Help an old Leica guy buy a digital camera

Eric- I used to be one of those pain-in-the ass lawyers too. After studying photography, I went to law school at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and worked like a dog for the big money. I hated every minute of it. I'm now a fine art photographer in Europe and LOVE it. Take my advice - get out of the profession ASAP!

Harry- I've got a Nikon 8000ED scanner which I use to scan my B&W 35mm and MF negs with. I actually prefer digital output (Epson 7600 and Piezo inks) to traditional darkroom prints as I find I have much better control over the process.

 

But for ocassional color work I'd just as soon use digital capture because, to my eye, a good RGB file from digital looks better than a comparable scanned 35mm neg, not to mention the time savings. But I am concerned with the same issues you raise: the techno crap you've got to wade thru to get a decent photo with a dslr; all the damn menus/settings etc. Thats why one of my main criteria is the simple ergos, and thats why the Digilux appeals to me. I guess my question now would be: How much better is a capture at 12x18 from a d100 versus a 5 mp prosumer chip like the Digilux uses, given I have pretty good PS skills and I can use Genuine Fractals? Is it worth all the hassle given the ergos of the Digilux?

Oswaldo,

 

With respect to how I see the images from the D2 compared to the D100 (and D1X), I am completely satisfied. I fully realize that I have given up long telephoto and (true) macro capability by switching to the D2, but I have been using it for about two months now (since it was first in the stores) and I simply love using it and seeing the images it produces.

 

Here's an image shot with the D2 using RAW, 100 ISO, aperture priority, then PP in PS CS for levels, saturation (Fred Miranda Digital Velvia), sharpened (Fred Miranda CS Pro) and then Auto FX Photo/Graphic Edges for the border treatment (and yes, I realize that many people will not like the border!).<div></div>

Oswaldo, here are my 2 cents:

 

1) Buying a scanner is a good place to start to wet your feet in the digital world.

 

2) Digital workflow is a big can of worms, but yet wonderful.

 

3) If you indeed want to buy a digital, follow Godfrey's advice and get a DSLR. It can do things your Ms cannot. Prosumer digitals are good for snaps, but not for pro level work.

 

4) Nikon vs. Canon. The D70 is awesome, very intuitive interface, easy to use etc. BUT the viewfinder is horrible, impossible to manually focus on lenses below 35mm. A Canon 10D is prob. a better place to start, with access to all that nice L glass. Learning to take good photos with a DSLR has a learning curve, esp. to get use to the latitude/sensitivity of the sensor, the workflow, constant back-ups, and hours with Photoshop instead of out shooting.

 

Best of luck,

Oswaldo,

 

If you are used to using "real" cameras, the feel of the Canon Digi Rebel might bum you

out (it did me).

 

I spent the extra $$$ and got a D100 and am quite happy with it.

 

BEAR IN MIND...your first RAW files will likely look pretty bland. Unless you have pretty

dramatic lighting built-in to your shot, Digi shots tend to look really plain compared to

EXACTLY the same shot on Film. They just need a little hype.

 

I am just now starting to enjoy my Digital Camera as I am learning how to take sloppy

photos with it :)

 

jmp<div></div>

Hi Oswaldo,<br>

<br>

about film scanners, been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt. And a used D60 a year later :-)<br>

 

Reichman took a Minolta A2 to its limits here <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/death.shtml">bullfighting</a> very impressive and enlighting<br>

<br>

As my Carl Zeiss on Contax 135 System is a dead end, I bought a Canon film scanner as a start into a digital darkroom. Then I bought better scanner software, a faster computer, new image processing software, better scanning software, a faster computer, more RAM, bigger Harddisks, faster CD burner, DVD burner, and did I mention a faster comupter?<br>

So I can scan negs and slides, color correct them, rescan them, curse the dust on my negs, remove the dust, rescan, send the files to a printer and get something back which looks like something I've seen somewhere but which was not what I had on my screen. <br>

Then I bought an Epson printer, experimented with lots of paper types, spent a fortune on ink (Chanel No9 is cheaper than the same volume of Ink).

<br>

In the end, I didn't buy color management hardware but a used Canon D60 with three usable zooms and a 35/f2 for the fast color shot and use my various film cameras with color slide and print film as well as Delta400, XP2 and Delta3200 <b>and have that printed in a lab</b>. <br>From time to time I scan and print for the fun of it and as I can't set up a real darkroom where I live, I bought Lyson QuadBlack for the Epson printer.<br>

 

I had a close look at the Pentax *istD for it's small size, considered the Nikon D100 for its flash performance, and setled on a D60 cause I can borrow L glass from a couple of PJ's I happen to know. And having it registred with CPS over the magazin is nice, too.

<br>

I still shoot a lot of film in a Contax G2, a Rollei 35TE and a Contax 167MT and every other month in a Leica IIIf, but it's scanned at the lab while printing! Just bought 2 rolls Delta400 and 2 Delta3200 for tomorrow evening, there's a small club with very bad lighting where I practice concert shooting :-).

<br>

Regards

<br><br>

Volker<div></div>

interesting responses from everyone...a digital cam without need for batteries, is all I ask for..

... and it's something that you will never get. Heck, even a Leica M6TTL needs batteries to

operate a flash unit.

 

Godfrey

I vote to wait for the digital Cosina body that way you can make use of your current optic's abet at a different focal lenght with the Magnification factor.

 

Below is a photo I recently took it's Digital it's from a Canon G3 it has never seen Photoshop and it was caputered as a Jpg in color and converted to gray scale in a free program called Irfan View. I worked the color image a little adjusting contrast and the Gamma before the B&W conversion. I haven't printed this one yet but the others I have done in this series on Silver Creek Falls State Park have looked very nice at 6" X 8" you decide.<div></div>

You lot need to get in to a darkroom and pump some FB paper through the juice.

Mono dig can�t compare.

 

If you want true high quality digital that actually works then MF backs are the only

option. But make sure the wallet is full to the brim. Smaller format digitals including

even the better DSLRs all have some �issue� or another.

Personally, I'm holding out for the soon-to-be-forthcoming digital M. At least I can then use all my M lenses. Added bonus: the privilege of shelling out $6,000 for a model that will be obsolete 6 months before its introduction. Can't beat that?

Since you already have a large collection M glass I would hold out for the RD-1 from Cosina/Epson. Do not buy a small consumer sensor camera, I routinely shoot at ASA 1600/3200 with my 10D, since the small camera's can only manage ASA 400 at best.

 

Remember most SLR lenses are slower than the M's, you have mirror slap to deal with, so you need the higher shutter speeds. Now Canon, Nikon and Sigma are producing IS (VR or OS) lenses, some of them we can even afford.

 

Don't forget you are going to need a LOT of storage, a CD or DVD burner, and someway to print these images. I print via OFOTO since I can't deal with having a color printer (note the good ones cost over $500).

 

You can email me off line if you have any particular questions about the 10D.

 

Gerry

<i>"Remember most SLR lenses are slower than the M's, you have mirror slap to deal

with, so you need the higher shutter speeds. Now Canon, Nikon and Sigma are

producing IS (VR or OS) lenses, some of them we can even afford."</i>

<br><br>

Canon and Nikon produce excellent, fast prime lenses comparable in quality and speed to

the fast Leica M or R lenses.

<br><br>

It's very weird to hear owners of Leica M equipment complaining about Canon or Nikon

lens prices:

<br><br>

Canon EF 100/2 USM ... $390<br>

Leica APO Summicron-M ASPH f/2 ... $2095

<br><br>

Canon EF 50/1.4 USM ... $264<br>

Leica Summikux-M 50/1.4 ... $2095

<br><br>

Canon EF 28/1.8 USM ... $399<br>

Leica Summicron-M 28/2 ... $2395

<br><br>

Canon EF 20/2.8 USM ... $399<br>

Leica Elmarit-M 21/2.8 ASPH ... $2595

<br><br>

Even the IS lenses are usually much less expensive:

<br><br>

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS ... $1150

<br><br>

Godfrey

Gerry

 

You can cross the "mirror slap" off your list. It�s a red herring, honestly. I would not

BS you on this point. On other things yes, but not this one.

 

Best regards, Craig

I honestly don't believe a digital camera should cost over a thousand dollars for the body. That is why I suggested the Canon D30 with the Canon EF 35/2. The lens is small and sharp and gives you approximately 50mm POW on the 1.6 crop factor of the D30 Sensor. You should be able to get it for about $500 and you'll have a very nice digital SLR for that price. If your really print enlargements then swing for the D60. You've got all that glass in M line and if you have the dough then wait for the digital M but I think you'll be just as happy with the D30/35F2 for a while until you realize that digital isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

I really get a chuckle out of the megapixel war. If this thing continues we'll be buying cameras with so many megapixels one would think the manufacturers are asuming we're all manufacturing giant wallpaper scenics. Just concentrate on a full sensor and keep improving the quality of the capture and I will be a happy customer in the future.

John P.- Your mother is hot.

 

Gerry- �Remember most SLR lenses are slower than the M�s, you have mirror slap to deal with(.)�

 

A. Though I usually shoot my D100s with flash, the D100 does have a cool mirror-up mode that I use all the time.

 

B. One thing that is a positive trade-off for me with the slower SLR lenses for me is the DSLR crop factor- 1.5X for Nikon and 1.6X for the Canons discussed here. I like considerable DOF and shorter lenses give me inherently more DOF.

 

Rene- �I really get a chuckle out of the megapixel war.�

 

Keeping track of the different-sized chips and their resolutions is maddening. However, the endgame is worth it. Millimeter for millimeter, digital chips reproduce more detail than any film.

 

For example, the Canon 1Ds has a 24x36mm chip and has resolution comparable to 6x4.5 film. The Canon Mark II has about a 2/3rds chip and is better than any 35mm film.

 

Take even the Pentax Optio S line that fits in an Altoids tin. This camera is half the size of an old �Disc� camera, which produced amazingly crappy images. In the sample binder at my store, we have an 8x10� print from the Optio S that is surprisingly good.

 

Ultimately, I�ll be very happy if I can get the resolution of a 6x9cm camera in a Nikon F5-like body that takes Nikon pro zooms. I�ll take all the resolution I can get.

"How do you archive a digital file. Kodak says put it on film."

 

Duh. And Sony says you should archive them on CD-Rs, and Maxtor says you should archive them on hard drives.

<i> "How do you archive a digital file?"</i><br><br>

Unlike with film images, where making any copy of an original means some loss, with

digital images as long as you have the numbers that constitute it, you can reassemble it

with absolute, 100% fidelity. And with digital you can replicate the numbers with absolute

reliability an infinite number of times. <br><br>

So how do you archive? By using whatever reliable storage media you feel comfortable with

(additional hard drives, CD-R, DVD-R, floppies, tape drives, whatever) and making

SEVERAL copies of the data. By transferring copies to new media as time goes on. You can

also print two or three identical copies of images and storing at least one of them in ideal

storage conditions, although that's really analog archiving as you cannot replicated those

prints in the absence of the original data without loss.

<br><br>

Film archiving is centric to preserving that one fragile piece of film. Digital archiving is

centric to maintaining several identical copies of the data. Once you realize that, you'll

realize that it's actually much easier and safer to archive digital images than film images.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Thanks for all your insight. I just bought a d70 with 17-80 nikon DX lens. Ultimately the decsion turned on resolution. Those who explained the megapixel/sensor size issue helped me realize I'd be better off with a DSLR. Plus I can sell it for more than I paid for it when I leave Paris in a few months. Camera prices are Obscene here.

Oz-

 

"I just bought a d70 with 17-80 nikon DX lens."

 

The 18-70mm is a decent lens for the money, but watch out for barrel distortion of straight lines at the wide end of the lens.

 

"Camera prices are Obscene (in Paris)."

 

Socialism sucks.

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=16834084"></center>

Lutz, very amusing!

Being a Leica voyeur (I like to read about them) and a 100% Digital shop, I'll add my 2 cents. I'm using a Fuji S2 primarily so I'll speak to that but I've used the Canon G4 as well.

 

 

The most frustrating things that I've heard and experienced when going digital are:

 

a - "when I push the shutter, it takes forever for the thing to click." Usually caused by long autofocus time and long latency on setup of autoexposure. Example Fuji S2 with AFs lens - immediate, Canon G4 ~.5 second.

 

b - "when I have to turn it on I miss the shot, when I leave it on I run down the batteries." Usually due to long "boot up time" on power up. Example Fuji S2 turn on to shot < .2 sec, Canon G4 ~3 seconds.

Wake up from sleep mode S2 immediate, G4 ~.8 sec.

 

 

c - "why are the pictures out of focus, and why does it take so long to come into focus." Usually due to no AF assist light, slow focus in lens, or no manual focus. Fuji S2 AFs 24-85mm f3.5-4.6 99% of the time

is instant, Canon G4 ~.5-.8 seconds.

 

The solution is simple. If you are going digital buy a good high level camera that responds as close to a film camera as possible, and has not only excellent optics but excellent focus function.

 

In a DSLR this is either a Canon, Nikon, or Fuji S2. I have yet to find a prosumer or all-in-one that I like. The Nikon D70 has been rated as great in all the above areas, expecially with the "kit" lens,

18-70mm f3.5-4.6 AFs IF ED, but be sure you get an AFs Nikon lens regardless, I've only found one Nikon lens NOT an AFs (same as USM on Canon) that works as well (two touch 80-200mm f2.8 AF IF ED).

 

For quality of optics I'd recommend you read the reviews on the net before buying anything. The two low end AFs Nikons (24-85 and 18-70) seem to be good for the price, the 17-35 f2.8 AFs IF ED Nikon is excellent, and the 80-200 mentioned above as well.

 

I'll let the Canon experts chime in on those, as I haven't used them.

 

Understand that a good dSLR (is it big D or little d ??) will probably be bulkier than any of your Leicas.

 

And before someone yells foul... yes I know I compaired an $800 point and shoot to a $2K pro camera, but if you are compairing them to a Leica... what's a little money ;{)

 

BTW - yep you can wait for the "next great thing" and whatever you buy now will decrease in value and be obsolete in 2 years. My dad is still waiting to buy a "good video camera", since 1984....(he passed away in 1996)

 

I guess the watch word is go find one you like, try it in your hands before you commit to it permanently. I rented the S2, used it and bought it. I haven't regreted it ... yet. Now will I buy the S3 or not ... that is to be seen.

A bit off topic but had your dad bought Nikon S2 and S3 cameras you'd be in good shape. If he'd bought Nikon SP cameras you'd be rich.