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.
