Full Frame Digital or a "Full Frame" Film Rangefinder

[kshapero]

Simple question: Money aside for now, would you rather have a Full frame Digital Camera, like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D or would you rather have a quality Film Rangefinder like a Leica, ZI or its ilk?

[blw]

I'm an avowed Luddite and I like film more than digital.

Given the choice of a premium rangefinder or premium DSLR, I'll take the rangefinder please and thank you.

[dazedgonebye]

I already have plenty of film cameras. I have no FF DSLR.

[victoriapio]

If money is no object - BOTH ;>)

[kshapero]

If money is no object - BOTH ;>)
Sorry, Poll says one or the other. LOL.:):D

[gavinlg]

film camera for sure. Give me a black paint MP.

[tomasis]

film film film 3x MP what I want or 3x blackpainted M3 :)

[Nh3]

Nikon D700/D3.

[Migracer]

The only Digital I feel has the soul and look of film are the Sigma Dp 1 ad SD 14. I am hording my Green Stamps to get one!.

[mabelsound]

Fillm rangefinder. There are more than enough good wides for crop sensor DSLR's now (in my case the Sigma 10-20)...I have no need of a FF one.

A full frame digital rangefinder, now...

[bennyng]

hmm.. hard decision. I will usually end up with both...

But to be honest, most folks here would already have a film rangefinder to begin with. Any pure digital users here?

Cheers,

[wlewisiii]

A nice ZM with a good adapter to use my old Contax lenses on it ... ;)

William

[semrich]

I'm shooting more film now than digital and am enjoying it more.

[JohnL]

I have and use both, about 45% with film RFs, about 45% with DSLRs (one of which is FF), and the rest with the rest. When a real FF digital RF (or functional equivalent) comes along, it will probably mean the virtual retirement of my 35mm film cameras.

[Soeren]

Film camera. Digital don't quite do it for me
Kind regards
Søren

[blw]

After I posted earlier, I came to realize that perhaps the smart thing to do is to take the DSLR (perhaps a D3) and then trade it to someone for a black paint MP and an M2,4, or even 5 or 6.

This poll needs to be reworked kshapero! ha...

[johnastovall]

Pointless poll. I already have both, Canon 5D and M3, M4 and IIIG

[amateriat]

Never mind the digital part: I've essentially been "over" SLRs for close to s decade. Other than the old OM-2 with the super-wide Sigma zoom I use once in a while, SLR's are off-stage. That leaves RFs, and, since I haven't seen a dRF which I can (1) afford, and/or (2) truly like, that also leaves me shooting film.

Could be worse. :)


- Barrett

[kshapero]

Pointless poll. I already have both, Canon 5D and M3, M4 and IIIG
Wallace Stevens, one of my favorite poets.

[Al Patterson]

It would be great to have a FF digital camera so that one's lenses could be used on both cameras witout worrying about whether your 50 becomes a 75 or whatever, but as my film SLRs are all Canon FD, that's not likely to happen.

I have a Canon P, a Leica CL and a Yashica GSN to play around with, so I'm OK for now.

[aizan]

a used black paint mp costs less than a nikon d700 so I would buy that for personal use.

[kshapero]

I am enjoying this thread. Of course the introduction of an affordable full frame rangefinder could change everything. In my case I shoot with my ZI about 80% of the time over everything else I own.

[rogue_designer]

Would depend on for what purpose.

For my personal work - Film RF.

For my professional work, a FF dSLR makes more sense. Tho ultimately not as much as a FF largeformat or even FF medium format camera would.

[tedwin]

For work 99% digital, FF would be a preference for image quality, high ISO & depth of field. But being Nikon user comes with the added expense of a lens change (17-55 & 12-24 being my usual choice, both DX) So stuck with DX for the time being.

For personal 100% film, rangefinder. Just opening the flap on my DSLR bag switches my brain on, I can use my ZI brain off. Which is why I like it.

So I would have to tick both boxes.

[projectbluebird]

Um, yes? But If I have to choose one... RF all the way.

As of last week, I have both. But my film RF's greatly outnumber the lone DSLR. After using RF's almost exclusively for 4 years, I find myself less than comfortable using an AF DSLR. In fact, I bought more film and I'm planning on spending some quality time with my M3, instead of the IIIf.

[Steveh]

I vote film too.

I bought a D700 a few weeks ago and I'm actually going to have to sell my beautiful M6 and 35/50 ZM lenses to pay for it (open to offers folks...), which I have very mixed feelings about. The image quality of the D700 is fantastic, and it's an astonishingly complete and competent camera, but I just don't have any kind of emotional connection with it or any other digital SLR - I'm trading the M6 for a Nikon FE2 so I can swap lenses between film and digital platforms, and if I have to grab a camera for a trip out it's almost always a film one.

For me the user experience of a traditional film camera is just way way better than a DSLR, and I can't see that changing for me. I'll carry on using film until they stop making it.

[Gabriel M.A.]

If we're going to put effort into ignoring optical limitations, why don't we challenge that energy into promoting World Peace? Or at least the return of Like Cola?

[Gabriel M.A.]

I already have plenty of film cameras. I have no FF DSLR.

By "FF" you do mean "full-frame", right? ;)

[photogdave]

Rangefinder. Simply because I'm shooting for my own pleasure, not professional purposes, and it's simply more pleasurable to use rangefinders over SLR. Digital or not.

[gb hill]

I'll take one of those Ralph Gibson signature MP's & plenty of film thank you!:)

[MikeL]

Man uses Barbie fishing rod to make record catch.

(08-21) 16:48 PDT Elkin, N.C. (AP) --

David Hayes' granddaughter just ask him to hold her Barbie rod and reel while she went to the bathroom. He did. And seconds later he landed the state record channel catfish at 21 pounds, 1 ounce.
Alyssa's father had bought the pink Barbie fishing rod for Christmas and she had caught a few bluegill before her grandfather hauled in the catfish.
The Winston-Salem Journal reported the catch Aug. 5 in eastern Wilkes County has been certified as a record by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Hayes and his granddaughter have been fishing in the pond behind his house since she was big enough to hold a pole.
Hayes said his granddaughter worried he would break her rod. He landed the 21-pound fish on a 6-pound test line. It was 32 inches long, 2 inches longer than the rod.

[kshapero]

Man uses Barbie fishing rod to make record catch.

(08-21) 16:48 PDT Elkin, N.C. (AP) --

David Hayes' granddaughter just ask him to hold her Barbie rod and reel while she went to the bathroom. He did. And seconds later he landed the state record channel catfish at 21 pounds, 1 ounce.
Alyssa's father had bought the pink Barbie fishing rod for Christmas and she had caught a few bluegill before her grandfather hauled in the catfish.
The Winston-Salem Journal reported the catch Aug. 5 in eastern Wilkes County has been certified as a record by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Hayes and his granddaughter have been fishing in the pond behind his house since she was big enough to hold a pole.
Hayes said his granddaughter worried he would break her rod. He landed the 21-pound fish on a 6-pound test line. It was 32 inches long, 2 inches longer than the rod.
Mike, I think you have stumbled on to the wrong forum. Maybe check out the : ToysRus forum.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Man uses Barbie fishing rod to make record catch

LOL

(adding more LOL LOL LOL because RFF software thinks that brevity is a no-no).

[MikeL]

Mike, I think you have stumbled on to the wrong forum. Maybe check out the : ToysRus forum.

Darn it, my bad. I got in a heated discussion last week in the ToysRusrumors.com forum on whether one could fish effectively with the crop factor on the Barbie or Scooby Doo fishing pole lines. Some were arguing how much bigger and better their fishing would be with a full length (FL) pole and were waiting till one came out. I saw the article and pasted here on accident. Sorry!

[kshapero]

Darn it, my bad. I got in a heated discussion last week in the ToysRusrumors.com forum on whether one could fish effectively with the crop factor on the Barbie or Scooby Doo fishing pole lines. Some were arguing how much bigger and better their fishing would be with a full length (FL) pole and were waiting till one came out. I saw the article and pasted here on accident. Sorry!
LOL LOL LOL Touche!!! Great Post.:):):D:D

[amateriat]

Mike: Just want you to know that I grokked your post from the get-go. :)


- Barrett

[kshapero]

Mike: Just want you to know that I grokked your post from the get-go. :)


- Barrett

Ok, I was slow on the uptake but I did finally get it.

[__hh]

If money is not an issue, I'd take an MP with a Noctilux and stock up on film, chemicals, and a freezer!!!

I don't earn a $ from taking photos, hence film for me if it came down to that choice.

[payasam]

If I could have only one, it would be the digital: because I have to make a living.

[chris00nj]

Film. It's the mental effect for me. When I have a limited amount of shots, each shot costs something (even though it is only a few cents), I tend to think about each shot more.

Whenever I have a digital camera, I am much more careless.

There is also some thrill in getting the film developed and seeing good shots. It creates a sense satisfaction

[Eric T]

This is an apples and oranges comparison. The dSLR can do things a rangefinder can never do. The rangefinder is easier to carry to more places, events and is stealthier. It's best to have both.
But if I could only have one, it would be a full-frame dSLR because it can do it all from macro to telephoto to fast action at low light, etc.
Eric

[drewbarb]

That piece about the record channel catfish being caught with the Barbie Fishing Rod is the best thing I've seen on the internet in months! Thanks for posting.

As for the question at hand, I'd like to have both. I don't have a FF digital right now, and I find the focal length shift with smaller sensors to be annoying, but workable. About cameras, I've never handled a digital camera that inspired in me anything like the affection a good film camera can. From Leicas to large format cameras, I find something compelling about good film kit. A good digital camera, on the other hand, does it's job, but inspires about as much affection in me as any other handful of plastic- none.

Far and away the worst thing about digital, though, is that you don't get negatives. Digital is great for snapshots and throw-away work like commercial jobs where no one will care about the image in 6 months; but if it's important to me in any way, I'll keep shooting it on film as long as I can.

[Zenjitsuman]

While I love film whether in a RF like my M4 or in my F3hp or F100 or LX, I have to vote for digital. I hope someone will make an affordable DRF soon but digital makes financial sense and allows low light shots even a RF cannot get.

Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Yes, but some orange lovers hate apples to the death, and to them there's no comparison! Or else.

You open-minded silly you ;)

[photogdave]

While I love film whether in a RF like my M4 or in my F3hp or F100 or LX, I have to vote for digital. I hope someone will make an affordable DRF soon but digital makes financial sense and allows low light shots even a RF cannot get.

Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.
I'll never understand the "digital makes financial sense" argument.
Canon 10D in 2003: $2500
Canon 40D in 2008: $1200
Trade in value of 10D on 40D: $200 (if you're lucky!)
Leica M4 from 1971 still going strong today: Priceless! :D

Just having a little fun folks. Don't take it seriously!

[ruben]

Simple question: Money aside for now, would you rather have a Full frame Digital Camera, like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D or would you rather have a quality Film Rangefinder like a Leica, ZI or its ilk?


In my view, we should choose between systems, not single cameras. Film systems besides cameras and lens extends to darkroom.

Digital camera systems require, besides camera and lenses, high quality computer, screen, scanner and the best possible printer. All of these, including the cameras, are still subject to speedy research and development, making your purchase of today obsolete within two years.

Therefore let's keep conservative until the dust settles.

Cheers,
Ruben

[Nikon Bob]

I voted FF DSLR here and with my money having got a D700. No regrets going that way and I can use all my old lenses. Never bought into the DX concept so nothing to sell and never had to up grade bodies either. If the M8 was FF and did not have as many foibles I might have gone for it. If I have the urge to use an film RF I still have some to choose from. Let see what Photokina brings this year.

Bob

[PICHA]

Film + digital lab. :cool:

[charjohncarter]

It isn't hard for me, whether FF or the smaller DSLR. Digital doesn't have the dynamic range or the color rendition that I like. Plus B&W (digital) is Zilch, Nada or 0% of nothing with digital. Therefore, I sit here with 3 digital cameras (P&S and 2 DSLRs) that I use for photographing the kids and the grandkids. As Tomas a Becket said to Henry II: It just isn't the same.

[mikeb380]

While I love film whether in a RF like my M4 or in my F3hp or F100 or LX, I have to vote for digital. I hope someone will make an affordable DRF soon but digital makes financial sense and allows low light shots even a RF cannot get.

Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.

Gee, I don't understand your statement. I used my Canon RF with KODAK 2475 film shooting in NY bars and way-way-way off Broadway shows and Village poetry readings, etc and got photos no digital could ever get. With the high noise level of digitals and the poor rendition in B&W there is no way any meaningful low light ( Available light?) shots can be made with a digital camera unless you are in a situation where any film would fail due to reciprocity failure although in my over 50 years I've never encountered such. Sounds to me more like a lack of knowledge than an equipment problem. Best hit the books.

As to earning money with a camera(s) I did so for over 40 years before even considering a digital. The only reason for me to use digital now is that I have a small apartment and very little room for a darkroom. That tied to my lesser income mandates a slow gathering of darkroom equipment so I can get the most from film. I don't believe in sending film to a lab as any work done there is a compromise at best.

I also find that the digital cameras are too light. I find that a Canon F1 with motor drive is perfect for hand holding a 300mm lens. The weight adds stabilization. my EOS 350D is so light that a 200 is pretty iffy for hand holding. I now carry a unipod on my walker to help in that area but it is pretty clumsy for walk around. Most subjects don't stand still while you set up a pod. They're too impatient, I guess.

I just "upgraded" my digital camera to gain more MP and boy was that a mistake! I gave my old Canon 300D to my son-in-law and got the 350D (XT) and is it ever a sorry performer. it is noisy at even ASA 400 and above that is useless. I think I'll ask my SIL to trade cameras with me. Who says "new technology" is progress? All the manufacturers want is to sell any junk they can. I'll stick to my film cameras, especially the Zorkiis, the Canon F1 and the Kiev 88. I'd have done better to put the money for the digital into darkroom equipment. Anyone got a 6X7 enlarger they want to ship out? I have a 4X5 view camera but no room for that large an enlarger.

BTW, I am using a 250mm Jupiter lens from my Kiev on my Digital camera as well as a 200mm pentax lens both of which I can also use on my F1. I bought an adapter to use my FD lenses on the Digital but the adapter was a ripoff. The Jupiter 250 gives me an equivalent to a 560mm lens but boy is it heavy! I'm going to train my grandson to carry it for me. :D I can rest it on his head with a sandbag for shooting.

Michael :bang:

[Frankie]

My way of looking at this subject can be contentious:rolleyes::

The digital camera price premium—a subject of much debate—is really just pre-paying for the recurring film/processing costs up front. If you take pictures—rather than just talking about taking pictures—you must face it, sooner or later.

Whether a SLR or RF depends on what you intend to do, or must do. We all know RF cannot support long lenses—so tout wide-angles? We all know SLR shutters are louder, so some celebrate the soft Leica “clop”? The truth is, if you were a sports photographer, you use a Nikon or Canon, or you are not getting much pay. You wouldn’t care about the shutter noise either:D.

Some like to think RF users are the poets of photographers. I agree the muse or spontaneity of a poet can be spoiled by camera bulk and weight. If I had a “camera bearer”, I wouldn’t care either…let the poetry flow.

Film v. digital is another subject of much debate. Just remember, film had a couple centuries of development, digital only a decade. However, we do have a choice…going all the way back to char coals, cave man style.

Digital requires computer/software for further artful processing, instead of a dark room. So, how many have dark rooms? A computer is household appliance these days, and costs far less…and needing only desk space. Learning to use a computer is not more difficult than learning darkroom operations and techniques…at least you can see what you are doing:), in real-time.

Better yet, bracket (no film/processing costs, remember?) or re-learn how to do a straight shot…thus a straight print, with no need for further processing. Keep the best and delete the rest, RAW, JPEG or whatever had no real meaning anymore.

A new medium begets new display technology. I have recently downloaded a couple D3 samples and examined it carefully on my 22” 1,680 x 1,050 LCD screen. The image quality is impressive…far better than lousy prints I mostly see. And, who has made a 24” x 36” print lately?

[And one day soon, you will have large 1,080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens at home. Imagine a revolving gallery of your prized pictures while you are not watching HDTV.]

What do you care if the chip size is DX or FX? Who says the 24 x 36mm format had to be the standard forever? It was a make-do compromise of surplus movie stock to begin with, remember?

I believe the Nikon FX/EXSPEED image quality had brought the subject to a head. If a DSLR has been achieved, why not a DRF? We all know…deep down…the M8 was a disappointment fringing on insult. If that was all Solms can do then someone should kick its ass, it’s about time. By Photokina ‘08, history might just repeat itself.

Kodak had a painful transition from film to digital while many others simply waiting to die. Kodak’s new slogan should well be:

“You push the button…we [and others] have already done the rest.”

Take pictures.

[ederek]

"OR" questions can be interesting... maybe there's a way around this one....

Already had a 5d and wouldn't give it up, so picked up a Kiev for a song. Hello manual. Hadn't used film in 8 years. Gossen DigiSix to help with exposures.... Uh oh, the Kiev is having mechanical problems! Hhmm, what to do? Adjust the g.a.s.!

So, it was an 85 1.2L for the 5d, OR an M4, 50 Summicron, 135 Elmarit and a Microtek M1 Scanner.

Well, the M4 is on its way!

To feed the scanner, will need to add a setup for developing B&W film. This shouldn't cost much more than a couple filters for that 85 would have. Wanted a film scanner anyway, and to Ruben's point, the rest of the digital darkroom is common for both systems.

Looking forward to the best of both worlds...

[blazeicehockey]

A full frame DSLR with the capability of a D700 but with the size of an OM4 please, and with fast <f2 glass available between 15 and 90mm

[JonasYip]

I have both poll options, but I voted FF DSLR since I rarely use any of my film RF bodies since going (non-FF) digital RF.

(I purposely avoided reading the rest of the responses because I can only assume it quickly devolved into the same old same-old: digital/film, RF/SLR, apples/oranges...)

EDIT: Someone else probably said this, but if the other option was FF digital RF instead of film then my answer would be RF.

[urban_alchemist]

MP and full-frame digital M...

Why discriminate? :D

[MaxElmar]

For work 99% digital, FF would be a preference for image quality, high ISO & depth of field. But being Nikon user comes with the added expense of a lens change (17-55 & 12-24 being my usual choice, both DX) So stuck with DX for the time being.

For personal 100% film, rangefinder. Just opening the flap on my DSLR bag switches my brain on, I can use my ZI brain off. Which is why I like it.

So I would have to tick both boxes.

Man I hate to "Me too" - but - Same here. Not so much "brain off," but different, more relaxed part of "brain on" with Bessa..... :D

Oh, and since I'm a Nikon guy from the heyday of film, no lens issues with FF (FX in Nikon speak) for me.

[stuken]

Until digital enlargers become more commonplace, I will shoot film.

[sojournerphoto]

I voted FF digital - I am fortunate, but a 5D/1Ds3 is more versatile than an film RF. But I love using the RF and so do that as well. It would be nice to split it work/pleasure, but really it's more need/mood.

Mike

[Socke]

I'll never understand the "digital makes financial sense" argument.
Canon 10D in 2003: $2500
Canon 40D in 2008: $1200
Trade in value of 10D on 40D: $200 (if you're lucky!)
Leica M4 from 1971 still going strong today: Priceless! :D

Just having a little fun folks. Don't take it seriously!

Hm, Canon D60 2400 Euro in April 2002 and now in the hands of my nephews. Inbetween I shot some 60.000 frames.
Some 5500 rolls C41 incl. development are around 33.000 Euro, good deal as far as I'm concerned :-)

Edit:
My math has left me! It's only some 1700 rolls and 5100 Euros
Still a good deal

[narsuitus]

Since I don’t need another film rangefinder, I would select a full-frame digital like the Nikon D3, Nikon D700, Hasselblad, or the rumored Fuji S6.

[kshapero]

By "FF" you do mean "full-frame", right? ;)
Yes,
Another question? With Digital you have less tonal range than print film. Digital seems more like shooting slides. But then you have RAW which allows one to open the range. Problem is then I am not a photographer, I am a computer person. With film, the development is more forgiving, but requires physically riding my bike to Costco, etc. (actually a good thing). other thoughts?

[Tuolumne]

I shoot lots of slide film. I used to shoot it almost exclusively in the film era (80s and '90s). So, the dynamic range of digital is not a big issue with me. I have lots of film cameras already, so I don't need another. I'm toying with the idea of getting a D700. Also toying with the idea of getting an M8 now. Can't decide. So, I didn't vote. I'm also toying with the idea of leaving well enough alone. I love my R-D1. Why mess things up with another girl friend?

/T

[sojournerphoto]

I'm really not convinced that digital has that much less dynamic range than film. But then digital (liek film) is a very variable feast. My daughters G7 shoots jpeg only and hasn't much dynamic range really. My 5D and 1Ds3 both have very high dynamic range in comparison - but I shoot raw as a matter of course and understand how to expose with those cameras. Both far exceed any slide film I've ever used and in practical terms don't seem that different and certainly not worse than colour negative film. B&W may offer a little more in the right ircumstances though - I've not really put that to the test.

(With no intent of starying a war - I use both)

Mike

[Darren Abate]

Both. I have both, and I use both for the applications that each of them is best-suited. They are two totally different styles.

Since I shoot professional editorial though, what I would REALLY like to have is a full-frame digital version of my Zeiss Ikon. Now THAT I'd pay good money for, as I could use it on assignment, and it would nicely replace my aging R-D1.

[italy74]

Hi
I voted for the rangefinder because it's a completely different way of shooting.
Owning a Zeiss Ikon and a 35 F/2 would be really a dream. I realized it was better the 35 after a short street test in Modena.
However, I'd need also an excellent FF DSLR to pair with my F6 and don't bother on two sets of lenses.
Rather, I wonder why the OP didn't included also a FF DRF in the options...

[Gaspar]

This is a great question. I have been toying with the idea of buying a second hand Canon 5D now that they are obsolete but despite it having fantastic image quality it does not give me what film gives me which is the ability to use different "sensors" whenever I please. With film I have so many different films to choose from and each has a different "fingerprint" with a digital you are stuck with one size fits all.

[charjohncarter]

I like your attitude, Gaspar.

[Tom Diaz]

Simple question: Money aside for now, would you rather have a Full frame Digital Camera, like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D or would you rather have a quality Film Rangefinder like a Leica, ZI or its ilk?

I do have Leica and ZI film cameras, and I would rather shoot with them than with one of the large DSLRs you mention. But if the choice were a full-frame digital rangefinder (even if a little physically larger than my Leica M), then I would rather have that. I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.

What I really wanted this year was a way to get a second digital M body for less than the price of a second M8. Leica perhaps knows what it's doing bringing out the new mammoth S-2, but I was hoping their photokina surprise would be a Panasonic-built body that took M lenses.

Most of my prints on the walls here are from film images, but really--film is just getting to be more and more of a hassle

[jwhitley]

As someone who started with digital but is getting increasingly into film (*cough* can't wait for the field camera to arrive *cough*), I'll go with the film camera option. Apparently I'm a sucker for process.. but the results are fantastic as well. The top-end DSLRs are outstanding tools as well, but film rocks for my current needs. Interestingly, I felt that my early learning curve was greatly aided by digital due to the instant feedback cycles. But as I progress, film and wet darkroom work is forcing me to improve my skills further and paying dividends for the time invested. Even when working with digital, film work has substantially improved my photography.

Taking "full frame" film camera to mean 35mm.. a Zeiss Ikon would fit the bill perfectly. But I'm really aiming for the Fuji/Voigtländer folder right now.

[sniki]

I do vote FF film camera, nevertheless I could indulge myself with a FF digital rangefinder - when and if any.

sniki

[snip]

Now, if the "new 5D" (due "any day now") is worthwhile...
It is very nice indeed, I have fondled a pre prod model and can assure you it is teh bomb :)

I have the original 5D and use it sometimes, it makes me feel empty inside.
Film makes me happy.

//Jan

[snip]

I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.


Your M lenses cover a 35mm film frame yes? A "full frame" digital sensor is the same size as a 35mm film frame, so to answer your question, yes it would fill a "full frame" digital sensor, it would not work with larger sensors such as the one found in the S2

//Jan

[jody36]

I would like to have an M7 period. Only camera left I want. I will not waste money by paying those high prices for a digital. I love my digital camera but didnt pay much for it. just a user here and dont need the expense of big camera cause Im getting no return.