Should I keep my DSLR?

[noimmunity]

seems like the OP's idea is clear and well-reasoned.

 

[dacookieman]

😀 It's surprising to me...I am really interested in digital cameras and quite enjoy trying new stuff...but when it comes down to it, I usually shoot film. It's not even the look...it's the process. I really feel like I'm DOING something.

Agreed. Sometimes its the process that really makes my day, the fiddling with my aperture, metering, composing, and the joy of taking pictures with my favourite cameras, makes me happy.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Ah, I'm kinda surprised at how many responses are here. Yeah, Barrett, I think the LX is a lifetime keeper--I love it! The only digital i've had so far that I also love is the R-D1, and I bought it only after it had already become "obsolete." It's an out-of-the-rat-race camera...it is what it is, and always will be.

m4/3 seems a good bet for me--it seems to be the format of choice for creative experimentation, is compact, and is a going concern across several manufacturers who can be expected to innovate further over the years. There was a small part of me, as I bought the K-7, that was thinking...are you sure you want to be in this game at all? I prolly should have listened to that voice, but I was (and still am) emotionally invested in Pentax.

I'm leaning toward blowing out the DSLR drawer now...gotta sleep on it some more though.

 

[jpa66]

I would just echo the voices that point out that, should you sell it now, you'll always be able to get something else in the future that's more than likely to be better and cheaper.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

In other words, it isn't worth owning new digital gear unless you really, really want it, because you can buy it back much more cheaply in a year, used, or even new, if you miss it.

A highly reasonable argument for the nervously-disposed gear whore that I am, thank you.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I think that in a recent thread we had _decided_ 😡

Digital is for work and film is for fun! 😀

GLF

 

[palker]

Wasn't there a famous photog who did just as you advice? he was in that BBC Genius of Photography - and his photo is on the back cover (of my edition) - can't remember his name - some American no doubt - fat and lazy - he fabricated the whole scene - talk about Decisive Moment .. anyway he got paid a fortune for doing just as you say.

Good to see RFF is still positive in its outlook - lol.

So to the OP - I'd look forward to some high paid gigs if I were you - and as soon as I get my Panny I'll let you know how my focus works - if at all different to my wife's P&S Canon - which is always funny in a party - when the number of my drinks exceeds the auto ISO settings 🙂 Never mind the colour of my eyes matching the auto WB.

 

[palker]

sorry I seemed to have posted twice - doh

 

[ZeissFan]

It's only digital. There is nothing classic about a digital camera. In two years, that model will be a "has been," even though it's perfectly capable of taking fine photos.

And if you want to buy one again, they'll be plentiful, because it's just another digital camera.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Eh, I think the R-D1 is a digital classic. When I bought it, it was already completely obsolete, and it's still worth what it was then (like 15 months ago). But it general I think you're right.

I do like digital photography, though...it's just a different experience from film, which I also like.

 

[KenRothman]

I did it.

Granted, it was "only" a Rebel XT... but i also had about 4 nice canon lenses, a metz flash etc...

Dumped all of it. Bought an E-P1. Have the kit zoom and the Voigtlander M-adapter for my nokton 40mm 1.4SC. gonna get the panny 20mm lens soon, too.

no regrets.

now i'm thinking about "upgrading" my bessa R3A to an M6. I'm going mental.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Oh, man, you're in trouble. 🙂

 

[TKH]

Dont like to say someone is wrong, but there is something I cannt understand:

How can you take pics with a "camera" that you have to hold two feeds away from your face?? It looks stupid and (sorry) it is stupid. Little girls point and shoot. So selling the K7 is OK, but only for a rangefinder (Leica M8/9 or Epson Rd1) or when there is a MFT that has a really working in house viewfinder.

So question: Is there a MFT onthe marcet that has a really viewfinder?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Dont like to say someone is wrong, but there is something I cannt understand:

How can you take pics with a "camera" that you have to hold two feeds away from your face?? It looks stupid and (sorry) it is stupid. Little girls point and shoot. So selling the K7 is OK, but only for a rangefinder (Leica M8/9 or Epson Rd1) or when there is a MFT that has a really working in house viewfinder.

So question: Is there a MFT onthe marcet that has a really viewfinder?

Yes, the Pana GF-1 has an accessory EVF, which I may buy if enough people give it a good report.

As for the "looks stupid, is stupid" argument, what are you, foruteen years old? Who gives a crap what they look like while shooting? And are you so unimaginative that you can't conceive of someone taking good photographs using a technique different from the one you think looks coolest?

 

[TKH]

Wow!
Thats a big surprise.
I never thaught that in a rangefinder forum I would learn that it could be a good idea to cancel the optical viewfinder and look on a lcd screen. 🙄

And no, Im not 14. You wont believe it, but there are things who look stupid and are stupid. For example riding a motorbike free hand, or trying to take a photo witthout a good viewfinder.

 

[fergus]

...there are things who look stupid and are stupid. For example riding a motorbike free hand...

No no no... that's just fun!

"Stupid" is riding your motorbike, with no helmet, drinking from beer can, on public roads, past the police academy where they instruct (and practice with) the highway patrol officers... ah memories from teenage days.

And yes, they 'got' me...

Back on topic - DSLR is for things you can't do easily with rangefinders... fast auto-focus sports shooting, long super-tele-photo lens work, etc...

You can always replace your DSLR, they are always releasing the newest latest and greatest thing. Keep the lenses (someone else mentioned that earlier).

Cheers...
Fergus.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Trying to hold and aim a camera at arms length is tiring. Having to put on my reading glasses to see the screen is a royal pain. I don't need to be able to see my Leica. I can set the controls by feel. The image storage medium is long lasting. Nothing in the process requires upgrading or copying to new media. If I want to give a bit of a vintage look to my old images I scan off the old contact sheets. If I want a nice clean image the negatives still print as well today as they did half a century ago.

And YES, you can always replace your DSLR with the newest every year or two, and probably need a new set of lenses every few times you do that. A waste of money.

 

[dee]

The screen focusing thing is awkward for me , but THE MAJORITY these days seem to know little else , so whose wrong ?
Luckily I have an M8 , so can choose to ignore the computer aspects as I wish and shoot much like a film camera . My ever-so-squinty Leica Dig 3 has a similar interface - quite the opposite of micro 4/3rds though ! Trouble is I don't trust auto focus lenses to focus where I need them too LOL .
As ever each to his/per own ... should have taken up knitting ... less controversy .

 

[Jay Decker]

Only reason I dumped it was because I finally gave up on the hand cramps. They made the G1 too damn small for my XXL mitts (same with the Oly 420 I tried last year.)

Thank you Frank! I'm 6'7" with big, thick hands. For me, a comfortably sized camera is a Bronica RF645.

Back to the OP's question. I recently when through this thought process and here are the relevant questions with answers and end result for my situation, which might be helpful to you.

1) Q: Are you satisfied with the digital aesthetic? A: No, I prefer the aesthetic of B&W film.

2) Q: Are you in an active learning mode? A: Yes, I'm working on lighting and LF?

3) Q: Are you "the photographer" for an active family and/or your children's events? A: Yes, I host most of the big family get togethers and have kids who are active in grade school and high school activities and sports.

Result: I decided to keep my DSLR for two reasons: 1) photographing family events and kid activities, and 2) to support my B&W film photography. In a couple months of casual work, I have learned more about studio lighting with my DSLR than I could have learned in five years with film. Additionally, a DSLR makes a great light meter in tough lighting situations that saves me a lot of frustration and film with in my LF work.

One other point... I have climbed off the Hamster Wheel of Digital Upgrades and intend to continue to stick with my Nikon D200, because it is good enough for what I use it for.

 

[splitimageview]

I went through the same thing about a year ago...picked up the Pana G1, and sold my D700 and all my Nikon lenses. Yes, it would have been nice to keep the D700 and my big zoom for the times when I went to see a ML baseball game or something, but events where I need that kind of capability are so infrequent it just didn't make sense keeping it around, watching it depreciate. The D700 is a great DSLR and low light capability is incredible, but it's also big and heavy. OK, so it can shoot at ISO 3200, but every event where I could use that kind of capability also requires the camera be quiet and discreet.

And now that it is gone, I found that I really didn't need high ISO performance nearly as often as I thought.

Now that there are several Pana lenses, such a switch makes even more sense. A year ago, there were only two lenses...the 14-45, and the 45-200. Now there is the 20mm pancake, the 7-14, the 14-140, and the 45mm Leica macro will be out shortly. The 7-14 is a fantastic lens, and super-tiny (for comparison the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is fantastic as well, but more money and huge.)

Although I'm tempted by the GF1, the only feature it has that the G1 doesn't is video. So I'll probably keep the G1. Oddly, the G1 is the first digital I've owned that, if I were to sell it, I could actually sell for more than I paid, nearly a year later...

I semi-can't-believe I'm writing this, but I'm seriously considering selling my entire DSLR rig and going micro-4/3. I've got the Pentax K-7, which I early-adopted a couple of months ago. It is a great camera...but all I've done since then is use my Leicas and R-D1.

I've got a Pana GF-1 on order, and if I like it, I may switch entirely to m4/3 for ultra-wide (7-14mm zoom!) and ultra-long, which are the reasons I have a DSLR rig at all. I would keep my LX, Pentax-M 24-35 zoom, and Pentax-A 50/1.7, and sell the K-7, 31/1.8, 15/3.5, 55-300 zoom, and 100/2.8. m4/3 is smaller, lighter, more RF-like, and takes EVERY FREAKING LENS EVER MADE. And if I want some full frame goodness, that's what film is for (and what I shoot more than half the time anyway).

I hate to fuss so much over gear. But m4/3 seems like such nerdy fun, what with all the adapters, and ever since the M7, I just don't use the Pentax. The one thing I would really miss is the 31/1.8, but for what it's worth I could have a 35/1.2 from CV and use it on my M's, R-D1, AND m4/3.

Because really. I don't shoot sports, birds, or airplanes, and 95% of my favorite photos I've ever taken come from mirrorless cameras.

your thoughts?