tomasis
Well-known
when I purchased first camera. it was Olympus Om-2n. It was ok but I was not impressed by getting sharper images using slower shutters. Yeah I was such noob so I learned how SLR worked when I purchased Leica M4 as second camera. I said to myself that I found ultimate dream camera so I didn't touch Om2n since then.
When digital cameras did come, I was curious to try out one of those. I didn't even buy any P&S camera, so I bought third camera. It was Nikon D70 with 18-70. It was very late purchase though cheap when D200 already existed. It was my big mistake that I did resist to buy a brand new Rd-1 when I thought that it was too much expensive. Hell If I did know before, I'd buy M4 and Rd-1 as my first cameras. Now I didn't even sell Om-1 and D70 yet and it is time to do this now and get money for next lens purchase for the wonderful RF DRF
When digital cameras did come, I was curious to try out one of those. I didn't even buy any P&S camera, so I bought third camera. It was Nikon D70 with 18-70. It was very late purchase though cheap when D200 already existed. It was my big mistake that I did resist to buy a brand new Rd-1 when I thought that it was too much expensive. Hell If I did know before, I'd buy M4 and Rd-1 as my first cameras. Now I didn't even sell Om-1 and D70 yet and it is time to do this now and get money for next lens purchase for the wonderful RF DRF
Rhoyle
Well-known
The whole reason I use a rangefinder system is that wide angle quality is far superior to SLR. When I need telephoto I pull out the SLR. Right tool for the right job.
BH
BH
jl-lb.ms
John A. Lever
Hmmm... How is wide angle superior in the case of digital rangefinders? I'm getting severe vignetting in my CV 15, and it's not experienced in a Nikon 17-200. ???
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
JayC wrote: "In my quest for the Nikon lenses I want (heavy f2.8 lenses), I am realizing that the DSLR may just be too big and heavy, yet I still feel the need for a digital camera. "
Jay, I know exactly what you are talking about. I bought a D200 recently, and I got a 20-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor for it. Wow, is that heavy! After two long walks with it around my neck--which may never be the same--I took the neck strap off and put on a hand strap. This is not a walkaround camera. This is not your father's IIIa with 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. This camera is a hazard.
I don't know about the R-D1. I considered it for a long time, and almost bought one. But I didn't like it that even with my 21mm lens, the widest I can go is only a 32mm equivalent. Besides, all that money, and only 6MP. By a narrow margin, I decided on the Leica Digilux II. Lightweight, intuitive, and I do great with it. Yeah, I know, only 5MP. But I can only go out to 28mm with it.
So then it was Digilux III vs. D200. But the Digilux III is "only" 7.5MP. (Really that ought to be good enough.) And I have all my Nikkor lenses. So the D200. But it is so bulky and heavy! And so non-intuitive to use. As in: "Funny, why won't it do what the instruction manual says it should?" "Oh now it's doing it. But I don't know what I did to make it do that. . . " And, "Why the hell is it doing this now? I'm sure I didn't change anything." This, after I bought a separate book on the D200.
The Digilux II is so intuitive in use, I was shooting with it in minutes, even though I bought it used without an instruction manual. I don't seem to need one. Why did I think I needed anything more? I guess I thought I need more magapixels. And I did want higher ISO settings. An wider focal lengths.
Still I wish the Digilux III has been just like the II except with more resolution and a higher ISO.
Well, it sounds like I have gone down the same road as several of you and learned the same lessons.
Jay, I know exactly what you are talking about. I bought a D200 recently, and I got a 20-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor for it. Wow, is that heavy! After two long walks with it around my neck--which may never be the same--I took the neck strap off and put on a hand strap. This is not a walkaround camera. This is not your father's IIIa with 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. This camera is a hazard.
I don't know about the R-D1. I considered it for a long time, and almost bought one. But I didn't like it that even with my 21mm lens, the widest I can go is only a 32mm equivalent. Besides, all that money, and only 6MP. By a narrow margin, I decided on the Leica Digilux II. Lightweight, intuitive, and I do great with it. Yeah, I know, only 5MP. But I can only go out to 28mm with it.
So then it was Digilux III vs. D200. But the Digilux III is "only" 7.5MP. (Really that ought to be good enough.) And I have all my Nikkor lenses. So the D200. But it is so bulky and heavy! And so non-intuitive to use. As in: "Funny, why won't it do what the instruction manual says it should?" "Oh now it's doing it. But I don't know what I did to make it do that. . . " And, "Why the hell is it doing this now? I'm sure I didn't change anything." This, after I bought a separate book on the D200.
The Digilux II is so intuitive in use, I was shooting with it in minutes, even though I bought it used without an instruction manual. I don't seem to need one. Why did I think I needed anything more? I guess I thought I need more magapixels. And I did want higher ISO settings. An wider focal lengths.
Still I wish the Digilux III has been just like the II except with more resolution and a higher ISO.
Well, it sounds like I have gone down the same road as several of you and learned the same lessons.
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
Thanks for all your insight
Thanks for all your insight
Each day, I question what my photographic "style" is or will be, or what I want it to be. Tonight, I thnk the RD-1 will cause me not to use any other camer for lenses under 90mm, and then that means that the D200 is only for telephoto. That makes it a very expensive camera for a limited use.
I have unpacked the mamiya 7 from the "for sale" bin, and loaded it with film. Yet, now I wonder if even the choice of my 3 lenses there is bogging me down. Would a Fuji 670II be what (all) I really need for a larger negative? Thing is, it costs a lot of money to get a drum scan (I don't think I would do it). If I wanted big prints, I would just pay someone to do it the traditional way.
Can my D200 with a 17-55/2.8 lens get me the same (for my use) as my mamiya (or a 670II)? I have visions/dreams of having shows and displays, yet feel like I can't offer anything larger than 16x20 unless I shoot with a 6x7.....
I am an novice in the use of my D200. I haven't tried RAW, and my PS skills are just above a beginner.....
What I really want is ONE camera that can shoot both digital AND film, is lightweight (lighter than an RB at least), and covers 15mm up to 300mm.
Should I just sell everything I own and get a Leica R9 with the DMR or whatever it is called? (I just came up with that, but it is a legitimate avenue?)
Thanks for all your insight
Each day, I question what my photographic "style" is or will be, or what I want it to be. Tonight, I thnk the RD-1 will cause me not to use any other camer for lenses under 90mm, and then that means that the D200 is only for telephoto. That makes it a very expensive camera for a limited use.
I have unpacked the mamiya 7 from the "for sale" bin, and loaded it with film. Yet, now I wonder if even the choice of my 3 lenses there is bogging me down. Would a Fuji 670II be what (all) I really need for a larger negative? Thing is, it costs a lot of money to get a drum scan (I don't think I would do it). If I wanted big prints, I would just pay someone to do it the traditional way.
Can my D200 with a 17-55/2.8 lens get me the same (for my use) as my mamiya (or a 670II)? I have visions/dreams of having shows and displays, yet feel like I can't offer anything larger than 16x20 unless I shoot with a 6x7.....
I am an novice in the use of my D200. I haven't tried RAW, and my PS skills are just above a beginner.....
What I really want is ONE camera that can shoot both digital AND film, is lightweight (lighter than an RB at least), and covers 15mm up to 300mm.
Should I just sell everything I own and get a Leica R9 with the DMR or whatever it is called? (I just came up with that, but it is a legitimate avenue?)
gavinlg
Veteran
Leica r8/9 with DMR is the only camera that can shoot digital and film. It does both exceedingly well.
Although, you could have a leica m6 for $1000 in great condition, a d200 + 4-5 excellent nikkor lenses and probably just squeeze in a nice HP or EPSON printer with the left over money that would have been used to buy the r8/9 + DMR. Let alone the leica lenses.
In my opinion, if processed and printed well, an image from a d200 should be very very good at big print sizes - there shouldn't be anything to stop you going over the size you want. Sure a MF negative printed may get you a little more detail, but in galleries and shows where people view prints, you usually don't do massive ones. I've printed larger than 16x20 with my 8mp. 30d and was very surprised with how good it looked. If you really really want to go larger, buy yourself a canon 1d mk2 or even a 5d
My opinion, and what I do myself, is 1 d200/30d and one user leica rangefinder - m4-2/p or m6. Or a zeiss Ikon if you want it new.
Learn how to shoot your d200 well - it's an excellent camera. Use RAW, and learn how to use it. Buy yourself a copy of adobe lightroom or photoshop CS3.
Use the Leica for film.
Although, you could have a leica m6 for $1000 in great condition, a d200 + 4-5 excellent nikkor lenses and probably just squeeze in a nice HP or EPSON printer with the left over money that would have been used to buy the r8/9 + DMR. Let alone the leica lenses.
In my opinion, if processed and printed well, an image from a d200 should be very very good at big print sizes - there shouldn't be anything to stop you going over the size you want. Sure a MF negative printed may get you a little more detail, but in galleries and shows where people view prints, you usually don't do massive ones. I've printed larger than 16x20 with my 8mp. 30d and was very surprised with how good it looked. If you really really want to go larger, buy yourself a canon 1d mk2 or even a 5d
My opinion, and what I do myself, is 1 d200/30d and one user leica rangefinder - m4-2/p or m6. Or a zeiss Ikon if you want it new.
Learn how to shoot your d200 well - it's an excellent camera. Use RAW, and learn how to use it. Buy yourself a copy of adobe lightroom or photoshop CS3.
Use the Leica for film.
Last edited:
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
FYI: I have CS2, an Epson Pro 4000 printer, Nikon Coolscan IV, and an Epson 2450 flatbed. Not much has been used since I bought it. It was bought "for work", but actual "work" (and obsessing about cameras) has gotten in the way of scanning/printing.
Let it be known that I am also just above a beginner in scanning and printing.
I just checked the price of an 70-210 or so zoom for the Leica R - $$$$$$$$!
Let it be known that I am also just above a beginner in scanning and printing.
I just checked the price of an 70-210 or so zoom for the Leica R - $$$$$$$$!
Gid
Well-known
I do recognise and empathise with the problem. Not that long ago (less than a year) I had an M6, MP, Bronica RF645, Canon F1, Olympus E1s and an Epson RD1 all with appropriate lenses. I spent more time agonising over which camera and lens (lens combination) to take out than I did photographing. My photography went down hill and the backlog of undeveloped films or negs to be scanned increased to the point that I wasn't enjoying it any more. So I took some drastic action - got rid of all my film stuff and quite a few M lenses(except Canon F1 - sentimental reasons). My choices are now much more limited and specific - DRF is my carry around camera usually with one lens and DSLRs for weddings/portraits and occasional macro etc (although I have been using the DRFs for events and weddings lately in addition to the DSLRs). I am enjoying my personal photography much more now and due to the digital work flow have more time to photograph.
Regarding the RD1, it is not an M6, but it is as close as you'll get to one (the whole experience) with a digital camera - even more so than the M8 and the IQ is good enough up to A3 print size and beyond with care.
Sometimes having too much choice is not a good thing.
Regarding the RD1, it is not an M6, but it is as close as you'll get to one (the whole experience) with a digital camera - even more so than the M8 and the IQ is good enough up to A3 print size and beyond with care.
Sometimes having too much choice is not a good thing.