Digital camera that doesn't feel like a computer between you and taking a picture

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think the Fuji X line is that camera. I don't see how looking at a screen is going to make you feel less like you're using a computer. The M9 however, the only thing you need the screen for is changing ISO.

Sometimes very handy as a "Polaroid" for exposure, though. I have mine set up to show the pic + histogram for as long as my finger is on the button.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ryan1938]

I started with an M8 because I wanted just that - a camera and not a computer.

Eventually, however, I grew tired of it's limitations and moved on to a Fuji X-Pro 1 as well as a X100S. To date, I still consider the X100S to be the best digital camera ever made.

However, the X100S is on eBay right now. While I love it, I just want to go back to shooting a camera and not a computer.

Currently, I am shooting an M9 and a Sony A7. The M9 is a camera - not a computer - and I love the way it shoots. However, it does have major limitations and that's where the A7 comes in... The A7 is a computer - no doubt. And it's not a fun camera to shoot... But it fills the gap with my m-glass and I think this duo really works well together.

 

[noimmunity]

No question about it, but most of us in the first world only have that kind.

Which is definitely one of the major sources for "third world" problems 🙁

 

[doolittle]

Burn me on the stake as a heretic if you must, but I think a full frame dSLR comes the closest.

Before the flames get me, a few explanatory notes:

- Purely talking in terms of the equivalence of the experience between the film camera and the digital camera. I have in mind a Nikon d700/d800 compared to a F100.
- Full frame for the size of the viewfinder view and lens equivalence and the whole OVF experience.
- Not talking about which cameras are most satisfying to use
- The ergonomics and control system of the Dx00 and the F100 are very similar. All the basics (shutter speed, aperture, AF, frame advance) are easily changed without need for looking at the rear LCD or going into menus.
- I am not comparing the experience of a dSLR compared to an F3, FM2 etc.
- Battery life is long enough on those dSLR that it doesn't intrude on the experience too much
- Reliability and weather sealing mean you can treat the digital version much the same as the film version.

So basically most of the time can forget whether you are using a digital or film camera and get on with shooting.

In my opinion M8 comes close to the film experience, but it's digital presence intrudes more often. To its credit it does produce very nice files which need v little processing, I can imagine the M240 gets closer experience wise.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Burn me on the stake as a heretic if you must, but I think a full frame dSLR comes the closest.

Before the flames get me, a few explanatory notes:

- Purely talking in terms of the equivalence of the experience between the film camera and the digital camera. I have in mind a Nikon d700/d800 compared to a F100.
- Full frame for the size of the viewfinder view and lens equivalence and the whole OVF experience.
- Not talking about which cameras are most satisfying to use
- The ergonomics and control system of the Dx00 and the F100 are very similar. All the basics (shutter speed, aperture, AF, frame advance) are easily changed without need for looking at the rear LCD or going into menus.
- I am not comparing the experience of a dSLR compared to an F3, FM2 etc.
- Battery life is long enough on those dSLR that it doesn't intrude on the experience too much
- Reliability and weather sealing mean you can treat the digital version much the same as the film version.

So basically most of the time can forget whether you are using a digital or film camera and get on with shooting.

In my opinion M8 comes close to the film experience, but it's digital presence intrudes more often. To its credit it does produce very nice files which need v little processing, I can imagine the M240 gets closer experience wise.

Fair enough, but I'd say that big, fat film SLRs from the 1990s onwards feel like computers too...

As a matter of interest, why do you reckon that the Type 240 would be more like a film camera than an M8?

Cheers,

R.

 

[nightfly]

DSLR probably would meet the settings need but I hate big cameras. My last SLR before I got my M4P was a Pentax MX. Small, simple, manual.

I think the Fuji offerings probably come closest to my needs short of a Leica. Maybe Sony but I don't know much about their new full frames.

As far as processing, I have no fear of Photoshop or Lightroom but this isn't really about image quality. I'm pretty happy with the files of my GRD for my street shooting needs although the M9 images I've seen are more like what comes out of my Mamiya 7 in terms of subtlety of color.

Would love to know where these $3200 M9s are.

 

[jippiejee]

Would love to know where these $3200 M9s are.

There's one here that includes a 50mm summicron for €3250 euro, but most M9's that I see locally are indeed more expensive than that.

 

[doolittle]

Fair enough, but I'd say that big, fat film SLRs from the 1990s onwards feel like computers too...

My reply was tongue in cheek, however I think you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe the divide isn't so much between between film and digital as between analogue and electronic.

If anything changing custom functions on the F100 feels more like programming a computer. To me in terms of user experience there isn't much between the a D800 and a F100, much less than the difference between either of them and an F3 or FM2.

As a matter of interest, why do you reckon that the Type 240 would be more like a film camera than an M8?

Cheers,

R.

Just based on my own prejudices about the M8, little things distract from the illusion, which make me regard the camera different than a film M. Battery life and charge remaining reporting. Buffer operation (admittedly not usually a problem if shooting concisely). Don't get me wrong, I am an M8 owner myself and, after an ambivalent start, it has become my favourite digital camera.
It does have its quirks thought, much like an old classic car you have to adjust to its ways!

I am reasoning that the Type 240 has less of these quirks.

 

[cfritze]

Would love to know where these $3200 M9s are.

Well, $3600 for a low-shutter count M9 in Ex condition with recent Leica CLA and 1 yr warranty at Leica store Miami's online used department. Compares well to used offers I see.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I am reasoning that the Type 240 has less of these quirks.

No. It merely has DIFFERENT quirks. I'm returning a review sample tomorrow: review in the next edition of American Photo.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

I think the Fuji offerings probably come closest to my needs short of a Leica. Maybe Sony but I don't know much about their new full frames.

I've repeated this often enough now that I'm sure folks are sick of hearing it, but I was a Leica M user for thirty years. I switched to digital a few years back and finally sold my last M4. I, too, was looking to return to the "M" experience and the X-Pro1 really looked pretty good. It's specs were good and it had the right form factor. I wanted to like it. I really tried to like it. I gave it a several month trial. I just couldn't get on with it. It doesn't "think" like I think... like an M body user. The manual focus is all but unusable and for me, it missed focus as often as one out of three shots because it doesn't "see" like I see. In fact, you cannot manually focus the camera without using the EVF.

The XPro1 has a lot of good going for it, but it will never be an M substitute. It drove me back to Leica Ms, even with their quirks. So, I now have an M8 and M9P. My advice is to save the angst and just buy an M9. There's nothing else that will do what it does.

That said, having just re-assembled my Hassy gear, one of my M bodies may have to find a new home so I can find a used Phase One P25 or P25+. *sigh* It's always something, and not quite enough cash for everything.