Suggestions / advice for new camera

[silvershadelynx]

Hi all,

I've been shooting pictures for about 30 years now and owned several cameras, including film cameras (in the beginning), and later digital cameras, mostly point and shoot / compact cameras, as I mainly use them on bicycle trips, but also around my house.

Currently I use an Olympus E-PM2 micro four thirds camera which is 9 years old. It was a very affordable camera and I've alway been satisfied with the pictures it created. Just the small knobs and many menus are a bit frustrating somethimes. And since the beginnng it doesn't save date / time in EXIF data. Since two weeks the kit lens gives an error when zooming in, so I'm considering buying a new camera, but after a lot of reading I find it difficult to make a decision, just because there are so many options.

Besides camera model decision I was asking myself about the purpose of photography in general: I made thousands of mostly digital pictures and most of them are not printed and I rarely look back at them. So I was wondering if I should stop making photographs. But I concluded that I really like to photograph and I enjoy the process of loosing myself in it. It helps me to get outdoor and enjoy the place, which is a positive thing. So even without reviewing the images later, it has purpose.

I have a weak for older, mechanical, "simple" cameras and technology, for instance my girlfriend only does film photography and has 2 Leica rangefinders from 1930 and 1950. I like the rangefinder focussing experience. I also like the simple controls: not too much dials and knobs. No autofocus (although I always use autofucus on my Olympus).

I also find the idea of not having a screen for live view / preview interesting. My Olympus lacks a viewfinder, and I would think I prever to have a viewfinder, and I would think I prefer an optical viewfinder to an electrical viewfinder.

I'm not sure if I should go analog or digital or both: my girlfriend advices me to stay digital, as developing and printing ones own film takes a lot of time and is expensive. The pros are affordable cameras which are mechanical and to my taste.

I looked for digital screenless cameras with opical viewfinders and they seem niche: only Leica, which is expensive, or Pixii, which is very niche, or Cam Snap, which is maybe too simple.

I'm interested in black and white photography, although I always did color. So I found the Pentax K-3 III monochrome, which is not a rangefinder by the way, but a optical vieuwfinder DSLR. It has a monochrome sensor and is APS-C format. It is weahter sealed and rugged and affordable compared to Leica. I think it is better tested and more stable than Pixii. But it's interface looks complex with many buttons and menus compared to the Pixii which has about 3 buttons. It has zoom lenses whereas the Pixii with its Leica M-mount only has prime lenses. I like the idea of supporting a smaller company and both Pentax and Pixii seem to be smaller comanies, where Pixii is a very small company.

The Pentax looks like a safer bet, but the Pixxi has the option of both color and monochrome photography, although it's monochrome images are a software trick, not a dedicated monochrome sensor without bayer filter. People seem to be content with its monochrome images.

So maybe you can give me some ideas or advice: analog or digital? Rangefinder? Pixii or Pentax, or something else?A lot of questions....

 

[splitimageview]

This will generate a lot of replies, but it may go in so many directions as to not be helpful. 🙂

What is your budget and what do you enjoy photographing?

 

[silvershadelynx]

@splitimageview thanks for your response!

About the budget: I try to live simple and cheap, so the current E-PM2 fits that style, but I can spend about 5000 euros if needed. I'm questioning myself if this is needed, as the cheapest point and shoot will already take you outdoors and create pictures. So maybe I'm too much focussed on luxury tools (?).

What I enjoy about photographing is mainly the action itself: finding a good composition, collecting memories, being there, focussing on 1 scene. Sometimes people complain that I spend way too much time creating just 1 picture. To me this is a positive thing, I have some problems with depression and winter blues, so if I enjoy something like photography, this is a big plus.

I would like to improve the artistic side of my photography: although I like to photograph for instance architecture just for archival purposes, and the renovation of my house, and the progress in my garden, I enjoy looking at artistic photographs, and recently in monochrome.

I think a camera is just a tool, but it would be nice if it handles and feels good. The current Olympus is just a bit small (knobs) for my rather big hands. But I made some images I'm very happy with.

 

[Coldkennels]

To me this is a positive thing, I have some problems with depression and winter blues

...here's a suggestion. And it's a big one, that would require space and time, but it's worth considering.

Shoot film, buy an enlarger, and take up wet printing.

Looking out the window, it seems we're fully into the wet season here in the UK. I used to hate winter - being holed up indoors drives me nuts. But now it's just an opportunity to get the enlarger out and make physical versions of all the photos I took while the weather was nicer.

If you take a long time over a photo, the cost investment in film is not going to be that high. If you're developing yourself, the cost comes down even farther. And you can get a lot of camera for your money with film. If you like shooting slow and have big hands, a good TLR will only set you back €300 or so... and the image quality from good black and white medium format film will blow you away.

Plus, the fact that your girlfriend also shoots film means you can go halves on the darkroom equipment. My partner also shoots film and setting up the enlarger and converting the kitchen to a darkroom for the night is a team exercise and a really nice shared experience. She prints first, then goes to bed, and I stay up for a few more hours cranking out the prints, then we review them the next day. It's a good time!

 

[Cascadilla]

As the owner of 2 Pentax K 3 bodies (not the monochrome version, but the earlier one) I can vouch for their quality and ruggedness. Pentax also makes many prime lenses in addition to zooms, and there are lots of older lenses out there in K mount that will work with their DSLRs, although metering is a bit of a compromise with older (pre A series) lenses. As someone who came to digital after many years of film shooting, I found the Pentax DSLRs fairly easy to adapt to in terms of controls. The K3 cameras have separate thumb wheels for aperture and shutter speed controls, and changing ISO is also pretty straightforward. I'm not familiar with your Olympus so I don't know how they would compare. It will be a larger camera and that may help with making controls more comfortable for your hands. Pentax auto focus isn't exactly best of breed, but it sounds like that isn't crucial for you. What Pentax DSLRs do have is decent, bright pentaprism finders, something that low end Canon and Nikon DSLRs lack. I hope this is helpful.

 

[boojum]

This will generate a lot of replies, but it may go in so many directions as to not be helpful. 🙂

What is your budget and what do you enjoy photographing?

This is the nubbin. I always fall back on the stock car racing axiom of, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?" Balance that against what you shoot pics for. If you are a hack like me you do not need to spend a lot, but you can. Higher success rates come with more highly automated cameras. At the other extreme is the full manual film camera, light meter and all. So if the process is your thing full manual film is a good choice. If you want a bigger pool of shots, full auto digital. Or maybe somewhere in between.

Treat yourself to something good. You are worth it and will enjoy the hell out of it when you use it.

 

[JeffS7444]

Why would you trust the advice of random strangers on the internet, rather than a girlfriend who almost certainly knows you better, and who also seems knowledgeable about photography?

EXIF data: Pretty sure your camera actually does incorporate time and date information, but it's possible that your software isn't configured to display it.

Cheap fix: Just replace the kit lens with another similar lens. These can be had cheaply as secondhand items, even in nearly-new condition. <100 Euros?

Not-so-cheap fix: Replace camera with OM System OM10-series outfit. Or, if you simply can't resist, a higher-line OM model.

Alternative: Nikon Zfc. I have been playing with one for the past few months, and IMO, it's a fun, lightweight system with plenty of retro-vibes, yet it's very reasonably priced.

 

[rfaspen]

The beautiful Kodak Ektra. Make sure it has the 50mm f/1.9 Ektar lens. Might be worth seeking out repair techs who'll work on them first.
Sorry guys 😬

 

[kxl]

If you just want to go out and take photos, either digital or film will be fine. Digital requires a good enough computer and software. Film has ongoing costs for consumables and processing. IMO, film requires a bigger commitment. Although I have a great digital camera (Nikon Z6 III), I primarily shoot film—I personally like the end to end workflow.

 

[silvershadelynx]

thanks for all your responses!

@Coldkennels: sounds like a good idea, I will consider it!

@JeffS7444: fair point. My girlfriend advices against analog, because of higher costs and way more work. But the amount of work can be an advantage I guess, if I enjoy it. I will do some research about developing and printing b&w film, just to get an idea. She also has doubts about digital b&w printing, as her experience is not always positive, compared to analog printing.

 

[Coldkennels]

@silvershadelynx, based on what you're saying, I honestly think film is the better fit.

You already have the support, you have a large amount of money you're willing to sink into this, and it seems to me that you really care about the "craft" of the process.

Film itself doesn't need to be expensive; if you look at the options at Fotoimpex in Berlin, you can get all the equipment you need to develop film for €45 (FOTOIMPEX Starter Kit Film Basic - fotoimpex.com analogue photography), and all the equipment to print 35mm film for another €300 (FOTOIMPEX Analog Starter Kit Entire Photographic Laboratory For 35mm - fotoimpex.com analogue photography). But if you scour eBay, local listings, etc. you can often get the darkroom equipment needed for printing for next to nothing.

Digitising film can be done with a dedicated film scanner or a camera scanning rig (€100-€300, depending on format and options), if a hybrid workflow is what you're looking for (often easier but a lot less satisfying than a traditional workflow, especially if you want to make prints, as your girlfriend has already pointed out).

And actual film costs can also be low, depending on what you're looking for. I usually use bulk rolled Fomapan 100 in 35mm - a 30.5m can costs €50, and that'll give you 19 36exp rollsm so about €2.65 a roll - and developing that myself in Rodinal costs me about €0.25 a roll. Even with a €300 scanner, a €300 Leica III, and a €250 lens, I could shoot 1,431 rolls or 51,516 frames before I spent all of your €5000 budget!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Pentax will survive any bicycle trip. You could get one with color and make it BW if needed. To be honest I'm not impressed by their Monochrome.
Pixii only makes sense as MAX to utilize GF's RF lenses in full mode 🙂

 

[JeffS7444]

Of course you can do both digital and film! But for me, film accounts for maybe 2.5% of what I do, and I prefer keeping the film side of things relatively inexpensive. If you process your own film and make your own prints, you can easily wind up spending more time in the darkroom than being outdoors, actually taking photos.

 

[silvershadelynx]

@Coldkennels thanks again for your extensive response! I was wondering if sliding film would be a good medium as well? Because there are still services for developing those films and one only needs a slide projector - no DIY wet printing needed. (although maybe the DIY wet printing is a big plus as you stated!)

(my girlfriend advises against sliding film as she thinks these slides have worse storage life (the slide itself), and it is too cumbersome. To me, I remind those times when I was a small kid: we had a wooden cabinet and behind the top doors were light / dark grey plastic slide containers with lots of slides. I looked through them and this made a lot of impact. My dad didn't allow me to touch them...

 

[silvershadelynx]

@Ko.Fe. thanks for sharing your experience with the Pentax - I read lot of positive comments about their durability which is a big plus for someone who is a lot outdoors.

@JeffS7444 fair point.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

thanks for all your responses!

@Coldkennels: sounds like a good idea, I will consider it!

@JeffS7444: fair point. My girlfriend advices against analog, because of higher costs and way more work. But the amount of work can be an advantage I guess, if I enjoy it. I will do some research about developing and printing b&w film, just to get an idea. She also has doubts about digital b&w printing, as her experience is not always positive, compared to analog printing.

Your girlfriend gave you sound advice. 😎

 

[Darthfeeble]

Take a look at the Epson R-D1 cameras, they are old. They have as good a viewfinder as was ever put in a camera. You can use all the M mount lenses you can find. At 6MP you won't overload your computer nor your storage availability. It's a fun camera to use with its lever operated shutter cocking and full manual controls. The results you will get from its sensor will probably impress you. The prices have been going up every year as they get more rare but still are pretty reasonable. I would recommend the X model as it would be the most recent manufactured. All of the series, R-D1, s and x are exactly alike except for the moveable LCD screen which is some times problematic. It's my most enjoyable camera and probably the most film like both in plus factors and in negative.

 

[Coldkennels]

@Coldkennels thanks again for your extensive response! I was wondering if sliding film would be a good medium as well? Because there are still services for developing those films and one only needs a slide projector - no DIY wet printing needed. (although maybe the DIY wet printing is a big plus as you stated!)

Slide film is fantastic, but an absolute nightmare to expose - you have to be very precise with your metering and will often need dedicated colour balancing filters to stop things like strong blue casts in the shadows - and it costs a fortune to buy nowadays. Looking at Fotoimpex again, their price for a 36exp roll of HP5+ in 35mm - a standard 400 ISO black and white film - is €9.81. A similar roll of Velvia 50, probably one of the best slide films ever made, is €21.75. And while you can develop both at home, black and white is much easier and cheaper again.

Medium format slides are magical, though. A properly exposed 6x9" slide of Velvia is one of the most stunning things you'll ever see without going up to something like 8x10" sheet film.

 

[silvershadelynx]

@Darthfeeble thanks for your suggestion! I've read about this interesting camera, but it's price (around 2000 euros) and age (if I'm correct it's from 2009, so 16 years old) makes it feel a bit like a risk: what if it fails in a short period after purchase? I can find it on eBay, but not on sites like mpb where you have at least some warranty.

@Coldkennels thanks again for your extensive explanation! Although it looks expensive - 22 euros for a colour slide film, if I'm correct it will be about 30 euros for film + developing (color) and around 20 euro's for b&w. Compared to a digital camera of about 5000 euros (lens included) I think this is still doable. It also helps being more critical what to shoot I guess, which could be an advantage?

 

[Coldkennels]

@Coldkennels thanks again for your extensive explanation! Although it looks expensive - 22 euros for a colour slide film, if I'm correct it will be about 30 euros for film + developing (color) and around 20 euro's for b&w. Compared to a digital camera of about 5000 euros (lens included) I think this is still doable. It also helps being more critical what to shoot I guess, which could be an advantage?

Honestly, you can get the cost of B&W down a lot with some upfront investment. Once you've paid for a scanner, a bulk roller and cassettes, and the equipment to develop at home (which doesn't require a darkroom - you can develop film within an hour in your bathroom), you can get B&W film down to about €3 a roll. C41 (colour neg) and E6 (colour slide) are both doable at home, but it's much harder to get those prices down considerably, so I still send those out to labs for developing whenever I want to shoot colour. You still save a small fortune digitizing it yourself instead of paying for lab scans, though.