switch to dslr what was your experience [Archive]

easyrider

03-18-2009, 12:57

I was for years a Leica screwmount and Rollei TLR shooter. Mainly TLR. Then i went through a downsizing period and shot only with a Rolley 35 -- one of the first ones made in Germany. I added a Canon EF in the 1970s.

In a misguided moment I bought a Contax T3 and also began to play with digital -- a Kodak 4800 (I think). The T3 is an excellent camera but everythibng is menu driven and the automatic focussing drove me nuts. I never really got used to it and sold it to someone on this board. But I shot more and more digital, switching to a Canon G2. Got excellent results and i still own it.

Then came a Nikon D70s that I still use. It took me a while to get comfortable with the menu and I am still learning things.

A friend has the D700 and it's excellent. Full frame and a large LCD. My D70s does what i need.

If I add anything, it would be a Canon G10. But the DSLRs are work horses and I think there is no going back once you have used one.

But do allow for some learning time.

Good luck!

dfoo

03-18-2009, 13:14

Of course, it depends on your use case. For my uses I beg to differ. I have a Canon 5D and I've gone the other way. I dislike DSLR size, the cannon sized lenses and I hate the ergonomics. Plus I find the film very hard to load in that thing!

kuzano

03-18-2009, 13:27

I made myself a promise not to buy another digital camera with a sensor smaller than my thumbnail (after unlimited hours of scientific research)

The G10 sensor is 7.6 x 5.32mm. That dimension will fit 4 plus of the G10 sensors on my thumbnail (the right one).

By contrast the 4/3 sensor ( Panasonic G1 and the upcoming Orange carrot Olympus Micro 4/3 rds at 12mp) is 17.3mm by 13mm. which fits one on my thumbnail (clipped close).

No Canon G's in my future.

Sam N

03-18-2009, 13:31

The D700 is much bigger than an M6.

One idea is to keep your fav. 1 camera + 1 lens from the RF system.

rover

03-18-2009, 13:51

furcafe

03-18-2009, 13:57

Indeed. So is the 5D. And their lenses. And this is true even compared to an M Leica w/the biggest lenses mounted & an accessory grip attached, so I don't know how the OP can write that they're "not much larger." He may not consider the difference enough to impede his photography, but it is definitely significant.

The D700 is much bigger than an M6.

Sam N

03-18-2009, 14:26

If only there were a Pentax MX or OM-1 sized DSLR w/ a 5D sized-sensor (or at least a 5D-style viewfinder)...

Anyway I'm not sure you'd find a lot of people who have dumped RFs completely in favor of SLRs on a rangefinder forum. I like to use both. Sometimes I feel like one is distracting me from the other, but more often I think they are both great tools that I wouldn't want to give up.

sojournerphoto

03-18-2009, 14:28

I use and enjoy both.

The Ikon is an ideal size for me, but the 5D is not too big in comparison to a 1 series canon. The biggest issue is the size of lenses, and the cost of good wide glass. Also manual focusing wieds on a dslr is not as easy as an rf. But, I don't have nay issues with af - it's just a case of learning the tool as with an rf.

Digital wins hands down for convenience though, and the files can make stunning prints.

Mike

emraphoto

03-18-2009, 14:30

for what it's worth... i am of the opinion that the d700 is the absolute best camera i have used to date. at a big labor rally today i dropped it, with a 180mm f2.8 from over my head to the pavement. everyone around me gasped! i picked it up, gave it a quick look over and went back to work. not a hiccup.

i accept the size difference for what it can do. i have sold all my rf gear except an m6ttl and 35 'cron that sits on my shelf and looks pretty.

RF-Addict

03-18-2009, 14:35

I have been shooting digital (in addition to film, not instead) since 2006 and I love it. I have the Canon 5D and the 40D. The 5D gets used most of the times, the 40D is exclusively for wildlife shots. I happen to shoot lots of landscapes and wildlife, so for me this was a no-brainer. The 5D easily beats my Mamiya 645 in IQ and resolution.

Having said all that, I also enjoy film and the wet darkroom process. For me this is not one or the other, but really both. That way I get the best of both worlds. If I had to chose only one camera, it would be the 5D - I wouldn't even have to think about it twice.

Phantomas

03-18-2009, 14:40

Two totally different systems and, most importantly, styles of shooting. Comparing the two is really up to personal preference (and the subject-matter of photography).
I come from DSLR background. I started "seriously" getting into photography from a digicam, quickly switching to DSLR and using it for a few years. With DSLR I started to realize that photography was quickly becoming a big part of my life. I shot a lot (admittedly still not "great") and dedicated a lot of time to researching equipment, styles and techniques. Then I realized I wanted to upgrade and quickly sold off ALL my gear including lenses in hopes to start buying less stuff but GOOD stuff. While I was waiting for an update in Canon's DSLR line and saving money for it I picked up a couple of old FSU rangefinders on a fleamarket and............

Canon DSLR never happened. All of a sudden I discovered how much RF system fits me and how much, if I may be so bold, my photography improved in one simple step. RF and film. I also realized how affordable good film gear can be and subsequently contracted the so called GAS.

I also started to realize little nuances about gear that I have sometimes heard about but never paid attention to, like how RF viewfinder gives you whole different feel for framing, being in the scene, no mirror blackout, focusing style, etc.
Then there's this distinct look to rangefinder results, photos. It certainly has character that fit and even make some scenes. And it's a different style of shooting that is partly result of, what I find, psychological effect carried by the style of use of the gear.

All in all, right now I have a 50D sitting next to me with a couple of "L" and a tilt-shift lenses (thanks to where I work I have easy access to variety of good DSLR gear, although I'm not a photographer in a professional sense of the word). It all sits here collecting dust. Everytime my hand reaches for a camera I just can't pick up DSLR over a rangefinder or the Hassie. There's no going back :)

Oh, and any DSLR with a lens is certainly larger than an average Leica).

FrozenInTime

03-18-2009, 14:43

My dual Leica outfit weighs almost exactly the same as my SLR zoom kit and fits in the the same size of bag.
http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/m6vsE3_web.jpg

The digital is better for color and stitched images, but is by no means discrete, and compared to the dual Leica outfit, a single SLR has no redundancy.
But digital did open my mind to long and macro lenses.

http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/E3deadshutter.jpg

After a year of digital 90% (24K activations), I'm currently using film and darkroom printing again 70% to 30% digital ( once it was repaired ).

Selling the M6 and lenses would have been a massive mistake as would now going back to all film.

Warren T.

03-18-2009, 14:47

I shoot and enjoy both digital (Nikon D100 and Canon A570is) and film today. Six years ago, I bought the D100 brand new for $1995 for the body only with the idea that I was going to transition to 100% digital. As it turned out, I never transitioned 100% because I still prefer the attributes of film, and I still enjoy shooting with film cameras (rangefinder, slr, and medium format). I actually have more film cameras now than I did six years ago :D.

--Warren

Nikon Bob

03-18-2009, 14:52

I was a film SLR shooter before being waylayed by rangefinder cameras. I have kept and used both types side by side. My first DSLR is a D700 because Nikon finally made what I wanted and that was a FF sensor that could meter with my old MF lenses. Let me tell you I have not regretted that decision one bit but to say there is virtually no size difference between it and my M4 I would not. I would have gladly bought DRF that was FF and took my old lenses at a price with a slight premium over the D700 for when I travel. I don't think that combination of wants is going to be satisfied anytime soon though. In short I have been totally satisfied with the D700 so far and have the luxury of keeping my film gear too for when I want the RF experience. Never think that size is not an issue though because it is and using a DSLR is also a different experience from using even a DRF.

Bob

Kevin

03-18-2009, 15:12

I wouldn't even dream of owning a new Canon system after what they did to us FD lens owners!

Andrew Sowerby

03-18-2009, 15:15

I can't comment on a switch from RF to DSLR, but I've really enjoyed using my new-to-me Nikon F100 for the past few weeks. If you've already got a DSLR why not put the RF on ice for a bit and see how you get by without it?

35photo

03-18-2009, 15:45

I had an D70 which was my first D-SLR it was ok, sold it got a D200 much better, but I hated not being able to use my lenses the way they were designed to which is full-frame. Also I have way too many good film cameras to have them sitting and collecting dust. Leica M6, Hasselblad, Nikon N90....I just like the way film looks and I don't mind scanning. I don't shoot professionally much and if I did I could borrow one my friends D300. I also don't like all the upgrading with digital, with film if you don't like the film you just try something else at 3-6 dollars depending on what it is instead of spending serious money on another camera. A D700 sounds like the type of camera that interests me, if it had come out when I got my D200 I probably would still have it. So I got a D-Lux 4 as my digital camera for the time being and its served me well so far. Just got a used M2 which has been great to work with so far. Maybe one day I'll get a D-SLR, but I'm really happy shooting film, scanning, and doing inkjet prints...

Marko

dee

03-18-2009, 16:04

I went a comparitively painless way from Minolta SRs to Leica M 8 and Leica Digilux 3 , both of which operate with conventional [ by 1970s standards ] controls .
I can use all my Rokkors [ 2x conversion ] and vintage Leitz lenses on the M 8 .
I love both - and my Kievs etc .

noimmunity

03-18-2009, 16:34

calexg

03-18-2009, 16:47

I went from film point-and-shoot to digital point-and-shoot to film SLR to digital SLR to rangefinder.

My original film P&S had a crappy lens (I didn't know that was the reason at the time) and I used cheap film because I was young. So I switched to digital.

I took lots of photos and I learned Photoshop. But my digital didn't allow me to be terribly creative (no shutter speeds selection, etc) so I bought an F100.

I loved the camera. I shot slides and I learned more about exposure. I found it to be a bit too big, and slides cost me too much (there is no one within ~2000km of me that develops E-6) so I bought a D40.

The D40 was tiny and the quality of the photos was high (but not nearly as high as a slide). But I hated the look of digital files. I LIKE grain. Actually, I LOVE grain. And I missed the smell of photo-developing chemicals on my fingers.

So, after much thought, I bought a Leica.

And I'm not going back.

gavinlg

03-18-2009, 19:57

Well... I've had pretty much everything - film and digital SLRs and film/digital rangefinders as well.

As much as I love film and especially the leica rangefinders, my canon 5d is a very powerful tool for taking photos. It's basically bare bones - has all the features I could ever need or want - it may not be built as well as a d700 but the sensor really is still top of the line, even 4-5 years after it was brought out, and the interface doesn't get in my way at all for anything.

I have this romantic dream where I sell all my digital stuff and buy a leica mp, travel round the world with only a few types of film and use 20 rolls a day. The problem is that I use my 5d for work, so I couldn't really sell it. The other problem is that with my 5d I know exactly what I can expect in terms of results. It's a very very reliable camera in terms of image quality. Film doesn't have that reliability between limited dynamic range in slides to dodgy processing of negs to scanning with my old minolta dual scan.

As a picture taker at this point in time, my 5d is pretty much better than most, and thats why I don't own a leica mp (yet)

XCR

03-18-2009, 20:04

bucks11

03-18-2009, 20:19

I'd keep all your film equip in the stable, just in case.

I like shooting DSLR, I started out with the release of the D40, moved into the D40x and both still see use to this day. I know its low-end DSLR, but it does what I need it to.
It's always fun to keep film an option, mainly just to see the look everyone shoots you when you take a picture and wind to the next frame... :)

Jamie Pillers

03-18-2009, 20:33

Another option... sell your M6 and summicron. Buy the Nikon DSLR. And buy a nice old Nikon F1 or F2. You can use whatever lenses you buy for the DSLR can be used with the film camera whenever you have cravings for some retro film photography. :-)

hans voralberg

03-18-2009, 20:58

In 2008 I used and dumped the following DSLR to get back to my Leica kit:

Nikon D200, Fuji S5, Pentax K20D.

I hardly use my R-D1 nor my M8, my most used camera is my M6 ;)

So I conclude I cant switch to anything digital, at least for now

gavinlg

03-18-2009, 21:42

Wow, so many different opinions and experiences. I figure I can get about 2k for my m6 and 50 cron. I am definitely going dslr especially after reading some of these responses. But the question is should I get rid of my m6 combo for 2k? I like what someone said up above about having their m6 on the shelf looking pretty. But 2k can get me a nice F6 and a few primes or even a nice 20-200 vr. Sleepless nights up ahead while I decide :)

Thank you all for the feedback.

I just want to clarify something - If I didn't use my 5d for work, I'd buy an mp so fast you wouldn't even know I'd done the swap. There are 2 things that the 5d does better - work that people pay me for, and serious projects where I'm building a creative/artistic portfolio. If I was just an amateur photographer recording life and doing fine art sort of stuff, I'd have an MP anyday.

Doug

03-18-2009, 23:16

I wouldn't switch 100% to something else unless I absolutely couldn't avoid it. I like the expressed suggestions to keep a modest RF kit, preferably the one you have now. But then I don't like to get rid of stuff, as I feel confident I'll want to use it again.

As for me, I didn't switch... I did buy a dSLR, a Pentax K100D, but it took me a year to get around to using it for the first time. So, to make up for that, I did a total immersion and took only it and a 24mm lens overseas for several weeks last Fall. It was fine, easy to carry and use, and I haven't used it since we got back. Should I sell it? I don't think so... I have some new Zeiss glass to try. :)

kazeonrff

03-18-2009, 23:37

Well i must say i can't do without both my digital and film.

What i can't do on one system, i can work out on the other. Photography would be a little bleak if i were to lack either. I pick up my cameras for something almost every single day (not referring to meaningless clicking). When i feel experimental, having a full roll inside my Bessa isn't such a great thing, and i'm an 18 yr old student so that's not economical either. Digital comes into play! I get to train my manual focusing, light guessing and other stuff like that so it won't take me years and years of shooting solely on film to attain a level of "skill".

I can "train" on 36 exposures within 5 minutes on digital! Or even quicker.

Leighgion

03-18-2009, 23:41

I own a Nikon D40 and D300.

They're absolutely terrific, and the bulk of my photography is done by them. I also though, have a Nikon FE and FE2, Mamiya 645 Super, Canon QL17, Olympus XA, Fuji GS645 and am almost ready to pull the trigger on an F100.

Unless you really can't afford a DSLR kit otherwise, I really don't see the point of "switching." I like having lots of options on the shelf. While I am definitely an SLR man, there's times when I want what an RF has to offer, which is why I hang around here.

pvdhaar

03-18-2009, 23:59

With film SLRs I was used to swapping (prime) lenses all the time. But with DSLRs I soon discovered that that was one sure way to have dustbunnies in no time. OK, I could get rid of them by cleaning the sensor, but it's not practical to do that in the field. In the end, I got a consumer grade zoom lens for the DSLR to see whether the dust problems would be solved by sticking to a single lens. And yes they were. However, it's no replacement for some kind of primes, so I've got two DSLRs now. One with a normal zoom permanently stuck to it that I can always grab to shoot without worrying about dust. The other that sees different lenses depending on what I anticipate shooting that day, and that I clean regularly..

Funny thing was that the $120 zoom I got for the DSLR was way better than I anticipated. Especially given that the first zoom I ever bought for a film SLR was a complete dog and wasn't cheap either (24-120AFD).

robbo

03-19-2009, 00:31

XCR, I've done exactly what you're contemplating and have no regrets. I sold my M6TTL plus 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons and a Nikon D300 to make the move to a D700 and an F6. Total compatability is the result and I can move seamlessly from one to the other. Yes, the Leica was lovely and I got some memorable shots with it, but I realised that you can't always have everything and it's been a painless change.
I have to echo an earlier reference to the IQ of the D700 at higher ISO settings. With my D300 I was always looking to keep the ISO to 400 or below. Not so with the D700.

pvdhaar

03-19-2009, 01:01

With my D300 I was always looking to keep the ISO to 400 or below. Not so with the D700.
With the APS-C Nikons, that was my impression too. Don't go above 400, or else..

But after a while I discovered that it's not the ISO800/1600 setting itself that's the problem. Instead it's the metering, especially in the presence of highlights that cause underexposure. At 800/1600, even the slightest bit of underexposure kills the image as there's no room to recover..

To get good exposure you need to spot meter, but the spot meter is about 3 stops less sensitive than matrix/center weighted. And when the light's low, the matrix meter doesn't really cut it. So, I've learned dial in the appropriate amount of +EV when there's highlights/backlight. Which proves to be somewhat of a mental tour de force, as the amounts differ between the ISO settings, camera models and the circumstances..

peter_n

03-19-2009, 07:07

I think you'd regret selling the M6/50. Now is a bad time to be selling anyway. You have a dSLR so upgrade that if you feel the need for more gear. I came to rangefinders from a Nikon SLR background and it was interesting to read Phantomas experience above as I have the same perspective - using a rangefinder is a different way of thinking.

My experience with a dSLR has been good. I'm in my 5th month of ownership of a Fuji S5 and I bought the camera because I wanted as little of the dSLR "experience" as possible. I work with computers all day and the last thing I want is a hobby that is based on computer use. I chose the S5 because the out-of-camera JPEGs from it require virtually no post-processing, I bought a 17-55/2.8 zoom because I wanted auto everything and so far I've been very happy. The cam & lens are great, the images are excellent (that Nikkor zoom is a very good lens) and the convenience is incredible. I love it, but the dSLR definitely has it's place and will never replace my RF cameras. It is great for what I use it for, family snaps and suchlike, but I would never take it out on the street where I use my RF cams because (a) it is way too big (and we are talking just a D200 body here), (b) the lens signature is not what I want for street and (c) autofocus absolutely doesn't work for street.

You haven't said what your use is. If I were a pro there would be no question about using digital, the convenience and speed is unbeatable and lens signature appears to be irrelevant for magazine/internet publication. So I'd be using a dSLR and definitely not an M8. But for a hobby where I'm pleasing just myself? I've got different cams for the situations I shoot - film RF and SLR for street, dSLR for fam & everything else that needs to be quick, and a panoramic for when I'm feeling creative. Can you honestly say that you will only use one type of camera for all your needs?

bmattock

03-19-2009, 07:16

Well, I have been shooting a lot with my Pentax DSLR. My comments though are not specific to Pentax.

DSLRs are the tools of the devil. Man do they suck. The little f'er has a mind of its own and it argues with me all the time. Photography is simple, time and aperture. Why does the damn thing want to make it more complicated than that? It screws up focusing all the time, and even with a split image screen manual focusing is no joy. Here is the deal K10d, I am the boss. Got it?

Ok, opinion over.

Funny. Similar camera, totally different results.

My *ist DS stays in manual mode most of the time. Split-screen add-on, just like you. I get a great deal of joy from my M42 and T-mount and K-mount lenses, and I use AF and AE sparingly. I find it utter simplicity to turn off the AF switch on the body, flip the knob to "M" for manual, and set my aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) myself.

The camera does just what I expect it to do, and is very easy for me to control - as much as a manual film camera. In fact, I often carry a Pentax-based film body to interchange lenses.

It adds certain abilities film cameras do not have, such as the ability to set ISO on the fly and the focus indicator light, which is close to perfectly accurate (I sometimes disagree with its assessment, but I can ignore it). I can also set a custom white balance, which saves time trying to correct color casts later.

In short, I love it. Auto-everything when I feel it is appropriate, full manual control whenever I want it.

My only consideration now is whether to replace my aging *ist DS with a K200D or a K2000 (don't really want the K20D).

aperture64

03-19-2009, 07:20

The closest I came was the DSLR was in the shopping cart. I just couldn't hit the 'submit order' button.

peter_n

03-19-2009, 07:29

I like it! :)

Andrew Sowerby

03-19-2009, 07:47

Funny. Similar camera, totally different results.

[...]

I agree. If you don't like auto-whatever, turn it off. Not a big deal.

Ronald M

03-19-2009, 08:23

My D700 is significantly larger than M cameras and the lenses are pretty much junk compared to Leica, specially corners on wides which are all soft ( have 5 like new ones). Aditionally they all have significant distortion of straight lines and significant CA. Of course you can get a 14/24 + 24/70 and have two monster lenses that are better or equal than primes. You will need to hire a caddy then.

If you still want to go ahead, a D90 is M6 size but no small wides are available for crop sensor cameras. A 24 is only a 35 field of view on a crop sensor. A D90 and new 35 1.8 is a nice small package, but sell nothing untill you get into it. Grad I still have all my Leicas.

cmedin

03-21-2009, 17:47

I was never really 100% rangefinders (though I like the ones I have), so making the switch to a DSLR being the main rig wasn't really that much of a struggle. Once I found the right camera (in my case 1Ds Mark II) and befriended it I realized that a lot of things got "out of the way" and I could actually focus on the image I wanted rather than struggling with/against the camera. Now I am at a point where I am in sync with the camera, and I know how it'll focus/meter for given settings, and use that to get the shots I want. Most/all of my gallery (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=14541) from the past year were done on digital. It doesn't matter what the tool is as long as you can realize your vision.

jarski

03-22-2009, 01:02

once next upgrade after D700 comes out from Nikon, I wait month or two and then go shopping (for the D700). Nikon probably comes out sooner or later with similar megapixel monster as already D3X is, to compete with 5D MkII in this category.

no other plans in DSLR's, except keep eye on old 28 or 35 Nikkors :)

rover

03-22-2009, 01:26

Funny. Similar camera, totally different results.

My *ist DS stays in manual mode most of the time. Split-screen add-on, just like you. I get a great deal of joy from my M42 and T-mount and K-mount lenses, and I use AF and AE sparingly. I find it utter simplicity to turn off the AF switch on the body, flip the knob to "M" for manual, and set my aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) myself.

The camera does just what I expect it to do, and is very easy for me to control - as much as a manual film camera. In fact, I often carry a Pentax-based film body to interchange lenses.

It adds certain abilities film cameras do not have, such as the ability to set ISO on the fly and the focus indicator light, which is close to perfectly accurate (I sometimes disagree with its assessment, but I can ignore it). I can also set a custom white balance, which saves time trying to correct color casts later.

In short, I love it. Auto-everything when I feel it is appropriate, full manual control whenever I want it.

My only consideration now is whether to replace my aging *ist DS with a K200D or a K2000 (don't really want the K20D).

What split screen are you using Bill? I can't get my diopter to a correct setting, for some reason mine seems to get changed (I am thinking the wife is doing it to drive me crazy).

I can't get my M42 lenses to mount correctly either. I need a partner camera geek to hang out with. I am sure it is just a simple thing that once I see it done correctly once I would be all set.

I switch back and forth from auto to manual mode too much. I pick up the camera expecting one thing and always get some thing else. My ME Super isn't that disagreeable.

All this said, none of it is user error. My problems are all the camera's fault!!!:D

Spoks

03-22-2009, 02:08

I would go for a Canon DSLR because they are the leading manufacturer of digital cameras. While it still remains to be seen if Leica - or anyone else, will make a competitive digital rangefinder camera,- at all. RFF might be a sort of electronic gravestone over a camera system that did not meet expectations of time.

gavinlg

03-22-2009, 05:15

It doesn't matter what the tool is as long as you can realize your vision.

Best opinion re: digital vs film I've ever read on this forum.

iridium7777

03-24-2009, 05:17

i've been toying with this idea for the last six month or maybe even longer. all i have now is my m6 + 35mm lens. i brought this setup for the last year and a half to more places than i can remember, both domestic and international. it's great, and i really like the type of photography it makes me concentrate on.

but, my big idea was to make money, pure commercial crap type of money. the cost and most of all the *hastle* of professionally developing and scanning a 35mm negative and getting into a print absolutely sucks the motivation out of it for me. taking a picture in raw, tuning it lightly and bringing it on a memory stick to a print shop is just so much more easier, or if you're selling high resolution prints online than there isn't even a contest on the ease of pure digital.

so, i started a business part time. i'm not selling my leica kit, it's not worth it, but yesterday, i did buy an absolutely mint canon 5d + 24-70/2.8f... yes, i know that this lens is called the "brick", and the whole kit will probably be 5x the size of the leica, but this is purely a tool. this will make money -- with a flash i can do weddings with this setup, with a tripod i can use it for landscape photography on travels, with the ease of digital files i can flood istock or any other place like that with my pictures. i don't have to worry about scratched film, poor scans. this is a business expense and will be used as such, it's a tool. for everything else, my leica will remain. if in the future i ever need money badly and will need to sell some photo equipment, the canon will be the one that goes.

so let me put it this way: if you're doing it for a hobby and you're having a positive experience with an rf, i'd suggest you don't get rid of it, but maybe get a dslr to compliment it when you get the funds. otherwise, switch and never look back.

Wow, so many different opinions and experiences. I figure I can get about 2k for my m6 and 50 cron. I am definitely going dslr especially after reading some of these responses. But the question is should I get rid of my m6 combo for 2k? I like what someone said up above about having their m6 on the shelf looking pretty. But 2k can get me a nice F6 and a few primes or even a nice 20-200 vr. Sleepless nights up ahead while I decide :)

Thank you all for the feedback.

shadowfox

03-24-2009, 06:54

My dual Leica outfit weighs almost exactly the same as my SLR zoom kit and fits in the the same size of bag.
http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/m6vsE3_web.jpg

Nice choice for a DSLR! and the lens also.

I wish I can justify getting an E3, but I think it's time to upgrade my old E-300 to the upcoming E-620. :)

momus1

03-24-2009, 07:02

I loved the speed and ease with which you could get off a shot. It was great having lightening fast focus. Nice not to have to buy film. But the images it produced, and I had a DSLR that was as good as any, left too much to be desired. Flat colors, and the usual digital lack of tonal range. B&W was beyond hopeless. So away it went and good riddance.

ampguy

03-24-2009, 07:03

is that you can get adapters to use most any SLR glass, not sure about metering though, but I've not missed a meter in my D40 with old lenses.

I wouldn't even dream of owning a new Canon system after what they did to us FD lens owners!

AshenLight

03-24-2009, 07:16

After almost a year of not using either camera, I gave my S5 Pro to my ex-wife and my D80 to my daughter-in-law without an iota of regret. Although I appreciate all the reasons that folks have for liking and shooting digital, I'm just much happier with my rangefinders and TLRs.

Ash

shadowfox

03-25-2009, 10:14

is that you can get adapters to use most any SLR glass, not sure about metering though, but I've not missed a meter in my D40 with old lenses.

So can Olympus E-series.

colker

03-25-2009, 10:45

Best opinion re: digital vs film I've ever read on this forum.

yes... it's not about the toys.

Tuolumne

03-25-2009, 10:51

Try the Lumix G1. As small as a rangefinder, great kit lens, takes M lenses, a joy to use.

/T

cmedin

03-25-2009, 17:42

I wouldn't even dream of owning a new Canon system after what they did to us FD lens owners!

Oh, get over it already. Canon decided that trying to add further things to the legacy mount wouldn't be a good thing and did the rather risky move of starting fresh. The EF mount has been around for quite some time now, and look how nice and compatible it's been. Meanwhile, Nikon cranks out cameras that won't meter or AF older lenses, Pentax puts out SDM lenses which won't AF on older DSLR bodies, etc etc. Canon did something smart when they switched the mount and it's paid off bigtime in the long run.

novum

03-27-2009, 09:12

but is by no means discrete
I'd say if it exists and has boundaries, it's discrete. Now, discreet, probably not. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

cmedin

03-27-2009, 16:28

Here's a good example of "discreet" vs "not discreet". :D (I use both for "street')

http://www.beyondthematrix.com/IMG_8618.jpg

Ahmed Poltroon

03-27-2009, 16:39

I wouldn't even dream of owning a new Canon system after what they did to us FD lens owners!

That is a very silly sentiment. The FD lens mount could not support modern AF electronics and had to be retired.

I supposed you never would want to use a computer since IBM betrayed you by halting production of selectric typewriters.

Kevin

03-28-2009, 08:01

Oh, get over it already. Canon decided that trying to add further things to the legacy mount wouldn't be a good thing and did the rather risky move of starting fresh. The EF mount has been around for quite some time now, and look how nice and compatible it's been. Meanwhile, Nikon cranks out cameras that won't meter or AF older lenses, Pentax puts out SDM lenses which won't AF on older DSLR bodies, etc etc. Canon did something smart when they switched the mount and it's paid off bigtime in the long run.

I got over Canon a very long time ago and simply bought cameras and lenses from other manufacturers. Never looked back. I still have about 15 excellent FD lenses however, which will hopefully get used again when that Samsung NX comes out and adapters for it become available.