dave_redmann

<p>Personally I vote for a Sony A6000 with the Sony / Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS, but no doubt there are many good options. A Fuji X-E2 or maybe X-T1 (somewhat larger) would probably be a great choice too, and the Panasonic GX7 looks pretty good. Overall, the image quality should fully equal DSLRs with the same size sensors (APS-C for the first two and M4/3 for the GX7) and comparably-good lenses. Auto-focus performance will lack on some, but the A6000 appears to have great auto-focus (including on-sensor phase-detection), at least with <em>some</em> of the Sony lenses.</p> <p>But if you really want something small to carry around, I'd think long and hard about giving up interchangeable lenses and getting a Sony RX-100 Mk. III, which will really slip into your pocket. It features a 24-70mm-equivalent, f/1.8-2.8 lens, a 1-inch sensor, and a pop-up EVF.</p>

<p>The <em>Time</em> camera looks about the same as the Olympia 35mm cameras one sees--sometimes still new. Every now and then I get a chuckle when Craigslist has an ad for one for $100 or something.<br> http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/%22Olympia%22_camera<br> http://www.amazon.com/DELUXE-CAMERA-Model-Number-EL1124/dp/B000FMFQTS<br> Maybe thirty years ago there were TV ads for that sort of camera, where the announcer knocked on the body lightly and said it was "shock-resistant" and then placed it next to a regular 35mm SLR and said, "Styling: very similar!"<br> Of course, almost all such cameras have high technology like "focus-free" lenses.</p>

<p><em>The A65 has the same sensor as the A77, so image quality wise you will see no difference.</em></p> <p>Actually, not so, if you believe DxO. I almost bought an A65, but went for an A580 instead, in part for this reason. Whether (1) there is some real difference in the imaging hardware and/or pipeline (because DxO tests are based on their own conversions from raw files) or this is some artifact of their testing; and (2) if the difference is real, e.g., an 0.6 EV difference in dynamic range is important, are issues I'll leave you to contemplate. But see:<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-77-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-65-versus-Sony-Alpha-580___734_735_685<br /> Also, even new A77 bodies are relatively inexpensive these days. Would you be happier with a refurbished A65 for $400 or a new A77 for $675? Again, only you can answer that.</p>

<p>As I recall--double-check me--one of the advances from the original A77 (and all older SLTs) to the A77 Mk. II is that now Super Steady Shot can stabilize the viewfinder instead of just stabilizing immediately before and during the exposure. So with the original A77, you <em>don't</em> see the image stop moving. Your post suggests to me that you are aware of this change, at least on some level. Not sure about the A77, but my A580 has a little indicated in its OVF of how much of a problem it thinks shake is, which can be helpful.</p> <p>As far as all of your 40D shots being sharp but some of your A77 shots being blurry: (1) Are you comparing the pictures at the same magnification? Because if you're looking at each picture on-screen at 100%, then all else being equal, the A77's 24 MP will look appreciably blurrier than the 40D's 10 MP. (2) Have you checked for back-focus and front-focus? Because if the camera isn't focusing in the right place, the stabilization may be working fine but the image will still be blurry. AFAIK, the A77 has micro-focus adjust to fix back-focus and front-focus issues; the 40D does not have it, but you don't seem to need it (and IIRC, the 50D does have it, the 60D does not, and the 70D does).</p>

<p><em>DD-X is the Ilford version of Kodak T-Max Developer.</em></p> <p>This is the first time I've seen this claim. I tend to think of DD-X as being the Ilford developer most similar to Kodak's Xtol (although obviously DD-X comes as a mildly-concentrated liquid and Xtol comes as a power). So I'd be very curious to hear about the sources / bases for the comment (chemistry, intended applications, etc.). Thanks!</p>

<p>I think the successor is Mamiya Leaf (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/), which appears to have hitched itself to Capture One, which may affect the situation. However, Mamiya's websites have often given good support for old stuff. Maybe see what's at:<br> http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/downloads.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes, any Sony (or Minolta or Konica Minolta) lens with "DT" in the name is designed to cover only an "APS-C" sensor, not to work on full-frame (or 35mm film). Indeed, IIRC at least some DT lenses have baffles that restrict the area they illuminate to APS-C regardless of what the optics might actually deliver.</p>

Light weight an issue and mostly shooting video? I think a Sony A5100 might be a good bet. For interviews maybe a Sony 50mm prime or a Sigma 60mm prime.

The two lenses are totally different. I have an old Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7, which I think is a good to very good lens, but it's not too sharp wide open. The Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 is probably somewhat better optically, but it does not cover full frame. The SAM focus motor is built into the lens, and will be quieter if you want to auto-focus while shooting video.

Did I miss it, or has nobody said that Canon sells two OPTICALLY-different 55-250 lenses? I am pretty sure the new STM version is optically more complicated and reportedly better. I don't know how likely you are to find a used STM version for your budget; it's a fairly new model. That said, my dad has the original 55-250, I've used it a couple of times, and it seems like a very good lens for the price. I have the Tamron SP 70-300 USD, and like it a lot, but the rebate appears to have ended, so those are now $450 new.

<p>Okay, I have requests for all the cameras. Upon further review of who asked for what when, I think I was mistaken when I replied to a couple of you. This is the order of requests:<br> 26th, 0609 - LM asked for Canonet w/bad meter and flash<br> 26th, 0649 - DW asked for Canonet w/bad meter and flash<br> 26th, 1026 - RS asked for a Canonet<br> 26th, 1304 - AG asked for Canonet with haze<br> 27th, 0724 - D77777 asked for the Konica Auto S2<br> I will try to message everyone privately. LM will get what he requested (and I think I'll just put in the box the 48mm hood and 48mm->55mm step-up ring, along with photocopies of the camera and flash manuals). RW will have the option to get the Canonet with the haze if he wants it, otherwise AG can have it. D77777 will get the Konica.</p> <p>Except as noted above, the other stuff is all available.</p>

<p>You don't need to calculate the linear apertures to compare, at least when the lenses being compared give similar fields of view. Multiply the aperture on one by the ratio of the linear film (or sensor) sizes to find the aperture you'd need on the other to get the same depth of field:</p> <p>f/2 x (89mm/70mm) = f/2.5 for the Pentax to have the same DoF</p> <p>which tells you that theoretically the Pentax 105mm f/2.4 can get depth of field just a tiny bit shallower than the Contax 80mm f/2. (As did Ray, I have used the diagonal dimensions of the respective film frames. When comparing formats with different aspect ratios (these two are <em>slightly</em> different), if you want to assume some particular output aspect ratio, you can use the respective effectively-used dimensions for each format.) Among medium format options, these differences are modest; if you want to figure out, say, what aperture to use on your Sony A7r when you're used to using f/16 on your RB-67 Pro SD, this sort of calculation will tell you that, for U.S.-standard larger print sizes with 4:5 aspect ratios, the answer is f/16 x (24mm/55.6mm) = f/6.9.</p> <p>Agreed that the <em>quality</em> of the bokeh depends on many factors, and is difficult to impossible to determine from any ordinary specifications.</p>

<p><em>What factor has a larger influence over manual focus: The brightness of the screen, or the ability to have a split prism screen[?]</em></p> <p>IMO, a split prism focusing aid is much more helpful to manual focus accuracy / ease than a somewhat brighter screen is. Of course, experiences vary. Now I have (among other things) a Mamiya M645 1000s with a metering prism with a split prism focusing aid, and grew up using my dad's Canon AE-1 with a similar split prism. I have also used a TLR with a waist-level finder without any focusing aid other than a pop-out magnifier.</p> <p>More generally, I think other differences between the two systems are probably much more significant than any likely small differences in overall manual focusing ease / accuracy, and I suspect that within each system, there are substantial differences model-to-model and scree-to-screen, and between prisms and waist-level finders. I've never tried a Pentax 645, just my Mamiya and (briefly) a Contax 645 (which was great but very expensive)--but the Pentax seems like a solid system too. In case it matters, I don't think either Mamiya or Pentax has sold a "645"* camera that will shoot film in several years.</p> <p>If you really have a deal on a Mamiya M645 AF-DII that's too great to pass up, go enjoy it; if you don't like it, you can probably sell it and at least break even. Just be warned that, IIRC, if you want to use solely or even primarily manual-focus lenses, you may actually have an easier time with a manual-focus body like a Pro or Pro TL, or even an old 1000s. I seem to recall there are metering and/or other issues related to iris operation when using the newer auto-focus bodies with manual-focus lenses.</p> <p>*FWIW, the current digital so-called "645" models are not really 645, and most aren't close, which creates crop-factor issues. 645 film is 56x41.5mm (Mamiya) or 56x42mm (Pentax). The Pentax 645D and 645Z have 44x33mm sensors. The Mamiya 645 digital backs range from 44x33mm to 54x40mm.</p>

<p>Most times if you get scans with your film process and print, the scan sizes will be the size to make the prints. So, e.g., for 4x6 inch prints, the scans are often about 1218x1827 pixels.</p> <p>Last couple of times I had a whole roll of 35mm film scanned (which was with processing and printing), I used Lakeside Camera in the New Orleans area. They appear to offer an option of 2000x3000 pixel scans.<br> http://lakesidecamera.com/index.php/services/C45</p>

<p>If his Pentaxes say "645", "6x7", and/or "67" on them, then you need 120 or maybe 220 size film (which comes in rolls whose outer boxes are almost 1 inch square and three inches long). Otherwise--and this is definitely much more common--the Pentaxes very probably take regular 35mm film. (Pentax also made some cameras that took 110 film cartridges and APS film cartridges, in which case you may want to abandon the idea as a PITA.)</p> <p>Mr. Posner gets some leeway around here to link to his own store, but that's because it's one of the biggest and most reputable photo stores, with prices rarely beaten by anyone reputable. Unless you need something <em>really</em> oddball, B&H is as good a place as any to buy film (and where I've usually bought film).</p>