zimm
Expedition Leader
im currently shooting with a minolta x-370 and kit 1.8-50... yep, you read that right.
a decade ago, i couldnt commit to some 4000 dollar 4 MP dslr, always wondering why the whole shebang couldnt be an affordable slim 35mm sensor and optical view finder, much like what lieca evolved into. (i guess that just goes to how little i know about optics.) id shop, then something new would come out... then id shop... then something new would come out... then id shop... then something new would come out. i can keep this up, but im boring myself typing about my camera buying behavior. i think you get the hint.
ive had point and shoots, but they have been replaced by my samsung note 3 artificial intelligence module.
i dont take a boatload of pictures, but i realized yeaterday, none of my film advanced from late novenber to ... now. oops. it was like counting bullits in a movie.. "i know this gun should be empty, but it keeps on firing.' (retard)
so im gonna make a leap in january.
heres what i like.
nikon df- its the hot chick in the group, but, with personality! i really dont want an slr, but damn, if something suits an old film guy that likes a manual steel camera... all it lacks is a fake film advance for me to booger up. apparently its so good at high iso, that a flash is superfluous.
sony rx1/r- probably the one that most resembles what i dreamed of a decade ago. .. the fixed lens though... i mean, it would do for 95% of what i want. i can crop at 24mp, and my feet work as a zoom. a slow zoom. great iso performance. essentially its a full frame sensor welded to a top of the line lens. built in flash. great build. best images ever. simple simple simple. its what HCB would own today...assuming he couldnt afford a lieca. downside? its a fixed lens.
olympus omde1dm ggs- 1 think they need more letters so i added them. why stop at 6 letters, two spaces, and a dash, when naming a camera? anyway, its NOT a full frame sensor as i dreamed of, but from the tests, the 4/3 seems to do just fine. in theory, everything a 4/3 could do, a full frame should do better, so one wonders "what if" oly hadnt committed to that little sensor. why is it so LARGE for a little sensor? or are the sony's just doing the typical sony 10lbs of **** in a 5lb bag magic they do so well? but this is photography right? and the end result is the end result, if the camera is usable. and what a camera it is! freeze, water, shock proof, almost latest full sensor high iso performance in the little 4/3, excellent lenses (75-200 is really a 150-400, and the fstop stays as built). the size in hand may be just right.
the sonys- nex, a7. - i dunnknow. i toyed with an nex-6. a bit too computery. if i was gonna deal with that, i think id want the a7. whats not to like about an a7? the AF apparently isnt as fast as the new em-1. its not water/shock proof.
right now im leaning olympus. with two good lenses, its 3000.00. the nikon would be 4700.00 with two good lenses, the rx1/r is 3200 with rangfinder, and the a7 is 4000.00 with 2 pieces of good glass.
as far as style goes, the rx1 is all its own. the oly overlaps with the a7 due to body style, the a7 overlaps with the nikon due to full frame lens swapping. the oly and nikon dont really share anything other than pushing a button to get a picture, but i guess that 95% of the equation, or they both wouldnt be in the final cut.
all opinions welcome.
edit: for those that bring up a new dslr, and the fact they are still kinda better, i do have a film elan 7 i quit using. not deliberately, it just sorta happened, because its too frigging big with even the smallest lens. since this is now a rwnj site, i'll make a gun analogy. "what use is a gun if its too big and you always leave it home?"
a decade ago, i couldnt commit to some 4000 dollar 4 MP dslr, always wondering why the whole shebang couldnt be an affordable slim 35mm sensor and optical view finder, much like what lieca evolved into. (i guess that just goes to how little i know about optics.) id shop, then something new would come out... then id shop... then something new would come out... then id shop... then something new would come out. i can keep this up, but im boring myself typing about my camera buying behavior. i think you get the hint.
ive had point and shoots, but they have been replaced by my samsung note 3 artificial intelligence module.
i dont take a boatload of pictures, but i realized yeaterday, none of my film advanced from late novenber to ... now. oops. it was like counting bullits in a movie.. "i know this gun should be empty, but it keeps on firing.' (retard)
so im gonna make a leap in january.
heres what i like.
nikon df- its the hot chick in the group, but, with personality! i really dont want an slr, but damn, if something suits an old film guy that likes a manual steel camera... all it lacks is a fake film advance for me to booger up. apparently its so good at high iso, that a flash is superfluous.
sony rx1/r- probably the one that most resembles what i dreamed of a decade ago. .. the fixed lens though... i mean, it would do for 95% of what i want. i can crop at 24mp, and my feet work as a zoom. a slow zoom. great iso performance. essentially its a full frame sensor welded to a top of the line lens. built in flash. great build. best images ever. simple simple simple. its what HCB would own today...assuming he couldnt afford a lieca. downside? its a fixed lens.
olympus omde1dm ggs- 1 think they need more letters so i added them. why stop at 6 letters, two spaces, and a dash, when naming a camera? anyway, its NOT a full frame sensor as i dreamed of, but from the tests, the 4/3 seems to do just fine. in theory, everything a 4/3 could do, a full frame should do better, so one wonders "what if" oly hadnt committed to that little sensor. why is it so LARGE for a little sensor? or are the sony's just doing the typical sony 10lbs of **** in a 5lb bag magic they do so well? but this is photography right? and the end result is the end result, if the camera is usable. and what a camera it is! freeze, water, shock proof, almost latest full sensor high iso performance in the little 4/3, excellent lenses (75-200 is really a 150-400, and the fstop stays as built). the size in hand may be just right.
the sonys- nex, a7. - i dunnknow. i toyed with an nex-6. a bit too computery. if i was gonna deal with that, i think id want the a7. whats not to like about an a7? the AF apparently isnt as fast as the new em-1. its not water/shock proof.
right now im leaning olympus. with two good lenses, its 3000.00. the nikon would be 4700.00 with two good lenses, the rx1/r is 3200 with rangfinder, and the a7 is 4000.00 with 2 pieces of good glass.
as far as style goes, the rx1 is all its own. the oly overlaps with the a7 due to body style, the a7 overlaps with the nikon due to full frame lens swapping. the oly and nikon dont really share anything other than pushing a button to get a picture, but i guess that 95% of the equation, or they both wouldnt be in the final cut.
all opinions welcome.
edit: for those that bring up a new dslr, and the fact they are still kinda better, i do have a film elan 7 i quit using. not deliberately, it just sorta happened, because its too frigging big with even the smallest lens. since this is now a rwnj site, i'll make a gun analogy. "what use is a gun if its too big and you always leave it home?"
Last edited:
