chuck77
Member
I started out 5 years ago with a Canon 40D, which over the years I began to use less and less because of its bulk. The irony, however, is that I had trouble steadying the DSLR during handheld use (almost all the time) until I bought a battery grip for it, which made the camera even bigger. On the other hand, I did manage to capture some great shots with the camera over the years.
Last year, I picked up a Sony NEX-5N at a great price, at the advice of a camera store manager and photo enthusiast. He greatly praised the sensor of the NEX-5N, its small form factor, relatively low cost, and best of all, focus peaking to use with just about every lens out there. I was immediately sold and brought one home with me. I thoroughly enjoyed the camera, including the articulating screen and the touch-to-focus feature. With the exception of a telephoto Canon 70-200mm F4 lens and a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens, I had no other lens to use with the NEX-5N, so I stuck with the 18-55mm Sony kit lens and made the best of it. The image quality with the kit lens was not the greatest, but I still enjoyed the 5N very much. Since the 5N surpassed my Canon DSLR in almost every way (image quality, low light performance, dynamic range, and size), I began to stop using the Canon altogether. Gone were the days when carrying a big DSLR with a huge telephoto lens displaced crowds and other photographers carrying compact cameras.
With the 5N, I was able to capture more of everything without disturbing the subjects of my shot. This was very refreshing and liberating, and at the very reasonable price of the 5N, it made everything more fun.
However, the recent Christmas sales had me interested in a full-frame camera, for the sake of better image quality. I have never ventured very far with using the 5N with manual focus lenses, and I also don`t think that a full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera will be on the market anytime soon, so I happily purchased a Nikon D600 with the 24-85 kit lens. For a full frame camera, it seemed like a great price at $2000, or essentially about $1500 for the camera only. Weeks went by with the camera on my desk, and I noticed that it did not invite me to explore photography, or its outstanding image quality. Instead, it sat on my desk and accumulated just 200 counts on the shutter after one month. When I did take the camera out, I noticed that the relatively small size and weight of the D600 made it hard for me to steady the camera compared to my gripped Canon 40D, and that the lens was not very sharp. (I must confess that I have been flipping through many images taken with Leica M and the Sony RX1 lately). At around the same time, I wanted to know how I would enjoy the rangefinder style experience, so I picked up a used Fuji X100. I have to say that I enjoyed it immensely, even though the image quality of the D600 was quite a big improvement. So, finally, after much deliberation, I returned the D600 camera, knowing that I cannot buy another full frame camera at such a good price. In the last week, I picked up the Nikon D800 because of its better handling and heavier weight at a sale price of $2400+tax (about $2700). I can`t say that I am using it any more than the D600, but the handling is indeed much better, and capable of better image quality. As it stands, I have another few days to decide if I should return the D800. For now, I ran some quick numbers and realized that adding one or two good prime lenses to it would push the cost easiy to $4000. In my mind, a DSLR should be the ideal tool for action shots and telephoto uses, but the D800 fulfills neither, and delivers mainly on image quality and pixel count, which makes it a strange proposition in some ways. For comparison, that amount of money could buy me a used Leica M9 body, or a Sony RX1 with some accessories.
When I looked at both of these cameras in this way, neither camera seemed very expensive, considering the greater amount of use these cameras will get, all while delivering image quality that is equal (if not better) than the M9 and RX1. It also occurred to me that a unique charm of cameras like the M9 and RX1 are their ability to capture images without disturbing the subjects. In this way, I also began to realize that alot of photos taken with DSLRs involved subjects or circumstances that were staged (i.e.: fashion pictures).
I know that I want to pick up a new camera, but I don`t quite know what the best choice is. I also considered the Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro 1, as I have observed that both yielded excellent image quality. Of course, neither are full frame. Which camera would you recommend, and why? I would greatly appreciate your unbiased opinion.
Thanks!
Last year, I picked up a Sony NEX-5N at a great price, at the advice of a camera store manager and photo enthusiast. He greatly praised the sensor of the NEX-5N, its small form factor, relatively low cost, and best of all, focus peaking to use with just about every lens out there. I was immediately sold and brought one home with me. I thoroughly enjoyed the camera, including the articulating screen and the touch-to-focus feature. With the exception of a telephoto Canon 70-200mm F4 lens and a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens, I had no other lens to use with the NEX-5N, so I stuck with the 18-55mm Sony kit lens and made the best of it. The image quality with the kit lens was not the greatest, but I still enjoyed the 5N very much. Since the 5N surpassed my Canon DSLR in almost every way (image quality, low light performance, dynamic range, and size), I began to stop using the Canon altogether. Gone were the days when carrying a big DSLR with a huge telephoto lens displaced crowds and other photographers carrying compact cameras.
With the 5N, I was able to capture more of everything without disturbing the subjects of my shot. This was very refreshing and liberating, and at the very reasonable price of the 5N, it made everything more fun.
However, the recent Christmas sales had me interested in a full-frame camera, for the sake of better image quality. I have never ventured very far with using the 5N with manual focus lenses, and I also don`t think that a full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera will be on the market anytime soon, so I happily purchased a Nikon D600 with the 24-85 kit lens. For a full frame camera, it seemed like a great price at $2000, or essentially about $1500 for the camera only. Weeks went by with the camera on my desk, and I noticed that it did not invite me to explore photography, or its outstanding image quality. Instead, it sat on my desk and accumulated just 200 counts on the shutter after one month. When I did take the camera out, I noticed that the relatively small size and weight of the D600 made it hard for me to steady the camera compared to my gripped Canon 40D, and that the lens was not very sharp. (I must confess that I have been flipping through many images taken with Leica M and the Sony RX1 lately). At around the same time, I wanted to know how I would enjoy the rangefinder style experience, so I picked up a used Fuji X100. I have to say that I enjoyed it immensely, even though the image quality of the D600 was quite a big improvement. So, finally, after much deliberation, I returned the D600 camera, knowing that I cannot buy another full frame camera at such a good price. In the last week, I picked up the Nikon D800 because of its better handling and heavier weight at a sale price of $2400+tax (about $2700). I can`t say that I am using it any more than the D600, but the handling is indeed much better, and capable of better image quality. As it stands, I have another few days to decide if I should return the D800. For now, I ran some quick numbers and realized that adding one or two good prime lenses to it would push the cost easiy to $4000. In my mind, a DSLR should be the ideal tool for action shots and telephoto uses, but the D800 fulfills neither, and delivers mainly on image quality and pixel count, which makes it a strange proposition in some ways. For comparison, that amount of money could buy me a used Leica M9 body, or a Sony RX1 with some accessories.
When I looked at both of these cameras in this way, neither camera seemed very expensive, considering the greater amount of use these cameras will get, all while delivering image quality that is equal (if not better) than the M9 and RX1. It also occurred to me that a unique charm of cameras like the M9 and RX1 are their ability to capture images without disturbing the subjects. In this way, I also began to realize that alot of photos taken with DSLRs involved subjects or circumstances that were staged (i.e.: fashion pictures).
I know that I want to pick up a new camera, but I don`t quite know what the best choice is. I also considered the Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro 1, as I have observed that both yielded excellent image quality. Of course, neither are full frame. Which camera would you recommend, and why? I would greatly appreciate your unbiased opinion.
Thanks!
a.noctilux
Well-known
Welcome Chuck77.
I have some idea of your next full frame : ME, M9, M (maybe).
But after your long story, I suggest that you give an M8 + one Leica lens a try.
It's not full frame, but you will discover that you can use "real" rangefinder to begin with.
Myself, I have used M9 for years and just rediscover (again) M8 (for b&w and IR that for me "better than M9" and files are lighter also).
Arnaud
I have some idea of your next full frame : ME, M9, M (maybe).
But after your long story, I suggest that you give an M8 + one Leica lens a try.
It's not full frame, but you will discover that you can use "real" rangefinder to begin with.
Myself, I have used M9 for years and just rediscover (again) M8 (for b&w and IR that for me "better than M9" and files are lighter also).
Arnaud
lynnb
Veteran
You've mentioned a lot about equipment you've purchased, but nothing about what subjects you like to photograph. A camera is just a tool to make photographs of the subjects you like to work with. Start with the subjects, and then you'll find it much easier to decide which tool best does the job of photographing them.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Johnmcd
Well-known
Hi Chuck,
You seem to be caught in the classic marketing roundabout. Your story reminds me of a golfer who is always buying the latest clubs to improve their game.
As each new DSLR promises 'greater' image quality, you are led to believe that will be the tool that lights the creative spark in you. I agree with both previous posters in that RF's are a very different experience and to hop in at the 'top end' with a M9 may be an expensive mistake if you struggle to adapt or heaven forbid the quality can't match the latest DSLR.
More importantly (as Lynn suggests), the camera is but a tool and the best quality does not make the best image. We are just so spoilt these days with lightening fast focus and amazing exposure systems. Every man and his dog can afford a camera that only 10 years ago was unheard of. And yet the artistic quality of the images does not improve. We just have more images that are in focus and well exposed
But if your love is sports photography, nothing beats a DSLR. I have a 7D just for that purpose.
Remember, that with an RF your focus will always be manual. It may not be something that you are at all used to. No more super fast focus. For some this is a deal breaker straight away. The salesman may have made a point about focus peaking and using any lens ever made but have you actually tried that? It ain't that easy. Also no more zooms. Just prime lenses. You now need to 'zoom' with your feet.
Grab a second hand M8 and see if you like it. If you don't you can then sell it without too much of a loss, if at all.
Good luck and all the best in your search. I love using RF's and so might you
Cheers - John
You seem to be caught in the classic marketing roundabout. Your story reminds me of a golfer who is always buying the latest clubs to improve their game.
As each new DSLR promises 'greater' image quality, you are led to believe that will be the tool that lights the creative spark in you. I agree with both previous posters in that RF's are a very different experience and to hop in at the 'top end' with a M9 may be an expensive mistake if you struggle to adapt or heaven forbid the quality can't match the latest DSLR.
More importantly (as Lynn suggests), the camera is but a tool and the best quality does not make the best image. We are just so spoilt these days with lightening fast focus and amazing exposure systems. Every man and his dog can afford a camera that only 10 years ago was unheard of. And yet the artistic quality of the images does not improve. We just have more images that are in focus and well exposed
But if your love is sports photography, nothing beats a DSLR. I have a 7D just for that purpose.Remember, that with an RF your focus will always be manual. It may not be something that you are at all used to. No more super fast focus. For some this is a deal breaker straight away. The salesman may have made a point about focus peaking and using any lens ever made but have you actually tried that? It ain't that easy. Also no more zooms. Just prime lenses. You now need to 'zoom' with your feet.
Grab a second hand M8 and see if you like it. If you don't you can then sell it without too much of a loss, if at all.
Good luck and all the best in your search. I love using RF's and so might you
Cheers - John
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Simple advice: stick with what you got and think it over.
Put the money in the bank (or it'll burn a hole in your pocket, it always does in mine) and shoot the 40D and the Nex 5n until you make up your mind.
Good luck, happy shooting! It's all about the image!
Put the money in the bank (or it'll burn a hole in your pocket, it always does in mine) and shoot the 40D and the Nex 5n until you make up your mind.
Good luck, happy shooting! It's all about the image!
x-ray
Veteran
I have both the D800 and M9 and use them in my work. No question the D800 files ( from raw ) are superior in dynamic range and tonality compared to about ant DSLR on the market. IMO the only advantage to the M9 is lens performance at wide open apertures otherwise the Nikon wins. If you are not shooting the latest and greatest Leica glass then you won't get that corner to corner sharpness. I'm using a 24 Elmar, 35 summilux FLE, 50 ASPH Summilux, 75 summilux ( creamy wide open and very sharp at f4 ) and 90 summicron apo asph. With the exception of the 75 all are corner to corner pixel sharp wide open. IMO the major failing of the M9 is inferior dynamic range and inaccurate frame lines. The usable range of optics is very limited as well. Ive used film M's DIY 45 years and select them for what they are and what they do best, reportage using a small range of optics where I need wide open performance under difficult lighting.
Interesting observation, on a documentary shoot this past summer I shot both the M9 and D800 with the 70-200 VRII, 24-70 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 side by side on a night shoot at a tent revival. I shot the M at max ISO and the D800 at 6400. The files from the D800 were noticeably better.
The D800 is remarkable and the lenses are excellent. My choice if I could only have one camera would be the Nikon. If you want maximum performance out of the D800 then you must have the best of Nikons glass the above mentioned lenses are a must if you want zooms. The D800 is extremely demanding of glass.
Interesting observation, on a documentary shoot this past summer I shot both the M9 and D800 with the 70-200 VRII, 24-70 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 side by side on a night shoot at a tent revival. I shot the M at max ISO and the D800 at 6400. The files from the D800 were noticeably better.
The D800 is remarkable and the lenses are excellent. My choice if I could only have one camera would be the Nikon. If you want maximum performance out of the D800 then you must have the best of Nikons glass the above mentioned lenses are a must if you want zooms. The D800 is extremely demanding of glass.
x-ray
Veteran
I shoul add that with both cameras you won't get max performance if youre not shooting raw and don't know how to work the files.
Also I don't want to sound like the M9 isn't a great camera because it is. Leica is just behind the curve when it comes to camera / digital technology. When the new M finally hits the market I expect it will have better performance than the M9 but speculate it will still be a good generation behind current Nikon and Canon performanc.
Also I don't want to sound like the M9 isn't a great camera because it is. Leica is just behind the curve when it comes to camera / digital technology. When the new M finally hits the market I expect it will have better performance than the M9 but speculate it will still be a good generation behind current Nikon and Canon performanc.
BW400CN
Bessamatic forever!
you loved your NEX - why don´t you stay with her and get insted of waisting money on cams some good legacy lenses?
I still love my old NEX-3 and 5 and use all my Canon FD lenses with her.
That´s the cam I waited for and I never will switch over to an other digital system!
I have an old nikon D70 too and use it from time to time - but that´s nothing I realy fell in love with like my NEX.
If you feel outdated with a NEX-5n get a NEX-7 or 6 but like said before - don't waste money on cams - spend it on glas!!!
I still love my old NEX-3 and 5 and use all my Canon FD lenses with her.
That´s the cam I waited for and I never will switch over to an other digital system!
I have an old nikon D70 too and use it from time to time - but that´s nothing I realy fell in love with like my NEX.
If you feel outdated with a NEX-5n
get a NEX-7 or 6 but like said before - don't waste money on cams - spend it on glas!!!NeeZee
Well-known
well, what the others said: spend your money on lenses and get used to one camera instead of buying new ones all the time.
also, if your subjects feel disturbed it's almost never about the camera you are using but about the way you are approaching them. a RF doesn't make you invisible.
also, if your subjects feel disturbed it's almost never about the camera you are using but about the way you are approaching them. a RF doesn't make you invisible.
cz23
-
Any of the systems you have owned is capable enough for just about anyone. I'd suggest staying with what you have now and working to shift your focus from cameras to photography. That's where the real pleasure of photography comes from. Once you do so, the right equipment will suggest itself.
John
John
chuck77
Member
Thanks guys. I have only considered the M9 until now, but I did some research and do believe that the M8 is still relevant and still a very good camera today per the suggestions you all gave. It was a very hard decision for me to forego the 36MP of the Nikon DSLR and the astounding dynamic range and ISO benefits it has, but I have decided to return it to the store. Besides, I already have a DSLR that I can use for telephoto purposes!
I think an M8 is not a bad solution because I can use the Leica M lenses with an adapter on my NEX too. Not sure if it is a good price, but I bought a used M8 with 1500 shutter count for $1700. Should be coming in next week. Need to look for some lenses next!
I think an M8 is not a bad solution because I can use the Leica M lenses with an adapter on my NEX too. Not sure if it is a good price, but I bought a used M8 with 1500 shutter count for $1700. Should be coming in next week. Need to look for some lenses next!
Kiev Ilegalac
Established
isn't a $1700 too much for an outdated body-only? what do you expect to gain with it over the 40d? maybe I'm bias because I believe that Leicas are insanely overpriced, but for $1700 I would always go with the x-pro. btw I am very happy with the x100 and would always recomend it, but as Lynn said I'm not sure what your needs are
Alex
Alex
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How is it 'outdated'? Has it stopped taking good pictures?
What does it offer over the 40d? Size; weight; ergonomics; easy control; freedom from stuff I don't want...The M8 is merely expensive, but the 40d is insanely overpriced.
Over the X100? If you're happy taking pictures with a near-disposable camera, and leaping onto a treadmill of illusory upgrades, then the X100 is a better buy.
Cheers,
R.
Kiev Ilegalac
Established
Insanely overpriced yet you can get 5 of them for the price of 1 walk-on-water Leica
yes, I'm happy with a near-disposable camera, thank you.
Cheers
Alex
yes, I'm happy with a near-disposable camera, thank you.
Cheers
Alex
chuck77
Member
That's exactly how I felt (and still feel) about most DSLRs. They are simply too big and will only tag along with me if I know for sure that I am going on a mission to take photos. The superior optics of the Leica and the greatly portable size of the M cameras are what attracts me to them so much.
Almost all of my friends who were initially excited about their newly purchased DSLRs initially have now either stopped using their cameras, or sold them. I can honestly say that I have rarely been able to take advantage of the new advances in the new DSLR bodies, such as more autofocus points, or faster frames per second, or things like built-in Wifi. Everytime I have tried to buy a DSLR after my initial purchase of the 40D, it always felt like a huge waste of money, and I always ended up returning it.
Almost all of my friends who were initially excited about their newly purchased DSLRs initially have now either stopped using their cameras, or sold them. I can honestly say that I have rarely been able to take advantage of the new advances in the new DSLR bodies, such as more autofocus points, or faster frames per second, or things like built-in Wifi. Everytime I have tried to buy a DSLR after my initial purchase of the 40D, it always felt like a huge waste of money, and I always ended up returning it.
chuck77
Member
As for my photographic needs - I can only say that I am a hobbyist, but I also enjoy trying new photographic tools. Strangely enough, as much as I enjoy the latest and greatest gadgets, I have not been able to truly justify buying DSLRs despite all their new advances.
I hope the Leica M rangefinder is something that will add to my creative vision. Unequivocally, I find myself as comfortable using an LCD display to compose my pictures on a point and shoot as on an optical viewfinder. If anyone is interested, here are some pictures from my flickr, with photos fro my first step into digital photography to today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/perpetuus17/sets/
I still consider myself an amateur.
P.S. Someone suggest a lens!
I hope the Leica M rangefinder is something that will add to my creative vision. Unequivocally, I find myself as comfortable using an LCD display to compose my pictures on a point and shoot as on an optical viewfinder. If anyone is interested, here are some pictures from my flickr, with photos fro my first step into digital photography to today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/perpetuus17/sets/
I still consider myself an amateur.
P.S. Someone suggest a lens!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, and you can get 5 McDo burgers for the price of a half-decent steak. I know which I would regard as overpriced. I don't quite see your point here. And, as I said, "If you're happy taking pictures with a near-disposable camera . . . then the X100 is a better buy."
Cheers,
R.
Kiev Ilegalac
Established
This extremely fresh and witty analogy in which a perfectly capable camera is McD burger and M8 is Kobe beef assured me that further conversation is pointless. Elitism is hard to argue with and I don't want to crash Chuck's thread any further.
@ Chuck:My opinion is that Leica is obvious choice only if you are after MF and RF experience by all means. If not, I still think that x-pro is much better value for the money.
Cheers
Alex
@ Chuck:My opinion is that Leica is obvious choice only if you are after MF and RF experience by all means. If not, I still think that x-pro is much better value for the money.
Cheers
Alex
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alex,
So is reverse snobbery -- as in "walk on water". Of course the digi SLR is a "perfectly capable camera", and of course a McDo burger will keep you from starving to death. To a large extent, it's a question of how much you enjoy the experience of using the Leica or eating the steak.
Chuck's viewpoint appears to coincide with mine. Value for money is an extremely flexible concept, and depends on (a) what you want and (b) how much you want to pay.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Had the 40D myself years ago and still have the M8. Image quality of the M8 is miles away from what 40D can deliver.