The decline and fall of Reflex.

[Wes]

You guys still haven't answered the question of which mirrorless camera I should get to replace my aging Canon DSLR.

Panasonic G9

GX9 is even smaller

 

[Chromatischism]

No. Exposure is photons per unit area per unit time. Intensity is photons per unit area only. The advantage comes from greater area, not from a larger physical aperture at the same focal ratio. Do your dimensional analysis.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Exposure in terms of image brightness as a function of focal ratio and time is merely a photographer's convention.

The average consumer won't know the difference because they don't inspect their photos to the nth degree - but there is clearly an image quality advantage in terms of lower noise due to the larger aperture of lenses made to cover larger sensors. The past couple of decades have falsely attributed the advantage to the sensor itself, which @audio2design also mentioned. This is the fault of even many professional publications who touted full frame sensors as having an ISO advantage before noise sets in, seemingly unaware of where that benefit was coming from. Count me as part of that crowd until the last few years, because I read those publications.

This is most easily seen with astrophotography, where you are working with faint signals and the large aperture lenses clearly show their advantage.

 

[Chromatischism]

No not often enough to matter. No

Good ergonomics are always desired. Video isn't a high on my list.

I would research these:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1511295-REG/nikon_1632_z_50_mirrorless_digital.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ce6600m_b_alpha_a6600_mirrorless_digital.html

 

[JeffS7444]

You guys still haven't answered the question of which mirrorless camera I should get to replace my aging Canon DSLR.

Hard to say without knowing you better: Some people are specialists and can live happily with just a single focal length, while others want "a bit of everything" from landscapes, kid's sports and recitals, to wildlife.

 

[Matias]

Here is a good acronym:
Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens Camera.

Also known as: EVIL camera.

 

[Wes]

I am starting to develop Leica Lust

 

[Gorgonzola]

I am starting to develop Leica Lust

Many years ago I briefly owned a Leica M3 rangefinder camera -- it was the most exquisite piece of mechanical equipment I've ever own. Being young & poor at the time, I traded it in on a Nikon F which was more practical but a long way from the same esthetic ideal.

 

[Wes]

I want a digital body and one of those old pre-ASPH lenses that has magical distortion.

I wouldn't -mind- an M3 but my Hasselblad covers the funky film thing, along with a Nikon F3.

 

[rdenney]

I am starting to develop Leica Lust

Bring your checkbook.

Rick “who loves the idea of a Leica” Denney

 

[Wes]

If I waste enough money on Leica it might prevent me from wasting money on Accuphase.

 

[mhardy6647]

My son's IIIf.
Gorgeous camera -- and it takes nice photos, too.

source: https://icouldbeahero.blogspot.com/2011/05/leica-iiif.html

 

[rdenney]

IIIf's were the way to own an old Leica that mortals could afford back in the day (the 70's, when M3's were well beyond affordability, even though I owned a not-exactly-cheap Canon F-1 at the time).

I got the itch to find a IIIf in the 90's, but discovered that Leica collectors had lost their minds and the prices were too high for anything that might actually work. So, I bought something that was almost guaranteed not to work--a Fed 3. (It was Soviet ripoff of a screw-mount Leica). That led me down a long and dark path that makes it problematic for me to claim Leica owners have lost their minds with any moral standing. I did finally borrow a Leica IIIf for a decent period of a time, but discovered that the M-series bayonet Leicas really were much more usable than the ancient screw-mount models. I do use the turret finder (Soviet) on a Travelwide 4x5 camera, however.

I had a lot more fun with a borrowed Texas Leica (a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder). Superb lens, but again the rangefinder viewing ended up not being my thing, and once I bought my first Pentax 67 I gave the Fuji back. Maybe I'm just compelled to own cameras that require a steady weight-lifting regimen to carry around.

I did by an ancient uncoated Elmar 90mm f/4 lens for my Fed, but that absolutely requires that the sun be at your back. Those were cheap for a reason.

Rick "the 50/2 Summicron, though, is one of the great normal lenses of all time" Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

I caught the Lomography bug a number of years ago when many film cameras were selling for pennies on the dollar and I wound up with a modest Collection, which sounds lots better than calling it a "hoard". But lately, some items have become trendy again, and my feeling is that if people are paying sky-high prices for old cameras, they ought to get them from me.

One of my favorites is a prewar Zeiss 6x4.5 Ikonta folding camera with uncoated Tessar lens, the best they offered for it. It's not one of the fancier rangefinder equipped Super- or M-Ikontas, but it's more compact as a result, barely larger than the film it contains. The lack of coatings means reduced contrast, but gives it a certain character of it's own.

 

[rdenney]

I caught the Lomography bug a number of years ago when many film cameras were selling for pennies on the dollar and I wound up with a modest Collection, which sounds lots better than calling it a "hoard". But lately, some items have become trendy again, and my feeling is that if people are paying sky-high prices for old cameras, they ought to get them from me.

One of my favorites is a prewar Zeiss 6x4.5 Ikonta folding camera with uncoated Tessar lens, the best they offered for it. It's not one of the fancier rangefinder equipped Super- or M-Ikontas, but it's more compact as a result, barely larger than the film it contains. The lack of coatings means reduced contrast, but gives it a certain character of it's own.

I have a circa-1958 Moscow 5 that is a ripoff of a Super-Ikonta, but it's format is 6x9 and it's not tiny. The coated Industar lens is actually pretty good, but cell-focus lenses are never up to the standard of base-focus lenses, unless your subject is 12 feet away. The Industar is certainly no worse than the typical Tessar. But if we remember it was made for contact prints (the unity gain of the photographic world), it's pretty good. Cameras with big enough negatives to display at actual size jump into a separate category just because of that. Somehow, though, I'm not that tempted to use it much.

The slightly earlier Rolleiflex 3.5, though, is a whole other thing. I get goosebumps when I handle that thing. It calls to me, like a flawless old McIntosh amp. The Schneider lens on it isn't really better than the Industar (except that it isn't cell-focused), but it's just a beautifully made machine with no compromises in its day. The much cheaper but far more versatile Mamiya C-3, however, was my professional-use camera well into the 90's. But enlargement from 6x6 was necessary even for showing proofs, versus 6x9.

Rick "always aware of the format advantage" Denney

 

[audio2design]

Rick "I am a glutton for photographic punishment" Denney

Call me lazy, but after I got my first "good" digital, I was surprised how little I used film any more. Couple film cameras sat in boxes in the cupboard for a number of years before being let go on Ebay. I don't miss them. The potential resolution of a 6x9 negative is appealing.

 

[rdenney]

Guilty as charged.

The same is true for me, but it's sorta like playing vinyl records. When I'm in the mood to work in a vintage medium using beautiful vintage cameras, out comes the film from the freezer. But when my objectives are specifically photographic rather than playing with cameras, it will be a digital camera. The 4x5 view camera is the crossover, though--it will do things that a digital camera won't do easily. But it's beyond fiddly (and it would be fiddly even if it was digital).

I haven't put a roll of film through a 35mm camera in probably 15 years. For me, 6x7 is the smallest I go with the expectation of not being disappointed, though even with 90-megapixel scans of 6x7 that I can make using my Nikon film scanner, I can only approximate what I get routinely from my 50-mp Pentax 645z. A scan of 6x7 film in my Nikon scanner is like a needledrop of a "perfect" vinyl record onto 16/44 digital through an analog signal path, perhaps with just a touch of compression. (To earn the use of 24/96 uncompressed and digitally equalized recording straight off the vinyl as an analogy would require a drum scan of the film.) 4x5 film is more like 15-IPS half-track tape as the starting point. The big Pentax digital camera is like a superbly mastered CD (meaning: no loudness war compression), properly recorded using an all-digital record path.

Rick "about 95% digital, but not giving up that 5%" Denney

 

[Wes]

Phase One people

 

[rdenney]

Phase One people

You must have a lot of money. First Leica, then Phase One. I'm jealous.

Rick "but the Phase One sensors are really too small for a 4x5 view camera, even if that's where one mounts it" Denney

 

[Wes]

I shoot m43.

I saw a guy with a Phase One once upon a time tho.

 

[rdenney]

M43 seemed like a really fun format for a pocket-sized camera. Ctein, beloved physicist/photographer known to the longer-term readers of Mike Johnston's Online Photographer blog as the chief technical guru, loved his. And my 645z has the same aspect ratio--44x33mm sensor. It's also part of what I like about 6x7 and 4x5. 35mm is just a bit too wide.

I actually have a focus screen on my Canon 5DII made for me by Bill Maxwell that marks the sides of the frame to show the edges of the 4x5 shape.

Rick "who, when going panoramic, tends to go all the way to 6x12" Denney