dee
Well-known
It used to be so easy - a reasonable SLR [ Minolta XD 7 ] would be complemented by a good quality fixed lense compact - in many cases , the resultant Fuji slides would be similar and more than acceptable from both cameras .
Now compacts have smaller noisier sensors of various '' megapixels '' and slow zoom lenses , and budget DSLRS have different means of capturing the image , the same problem of how many megapixels / sensor size etc - and the chances of near matching images from an SLR and compact are tricky .
I have a Leica M 8 - my dream camera - maybe not the '' best '' in image quality , maybe not the most cost effective , but my dream . I love the images it creates , and how it creates them .
However , I would also like to squander the rest of my inheritance , not on a multitude of expensive Leitz lenses [ Old Rokkors being pressed back into guess focus to complement my vintage dee-lights ] , but on a budget DSLR and the dreaded all auto ... with aperture priority compact ...
AT what stage will I begin to really miss that depth / intangible something which an Elmar and the M 8 provide ? Is it how many pixels ? The camera or the lense ?
If I press an ex- Zenit humble I 50 into service on a modest Pentax D100 , will it offer me the '' 50s Leitz-style experience '' provided by a Rigid I 50 on my M 8 ? ...or do I have to up the pixels and '' processing engines '' in a '' better '' DSLR - most of which balk at old manual lenses anyway !
It's become totally unpredicable - looking back at my old 4 meg Canon G2 images , they seem perfectly OK - without the sparke , crispness and depth of my M 8 , naturally , but will a modern compact fare tHAT much '' better " ?
It's a mine field !
dee
Now compacts have smaller noisier sensors of various '' megapixels '' and slow zoom lenses , and budget DSLRS have different means of capturing the image , the same problem of how many megapixels / sensor size etc - and the chances of near matching images from an SLR and compact are tricky .
I have a Leica M 8 - my dream camera - maybe not the '' best '' in image quality , maybe not the most cost effective , but my dream . I love the images it creates , and how it creates them .
However , I would also like to squander the rest of my inheritance , not on a multitude of expensive Leitz lenses [ Old Rokkors being pressed back into guess focus to complement my vintage dee-lights ] , but on a budget DSLR and the dreaded all auto ... with aperture priority compact ...
AT what stage will I begin to really miss that depth / intangible something which an Elmar and the M 8 provide ? Is it how many pixels ? The camera or the lense ?
If I press an ex- Zenit humble I 50 into service on a modest Pentax D100 , will it offer me the '' 50s Leitz-style experience '' provided by a Rigid I 50 on my M 8 ? ...or do I have to up the pixels and '' processing engines '' in a '' better '' DSLR - most of which balk at old manual lenses anyway !
It's become totally unpredicable - looking back at my old 4 meg Canon G2 images , they seem perfectly OK - without the sparke , crispness and depth of my M 8 , naturally , but will a modern compact fare tHAT much '' better " ?
It's a mine field !
dee
chikne
Well-known
You might hear that a bit too often, but, it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it =)