Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: studio347 on December 25, 2013, 03:38:54 pm
-
This forum is for medium... :) but as a medium format camera user, which small camera(digital) do you recommend?
casual, everyday carrying, not big, not heavy for casual carrying around, but still professional in terms of image quality quality, 11 by 14 possible print is good, a great design, not too expensive...
I want to use the camera for everyday scenes_people, surroundings, details, around me....
Yes, after so many years, I want to go back to the basic... for me...
But I think I need a bit more than iPhone 5S's camera.
It's not for my job which requires P65 and up in a way... I use 4 by 5 camera, and hasselblad h2 with it.
I could use the H2 with some cheap, used p20 or something. But it seems to be too heavy and big.
My teachers used to carry a black leica, a small Japanese camera in old days. ...on the neck and shoulders....
I don't know much about it nowadays.
I saw some canons in B&H, but for some reasons, my mind is not going there. They don't seem to have the old-black-leica kind of spirit... too many buttons, the shape is not upto the great design...
What would be a similar camera with the black leica with 35mm lens nowadays? Is it still a digital black leica?
I prefer single lenses.. since it's lighter and I'm an old sch...
And a bit cheaper other option but still good enough?
Thanks in advance.
-
You may want to look into the Sony RX100 II.
I own the version I and it is truly excellent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You may want to look into the Sony RX100 II.
I own the version I and it is truly excellent.
Cheers,
Bernard
Your problem is a common one here.
Bernard's answer is on the nose.
Cooter is pushing the Olympus EM-5, because it makes good pictures. I like the form factor of the tiny Panasonic GM1.
Edmund
-
You might look at the Fujifilm X Pro 1 with their 23mm f/1.4 lens. The sensor is APS size, so the lens covers the same field of view as a 35mm lens on 35mm film camera. It's a quirky little camera, and took me some time to figure out, but it's capable of some amazing images. And the lenses are excellent.
-
The Fuji X100s if you want it to be pocketable.
-
A discontinued GH2.
Why not the gh3?
Because the #2 is a multi aspect-ratio
Camera. Its sensor is in fact 2mpx bigger
So it uses the extra pixels for multi format
Capture. They sadly abandonned that on
The current version.
-
thanks for all the suggestions.
Fuji 100s looks interesting especially.. small size and quiet shutter.
I like the small size since I want to mimic the every-moment carrying practice of my teacher~ha
I will do some more research.
....Wondering if it can produce enough image quality ....for let's say...like conde nast magazines.
-
This could help you: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
You get instantanly 2 cameras of your choice with the different files that you can download.
There are jpegs but you can draw conclusions IMO.
click once on one of the serie, then other click to see the image full size.
-
The X100s is plenty good enough for those pricks at Conde Naste, even Hachette. Conde Naste will use an X100s file without permission just as readily as a Phase One or Leaf image.
the X100s/Xpro files hold up well, take post well, have a nice range. I think the IQ is on par with the fullframe dslrs, with better color. They are close the Leica M9 files, sort of. Its really a different look. I don't think the Red Dot on the leica makes M9 files any more printable than an X100s file.
thanks for all the suggestions.
Fuji 100s looks interesting especially.. small size and quiet shutter.
I like the small size since I want to mimic the every-moment carrying practice of my teacher~ha
I will do some more research.
....Wondering if it can produce enough image quality ....for let's say...like conde nast magazines.
-
I chopped in the Pentax K5 for the D3 and although the operating envelope of the latter knocks the Pentax into a cocked hat the former is still a darn good camera for the money, especially in low light. It's also compact and pretty rugged having a metal frame and can withstand a few knocks. The K3 is meant to be better still but I'm not sure the price difference between is justified by extra ability, the old 5's are still about at clearance prices.
These are examples of its fruit - http://www.inkplusimages.com/Trouble/index.html (http://www.inkplusimages.com/Trouble/index.html)
-
Well yeah,
I was about to mentionned Pentax but it seems
That in this forum their products don't exist and
It's a pity because they make damn good cameras.
I actualy think that the K3 would be the camera
Klaban is seeking for years.
keith, if you read that, hire a k3 when you can a week
Or 2 and...send me swiss chocolates when you buy it.
I think the K3 is a serious camera, and like the
Leica M, no filter I beleive and from memory 20ish +
Megapixels, completly operative under rain, snow and
Cyclons.
The body is maybe on the most robust to date
And the size is smaller than the CaNikons, wide
Range of sealed pro lenses too but ain't cheap.
I'd take a K3 over all the cameras mentionned
Above except the Leica M maybe for the
Snobish factor as it fits with the color of my Lambo,
And it seems that the red dot still impresses the
Chicks...."ohhhhh...is that a Leica?", "yes, what else?"
TMark, you made me laugh with Hachette...but you're
Right.
-
I've always liked Pentax stuff a lot. When my first SLR, a Canon AE-1, was stolen I replaced it first with a Pentax KX and then later an MX (which I still have). When much later I decided to give medium format a spin it was with a 645N II. (Totally Michael's fault, BTW...his review is still available here in the archives.) Eventually sold the camera but kept the lenses, now used with great enjoyment on a 645D. I also had a K10D for awhile. AF weirdness, in particular consistent misfocusing in incandescent light, led to me getting rid of it...but again I kept the AF lenses. :) The 31, 43 & 77mm Ltds are particularly lovely image makers IMO. I'm not at all in the market for another SLR—I like EVFs far too much—but the new K3 looks very nice indeed. If it had an EVF I'd be all over it.
For a Leica-ish small camera I'd strongly consider Fuji's X-100s. Or a Panasonic GX7 with either an Olympus 17/1.8 or Panasonic 20/1.7 lens. (I own a GX7 and both lenses.)
-Dave-
-
There's one alternative which is strange, but which I used for many years, namely stick a small old style AF 50mm prime on any Canon or Nikon dSLR and it becomes a compact :)
Canon Rebels are really nice cameras, as long as you don't drop them.
Edmund
-
the X100s/Xpro files hold up well, take post well, have a nice range. I think the IQ is on par with the fullframe dslrs, with better color. They are close the Leica M9 files, sort of. Its really a different look. I don't think the Red Dot on the leica makes M9 files any more printable than an X100s file.
Ha! X-Pro1 (thus also X100s with same innards) is equal to the venerable Canon 5D2, which is much better than M9. If you mean that Fuji files have the same "feel" as M9, fine, but the real quality (resolution, dynamic range etc) is actually much better.
And yes, Fuji X-Trans sensor files do have that nice different feel to them. If one needs just a one lens mid-wide camera, X100s is the one.
Disclamer: I have both X-Pro1 and X100s as a spare (or great mid-wide lens with free body if you want to see it that way…)
-
The Fuji X100s if you want it to be pocketable.
Yup, I was kicking myself later for forgetting to mention that one. Might be the perfect choice.
-
Yup, I was kicking myself later for forgetting to mention that one. Might be the perfect choice.
On top of that it is the world's best digital camera according to Ken Rockwell!!
Who would dare to contradict that…? :)
-
I've always liked Pentax stuff a lot. When my first SLR, a Canon AE-1, was stolen I replaced it first with a Pentax KX and then later an MX (which I still have). When much later I decided to give medium format a spin it was with a 645N II. (Totally Michael's fault, BTW...his review is still available here in the archives.) Eventually sold the camera but kept the lenses, now used with great enjoyment on a 645D. I also had a K10D for awhile. AF weirdness, in particular consistent misfocusing in incandescent light, led to me getting rid of it...but again I kept the AF lenses. :) The 31, 43 & 77mm Ltds are particularly lovely image makers IMO. I'm not at all in the market for another SLR—I like EVFs far too much—but the new K3 looks very nice indeed. If it had an EVF I'd be all over it.
For a Leica-ish small camera I'd strongly consider Fuji's X-100s. Or a Panasonic GX7 with either an Olympus 17/1.8 or Panasonic 20/1.7 lens. (I own a GX7 and both lenses.)
-Dave-
My first dip into digital was with the Pentax ist, what a great little camera that was, I moved up to a Canon 30D expecting things to be so much better, but they weren't, spent too long trying to make sense of that thing before switching back to Pentax and the, K10 and then K5, but Pentax have just sat on their hands since, so it was time to move on. Shame really as they were doing so well.
-
I use 4 by 5 camera, and hasselblad h2 with it.
My teachers used to carry a black leica, a small Japanese camera in old days. ...on the neck and shoulders....
I saw some canons in B&H, but for some reasons, my mind is not going there. They don't seem to have the old-black-leica kind of spirit... too many buttons, the shape is not upto the great design...
What would be a similar camera with the black leica with 35mm lens nowadays? Is it still a digital black leica?
Thanks in advance.
I think you answered your own question.
If money is not the issue, then a M9 or Leica 240, if money is an option the a used Leica m8, because they're going for point and shoot money.
Everything else, large or small everyone will debate until your computer runs out of memory.
The debate will be better larger frame size (always larger frame size) more pixels (always more pixels), more DR (always more dr), low noise at a billion iso (always about noise in shadows at a billion iso), but they'll never mention the joy of using a camera you find special, or how If you ever actually take a beautiful photograph with it.
You understand the ccd look (and yes that will be debated also), you appreciate european design and if your shooting professional work with a Hasselblad, you obviously not swayed by the D800 A7R syndrome.
I own a lot of cameras, for a lot of different uses, some I like, some I love, some are just tools of the trade, but I bought an M8 when it first came out, had never owned a rangefinder in my life though when I shoot with it I find it a joy and I would be surprised if I ever sell it.
The downside is it's manual focus, the lenses if you don't shop around are expensive, you'll need some extra batteries, the bottom plate has to be removed to change cards.
The upside is if something only the owner and user will understand.
(http://russellrutherford.com/leica_desert.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
I think you answered your own question.
If money is not the issue, then a M9 or Leica 240, if money is an option the a used Leica m8, because they're going for point and shoot money.
Everything else, large or small everyone will debate until your computer runs out of memory.
The debate will be better larger frame size (always larger frame size) more pixels (always more pixels), more DR (always more dr), low noise at a billion iso (always about noise in shadows at a billion iso), but they'll never mention the joy of using a camera you find special, or how If you ever actually take a beautiful photograph with it.
You understand the ccd look (and yes that will be debated also), you appreciate european design and if your shooting professional work with a Hasselblad, you obviously not swayed by the D800 A7R syndrome.
I own a lot of cameras, for a lot of different uses, some I like, some I love, some are just tools of the trade, but I bought an M8 when it first came out, had never owned a rangefinder in my life though when I shoot with it I find it a joy and I would be surprised if I ever sell it.
The downside is it's manual focus, the lenses if you don't shop around are expensive, you'll need some extra batteries, the bottom plate has to be removed to change cards.
The upside is if something only the owner and user will understand.
(http://russellrutherford.com/leica_desert.jpg)
IMO
BC
I hear the M9 actually works without needing pull-battery-wait resetting, needs no IR filters, and has decent Hi-ISO.
Picture-wise the M8 is actually as good as cooter says, but if it's the only camera you have you will become a nervous wreck.
Edmund
-
Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 - is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?
-
Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 - is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?
Fujifilm X100s, not X100, Sir… There is a difference.
For longer focal lengths Fuji X-series bodies with exchangeable lenses, 35mm 1.4 is great, the new 56mm 1.2 is likely be great also, but cannot be small. 18-55 2.8-4 zoom is also great if one is into zooms.
-
if money is an option the a used Leica m8, because they're going for point and shoot money...
And the reason is .. there's an 'end-of-life' notice out on the M8. If you crack the rear LCD, Leica can no longer replace it. The camera is scrap.
Picture-wise the M8 is actually as good as cooter says, but if it's the only camera you have you will become a nervous wreck.
Never felt the need to reach for the Valium, I've had mine since they were first released and have never had any power, banding or battery problems. They also don't need an IR filter unless you go below 35mm.
-
Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 - is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?
Fujifilm X-E1 with either a 35 or 50 Summicron (non-asph)
-
thanks for the suggestion. I will do some research for this(maybe used leica m8) as well.
My main camera is sinar p2 :) With it, I think I learned to be patient. Hassel is just for some cases.
It's for my personal work...so, I don't need a fast focus. Manual is perfect.
Your point about really being able to like using it, seems to be important to me also.
Sometimes, I don't need or want to see through the viewfinder or set the focus through it since I spend a lot of time for those in job. I need something which can be a part of me~ :)
and also something with which I don't bother other people's feeling when pointing to them.. which I can feel when others point the camera to me on street...
Strangely, I don't feel like using any zoom lens for this, I mean the shape when it zooming in~ haha
Thanks all!
-
The M...
Well to be honest, the files are great. That's prety much
What I love about the M.
I've been shooting with it in amateur sessions, you know
Those when you meet with talents at a friend's studio
For the fun, with iberico ham and Rioja wine.
Don't know if because of the wine vapors but
The camera is a damn brick and tend to slide in hands.
I don't find the handling natural at all and it's rather on
The big size. Then, I do not focus well with it. Whatever
I've been trying, I find it damn hard to nail the focus.
It's totally vintage approach, for the good and the hugly
But frankly it's more an extravagant elegant camera
From another age. I'd be much more interested to try
A S, but it's out of question for me because of the price
Of the all system, as I do not shoot stills profesionaly
But just to maintain the buzz sort of alive.
What I really love with the Pentax is that it does not
Copy a vintage camera rehorned at the digital sauce. It's
Built to work in the hardest conditions in the spirit of
Cine cams.
Michael said a long time ago that the Pentax had no
Issues but was a boring camera. I understood his view,
But I think that they are underestimated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obRn__ZBq2A
-
Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 - is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?
I've shot a lot of cameras over the years. The Fuji X Pro 1 with the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 lens is something special. (It's an APS sensor, so the coverage is like a 50mm in full frame terms.)
-
And the reason is .. there's an 'end-of-life' notice out on the M8. If you crack the rear LCD, Leica can no longer replace it. The camera is scrap.
Never felt the need to reach for the Valium, I've had mine since they were first released and have never had any power, banding or battery problems. They also don't need an IR filter unless you go below 35mm.
I have had a bunch of replacements, and field failures - the power system is defective on a lot of them, if your batteries go down while you're shooting, the camera freezes and there is no quick way to reset although a good battery may save you. As for filters, colors are ok without them except everything made of nylon and colored black to the eye prints deep magenta, while natural materials that look black tend to print black; this happens reliably and has nothing to do with focal length and a lot to do with the fact that the camera "sees" near infrared; images will also be slightly blurred because of this. There is some UV sensitivity in the original S system, solved by UV filters built into the lenses. Which means that anyone using third party lenses on S should probably add a filter too.
I would recommend an M9 over an M8 for anyone wanting to use a Leica in real life, in fact I'm shopping for one and I can assure people here that the files are not the issue.
Edmund
-
I hear good things about the Sigma pocket range.
-
To be honest, all digital is so good, or better put, so close to each other.
Fred 2 posted one of those links where you can compare cameras at the same iso and settings and there is such a small difference, it just doesn't matter.
I know my $6,000 1dx shoots virtually the same file up to 1000 iso as my little em-5. Naturally the em-5 isn't as robust, doesn't tether, etc. etc., but using the right prime lens the files are equal and I'm sure it's the same with a Fuji, a Leica a Sony (as long as the Sony doesn't shake).
The only time I see a great deal of difference is in lenses. Good oem primes seem to make a huge difference, vs. zooms and not just in sharpness or detail but in total look.
IMO
BC
-
The right answer to the OP's question is: whichever camera he likes best from the following list, kindly compiled by the assembled authorities:
- Pentax K-anything with pancake lenses ----> if you want a mini-slr
- Olympus OM-D, 5-1-EOMG-1/5 (or whatever it's now called) ----> if you like a micro, faux-slr, w/EVF
- Fuji X100s if you like a fixed 35mm lens and love the Leica ethos
- Fuji X-Pro1, E, etc ---> if you like the Leica ethos but want interchangeable lenses
- Leica M9 -----> if you like focusing manually and have rich parents or a real-estate portfolio :P
Happy shooting,
- N.
-
To be honest, all digital is so good, or better put, so close to each other. ... The only time I see a great deal of difference is in lenses.
Agreed: I recommend looking at how well the lens choices fit with what you want to do with the small camera, including the high end "compacts" with a largish sensor and and a fixed lens. Any sensor format from 1" up can provide fine images for the occasions when you want to leave the big kit behind.
-
FWIW,
I helped a friend buy a new camera the other day. She's a girl, so size and style was very important to her. After I gave her a few options, she immediately zeroed in on the Fuji XE2 and pretty much fell in love with it when she tried it.
After we bought it, I spent some time with it and was extremely impressed. It has great colors out of the box and is overall very responsive and really well built. Even the kit lens is rather neat.
I would definitely consider it as a top choice for a "small" camera.
-
I've heard this from others but don't understand why some find it difficult and others such as myself take to it like a duck to water. Before I bought into Leica I thought I might like the cameras despite the rangefinder but found myself loving them because of it.
The problem with the leica is it's a few lens camera. Anything past 50mm get's challanged to focus including the 90mm.
I couldn't wait to put the leica 90 on my m43 systems and was surprised at how much it underperformed in comparison to the olympus primes. I'm sure a lot of this is just in camera optimization, though I guess it doesn't matter, as long as it's sharp enough.
Actually I never bought a m43 for stills but the gh3's for video which worked really well and added the em-5 on a whim. Only after shooting a few serious images with the em-5 did I realize how good it was and bought an em-1 (yes olympus naming is very hard to follow, though so are most).
The interesting thing about these small camera systems is how much easier they are to transport. I'm use to large cameras and a lot of equipment, but recently moved our contax system on a long flight and was shocked at how large and heavy they were compared to that little m43 system.
Anyway, even if your buying a small camera for fun, if your semi serious you'll probably add lenses and I'd look at the available lenses before I put down the cash.
IMO
BC
-
I couldn't wait to put the leica 90 on my m43 systems and was surprised at how much it underperformed in comparison to the olympus primes.
This is a fact Leica lenses owners have been pointed over and over again when they tried on m4/3. They thought
"Leica divine quality" would enhance their m4/3 and they are actually worse than the Oly primes.
Thing that I found too when I tried.
But hey, we should not forget that Olympus knows how to make great glasses.
And...if...simply those Oly were better optics? (I know to say that something is better than Leica might sounds
an Heresy but...could it be?)
The problem with the leica is it's a few lens camera. Anything past 50mm get's challanged to focus including the 90mm.
Totally.
I don't know with what lens Bruce Gilden is shooting his N.Y candid but for sure a wide in hyperfocal otherwise...
although he may still uses analog body that I wouldn't be surprised and the tolerances are not as strics as in digital.
Ps: Keith might like the vintage cars...preferently british for the oxydation buzz. You know those Triumphs that we were
driving to the Wight island damped roads (paths?) listening to Daltrey and Townsend (...I wasn't born yet, okay my generation -pun intended-
belongs more to Morissey).
Gosh...give me a M and I buy an E-Type, with rust of course.
Keith, don't tell me that you bought one of those new conceptual Mini...you didn't, didn't you?
-
But hey, we should not forget that Olympus knows how to make great glasses.
And...if...simply those Oly were better optics? (I know to say that something is better than Leica might sounds
an Heresy but...could it be?)
I think nearly all oem lenses are better than others. Maybe a few Zeiss aftermarket manuals are "slightly" sharper, but not enough for the asking price.
I know with the Olympus primes I have both of my bodies turned down to minus sharpening and zero noise reduction, preferring to add it in post if needed, though I think we have too much obsession on ultra sharp images.
For still and the OM series I use only primes as I find the zooms not necessarily soft, but it seems like something is missing.
For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.
I believe that when I tested the om series against the sony A7 and found the om a better looking file was I was using the olympus primes and on the sony the A mount zeiss.
Yes, Olympus can make lenses and there is only two holes in their system. Needs a fast 1.7 or so 100 to 110 and a fast 9mm or 10mm wide probably f2 at the slowest.
But olympus lenses hold up in price and quality.
The 100mm F2 for the film om series still sells for a thousand dollars. That's a lot for a small manual lens. (though of course not Leica prices)
IMO
BC
-
I don't know with what lens Bruce Gilden is shooting his N.Y candid ...
28mm Elmarit - f2.8 (asph)
-
I think nearly all oem lenses are better than others. Maybe a few Zeiss aftermarket manuals are "slightly" sharper, but not enough for the asking price.
I know with the Olympus primes I have both of my bodies turned down to minus sharpening and zero noise reduction, preferring to add it in post if needed, though I think we have too much obsession on ultra sharp images.
For still and the OM series I use only primes as I find the zooms not necessarily soft, but it seems like something is missing.
For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.
I believe that when I tested the om series against the sony A7 and found the om a better looking file was I was using the olympus primes and on the sony the A mount zeiss.
Yes, Olympus can make lenses and there is only two holes in their system. Needs a fast 1.7 or so 100 to 110 and a fast 9mm or 10mm wide probably f2 at the slowest.
But olympus lenses hold up in price and quality.
The 100mm F2 for the film om series still sells for a thousand dollars. That's a lot for a small manual lens. (though of course not Leica prices)
IMO
BC
A question James (sorry to be out of topic but it falls naturally after this quote):
You said that the GH3 is a great step in terms of AF accuracy for motion and indeed the camera has this reputation.
But what's not clear for me is if it's the GH3 with the Pana lenses only or it would AF as well with the Oly lenses too?
Being the same m4/3 standart.
-
28mm Elmarit - f2.8 (non-asph)
Thanks Manoli. That explains why he does not have focus issues.
-
Hey, my car is one of the only things I prefer without rust.
I knew it!...
(there was a Leica called Mini actually, I didn't know that)
-
For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.
Probably slightly of topic but any zooms in particular that you would recommend?
-
A post on producing large prints with the Fuji X100s:
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/16620-large-format-printing-with-the-x100s/#entry176813