Compact or SLR?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Peter Chant, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest


    any suggestions? I'm just getting tired of film scanning! I'm looking at
    going digital but am wavering over whether to go for a decent compact or a
    SLR. Obviously the SLR is the more flexible option but the compact has the
    advantage in that you can take it on trips where the SLR is simply too
    bulky or gets in the way of the other things you are doing.

    Currently I seem to flit between a Mamiya TLR, a Ricoh GR1v and a Yashica
    Electro rangefinder - the latter two depending on mood when the TLR is too
    bulky. Generally haven't used my SLR's since getting the TLR!

    Any suggestions?

    Peter Chant, Apr 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes. Ask in where your question would be
    more on topic than in a 35mm film camera group. But since you're already

    Since you've been using your Mamiya more than the 35mm cameras, and have
    probably become used to the quality it produces (scanned or not), a
    digital point-n-shoot compact camera, no matter the price or how many
    megapixels it has, is just not going to deliver the sharp, detailed,
    smooth toned, grainless photos you've become accustom to. So, your best
    option is to invest the money and get a full-frame DSLR of at least 12
    megapixels resolution. If you shoot in RAW, it will produce images as
    good as or better than scanned ones from your Mamiya TLR.

    Stefan Patric, Apr 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter Chant

    jimkramer Guest

    How important is depth of field control in your photography? Important ->
    DSLR; not so important -> P&S

    Or you could just do what every one else does and get both. :)

    jimkramer, Apr 19, 2009
  4. Peter Chant

    Pete D Guest

    Hee hee, I have two of each and seven film cameras......... must buy
    Pete D, Apr 19, 2009
  5. Peter Chant

    Paul Furman Guest

    In good light, compacts can make very impressive photos but they don't
    do so well in low light and there is a lot more DOF, which is something
    I miss. Based on what's been said, I'd recommend you get a D700 with an
    AF 20/2.8, MF 35/1.4, MF 45/2.8 pancake and MF 75-150/3.5 for an old
    school DSLR setup. These are all quite small except the long one and
    that on is still relatively tiny for the range on full frame. You can
    mount one & choose another for your coat pocket, carry the camera in a
    small fabric lunch bag type arrangement. This is what I do and it's easy
    to bring along even though that's a rather bulky camera body.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Apr 19, 2009
  6. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Thanks, I think that the D700 is a bit outside my budget. Default option
    is Pentax (probally k20d) due to a cupboard full of lenses. None - save
    for the 24-90 particular were bought new or are that expensive, but on a
    whim I can go from 24mm (not that wide for digital) to a 500mm mirror lens.
    That said if I switch systems I suspect now is the time.

    Re putting these things in my pocket. Yes, ME Super + 50mm lens will
    happily fit in my Barbour pocket when I wear it, I means jacket pocket!

    Peter Chant, Apr 19, 2009
  7. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Well, I seem in 35mm film to be completely unable to control DOF, despite
    knowing how it all works. MF, I either have some degree of control, or it
    just happens, not sure which.
    You know an I know that that will happen eventually, which one first is the
    Peter Chant, Apr 19, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.