UKC

For the last 10 years or so I’ve used a Contax T2 in the Scottish mountains, mainly shooting Kodachrome 64. The pin-sharp fixed 38m f2.8 lens takes superb photos, and although I’m not a very skilled photographer (most shots taken while belaying in auto), quite a few have been published in guidebooks, magazines, journals etc.

Currently I’m transitioning to digital, and using a Canon IXUS 860IS – a nice little camera (although I miss not having a viewfinder), but the results are not up to the T2, and I suspect none would ever be printed larger than quarter page magazine size.

So a question for the UKC photography experts. Will I be able to replicate the quality of my Contax with a top end digital compact (e.g. Canon G9 or Leica D-LUX3) shooting RAW at ISO 80, or should I bite the bullet and move to a DSLR?

In reply to Simon Richardson: Whatever you do, get one with a viewfinder.

In reply to Simon Richardson:

If you don't mind me asking, what is motivating you to move away from film? This may help with the answer.

In reply to John Wood:

John, that's a good question. I like the immediacy of digital. I enjoy downloading pictures after a day on the hill. Pictures can be shared with climbing partners, quickly sent to a magazine (I write a column on Scottish winter climbing), images can be filed, keworded and archived, and organised in to slide presentations. Sure, you can do all this with film and a scanner. Ive tried this and have a good quality film scanner, but I find scanning time consuming and the results disappointing.

In reply to Simon Richardson:

Off the top of my head:

Advantages of a compact:

Will fit in your pocket

Probably cheaper

massive depth of field

Good for macro work

Disadvantages

Slow & frustrating to use in general

Generally crap viewfinders/no viewfie

Hopeless if you want a shallow depth of field

Don't perform well in low light (v noisy at high ISO)

(probably most important, fits in a neopoleon pocket)

DSLR

Decent viewfinders

Much more flexible

Much better in low light

more control over depth of field (although having a lens faster than 3.5 helps a lot here)

Works quicker - less likely to miss a shot to to faff or delay

Generally more pleasurable to use.

Disadvantages

Size

Weight

Cost

Additional cost if you decide to add more lenses, flash units etc (basically blokes shouldn't be allowed to have them because it sets off our inner gear freaks)

I'd guess that you'd be happiest with a set up closest to the one you're used to, so DSLR possibly coupled with a prime lens 28mm? (DSLR sensors are usually smaller than 35 mm film so you get a "crop factor" of about 1.5 so a 200mm lens is equivilant to a 300mm on a DSLR, so you'd be a bit more "zoomed in" with a 50mm prime.

2 more questions - what's your budget?

For submission do your images be of a certain size ie x Megal pixels?

In reply to John Wood:
Thanks for the helpful reply! DSLR with a fixed lens is a good idea as long as its small and compact. What do you suggest? No real budget - the Contax cost over £500 in 1996 and has paid for itself several times over. No specification on Mega Pixels given for publication, but from my experience, 3MB jpegs from compacts rarely get printed bigger than quarter page.

In reply to Simon Richardson:

Tricky one (assuming that we are spending about £500 for now), I'm using a 6mp Nikon D40 with a 50mm MF lens but to be blunt that's not for everyone because it won't only not autofocus but won't even meter so i have to fire off a few test shots, look at what comes out and read the meter. If you're happy with these limitations you make get out of this for under £350 (£290 for camera plus kit lens, £40 for prime lens + £6 for a memory card) and you'll have more or less the smallest and lightest package you can get and I'm really happy from the images i get from mine.

Nikon are generally a bit rubbish in respect of sub £1,000 bodies that work well with primes at the moment (I can provide more detail if you want to be really bored) and you should consider canon, who have just annonced a new prosumer model the 450d which will set you back £450 body only. You can now get the predecessor model the 400D for £100 less. A 28mm prime 2.8 (which will give you a similar field of view as your 50mm lens will set you back £130) alternatively, a 50mm lens will cost about £60

Here's a shopping link

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/cat1.html

No experience of the canon kit but I doubt you'll find much wrong with it!

Of course if money as no object I'd be armed with a nikon D300 and an AF 28mm, and then still go out with the D40 'cause its so small and light.

In reply to Simon Richardson: Leica M8- only digital thing of comparable quality, and size. Any SLR (apart from a D40 possibly) is much bigger and heavier.

In reply to Stakhanovite: Aye! get two, one for Colour and one for B+W

In reply to Simon Richardson:

I have been very pleased with my D-LUX 3, very portable, I like the utlrawide format, the shots are sharp corner to corner, it has RAW and full manual control - but it has no viewfinder. Doesn't bother me too much (short-sighted?) though Sherri struggles with it.

Vertical shot, well light
http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/90894183

Horizontal into the sun
http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/90902133

Macro
http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/90902136


Chris

In reply to Stakhanovite:

except that it doesn't work properly

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp

and costs the £2.5k+

and Dpreview calls it disappointing

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page21.asp

In reply to Simon Richardson:

The new Richo GRD II seems to get good reviews, fixed 28mm (35mm equivalent) f2.4 lens, optional viewfinder and the ability to save in Raw, which is invaluable if you want to approach film quality

should be great for wide angle scenic and shots of leader traversing out from belay

Even 'though it is top of the (relatively) compact pile, don't expect like for like comparisons with your Contas and Kodachrome

It costs £370 + £130 for optional viewfinder!!!!!!!
the old Mk 1 is available for £320 INCLUDING optional viewfinder, but only 8MP instead of 10MP with Mk II, also apparently much noisier than Mk II at more than ISO 200 (shouldn't bother you too much if you are used to kodachrome 64)and takes 10 seconds to write a RAW file

In reply to John Wood: John, many thanks for the advice. Very helpful. The camerapricebuster website is great. Looks like the Nikon D40 with a fixed 28mm lens is the nearest digital equivalent to my Contax. I'll have to think of the best way of carrying it while I climb - stuffing it down my front won't work! Why are Nikon bodies rubbish with primes?

In reply to Chris Craggs: Chris, the D-LUX 3 looks lovely. I think my problem is that I'm becoming slightly longsighted and I need to hold the screen a couple of feet away to see it. This doesn't work too well when it's blowing a gale on a Scottish crag! I've got into the habit recently of just pointing my IXUS in the rough general direction and shooting - no wonder I'm a little dissatisfied with my pictures! As Al says, it looks like I need a camera with a viewfinder, so I can see what I'm shooting and can hold it steady.

In reply to Simon Richardson: I think i walked past the D40 priced at £299 in john Lewis today? Probably be replaced soon by the D60, so should be worth shopping around.

In reply to kevin stephens: Kevin, looks like a possible option. Is the 28mm on the GRD II a 35 mm equivalent or already converted a 28 mm equivalent. I thought it was the latter - possibly a bit too wide angle for me, but perhaps I've got this wrong?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I had a play with the GRD II, the optical viewfinder struck me as the worst of both worlds, when it is attached it sticks out like a sore thumb, bound to get banged/scraped/dropped, and when it is not attached, where do you carry it?

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Your welcome, rambling about cameras isn't exactly a chore.

Re the primes.

Nikon's traditional AF system was essentially a screwdriver added to a hole in the lens mount driven by a motor in the camera body, not exactly speedy but allowed Nikon to keep using the same lens mount, so lenses going back 40 years or so will mount to any Nikon body (there are a few honourable exceptions). A faster system was devised whereby the motor gets put in the lens itself, making the motor in the body redundant (these lenses are designated AF-S). (Canon just binned its old mount design and hoped everyone would buy a new set of lenses to gain the benefit of fast AF, which they did.)

With the introduction of the D40 Nikon dropped the motor, which made the camera smaller and lighter but of course the D40 (and the D40x and the D60) won't AF with any none AF-S lenses. For most people this isn't a major problem because nikon does have a reasonably compressive catalogue of AF-S lens. The gap in the line up is a lack of AF-S standard primes. Nikon will probably bring out AF-S versions of these lenses but when is anyone's guess.

Given that AF standard primes won't AF with the D40, the thousands of v sexy MF primes out there become more attractive. However the D40 will only meter with lenses that have a microchip inside them to identify the lens to the camera. Nikon lenses have physical lugs that identify them to the camera but the D40 does have the bits to read this. Posh £1,000+ cameras like the D300 allow you to tell the camera via the menu system what lens you've just stuck on the front and this will give you all the metering modes including matrix metering (but not "3d colour matrix metering") which probably doesn't make much of a difference in the real world, but the D40 being the feature stripped entry level model doesn't have this option.

So for a D40 you can have an AF lens that won't AF but will meter or an MF lens that won't do either (but is otherwise lovely)?

Does this matter?

Yes and no. I use an 50mm MF prime with my D40 a few test shots to get the exposure right, looking at the image and histogram and I'm away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jswood/

Last 8 or so shots are taken with my MF prime.

MF isn't particually easy in low light and you don't have a split screen to assist in focusing (although you can get one of those fitted if you're that keen and the viewfinder is apparently not as bright as old film SLR's (I can't confirm that yet - that's my next ebay purchase). I can still usually get an image in the same time or less using an none metering MF prime with a DSLR than with a compact camera.

(N.b. Nikon did produce one prime lens a 45mm(p) f.2.8 "pancake lens" that has the chip to talk to the camera but it isn't made anymore and will cost you about £240 on ebay. Richard Carter's got one and likes it. CF the cost of a MF 50mm 1.8 which will set you back £40 on ebay.)

Oh btw, don't put too much weight on what i say, I've been into this for about 5 minutes!

In reply to John Wood:


Sounds like a major faff though, decide on shot, focus, expose, shoot, check and repeat until you get the result you are after!

Not really an option when climbing - especially when hanging off a hold halfway up a pitch!

http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/90241901


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Yeah wouldn't be so great for a action shots, if I was photographing a climber I'd probably be using a zoom though.

the MF is fine for potraits, landscapes, frost on leaves etc.

The way I do it is to fire off a few shots to get the exposure right then, the compose & focus. Assuming that I'm doing something like moving from facing the sun to having my back to it and the light isn't changing to quicking then once i'm set up i'm good to go and just have to keep half an eye on the blinking highlights to makes sure I'm not highlight clipping. Any underexposure can be dealt with in PP but isn't a major issue, but you're right, this approach is by no means ideal for lots of types of photography.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

nice shot btw!

In reply to Simon Richardson: Try Canon Powershot A720 IS. About 8mb pixels and viewfinder. Uses 2xAA batteries, and can be hung on a sling. Check on DPreview.com

In reply to Simon Richardson:

If you ever need to compensate for tricky exposures, get a Canon G9. Superb camera, easy to use on auto but full control options. I've just bought one and am knocked out by its quality. If you really don't use any overrides much, the Ricoh top end compacts have had good mentions.

In reply to Simon Richardson:

One solution would be the Nikon D40 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Auto focus, metering, useful focal length, great dof control, great low light ability, etc

Job done

In reply to Simon Richardson:

ah ha!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08030501olympuse420.asp

With the 25mm that looks pretty cool! I think I'd prefer the D40/30mm because it's better for low light but this is cheaper and a fair bit smaller and considerably lighter

Sounds like the Sigma DP1 will be right up your street.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08021502sigmaDP1price.asp

I'm almost tempted myself. I'm about to get smoething new as I can't be hacked with my film slr anymore. So it's either going to be a Nikon D80, or Sigma DP1.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton: Just noticed that the DP1 only as an F4 lens, so at 16.6mm focal length (28mm equivalent) the hyperfocal distance is 3.84m. Am I right in thinking that means if you take photos of anything further away than 3.84m, everything from 1.9m to infinity will be reasonably sharp?

I guess this is good for landscapes, but not so good for artistic effects.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Vaseline and/or a tight

Or one of CJD's 70s porn filters

In reply to Blue Straggler: I was meaning shallow depth of field.....but whatever you get up to with your vaseline and tights is up to you

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

does the DP1 have a macro function?

my bf was showing me his Canon G9 at the weekend, and that's got an ace macro dooberry on it.

I really liked the way it had a liveview screen - thought it would be ace for people learning about digital photography, and what adjusting different settings does to the image.

In reply to Richard Carter:

I saw that this mornining, am very jealous of that one (currently trying to get myself a 28mm mf on fleabay)

Cheers, john

In reply to CJD:

oh interesting. How responsive was the G9 to use?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

The DP1 looked the goods but the way they define a MP by stacking chips etc means it's not all it seems. Might be alright in the end though.

Simon, my understanding is that you actually want to take good pics while actually climbing, often on steep stuff. Forget a DSLR, even the small ones. Too big, too bulky, too heavy. I can hear the response on here now :-o but too many here get sidetracked by photographic details to the detriment of real-life climbing photo issues. The most wonderful cam is useless if you a) you didn't bring it cos it's too big/heavy or b) it was too difficult to get it out and use it at the exact moment. How many of your pics get printed bigger than A4? Even bigger than half that?

I have up to a dozen pics a year in the climbing mags and most of them are from a P&S, because that's what I actually have in my pocket while climbing. DSLRs are fine for proper pro photographers who have the financial incentive to lug them around, and they're fine for pano shots of mountains before you climb them, but not while you're on three points of contact.

I've been using the 8MP Sony DSC H9 with the big zoom. It's good, but battery life is a bit unpredictable in the cold (mostly Antarctica) and the lens cap is a total pain in the arse. Zoom is good though. Otherwise I'm still using my older 7MP Sony DSC P200 but when images are printed up to half a mag page the lack of quality starts to show. My Canon 350D SLR has been rubbish in the cold and I only recently noticed just how bigger and heavier it is than my old Pentax MZ30 low-end film SLR from which I got great pics (numerous published).

The Ricoh Caplio 7 looked good in specs but when I tried it (mentioned on here late last year) the zoom seemed clunky and the images very soft. I've heard other bad things about them too, which is a shame, as they'd be great if the image quality was better, as they're so small. Not sure if the new Caplio 8 is better. The Ricoh GR II might be better, bit more control and supposedly better quality.

Note that some of these cams you can't hold on to with gloves, the otherwise-beautiful Panasonic Lumix cam being a prime example and one reason I bought the H9 over it - the H9 has a bit of a grip. The Caplios are prob a bit small with gloves too, whereas the GR have more of a grip.

Canon G9 looks to be a good compromise but haven't tried it or compared real-life use or shots. Not small, but not too big.

D

In reply to Damo:


See: http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12571&start=540>


By which I mean it seems fine then suddenly it's almost dead. The battery indicator is just the battery symbol with gradations, not the actual number of minutes left.


I had a sneaking feeling after I bought the H9 that I should gave got the G9. Dyslexia?

In reply to CJD: Even my old Canon Powershot A700 has a macro facility, it also has a multi menu capability which you can set to your own requirements, if you want specialised you just click off the auto or one of the 'set' modes and go to select your own custom menu.

In reply to Al Evans:

I think good macro performance is one of the benefits of a smaller sensor but with probably some extra magic optomization for the G9.

In reply to CJD: The camera spec's on dpreview don't seem to mention macro.

The flash works from 30mm though......so that could be a hint, but I'm not sure.

In reply to Damo:


Sorry, my bad. I have the H3.

D

In reply to John Wood:

define responsive.

pretty non-existent shutter lag, if that's what you mean.

In reply to CJD:

Yeah that in particular, also power up time, and whether you can get through the menu's quickly to set up ('cause my S70 was not great at those, compared to the D40)

In reply to John Wood:

yes to all.

In reply to CJD:

oh, interesting.

I do not need a new camera
I do not need a new camera
I do not need a new camera

In reply to John Wood:

why on earth would you buy one of these when you already have a compact digi and a DSLR? The OP's looking to fill/replace a camera gap. If I were you I'd stick with learning on what you've got, as this camera is pretty much a bridge between them - perhaps veering more towards the dslr in all functionality except for the interchangeable lenses...

In reply to CJD:

Because the small boy inside me always wants new toys to play with?

In reply to John Wood:

Realistically, if i was going to spend £300 on kit it would be glass rather than a new compact but i'm generally interested as to how good compacts can get these days.

In reply to Damo:

"Forget a DSLR, even the small ones. Too big, too bulky, too heavy."

The Olympus E420 + 25mm f/2.8 is about the same weight/size as your H9.

In reply to Richard Carter:

See my correction just above. I have the H3, which is 2/3 the weight and significantly smaller than the E420 (which still looks nice). The H3 is as big as I'd want for an actual climbing camera, so any bigger is too big. And is the E420 too much of a compromise? Does it really replace two cams? If you can't easily use it climbing, why not have a smaller hi-spec compact for climbing and a decent bigger DSLR for non-climbing?

D

"See my correction just above. I have the H3, which is 2/3 the weight and significantly smaller than the E420 (which still looks nice). The H3 is as big as I'd want for an actual climbing camera, so any bigger is too big."

Ah ha! Didn't see that.

"And is the E420 too much of a compromise? Does it really replace two cams?"

Dunno :-P

"If you can't easily use it climbing, why not have a smaller hi-spec compact for climbing and a decent bigger DSLR for non-climbing?"

Dunno but maybe you can use it? *shrug*

In reply to Richard Carter:

Still looks like a very nice piece of kit mind - especially with the pancake lens

Hijack - have now won a MF 28mm 2.8 AIS off fleabay & someone has offered to lend me a film body - having a great time today

Just to chuck another point of view into the mix. There are some decent hybrids/bridge cameras out there too. I have a had a few different fuji's. They can be operated with one hand and have most of the functions of a DSLR.

The S9600 has some decent specs. A little gimicky for some I will acknowledge is the tilt LCD screen on the back, but I have had some uses out of the screen and shot from unusual angles with one.

It will print up to A3 no major probs.

My 2p's worth.

Good luck in your search - for me, there is no perfect camera they are all flawed. You can only hope to choose one that does an adequete job given the circumstances you find your self in.

Garry

In reply to Simon Richardson:

Some of the Ixus cameras have viewfinders. My Ixus 70 certainly does, but it's only a few models in the range that do. I am happy with the Ixus. It does the job for me (I snap away in auto mode too).

Davie

Stick with your Contax T2, no digital compact comes close, not yet.

The glass you have on that T combined with new emulsions released lately mean you have a serious piece of kit at hand!

I've used many digi cams, and am always on the lookout for something pocketable, but as yet nothing warrants buying.

I'd use Kodak e100vs or Velvia 100 (beautiful films with fine grain and gorgeous saturated quality and control of highlights which on your T2 no digi compact could come close to) instead of the K64 as these films are faster, and you don't have to wait weeks for Kodak to send you the slides. Process locally, scan and voila! (The Epson V750 is a brilliant scanner).

you could also shoot BW and dev yourself, it's quick and very easy, and the results, again, with your T2 would be fantastic.

The only Digital compact I could think of which would be worth looking at are the Leica M8 (which costs an arm and a leg, and isn't really a 'compact' per se) and the Ricoh GRD II, whose build quality is a bit suspect, I don't believe it'd survive a knock!

So save your money for now and try some E6