER truly"liked" the aps-c format and what it does to lenses

Buuut, if you want to make pictures and make themn look like you shot everything at f/11, then by all means, go APS-C.

 

[Gary A.]

I shot film for decades. I have full frame digital cameras, micro four-thirds cameras and APS-C cameras. I found that APS-C is a good compromise between the image quality of full frame and the compact size of MFT. In particular, Fuji, with controls on top and aperture on the lenses has the feel and simplicity of the ol' film days. Great lenses, great build quality, sexy looks ... check out Fuji.

For what I shoot and how I shoot, the advantages FF has over APS-C is generally insignificant. Sure, FF has a bit less DOF, a bit more dynamic range, a bit less noise at higher ISO ... For me, content, has much greater impact towards success of the image, than a bit more image quality.

Grab some memory cards, grab a good camera store and start shooting everything they let you put your hands on. Most modern digital cameras have such good image quality, that based upon the images, it will be hard to differentiate between manufacturers and even between cameras of the same manufacturer, unless the the image is enlarged to an extreme size.

 

[Frankinfuji]

Go for a Fuji in my view. Similar 'look' to Leica digital due to the excellent Fujinon lenses, and handling is similar too. Manual controls also make it feel like a film camera.

Depending on budget, look at the X-E2s, XT-20, X-T2 or even the new medium format. Can't go wrong with any Fuji X series.

Then add the 35mm f1.4 lens (assuming you didn't sell your car to go medium format) and enjoy the Leica experience at a third of the cost.

 

[jrh108]

I am trying to take all of this in... The input and advice is appreciated.

To wish to try to respond to your messages: First, I started with a budget of $2000, then stretched that to $4000 or so when I saw the Leica Q. I did take a number of shots with it at the store, and was pleased with the FF files as well as the ease of use of the menus, though I am also completely new to Lightroom and trying to find my way around. However, I admit to reluctance to parting with that much $ as a first step to putting my toe back in these waters.
So I suppose that I would categorize myself as wanting very good enthusiast level equipment as before, but the price of admission causes pause at this stage.

I was able to borrow a Fuji X100 from a neighbor for a day, and liked the size and feel. I did clumsily manage to repeatedly bump the exposure comp wheel taking it in and out of my travel bag that day, and didn't have time to go into menus enough to make sure that I was recording in RAW, (I thought that he had said that he already had it doing so) so I wound up with a lot of underexposed JPEGs and couldn't adequately evaluate the quality of the images enough to get an impression of them.

To complicate things, I have been going through my old prints and negatives from turn of this century, creating a collection that I want to send off to have scanned and trying to look at them critically. So glad to have some of these lush images of my wife, and have some enlarged to 16x16. Also, last year I sold my FM2 and lenses, not wanting to go the DSLR route again at that time, so regretfully, I don't have those to build on now.

So, following some of the suggestions above, I have been looking online at the Fuji X Pro2, likely with one lens such as the 35/1.4, which puts me at about $2400. Another fast lens quickly puts things in the $3500 range, but there is flexibility.
Then there is the X100f. Close to the X Pro, but without that flexibility. Love the size, though.
I like the images that I have seen from the Sony A7 * II, but cannot imagine ever tolerating the menus they have, at least not at this stage of my re-entry.

 

[Timppa]

My personal opinion, for your needs, I would do like said above and go for a D750 or a D810 (maybe wait a little bit, because the rumour goes that this summer they release the D820, so the D810 will go for a lot less on the 2nd hand market, And if you want new, there might be nice deals to make).
combine it with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART and you are set.

if you want a GREAT DX set to maybe get used to the DSLR first, I would suggest getting a D5500/D7200 combined with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART. This is a zoom lens, but the absolute best one in DX.
and it will feel like a 27-50mm (on 35mm or FX). and because of the 1.8 you get nice light and DOF (dof comparable to 2.8 on FX).

 

[Gary A.]

The focusing on the X100 is pretty slow. The latest generation of Fuji's have significantly improved since the X100. If you're in SoCal, PM me and we can meet and you can play with the XP2 and the XT2.

Honestly, as an old film guy myself ... I know you'll love Fuji, solid construction, great lenses, controls on top and aperture rings on the lenses, super IQ.

 

[chuasam]

I'm not sure why people are so crazy about fullframe...especially for a beginner.
Sure I have a D810 full frame for work but I do massive retouching and shoot ads for busshelters and billboards.
I would happily use a crop sensor like a m43 for vacation or just personal snaps.

 

[dennybeall]

What's important to you? If you just want to take good pictures then a prosumer full frame Nikon will do just what you want. If you want a really tough camera that can stand up to professional use or just want to say you have a "Professional " camera then pay a LOT MORE and the pictures will not be any better.

 

[Bebulamar]

Just buy the M10. If you still have the lenses that you used on the M6 you can use them and don't buy new lenses. Or you can get an M monochrom and you're just like the old days.

 

[beagle100]

Just buy the M10. If you still have the lenses that you used on the M6 you can use them and don't buy new lenses. Or you can get an M monochrom and you're just like the old days.

the M10 is good, M6 a whole lot better
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Solarflare]

The cheap entry into high image quality with digital is pretty simple: get a D700 and some AF glas from the used market. Theres some excellent pieces of glas around - for example AF 35/2, AF 60/2.8 micro, AF 180mm f2.8, AF 24mm f2.8. Can get very high image quality for less than 2000€ easily this way. With the sadly rare AF 70-210/4 theres even a cheap telephoto option.

Currently from these lenses I use the AF 60/2.8 micro and the AF 105/2 DC, which both are great and never got a real successor. The later is one of my "magic" lenses, it isnt cheap though. The former is basically my standard lens, although my Zeiss 35/2 also gets this task every once in a while.

Instead of the AF 35/2 I got me a Zeiss "Classic" 35/2 though, and the AF-S 20mm f1.8 instead of the AF 24/2.8. They are better, but the Zeiss is of course manual focus and much more expensive, and the AF-S 20mm f1.8 is even more expensive. I am thinking of getting the AF lenses at some point too, the 24/2.8 is famous for better color saturation etc than the modern lens, although its an old wide angle lens and needs to be stopped down for sharpness over the whole frame and lowered vignetting.

You can get even cheaper with full manual AI lenses or even converted pre-AI lenses.

Of course the D3 or the D600/D610 are also good camera options.


Another cheap option, not as cheap but still quite cheap, would be to get the Leica M9 or M-E from the used market. Many people still love these cameras for their CCD technology, and claim the M type 240 never got as good in rendering as the M9.

Leica is soooo overrated.

Oh ? And compared to what company, exactly ?

For what you do, I would pick up an A7S II with a matching lens of your choice.

Now THERE we have a hot candidate for "being overrated".

For another recent example of how "high quality" that company produces, look at this horror video that recently popped on YouTube. Frankly when I saw it, I couldnt believe it. This is a really expensive lens, too ! Yikes. Many other examples of problems with this company exist, I probably should start a list of them.

And its funny how all these Sony fanbois keep saying "ah but its a great company" LOLz.