Facilities overload ?

[dee]

I have just bought a Sony A290 'cos it is compact , light and reminiscent of my old , much loved Minolta 404si advanced point-and-shoot !

The old Minolta / Sigma zooms hit my fave lens choice - 35 / 80 becoming around 52 / 120 .
I shall accept the minor degradation with a Rokkor / SR adapter as an 85 f 1.7 , 50 f 1.4 and 35 f 1.8 may be as useful as they have been on the Leica Digilux / L1 twins !

From reviews it misses out on many ' facilities ' anticipated from a current DSLR - live view and video for starters , and due to an hand me down 14meg sensor , poor high ' iso ' performance ... in film days we bought a 1.8 or 1.4 50mm lens to use 400 asa film , or a tripod to use Kodachrome 64 !

How come I manage with a one off inheritance Leica M8 / Summitar / Elmar , then , or the Leica Digilux 3 , with it's squinty 4/3rds finder and measly 7.5 meg sensor giving life to my Rokkors , especially the little 45 f2 and compact 135 f 3.5 [ effectively 270 with crop factor ]

What really clinched it though was that the A290 has a clean uncluttered top plate , devoid of all the dials and switches which bristle from most DSLRs these days - just as the used Dig 3 , for it's neat analogue style controls with a used L1 to create that old fashioned second body scenario .

What do we really NEED to take acceptable photos ?! Not as many cameras as I have , for sure , but maybe a decent sized sensor a lens and the basic controls handed down from my Leica II or Contax II from the 30s .

 

[David Hughes]

What do we really NEED to take acceptable photos ?

What do we really NEED to take acceptable photos ?

Hi,

Well, about 3* megapixels, ISO up to 200 and down to 50 - ish. Shutter from (say) ¼s to 1/500th or, perhaps, 1/1000th and lenses at about f/2 or f/2·8 in 28, 35, 45 & 85/90mm would suit me fine. Sounds just like the old Leica IIIa (or M2 or M4) but with a better view-finder. The Leica Digilux at 5 megapixels is more tha enough for most people, I get A3+ out of mine but that's a lot to do with the printer and other software. And I've done 4 sheet posters as well...

The problem is; what do we call acceptable?

Regards, David

* Assuming we never print above 5" x 7½"

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, we could probably get by with Model T Fords to get around in, too.

I have beautiful 16x20 inch prints from photos I shot with my EOS D30 (3mp) DSLR. But compared to my 5DMkII, it's a Model T Ford. Everything about the 5DII is better and makes it a far better tool to take great photos. Could I still make great photos with my D30? Sure. And if technology had quit advancing with the D30, I would be happy banging away with it now. But, why, with far better tools now available?

I've had shingles replaced on my roof over the years by crews with hammers that banged away up there for two days. The last time I had shingles replaced, they were using Paslode nail guns and it took them four hours. Same result each time, but I'll tell you which I prefered! 😉

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmmm, if "I have beautiful 16x20 inch prints from photos I shot with my EOS D30 (3mp) DSLR." Then, surely they are more than "acceptable", which was the criteria after all?

Try as I may I can see the comparison with a Model T Ford as I wasn't suggesting a 9x12cm with a f/9 lens and a 15 ASA film pack in B&W. 3 or 4 megapixel is not that old by any standard; except a five year old's. My old 3 megapixel camera churned out 2048 pixel long images. That's 10" or more at 200 ppi and nearly 7 inches at 300 ppi, which seems OK to me.

So here's one f/2.8 at 1/100th second taken nearly 7 years ago on a 3 megapixel camera but resized to 1024 x 768...

Regards, David

 

[Stuart John]

Well I still get great images from my 2.75mp Nikon D1h

 

[dee]

I love that shot Stuart John !
... I wonder if that 2.75 meg provides a kind of flattering ' grain ' which crowded sensors lack ?

I have the same ' problem ' with my 5 meg Canon G2 - for most purposes , the photos are perfectly ' acceptable ' and have their own signature , plus , the camera has no ' value ' and can be taken anywhere .
I could never see a need to ' upgrade ' to a G10 whatever .

 

[David Hughes]

And you can pick up 3, 4 or 5 mp digital cameras on ebay for pennies these days. Interestingly enough, I've noticed people are starting to fight over certain ones. I guess they are getting "classic" status already.

Regards, David

 

[Stuart John]

I had to pull out the original RAW file to check. It seems that I shot it at ISO 800. For the B&W conversion I just selected the B&W color mode in Nikon Capture 4 and increase the contrast with the curves before exporting to Tiff. I then took the Tiff into photoshop added some noise deepened the blacks and downsampled to 1000 pixels for web. The RAW file and the original exported Tiff are really very clean. I was likely at the time trying to make it look like scanned B&W film. The D1h does a pretty good job despite its low pixel count. I have really nice 8x12 inch print color prints that look great. They are in a album with other 8x12 inch prints from both a D70 and a D80. The D1h prints don't look out of place and don't jump out as being the from a lower resolution camera. I think the D1h does give a flattering look and the files are very easy to work with. I still like to shoot B&W film though here is a film image not the some place but still using window light like the first shot.

 

[PatrickONeill]

I got a digilux-1 for a gift when they first hit the market. it is a total pile of crap.

my son uses it for a toy camera. he has gotten pretty good at it.

Don't kid yourself, as years go by, digital will evolve; with it, better color, noise, tone, speed, ergonomics and so on. its a different animal than say a film camera.

I'm still happy with my "old" 20D. But there are things that newer digital cameras can do that can be pretty tempting. I could have a 5DmkII right now in my hands. Instead, I drank the kool-aide and I have an M6 with a 35mm cron. The 5DmkII is a better camera than my 20D, no question, and I do sometimes pine for printing jumbo sizes or having full frame so I can use my canon glass like I used to, but in reality, I'm much happier with the film leica.