Spanik
Well-known
I'm looking for a new dslr but can't seem to find something that ticks all the boxes. And the longer I think about it the muddier it gets. So I'd like to put here my toughts and see what you guys can come up with.
I want a dslr because:
1: a rf never feels right to me. I like to see what will be in the picture, like wider than 35mm and longer than 90mm without auxilary finders. Likewise close-up shooting is on the list (no real macro).
2: I do not like EVF's. Tried a X-T1, X-E1, NEX-6 and just couldn't adjust to it.
3: size doesn't really matters, battery life does. I like to be able to get a good firm grip without having to add a couple of accesories.
4: should be able to use M42 lenses
5: I like full manual control so having a diaphragm ring and good focus screen is a real bonus.
6: don't do sports or running kids/dogs/cats, no safari, no need for 100's of AF points, scene modes, no studio work so no need for extensive flash support. A basic camera is fine.
7: lenses from 21mm to 200mm (eq) and f/2.8 (real) (could be f/4 for the 200mm), no need for f/1.4 as I like a bit depth and prefer another lens in the bag than weight that isn't useful to me.
8: prefer a cheaper body and use the spare change for lenses
With that in mind I took a look and came to the following overview.
Canon: is first on my list as I already have one right now and also lenses from my film eos. So it would be the fastest to start with. Familiar interface as well. Never got real concern about it either. Great selection of lenses and stuff like the 24/2.8 IS is just what I crave for. But looking at cameras with a focus screen for manual focus I see that it is the 1200D and then directly the 6D. Looks like a large step.
Nikon: not familiar with it but I feel that it is very similar to Canon in available range. So the question is then why change to something I don't know? The only one that might offer something more is the Df with its iso dial. But the extra cost for that doesn't seems justified.
Sigma: Having the dp1m and dp2m I'm every time surprised about what they deliver. The results are so great that I had to put the SD1m on the list. But no way I can get my hands on one just to feel it once. Reasonable lens lineup but missing "good" lenses. The lenses that Sigma has for it are excellent but rather on the large and heavy side. Something like the Canon 24/2.8 IS is really missing. And stabilised lenses are needed for a camera that is only usable to 400iso. Also doubts about the longer term viability. Already "old" and I don't like the Quadro approach.
Pentax: ticks quite a lot of boxes with good viewfinders, changable focus screens in all cameras, sensible no-frills execution. But I'm not convinced about the lenses. Sure a lot of old glass but some reasonable "new" glass seems to be lacking. The pancakes look attractive but not much to find about them and when you find something it generally is rather negative.
Fuji: only the X-Pro1 has a real viewfinder but as an rf is really comes last on the list. However I do like the interface with an iso dial and diaphragm rings. But again no "good" lenses only excellent large heavy stuff.
Sony: yes, I looked at it but with every piece of Sony gear I have, I have troubles and no support. So no thanks.
So only half solutions and no real answers. Getting a camera that is not what you need isn't motivating to use it. Could just get a p&s then.
I want a dslr because:
1: a rf never feels right to me. I like to see what will be in the picture, like wider than 35mm and longer than 90mm without auxilary finders. Likewise close-up shooting is on the list (no real macro).
2: I do not like EVF's. Tried a X-T1, X-E1, NEX-6 and just couldn't adjust to it.
3: size doesn't really matters, battery life does. I like to be able to get a good firm grip without having to add a couple of accesories.
4: should be able to use M42 lenses
5: I like full manual control so having a diaphragm ring and good focus screen is a real bonus.
6: don't do sports or running kids/dogs/cats, no safari, no need for 100's of AF points, scene modes, no studio work so no need for extensive flash support. A basic camera is fine.
7: lenses from 21mm to 200mm (eq) and f/2.8 (real) (could be f/4 for the 200mm), no need for f/1.4 as I like a bit depth and prefer another lens in the bag than weight that isn't useful to me.
8: prefer a cheaper body and use the spare change for lenses
With that in mind I took a look and came to the following overview.
Canon: is first on my list as I already have one right now and also lenses from my film eos. So it would be the fastest to start with. Familiar interface as well. Never got real concern about it either. Great selection of lenses and stuff like the 24/2.8 IS is just what I crave for. But looking at cameras with a focus screen for manual focus I see that it is the 1200D and then directly the 6D. Looks like a large step.
Nikon: not familiar with it but I feel that it is very similar to Canon in available range. So the question is then why change to something I don't know? The only one that might offer something more is the Df with its iso dial. But the extra cost for that doesn't seems justified.
Sigma: Having the dp1m and dp2m I'm every time surprised about what they deliver. The results are so great that I had to put the SD1m on the list. But no way I can get my hands on one just to feel it once. Reasonable lens lineup but missing "good" lenses. The lenses that Sigma has for it are excellent but rather on the large and heavy side. Something like the Canon 24/2.8 IS is really missing. And stabilised lenses are needed for a camera that is only usable to 400iso. Also doubts about the longer term viability. Already "old" and I don't like the Quadro approach.
Pentax: ticks quite a lot of boxes with good viewfinders, changable focus screens in all cameras, sensible no-frills execution. But I'm not convinced about the lenses. Sure a lot of old glass but some reasonable "new" glass seems to be lacking. The pancakes look attractive but not much to find about them and when you find something it generally is rather negative.
Fuji: only the X-Pro1 has a real viewfinder but as an rf is really comes last on the list. However I do like the interface with an iso dial and diaphragm rings. But again no "good" lenses only excellent large heavy stuff.
Sony: yes, I looked at it but with every piece of Sony gear I have, I have troubles and no support. So no thanks.
So only half solutions and no real answers. Getting a camera that is not what you need isn't motivating to use it. Could just get a p&s then.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
IMO the Nikon D610 is the best dslr given your specs. The only criticism is the number/grouping of auto focus points which is not relevant to you. The D610 I feel is the best value in this format and is tough and lenses are a bargain given their quality!
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
What tick all the boxes is a used full frame EOS with Ec-B.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Nikon won't work with M42 at infinity.
A full-frame Canon looks like your best bet.
A full-frame Canon looks like your best bet.
Ronald M
Veteran
Unless you can find an adapter that allows diaphragm automation, forget using M42 lenses. You will be back in the 50`s
Range-rover
Veteran
Go for the Canon a 5D mark II or III would be great start and you already
have some EOS lenses.
Range
have some EOS lenses.
Range
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I recommend to get FF Canon body with grip. Two batteries will lasts very long time even at freezing temperatures.
Used 5DII or 6D. Where are big list on the internet of all kind of old mounts lenses compatible.
Two things you might consider if you want to progress:
Modern MF lenses are better on digital comparing old for film ones.
Old and new Zeiss is no exclusion. Samyang is cheap and modern alternative, with good results.
Focusing screen for manual lenses is in the past. New Zeiss and Voightlander MF lenses supports AF points and modern adaptors to old MF lenses as well.
This method will give you more accuracy and not only central area to focus with. Plus clear view through all of VF and availability to use fast and slow apertures, which is big deal on slow part for some old MF lenses on EOS.
Modern Zeiss 50 1.4 for EOS mount. Not so good at 1.4 but from F2 to F8 this lens leaves in the dust my 50L. I only sold Zeiss because I don't use MF for our kinds photography.
Used 5DII or 6D. Where are big list on the internet of all kind of old mounts lenses compatible.
Two things you might consider if you want to progress:
Modern MF lenses are better on digital comparing old for film ones.
Old and new Zeiss is no exclusion. Samyang is cheap and modern alternative, with good results.
Focusing screen for manual lenses is in the past. New Zeiss and Voightlander MF lenses supports AF points and modern adaptors to old MF lenses as well.
This method will give you more accuracy and not only central area to focus with. Plus clear view through all of VF and availability to use fast and slow apertures, which is big deal on slow part for some old MF lenses on EOS.
Modern Zeiss 50 1.4 for EOS mount. Not so good at 1.4 but from F2 to F8 this lens leaves in the dust my 50L. I only sold Zeiss because I don't use MF for our kinds photography.
JP Owens
Well-known
As others have pointed out, a FF Canon seems to fulfill all your wants.
Addy101
Well-known
You answered your own question. As you don't think Pentax is the answer and you don't like EVF's (or Sony) the way to go is Canon. If you like crop, take a look at the older 60D, it has interchangeable screens too.
willie_901
Veteran
The M42 compatibility requirement rather limits your choices for DSLRs. M42 adaptors for Canon EOS mount DSLRs are common. Many people enjoy Canon DSLRs.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
The Canon 6D is the little camera that could. It is the lightest and smallest DSLR, is one of the least expensive, and with the installation of the
Canon Standard Precision Matte Eg-A II focusing screen, you are good to go with your manual focus lenses. With the Fotodiox M-42 to Canon EOS Pro Adapter, you can also get focus confirmation.
Canon Standard Precision Matte Eg-A II focusing screen, you are good to go with your manual focus lenses. With the Fotodiox M-42 to Canon EOS Pro Adapter, you can also get focus confirmation.
MaxElmar
Well-known
If you already have a great collection of M42 lenses, by all means get the Canon. They will work very well and you have the option of going with Zeiss, Leica R, or other modern lenses. Canon EOS is the most adaptable because it's the shortest mount and the most popular in today's marketplace. And the EOS line itself is pretty damn good.
If you are starting from scratch, the selection of Nikkors (going back to 1959) is pretty much unparalleled in the DSLR world. After mucking about with m42 and K-Mount for about a decade, they're quite good-even wonderful, but anything (maybe) actually better than the Nikkor equivalent (count them on one hand - A* or Limited series) is very rare and expensive - if it exists at all. And I know about the beautiful "rare birds" in m42 - Meyer and Zeiss, etc. How much better is an 180/2.8 "Olympic Sonnar" than a Ai 180/2.8 ED Nikkor? Answer - it probably isn't - not in any quantifiable quality. But if it makes you feel good, do it. And I know all about the excellent m42 SMC Takumars - I owned many and kept a few.
If you are starting from scratch, the selection of Nikkors (going back to 1959) is pretty much unparalleled in the DSLR world. After mucking about with m42 and K-Mount for about a decade, they're quite good-even wonderful, but anything (maybe) actually better than the Nikkor equivalent (count them on one hand - A* or Limited series) is very rare and expensive - if it exists at all. And I know about the beautiful "rare birds" in m42 - Meyer and Zeiss, etc. How much better is an 180/2.8 "Olympic Sonnar" than a Ai 180/2.8 ED Nikkor? Answer - it probably isn't - not in any quantifiable quality. But if it makes you feel good, do it. And I know all about the excellent m42 SMC Takumars - I owned many and kept a few.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
My take on this, for what it's worth, is that the purchase of a DSLR needs to be a sound investment. Digital cameras are replaced (not made obsolete as many suggest) every 18 months or so. Different sized sensors, better low light capability, faster motor drives, etc). Therefore, for me, getting a DSLR that's just been replaced - but still provides what you want is good move; a bit like buying a 3 year old car which is half the price of the new one and still has a load of miles left on the clock. As it's s/hand, get a good one from a reputable dealer / seller.
The next thing is get one that fits your hand and your eye. I couldn't care less what badge is on the front and, when you're showing your photos to customers, family or friends, they will have no idea (and won't care) what kit you use. The end result is all that matters. I like to have a camera that I can use wearing mittens. A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but my thing is landscape and travel. therefore, I don't want something that has tiny, fiddly buttons that aren't readily accessible.
How many lenses do you need? What are you going to shoot? I have a Nikon D800 with which I share lenses with my Nikon F5 and F6. My wife has a Fuji X-T1 which has a fantastic EVF (not a rangefinder) and a superb range of lenses available. Image quality is fabulous and it is incredibly light and portable. There are times I'm really jealous but I love the D800 as it's almost MF in terms of resolution.
So, my suggestion is to choose well within budget and be particularly picky when it comes to how easy it is to use.
The next thing is get one that fits your hand and your eye. I couldn't care less what badge is on the front and, when you're showing your photos to customers, family or friends, they will have no idea (and won't care) what kit you use. The end result is all that matters. I like to have a camera that I can use wearing mittens. A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but my thing is landscape and travel. therefore, I don't want something that has tiny, fiddly buttons that aren't readily accessible.
How many lenses do you need? What are you going to shoot? I have a Nikon D800 with which I share lenses with my Nikon F5 and F6. My wife has a Fuji X-T1 which has a fantastic EVF (not a rangefinder) and a superb range of lenses available. Image quality is fabulous and it is incredibly light and portable. There are times I'm really jealous but I love the D800 as it's almost MF in terms of resolution.
So, my suggestion is to choose well within budget and be particularly picky when it comes to how easy it is to use.
Spanik
Well-known
Wow, a good deal of food for tought. Thanks for that. Just going to take a few recurring points.
As for staying with Canon it is just because it is the only thing I know. Went from an EOS RT to a 300D but that last one is been acting up with bad contacts. So I have no knowledge of the Nikon/Pentax ecosystem, just impressions and what I read on forums. My main system now is a Mamiya ProTl. Going digital medium format is just impossible budgetwise. I'm not particular about crop or ff, can't see that one of them would offer a large advantage. At the moment it seems to point to a 6D, a new 5D is out of my budget.
I don't mind being in the '50s
For me using the camera is almost more a pleasure than looking at the results. So manual focus, handheld lightmeter, setting speed and diaphragm is much part of the experience. It is also a way to combat the urge to come back with 1000 photos from a 10 day holiday. So a lot that I will very likely never look at them again. I do have one of those M42 adaptors with focus confirmation but my experience is that this is not very reliable. Can be that this has changed over the years (have it already some years). So an adapted focus screen seems still needed.
A few of you have stated that "old" glas isn't probably the way to go. I do have some older CZJ, Meyer and Takumar but not what I would call a "great" collection. Suppose I drop the demand for M42 use, would that change anything substantially?
As for staying with Canon it is just because it is the only thing I know. Went from an EOS RT to a 300D but that last one is been acting up with bad contacts. So I have no knowledge of the Nikon/Pentax ecosystem, just impressions and what I read on forums. My main system now is a Mamiya ProTl. Going digital medium format is just impossible budgetwise. I'm not particular about crop or ff, can't see that one of them would offer a large advantage. At the moment it seems to point to a 6D, a new 5D is out of my budget.
I don't mind being in the '50s
For me using the camera is almost more a pleasure than looking at the results. So manual focus, handheld lightmeter, setting speed and diaphragm is much part of the experience. It is also a way to combat the urge to come back with 1000 photos from a 10 day holiday. So a lot that I will very likely never look at them again. I do have one of those M42 adaptors with focus confirmation but my experience is that this is not very reliable. Can be that this has changed over the years (have it already some years). So an adapted focus screen seems still needed.A few of you have stated that "old" glas isn't probably the way to go. I do have some older CZJ, Meyer and Takumar but not what I would call a "great" collection. Suppose I drop the demand for M42 use, would that change anything substantially?
Vics
Veteran
In a similar circumstance, I went for a 2008 Sony a200 APS-C camera, as I already had some Minolta AF glass. I've been perfectly happy with it. I have 36mm to 300mm equiv. covered with 24, 50, 35-70, and 100-200mm lenses. The new-ish a58 with kit lens sells for about $400 brand new.
Spanik
Well-known
Regarding second hand, there aren't any dealers in this around me. So I have only the net as an option. Looked around on a local photography forum that has quite a lot of s/h gear offerings but I feel that isn't worth it. Let us say that "as new" means 50000-60000 shots for 75% of the new price around here. Even if that camera is only 6-9 months old that is a very well used camera to me. I prefer to get a new 6D instead for the same price.
As for lenses I "need" at least (all eq 135 format) a 35mm as that is 80% of my usage now. Then something wider around 24mm and something longer around 80-100mm. And a lens that can get close like 1:2. Most is travel, city, inside churches and museums (natural light), little landscape. The close up is for my model building to get details of parts and pieces.
As for lenses I "need" at least (all eq 135 format) a 35mm as that is 80% of my usage now. Then something wider around 24mm and something longer around 80-100mm. And a lens that can get close like 1:2. Most is travel, city, inside churches and museums (natural light), little landscape. The close up is for my model building to get details of parts and pieces.