which equipment to choose? switch from contax t2 to digital

[thomaszavrosphotography]

<p><i>Moderator note: Reply deleted. Please review photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/">Community Guidelines</A> regarding self promotion of personal and/or business websites.</i></p>

[DELETE THIS ACCOUNT]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7088982">Philip Buttmann</a> , Oct 10, 2012; 09:23 a.m.</p>

 

<p>it may be good if there is a 35mm-size, full-frame image sensor with it. this is one of the basic characteristics needed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>At this point the only camera which most closely meets those basic characteristics is the Sony RX1. $2,800 U.S., more in Europe.<br>

Frank said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with John, what you are looking for does not exist - and maybe never will. There is a reason for that - full frame sensor and compact camera are not a sensible match.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What isn't sensible about wanting the "look" of shooting a 35mm lens on a 35mm film equivalent sized sensor such that you get the same perspective and depth of field characteristics on digital that one was used to on film?</p>

<p>Sensible isn't a word I'd used in that context but desirable.</p>

<p>I can identify with Philip as I only last year stopped shooting film (135 and 120 format) and I'm finding it hard to get the look I'm used to coming from 135 film. At present I'm shooting full frame lenses on APS-C cameras. While the setup is practical it doesn't feel right to me. I miss the small 135 format compacts that went with me everywhere.</p>

<p>Until this past September there was only one company putting out "compact" full frame digital cameras and that was Leica. Now Sony steps up with the RX1. It might not be cheap to put a full frame sensor in any camera let alone a compact camera, but they've done it and for the most part they nailed the implementation it appears. Top flight sensor. A very solid lens implementation. Tuned to work together. Fast contrast detect AF but usable manual focus too. All the early reports on handling have been positive if not gushing.</p>

<p>I do wish they'd included a viewfinder rather than make it an optional wart on top of the camera, but that detail alone isn't enough to turn me off of the camera.</p>

<p>It's a darned expensive little box but for a photographer that already uses nothing but 35 on 35, it certainly is worth looking at.</p>

 

 

[danny_low]

<p>The biggest problem I had when I went digital was the misleading conversion information about using my 35mm full frame lenses on an APS size sensor. The field of view changes due to the smaller size sensor but the magnification and compression of DOF is the same because they are inherent properties of the lens. It is not as if this was new. Anyone shooting medium format who switches backs from 645 to 6x6 to 6x7 would see the same effect.</p>

<p>The change in viewing angle was easy to handle. I simply moved back and forth until the composition was what I wanted. Or I adjusted the zoom setting. It was really no different from how I shot with 35mm. Remembering that the magnification and compression was the same also was not a problem once I got past the bad information.</p>

<p>So I did not have any problems with the conversion to APS sensors. However your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>Danny</p>