advertisement


DSLR Advice

T

Taff63

pfm Member
Hi

Once upon a time (pre-kids) I was into photography in quite a big way and ended up with some decent kit (Contax, Manfrotto etc). I ended up selling most of this except a few choice bits I couldn't bear to part with - AX, RTS and a couple of lenses.

Anyway, after a few day trips becoming increasingly frustrated taking photos with a Canon compact, the bug has returned and I'd like to buy some new kit. Is there digital stuff out there there that can give the same quality as the Zeiss lenses I've used previously and, if so, what's the cost? Any help very welcome!
 
Eeeek! Here we go!

How about using the Contax and carrying on where you left off? If you're taking landscapes and portraits do you need the 'instant' thing digital gives?

Tony
 
Well, unless i'm mistaken your contax lenses cannot be adapted to be mounted on a modern DSLR camera body from Nikon/Canon etc. I believe they can be mounted on a M series rangefinder, so in principal you could mount them on a Leica M8/M9 to get digital that way - that's certainly not a cheap option though...

Do other camera brands come close in optical quality? I'd say yes, they do. Nikon and Canon high quality primes are about as good as it gets, but they tend to be expensive. Also, modern high quality zooms are a revelation, and offer fantastic quality but with a trade-off in maximum aperture and lens weight. You shouldn't overlook these.

Also, i'd point out that Zeiss make modern camera lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts, so if you really are attached to a Zeiss design, you can get modern examples for these camera systems.

If I were you i'd investigate some of the standard options from the major players, Canon and Nikon, and then investigate some of the alternatives which are if anything better value, but maybe not so obvious, Pentax, Sony.

One thing to bear in mind is that the crop factor in digital SLRs means that you will have a different viewfinder experience, and will have to get wider lenses than you would otherwise have expected.

Cesare
 
Zeiss make lenses for M, Nikon, Canon and Sony (Minolta) mounts (not to mention Hasselblad) the lenses are coded as ZM, ZF etc

The cheapest option for using the Zeiss lenses in the Nikon world is probably the D300 (or a second hand D200 or Fuji S5) as the smaller bodies (D40/D60) may not meter correctly with the manual focus and manual aperture controlled zeisses

Opinions do vary, but many people rate the Pentax lenses as the best out of Sony, Canon, Nikon and Pentax (although I find the pro spec Nikons to be way way better than any kit zoom). Personally I prefer Leica lenses to Zeiss, although the Zeiss models for the Hasselblad are very tasty

Cliff
 
Thanks chaps - plenty to think about. I'm taken with the immediacy of digital but I was a bit worried the end quality may be lacking - that appears not to be the case. I'm quite attracted by the idea of zooms if the performance is good enough - a couple of the Contax zooms I had produced very good results indeed.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Eeeek! Here we go!

How about using the Contax and carrying on where you left off? If you're taking landscapes and portraits do you need the 'instant' thing digital gives?

Tony
Click to expand...

That's a good question and one I've been wrestling with for a while. I'm not sure whether to resurrect and use the AX in anger or keep it as a future 'museum piece'. It was a glorious dead-end.
 
How many rolls of film could you buy, develop and put on CD for the cost of a DSLR with glass comparable to the zeiss glass you have? If your usage is such that it would take more than 3 years to get through that many rolls, I'd say stick with the Contax.
 
I'm in sort of a similar position. I currently use two customised Leica M6's (MP flarefree viewfinder and 0.72/3 frames) and 35/50/90 Summicron lenses.

I wanted to start using a digital camera, but there were several personal issues in so doing which prevented me from selling the lot and starting again. I must re-iterate these are personal niggles which might not be important to others, but here goes:

1. I don't like the weight and bulk of 35mm full frame DSLR's
2. The Leica M8 has too many irritating shortcomings (need for filtration and 4/3 sensor which means lens crops)
3. I can't get on with the lack of a proper viewfinder, holding the camera at arms length is counter intuitive for me
4. I don't like TV camera type viewfinders
5. The only camera which currently fulfills my criteria is a Leica M9. These are currently rare and expensive.

However, I do realise that if I stuck to my prejudices, I'm not going to move forward at all.

So, after some research, I settled on a Panasonic LX-3. It was a good specification, almost designed for photographers rather than as a fashion accessory. Although not cheap, the financial commitment wasn't so great, that if I really didn't like it, I could move it on without losing too much money. Buying an antiglare shield has helped but it's not the same as a good viewfinder. However, it is an amazing little camera with capabiities which belie its size, so much so, that I will soon sell one of the M6's.

I shall keep the other one and the lenses for b&w as I still enjoy working in the darkroom and also have a competant Epson scanner. By the time I have saved up enough for a Leica M9, the LX3 will probably be on it's last legs anyway.
 
Ian Hughes said:
1. I don't like the weight and bulk of 35mm full frame DSLR's
Click to expand...

The general feeling I'm getting is that full-frame DSLR's are going to become the norm and replace APS-C DSLR's over the next few years - basically the cost of the sensors is coming down, and DSLR sales are nose-diving anyway due to market saturation at the top end and improving quality of P&S & M4/3rds chipping-away at the bottom end (the average consumer really doesn't want to deal with the complexities of a DSLR, the number who never change lens and are always in P is probably quite scarey...)

The only reason full-frame DSLR are so big and bulky is because they are aimed at the Professional market, who need something that is big and rugged - there's no reason you couldn't put a FF sensor in smaller body and make it appeal to the serious amateur/semi-pro market who buy at the $/£ 1500 point (which is the bulk of sales & profits). The biggest issue these people will have is their investment in glass that's the not FF, so its a tricky move for a manufacturer to do... (the various pentax forums are full of QQ about this due to recent cryptic hints that can be interpreted that way)

The next couple of years will be interesting - there's too many formats in a saturated market during a global recession, and APS-C was always a fudge. Then again - so was 35mm when that was introduced!


Apologies for thread-drift!
 
If you have Contax/Zeiss lenses, get a Panasonic Lumix GH-1 with M42 adaptor for the present. Don't pay too much. You can use your existing lenses with the body (get the camera with the excellent Lumix 20mm f1.7). There is a crop factor of x2, so 50mm will become 100mm. Results are excellent, and the lumix makes a damn fine video camera for a fraction of the price (and bulk) of an equivalent Canon.
Full crop will become the standard, but not for now and not for a reasonable price. In the meantime, here in the real world...
 
Ian Hughes said:
2. The Leica M8 has too many irritating shortcomings (need for filtration and 4/3 sensor which means lens crops)
Click to expand...

Hi Ian

I had an M8 for a couple of years and it was fine if you didn't mind the lens multiplication factor of 1.33. The images from the M9 are more or less identical but the DOF scale is now accurate and the wide angles are pleasingly wide again. I think the M9 will come down in price a bit although the shortage of supply is partly down to a lot of pros buying them up as alternative available light cameras when you just don't need a 1.5kg beast. Also the M9 plus Leica glass has just as much resolving power as the D3X from Nikon which is pricier and has more megapixels in theory but doesn't really resolve any more detail.

I find I use my MP more than my M9 at the moment, so don't think you're missing out by sticking with the M6. The LX3 is like a mini Leica anyway if you abosolutely need instant digital.

Cliff
 
Ian Hughes said:
I shall keep the other one and the lenses for b&w as I still enjoy working in the darkroom and also have a competant Epson scanner. By the time I have saved up enough for a Leica M9, the LX3 will probably be on it's last legs anyway.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my plan. I'm enjoying my film cameras (inc. m6ttl) and the little Canon S90. When FF becomes standard and as cheap as today's lower end dslrs I'll upgrade if I can find a suitable adapter for my RF glass.
 
Thanks again chaps. More sense in the posts here than in the entire contents of 5 or 6 magazines I've bought recently.
 
I doubt very much whether full-frame DSLRs will become the norm. Ever. I heard that back in 2004, and keep hearing it, but it still shows no sign of happening.
As mentioned earlier, a full frame sensor means big body.
APS-C sensors are always getting better and better, and are always cheaper than full frame, and by quite some margin. Have you seen images from a Canon 7D? They compare very favourably with recent 1 series EOS images.
In test after test in magazines, there's so little difference in image quality between ALL cameras in a manufacturer's range that to the average buyer, there's no difference.
Pro DSLRs are tough, quick to make changes to using buttons, rather than menus and sub-menus, and make a great self-defence weapon against anti-terror cops!

Tony
 
Yeah maybe but given a Yank in an Apache you may be in even worse trouble. See 'Collateral Murder' thread.
 
I don't know your budget, but I am seriously impressed with my EOS 5D mk2. It's a cracking tool for great photos and a far better camera than I am a photographer. Plus, the 1080p video it can create is surprisingly good (do a Google search for 'Reverie' by Vincent Laforet to see what I mean) so it's a complete steal at the price IMHO. Though maybe more than you were thinking of spending...
 
Looks very capable. Wonder what the wife would say.................I don't do sport so the 3 fps isn't a problem.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
In test after test in magazines, there's so little difference in image quality between ALL cameras in a manufacturer's range that to the average buyer, there's no difference.
Click to expand...

Tony, I think it is important to flag the fact that there aren't that many different sensors in the world. Nikon only use 5 (or so) different sensors across their whole range. The D3X has its own one, the D3S has a turbocharged version of the one on the D3/D700. the D300 and D90 are the same and so on.

However there are differences in focussing systems and metering systems across the range too. The cheaper Nikons won't meter the older lenses properly and the cheaper Nikons will only autofocus the lenses with motors on board.

And then there are variations in the glass to consider. The quality of image possible from an 18-55 variable max aperture zoom will be hugely different to what is possible from a 24-70 F2.8 on full frame.

And then there is the depth of field effect of using smaller sensors. All in all, for the buyer with even the tiniest amount of knowledge there is a lot to factor in. If you have the dosh, it is a safe bet that you won't be losing out by buying a D700 rather than a D300 if you value shallow DOF and low noise over absolute price.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the average buyer would spot the difference between a portrait shot with an 18-55 consumer zoom and a 135mm DC lens at F2.8 even if the same body was used.

regards
Cliff

PS the 5D Mk 2 is a splendid camera and canons short F2.8 zoom is also splendid
 
I find I use my MP more than my M9 at the moment, so don't think you're missing out by sticking with the M6. The LX3 is like a mini Leica anyway if you abosolutely need instant digital.
Click to expand...

That sort of confirms my thinking Cliff. I notice on the Leica User Forum that people seem to be loathe to abandon film altogether, most supplementing with an appropriate digital camera within their means. I find the LX-3 is a good tool on which to learn digital techniques. It has its shortcomings obviously, but those are mostly down to form factor (lack of viewfinder and limited selective focus).

There is an M9 out there with my name on, and it will come eventually, but with many other expensive purchases to plan right now, it just has to take its place in the queue.
 
3fps is actually plenty for me, though like you I don't do sports. Even so, you'd be hard pushed to go much beyond 3fps with 20+ MP on anything but the very top end cameras. It's a trade-off. One worth making IMHO.

What you get with the 5D mk2 (and the Nikon equivalent I would imagine) is essentually noiseless images up to around iso 1600, with manageable results above that into the silly ISOs. I've a 10" square format photo (a crop) of my youngest taken at ISO 1600 and there is zero visible noise in the print.

A jpg version of that print is below; posted it here before but it's one of the few pics I have handy to demonstrate the camera. There is absolutely no noise, although there are some jpg artefacts in this version but the RAW is essentially very clean:

sorren-played-guitar-toned.jpg


Being full-frame, and used with fast primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8 etc.) you get a real three-dimensional quality that I've only really seen in Leica Ms and Contax G prints in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top