Jochen_S

What do you mean by "general use" and similary important: What lenses do you have in mind? - If I'll hear 70-200/2.8 (as your heavily used primary work horse), I'd say the big pro body shouldn't harm. Realistically speaking, as a more or less enthusiastic amateur (without butler and body guards, who could carry bits of kit for me): Shop weight and bulk conscious! Shelf queens stay at home and don't take pictures. A D750 with 24-120 seems like a reasonable and recommendable upgrade from a Powershot. That lens also shouldn't shout for a mirrorless body instead, like a fast portrait prime already might do. FTR: I don't shoot Nikon FX. But my EOS punches in the same league and guess what: It stays at home. To maybe take a picture, I rather carry something lighter like a modest and weathered Leica kit or (a pair of) APS beaters without overly bulky glass.

Dunno, assuming I want to get previsualized image files out, I still have to feed the AI somehow and might have to shoot for that purpose? Nothing new. There was John Heartfield, who needed photographic contributions to his work. We also must have had painters crutching on photography kind of forever? A bit later the "photoSHOPtographer" ("I'll fix that in post") emerged and now we 'll get AI feeders. Nothing ever changes. If you don't want to dodge and burn, get your lighting right. You could still use coal to draw on the walls of your cave, you can shoot plates or that modern film thing as you could shoot digital. Just more tools at your hand. Most of my personal photography has been stumbling around, seeing, framing, click; with random results I liked. I don't have portable Internet to ring comrade AI: "Paint me how this would look on a good day" So I 'll click away as usual. Among less lucky or gifted portrait photographers: Why should I not ask the AI to blend information frm a sharp frame into an unsharp one, that nailed pose &/ expression, assuming my goal was to provide a good image of that subject?

What film are you going to use? T- Max or Delta or a conventional emulsion? i would go through "the usual suspects" and settle on something I can get easily. Like Perceptol for Pan F. Or whatever magic soup your very special high res film usually gets paired with. - Disclaimer: I am no active Minox fan and a while out of the darkroom. But I firmly doubt there is one perfect fine grain developer suiting ea h and every imaginable film.

Not sure what to recommend; video isn't my thing and sometimes I splurge. (Used) DSLRs wise, I 'd look for a Canon with dual pixel AF, assuming that anything worse would suck badly for video. I recommend stretching the budget to cover maybe 2 stabilized zooms and a niffy fifty and prepare to toss in a 2nd body, some flashgun(s) and maybe another lens next wealth. If that 2nd body is no mid term option, I'd sacrifice camera features, to get a tourist zoom with longer range than the average kit lens. I am not overly familiar with the used DSLR & MILC markets but believe Canon had an 18-135 IS lens? I wouldn't fuzz a lot about DSLRs beeing not future proof, assuming that a first set of zooms in a young enthusiast's hands will get worn out anyhow. At that moment todays latest and greatest camera can be had used for less.

If you are constructing it for others, your lens doesn't matter. Offer some bag bellows option, to gomwith wides, from 9 to at leas 18 cm. Offer some rail extension for a slightly longer lens, like a 355mm that folks might have laying around. Dunno if 1:1 is totally needed for such but draw for1:2 seems nice to have?

@AJG I had some of those rubber hoods too but ended with longer metal hoods on my 90 & 135 and square hoods on 50 & 28 not to mention the plastic ones, that came with zooms and made lens cap removal a bit inconvenient. While my LX seemed a bit over the local service's head, I liked KX and MX more, with the K1000 still doing fine as a 3rd body, behind something I had no hood for, like my 20mm.

My take on that: Great! But what does that mean? I 'd probably be quite happy with a pair of M 10s and just one additional M11, if contemporary glass was in my reach. I don't give much on published opinions about cameras being "perfect". How likely is somebody to post: "I overspent on *#* but need to work really hard (on a good day) to get reasonable results out of it"? Everybody somehow established is also most likely capable to work their gear, within its limitations. I also believe you need to capture 4 noisy low light pixels, to sell a clean one, so the M11 might just provide what @Sanford demands, once it gets a little dim. I am not rushing to own one. While it is tempting, some modern MILC might serve me better.

While I am grateful that mine hasn't let me down, I have no excessive feelings about it, it was my 4th Pentax and I am not much of a 35mm SLR lover anymore; i.e. the odd roll is more likely to end in an RF. Lens hoods, which I consider quite handy, keep me from becoming a great K1000 fan, since there seem to be no hood caps in SLR land, to switch the meter off.

? Sorry I probably don't understand what you are saying about the dynamic range. Do you mean it is too low and everything sucks at higher ISO? If not, what could be wrong about lots of it? I am not familiar with newer Leicas but M8&9 kind of benefited from dynamic range, to compensate exposure mistakes that happened. The Megapixels seem needed to encourage folks to test their older lenses and ditch them for latest and greatest ones, that Leica sell. @ericphelps No car at all seems fine to me and I wouldn't know why that (or something between Navi & Hunter CUB) shouldn't go well with a backpacked Leica. Every decade without a car buys you another Leica, at least in my part of the woods.

If you 'll fly, airline will limit your luggage. Toss your spare clothes and digital together, weigh that stuff and check out what else is possible. I'd stick away from the Retina. No coupled range meter for the long lens makes it an awkward portrait camera. Using two media means two independent narratives, which COULD lead to two incomplete stories. Weeding out OM lenses: 35 & 100mm = "core". With two bodies I might add 24 & 180, maybe the 35-** as a lazy tourist zoom, but(!) since few tourist shots turn out great, why not use digital for those?

AFAIK you can do a lot of stupid things with a monitor. Since we are also on photo.net, I 'd suggest proper calibration for starters, which can be way much dimmer than a "bright" setup. Maybe lighting the rest of the romm slightly provides additional eye relief? Best of luck!

Wholeheartedly agreed! They had about 2 or 3 of those kits at work. The latest trigger unit was of the mentioned bitching kind, the earlier pair apparently entirely dead. If a battery wants my attention in its case frequently, it shouldn't require an uncommonly tiny Philipps screwdriver to be accessible.

I have no clue, but buying less than 32GB for a "somewhat serious" Windows machine seems not worth fuzzing about; +/- 50€. If you 'll hit a store, ask about your RAM upgrade option's price. I'm sure a board with 4 instead of 2 memory slots costs more? Will that difference nudge you to buy 64 GB for starters?

I am convinced to buy some R5 (Mk. II?) when I 'll get seriously into wide open portraits and headshots. Eye detection AF, with no need for micro adjustments must be great. My old Fujis sucked big time indoors with flash and kit zooms: VF lag, horribly sluggish and unreliable focus acquisition, no fun at all. DSLRs can utilize focus assist beams in the dark and need less batteries on unplugged vacations.

Keystone correction?

IDK your 14mm but my old Sigma and the CV 15mm don't take filters at all. Sand blowing around will creep into your mechanics. I 'd call that a bigger risk than front element surface damage caused by its impact which I ' d consider hard to imagine. Just blow it off before you start wiping that lens.

Did you manually set your white balance to light source appropriate or did you let it go wild on auto?

Get a recentish camera that lets you shoot RAW + JPEG and plenty of memory card space. Learn to read your histogram in the field, to judge exposure. If you want to do exact color reproduction an X-rite passport color cecker (test target, to judge the light you had and calibrate your post processing to your camera and lens' flaws) will be helpful. Color cameras are handy to generate BW images from their files. You can pick the right filter during post processing instead of guessing it before you shoot. Manual exposure has its place, when you are shooting tethered in a studio. Out in the field occasionally interfering with auto everything cutsnthe cake quite well. Dabble, its cheap! If it is within your budget maybe get a MILC, to see what you 'll get right in your EVF but all other camera types can be fun too.

I won't get an X-pro#. To my understanding THOSE are the only Fuji(!) adapter benefitting Fuji bodies, because the Fuji M mount adapter holds a button and contacts on the Fuji side to toggle through the available OVF settings. You 'd have to stack that with a M42 to M adapter for your project. Lensrentals' Roger blogged about adapters "There is no free lunch" worth reading and ignoring because if you are a "photographer" in the field and not a reprographer or measurebator, you 'll fill only a fraction of your frame with 3d subject in focus. Absolutely insane precission is needed when you have a flat subject, your camera dead center above it and a demand for everything absolutely sharp in focus. I admittedly haven't mounted my Soviet made 1000mm on the cheapest adapter available, to ride Paris Dakhar with everything hanging on the camera strap. Surely something would break. I had a cheapo k-mount teleconverter with only 4 screws supposed to hold the lens mount. Those were not enough for a heavyish tele zoom in rough use. Assuming you had the 180/2.8; what would you prefer to give up? Your camera's lens mount? Or your adapter's? I guess one camera costs 10 adapters, so I 'd appreciate the camera's survival. I 'd buy cheapo adapters. On your bike travels you should bring a bottle of Loctite and something screwdriver anyhow, when riding rigidly mounted singles without balancer shafts. When shooting fishy old gear SERIOUSLY, you should bring something backup, to get your job done. The Fujis don't market F2 / EOS1 ruggedness & abusability. Pack them properly when you march. When you are very unlucky you can end with a cheapo adapter that is machined too short, i.e. infinity focused at 6m engraving. The lens would still be quite shootable. Loving hard infinity stopsnand zone focusing MIGHT be a reason to buy premium brand adapters. But I'd adapt to MILC, to focus precisely via EVF, shoot rather wide open and get all the loveable imperfections that push folks to shoot vintage glass.

Linhof Technika with Rangemeter on its right side and VF in the cold shoe?

Sorry, "the answer will be in the eye of the beholder". Do you own a suitable adapter, to go between this and your MILC? Chinese cheapos are fine. Go out, try to take evaluation shots. Do you own & shoot FSU made RFs? - Ditto. Are you planning to use it on your digital M? - Maybe let it go. The RF will most likely not perfectly couple and the world seems full of 50mms. There must be subjects benefitting from a lens' imperfections, but are YOU shooting those that way? You described your lens as evaluateable as is, so go ahead and find out. I myself am usually glad to have something half decent. So far I failed to warm up with lenses "for their flaws sake", but mileages vary and it is surely another fun field of photography.

@c_watson1What else to expect? Maybe mentioned stuff's price tags put her into reverse gear? @laurencecochrane I 'd happily purchase dedicated hammers (or reluctantly borrow cobble stones) before I 'd expect my camera(s) to replace those. While we picked the same MF workhorse system, the OP was looking for something ultra portable, to substitute hers. If folks are happy with their kit besides the weight, there is no use in praising something similary unwieldy. Why discuss f2.8s? An f3.5 or even a 'cord should be cheaper. Which SLR owner within their mind might get impressed by TLRs' close up capabilities? The Mamiya Paramender shouts for a heck of a tripod far from casually portable. The paralax indication hand, plus conversion table for certain lenses in the VF is a crutch for guess work, probably worse than Rolleis diopter lenses with prism for the viewing lens. And whoever does close up shots seriously will most likely happily accept the convenience of a view camera's movements on a tripod or the reduced composition hassle with an SLR. On a side note: Bigger film formats don't make the task easier. IDK much about camera repair, I simply live with the occasional need for it.

Folding rangefinders like Agfa Super Isolette (which also inspired Iskra) aren't bad, if you are able to shoot without glasses. Rolleis seem impressively light weight, compared to Mamiya C. I guess you 'll end having to pay quite a lot of money "for anti matter" and it might make more sense to out the regular camera with just one lens. Another option might be a tiny view camera plus roll holder. My Voigtländer Bergheil 6.5x9 is light, the Rollex Patent holder disappointing and I admit never really warming up with the uncoated pre-war Heliar. You probably need less of a tripod than for an SLR and can focus critical stuff on a ground glass. The inherited mentioned Agfa was my first real camera. Knob winding and cocking the shutter separately isn't comfortable, if you had to shoot a whole lot but OK for touristic usage. The RF patch is dim, the entire thing a bit squinty, compared to more recent alternatives and the shutter button travels quite a bit but for thought through (film cost!) shots in broad daylight it seems surely suitable. There must be some more RFs with coated lenses floating around. Zeiss Ikon maybe? I recall my teenage vacations etc. as a lot of marching and cycling, until I rarely bumped into a suitable subject for the 75mm lens. I shot more when I had a TLR with 55s & 135s.

Excuse me, I am only who I am. How am I supposed to forget film entirely, although it has been quite a while since I shot some? When I can, I 'll continue replying. How to attract new members at all? Shall we both burn 18K€ on latest and greatest gear, every year, to review and discuss it? I 'm not sure what photo.net was or is, I haven't explored it entirely.

Gallery prints go for $100? And you are trying to shoot somebody into what price range? "Just multiple nice new cars", I 'd guess? Sorry! If there is ONE thing I learned about flash in product photography: DON'T use AWB, aiming for a low PP-fuzz consistency. Shoot single felt markers crayons on a sheet of white paper, compare results and the paper color shifting through the entire range, to know what I mean. AWB & manual flash: What is your camera able to know? The ambient light and exposure you set. Does it know that it will fire a flash? - Mine probably doesn't. // Have you ever watched one of Daniel Norton's Adorama tutorials? He always starts with making SURE he 'll use flash, by turning it off and exposing a perfectly pitch black test frame. Sorry, I am not in your business. I 'd assume, if somebody bothered to pay me, to drive around and shoot "rat holes 4 sale or rent", they 'd desire results beyond iPhone. To squeeze them out of my old gear and condense them into an Internet friendly format, I 'd probably have to acquire some mobile office, panel van converted compact car, "solar generator", iMac. I 'd use Xrite color checker and a RAW batch workflow, to get colors across properly. I'm not fast. I'd be new to LR and stuff but willing to self exploit, till I see either hope or no chance. FTR: IDK it all. I have a rough idea, how to get things done, with my kit. Having a say about efficiency and speed, I'd probably beef up the HQ with a decent media tech and enough bandwidth, to let all shooters upload their RAWs. Having that tech remote accessing shooters' work PCs, might be even less demanding?