switch to dslr what was your experience

I went from film point-and-shoot to digital point-and-shoot to film SLR to digital SLR to rangefinder.

My original film P&S had a crappy lens (I didn't know that was the reason at the time) and I used cheap film because I was young. So I switched to digital.

I took lots of photos and I learned Photoshop. But my digital didn't allow me to be terribly creative (no shutter speeds selection, etc) so I bought an F100.

I loved the camera. I shot slides and I learned more about exposure. I found it to be a bit too big, and slides cost me too much (there is no one within ~2000km of me that develops E-6) so I bought a D40.

The D40 was tiny and the quality of the photos was high (but not nearly as high as a slide). But I hated the look of digital files. I LIKE grain. Actually, I LOVE grain. And I missed the smell of photo-developing chemicals on my fingers.

So, after much thought, I bought a Leica.

And I'm not going back.
 
Well... I've had pretty much everything - film and digital SLRs and film/digital rangefinders as well.

As much as I love film and especially the leica rangefinders, my canon 5d is a very powerful tool for taking photos. It's basically bare bones - has all the features I could ever need or want - it may not be built as well as a d700 but the sensor really is still top of the line, even 4-5 years after it was brought out, and the interface doesn't get in my way at all for anything.

I have this romantic dream where I sell all my digital stuff and buy a leica mp, travel round the world with only a few types of film and use 20 rolls a day. The problem is that I use my 5d for work, so I couldn't really sell it. The other problem is that with my 5d I know exactly what I can expect in terms of results. It's a very very reliable camera in terms of image quality. Film doesn't have that reliability between limited dynamic range in slides to dodgy processing of negs to scanning with my old minolta dual scan.

As a picture taker at this point in time, my 5d is pretty much better than most, and thats why I don't own a leica mp (yet)
 
Wow, so many different opinions and experiences. I figure I can get about 2k for my m6 and 50 cron. I am definitely going dslr especially after reading some of these responses. But the question is should I get rid of my m6 combo for 2k? I like what someone said up above about having their m6 on the shelf looking pretty. But 2k can get me a nice F6 and a few primes or even a nice 20-200 vr. Sleepless nights up ahead while I decide :)

Thank you all for the feedback.
 
I'd keep all your film equip in the stable, just in case.

I like shooting DSLR, I started out with the release of the D40, moved into the D40x and both still see use to this day. I know its low-end DSLR, but it does what I need it to.
It's always fun to keep film an option, mainly just to see the look everyone shoots you when you take a picture and wind to the next frame... :)
 
Another option... sell your M6 and summicron. Buy the Nikon DSLR. And buy a nice old Nikon F1 or F2. You can use whatever lenses you buy for the DSLR can be used with the film camera whenever you have cravings for some retro film photography. :)
 
In 2008 I used and dumped the following DSLR to get back to my Leica kit:

Nikon D200, Fuji S5, Pentax K20D.

I hardly use my R-D1 nor my M8, my most used camera is my M6 ;)

So I conclude I cant switch to anything digital, at least for now
 
XCR said:
Wow, so many different opinions and experiences. I figure I can get about 2k for my m6 and 50 cron. I am definitely going dslr especially after reading some of these responses. But the question is should I get rid of my m6 combo for 2k? I like what someone said up above about having their m6 on the shelf looking pretty. But 2k can get me a nice F6 and a few primes or even a nice 20-200 vr. Sleepless nights up ahead while I decide :)

Thank you all for the feedback.
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify something - If I didn't use my 5d for work, I'd buy an mp so fast you wouldn't even know I'd done the swap. There are 2 things that the 5d does better - work that people pay me for, and serious projects where I'm building a creative/artistic portfolio. If I was just an amateur photographer recording life and doing fine art sort of stuff, I'd have an MP anyday.
 
I wouldn't switch 100% to something else unless I absolutely couldn't avoid it. I like the expressed suggestions to keep a modest RF kit, preferably the one you have now. But then I don't like to get rid of stuff, as I feel confident I'll want to use it again.

As for me, I didn't switch... I did buy a dSLR, a Pentax K100D, but it took me a year to get around to using it for the first time. So, to make up for that, I did a total immersion and took only it and a 24mm lens overseas for several weeks last Fall. It was fine, easy to carry and use, and I haven't used it since we got back. Should I sell it? I don't think so... I have some new Zeiss glass to try. :)
 
Well i must say i can't do without both my digital and film.

What i can't do on one system, i can work out on the other. Photography would be a little bleak if i were to lack either. I pick up my cameras for something almost every single day (not referring to meaningless clicking). When i feel experimental, having a full roll inside my Bessa isn't such a great thing, and i'm an 18 yr old student so that's not economical either. Digital comes into play! I get to train my manual focusing, light guessing and other stuff like that so it won't take me years and years of shooting solely on film to attain a level of "skill".

I can "train" on 36 exposures within 5 minutes on digital! Or even quicker.
 
I own a Nikon D40 and D300.

They're absolutely terrific, and the bulk of my photography is done by them. I also though, have a Nikon FE and FE2, Mamiya 645 Super, Canon QL17, Olympus XA, Fuji GS645 and am almost ready to pull the trigger on an F100.

Unless you really can't afford a DSLR kit otherwise, I really don't see the point of "switching." I like having lots of options on the shelf. While I am definitely an SLR man, there's times when I want what an RF has to offer, which is why I hang around here.
 
With film SLRs I was used to swapping (prime) lenses all the time. But with DSLRs I soon discovered that that was one sure way to have dustbunnies in no time. OK, I could get rid of them by cleaning the sensor, but it's not practical to do that in the field. In the end, I got a consumer grade zoom lens for the DSLR to see whether the dust problems would be solved by sticking to a single lens. And yes they were. However, it's no replacement for some kind of primes, so I've got two DSLRs now. One with a normal zoom permanently stuck to it that I can always grab to shoot without worrying about dust. The other that sees different lenses depending on what I anticipate shooting that day, and that I clean regularly..

Funny thing was that the $120 zoom I got for the DSLR was way better than I anticipated. Especially given that the first zoom I ever bought for a film SLR was a complete dog and wasn't cheap either (24-120AFD).
 
XCR, I've done exactly what you're contemplating and have no regrets. I sold my M6TTL plus 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons and a Nikon D300 to make the move to a D700 and an F6. Total compatability is the result and I can move seamlessly from one to the other. Yes, the Leica was lovely and I got some memorable shots with it, but I realised that you can't always have everything and it's been a painless change.
I have to echo an earlier reference to the IQ of the D700 at higher ISO settings. With my D300 I was always looking to keep the ISO to 400 or below. Not so with the D700.
 
robbo said:
With my D300 I was always looking to keep the ISO to 400 or below. Not so with the D700.
Click to expand...
With the APS-C Nikons, that was my impression too. Don't go above 400, or else..

But after a while I discovered that it's not the ISO800/1600 setting itself that's the problem. Instead it's the metering, especially in the presence of highlights that cause underexposure. At 800/1600, even the slightest bit of underexposure kills the image as there's no room to recover..

To get good exposure you need to spot meter, but the spot meter is about 3 stops less sensitive than matrix/center weighted. And when the light's low, the matrix meter doesn't really cut it. So, I've learned dial in the appropriate amount of +EV when there's highlights/backlight. Which proves to be somewhat of a mental tour de force, as the amounts differ between the ISO settings, camera models and the circumstances..
 
I think you'd regret selling the M6/50. Now is a bad time to be selling anyway. You have a dSLR so upgrade that if you feel the need for more gear. I came to rangefinders from a Nikon SLR background and it was interesting to read Phantomas experience above as I have the same perspective - using a rangefinder is a different way of thinking.

My experience with a dSLR has been good. I'm in my 5th month of ownership of a Fuji S5 and I bought the camera because I wanted as little of the dSLR "experience" as possible. I work with computers all day and the last thing I want is a hobby that is based on computer use. I chose the S5 because the out-of-camera JPEGs from it require virtually no post-processing, I bought a 17-55/2.8 zoom because I wanted auto everything and so far I've been very happy. The cam & lens are great, the images are excellent (that Nikkor zoom is a very good lens) and the convenience is incredible. I love it, but the dSLR definitely has it's place and will never replace my RF cameras. It is great for what I use it for, family snaps and suchlike, but I would never take it out on the street where I use my RF cams because (a) it is way too big (and we are talking just a D200 body here), (b) the lens signature is not what I want for street and (c) autofocus absolutely doesn't work for street.

You haven't said what your use is. If I were a pro there would be no question about using digital, the convenience and speed is unbeatable and lens signature appears to be irrelevant for magazine/internet publication. So I'd be using a dSLR and definitely not an M8. But for a hobby where I'm pleasing just myself? I've got different cams for the situations I shoot - film RF and SLR for street, dSLR for fam & everything else that needs to be quick, and a panoramic for when I'm feeling creative. Can you honestly say that you will only use one type of camera for all your needs?
 
Last edited:
rover said:
Well, I have been shooting a lot with my Pentax DSLR. My comments though are not specific to Pentax.

DSLRs are the tools of the devil. Man do they suck. The little f'er has a mind of its own and it argues with me all the time. Photography is simple, time and aperture. Why does the damn thing want to make it more complicated than that? It screws up focusing all the time, and even with a split image screen manual focusing is no joy. Here is the deal K10d, I am the boss. Got it?

Ok, opinion over.
Click to expand...

Funny. Similar camera, totally different results.

My *ist DS stays in manual mode most of the time. Split-screen add-on, just like you. I get a great deal of joy from my M42 and T-mount and K-mount lenses, and I use AF and AE sparingly. I find it utter simplicity to turn off the AF switch on the body, flip the knob to "M" for manual, and set my aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) myself.

The camera does just what I expect it to do, and is very easy for me to control - as much as a manual film camera. In fact, I often carry a Pentax-based film body to interchange lenses.

It adds certain abilities film cameras do not have, such as the ability to set ISO on the fly and the focus indicator light, which is close to perfectly accurate (I sometimes disagree with its assessment, but I can ignore it). I can also set a custom white balance, which saves time trying to correct color casts later.

In short, I love it. Auto-everything when I feel it is appropriate, full manual control whenever I want it.

My only consideration now is whether to replace my aging *ist DS with a K200D or a K2000 (don't really want the K20D).
 
My D700 is significantly larger than M cameras and the lenses are pretty much junk compared to Leica, specially corners on wides which are all soft ( have 5 like new ones). Aditionally they all have significant distortion of straight lines and significant CA. Of course you can get a 14/24 + 24/70 and have two monster lenses that are better or equal than primes. You will need to hire a caddy then.

If you still want to go ahead, a D90 is M6 size but no small wides are available for crop sensor cameras. A 24 is only a 35 field of view on a crop sensor. A D90 and new 35 1.8 is a nice small package, but sell nothing untill you get into it. Grad I still have all my Leicas.
 
I was never really 100% rangefinders (though I like the ones I have), so making the switch to a DSLR being the main rig wasn't really that much of a struggle. Once I found the right camera (in my case 1Ds Mark II) and befriended it I realized that a lot of things got "out of the way" and I could actually focus on the image I wanted rather than struggling with/against the camera. Now I am at a point where I am in sync with the camera, and I know how it'll focus/meter for given settings, and use that to get the shots I want. Most/all of my gallery from the past year were done on digital. It doesn't matter what the tool is as long as you can realize your vision.
 
once next upgrade after D700 comes out from Nikon, I wait month or two and then go shopping (for the D700). Nikon probably comes out sooner or later with similar megapixel monster as already D3X is, to compete with 5D MkII in this category.

no other plans in DSLR's, except keep eye on old 28 or 35 Nikkors :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom