Yet Another Request for Camera Advice

[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.

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

Well so the OP doesn't have to buy anything. He had the M6.

 

[jrh108]

All of this is certainly overwhelming.

To clarify, I no longer have the M6 or the Rolleiflex. I have one 35/2.0 M lens with a focus ring that feels like it has sand in it. Otherwise, only my iPhone. Also, I am reluctant to go back to an SLR form factor system.

And I have been sitting around looking at negatives, contact sheets and enlargement prints from those two film cameras and comparing them with the digital JPEG images from my iPhone and those poorly-exposed X100 snapshots that I mentioned, (I know, it is an unfair comparison) along with the dozen or so Leica Q snaps I shot in the store. Quite a bit of disparity among all of this, all the way around. I really don't know the fine details to look for except for the aesthetics overall, trying to figure out what I like, what I would like to create, and then what system seems to produce that or better.
Many of my favorites were those from the Rollei (I am going to make duplicate prints and scan the negatives of those of my wife in Paris, as they are the best of her ever in our 31 years together and I would cry if I lost them), and it appears that those images don't really have the sharpness or detail of any of the others, but do have a wonderful dynamic range, bokeh, almost tactile quality without being simply soft. I obviously don't know the terms to express that "feel". (And perhaps, this is something that I can learn to develop in Lightroom???)
The M6 images were similar, but a bit more defined, at times clinical with certain lenses, but with others in the same vein as the MF. But again, I really do not I want to go back to film, though, setting up a darkroom, then scanning, etc.

So far, looking at web images, there is so much more detail in a lot of images to the point of being hyper-real, which I am not drawn to. But when I play with many JPEG images in Lightroom and find very limited flexibility to pull out shadow detail, etc., I realize that having more, and more precise, data can be a very good thing in a file. So where is the balance?
(And I know that I need to work from RAW when I do have a camera.)

I have been drawn by the qualities/character of some images that I have found from Fuji XF 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 lenses, used on X Pro2 cameras. Beginning to lean in that direction, but have no option to rent or trial the equipment first. I admit that I would like something that is as simple to use as the Leica Q, but not at that price or with that lack of flexibility. Am I getting too picky?

I love Leica, but am not a brand snob. I like the form factor, the unobtrusiveness of taking pictures with one. Heck, I drive a 12-year-old Volvo wagon with 250,000 miles on it, and have kept it looking like it just came out of the showroom, because I really like driving that always-reliable car! But someday it will need to be replaced, and if I were to buy an M10 system, I would end my days driving used Kia compacts.

 

[Gary A.]

To qualify my answer, I am a bit of a Fuji Fanboy. But ... I think you would be happy with the XP2. It feels and handles like a film camera. The lenses are metal with aperture rings. Manual focus is easy and quick and it has a rangefinder-ish optical focus with overlays. It feels Leica (but not quite as heavy), it looks Leica, the lenses are absolutely superb and it renders a bit differently than your typical Bayer sensored cameras.

There are two disappointments for me with the XP2, no vertical grip/booster and the viewfinder is smaller than the XT2. The vertical grip of the XT2 provides two extra batteries for longer shooting and the extra power will increase the speed and performance of the XT2. The vertical grip, makes it easier to shoot a vertical format. I really really like the larger size of the XT2's EVF ... but the XT2 does not employ an optical viewfinder.

Mirrorless, due to small size batteries, tend to run out of energy quickly. If you do decide on Fuji or any mirrorless make sure you pick up some additional batteries. I found aftermarket batteries to work well and to be significantly cheaper than OEM.

 

[Dave442]

I also think the XP2 with a few of their fast lenses would be a very nice kit for someone coming from film and looking to do some personal photography projects and just go out and enjoy taking pictures. I would probably go with the 23mm and 56mm to start.

 

[Solarflare]

Nothing wrong with Fujifilm. Except - this is a young system. Compared to Nikon, theres a lot less lens choices out there, and none thats dirt cheap but awesome. A lot expensive choices that are awesome though. Also all lenses except the two cheap XC zooms have metal housing, and many have a dedicated aperture ring, not found on new Nikon lenses or any Canon lenses.

Personally, my picks for lenses with Fujifilm would be 16/1.4, 35/1.4, and a Nikon F to Fujifilm X Adapter so I could use my Nikon glas, such as my Voigtländer 58mm f1.4 or a 1:1 macro lens. Fujifilm wants to come out with a 80mm f2.8 macro with 1:1 magnification soon though.

 

[beagle100]

All of this is certainly overwhelming.

To clarify, I no longer have the M6 or the Rolleiflex. I have one 35/2.0 M lens with a focus ring that feels like it has sand in it. Otherwise, only my iPhone. Also, I am reluctant to go back to an SLR form factor system.
And I have been sitting around looking at negatives, contact sheets and enlargement prints from those two film cameras and comparing them with the digital JPEG images from my iPhone and those poorly-exposed X100 snapshots that I mentioned, (I know, it is an unfair comparison) along with the dozen or so Leica Q snaps I shot in the store. Quite a bit of disparity among all of this, all the way around. I really don't know the fine details to look for except for the aesthetics overall, trying to figure out what I like, what I would like to create, and then what system seems to produce that or better.
Many of my favorites were those from the Rollei (I am going to make duplicate prints and scan the negatives of those of my wife in Paris, as they are the best of her ever in our 31 years together and I would cry if I lost them), and it appears that those images don't really have the sharpness or detail of any of the others, but do have a wonderful dynamic range, bokeh, almost tactile quality without being simply soft. I obviously don't know the terms to express that "feel". (And perhaps, this is something that I can learn to develop in Lightroom???)
The M6 images were similar, but a bit more defined, at times clinical with certain lenses, but with others in the same vein as the MF. But again, I really do not I want to go back to film, though, setting up a darkroom, then scanning, etc.
So far, looking at web images, there is so much more detail in a lot of images to the point of being hyper-real, which I am not drawn to. But when I play with many JPEG images in Lightroom and find very limited flexibility to pull out shadow detail, etc., I realize that having more, and more precise, data can be a very good thing in a file. So where is the balance?
(And I know that I need to work from RAW when I do have a camera.)

I have been drawn by the qualities/character of some images that I have found from Fuji XF 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 lenses, used on X Pro2 cameras. Beginning to lean in that direction, but have no option to rent or trial the equipment first. I admit that I would like something that is as simple to use as the Leica Q, but not at that price or with that lack of flexibility. Am I getting too picky?
I love Leica, but am not a brand snob. I like the form factor, the unobtrusiveness of taking pictures with one. Heck, I drive a 12-year-old Volvo wagon with 250,000 miles on it, and have kept it looking like it just came out of the showroom, because I really like driving that always-reliable car! But someday it will need to be replaced, and if I were to buy an M10 system, I would end my days driving used Kia compacts.

All of this is certainly overwhelming.

To clarify, I no longer have the M6 or the Rolleiflex. I have one 35/2.0 M lens with a focus ring that feels like it has sand in it. Otherwise, only my iPhone. Also, I am reluctant to go back to an SLR form factor system.

And I have been sitting around looking at negatives, contact sheets and enlargement prints from those two film cameras and comparing them with the digital JPEG images from my iPhone and those poorly-exposed X100 snapshots that I mentioned, (I know, it is an unfair comparison) along with the dozen or so Leica Q snaps I shot in the store. Quite a bit of disparity among all of this, all the way around. I really don't know the fine details to look for except for the aesthetics overall, trying to figure out what I like, what I would like to create, and then what system seems to produce that or better.
Many of my favorites were those from the Rollei (I am going to make duplicate prints and scan the negatives of those of my wife in Paris, as they are the best of her ever in our 31 years together and I would cry if I lost them), and it appears that those images don't really have the sharpness or detail of any of the others, but do have a wonderful dynamic range, bokeh, almost tactile quality without being simply soft. I obviously don't know the terms to express that "feel". (And perhaps, this is something that I can learn to develop in Lightroom???)
The M6 images were similar, but a bit more defined, at times clinical with certain lenses, but with others in the same vein as the MF. But again, I really do not I want to go back to film, though, setting up a darkroom, then scanning, etc.

So far, looking at web images, there is so much more detail in a lot of images to the point of being hyper-real, which I am not drawn to. But when I play with many JPEG images in Lightroom and find very limited flexibility to pull out shadow detail, etc., I realize that having more, and more precise, data can be a very good thing in a file. So where is the balance?
(And I know that I need to work from RAW when I do have a camera.)
I have been drawn by the qualities/character of some images that I have found from Fuji XF 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 lenses, used on X Pro2 cameras. Beginning to lean in that direction, but have no option to rent or trial the equipment first. I admit that I would like something that is as simple to use as the Leica Q, but not at that price or with that lack of flexibility. Am I getting too picky?
I love Leica, but am not a brand snob. I like the form factor, the unobtrusiveness of taking pictures with one. Heck, I drive a 12-year-old Volvo wagon with 250,000 miles on it, and have kept it looking like it just came out of the showroom, because I really like driving that always-reliable car! But someday it will need to be replaced, and if I were to buy an M10 system, I would end my days driving used Kia compacts.

OK, you're not a "brand snob"
you may be too picky but if you have the budget just settle for the very best camera (be sure to include the lens !)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Gary A.]

Nothing wrong with Fujifilm. Except - this is a young system. Compared to Nikon, theres a lot less lens choices out there, and none thats dirt cheap but awesome. A lot expensive choices that are awesome though. Also all lenses except the two cheap XC zooms have metal housing, and many have a dedicated aperture ring, not found on new Nikon lenses or any Canon lenses.

Personally, my picks for lenses with Fujifilm would be 16/1.4, 35/1.4, and a Nikon F to Fujifilm X Adapter so I could use my Nikon glas, such as my Voigtländer 58mm f1.4 or a 1:1 macro lens. Fujifilm wants to come out with a 80mm f2.8 macro with 1:1 magnification soon though.

Yes it is a young system ... but that is a two-edged sword. While Fuji may be short on the lens end of the spectrum, but, being a new system with a new 'X' mount, the camera(s) have been designed around and for digital and the APS-C sensor with no compromise to accommodate older glass.

 

[Derrel]

Leica Q....not a good choice. Being stuck with one lens....no way.

A cheap, used Nikon D600, or a refurbished D600 or D610 and any number of lenses would get great pictures, affordably.

You NEED to have a raw capture for the most post-processing leeway. Lightroom, and some .NEF files, and you'd be set.

I still prefer the FX size image, for what it does to the LENSES on the market...24 is 24, 35 is 35, 50 is 50, 85 is 85, 105 is 105, 70-200 is 70-200.

 

[jrh108]

Yesterday I was able to finally get my hands on some other cameras, in particular the Fuji X Pro2 and several lenses. I liked the OVF and EVF, the film-camera-like ability to control the camera with dials and a few buttons that I could learn as I go, and the overall substantial feel of both the body and the lenses. I have been playing with the RAW files from a few in-store pictures I made, and am very pleased with the quality of those images. Now I am dithering between the 23/1.4 and the 35/1.4 lenses as the first to buy. I already know that the 56/1.2 will probably see a lot of use when I can get that later.

Then I got my hands on a Hasselblad X1D 50c... Talk about wildly overshooting my budget, but one can have fantasies! Three files to play with from that--great fun even though I really don't know what I am doing in Lightroom yet.
But owning one is not going to happen for me, not in this lifetime.

And Leica is no longer available there (I just wanted to see if my old eyes could work the rangefinder, not interested in buying into the M system again on my budget). Apparently, Leica is putting in a Boutique in Austin and that pretty well ends other stores from carrying them.

 

[Solarflare]

While Fuji may be short on the lens end of the spectrum, but, being a new system with a new 'X' mount, the camera(s) have been designed around and for digital and the APS-C sensor with no compromise to accommodate older glass.

An irrelevant aspect for Nikon since digital sensors have been working very well with the SLR concept since day one.

Then I got my hands on a Hasselblad X1D 50c...

Personally I think the Fujifilm GFX nothing short but stomps the X1D quite brutally into the ground. Just so much better in really every aspect. Most importantly better glas. Cheaper glas. Brighter glas. More glas, they are already at 3 published, 2 more announced, while Hasselblad is at 3 published despite coming out much sooner. Better ergonomics. Even better build quality. Battery grip. Tilting EVF. Focal plane shutter if you need it, but support for central shutter as well, opening all possibilities for adapting lenses. On top of everything else, its cheaper too. Whow.

But IMHO it was to be expected. Fujifilm
(a) does glas (including for Hasselblad)
(b) has experience with designing mirrorless
(c) has a lot more investment power

 

[jrh108]

Perhaps I am showing my love of simple beauty of form rather than specifications, but looking at, holding and taking a few photos with the GFX and X1D side-by-side, they are so very different. The GFX if industrial, fat, and unwieldy-appearing (but not functioning, where it is superb) where the X1D is sleek, solid art-sculpture looking and feeling. The GFX had similar controls as the X Pro2, whereas the X1D had the apparent simplicity of the Leica Q. Different approach and feel of use. Obviously, I do not eschew the aesthetics and controls of the Fuji, as I appear to be about to buy the X Pro2, but have to make peace with it more than I would with others I have mentioned. Reliable and feature-packed Audi SUV vs. Porsche Cayenne in style. Honda vs Volvo.
I was never a fan of the usual Hasselblad lenses on the 500CM that I had for awhile, as they seemed too "clinical" to me. Yes, they produced precise, detailed images, but I really don't enjoy any of my desert photos taken with them like I do those from the Rollei or Leica.
Yes, I admit that I am drawn to artful rather than precise, and I guess that shows in my choices. All of which is to say that I loved the feel and form of the X1D, but would need to be convinced that the lenses had the character that I prefer. And none of that speaks in any way to the details of the technology and features of each camera, as I am not in the market for one.

 

[Derrel]

So you're getting a Nikon D750 with the FREE Nikon battery grip, for $1,499 then, right?

 

[jrh108]

And try to buy back the Nikon 85/1.4 lens I sold a few months ago.

 

[Gary A.]

Don't forget to get the grip for the XP2.

 

[Karls]

I also think the XP2 with a few of their fast lenses would be a very nice kit for someone coming from film and looking to do some personal photography projects and just go out and enjoy taking pictures. I would probably go with the 23mm and 56mm to start.