Your most used, robust and advanced digital camera

Ko.Fe. said:
I have RP. Here is no compact lenses in RF mount. Only 50 1.8.
Compact Canon EF lenses looks utterly ugly on it via bulky adapter.
R is just as heavy and bulky as 5D MKII.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you want your robust and most used camera to have autofocus lenses. If not, passive adapters will give you access to dozens of small legacy lenses from Pentax, Olympus and other brands. Minolta and Contax tend to be a bit bigger, but Pentax M and A SMC, Super Takumars etc are tiny. And they will work well with your RP, unlike the rangefinder lenses designed for film.

As others have said, a reasonable option is a secondhand Sony A7r II, maybe pair this with Sony's compact lenses like the 35/f28, 28/2 and 55/1.8. Sony have also released a set of very small primes with f2.5 aperture, and Sigma have the Contemporary 24/3.5, 35/2, 45/2.8, 65/2. That's the direction I would head if I were starting from scratch and wanted a compact but robust setup.



 
Update.
I'm still digging.
Nikon Z, Sony A7 series have requirements to do heavy editing to get on the "right side" of the colors I like. Not interested in this.
Panasonic S5 is better, but its AF sucks for even simple video. Leica SL is even more better on colors and sharpness, but it is just old digital Leica. We all know what it means.
I like the fact Panasonic has Leica labeled lenses for M43. But G9 is just not my camera, tested in hands and it has odd color cast on skin under low light.
GRX 50R is amazing on low ISO and static objects. Once something is moving or low light, it is on pair with mobile phones cameras.

I'm looking at what I could get with OMD E-M1 III. I like small size, no plastic build, how it looks overall and PRO lenses are OK. Just need one zoom. And 15 1.7 for indoors, plus one macro lens, 45 2.8 examples are impressive.

Yet, results I have seen from OMD 1 and 5 series are all over the map. Some are getting sharp portraits and landscapes. I like how all is in focus on f4, f5.6 comparing to f11 needed on FF.
But many images are not sharp.

What should I do with OMD to get sharp images on 2800 pixels at the long side images? I use this size as final for view on screens and L size printing.
 
You are completely wrong on the GFX-50R and the OMD; both are great cameras and you should be able to get great results with both and neither have results like a cellphone if you know anything about photography at all.
 
jsrockit said:
You are completely wrong on the GFX-50R and the OMD; both are great cameras and you should be able to get great results with both and neither have results like a cellphone if you know anything about photography at all.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I know about technical aspects of photography much more than you.
And I don't wear Fuji horse blinds as you do.
 
It is still early days yet with my new-ish Nikon Zfc, but so far the camera has done everything I've needed it to do. To the point where I cannot think of a good reason to go back to full frame, with the bigger bodies and bulkier lenses. One other nice aspect of carrying the Zfc is that everyone thinks it's a film camera, and they seem to relax a bit, even asking "can you still get film for that thing?". I have no interest in spending Digital M Money (DMM) on a camera.

I haven't put it through any kind of stress tests yet, with regard to really low light or strange color temperatures, but so far it is doing fine. It is small, lightweight, built better than it seems at first look, and the little kit lens (16-50) is remarkable sharp and contrasty. It also seems to play nice with my M lenses. The EVF is good enough for manual focus.

How long will it hold up? who knows? Nikon has a good history with this type of camera (the internals), so chances are good. Certainly (maybe) longer than my GR3, which takes great images, but seems slightly "fragile" to me.
 
I moved from the Sony A7M II to the Sony A7M III. I have the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and the Sony 24 - 240mm lenses. The camera is stellar, a "git 'er done" camera. I have a very high batting average of in-focus, properly exposed photos. It is nice to know I can count on that. I just need now to make them better photos. Yes, I am a Sony whore. I have had a Sony digital since the beginning of 2000 and always liked what they do.

That said, I use the M9 mostly and perhaps will start using the M240, too. They are good cameras.
 
Last edited:
I loved my first digital camera, an Olympus C-8080, a real small magnesium brick, it made me fall in love with photography.

Another wonderfull camera I owned is my last reflex, the Sony Alpha 900, very bulky, incredible viewfinder, never had a flaw back in the years I used it as my only camera.
its ugliness made it beautiful.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Sorry, I know about technical aspects of photography much more than you.
And I don't wear Fuji horse blinds as you do.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok buddy. You would not make those comments if you were so technically adept. This is not about any specific brand. All of these modern cameras are good and if a persons images look like they came out of a cellphone, it is not the cameras fault.
 
I still own most of the digital cameras I have owned. The D3 is pretty robust. But none of these machines are "robust" in the way that I used to understand the term. That is, with a Leica, you could dent it, ding it, submerge it, electrocute it, bake it. For most of those challenges, a competent fine machinist, or a Leica repair person could put the machine back in working order. Ditto the Nikon F3. Keep in mind too, that the F3's, M3's Canon A-1's -- they were designed to run for decades with regular maintenance. Most of the cameras being produced today are electronic consumer goods. With the emphasis on "consumer" as in they get consumed. The only ones that have quit on me? Canon Rebel (mirror return), M9 (sensor glass corrosion), Ricoh GRII (beats the hell out of me, just stopped working), Olympus OM-D-E5 (cracked screen. . . but still works). But even that Nikon D3. . . . hit it hard enough and a circuit board will crack. And don't go looking for replacements on a Leica M-timescale. That's just not the business model any more.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I still own most of the digital cameras I have owned. The D3 is pretty robust. But none of these machines are "robust" in the way that I used to understand the term. That is, with a Leica, you could dent it, ding it, submerge it, electrocute it, bake it. For most of those challenges, a competent fine machinist, or a Leica repair person could put the machine back in working order. Ditto the Nikon F3. Keep in mind too, that the F3's, M3's Canon A-1's -- they were designed to run for decades with regular maintenance. Most of the cameras being produced today are electronic consumer goods. With the emphasis on "consumer" as in they get consumed. The only ones that have quit on me? Canon Rebel (mirror return), M9 (sensor glass corrosion), Ricoh GRII (beats the hell out of me, just stopped working), Olympus OM-D-E5 (cracked screen. . . but still works). But even that Nikon D3. . . . hit it hard enough and a circuit board will crack. And don't go looking for replacements on a Leica M-timescale. That's just not the business model any more.
Click to expand...

I have dropped E-PL1 on cement and in the snow. It still works :)
My Rebel from 2009 works without any service, checked two weeks ago 80K images been taken.
I would not compare any film M with camera like F2. M are just flaiky, with few old and older people able to service them as long as LCAG is willing to sell parts to them, F2 will overlast all F3 and it could be serviced by person who is servicing Ladas in garage. https://youtu.be/Pcw1k0VHTtA
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah ok buddy. You would not make those comments if you were so technically adept. This is not about any specific brand. All of these modern cameras are good and if a persons images look like they came out of a cellphone, it is not the cameras fault.
Click to expand...

Wish ignore list still works, including primitive trolls like you.
 
Candidates

Panasonic -G1, Nikon D200/300/700, FUJIFILM X-100, X-100T, X-T1, X-Pro 1, X-Pro 2


Most Used - Nikon D700

From April 2010 until May 2014 I used two bodies for commercial interiors photography. Over a year I estimate there was an average of three gigs per week. That's a lot of raw files.

Most Robust - Tie: Nikon D700, D300, D200 and FUJIFIM X-T1

These were used for commercial interiors photography at remote locations. I lugged them all over the St. Louis Mo ,metropolitan area in all kinds of weather. None of these ever failed. If I had to pick one, it would be the D700 because I used it for four years. These cameras never had a problem. One of the D700 bodies (with a large 17-35/2.8 lens) survived a serious impact when the tripod fell over.

Most Advanced - FUJIFILM X-Pro 2

This camera has the best data-stream, technical performance (SNR and DR). The dual conversion-gain camera ISO setting feature makes a difference. While I only use the AF in a minimalist , manual fashion, the more automated modes work and offer flexibility. The D300/700 AF system is more versatile but the menu parameters setup takes more effort and experience to optimize performance.

The optical rangefinder is sophisticated and brings me joy.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Oh dear,
Last thing I would do is to switch from Canon made in Japan DSLRs to elsewhere DSLRs.
It got to be the mirrorless, but not Nikon colors. :)
Click to expand...

Dear Ko.Fe., All of my Nikons have "Made in Japan" on the data plate. All of them. If Canon is your preference, that is fine, dear. But you did ask, darling. And so I told you.
As far as your rudeness to jsrockit, you should apologize. That remark about troll was uncalled for. And, in point of fact, he is right. They are all good, it is your interaction and working with the camera which will make the biggest difference. Only you will know this preference and thus it is pointless to ask others for advice. This begs the question: who is the troll?

Be nice, be civil, and if you don't like someone's opinion, you needn't castigate them. Simply move on.

Now, back to your question. If mirrorless it must to be, I have shot over 100,000 frames on my X100 X100T and X100F. I am a full time journo and have not seen shutter problems. I work in the Maghreb and Levant but mostly Italy and east of my country. So salt, sand, and wind. I make the lens fall off of my X100F but that was my own harshness and abuse with the camera - I fell off of a truck while trying to make a picture. I shoot a lot with GR III because of snap focus feature. No problems with that camera at all - other than battery life (I carry five). I would say that it seems somewhat fragile around the lens cover mechanism and mine requires a little "help" to close when I am turning it off. I don't use the big Nikons anymore for the same reasons you may saying - too heavy/big. My requirements are for printable image never larger than 12" x 18" and I hardly use longer than 75mm FL (in 135 format) and I most often shoot 28mm and 35mm (in 135). If I do need longer focal lengths I use D3 and D700 but it is hardly needed and you, by your own words, not like them.

These are the data. Use it wisely.

Ciao,

Mme. O.
 
Who keeps a sole camera for very long anymore? Build quality is plenty good for the life of the modern camera. Sensor size is pretty much a non issue as well these days, anything can put out a great image, look at Chris Crawfords work from a u4/3 camera. In that the main place most of us display our work is the internet makes the varying differences in sensor size and Pixel count moot, what does it all matter? Get a camera that fits your hand and mind better and don't worry about the rest of the nonsense.
 
Kostya, I was thinking this morning that you may enjoy a Fuji X-T1 and a complement of their small primes such as the 23mm ƒ/2, 18mm ƒ/2 and 16mm ƒ/2.8. I use the 23mm ƒ/2 quite a bit on my X-Pro1 and X-Pro3. There is almost no visible distortion. It has a smooth, high contrast look due in part to the vignetting. Black and white pictures are velvet with it.

The X-T1 has what I think was Fuji's X-Trans best sensor for black and white. You can dig an almost unlimited amount of detail out of shadows up to ISO 2500. Highlight recovery is quite good too. Fuji's older bodies had mediocre autofocus but the autofocus on the X-T1 should work fine using the newer 23mm ƒ/2 and 16mm ƒ/2.8 primes. Manual focus is by wire but all Fuji X cameras show a distance scale in the viewfinder to zone focus with. The sensor is 16MP.

One common problem to be aware of is that rubber on the grip can corrode and peel off. Magnification of the EVF is a comfortable 0.77x but you should try to handle one to see whether you can live with it.

Here are some examples, taken with the XF23mm ƒ/2 on the Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro3. Neither of these share the sensor of the X-T1. I hope to post some pictures from my X100S later to give you a sense of what it can do in black and white, as it does share the sensor of the X-T1.
Untitled by Pierre Saget, on Flickr
Construction by Pierre Saget, on Flickr
Untitled by Pierre Saget, on Flickr
Untitled by Pierre Saget, on Flickr
Women's March by Pierre Saget, on Flickr
 
Kostya, I also feel compelled to say that you were completely out of line in your comments to jsrockit, first in remarking "I know more about photography than you" for his differing opinion and then calling him a "primitive troll" when he responded. I enjoy this forum for the supportive community and found it extremely disappointing seeing a photographer I admire so rudely attack another photographer I admire utterly without provocation. Let's leave this kind of behavior to other, lesser forums, okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom