Can Someone Give me a Digital Camera Primer?

G

giganova

Well-known
Local time
4:40 AM
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,620
Hi all!

I've been shooting film my entire life, started on a Leica R system, later M, and recently medium format. But I think it's time to get into digital photography. So many sensors, sensor sizes, camera models, my head is spinning! I'm into social documentary projects, lots of travel, occasional street photography, with occasional landscape photography. I briefly had Nikons D810 and D610. Great picture quality, but D810 file sizes were too big for my taste, I think 24 Mpixel is more than enough. And I hated the form factor of these cameras and that they screamed "Caution! Professional photographer present!"

What I want is: small form factor with one prime lens for under $3k.
  • Sensor size: how importanrt is it? Full frame is always nice, I guess, but are DX, APS and 4/3 sensors a "step down"?
  • Is mirrorless the way to go? I find the latest Nikon Z and Canon R butt ugly, not my thing. Plus, they might be out of my price range.
  • Is L-mount the way to go? Stellar lenses are available from Leica and others, and the number of lenses and later down the road fresh new camera bodies (the new "disposable film" :D) is steadily increasing.
  • What's up with the Foveon sensors in the Sigma Quattro cameras? I absolutely love the form factor of these cameras, but they seem ultra slow, 10-sec to write one photo to the memory card?!
  • Love the look of the Leica TL2, but doesn't come with an EVF (the Leica add-on EVF is expensive and doesn't seem to be well integrated into the body), only the screen on the back, must be awkward to frame and focus.
If sky's the limit, I'd probably get a Leica SL or an M10 and stop thinking about it, but they are out of my price range.

Any recommendations for a 1-prime lens + digital body for under $3k?
 
Lots of options, Fuji has many small & light digitals with fast and optically superb lenses. The whole full-frame debate is pretty much moot, sensors are all more than good enough. After trying many including mirrorless and dslr, with all the sensor sizes, ive settled on Fuji as the sweet spot of price, size, performance, and great optics.

I’m having a lot of fun with the Fuji X-E3 which is small, light, fast, and has a great sensor. And it’s very easy to attach any number of primes to it for far less than $3k. And easy to adapt other lenses too.
 
Sensor sizes follor similar considerations as film formats. You use medium format so I suppose you might want full frame.
Another thing to think about is that with full frame, you can keep using your 35mm lenses and retain their field of view. That's what I'd do. No need to spend 3k, 800$ or so will get you a used A7mkII.
If you want AF or like the idea of getting narrower fov from your lenses, smaller sensor could be fine. But they aren't cheaper any more if you need to buy new lenses.

PS. Nor are most APS-C-bodies significantly smaller than the A7. Size differences mostly come down to the lenses and adapters.
 
Have you looked at the digital Leica CL? I've been using it exclusively with M mount lenses and love it. Manual focus and AP exposure. It feels like a film camera but better.
 
Hi Stefan,

I was in a similar boat last month. Doing lots of travel, and work eating up the time I used to spend developing and scanning. I looked at all the options, and ended up with an X100F. The optical VF with the little RF patch in the corner is excellent, and will be the closest thing you'll get to a film camera short of a digital Leica. The form factor is excellent, not too big, not too small. The dials are great, and it can be customised to be very simple. The jpegs straight out of camera are excellent, I don't bother with RAW anymore (I know, as a physicist working in imaging I should go for RAW, but honestly I don't need to do the work). It is the first digital camera I've used that gets out of the way.

My advice is to get an X100F, pocket the extra $1500, and don't look back.

If the 35mm FOV isn't for you, then get one of the converters and just leave it attached.
 
I would go with a mirrorless body, either a Fuji or a Sony. I own a Fuji XT-2, although today, I would buy the newer XT-3 for $1400. As for prime lenses, there are a few to choose from, depending on your focal length preference and your style. I own 4 Fuji primes: a 16/1.4 and the 3 so-called Fujicrons (23/2.0. 35/2.0 and 50/2.0), which are ideal for street and travel -- they are small with fast AF (had them with me on a recent trip to Europe). Alternatively, you can opt for the 23/1.4, 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 -- images are magical albeit slower AF. Remember that the Fuji bodies are APS-C.
 
Mirrorless seems to be the future. I have to admit, sometimes I really like having an EVF instead of an OVF even though I still lean toward OVF most of the time. And it's great that this allows manufacturers to build cameras smaller than the standard DSLR but not give up much in a tradeoff.

My opinion is that APS-C is the sweet spot in digital cameras for both image quality and general ergonomics and utility. Full frame is now trendy for gear heads but it's unnecessary for the advanced enthusiast who prints large and it's overkill for the average amateur who only posts on the web. And while it's true there are a few full frame cameras out there that are about the same physical size as APS-C models, the full frame lenses can get to be a bit on the hefty side when compared to equivalent APS-C focal lengths. Micro 4/3 is also a good format but the manufacturers have kinda lost sight of their original purpose--smaller, lighter gear with high performance. The cameras and lenses keep getting bigger and heavier. 'Course if you're into telephoto photography, Micro 4/3 has a lot to offer.

My recommendation? Buy a Fuji X100F. Or buy a used X100S or X100T for very little money. It has a hybrid viewfinder (either optical or electronic with the flip of a switch), APS-C sensor, excellent image quality, a really good fixed 35mm equivalent lens and a great form factor, especially for former Leica users. Only having a 35mm equivalent lens might seem limiting but it's amazing how versatile it can be. It's also a good introduction to the digital universe and it would fit in well with the types of photography you indicated you are pursuing.
 
If you still have your Leica lenses, look for a good used M9 (preferably one that has had the shutter replaced). Or if you're not averse to a crop sensor, and have some wide angle lenses, then an M8 could be a good entry point.

PF
 
Agree on Zee and Arr. Ugly. And so is FF Panasonic. :). They are all Sony A7. :).

For 3K$ you could get used, not abused M240. Even from dealer.
It will take Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-12 which are not significant in price, but will serve well until you get something more prestigious.
I had J-12 on M8 and it was awesome. My go to, travel 50mm is J-3 on film and digital M.

M240 is weather sealed (more, less) and battery capacity is great. Nobody is going to take you seriously, but you might be stopped for friendly conversation.
 
giganova said:
I've been shooting film my entire life, started on a Leica R system, later M, and recently medium format. But I think it's time to get into digital photography.
Click to expand...

But why? If you've always used film and have a good system, why bother?
 
“small form factor with one prime lens for under $3k.“

If the desire is as stated, small form factor with one prime lens, Sony RX1 RII seems impossible to beat if file quality and lens quality matter. Or, the original R1 can be had for $1,000 these days. Just take a look at the RX1 thread here.
 
giganova said:
Hi all!

I've been shooting film my entire life, started on a Leica R system, later M, and recently medium format. But I think it's time to get into digital photography. So many sensors, sensor sizes, camera models, my head is spinning! I'm into social documentary projects, lots of travel, occasional street photography, with occasional landscape photography. I briefly had Nikons D810 and D610. Great picture quality, but D810 file sizes were too big for my taste, I think 24 Mpixel is more than enough. And I hated the form factor of these cameras and that they screamed "Caution! Professional photographer present!"

What I want is: small form factor with one prime lens for under $3k.
  • Sensor size: how importanrt is it? Full frame is always nice, I guess, but are DX, APS and 4/3 sensors a "step down"?
  • Is mirrorless the way to go? I find the latest Nikon Z and Canon R butt ugly, not my thing. Plus, they might be out of my price range.
  • Is L-mount the way to go? Stellar lenses are available from Leica and others, and the number of lenses and later down the road fresh new camera bodies (the new "disposable film" :D) is steadily increasing.
  • What's up with the Foveon sensors in the Sigma Quattro cameras? I absolutely love the form factor of these cameras, but they seem ultra slow, 10-sec to write one photo to the memory card?!
  • Love the look of the Leica TL2, but doesn't come with an EVF (the Leica add-on EVF is expensive and doesn't seem to be well integrated into the body), only the screen on the back, must be awkward to frame and focus.
If sky's the limit, I'd probably get a Leica SL or an M10 and stop thinking about it, but they are out of my price range.

Any recommendations for a 1-prime lens + digital body for under $3k?
Click to expand...

Why not use your existing lenses on a second hand digital M, or a 24Mp Sony A7 series?

Sensor size: IMO ff sensor is only important if you want shallowest possible dof, ultra-wide FOV, optimum dynamic range and use of legacy ff lenses. Advances in technology mean sensor generation is relevant, as latest-generation sensors in a smaller size (APS-C) often out-perform older ff sensors when it comes to image quality (high ISO and DR in particular). Most current generation sensors are more than good enough, though if you want to shoot detailed landscapes in low light you might run up against technical limitations with the smaller micro-4/3 sensors.

Mirrorless: Smaller register distance between lens mount and sensor means mirrorless designs are more likely to be able to mount legacy lenses with an adapter. Note smaller sensors will crop the image circle of ff lenses.

L-mount: Panasonic's new camera is bulky, maybe wait to see what other offerings will be available. How long are you prepared to wait?

Foveon: These sensors have always had slow write performance AFAIK - maybe the new Sigma L-mount camera will be improved, but will it have the small form factor you're after? Foveons have impressive IQ at lower ISOs but are not as friendly to high ISO as CMOS designs (particularly Sony's BSI CMOS sensors).

Leica TL2: Have a look at the CL while you're at it (it has a nice EVF), but remember it's APS-C so you'd need native APS-C lenses or put up with image circle cropping if you mount a ff lens on it with an adapter.

The Sony RX1 or Fuji X100 are good suggestions if small and inconspicuous is important, but check which user interface you feel comfortable with. Alternatively consider the Olympus Pen F with 17mm, though I wouldn't use the Pen F as a landscape camera due to the limitations of micro-4/3 sensors*. To confuse matters more, Canon's pancake 40mm f/2.8 STM lens is so small that a Canon 6D becomes, if not quite svelte, a fairly compact package with it mounted.

With digital you also need to consider the image processing pipeline: the combined effects of lens, sensor, qualities of the RAW/JPG file, and preferred post processing software - all of these affect the final result. Some digital cameras have JPEG output that users find needs no post processing at all to meet their needs. Personally, I like JPEG out-of-camera pictures I've seen taken with the Pen F, though I don't own one. For some subjects small sensor cameras can be good - I own a Nikon 1 V1, which to my eye has a very pleasing look for street work, and it's only got a 1" 10Mp relatively ancient sensor. But I generally wouldn't use if for landscape - not enough detail and DR.

Another consideration for digital is the user interface. You need an interface that works for you, whether out of the box or after playing with menu/control customization settings. For social documentary and street work you probably want the camera to be as intuitive as your film cameras. Accurate face-detect or eye-detect AF might be something you'd really like and want to prioritise when deciding which camera. I don't know how the different cameras mentioned compare in that respect; you'll need to do some research.

I hope these thoughts help rather than confuse you. I think $3k is a more than generous budget to find something that will meet your needs.

One final thought - like you I once thought it was time to get into digital photography, and did... only to come back to mostly using film. Why? I like the look of film, and I like its limitations - which is why I often prefer smaller, older generation sensor digital cameras to my 6D, as the output looks more film-like to my eye.

Regards,
Lynn

*Micro-4/3 has a neat pixel-shift function to create more detailed files by merging 4+ images taken in quick succession, but this only works best for static subjects.
 
giganova said:
Hi all!
...

What I want is: small form factor with one prime lens for under $3k.
  • Sensor size: how importanrt is it? Full frame is always nice, I guess, but are DX, APS and 4/3 sensors a "step down"?
  • Is mirrorless the way to go? I find the latest Nikon Z and Canon R butt ugly, not my thing. Plus, they might be out of my price range.
  • Is L-mount the way to go? Stellar lenses are available from Leica and others, and the number of lenses and later down the road fresh new camera bodies (the new "disposable film" :D) is steadily increasing.
  • What's up with the Foveon sensors in the Sigma Quattro cameras? I absolutely love the form factor of these cameras, but they seem ultra slow, 10-sec to write one photo to the memory card?!
  • Love the look of the Leica TL2, but doesn't come with an EVF (the Leica add-on EVF is expensive and doesn't seem to be well integrated into the body), only the screen on the back, must be awkward to frame and focus.
If sky's the limit, I'd probably get a Leica SL or an M10 and stop thinking about it, but they are out of my price range.

Any recommendations for a 1-prime lens + digital body for under $3k?
Click to expand...

Sensor Size

Sensor surface area is important because more surface area means more total light can be converted to photoelectrons. This means more signal. That said, the lens also affects the total available light light. In terms of signal, a large sensor with a slow lens has no inherent advantage over a smaller sensor with a faster lens. With the fastest practical lenses, more sensor area means more subject isolation is possible. In practice APS-C and m4/3 are both "a step down". But in my view the step is small.

It can be disappointing to only prioritize sensor area. The perceived image quality for digital images depends on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This means an older 24 x 36 mm sensor can have a lower SNR than the newest APS-C or m4/3 designs. The newer designs have less inherent electronic noise levels and more analog dynamic range. For this reason I do not recommend a M9 to repurpose your M lenses. Since you own M lenses, a Leica M digital body (M240) makes sense even though a nice used body would be above your price range.

Mirrorless vs Reflex

After owning 3 DSLRs I found I preferred mirrorless. Still, some newer DSLR bodies are compact. In general there will be more choices with mirrorless platforms. I would use a DSLR of I was interested in action photography.

The TL2

The Leica TL2 would be a great choice if you are comfortable using the cameras as you use a smart phone – i.e. no built in viewfinder. The sensor performance (SNR) is competitive. The optional EVF seems expensive, awkward and perhaps inferior to a built-in EVF (or OVF).

The Foveon Sensor

The Foveon sensor offers significant resolution advantages. Unfortunately the low-light performance (SNR) is inferior as much less light reaches the lower photo diode layers. It is unsuitable for action photography. The Foveon sensor also means you have to accept Sigma's camera technology and operational limitations. And it limits you to Sigma mount lenses. I believe there are Sigma M and R lens mount adapters. I have no idea how practical they are.

The L-Mount
The 35 1.4 TL Summilux Lens at f/1.4 enjoys an excellent reputation. The L lens alliance means more L-mount lens choices will be available in the future.

]Recommendations

I own FUJIFILM 100T and X-Pro 2 cameras. So my recommendtions are biased.

I use the cameras' OVF 90% of the time. I operate these as I operated my Canonent QL 17 III and Zeiss Ikon M body. The Fujinon XF lenses are excellent. The sensor performance is competitive. FUJIFILM sells a M lens adaptor. Of course the angle of view will be different than you have with 24 X 36mm media. But you could repurpose some of your M lenses.

There will be a significant learning curve to adapt to FUJIFILM's system. The cameras can be operated in many different ways which is initially confusing. At the sam time, the cameras can set up to use in a minimalistic fashion. Also the bodies are small, so the controls and buttons are small. This takes some adjustment. With minimalistic operation (simulating film RF usage) the small controls are less of a concern. Even using the OVF you might find using M lenses practical if you spend the time required to learn how to make the most out of the X-Pro2's manual focus system.

if a fixed lens is acceptable, an X-100F would is well below $3,000.

There are other excellent mirrorless choices besides FUJIFILM. These include bodies with 24 x 36 mm sensors that also support adapted M lenses. Many people prefer the M4/3 system as well.

I tried DSLRs and M4/3. But overall I prefer and enjoy FUJIFILM's bodies the most – primarily because I very much enjoy using an OVF. An X-Pro 2 with a couple of XF f2 primes and a M adapter would be within your $3,000 price range. So, you could start with the M adapter and a 23 or 35 mm f 2 prime and be below $3,000.

Whatever you buy within the sub-$3,000 range, for the best perceived image quality (SNR) get the newest generation sensor. People often assume this is only important in low light (high camera ISO settings), but it is also important in bright light because dynamic range depend on SNR. Even at low ISO camera settings, SNR matters.

Finally, I encourage you to consider spending a bit more and look for a nice used M-240 body. The hunt would require patience and some risk tolerance. But I have a feeling this would be the most effective way for you to start in digital photography.
 
Another suggestion for the Sony A7 (Mk II or III). Mk IIs can be picked up relatively cheaply and are still fine cameras. The original A7 has annoying faults and glitches but is now very cheap.

Assuming you will continue to shoot film, going for a mirrorless camera will provide you with the full benefits of digital and complement your film cameras. These benefits include

• Small form factor
• Ability to use all kinds of lenses with an adaptor (including some autofocus)
• Electronic viewfinder (EVF) - you see exactly what you'll get, unlike an optical viewfinder*

* Exposure, flare, colour, white balance, noise, contrast, etc. This mode can be turned off, so the viewfinder displays ideal exposure, etc., instead - allowing you to almost see in the dark!

A digital camera with an optical viewfinder such as a Leica M or digital SLR is more of a replacement for or duplication of your film cameras. So, in my opinion, go for an EVF digital camera that will give you a completely different experience from using a film camera.

(After learning my craft with optical viewfinders, I bought a Sony A7R II last year - my first EVF camera - and was astonished: it entirely changed how I take photographs, and I've now sold all my optical viewfinder digital cameras. I doubt I will use an optical viewfinder ever again, and am selling my film cameras too as they now seem like something from the Stone Age!)
 
I got over 5 years of use out of my Fujifilm X-E1 before upgrading to an X-E3 a few months ago. I already had several lenses, so I got the X-E3 with the 23mm lens in a kit, and really like that little lens. That kit is going for $950 now, leaving you over $2K for primes. If you wanted the full "fujicron" trio, the 35/2 goes for $400 and the 50/2 is $450. I have the 50/2 and the 35/1.4. If I were buying now, I'd get the 35/2, but I like the 35/1.4 well enough to keep it. The 23/2 and 50/2 have much quieter focusing motors and focus much faster than my 35/1.4.
 
Corran said:
But why? If you've always used film and have a good system, why bother?
Click to expand...

100% agree!

Dear Stefan, to me, it's very much like "hey, you have learned cooking the traditional way, so why now consider to start using so called convenience products?"

I don't think one is a "Luddite" when one is realising that their analog photography provides clearly better (and often even faster) results, because again, it's like so called convenience products:

Before you have finished reading the obscure ingredient lists, you would have carefully chosen all the really needed fresh ingredients, and have already prepared a pleasant-tasting and salubrious meal... :)
 
Ignore all the bells and whistles, go to a camera store, there are a few left, try several cameras. The one that fits you the best, has the menu which confuses you the least should be the one to get. For all practical purposes there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the images created by any of them. You might get critical if you intend to make billboard prints but beyond that don't worry, be happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom