greg_alton

Your post implies that you are going to switch, i.e. Dispose of your existing gear. I suggest you try the Fuji with whatever lens equivalent you use the most before selling your other gear. After a few months you will have a better idea of whether it will work for you as a replacement. Personally I find a small mirror less a great complement but would have been very unhappy if I'd tried an out and out replacement.

<p>Only you can figure out what size, but a 500g drive is probably enough for now. If a small external drive in 1tb or 2tb is only a bit more, get one of those, extra space never hurts.<br> Any old hard drive can be configured for the job. Almost any drive you buy will be formatted as a windows drive, you should reformat it to the native mac format, HFS+, for use as a time machine drive. You do the reformatting using disk utility.</p>

I have a Nikon d750 with the wifi built in and it does allow live view and remote triggering. I believe the add on device does as well but please check and don't take my word for it.

Andrew's point of not being too worried about the lenses to start is a very good one. There are always better lenses but if they are good enough for your uses, there's nothing wrong with that. As he says, they won't take worse pictures than they did before. And the suggestion of a nifty fifty (50 1.8) is worth considering - it's not expensive, light and good. You'll figure out what you need over time. Let us know how it goes.

Even the Olympus kit zoom fits within those measures.

<p>Michele, I think your thought process is right: figure out what you'd like to use _as if_ you didn't already have those two lenses. <br> I'd also consider going further afield than Nikon - you may find size to be the 'critical feature' for you. The best way to learn will be to have a camera you're happy to carry around all the time. That might mean the Fuji systems or the m4/3 like the Olympuses (Olympii?). For Olympus, you can get a decent starter kit (EM-5 or EM-10) with lens for about $500. For most purposes, images will be great. (I use a d750 but have also picked up an Olympus due to weight/convenience and lifestyle changes - the Olympus is getting a _lot_ more use right now).<br> And you're quite to go slow. Buy stuff when you need it (and know you need it), not to meet some idea of a 'complete kit.' This is true especially for bigger and heavier equipment. You can rent equipment, like the exotic lenses, and if you're only going to use from time to time, that can be a lot more effective. You might find that the type of nature activities (including photography) you enjoy don't fit well with large lenses for 'birding' - nothing wrong with that.<br> You can decide later if you'd like to spend the money on travel or lessons or whatever 'photography related' equipment or activities. And I also wouldn't worry too much about changing systems later - if your tastes and needs change later, deal with that then.</p>

<p>The d750 is a heck of a camera and I'm sure you're capable of learning its ins and outs. It may take some time but it has 'beginner modes' that will work fine. And you have good lenses to start with (which you could sell or exchange later if you wish for whatever reason).<br> Before you commit a lot of money, you might see about renting one. I'd say more than the complexity, the size, weight and just comfort (whether it fits in your hands and you like the feel of it) may end up being decisive factors. You may find some other camera brands or models fit you better.<br> But again, it's a great camera.</p>

<p>It will be hard to make a choice for him without him having a chance to use a camera - does he have any experience with photography at all?<br> He may wish to consider an m4/3 series camera. For example, the Olympus E-M10 is small, quite light, and has a usable viewfinder, generally cheaper than the comparable DSLRs. So savings can be used for an extra lens later if needed. I don't find the size increase from a P&S a problem, but to a full DSLR it is a very noticeable size increase.<br> Looks and to some extent feels like a classic camera, but in full-auto mode, can be used like a P&S (although with option to change lens). If he has some experience with cameras (e.g. film cameras), again it won't be so alien to him that he'll be starting from scratch. Personally I find the electronic viewfinder useful in low light, whereas for most (all?) DSLRs, live view is only from the back panel. <br> With kit lens can do reasonable close-ups for flowers and detail, although of course not 'macro.' DSLR advantages tend to be better focus for action, some edge in quality at high ISOs, and the optical viewfinder of course (but a matter of preference).<br> Frankly it doesn't sound like his primary 'need' will be for absolute top quality, so (apart from the cheaper point and shoots), I would be less concerned about sensor size, and more about what size he is comfortable handling and carrying.<br> These comments contain a lot of generalizations and just plain personal opinion, no intent to quibble over details or other views - just throwing some thoughts into the mix.</p>

<p>@doga: we have not much idea what features you need or expect to use, or what you're going to use the camera for. On the one hand, you're right: lens and film makes the photo (assuming no additional features needed). But build quality is a big deal for 30-year old cameras (and you just had one break), and you asked if the FE/2 was worth the difference in price - the answer (mostly) here is that based on build quality alone they are worth the difference in price. If you don't care about that or the other features, by all means, get the cheapest you can find.</p>

Dogs -the FE or FE2 are worth the difference in price. Pick one of either up and handle it. The build quality is far superior to the FG. Just my opinion. As for the difference between the two FEs, others have covered above.

<p>Far better to get a 7200 or even 7100, and only make the jump to FF if you see serious shortcomings with those.</p>

<p>I haven't used either lens (as noted, on different systems) but I think the approach to comparison should be different. If you're happy with your zoom (results-wise) and never need/want to use a wider aperture than 2.8 and it won't help you focus in poor light and smaller size isn't a benefit, don't get the 50mm.<br> Others can comment on the 1.2,but generally the super-speed lenses like this make some trade-offs to be able to produce acceptable images wide open (to get images that couldn't be obtained otherwise). So for image quality, you may (probably would) find the 1.8 or 1.4 just as good for your uses as the 1.2 - and smaller and cheaper too. (And other options like Sigma too...)<br> Out of curiosity, the sources you read that recommended the 1.2, what are the specific reasons they suggest that lens? Tiny depth of field, 'character'?<br> The newer 50mm 1.8 (STM?) is small, inexpensive and reportedly good images. I honestly think you can't go wrong with picking that up to keep in your bag and to try it. If it turns out you like the focal length and using a non-zoom, you can always move up to a faster lens later. (Not that there's anything wrong with the other suggestions mentioned here either, but the 'standard' is almost a no-brainer.)</p>

<p>Congrats. If you have another lens at 50mm, I'd try one of those before laying out bucks on the 1.2. Shooting at 1.8 or 1.4 can be quite useful, and they're both reasonably priced and sized. (I use Nikon but I think similar enough for purposes of this discussion). Whether the difference in price is worth it for your uses / specific character of that lens is hard to say.</p>

<p>I think Marc R's response to this is spot on: do it if it is an endeavour you will enjoy. Some will be interest; if really well done, perhaps many.<br> Self-publishing these days is relatively easy. Put it up on Amazon in Kindle format easily, won't cost much to start if no hard copies.<br> You can have some fun and enough people will be interested to make it worthwhile.<br> Now, if your question is whether you will have enough demand for your memoirs to make a lot of money, the answer is probably not - but by all means do prove me wrong!</p>

<p>I agree that the critical difference between these is the viewfinder. I'm in the camp that I can't stand using a camera without one.<br> I'd add that I find the touchscreen of the EM-10 very useful, and the wifi is far more useful than I expected.<br> My guess is that for almost beginners (and maybe most photographers!) either camera would be good enough image quality in most cases. The rest is a matter of personal choice and what exceptions to 'most' are relevant to the individual.<br> So @Colton: if at all possible, I suggest you try both of them. I haven't used the Fuji, but for me, the handling of the EM-10 (and other Olys) is what convinced me to try one.</p>

<p>Information here:<br> http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/Lens-CS.html<br> In short, at infinity they should have the same focus, difference in focus becomes more severe at close distances. Depth of field will cover differences with wide angle lenses. So in your proposed usage, with f/11, and assuming not extremely close, those lenses should be entirely usable.</p>

<p>Out of interest, I looked up what the 'runet' (Russian internet) has to say on this question about the compatibility of the soviet LTM lenses with 'western' thread mounts. To my amusement, the basic sites refer back to Dante's site.<br> I'd only add the following: theoretically the issue does not occur with the Soviet contax-mount cameras (Kievs). That said, I'd say first and foremost it is just plain hard to focus an 85mm lens on these cameras wide open, and manufacturing tolerances and 'tuning' would be enough to explain a lot of the issues users experience. I've used a Jupiter 9 on a Kiev, and I wouldn't call it easy to hit focus consistently.<br> I like the Soviet LTM cameras particularly with wide angle lenses - where this issue is definitely covered with depth of field.</p>

<p>I have not tried the d8XX but went with the d750 as the smaller body and price were both serious considerations for me (and can't really justify the need for more pixels). Unless picky about handling (which I can understand), I think either would make most photographers happy.<br> I second the note that the tilt-screen is a very nice and useful feature (and I hadn't expected to use it). As Rodeo notes, the 3rd party IR remotes are easily obtained and cheap. And while I wouldn't want to use it often, the wifi feature does allow an iphone or android gadget to be used as a shutter release - it does have the advantage that you're probably more likely to have your phone with you/less likely to misplace.</p>

<p>Yes, my guess is it would be somewhere on top. Maybe Hamon will be lucky and it will also be a screw missing. Unfortunately I don't remember where the screw was missing from. More likely it will be something else. Your suggestion of experimenting with gaffers tape is a good one.</p>

<p>I had one Zorki that had similar - in my case it was a light leak, in fact, a small screw that was missing from the top plate; replacing the screw fixed it. (I don't recall if it had a purple hue).<br> Is the purple streak consistently in the same location, just the intensity changes? That would be consistent with a light leak (intensity depending on time between shots and ambient light).<br> You'll have to look over the camera to see if there are any areas where obvious lack of fit or anything seeming to be missing. Good luck.</p>

<p>I think it all comes down to what you want to do with it - if you're not going to make use of the features of an SLR, and are otherwise happy with the Rollei, I'd incline more to Robert's comments: it will feel large and clunky compared to a TLR. I still find it much easier to pack/take/use a TLR, so I use it more often than other medium format cameras.<br> Personally I'd say go for it and keep your eye out for one with a Planar or Xenotar. If you shop carefully and don't rush, you should be able to find one in good condition at a reasonable price - reasonable enough that if you change your mind later and re-sell, you shouldn't lose much. (I found a 2.8c on a local listing site a few years ago, for example)<br> That said, don't raise your expectations too high - the Tessars are also quite good. I think there is a noticeable difference, but to be honest, sometimes I just like the look of some of the Tessar-type lenses. </p>

<p>I believe for most Nikon lenses - all but G lenses which have no aperture control on the barrel - you will have whatever aperture is set on the barrel. This is as long as the aperture doesn't interfere with the spring-loaded aperture arm.</p>

<p>Happy Birthday. How about a trip to someplace you've always wanted to go?</p>

<p>I don't know what software you are referring to, but on a mac, I believe reading a CF card through a card reader should work exactly like it does with an SD card (either on the built-in SD slot or SD plugged into a card reader) - the CF card should show up as a drive on the mac with no special software required. Then read directly into whatever photo software you use.</p>

<p>Mukul and Arthur make very good points: that film processing (whether you do it yourself or have it done by a lab) is a critical part of the equation, and that you should consider carefully whether it's realistic to try to 'do everything' with a single MF system (it probably isn't). On the latter point, that's fine - you may want to consider approaching MF as a complement to what you are already doing.<br> My suggestion - which may be a little off the wall - would be to try almost any medium format camera first to see if it fits into your photography workflow and needs; that is, to experiment with MF before committing a lot of funds and effort. Since you're not going to be able to do it all, I would consider trying a twin-lens reflex, such as almost any of the Rolleicords (or rolleicord copies, which are quite reasonable in cost) or an Autocord or even a Rolleiflex. Theoretically you would get some of the system benefits with a Mamiya TLR, although the size/weight is notably bigger than other TLRs.<br> I've used many medium format cameras (although not the ones you specifically asked about), but I find a smallish TLR is the type I keep coming back to and using most. They have fixed normal perspective lenses, most of the 'kick' of medium format, but are surprisingly small, light and transportable (they fit well in many camera bags due to the rectangular body format), quiet, and easy to use. I find the waist-level finder an interesting and different perspective to shooting - different from a digital SLR, but in a good way.<br> Of course, this will only work for a portion of your 'themes' above - but again, no MF system likely to substitute completely for a DSLR.<br> Whatever MF camera you decide on, the key will be to try it and see if it works for you and if getting film developed/scanned/printed (or whatever you want to do with it) is practical and effective. If it isn't, you should be able to resell fairly easily. Unless really committed, I would forget about projecting MF slides.</p>