Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I more or less stopped buying new cameras with the M9 (made an exception for the Pentax K1 a couple of years ago when it was on sale). The reason is that cameras -- all digital cameras anyway -- have been "good enough" in terms of image quality for years, at least for my purposes. My recent practice has been to look at cameras that are several years old and are selling at a good discount on the used market. The Fuji X-Pro 2 has caught my eye recently, as an example. I wondered what the RFF hive mind thinks is the sweet spot for cost/quality right now.
I keep waiting for the Sonys to get cheap -- they haven't yet. Ditto anything in medium format. I thought at one time that I'd be able to afford a Hasselblad digital back that I could use on a C/M body when prices came down a bit, but that now seems unlikely no matter how much time has passed. I just think the numbers produced were so small that they will always be a bit rare, and therefore expensive.
So whaddaya think? I am not particularly wedded to the RF-format for this question. If you think the Nikon D3 at $300 is really the best value for the money, I'd like to hear why. My own needs are good low light performance to at least ISO 1600 (which has been pretty easy for at least the last 7-8 years). Similarly, if Fuji's underrated gem of an X-H1 is today's sweet spot, please make your case.
FWIW, my current stable includes the aforementioned M9 and K1, as well as a Nikon D3, a Fuji xPro1, an Olympus OM-D E-M1 and various older digital Pens.
I keep waiting for the Sonys to get cheap -- they haven't yet. Ditto anything in medium format. I thought at one time that I'd be able to afford a Hasselblad digital back that I could use on a C/M body when prices came down a bit, but that now seems unlikely no matter how much time has passed. I just think the numbers produced were so small that they will always be a bit rare, and therefore expensive.
So whaddaya think? I am not particularly wedded to the RF-format for this question. If you think the Nikon D3 at $300 is really the best value for the money, I'd like to hear why. My own needs are good low light performance to at least ISO 1600 (which has been pretty easy for at least the last 7-8 years). Similarly, if Fuji's underrated gem of an X-H1 is today's sweet spot, please make your case.
FWIW, my current stable includes the aforementioned M9 and K1, as well as a Nikon D3, a Fuji xPro1, an Olympus OM-D E-M1 and various older digital Pens.
Dogman
Veteran
Nikon D800/D800E/D810. They can be found in good condition at decent prices and are capable of (film) medium format quality. You can also finesse the files and get some really gnarly, gritty results if you wanna. If you're really fond of the D3, consider the D700. Basically the same as the D3 in a smaller package, cheaper to buy and it still makes some sweet files--it's my favorite Nikon camera ever and I go back to the Nikon F days. The Fuji X-Pro2 is still a great camera that many, myself included, prefer to the X-Pro3. Like all Fujis, it's quirky but the photos that come out of it are worth putting up with those quirks.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I bought a Nikon 8400 back in 2005, my first digital camera. I bought it for the 24mm lens and I was (and still am) very happy with the quality of the pictures it takes. They are certainly good enough for me. I became increasingly frustrated with its poor AF ( this thing is almost blind in low light or poor contrast) and ended buying a EOS10D which I still have and use occasionally.
But I have no real interest in digital. With the meteoric rise of mobile phone cameras, my mobile is the best value digital camera I use. My mobile phone takes better pictures than the old 10D and is good enough to photograph the kids or for a casual snapshot. For everything else I use film.
But I have no real interest in digital. With the meteoric rise of mobile phone cameras, my mobile is the best value digital camera I use. My mobile phone takes better pictures than the old 10D and is good enough to photograph the kids or for a casual snapshot. For everything else I use film.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I agree with Pan. I have been resistant to purchasing a digital camera although it has been in my thoughts many times. My last digital camera purchase was a Canon S90 in 2009 and since then, have just used my iPhone 4, 6, and currently 11.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm in a very similar position to Benjamin's. I have D700, D300, M9, M9M, X100, X10, X20, Leica D-Lux 6. I can't say I actually need anything. Like Benjamin, the image quality I get is good enough.
So why am I even thinking about this? Well, for one thing, I'd like to have a tiny pocket size digital with the form factor of a Minox B. That would be great. I could always have a camera with me without having bulging pockets. I don't like taking pictures with a cell phone. I don't know why. But I don't know of any camera that meets that description.
Benjamin's idea of a digital back for my Hasselblad seems a little bit exciting, but apparently they are still too pricey--and there is a crop factor, I recall. Besides, I keep thinking of downsizing my Hassie outfit. You can only get just so much stuff into a Jeep Wrangler; and I have a wife; and I insist on having both my Jeep and my wife.
One thing I'd like to do is to sell my X20, which isn't that much of an improvement over the X10, and think about maybe a used X30. I'd like that improved viewfinder. Or else I might prefer a P&S that zooms out to 24mm equivalent. Maybe from Panasonic. My LeicaSonic D-Lux 6 already does that, but it has no viewfinder, and sometimes you need one.
I know I will buy a D800 or D850 at some point.
And what about that digital back for the 500CM? Maybe I could downsize somewhat, and still make room for a digital back (leave some film backs home?) and I could get more use out of my Hassie. I think I'll go look on eBay.
So why am I even thinking about this? Well, for one thing, I'd like to have a tiny pocket size digital with the form factor of a Minox B. That would be great. I could always have a camera with me without having bulging pockets. I don't like taking pictures with a cell phone. I don't know why. But I don't know of any camera that meets that description.
Benjamin's idea of a digital back for my Hasselblad seems a little bit exciting, but apparently they are still too pricey--and there is a crop factor, I recall. Besides, I keep thinking of downsizing my Hassie outfit. You can only get just so much stuff into a Jeep Wrangler; and I have a wife; and I insist on having both my Jeep and my wife.
One thing I'd like to do is to sell my X20, which isn't that much of an improvement over the X10, and think about maybe a used X30. I'd like that improved viewfinder. Or else I might prefer a P&S that zooms out to 24mm equivalent. Maybe from Panasonic. My LeicaSonic D-Lux 6 already does that, but it has no viewfinder, and sometimes you need one.
I know I will buy a D800 or D850 at some point.
And what about that digital back for the 500CM? Maybe I could downsize somewhat, and still make room for a digital back (leave some film backs home?) and I could get more use out of my Hassie. I think I'll go look on eBay.
shawn
Veteran
For a tiny pocket size digital look at either the Sony RX0 or DXO One. The Sony has a wider lens (24mm FOV vs 32mm FOV), has a real screen with full (tiny) controls, replaceable battery but is a little more blocky than the DXO. The DXO is smaller, higher resolution, has an actual shutter and aperture (Sony is fixed at f4) and is sharper than the Sony. DXO has almost no controls when used standalone (plug into phone to adjust more) and has an odd method of framing on a tiny screen.
Shawn
Shawn
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yeah, but I'm still waiting for Minox to make something the size, form factor, and 8x11mm format of the "B" with a digital sensor. It could have a tiny screen on the wider side of the case, if possible; or no screen if there's not enough room for the electronics. The same fixed focal length, manual focus, and shutter speed dial, but hopefully with an aperture priority option and an LED or three for exposure indication. 5 or 6MP should be plenty; even 4MP would be good enough. I don't see why such a camera wouldn't be popular.
I was with you until 5 or 6mp. Where would they even get those these days? I would imagine it would be cheaper for them to implement a modern 20mp 1" sensor since those are actually available. It needs an LCD as well... or tiny EVF. As far as popularity, I think you overestimate the amount of people who would rather use this than a phone. I'd like one though...
Ok, so you have a great modern DSLR already. A Digital rangefinder better than the M9 is not cheap. So, yes... maybe you should be looking at the X-Pro2. Even cheaper but similar internal features is the X-T2.
As far as cheap, digital medium format, there's the Pentax 645D and the Fujifilm GFX-50R or 50S used. But still, not cheap.
Some great used deals IMO are the Canon 6D, Nikon D610 and Fujifilm X-T2.
The RX0 is too square for the pocket IMO.
shawn
Veteran
Stop wearing skinny jeans.
Really depends upon the pocket. With jeans it is too tight, with slacks less so, fits a shirt pocket easily.
Shawn
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Minox did make a digital camera called a DSC, with the same shape as a film Minox. As well, I’m pretty sure that some of the Sharan/Minox cameras (such as their miniature M3) were also digital.
Stop wearing skinny jeans.
Really depends upon the pocket. With jeans it is too tight, with slacks less so, fits a shirt pocket easily.
Shawn
No skinny jeans, but I do not like a block sticking out either. Just because something fits does not mean it is comfortable or smooth.
Huh, interesting. Sure I knew of the miniature M3, Rollei etc. That was many years ago and they were novelty items. But yeah, an updated and modern DSC would be perfect. I have to admit I didn’t know if it.
Evergreen States
Francine Pierre Saget (they/them)
I've enjoyed the pictures from the X-Pro1 over the years even though I now shoot with an X-Pro3. But I'd never say it's a better value than a DSLR lol. Basically any Canon full frame from the 5D Mark II seems like a good buy and you can get a 5D MarkII for less than $1000. I don't know about Nikon as I haven't shot with one since the D60.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Maybe a Ricoh GRIII - it will fit in a shirt pocket.
35photo
Well-known
Nikon DF… if you don’t need crazy AF, excellent hi iso, if you don’t care about mpx it’s 16 plenty good, has a good viewfinder, takes pretty much all Nikon lenses but Z… fairly compact, some manual controls..
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I like my Pentax Q-S1. Without a lens on it the camera will fit easily into a pocket with a lens in another pocket. There are a few good lenses available, by Pentax, for the camera. I have the "close" zoom and the "far" zoom and the ~50mm prime equivalent. What is nice is that this camera punches well above it weight and is inexpensive for purchase. Nothing is quite as nice as an apples to apples comparison. Here are two Leicas, and a Sony A7 alongside the Q-S1 in comparison of the same scene at the same time. One test is worth a thousand opinions.
These can be had with a lens or two for ~US$300
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1151444856...80702890871448&abcId=9300602&merchantid=51291
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyn...57716739415061
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q-S1
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Last edited:
But it is still expensive, which seems to go against the thread.