If you wanted a camera that was.....

[Rockmeister]

...smallish, lightish had a lens from 28 - 80ish, was unobtrusive, simple, a bit old fashioned in it's control set (in that a viewfinder, basic autofocus and full manual control is all that's really needed), which gave images with beautiful colour that were sharp enough for an A1 poster print...

What would you choose and why?

Budget for system must be under £1000.

Any medium, any make, any age but a two thirds sensor is as small as will be ok.

I have a Canon G5X mark2 which nearly does it all, and ditto my old Oly OM d10 Mk2 was that close, but both are fiddly, too tiny, with viewfinders that don't suit glasses and old eyes, and neither quite qualifies for the A1 blow up stipulation (tho both are fine at A3).

Like to hear of all experiences and suggestions. Ta.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

X-T3 + XF18-55mm

£99 over budget at Fuji Refurb Store https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/fujifilm-x-t3-kit-xf18-55mm-lens-refurbished

Secondhand - should be obtainable in budget

 

[ff1d1l]

The x E3 I impulse bought recently comes in well under budget, and works well with the 18-55 lens, and doesn't feel too unbalanced (its a very small and light body) . I like it better though with the 27mm pancake lens, which is quite a bit sharper than the 18-55, and as a combo extremely light and unobtrusive.
X e3 body new £349, second hand 27mm 2.8 off the bay just under £200. But if you want stabilisation in lens, you'd have to get the recent iteration of the lens, which is scarce second hand and quite a bit more. The 18-55 has this, though.
Edit...Image quality is identical to the X T3.

 

[Rockmeister]

Thanks both...I guesses Fuji would feature. I quite want my old Nikon FM2n back but in digital form. Those 2 must be close!

 

[Gromit]

Thanks both...I guesses Fuji would feature. I quite want my old Nikon FM2n back but in digital form. Those 2 must be close!

You'd get a clean Nikon Df for around £1k - if you did, I've got a AF-Nikkor 28-70 3.5-4.5D (in really nice condition) you can have for nowt. A bit of a 'sleeper' lens in the Nikon line-up. I wouldn't say the Df is particularly small, but it is still just about the smallest FF DSLR out there, nice & light too. IQ to die for.

 

[clivem2]

I have a Df. I grew up with an FE so I’m very much at home with the Df. I love the way it works and the results too. I use a couple of modern lenses and bunch of old manual ones too. It’s fun.

 

[Rockmeister]

You'd get a clean Nikon Df for around £1k - if you did, I've got a AF-Nikkor 28-70 3.5-4.5D (in really nice condition) you can have for nowt. A bit of a 'sleeper' lens in the Nikon line-up. I wouldn't say the Df is particularly small, but it is still just about the smallest FF DSLR out there, nice & light too. IQ to die for.

Well that's a lovely offer from you! Many thanks indeed. It'd be a bit big...about the same as my 610, so I doubt it would make the list

A Z50 might be interesting. I see panamoz do a 2 lens and body bundle for just a few quid over budget,
Anyoine tried one?

 

[Gromit]

Well that's a lovely offer from you! Many thanks indeed. It'd be a bit big...about the same as my 610, so I doubt it would make the list

A Z50 might be interesting. I see panamoz do a 2 lens and body bundle for just a few quid over budget,
Anyoine tried one?

You'd be more than welcome, John - can understand your reluctance to the Df's size though, that FF sensor/mirror box has to fit somewhere!

The Z50 could be a good call, it does seem to be receiving good press and if the UI is standard Nikon (no reason it shouldn't be) it'll be a pleasure to have in-hand.

 

[Rockmeister]

yes I was hoping for something that had that as a high priority. I was looking at DPReview and some chap who had 'photographed America' https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...do-s-love-letter-to-new-york-city-shot-on-4x5

and thought...well he used a huge film 'field' camera, but I could do that without the twist. What would i use? Hence the thread (you'd say, quite rightly, LEICA hahaha but it's over budget )

 

[tuga]

I’m the same. It took me a while to make the move to digital from a body which served me extremely well.
Used Pentax dslrs for a while then tried mirrorless e-m5 to x-t1 to e-m5mk2 to again a x-t1.
I bought a 6d about a year ago, during lockdown, but it’s not the Contax RX, and it’s big and mirror-noisy, and I’m not longer sure I can live without an EVF even though I don’t really enjoy using one.
Perhaps I need to get used to framing with the LCD and get an RX100 or an equivalent Canon. Something that I can have in my pocket, that won’t end up left back home because it’s heavy and bulky and stands between me and the photograph I can see and wish to make

 

[albireo]

...smallish, lightish had a lens from 28 - 80ish, was unobtrusive, simple, a bit old fashioned in it's control set (in that a viewfinder, basic autofocus and full manual control is all that's really needed), which gave images with beautiful colour that were sharp enough for an A1 poster print...
[...]
I have a Canon G5X mark2 which nearly does it all, and ditto my old Oly OM d10 Mk2 was that close, but both are fiddly, too tiny, with viewfinders that don't suit glasses and old eyes, and neither quite qualifies for the A1 blow up stipulation (tho both are fine at A3).

Sounds like you're where I was 3 years ago. After a long search I personally I decided a digital camera with the feature list/ergonomics/simplicity/price I was after doesn't really exist so I

.. went back to film!

Having a great time with my Olympus OM2n and my Nikon FE. Real jewels to this day.

And the funny thing is: after a bit of an exploratory phase with film scanning - I'm getting better results (for my taste) from a well exposed+developed+scanned negative than those I was getting from that godawful X-trans sensor on my old Fujifilm X-T10 mirrorless. Pity because that line of cameras really came close to what I wanted in terms of handling and ergonomics.

 

[philsparks]

" And the funny thing is: after a bit of an exploratory phase with film scanning - I'm getting better results (for my taste) from a well exposed+developed+scanned negative than those I was getting from that godawful X-trans sensor on my old Fujifilm X-T10 mirrorless. Pity because that line of cameras really came close to what I wanted in terms of handling and ergonomics."

interesting. I've ended up using my OM1 and MX a lot more than my Sony A7. I just prefer the tangible nature of them and the process of developing and printing. However I'm not sure I'd say the scanned negs are better quality than my Sony digi files. More character for sure, but a lot more grain. Wondering how you ended up scanning your negs? I have an old Canon 4000 film scanner (4000dpi) and Vuescan. It's decent on colour negs but pretty gritty on B&W almost regardless of which film I use. Proper home printed wet prints are lovely, but I've never been that pleased with scans. Any advice would be much appreciated.

cheers
Phil

 

[Hazelberry]

Digital cameras have only become ever more complex. Of course one can ignore the trick bits they don't need, but imagine a digital camera that did raw only, similar in form and function to say a top vintage Olympus film camera, and think how life would become so much easier.

 

[albireo]

" And the funny thing is: after a bit of an exploratory phase with film scanning - I'm getting better results (for my taste) from a well exposed+developed+scanned negative than those I was getting from that godawful X-trans sensor on my old Fujifilm X-T10 mirrorless. Pity because that line of cameras really came close to what I wanted in terms of handling and ergonomics."

interesting. I've ended up using my OM1 and MX a lot more than my Sony A7. I just prefer the tangible nature of them and the process of developing and printing. However I'm not sure I'd say the scanned negs are better quality than my Sony digi files. More character for sure, but a lot more grain. Wondering how you ended up scanning your negs? I have an old Canon 4000 film scanner (4000dpi) and Vuescan. It's decent on colour negs but pretty gritty on B&W almost regardless of which film I use. Proper home printed wet prints are lovely, but I've never been that pleased with scans. Any advice would be much appreciated.

cheers
Phil

Phil - I have never owned a Sony A7 however I know they ship with a top-shelf Bayer sensor which is pretty much state of the art in the digital photography world. Therefore in terms of pure sensor performance I think I'd be very happy with an A7. On the other hand those times I've handled an A7-class camera I thought all the complexity and buttons were getting in the way. Sort of a minicomputer with a camera attached if you will. So the A7 was out.

Anyhow in my particular case I was instead comparing the results of a scanned 35mm negative with those out of the X-trans sensor from a older generation Fujifilm camera (I had an X-T10). I haven't tested the current generation of these camera/sensors so can't comment - however, on mine, the out of camera JPEGs (never was interested in shooting raw) often showed issues with fine detail of very complex objects (rocks, grass, leaves, canopy). My findings are that (for my taste) the detail and the overall tonal rendition out of a scanned negative (depending on film and developer of course) is to me more pleasant than that out of the X-T10 jpegs - perhaps more effortless? More agreeable? Not sure how to define. I'm not interested in sheer resolution figures by the way.

So yes- I'm not in any way opposed to digital photography, and in fact the outcome of my 'analog workflow' is a digital artefact, a file. But the way I get there, and the tools I use, are now much simpler and suit me much better.

As for the actual process, I, like you, use Vuescan and a couple of relatively inexpensive dedicated film scanners. I've owned a Plustek 7500i (the current version is known as the 8100) and now use a 15 years old Minolta Scan Dual IV, which is slightly better than the Plustek, and faster. It's a learning process but if you hang in there the results are wonderful. There are a few tutorials on youtube. If you are willing to start anew you could try scanning with your DSLR - people report excellent results and the workflow is faster than with a scanner. I do not own a DSLR anymore so I haven't tested this option. Plenty of tutorials on youtube if this is something you want to embark on. Good luck!

 

[Rockmeister]

Digital cameras have only become ever more complex. Of course one can ignore the trick bits they don't need, but imagine a digital camera that did raw only, similar in form and function to say a top vintage Olympus film camera, and think how life would become so much easier.

And, think of the sales! I’d have one in a flash! (see post 1)

 

[Hazelberry]

I've been taking a DSLR out with me recently. I really don't know why I bother: it seems to be about trying to rekindle an all but lost interest, and my pictures are dull.

The camera is a Canon 100D, fine for my generally static subject matter. I use aperture priority, centre-weighted metering, and lately, raw only. Although light in weight (almost ridiculously so with the 24mm pancake), I very much like its handling and am happy with the IQ.

The on-off switch is positioned on the right and works similarly to my old A-1's; the small grip has a similar feel; and the camera body is about the thinnest you'll ever see in a DSLR. Of the few buttons on the back, the exposure compensation one is readily accessible.

I haven't shot film in over 15 years, yet the first time I put the camera to my eye yesterday I tried instinctively to open a non-existent film advance lever with my thumb!

 

[tuga]

Interesting how a dream camera body differs from person to person.

It took a few years to find out what I was looking for, before I finally got an SLR body with "perfect" ergonomics; I ended up with a Contax RX.
The short grip is the right fit for my small hands, the viewfinder bright and large enough, I can flip between center-weighted and spot with my right thumb and AEL can be customised to shutter button half-press or a dedicated button at the front and whithin easy reach of the middle finger.

The move to digital was difficult. The Pentax K-5 wasn't too far off but the T-1 was probably the closest I could in terms of control/operability but not grip-wise.
The T-1 doesn't hold like a big camera but is not small enough to pocket either. The viewfinder is great.

 

[Cesare]

And the funny thing is: after a bit of an exploratory phase with film scanning - I'm getting better results (for my taste) from a well exposed+developed+scanned negative than those I was getting from that godawful X-trans sensor on my old Fujifilm X-T10 mirrorless. Pity because that line of cameras really came close to what I wanted in terms of handling and ergonomics.

Funny, I find the xtrans sensors are very capable, and seem to work fine for me. The only time I see anything approach weird is things like sharp in focus leaves on trees, or grass, which can take on a weird texture. Is this the sort of problem you are seeing? If that's the case, I imagine the effectively random film grain is giving you the benefit you see in 35mm scans.

I generally can't get on with 35mm, I find it too limiting in resolution for my sloppy technique, so if I crop at all, or have a thin negative, I tend to start being distracted by the grain when printing. A decent medium format negative though is a thing of wonder, so that's where i've gone for film goodness.

 

[Cesare]

On the original subject, i'd say the Fuji cameras are designed to fit this exact requirement, and there are a range of options, and so finding one that fits your budget and expectations should be very easy. I'm using an older X-T1 with the 18-55 and get great results.

 

[Jono_13]

I still have a couple of Nikon FE bodies with lenses tucked away but was lured to digital a while back. I now run a LUMIX GX-8 with a Leica 12-60 lens and it is everything I need. From fully auto to fully manual the pictures are beautiful. The best bit is the lack of bulk, not weight. It has a great quality feel to it.
Probably not what you are looking for but might be worth a look at if you can.