I AM LOST! What camera should i consider?

O

oliviero

Member
Local time
8:36 PM
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
11
Hi guys,

Some time ago i sold all my gear and bought an Epson R-d1 which i quite liked but i couldn't really bond to it and eventually i decided to sell it. 6 month after I'm still wondering what camera I should get...

I have a couple of things I am looking into, but i would like to hear your suggestion!

To simplify my decision making process I made a list of what are the most important things which i need in camera:

1- Portability
2- Depth of field control (no small sensor cameras as they cant produce a shallow depth of field)
3- Available light capabilities
4- Must be digital

I'm equally enjoy shooting with both rangefinders and SLRs.

I know, I know, this is probably not the most exiting thread but i will appreciate if you can share your opinions...

THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR ALL YOUR HELP
o.
 
Look at the new olympus e-420 with the 25mm pancake lens. I tried one out during Brisbane PMA and it was fantastic. I have an e-410 and with the kit lens it can be a bit difficult to get subject separation (smallish sensor, slowish kit lens) however it's much easier with the 25mm pancake. I've been extremely happy with my e-410, the e-420 is a decent bit better.

Otherwise check out the d40x/d60 from nikon - it's a fairly small SLR with excellent capability - only thing is that it wont focus AF-S lenses from nikkor without their silent wave focussing. So basically, get the voigtlander 40mm f2 ultron pancake, a katz eye focussing screen, and a few nikon AI primes. Should be pretty cheap all up, and easy to manual focus.

Otherwise buy an m6/zeiss ikon and a few voitlander primes. Easy.
 
I'm afraid the first two things in the list are probably still mutually exclusive. Large sensors = large, heavy cameras and those with smaller sensors would of course require fast (and therefore big) lenses for your DOF requirements.

Leicasniper's suggestion of Olympus or Pentax would be the best compromise I think. The Pentax fast primes have been well received and IMO Olympus make the best zooms in the business if speed / size / weight is important (not that they are THAT much lighter). Hey who hasn't dreamed of a digital FM3A with a full frame sensor?

Of course if price is no issue there's that M8... and the Nikon digital RF rumours...

For me, I'd still use film and buy a Zeiss Ikon! Then ad it's digital body when (if) it comes.
 
oliviero said:
...but i would like to hear your suggestion!..
Click to expand...
Given the list of things you need in a camera, even this: http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/h3dii.aspx or this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sinar-hy6.shtml would fit..

But that's probably not what you meant.. we can only make wild guesses if you don't have a budget in mind, or a photographic goal. And I'm also not sure what you mean with 'no small sensor'.. Does that exclude the DX format dSLRs as well? In that case the full frame Canon 5D could be an option that is in the same price range as an RD-1.
 
A used DSLR that has been superseeded. In the case of DSLRs, why pay top dollar for the latest & greatest camera when it's soon to be replaced by one with slightly more megabangers? Canon have the most megabangers for the buck - it's the most popular brand, more frequently updated, therefore, widely available & cheaper secondhand.
 
My budget is 2500$ for body and 1 or 2 lenses. I will get 2 more lenses the next year.

I thought you couldnt use manual focus lenses on the d60 or d80 because of the metering not working with those lenses.

sorry for the short reply, i'm working at the moment:)

thanks for all the feedback
 
It all boils down to your priorities. It looks from your posts and budget that a digital rangefinder is excluded. Then you have a digital P&S or a dSRL, I would not go for a bridge camera. You can have a pocketable P&S but there is no model in the market that performs really well at high ISO, say higher than ISO 400. The Ricoh GR-D is the closest but it has many limitations (all the high ISO images I've seen from this camera play the trick of B&W where noise is less visible). I think that leads you to a DSRL.

In that market sector camera sizes are not too different, the size difference comes from the lens. I would buy Nikon or Canon. Sony is an alternative if you want to spend less but it has more limited lens choice and you do not seem to be on a tight budget. The budget you mention leads you to a Canon 5D or a Nikon D300. That Canon has no cropping factor, instead D300 has a 1.5 factor, this matters for your DoF point. The choice of lenses is enough for a whole thread, or many. If you do not want something big you are giving preference to prime lenses over zooms. Canon has few prime lenses, that would put you in the Nikon side.

All this is very vague, it would be better if you narrow down your priorities and select preferences. Sorry I can not be more helpful. You may want to ask this question in other internet forum, for instance www.photo.net

Arturo
 
Ricoh GR-DII. Amazingly portable, incredible image quality for its size, incredible low-light capabilities and a B&W 800ISO that looks exactly like Tri-X. And with its 1cm Macro and a maximum 2.8 aperture, amazing Bokeh for a 28mm lense....

Oh, and it's relatively cheap :D

(Cue obligatory plant shot - straight from the camera, no alterations

GRD-252of104.jpg


)
 
Olympus is coming out with a new model digital: The 520 with a two lens package. It will be small but with a 4/3 sensor. If you don't like those lenses the Elmarit zoom can be purchased instead.
 
If it doesn't have to be digital, at that budget, get a Zeiss Ikon and start out with a 50mm Planar. Add more lenses as you can.
 
From experience, I would say CANON Xti for the sensor quality, PENTAX for the ability to use their pancake lenses; canon does not hae such small offerings. this level of DSLRs these days come in very small bodies, i.e. the canon XTi is the same size as my RD1 but a little thicker.The problem is that the lenses are pretty hefty.
How about the GRD mentioned above, or the sigma DP1? Depending what kind of shooting you do, do you need a list of lenses, or just one or two?
 
oliviero said:
My budget is 2500$ for body and 1 or 2 lenses. I will get 2 more lenses the next year.

I thought you couldnt use manual focus lenses on the d60 or d80 because of the metering not working with those lenses.

sorry for the short reply, i'm working at the moment:)

thanks for all the feedback
Click to expand...

Canon 5D --- full frame = good DOF control --- great low light performance --- now under $2K (body) --- lenses start around $300 each, except the 50/1.8 which is cheaper. You can also use 3rd party lenses from SIgma etc which vary from not-so-good to excellent.
 
oliviero said:
1- Portability
2- Depth of field control (no small sensor cameras as they cant produce a shallow depth of field)
3- Available light capabilities
4- Must be digital

I'm equally enjoy shooting with both rangefinders and SLRs.
Click to expand...

A Nikon D40 or Canon XTi should fit the bill, and you could get a nice kit (camera included) for under $1,000. The Pentax DSLRs are no slouch either; great K-mount lenses.
 
I love my GR-D II dearly, but it fails on both the DOF requirement and the low-light capabilities - it becomes a B&W camera at ISO800 to hide the noise, and it's not great at ISO400 either.

Our new DSLR is a D200 - still a great camera, but cheap enough second hand: there's no way the D300 was worth it for these amateurs. I'd say a last-generation top-end SLR is probably a good bet on that budget.
 
I don't know how much weight you place on any one item, but if you need a portable camera with a (relatively) large sensor, I would check out either the aforementioned Olympus 420 or the Sigma DP-1. I personally haven't tried either, but have heard good things about both. The highest ISO on the Sigma is only 800, though.
 
A used Canon 5D - no doubt about it. You can't go wrong. I have an XTi. It is OK but the noise is too high above 400 ISO. The 5D should be better.
Eric
 
Just as an aside, doesn't depth of field depend upon lens focal length rather than sensor size? In other words, wouldn't the depth of field be the same as for the 35mm equivalent lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom