Gear suggestions

[nathanp]

I've been thinking a lot lately about getting a new camera, or possibly a new lens but I'm having trouble deciding what to go for.

I currently have:
Canonet 28 (the "new Canonet 28") - Nice but limited to 400 ISO max, aperture priority or AE and fixed 2.8 lens.

Sigma SA-300 SLR - I got this because my father-in-law was going to throw it away. It works well enough, is flexible enough but the autofocus is really slow and unreliable (but not as unreliable as my eyes..). From the tests I've done the lenses aren't too amazing (5.6 is the fastest I think).

EOS 300D - I do love this camera but it's starting to look a little dated in some ways. I'm not too bothered about new features like face recognition but seeing samples from newer DSLRs makes me think image quality (that can of worms..) and maybe dynamic range have improved since its release. I don't seem to be able to get the sharpness and smooth tones that I see in other pictures, but that might be my lack of skill. I have considered just getting better lenses for it but not sure if that'll do it. I only have the 18-55 kit lens, 50mm f1.8 and a used 70-210mm f5.6.

We also have a Canon Powershot A70 which is also quite old but it covers all our "snapshot" and family album type pics perfectly well. It's still streets ahead of the old 110 P&S cameras we used to use when I was a kid.

My picture taking falls into two categories really - 1) Proper attempts at photography, when I go somewhere specifically to take photographs - no real style yet so a mix of street stuff and landscape/environment and 2) the times when out with the family when I can sneak off for 10 minutes and grab some shots.

I'd also like to take some kodachrome images before it's too late and I feel like it should go through a better camera than what I have!

I'm not sure any one camera can cover that but I've been considering a Yashica Electro for out & about quick pictures and something like a Fuji 645 for those 'proper' photography days. I've also considered the Konica Hexar AF (the RF is way out of budget) as it looks easy to carry around but still capable of really nice images. I'm not against digital if there is anything around that's within budget and capable of the images I'm after but it seems like I'd have to spend a few thousand to compete with a reasonably good film setup. I'm open to all suggestions, I haven't really set a budget but £300-400 is probably the most I could manage in total.

Sorry for the long rambling post! 😱

 

[xxloverxx]

You won't need to spend a few thousand to get a good film setup. I got mine for free 😉 (2nd hand, passed down from my grandpa)

I'd say for the film snapshots, get something like a Ricoh 500G; same fixed 2.8 as your Canonet, but supports up to ISO 800 (is that enough? 😉)
I've been looking into getting another RF and saw a Canonet QL17 GIII (40 1.7) and Canonet QL19 GIII (45 1.9). I mention these 2 cameras because they have the fastest lenses of any fixed lens RF I've seen in my rather limited research.

For "proper" photography…well it really depends on what you shoot. For landscapes, medium format would probably be a good choice (or large format if you're willing), but if you define "proper" photography as street and photojournalism, then get 2 35mm rangefinders and shoot away!

One camera technically could cover all the stuff you want to shoot: a Rolleiflex. You can shoot 135 by putting a Rolleikin in, shoot 120 for landscape. It's an 80 2.8/80 3.5 (I think?) lens, pretty standard for 6x6 medium format. There's also the Rolleicord, pretty much the same, a bit cheaper, with a 75 3.5 lens (Rolleicords have never had 2.8 lenses). I think there's also a macro lens attachment for close ups. Of course the whole setup doesn't come cheap…

Have you looked at the Voigtländer RIII? 6x7 with a 6x6 adapter, again 80 2.8, but it's a folding camera, so folded, it's kinda like a book.

Sorry I can't tell you anything about the prices of these cameras; it really depends on where you buy them. Which is why I'm keeping my eyes peeled this Christmas, when I'm in Japan…last time I went to Osaka, we came across what you might call "camera heaven", only, all the cameras were alive! Not zombies either - all kept in pristine condition.

 

[gilpen123]

An Olympus Mju can give you some nice results for those quick snapshot requirement and if TLR is fine with you, the Yashica 124 can fit the bill for your "proper" photography needs, whatever it means to you.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, if you already have the 300D, pick up a used 400D or 450D body (XTi or XSi). Lightyears ahead of the 300D and you can use the same lens or lenses you already have. While I have the pro EOS stuff, I have an XTi that I use for family get togethers, etc.

One of the 645 RF cameras would be a good choice if you are just itching to try MF.

 

[xxloverxx]

I agree with Pickett - get a 450D (prices are lower now that the 500D's out), but strange as it may seem, I'd suggest you use that as a 'point and shoot' and get a film camera for your "real" photography. The 450D's a very small and light camera, and if you put that with say a 35/2.0 and your 50 1.8, add maybe a 10-20, you've got plenty of snapshot equipment (and no excuse not to carry it around with you)
But, y'know, for highest quality in smallest size, you can't beat film just yet.

If you plan on doing macros or need AF for your "real" photography, a rangefinder might not be the best choice.

 

[nathanp]

I agree with Pickett - get a 450D (prices are lower now that the 500D's out), but strange as it may seem, I'd suggest you use that as a 'point and shoot' and get a film camera for your "real" photography. The 450D's a very small and light camera, and if you put that with say a 35/2.0 and your 50 1.8, add maybe a 10-20, you've got plenty of snapshot equipment (and no excuse not to carry it around with you)
But, y'know, for highest quality in smallest size, you can't beat film just yet.

If you plan on doing macros or need AF for your "real" photography, a rangefinder might not be the best choice.

I am leaning towards the 450D as an upgrade now. I've done a bit of reading and it looks like more of a jump from the 300 than I thought. I'm also considering if it's worth holding out until full frame digitals come down in price. I agree though, the EOS DSLR is fine to take when out & about for those times when I can fit in a quick 20 minutes of photographing.

That leads me to consider a cheaper MF (maybe a Yashica 124g or something) to go with it but then that rules out using it for Kodachrome so back I go to considering a good 35mm with a decent quality lens. Then again Kodachrome is only going to be around for a year and I can't imagine shooting more than 3 or 4 rolls...

With regard to macros and AF - I'd only play with macro stuff for fun and I'm happy enough with the 300D for that (+reversing ring/50mm 1.8). AF would be nice but I do need to learn to focus more accurately anyway. I'm a part-time glasses wearer in denial. 😱

I think the way to go is a quality 35mm with a good lens, and then hold out for a full frame DSLR next year (using the 300D in the meantime).

 

[xxloverxx]

Well a good 35mm body for street/low light would be the Canonet bodies (QL17 GIII (40 1.7) and Canonet QL19 GIII (45 1.9)) - I think you could run Kodachrome through it; a Leica M/Voigtländer Bessa might be out of your current budget?

Maybe next year the price of the 5DII's or 1D(s)III's will go down and you can get it 😉 the only EF-S lens you have is the 18-55 anyway, so you lose almost nothing.

For MF using Kodachrome, have you looked at a Yashica 635? It takes both 120 and 135 (with an adapter) and should cost less than a Rolleiflex+Rolleikin