Digital camera that looks/performs like SLR

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>I'm not sure what forum this belongs in, so I'll stick it here.<br>

I'm wondering if there are some digital cameras that look like film cameras and have similar layouts. So far I know about the Olympus OM-D, if that was the name. any recommendations?<br>

I have issues with the reliability of film - it's probably time for me to move on (although I'll still do B&W). Colour film development is either expensive or time consuming, and I recently had colour streaks (again). Not only that, but dirt. I just can't tell how light got in - camera? bag? the tank? I just want to be sure that I can get photos consistently</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Nikon Df? / Fuji X-T1? // Maybe even Sony A7 RII? The latter should take your lenses via adapter.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>some digital cameras that look like film cameras and have similar layouts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All my DSLRs (past and present) pretty much have the same look and similar layout as my film F100. In most general terms, DSLRs have shrunk in length because there's no longer a need to accommodate the film canister and the take-up spool.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm a digital user, so no accusations of bias please. Are you not throwing the baby out with the bathwater? You're having problems processing film right. Most people either learn to do it correctly, or for all sorts of reasons decide that lab processing is for them. The vast majority of film users get decent negs. There is no general issue with the reliability of film.</p>

<p>Will either of those work rather than buying a new camera </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The term "DSLR" is used to describe a single lens reflex (SLR) which happens to be digital. Everything is there, including controls, prism and mirror, and the same lenses can be used (by manufacturer). You get additional controls related to digital imaging, including ISO settings, and a means to review and edit images.</p>

<p>Cameras like a Sony A7Rii resemble an SLR, but instead of a prism and optical finder they have an electronic viewfinder (a little video screen).</p>

<p>At $20 a roll (in the U.S.) for film and processing, you can justify a DSLR fairly easily.</p>

<p>Dirt is a bigger issue with digital cameras than with film. You have one sensor for imaging, as opposed to film which is renewed each time you wind the camera. Light leaks not so much, since there isn't a back to open each time you load, and corresponding light seals.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I would guess that the Nikon Df comes closest to "looks like a film SLR," but wonder if that's a realistic requirement. Not to sell the Df short, as no doubt it's a fine camera and I'd be happy to have one, but if what you really want is to make photographs, it's easy enough to learn to use a plain old DSLR. What constitutes looking like a film camera kind of depends on the film camera, too. Remember the old Minolta Maxxum 7000, which in 1988 was more unlike a traditional camera than most DSLR's are now.</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<p>What camera(s) are you using now? With some 35mm or medium format cameras, you may want to continue with the same camera system, which would make things more familiar, and be able to use lenses you already own.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>At $20 a roll (in the U.S.) for film and processing, you can justify a DSLR fairly easily.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoot B/W and process at home. About $5.00 a roll to purchase and I would guess $2.00 (maybe less) a roll for chemicals . That would be $7.00 a roll. Doing your own work completes the hobby for me. I could cut the cost of film in half if I bought film in bulk rolls. I think you can buy Kentmere in bulk and roll your own film for maybe $2.00 a roll. I have shot some Kentmere and it's a very nice film. I like Tri-X better however. I print my photos at home and am completely independent of labs. </p>

<p>Back to the OP is you can just go to a popular on-line camera store and look at the different models and see if one has the look that appeals to you. The OMD does have kind of a retro look but once you look into that electronic viewfinder then all retro is off because it's a different world of electronics. I own a F100 and I think it looks very similar to the other DSLR camera's out there. I think my F100 is an ugly creature and all the camera's that look like that are ugly. Leica makes beautiful camera's and many of the manual focus 35mm camera's from back in the day are beautiful such as the Nikon F and F2 and FM series. I picked up a Nikon FG at KEH a couple weeks ago. Plain little camera that I bought for hiking. I think it looks very nice especially with the sb15 flash on it. I paid $39.00 for the camera and $8.00 for the flash. It looks and works as new. I shot a roll yesterday as my family gathered for dinner. My wife cooked and I did the dishes. </p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"Dirt is a bigger issue with digital cameras than with film."<br /><br />I would have to disagree with that. On my digital bodies, I occasionally give the sensor a shot with a rubber bulb blower. When I have the occasaional dust spot in an image, it's usually easy to fix in Photoshop. In my experience, it's largely a non-issue. But when I shot film regularly, dust was a running battle. In the camera, dirt could get in not only from the front when you changed lenses, but from the back every time you loaded film. And in the darkroom dust could get stuck to film as it dried, or onto the negative in the enlarger. And once you had it on a print, it took a retouching brush or pencil to cover it up or you had to reprint but sometimes dirt would just show up in a different spot. Not saying this happened on a regular basis because I kept my cameras and my darkroom clean. But I spent a lot more time fighting dirt and dust with film than I have with digital.</p>

[rossb]

<p>You know I have not had an issue with dirt shooting film or digital. I had a D200 for a few years and I did clean the sensor a few times but it only took a minute. With film I have no issues with dirt however I do seem to scratch my negatives sometimes during the process. It might be my rubber squeegee and I was going to to try a sponge type with my next film order. Maybe I will just use my fingers on the next roll and see if I can forget the squeegee all together. When I used a lab I had dirty negatives. I remember walking into the lab early one time and the employee took the roll off the drying rack and drug it on the ground to the scanner. I lost sleep over that. Anyway from my perspective if you want to shoot film then develop it yourself. If your going to use a lab and pay all that money to have your negatives drug in the dirt then go digital. Digital is the easiest possible way to a photo anyway. And cheap unless you belong to the upgrade crowd then it's hideous how much it cost. Right now you can buy an OMD EM5 brand new dirt cheap and your on the way to photos as nice as you would want to have. Point and snap, spray and pray, take your time, shoot and dump. It does not matter as the camera will deliver. It's not any fun but you get the shot. </p>

[andylynn]

What sort of film camera are you used to? If you like Canon AF SLRs, get a Canon DSLR. If you like Nikon AF, get a

Nikon. Both of those DSLR lines take their cues from the AF film lines. A Sony A850 reminds me of a high grade Minolta

Maxxum. If you like fixed lens rangefinders, the Fuji X100 series is what you want. Or if you like interchangeable lens

rangefinders but don't want to pay what Leica M series digital costs, a Fuji X-Pro2 with a few primes might be up your

alley. If you want the viewfinder in the center and you want modern features plus knobs and dials, look at the Nikon DF

and the Fuji X-T1. If you want the best camera to use a collection of manual focus lenses with different mounts, look at

the Sony A7ii.

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot B/W and process at home. About $5.00 a roll to purchase and I would guess $2.00 (maybe less) a roll for chemicals .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you priced color film and processing lately?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But when I shot film regularly, dust was a running battle. In the camera, dirt could get in not only from the front when you changed lenses, but from the back every time you loaded film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With a digital sensor, the dust accumulates until you clean it. With film, the surface is renewed every time you wind. Dust in a darkroom must be managed too. If the film is hung up wet to dry, dust is trapped by the liquid and becomes embedded in the emulsion. That's why I use a squeegee, one with rubber blades rather than sponges which accumulate debris. The film is dry to the touch (dust free) in a minute or two, but I leave it overnight until it is bone dry and flat.<br /> <br /> Dust when enlarging or scanning film is a continual problem. Brushing and blowing are a necessary routine. At least when scanning or with digital, it is much easier to repair the image than for a wet print, and you only need to do it once.<br /> <br /> I have virtually no dust accumulate on my Sony A7Rii sensor. It is treated to repel dust and it undergoes a brief cleaning cycle each time you power up. My D3, on the other hand, needs cleaning weekly. Usually a blower or brush (Visible Dust Butterfly) is sufficient.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>thanks for your responses! <br>

I honestly think that DSLRs are an ugly bunch, from what I've seen. Oversized, heavy, always black... I like the style of film cameras. Some are, hmm.. 'elegant'. That Nikon DF is a good example of the right camera style for me. Thank you!<br /> I also want minimal functionality: viewfinder, shutter, some sort of automation, metering, manual focus lens. Well, some additional 'features' are unavoidable, but I don't want something that is a mess of buttons.! <br>

I do process all my own film at home (except for E6). <em>Usually </em>I get acceptable results, but there are occasional problems. When they happen there's no going back - the photos are damaged; the memories are damaged. I like being able to take pictures and have it 'on there' to see later - I'm definitely not a chimp :-D I also like having physical copies - that's history.<br>

So this is a difficult decision, but it's for the best. I will still use BW though since it's so simple to develop. The chemicals are very straightforward in comparison to colour. <br>

I am wondering, do digital zoom lenses offer lower minimum apertures? For example, the lens on my Minolta X300s (that's the camera I use) has a minimum of 3.5, which could be better for low light ,.,,</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>Anyway, I will talk about some failures. Mine :D<br>

- The camera shutter had a problem and a lot of photos were half-black. Result: Changed the camera, but the damage cannot be undone<br>

- Film fogged. Guess it was old and I can only wait 'til after to find that out.<br>

- Camera problem. Sometimes it takes a picture just after being wound (selenium rangefinder)<br>

- Overexposed negatives. I realised that my lens is not switching to the narrow apertures instantly, rather, it slides down quickly. Most problematic for f/16 since for a picture of bright sky the speed will need to be fast, but the blades are not acting instantly.<br>

- Hair absorbed into emulsion after drying. Seriously?!<br>

- Coloured bands. I just don't know why. Light could be coming from anywhere, even the bottom of the tank.<br>

- Dust. I hate it so much. I don't even have photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ciaran, I can quite get your sentiment about DSLRs being less pretty - I find my film cameras in many ways nicer too. Since I use Nikons, the Df should be my logical choice - it looks try hard to simulate the FM/FM2, which is a camera I positively adore.<br>

Yet, no way I will give up my ugly D700 for a Df as it is - if you don't want a mess of buttons, in my view the Df is the worst offender since it duplicates some buttons (like shutterspeed selection that can be done in 2 ways). I'd much want to like the Df, because it does a few things very right, but from trying at a shop, I just know it's not going to be it. And ugly as that D700 may be, ergonomically it's just a much better tool. Easy to control without every taking your eye from the viewfinder.... So, realistically, look beyond the looks, and try several cameras within your budget in a store to see how they work in your hands. Smaller is sometimes better, sometimes not; more buttons sometimes better sometimes not - best to experience it for yourself.<br>

<br>

There is no such thing as digital zoom lenses. Lenses are lenses, and they do not really care whether you stick film behind them, or a sensor. As long as the mount fits :-) Fastest zooms you will find for full frame cameras (=same size sensor as 135 film) is f/2.8. For smaller sized sensors, you may find faster zoom lenses.</p>

<p>Also, if you already have lenses, it's worth figuring out whether your lenses can work with a digital camera. For example, 90% of the time, I use older manual focus Nikon lenses on my D700 - they work just fine despite being 20-30 years older than the camera. Mirrorless systems are even greater in this respect, as they can be used with adapters for many different mounts.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>oh yeah, lab development is very expensive over here. For the time being I got hold of 1L Rollei C41. It's very time consuming though!</p>

[rossb]

<p>Have you priced color film and processing lately?</p>

<p>No, If I wanted to shoot color then I would use my digital camera. </p>

[DWScott]

<p>Ciaran, I heartily recommend the Fuji X-T1 camera. It will be a familiar replacement for your Minolta X300s. Picture quality is excellent, camera build quality is excellent.</p>

<p>I fear that the Nikon Df <em>looks</em> familiar, but is actually quite a confused design with too many options. (Basically the Df can be used like a modern DSLR, or like a traditional SLR, which makes for a cluttered camera and not giving a consistent user experience.)</p>

<p>You also asked about getting a brighter lens. Sounds like you have an f/3.5 zoom. For the Fuji, get the 16-55mm F2.8, which will improve on the low light performance. Combined with the great low-light performance of newer digital cameras, you will be very happy.<br>

<br>

The Fuji cameras output a very good looking image, straight out of the camera, ready for printing with no computer work. You might even like the Black & White setting, it's very good!</p>

[andylynn]

There are some good MF Zeiss lenses for Sony mirrorless cameras. But if you don't mind AF I'd have a look at a Fuji X-

Pro1 with a couple of prime lenses. Are you in the UK? I'm always seeing good deals running there from Fuji UK.

 

They do make faster zooms. F/2.8 zooms are what a lot of pros use. The downsides are that they're heavier and more

expensive.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering if there are some digital cameras that look like film cameras and have similar layouts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With regard to menu system layout I think you'll find it impossible to find a digital camera that is as simple as an SLR film camera's. I know I haven't found it, yet. the Yashica SLR I used as a hobbyist photographer back in late '80's was such a breeze to use and the owner's manual mainly functioned as a tutorial for making better looking images which covered shooting & composing techniques, ISO film exposure choices and back lit override flash and lighting tips. </p>

<p>My Pentax K100D's menu system is bewildering and its owner's manual is much thicker with a very lengthy index and glossary section which I'ld advise you read thoroughly when you get your first digicam.</p>

<p>Sony's camera's menu system is far more complicated from my experience trying to help a woman fix white balance issues shooting a mural in mixed lighting with her Sony P&S. I gave up trying to find where the custom WB settings were located and told her to consult the Sony owner's manual. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Menus in digital cameras are complicated because they have the ability serve a multitude of applications. Once you decide what you want the camera to do, you seldom need to consult the full menu. Often there are programmable buttons and short menus that give you ready access to the options you use most frequently.</p>

<p>Then too, what does complicated mean? In a Nikon DSLR, you have a short list of headings with long menus underneath, often spanning several pages by scrolling. In a Sony A7, you have the same general headings, but sub headings as well, so each menu fits on a single page.</p>

<p>Ugly? My Nikon D5 is an incredible hulk. It also has a menu, which is confined to a single line, and is cryptic at best.</p>

<p>If the OP is not married to mirrors, nor determined to get a pocket-sized camera, the Sony A7ii or A7Rii is worth consideration. Alone aming mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders, it has a "full sized" frame, 36mm x24mm. Furthermore lenses for nearly any other camera, including SLRs, can be used with simple adapters, without an annoying cropping factor. That, in turn, means your wide angle lenses are still wide angle on the Sony. All of this fits in a body the size and weight of a Leica M.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>wow, that Fuji XT1 is beautiful! Thanks David!! I better start saving. Why are DSRLs/D cameras so expensive anyway? Is it just difficult to make them correctly and with precision? For one XT I could buy perhaps 30 X300s's, haha. Thanks for <em>all</em> of your replies, I sure appreciate them.<br>

'Consult the manual' - the man's admission of defeat <br />:D</p>

[tom_halfhill]

<p>Ross, if your b&w negatives are scratched after home processing, don't use a squeegee or sponge before drying them. My procedure has produced scratch-free negatives for decades:<br>

1. After using the hypo and the hypo clear, fill the developing tank with distilled water, replace the lid (after thoroughly washing it!), and agitate vigorously for one minute. Shake it hard. Rock 'n' roll! (The film is already developed at this point, so you needn't worry about uneven development or streaking.)<br>

2. Pour out the distilled water and pour in the Kodak Photo Flo mixed with distilled water. Agitate gently for 30 seconds, then pour it out.<br>

3. Gently remove the film from the reels and hang it up to dry in a dust-free place WITHOUT wiping it.<br>

My film dries overnight without scratches, embedded dust, or water spots. I never use fans or blowers to dry it faster. My usual dust-free place is a bathroom shower stall. Avoid going in and out of the bathroom for the first hour or two, because it stirs up dust.<br>

Tom</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Menus in digital cameras are complicated because they have the ability serve a multitude of applications. Once you decide what you want the camera to do, you seldom need to consult the full menu. Often there are programmable buttons and short menus that give you ready access to the options you use most frequently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't make it sound any easier for the OP, Edward. Was that your intent?</p>

<p>Outside of pointing out the obvious I think it may help Ciaran to find out what to do first since making decisions on what she wants will be like taking the SAT's or learning another language, the language of menus, especially the myriad of acronyms that are designed to save menu interface layout space.</p>

<p>All I have to advise Ciaran is be patient and figure out first what you want the camera to do. Maybe shoot in Program mode and start making mistakes is the best way. And then locate the terms (outside of the subsequent cuss words) within the owner's manual index section to find out how to fix the mistakes.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Gently remove the film from the reels and hang it up to dry in a dust-free place WITHOUT wiping it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, I will give the "no wipe" a try on the next roll.</p>