Begrudgingly considering digital... which M43?

<p>I had a similar problem with my local lab. They still do film, but the quality went down. Too many errors on their part lead me to try my own hand at color film, processing, scanning and wet printing. </p>

<p>Let me say this first off: anyone who says color printing is simple is just plain lying. :) Developing though, and scanning, are relatively easy. I wouldn't abandon film if I were you, but I do understand not everyone can invest the time and effort into color film developing. When it comes to digital, most cameras are pretty decent now. Buy any of them that are within your budget. I'd recommend you get one that has a hot shoe so you can use a bounce flash and get nice soft lighting on your paintings.</p>

<p>Lex, thanks for the advice... I often look at dpreview for their reviews but didn't know about the comparison thingy, I'll check that out. It's that or build a spread sheet. *face palm*</p>

<p>Patrick---Here is a link to the dpreview side-by-side comparison chart:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras</p>

<p>Good luck. I know you'll find something you'll like eventually.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I too felt like the OK.<br>

I begrudgingly Went to digital. I was told that i could take every photography course at the community college using film.<br>

However the way the instructor instructed the Lighting Class was geared to Digital enthusiasts. He would make studio setups during class and have people shoot it and then at the end we would compare our results.. Not something that a film shooter can do. Even tho in the beginning of the semester i made sure with him that he knew i was a film only shooter and he said there would be no problem. For those unique assignments i was left out of, he would always tell me i could just practice on my own with film.<br>

So i would not get left behind I picked up a cheep digital body and Chinese adapter that allowed me to use all my Manual Legacy lenses. I got a used G1, and it was/is fantastic.. In-fact others in the class were impressed at how Huge the view Finder was compared to the DSLR cameras they were using. My professor said it was like looking through his Canon D1.<br>

Personally i did not see any difference from what I was use to. My previous SLR camera system was the Minolta. Primarily the Minolta x700 & x9 .<br>

I was OK with the field of view being halved. I expected the equivalent doubling of focal length using my legacy lenses. My widest lens was already a 17mm and my other fast primes became fast portrait and fast short telephotos . I found myself using my 35mm 1.8 lens more often than I ever had before.<br>

It was almost a year before I could afford to picked up a native lens for it, in the form of a M.Zuiko 14-42mm MKII kit lens. I bought it for two reasons. One was because sometimes, and only sometimes I needed something a little wider than what I had to use. The Second reason was because it was Way more compact than the pana equivalent. OIS be dammed because for a wide to normal lens one would hardly need it in my opinion; being only more useful for telephoto lenses.<br>

So with that combination it became more street friendly a camera set, and i tend to use the pair for walking around with more.<br>

What ever you decide I think you would be very happy with the Pana G series of cameras and it's controls if you are coming from manual film cameras like me. (yea the G1 was the first AF camera body i ever owned)<br>

If your interested in an inexpensive G1 body let me know (message me), I was thinking of moving up to a GH1 for the video. The G1 cannot record video.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I sold all my gear except for a point and shoot when I left the US. I've since acquired a used GF1 and some lenses. The GF1 is not a high ISO camera. The GX1 might be better, but I don't think high ISO is micro 43rd's strong point. What is its strong point is being a lighter weight camera than a full-frame Canon or Nikon with a nice range of lenses.</p>

<p>Patrick, there are several good "used" dSLRs that one can acquire to meet your needs. If you want ot stay in the Olympus brand, then I would recommend any of the latest E-series. You can then get some digital lenses or go after the legacy OM lenses. </p>

<p>The Canon and Nikons may have some confusing menu structures, but it's something you can easily get acquainted with. There again, there are several used dSLRs within these brands. I switched from Olympus E-series to the Canon EOS. And at first, the menu structure took only about a full weekend to get acquainted, after shooting various modes, HDR, and changes in white-balance. I never had to read the 300-page manual, and I'm not that astute.</p>

<p>Shop around the KEH.com website for used dSLRs, You can purchase camera bodies or go for the combination body/lens. You don't neccessarily have to purchase m4/3... unless of course that's your intention. You can even find non-black bodies! Good luck to ya!</p>

<p>I noticed that the GH 2 model by Panasonic is creeping down in new price as the company is poised to upgrade that model. Frankly it has about every feature one can want in a versatile camera and I am no doubt biased because I selected it over the Olympus models available at the time. It has the light weight feel that I like but fits my hand well, and a bright finder that I can tweak adjust focus with. Its video capabilties are cleverly designed in and can do some fun things if you fancy ever getting HD into video clips on a trip.<br>

And that in the same micro 4/3 package as a good still camera like its mates the G-1 to G3. <br>

I think this Amazon review sorted of seduced me at the time a year ago:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/review/RJKNHXWSA91NR/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RJKNHXWSA91NR</p>

<p>There is also a strong user fan who wrote a pretty good personalized helper manual too on the features of the GH 2:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/The-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2-Quintessential/dp/193395289X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339032271&sr=1-1<br>

Yes, understanding the features takes some learning but I still get a wow feel when I look at what Panasonic packed into this baby. Can't judge it against the OM D because I don't expect to handle one for some time out here. And I doubt if I need another thousand buck body quite yet. <br>

With digital EVF the camera increases the gain so you can focus well, and preview light balance and special effect buttons. As you press the stop down button you see the true DOF and with a bright upgained finder. Nice huh? <br>

I think you would enjoy the GH 2 if you can find one in your price range or wait till it gets closer to your budget. With any lens, you pick. I have only the 20mm 1.7 and it is a superduper one.... And use your OM lenses with a hundred dollar adapter. You know, I just realized there I have to accept the idea that my cameras are now going to be triple the prices I used to pay. Rats, What gives? Lenses too... Never mind. Let us know what you eventually go for, am truly interested, Patrick. Gerry</p>

<p>Gerry, the knock-off adapters are $20. I just came into a little extra money from doing a side-job and may actually spring for the G3 body and the adapter. I really like the fact that it's got a slimmer grip than the older G and GH series cameras... I have small hands and have never been a fan of those huge Canikon grips.<br /><br />I don't mind that they've stripped many of the buttons off of the G3, because quite frankly I don't think I would ever remember how to use all of them.<br /><br />My next step is to find a store locally where I can handle one.</p>

<p>I finally decided to spend a few hours scouring Dpreview to get the comparative data I wanted. Not a single website out there really offered anything in the way of real comparisons. In doing that I discovered a camera that I hadn't even read about before (exactly why I was asking about this) that is priced similar to the G3 but offers a higher ISO at the same resolution and real controls instead of touch, and is made out of metal: the GX1. If I ever get a chance to take a screenshot I'll upload my chart for the benefit of others.</p>

<p>Here's that chart I promised:<br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/2012-06-09_120303.png" alt="" /><br>

After reading a bunch and looking at stats, I was able to put each camera model into it's respective "rank" in terms of the tiers, something that isn't obvious or well-documented. The interesting thing I've discovered is that there really isn't much to quantify to separate these cameras. The real distinguishing stuff is in the design and handling, which is of course virtually impossible to get a feeling for from unscaled images.</p>

 

<p>If you buy used, you can sell used and get a different camera Patrick. If you buy new, you will take more of a hit, but you can do the same, after a few weeks, or you can just buy new and return the camera for an upgrade to something else after a few days. Just make sure the seller (I suggest B&H or Adorama) is o.k. with the fact that you may do that and will credit you for the full purchase price. You will be paying for some shipping and insurance, but it will be inexpensive to try a few cameras this way (probably about the same as the cost of the gas you might spend driving around to various camera shops).</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Well, I put in an order for a GX1 last week... should be arriving this week. I know people do that swapping thing Scott, but typically things in my possession do not stay anywhere near pristine enough to be returned for very long. I USE my toys and tools and I use them hard. This is why plastic stuff just doesn't fly for me. I'll see how the GX1 is, but based on everything I've read and heard about it, if I don't like this camera I won't like any other as it seems to be the closest to what an old-fashioned shooter like myself could tolerate.</p>

<p>Something that is not said very often:<br>

Be very careful about integrity of your images on cards. In recent weeks I have had a software plugin make several cards unreadable and removing a card/reader from a computer wiithout going through the "safe to remove hardware" procedure can have a similar effect.<br>

Before someone chips in with the usual advioce about back-ups, a recent attempt to make such a backup cost me dozens of unrepeatable images. There was a problem with "seeing" the reader to close it down.<br>

I shoot anything really important on film and will continue to do so.</p>

 

<p>Despite being a luddite when it comes to digital photography, I'm very knowledgeable about computers and the fragility of digital media is actually one of the reasons I've never seriously considered a digital camera until now that memory is super cheap and terabyte drives are common-place. <br /><br />The GX-1 with the Pen F 38mm f/1.8 is working out very well. There are many excellent features of this camera that were not covered in reviews. For instance in P mode with a manual focus lens, the rear scroll wheel is setup to do exposure compensation and push in on it does focus zoom. The default settings are not great, but the menu is well-designed and it doesn't take long to disable all of the junk and buttons I never press, and then you are in business. The lens that shipped with it wasn't the super cute collapsing lens that was released with this camera, but the larger older kit lens. I've discovered no problems manually focusing against the rear screen and focus zoom is really only used to confirm this. Am considering one of those cute Cmount wide lenses which seem to be a dime a dozen these days.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. Patrick. Hey, unless you are shooting hundreds of thousands of images, a pair of 1 terabyte external hard drives should do you just fine. They cost less than $100 each. Besides, film takes up more space than that!</p>

<p>Oh, and if you want, you can just buy cheap 8 GB micro-SD cards and keep the photos on them. You can shoot hundreds of photos on one of those new class 10 micro-SD cards, and they take up like NO space! If you're wondering why you would do that, just consider the $12 cost like three rolls of film, but since you can shoot hundreds of photos, you are still saving more than half the cost of film, and you don't need to pay for (and take the risk of) having film developed (and scanned, for use in Photoshop, for editing and printing, or your cataloging program). You would end up with dozens or hundreds of little micro-SD cards, rather than envelopes full of negatives. Both would probably degrade over time, but my bet is that the micro-SD cards will last longer than the film would. The only old film I have that is any good is Kodachrome. The rest has faded. Of course, I do not keep my film in a hermetically sealed, cold storage container. I just keep it in a drawer, in a pile of envelopes (dry, dark, and relatively cool - about 78 degrees).</p>

<p>Scott recommends 8GB cards. I use class 10 32GB cards which will hold over 1000 RAW files, about right for a week's shooting on a dedicated trip, if you edit out (in the camera) the really duff ones daily. Be careful when removing cards from the camera. There seems to be an update of the mechanism of the electric toaster in the spring-loaded design and they can travel quite a distance!<br>

Scott's remarks about colour dye stability in films is valid for old Ektachrome and suchlike but modern e.g Fujifilm, such as Provia, is good for decades. Check out the data sheets on any film stock before using it. My films back to the 1980s, stored in this room at ambient, look as good as the day they were processed. </p>

<p>Yeah I'm using a 32g card and having no problem shooting 1000 images (JPG+RAW) on one battery charge. Probably because I am exclusively using manual focus lenses and have a ton of features disabled. </p>

<p>Good choice Patrick :-)<br>

I've got the X lens but wish I'd had the option of the standard lens- the std lens is less dinky but reviewed to be sharper and it does not have the shutter-doubling problem which makes the folding zoom effectively a 14-35mm handheld lens, not 14-42. I just stay away from full extension as it's simply given me blurry shots too often...unless it's sitting on something sturdy and I'm using the self-timer, at which point it seems to work. Really looking forward to putting the 25mm f/1.4 DG Summilux through it's paces on this body.<br>

Can I ask why you're using manual focus? The AF on the GX1 is simply brilliant and combined with the touch-screen focus point feature it has all become so natural I've found myself tapping the screen on my D5100 and being very disappointed when nothing happens. <br>

I have only had this camera for a couple of weeks but at no point have I missed a viewfinder or tilting screen- I feel these would detract from the sturdy, rangefinder-style operation. To get a couple of shots I've simply laid on the ground or laid the camera on the ground on a tissue, or just set it to 28mm equiv. and given myself a lot of room. More than half the time there has been no need to even look at the LCD. <br>

One aspect of MFT models which is I feel quite telling, is that the processing power is there. My D5100 (almost exactly the same price with the kit lens but a year older) is noticeably slower at doing most things. OK, the larger sensor means ultimate IQ is a bit better, but the ease and fluidity of use of the GX1 more than makes up for it in all but the most careful of shooting environments. And I like Silkypix. </p>

<p>I only put the kit lens on the camera when I need 14mm. I would never even consider it for 42mm. I would have preferred the X lens because of that. I've got dozens of old lenses including OM's and Pen F lenses that are the fraction of the size and MUCH better for manual focus. The kit lens is entirely too slow, too big, and too contrasty for practical use at the long end. It's not a lens I can slap on the camera and just walk around with. My Pen F 38mm f/1.8 is. It's tiny, fast, and has an equivalent of 76mm which is nice for portraits as I walk about. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY bought this camera to shoot manual focus lenses. For better quality portraits I slap on the OM 50mm f/1.4. The only problem is finding wide-angle MF lenses that are wide enough to accommodate and don't cost more than the camera.... makes me wish I had invested in a super-wide years ago.</p>

<p>Basically, I'm a mechanical camera user who is perfectly comfortable and happy with that style of shooting. I would have never bought a digital camera if it hadn't become basically impossible to not have my film ruined in the local labs. I abhor automation and gimmicks and have disabled touch and a bunch of other "stuff". I have small hands but I've found that my thumb rests on the upper right of the screen and then settings magically change themselves... that's silly. I wish I could disable the DISP button and just lock the display on the lowest feedback setting. It's too close to other buttons and I keep accidentally hitting it. I did go ahead and disable as many of the buttons and fancy features as I could. <br /><br />I've heard many people complaining about softness in these lenses at the long end. I think I know why. The GX1 likes to set it shutter at 1/60th. This is entirely too slow for shooting a slow long lens. You really can't use this lens indoors at the baseline settings. You need to adjust your aperture and ISO and put it into program or manual mode so you are in the drivers seat and then I'm sure that lens will be entirely too sharp. ;) For shooting people, you should consider a shutter-speed of at least 1/125th.<br /><br />I really do miss the viewfinder. Take your GX1 out into bright daylight and see what happens. You can't see a dang thing. Now imagine trying to manually focus in that situation. It also sucks that the adapters out there don't allow old lenses to perfectly focus. This means you can't use the scale focus, although I'm considering recalibrating and taping a scale to my favorite walk-around lenses.<br /><br />The OM 50mm f/1.4... it's a design from the 70's that's not over-corrected, over-sharpened, or overly constrasty... I actually used to consider it too much of a mess to use on film, but on the smaller sensor it really shines:<br /><br /><img src="https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551949_10151048255054902_340436254_n.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p>Another thing I had to to as soon as I started shooting was adjust the screen to the lowest saturation and reduce the brightness. I don't know what's up with people's obsession with saturation on digital screens is, but I think it looks terrible when you can't see any details in reds for instance. If color is bleeding across the screen and there is no detail, then that's the wrong setting. I understand Panasonic builds many of these cameras as bridges between PNS and SLR, but the GX1 is otherwise so solidly about mechanical camera shooters that this detail, as well as the lack of an old-fashioned metered-manual mode has really surprised me.</p>

<p>Patric, it is nice to see that you are enjoying your µ4/3 camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really do miss the viewfinder. Take your GX1 out into bright daylight and see what happens. You can't see a dang thing. Now imagine trying to manually focus in that situation. It also sucks that the adapters out there don't allow old lenses to perfectly focus. This means you can't use the scale focus, although I'm considering recalibrating and taping a scale to my favorite walk-around lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are concerns which I too had, before switching over to digital, and reasons why I opted for the µ4/3 camera with a Built in viewfinder (not just a clip on one so I can have an available Hot shoe), and I later paid for a little more for a better adapter so the scale on my manual lenses would be more accurate (novoflex).</p>

<p>When the hotsoe is used for flash on m,y E-P2 I cannot use my VF-2 but, with lots of practice, you can focus where there is DOF of only about 1mm:<br>

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117918#117918">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117918#117918</a><br>

You just have to be prepared for a large proportion of rejects.</p>

<p>I have no problems with most of my shooting situations. But I've got a very simple solution for shooting in bright daylight: shoot film!</p>