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?
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: