 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.247.222.89
I've been looking at the new, more compact dslr cameras that are almost the same size as my Leica R6.2 film camera with it's Summilux f:1.4 lens. As a tourist, I want something that's less bulky the better and can't be bigger then my Leica. This restricts me to entry level dslr cameras such as the Pentex *ist DS2, Minolta D5, and Olympus E500. All three cost from $600-$700. The Simmilux lens on my Leica costs over $2,000 new, I got it used for $1200 and is probably one of the best lenses in the world. About the only advantage I can see in a dslr camera is an LCD screen. But you cann't use it to monitor your immages before you take the shot, but can use them only to edit pics you have already taken. The bodies on these dslr cameras are crappy plastic jobs with far inferior lenses then the Summilux. They may be much lighter to carry then the Leica but they are by no means less bulky.
For you experts with your opinions, would it be much better for me to keep my Leica R6.2 and get a good scanner and/or have my photos scanned by a professional lab and put on a CD for my computer rather then even thinking about a new dslr camera?
Follow Ups:
I have three film cameras plus a little bitty pocket sized aps camers.
I also have a couple digital cameras, and like them for their convience. Digital cameras fail to impress me very much, but have taken note that the flaws I find in them seem to be getting better by the year.
I have a Nikon N80, and a couple Pentax K series cameras. The Nikon is a piece of junk. I thought for awhile I bought a bad one, but it seems tobe the regular thing. The APS camera takes better pics day in and day out everytime. The Pentax cameras blow the Nikons in the weeds, and they are close to thirty years old. One is a KX and the other is a K-2. I'd put the KX (with comparable lenses)up against any Nikon period. Before I bought my first Pentax I used nothing but Cannons, and they did take very nice pics when you allowed for the built in error in the light meters. But what made me get rid of them was that it seemed like every 18 months I had to send them in for a rebuild. I had no problems with their lenses. The Lieca you use has about the best glass you'll ever get in your hands, so remember that.
This Spring I'm going to buy a Fuji SP-3 (or the long rumored SP-4), and go from there. It's about 98% as good as the $5000 Nikon for $1400. The Pentax you spoke of will take the K-mount 35 mm lenses, and they have to be better than the Chinese lenses Nikon uses. I just wish it were a 9 mega pixal camera. If you are not into changing lenses then take a good look at the Fuji 9000. It will do 99% of what 99% of the users want at 9 mega pixal.
gary
I am an old diehard film guy and just got a Cannon Rebel XT, very nice camera, I think you will like it better than the e500. You are right the lens just are not as good, cannon does make many lens better than the standard lens with the kit. I will tell you that a did an 8x10 and it is as sharp as a 2 1/4. It took me a long time to come around, and I still don't like the feel of the lens, but I tell you that 8mp looks as sharp if not sharp than a 2 1/4 film, and the printer and conputer is a nicer enviroment the the old darkrooma
.......buying your own scanner. It'll pay for itself after awhile and you'd probably do a better job. You'd pay a fortune for hi-rez scans. I've made the move to a DSLR and haven't shot a frame of film since forever. That last SLR was an F4. Workhorse of a camera. I used to do an all wet darkroom. Now I print inkjet. Its just too convenient. To bad the new D back from Leica doesn’t fit the R6. $5K!
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
