![]() ![]() Manual focus may be the next-most-difficult, as all of these systems are designed for auto-focus, but most at least have features to try to make manual focus a reasonable option (including zoom on the LCD). ![]() If you give up that requirement, suddenly things open up, because pretty much any of the new mirrorless cameras will do - any Panasonic or Olympus Micro-4/3rds, Sony NEX, Samsung NX, or even smaller-sensored Nikon 1 or Pentax Q will do (more compact in exchange for some image quality - compromise is everywhere in photography!). These are not up to the quality of good optical finders, but a nice one beats the tunnel-vision finders used on compact cameras, at least. ![]() Probably that compromise means using an electronic viewfinder. The requirement for a large (presumably optical) viewfinder (described as being better than the X100's) but well under the cost of the Leica M9 means you're going to have to accept some compromise. (See dpreview's Christmas 2011 roundup of enthusiast compacts for a representative sample.) However, your requirements go beyond this. There's a recent spate of retro-designed compact, small-sensor cameras (without interchangeable lenses) which have "retro" styling and relatively high image quality and controls. You're not the only one who is interested in this type of camera. I intend to use it solely for street photography. So are there any other cameras out there that I should have considered but missed? (It still looks fun to use though just don't wanna plunk down that much money for it.) However, if anyone who's used a X100 can address my concerns for it or workarounds, I'm all ears. While the M9 is what I would want, it's just way out of my budget (which is just around $1500, note that this refers to my budget and not how much the M9 costs), and suppose that of most people, whereas the X100 misses on the manual focusing, large viewfinder, and interchangeable lens part. So far I've looked at the Leica M9 and Fujifilm Finepix X100. ease in manual focusing (ideally, something built for manual focusing)īasically, just a AE-1 with a digital sensor in place of film.Therefore I've been looking around for a digital equivalent that fulfills the following criteria: Also I do miss the convenience of digital. I do enjoy the film look (it's rather expensive in the long term though) but it's the way I use the camera that really appeals to me. With today's tech you can still get that retro look with filters and effects – without losing the hi-res original that you might prefer when this particular trend has run its course.I've recently started shooting with the Canon AE-1 Program and am loving it. ![]() And there are plenty of really great travel cameras that don't cost much but deliver really great results. The best phones today have cameras that stand-alone digital cameras couldn't even dream of, and even the cheapest budget phone is going to do a better job than a model from the turn of the Millennium. If you're going to be shooting anything you might want to look back on fondly, you'd be better off shooting on the very best camera you can get – and chances are, that camera is probably in your phone. A film camera effectively has near-infinite resolution, but an old digital camera is just rubbish. The reason we moved on from what are now considered retro cameras is because unlike vintage film cameras, the tech back then simply wasn't good enough. But if you're taking pics or video of anything you might want to look at in years to come, you might regret going retro. If you're just doing TikToks for fun then by all means load up on old kit and have a whale of a time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |