Time for a new camera

Thanks Kevin, was having a blond moment there.

Thought it might have been a new digital version of the old 5X4 cameras !!!

I have been thinking of adding a G or GH body to my system, but I will not part with my GF-1 until it dies.  

I am not as seasoned as some here, but my first job at 16 was in a camera store.  My cameras have been Minolta SRT102, Canon AE1, Canon A2E for film.  The GF-1 is the first compact digital I have owned that completely spanned the gap with film shooting, mainly because of the ability to shoot raw quality at reasonable speed.

Nick

Hi Richard

I realise that the Fuji X100s is out of your price range but what about the X100? The image quality will be superior to the X20 and you will fall in love with photography all over again. There is no zoom except your feet but this forces you to really think about your composition and take time over what you are doing. A beautiful camera.

Having owned a X10 before the X100, the quality is a different league. The X20 is a good camera though.

Have a play with the X100 and see what you think!

Regards

Neil

Neil,

yes, the X100 is a lovely thing indeed.  It is more than I want to spend right now though.  And then there's the XE-1 and X-Pro to lust after.  Like hifi, it's a very slippery slope so I'm trying to be as disciplined as I possibly can. Fow how long it can last, who knows...

A slippery slope indeed, Richard. When I got the XE-1, I thought that was it, but then along comes the 14mm, then the new zoom... a new power supply next, perhaps?

Re: Fixed lens Richard.  You might find it strangely liberating.  I know I do. G

Hi Richard

A fully  refurbed X100 from Fujifilm with a full one year warranty is only a little more than a new X20. This is how I got my X100 Black (plus there is a discount code available which gives  another 10%).

Pays to shop around.

Graeme, yes I can totally understand that.  When I shot film I used the telephoto lenses the least, a 24mm lens a little, and the 50mm lens the rest of the time - which was about 95% of the time. For photography class at school use of only a 50mm lens was allowed in the first year.  Which reminds me of just how much great music I was turned on to just through spending hours in the school darkroom.  I can't listen to REM's Murmur or just about any Grateful Dead without imagining the aroma of developer and fixer...  amongst other things.

Why not going back to film photography with a pre-loved Nikon F100 and 50mm. Nikon F80 is an excellent camera as well and they come quite cheap these days.

Just a suggestion.

Nowadays, there is a huge second-hand market for DSLRs too.

Cheers!

I took my first roll of film for around 3 years last weekend. It was fun to use an old fave camera for a change. Just waiting for the results now! 

+1

I bought a D-Lux 4 about three years ago.

You can see some of the photos in the Nice Photos thread and linked to Flickr. None of them has been processed other than cropping. Nothing in the same league as Kevin or the other pros, but "nice" IMHO.

Main reasons for buying the D-Lux were decent picture quality wiyhout processing (although it does take RAW which no doubt enables a better end result with processing.) and the fact that without the case, the camera fits into a shirt pocket so travels almost everywhere.  Its robust, but you feel inclined to look after it without molly-coddling.

Cheers

Don

I have the original micro four thirds, the Panny G1. Just a lovely camera, I like everything about it, the mini-DSLR handling, excellent image quality, decent optical viewfinder, textured non-slip body, logical menu system and the reversible and tiltable screen (I hate fingerprints on LCD screens).

The only thing that takes a bit of getting used to after a DSLR is that the viewfinder is grainy in low light, a bit off-putting at first but not a real worry.

One day I'll get the f1.7 20mm lens, but the 14-45 it came with does most of what I want.

And that moment the red light goes on.... Do let us know what you decide. G

The advantage of the G5 or G6 over the G1 illustrated above is that the technology used in the electronic viewfinder has improved to the point where I really don't miss an optical viewfinder. Within another three years, I'd guess they'll be better than optical.

Richard,

I've just been through the same process of deciding on a new camera.  I've just bought a Pentax K5 DSLR and frankly it's an unbelievable bargain at the moment at £549 including the excellent kit lens from SRS Microsystems in Watford who have bought up all Pentax UK's remaining stock.

It's special because it's Pentax's top DSLR and has just been replaced by the K5ii which costs almost £300 more but only offers minor revisions.  The K5 series was widely regarded in independent testing as offering the finest image quality in an APSC sensor until the Nikon D7100 arrived - see http://www.dxomark.com/index.p.../%28appareil1%29/676|0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/619|0/%28brand3%29/Canon

I tried the Pentax alongside various others in the shop and frankly the Nikon D7000/7100 and Canon EOS 7D felt like plastic toys compared to the fully weatherproofed all magnesium and steel bodied Pentax K5.  In addition Pentax are unique in enabling you to use every lens they've ever made since the 1950's from screw mount Takumar series through all the K series manual focus lenses and on to the later FA and DA autofocus lenses with full functionality on their latest bodies.   There are millions of lenses out there secondhand and new and they will all fit.  Better still because Pentax use in body rather than in lens stabilisation you get image stabilisation when shooting with their excellent legacy glass.  When you're feeling flush you can move into the Pentax DA Limited prime lenses which are amongst the sharpest prime lenses ever made. 

The K5 is smaller than the equivalent Nikon and Canon cameras so it's more travel friendly but if you want it to feel bigger you just add the optional DBG-4 battery grip and it feels like the pro-level camera it is.  If you're into shooting action or kids it will also shoot at up to 7fps which is amongst the fastest DSLR's money can buy.

I have a friend who is a pro and uses a Canon EOS 5.  I took the K5 out on a shoot with him and he was astonished by the capability and handling of the Pentax and loved the way it felt in his hand.  It's so strong and rugged that it was chosen by a US soldier stationed in the Gulf for shooting the war and he made an incredible video showing how tough the Pentax weatherproofing is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw  There's also some interesting discussion about weather-sealing here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3391825

While you may not be planning on going out to Afghanistan I personally find it gives me peace of mind taking it out on mountain biking excursions and using it in the rain.

To be honest once you pick up the Pentax you'll realise that you would need to spend upwards of £1500 to better it - indeed I really do think you need to look at the Canon EOS 5D or Nikon D600 to get close to the quality of handling and the Pentax mostly still beats them on features and user interface and they're all £2000 plus...

Try one - you'll be shocked how good it is - kind of like having the money for CD5 and then finding the CDX2 costs the same...  No wonder Pentax are sometimes called 'the poor man's Leica'.

Jonathan

JJonathan

As a Pentax user for thirty years, I can say that you've encapsulated the brand's merits pretty well. But I'm afraid I can't see how it's relevant to Richard's requirement, which is for a compact system camera or rangefinder style camera. Both of these are substantially smaller than even a K5, and there is no comparison with lens weight and size. So you've given a great argument why someone considering buying a DSLR should think about Pentax, but what's it got to do with this debate?

Regards

Paul

Paul,

Nice to meet a fellow Pentaxian - I was shocked to find this was my fourth Pentax SLR since 1981!!  Can't believe I too have been using their gear for over thirty years too.

Anyway having re-read Richard's post I had really responded to the fact his views on what he wants may in fact be ambiguous and at one point he seemed to be considering an SLR " I'm not really looking for a point and shoot.  I have an Iphone 4 that I use for that and it's not at all bad.  Since giving away all my old Nikon film camera gear a few years back, I'm not sure I want to go back to an SLR. For all that, I am tempted by a new Nikon SLR such as the D3100, but after a trip to the shops and a look at what's out there, having picked them up, fiddled with dials, weighed them up in the hand etc.. I feel that a CSC or rangefinder style camera will best fit my needs."

I take the point though even the smallish Pentax may be too big.  Frankly I wouldn't want to go smaller than APSC and I would want interchangeable lenses so given Richard's budget that does limit his choices somewhat.  I love the Fuji rangefinders for their retro style so if I could afford it that's where I would look but the other frontrunner seems to be the Sony.

Hope that's helpful and sorry if I misread his thoughts - what I'm saying in essence is that for me the feel, ruggedness and build of the camera is as important as the image quality (after all APSC sensor sized cameras from a leading make will shoot great quality pics.  Like many here I appreciate quality and the K5 is the only camera at £500 ish that feels so well built - that fact may sway considerations of portability.

Jonathan

I have the GF-1 here to try out for a while.  First impressions on taking it out of the box are very good.  It's small - only marginally larger than a high end compact and much smaller than an SLR - and also very attractive too.  Lovely finish, nice alloy on the body and also nice to see that both body and lens are still made in Japan.  The 14-45mm lens feels much better to use than the mini powered one I tried on the GX-1 and also seems better made than the current 14-42mm chinese unit.  It's larger than the powered mini-zoom of course and the zoom is manual but I can easily live with that.  The myriad set-up and shoot options are somewhat daunting for now - so much for just a simple light meter, aperture, shutter speed and exposure control.  This is one item where reading the user manual is going to be essential..

One niggle, I'm kicking myself now for giving away all my old Hoya filters with the Nikon gear - I had a 52mm set which I could have used here - as they're not exactly cheap.

I'm surprised you can still get the GF-1...

Lucky find, Richard!  I bought the last demo GF-1 at my dealer's in December 2010.  

IMHO shooting raw with the GF-1 is the way to go, though it necessitated buying a few new hard drives to deal effectively with the large files.  They say the similar Olympus makes better JPGs, which are much smaller, but raw is damaged less by post-processing, I am told, and down-converting raw to JPG is easy.

Enjoy!

Nick

Yes, but there is an in-between option that would satisfy most.  If you shoot in jpeg, just use a lossless format (TIFF?) during processing; then when finished, convert back to jpeg. What you want to avoid is opening, editing and re-saving in jpeg multpile times as the quality degradation adds up. But if you use high quality settings in jpeg, a couple of versions doesn't matter too much (for most people). Having said that, with storage so cheap, there is little reason to work with compressed images (fast saves when shooting at high frame-rates is one).

For ultimate quality, stick with RAW until finished, of course.

Bear in mind that if you edit in one of the "new-style" programs like Lightroom (or iPhoto), the underlying image is unchanged when editing. The program just saves the "instructions" you have given and essentially recreates the edited image each time you open it. Its nice because there is no cumulative degradation (due to compression) and you can revert to the orginal anytime you want. Of course, when working in Photoshop or similar, you should have archived the orginal images anyway.

It was a lucky find indeed and for just a fraction of the original price on the box.  Originally purchased in 2010 by someone who allegedly found it too complex so put it back in the box and used a compact point and shoot instead.  Everything looks like new or is still sealed in plastic.  I haven't checked the shutter actuation count yet but have no doubt it's been hardly touched. There's not a mark to be seen anywhere. Decided to buy it and use it for a bit before deciding whether to go further and inevitably spend a load more.  It will need some kind of protective case though...

Nick, can I post-process the Lumix RAW files in Photoshop Elements or do I need to open up the software package and install that?

Richard,

IME, the software included with any camera is meant for early adopters before Adobe and Apple etc products are updated to work with raw files from a new camera.  These updates for the GF-1 are long in place now.  I use iPhoto mostly, and Aperature occasionally.

Nick

Yes, you can process your RAW files in Elements provided that your version of Elements post-dates the camera.

I love Lightroom - easy to use and very effective. And, as someone said, your RAW file remains untouched.