Thinking of Doing The Insane

Lead_Head

Lead_Head

Lead_Head

Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2003
Posts
3,704
Location
Nottm
Hello all,

I'm contemplating doing the insane... going from my Canon 5d Mk2 to a smaller form camera. I'm not sure what's come over me.

I'm finding lugging my Canon around all over the place a chore, whereas I could potentially achieve the same results from a smaller form camera. Don't get me wrong, I've busted my balls to be able to afford the 5d and I do love it however I'm wondering if I can be a lot smarter with my camera use.

One criteria I want to keep is full sensor, what cameras are out there that are:

- full sensor,
- smaller than a Canon 5D
- a range of lenses available for portrait and zoom.
 
The only thing even close to your requirements is a Sony RX1 but it has a fixed 35mm lens.

The Sony NEX range have an APS-C sized sensor in but the lens selection is very limited. From there you are into m4/3 territory and that nothing like full frame.

The reduction in body size and interchangeable lenses goes hand in hand with a reduction in sensor size I'm afraid.
 
Full frame and smaller than a 5D... Your only option is the Sony RX1... The 6D and D600 are only marginally smaller... The RX1 has a fixed Zeiss 35 so that's no good..

That or go into film.

Basically you couldn't achieve the same results on a smaller camera.
 
I forgot about Leica as well... That said you won't get the same results due to cruddy sensor and inability to use telephotos etc. effectively.

Tbh nothing can get much smaller and still have full frame and reach... Lenses aren't going to get much smaller even if the body does
 
Ah, I didn't realise the RX1 had a fixed 35mm lens.

I guess I'm asking for the impossible, or what will be around in years to come..
 
That's a bit harsh

Ksanti said:
I forgot about Leica as well... That said you won't get the same results due to cruddy sensor and inability to use telephotos etc. effectively.

Tbh nothing can get much smaller and still have full frame and reach... Lenses aren't going to get much smaller even if the body does
Click to expand...

The M9 is a great camera and you get really nice results from it - and the glass available is in many cases significantly better than SLR glass.

Another advantage also being you can easily slip that glass and shoot film on any number of leica bodies or other leica mount cameras out there (if that's your thing of course).
 
The M9 sensor is pants as full frame sensors go, let alone as full frame £5k sensors go... Re film... If only there were EF mount Canon of FX mount Nikon film bodies.... Oh wait.

In many cases it's also barely above SLR quality at 10 times the price, with no autofocus meaning you only have 1/4 the choice of the SLR systems.
 
What is the required use of the photo's taken ? Which kind of sets the quality required.
A crop sensor DSLR is fine, and smaller to carry..... Or one of the range finder type now popping up........ Once you get past the pixel peeping snobbery.
 
Objectivity

Ksanti said:
The M9 sensor is pants as full frame sensors go, let alone as full frame £5k sensors go... Re film... If only there were EF mount Canon of FX mount Nikon film bodies.... Oh wait.

In many cases it's also barely above SLR quality at 10 times the price, with no autofocus meaning you only have 1/4 the choice of the SLR systems.
Click to expand...

I never suggested the M9 was an amazing sensor compared to other ff sensors. I stand by the statement that its capable of producing fine images. Given that the OP was concerned with "lugging around an SLR" it's a false comparison to top-end ff bodies at £5k ish.

Clearly there are film SLR bodies - I have several and they're certainly no lighter/smaller/less cumbersome than DSLRs - again the OP's point. I was merely noting that if he was predominantly a digital shooter, he'd still retain the option to shoot a film rangefinder if he wanted.

Autofocus vs manual focus is a matter of usage need depending on subject shot and personal preference. Personally I nearly always prefer manual focussing whenever possible, but it may not be for everyone.

Finally as to range of lenses, except at the telephoto end, there is an array of fine glass for Leica mount cameras, much of which is exceptional quality.

I wasn't advocating the M9 over DSLRs, merely noting some points about the OP's query.
 
AtticusFinch said:
Clearly there are film SLR bodies - I have several and they're certainly no lighter/smaller/less cumbersome than DSLRs - again the OP's point. .
Click to expand...

I still use my Nikon FE which is definitely a hell of a lot smaller than any modern DSLR, and the M9 to boot. That can create fine images, and I paid £80 for it in spotless condition. The fact of the matter is that, if we take the hassle of film development aside for just a second, the FE can produce just as good images at about a fiftieth of a price. The M9 sensor is barely any better than film for ISO performance, worse for range.

The whole point of these cameras is not that in 2 sets of circumstances during a variable 2 minutes of the day on a couple days of the year, in exactly the right location, the camera can create a stunning image, but that the camera doesn't get in the way of making the images you want to make. With a Leica M you can't use teles, you can't reliably use fast primes, you can't use zooms, you can't shoot action, you can't really shoot in the dark, you can't do much with them at all other than pour money into them and try to convince yourself that the images you produce and the fabled shooting experience are worth sacrificing so many other shots that you would have with another system, and the ten grand you spent along the way.
 
Last edited:
From my own use, rangefinders are the perfect cameras for the 28 to 50mm range (wider lenses are great too but they require a separate VF unless you buy a Bessa R4m/a). They just disappear in your hands and let you work quickly without making your subjects tense up. Focusing is a breeze too, even with fast lenses - I had a 35/1.2 and a 50/1.5 in my set before I settled on a 35/2. I sold those on to simplify my kit, not because I missed focus all the time. The new Leica M adresses the telephoto issue, not much known about the new sensor's performance though.
 
Last edited:
I just don't see much point to it. No AF means you can't shoot from the hip which is good for street photography depending on your style, nor can you use anything like an 85 1.2 or 135 f/2. It all becomes very limiting in what you can shoot and a very expensive way to produce images that could have been shot by a £700 5D and 50 1.4 combo. About 2 of any of Leica's current shooters are printing anything like as regularly and as largely as they'd need to to see a benefit of using the 50 Summilux etc., and even then, they'd get more benefit out of a D800.

There are uses for a rangefinder design, yes. But the X-Pro 1 incorporates them without anything like the compromises the M system makes, and without the ridiculous Leica tax.
 
No AF doesn't preclude shooting from the hip, which is the sloppiest way of making street photographs ever anyway. You judge distance and zone focus. If a certain style of camera suits someone's way of seeing and making photographs, then who are you to say that they'd be better served with a DSLR? Photography isn't just about the results, it's also about enjoying the process in getting those results, about being comfortable with the gear you use. Those limits you mention aren't limits at all - you're approaching them from a DSLR users' perspective who expects to have everything from 14mm to 300mm covered. Those who use rangefinders know what they want to shoot, they don't need anything extra, and in the case for those who buy M9s, they see it as worth the extra outlay. They want RF focusing, a quiet shutter, more natural framing etc. Re: printing and shooting - the same can be said for many people with D800s/5DIIIs. Or DSLRs in general for that matter.

The X-Pro 1 is great, I have one myself. In fact, I'd probably stick to that over a Leica digital. OP should consider one or an XE, you lose out on shallow DOF but in terms of resolution and noise performance there's not much in it. Lenses are excellent. Wait for the XP2 though, the AF will be much faster.
 
You could buy a mirrorless Sony like the Nex 7 and buy the metabones speed booster. All your Canon lenses will work, the camera will now function as a full frame and all of your lenses will be a stop faster... Google "metabones speed booster" for more!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom