Thinking of a digital camera with the least number of functions...

Thanks Jochen,
Lots to think about here. I’m basically just musing and digging for info and opinions now. I won’t rush out to buy anything and that’s for sure.

meanwhile I’m making an effort to shoot my EM-1 manually just to see how it goes. BUT one thing I do enjoy about the various film cameras I have is their simplicity. Simple is not a word to describe the EM-1!

I’m not so much a “processor” of images -or certainly haven’t been. With my digital I shoot RAW and simply auto-enhance light & color, sometimes converting to black and white. So as it stands right this second (subject to [distant] change of course), a camera that delivers something close to a final photo file is closer to being up my alley than something I’d have to mess around with endlessly.

As to focal length... hmmm. If I had a fixed lens choice? Probably as close as possible to 45 or 50mm equivalent. Currently I have 40mm and 50mm lenses for my 35mm cameras. 40 sometimes seems too wide yet 50 sometimes doesn’t feel wide enough! Ha ha ha TFB, sucks to be me, right? At the end of the day I still have fun shooting and if nothing else I can always laugh at myself as I careen from a to b to c.

Thanks to all for your input. Really appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

yes 50mm or the equivalent is suitable, not a big fan of wider lenses. I was told by one Q shooter on another forum that the Q is sort of tied to Leica’s proprietary editing software? That the Q doesn’t deliver finished files out of camera. At least that’s what I thought he said. If so that’s a deal killer for me.

Can anyone speak to this or elaborate, please?

 

If you don’t do post, just get a camera with really good jpg output, like a Pen-F or a Fuji and don’t worry about raw. With a Fuji you can save 8 jpg “recipes” in custom settings and load them quickly or save raw and use the camera to process a jpg.

 

If you don't mind spending a little, get yourself the 7artisans 35mm f1.2 and set your EM-1 to the 'grainy film' (I think) monochrome art filter. The lens should set you back 100-150$ and you can get most of that back if you resell it.

35mm will be a little long on m4/3, but it's a lens with a distinctive character, great for candid portraits in available light. To me, it feels very much like the 1930s Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar for the Contax rangefinders, which should be no surprise, as it's a modified sonnar formula.

Worth a try?

I get what you mean about 'too many buttons and dials', I really do. I lock out most of the rear buttons on my Fujis.

There is a lot to be said for just shutter speed and ISO on the body, with aperture on the lens and nothing more.

 

Sounds more like Sigma's Qattro than Leica Q, could you have mixed those two up?

 

A Leica Q2 can output jpg and dng files. Sigma Quattros also have jpg (or at least the ones I’ve seen do) and raw.

 

That's like, "better to have a gun that you don't need than to need a gun that you don't have."

 

One of the cameras I covet (after I'm done with a few expenses) is the Leica 10 D. It functions almost exactly like a Leica M 3, save for an exposure compensator on the back. No LCD, no chimping, no nothing. Just you, your camera, a battery and your brain to set up the functions. IIRC, the only thing automatic on that camera is the aperture-priority setting. I know, it's $6-7k used, but I want it. Bad.

 

Low budget, excellent performance even in low light, problem solved.