The camera thread.

i have an old manual nikkomat too, which is pretty sweet.

Digital, although my canon A20 is a very good camera (i think the current one is an A40) I recommend again one of the nikon coolpix cameras. They seem to have the best image quality going. For a really compact one then some of the sony and the canon digital ixus are great.

i also have a k1000 which has been disappointing actually - the only electronic part in the camera (the light meter) stops working at inopportune moments, and comes to life long after i've given up on enjoying taking photographs. the annoying part is that whenever i take it to get fixed it starts working as soon as the tech. opens the body, and its tempermental behaviour is apparently unfixable by even the greatest eastern european post-cold war camera experts.

The A40 is a bit bulky, but I've been really happy with it. Now that I've sampled the delights of the digital camera, I am *never* going back.

I have a gold 1981 Konica C35 EF3, which is v.v. nice except the battery cover's come off. My brother bought it for me secondhand for £8, which was very random of him.

He has a Yashica T5 which is the greatest thing ever with auto everything and it's waterproof.

I need to get a proper digital camera soon.

On the other hand, no one's ever going to confuse a picture taken by it with a 35mm negative scan, and I wouldn't use it at all if you wanted to get nice prints. It's so small & fast, though, that's it a great pocket camera to keep in your bag to use in addition to a manual SLR.

it's a cute camera:

http://user.itl.net/~kypfer/620/bflsh-2.jpg

w.out the ugly flash gun, ew.

i'm missing my medium format right now, but it was too fragile to lug over here and too big besides

The other way is to re-spool 120 film onto 620 spindles.

Lomo

I just put $600 on my credit card for a Nikon Coolscan V, I'm so excited to finally get some of my images in Photoshop and on the web. I don't need more debt, but it's a great price for a 4000dpi film scanner.

As for point-and-shoot, I've always had good results with my old Olympus XA-2, which should be available secondhand for under $100. It replaced a much fancier late-80s AF-10, which is even easier to use.

This year might be the time I go digital too - I've been sorting out boxes of negatives this afternoon; 66 rolls of film have run through Pam's Canon FTb SLR in the last three years and a good 30-40% of the shots are inevitably just dross - that's £150 on developing prints that will never been shown to anyone. Our Kodak MC3's just a toy really and since her Ixus died we could do with a cheap, light p&s ourselves. So, yeah, 2004 recommendations plz.

As for my 30-40% figure - well, it's not like the rest are publishable or anything, they're just interesting enough to go in the albums. The 30-40% are underexposed, out-of-focus, compositionally dull, inferior near-duplicates, people looking their worst, badly framed, etc, etc. We don't snap-snap-snap away, we can't afford to.

(the main reason I want a Nikon is that eventually I want to get one of their digital SLR bodies too, and then use the same lenses for digital and film shooting. I also have a late-70s Pentax ME)

Does anyone else put all of their photos thru Auto-Contrast in Photoshop (or similar) before uploading? It's no real use on poorly lit shots tho - not from an Ixus 55 at least. I'd say it improves two thirds of the photos I take though.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane?printable=true

This piece makes it almost seem worthwhile to dev and scan the negs. And M-series bodies seem much cheaper than they did pre-digital. But I still doubt the existence of the "Leica glow", except in the eyes of people justifying a £2500 lens.

I'm going to be naughty and print that NY article for consumption on the train home.

In Lens News, I now have a Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 (£12 on eBay) which...isn't going to do my kit lens out of a job any time soon and a 80-200mm f/3.5 zoom/macro beast by the same manufacturer which the vendor bunged in for a fiver when I turned up to collect the 28mm. The latter seems a bit better value. Perhaps I'll get more out of the 28mm on a film body with a nice, big, bright viewfinder. Came with a couple of 52mm-dia filters, which is nice.

I'm wondering whether the search for a cheap, manual, wide-angle lens that does what the kit lens does but, like, better, is kinda pointless. The Zeiss Flektogons are too expensive, the sub-£20 stuff seems fairly hopeless. Thinking about Tamron Adaptall gear next (28mm f/2.5 has a good rep), but that's another adaptor...

Oh, and then there's the tantalising world of IR photography. Get a Hoya filter from the Far East for coppers + big P&P or a Kood filter from the UK for £12 + small P&P?

I used to spend ages fiddling trying to get the right exposure on IR, until I worked out you can just show the red channel in photoshop and convert to gray to get much the same effect.

80-200mm f/3.5 zoom/macro beast
For a fiver! Nice one. Is it any good?

I've yet to really test it out (that moon pic on Flickr was taken with it, some flower shots in Golden Square the other day, that's about it). I don't think it's as good as the Zeiss but the 1:4 Macro might come in useful. Very heavy and long - not likely to be taken out and about much. There are hilarious manhood compensation jokes to be made when I attach it PLUS the extension tubes to the 300D. I don't know if anything of worth came out of that particular session of mucking about...

That Lane piece is eh... he's a little too into the fashion aspect. The whining about viewfinder blackout is a bit dodgy as well - it's a few tenths or hundredths of a second, can you even register small details you might be missing?

I have a Leica, purchased with gambling winnings when I was younger and stupider, and it is a wonderful thing (though the ergonomics, frankly, suck - there's a reason every modern SLR has a big grip for your hand) and if I had a darkroom I would shoot nothing but Tri-X until it was just me, Keith Richards and the cockroaches left.

But I don't. And I hate scanning film, even if I had a scanner that could do the Summilux justice.

So I'm selling it, I think. I will probably regret it someday, but for the ~$4000 I stand to take in (a couple hundred more than I spent, actually), I can buy either a 40D or 5D dSLR and actually get to shoot as much as I'd like.

That's the thing, really. I mean the trade-off is immense. I had a whole darkroom at my disposal, with a minilab to dev the film, free film and a top-end scanner and I still couldn't be arsed and got dust all over the negs.

It's only when I look back at scans from the color negs I realise just how wildly much more dynamic range C41 has compared to digital, which is a pisser.

Most fun I ever had was making darkroom c-prints from 4x5 negs.

For all digital's compromises, it is at least painless. Scanning film is torture.

At my first newspaper job, the scanner would choke on neg strips any more than 5 long, so we first had to cut the rolls by hand, then manually align each frame on screen, adjust the wildly crazy colour settings by eye, then scan it (which took about 10 minutes). It nearly drove me insane.

The whining about viewfinder blackout is a bit dodgy as well - it's a few tenths or hundredths of a second, can you even register small details you might be missing?

It kinda matters.... Kinda. It really comes down to how you shoot and what you're trying to do -- if you're stalking a group of six people, you want to be able to see when all their eyes are opened.

I seem to have a skill for getting eyes shut. I've taken self portraits where it turns out my own eyes are shut, ffs.

Thinking about getting back into film (Pentax body for me M42 lenses or Canon EOS body for me, er, single EF lens [EF-S kit lens not backwards compatible] - not sure yet; or maybe just *find* Pam's FtB, buy a cheapish Canon FD zoom and away we go...).

Now, Photo CDs from 35mm film processing as offered by yr high street photo labs - any experiences? I believe Boots only offer 800x600 images (which isn't even the right aspect ratio for 35mm negs) AND you have to pay £2 per film (despite the fact that, at that resolution, you could pack loads of films on a single CD). Does anyone provide high-res TIFFs for this service? And any comments on quality of the scans? Better one would hope, than taking yr negs/prints home and doing it yourself on a general-purpose A4 scanner.

Oh, and another question - didn't Boots offer those Ilford film mailers at one time (about £7 for a pack of ISO400 B&W plus processing by Ilford)? I assume they're still available somewhere?

I know, working in Soho, that there are probably tons of very good pro labs around but I'm curious about the best of the cheap alternatives.

I bought a digital camera recently.

Canon 40D + the 17-55/2.8 IS zoom
vs.
Canon 5D + my trusty old 50/1.4

thoughts?

5D's full-frame and the 40D isn't so yr old 50mm would be an 80mm (in terms of FoV) on the 40D. Doubt the 17-55 is as good at the long end as yr old, fast prime and you'd miss that. Dunno though... Need to catch a train, I'll have to think about it...

I see yr dilemma - the 5D is the better camera, no doubt, but will it leave you any cash add to your 50mm prime? And 5D and L-series glass go so well together...

The 17-55/2.8 IS looks nice but I wonder about the resale value of these EF-S lenses. They can't be used on old EOS film bodies (or the 5D/1D/1Ds) and, who knows, five years from now maybe the cost of making 36x24mm CMOS sensors will have fallen sufficiently that full-frame D-SLRs become the norm rather than the exotic high-end. Where does that leave all the APS-C-optimised gear? Of course, if this is the last upgrade you ever make, you won't care cos you'll have taken thousands of pictures with yr 40D/17-55. (Do short zooms really need IS, though?)

Maybe someone who has actually handled these cameras (I fumbled around with a 30D once) can offer some insight.

I've got a 20D, but used a 5D for about a month once, and it's a fantastic camera.

The 40D kit seems a bit dead-end to me: the lens is only going to work on the APS bodies, so in future when you eventually get rid of the camera you're back at zero, unless you go with another cropped sensor. But when the 5D goes, your lens(es) will be good to move on with you.

Milo - you mentioned having a Leica upthread (which I guess you're selling to fund the Canon D-SLR); the 50/1.4 you spoke of isn't the Summilux, is it? I assumed it was a Canon EF lens; if it's the Leica it changes things a bit!

The 5D is a beast. Ask yourself if you really need (or REALLY REALLY REALLY want) that much camera.

If it's the Leica lens, what about the digital Leica body?

They've just whacked up the price of the M8 by a few hundred quid, haven't they? Much more expensive than a 5D anyway. (Unless you meant the Leica SLR - R9 or something - which needs a digital back). It's been beset by problems, the M8; weird colour casts caused by omitted the IR filter in the body (Leica had to supply screw-on filters to customers, which sort defeats the point of having a Summilux or Elmarit on there). Great for B&W, I understand.

The 50/1.4 is an EF lens, the Leica is a 35/1.4.

While I would possibly hire out as a hitman for an M8, I couldn't justify $5000 no matter what. $2500 is really only justifiable since I'm selling a bunch of stuff.

stet's thinking is basically where I am with the 5D/40D - the 17-55 is really the only reason I'm considering it, I like using that lens better than any Canon I've gotten to try. A full-frame equivalent w/ the IS system would be hott.

They've increased the price of the Leica? O wow. I suppose there's always the Epson R-d1s, but I don't know if that's even still on sale. Or any cop. I might just go and read a review.

Also keep in mind that Nikon just released a FF DSLR (those douchebags arriving 2 years too late)

Clearing out the smallest bedroom and the shed over the weekend and we rediscovered a wonderful cache of old cameras (as well as a box of negatives from Pam's 1989 European vacation!) that have been boxed up for 2 years:

Pentax K1000 w/Pentax SMC 55mm f/2
(late '70s; if memory serves the battery compartment needs resoldering)
Canon FTb w/Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC + Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8
(early '70s; our main camera pre-digital - we've put about 70 rolls through this though the last couple were suspiciously overexposed and with very shallow DoF which suggests that the 50mm isn't stopping down properly...or we were just being sloppy)
Minolta 16 II w/Rokkor 22mm f/2.8 integral lens
(early '60s; sub-mini 16mm "spy" camera - even have some Minolta cartridges for this, all with expiry dates in the mid-'70s!)
Olympus XA-2
(mid-'80s; my main camera after my AF-10 died - a great little compact that I managed to leave behind in a drawer when we moved out of Brixton flat in '99 [new occupants contacted their landlord]; flash unit is missing, needs new battery)
Canon Ixus L1 APS
(late-'90s; photo labs would charge extra for two of the three sizes of prints this could produce! Still, it recorded Millennium Eve for us. Died on a trip to Edinburgh, spring 2002. Bonus: Canon remote was in there with it and that operates my EOS 300D!)
Also: Ricohflex, Kodak Duoflex and Brownie cameras, loads of (probably expired) film and about four varieties of Polaroid (iZone, Joycam, etc).

All of which has dampened my ardour for grabbing a film SLR on eBay (Pentax SPs seem to be going for 2x as much as six months ago; not much point getting an EOS without the kit lens [at least] as the EF-S won't fit it and I can only afford the body-only auctions; Praktikas and Zenits are still cheap but I don't think I want to lumber myself with one of those), seeing as we've now refound two of the buggers. Let's get some Ilford HP4 and go nuts.

Can you still get HP4? I've got a few rolls in my fridge edging towards their dates that I bought when I heard they went bust.

Yep, Ilford was revived by some of the former managers when it was about to fold completely.

B&W 35mm is actually cheaper today than it was two years ago for some reason. Both Ilford and Kodak products are very reasonable ~$3.75US per roll.

That's good to know. I doubt I'll ever be keen enough to set up a proper darkroom again, but I'm still nostalgic for big white boxes stamped ILFORD and the smell of ripe fix.

I haven't been in a darkroom since I was a physics undergrad doing x-ray crystallography; I can still smell those chemicals though.

I think I'd trust Ilford to do a better job of developing their own B&W film than I would Boots/Snappy Snaps/Jessops but that's not based on any first-hand experience; those Ilford mailers are about £11 online.

I need to find a manual for the FTb online as I've sort of forgotten how to use it; I know there's a little switch to lock the mirror up but last night I seemed to invoke step-down metering with it (the match-needle went dead and the viewfinder image went darker with each aperture ring click) which I can't recall doing before...

three new toys that arrived today:
Kodak Retinette 1A - guess-focus, clean lens and shutter that sounds right-on - a whopping $9
Polaroid SX-70 Sonar - unmodified, and the re-manufactured SX-70 film (Polaroid Blend) is $2/shot plus shipping, so I doubt I'll be using it much
another SX-70 Sonar, but modified to use the current 600 film

I've got an old Agfa Click and an Isola coming from the Netherlands.

The last darkroom I was in was above the archway at 60 Pleasance, Edinburgh, about 10 years ago now; its list of rules included "Do not have sex in the darkroom - we have had complaints." I'd love to have space for my own.

I also still have: fixer-stained jeans somewhere at the back of my wardrobe.

Yes! I've ruined a pair or two like that.

Our college darkroom was crazy for discovering exotic activities

Cor, has this thread really been dormant for so long?

Anyhoo, me & the missus have taken the plunge into medium format:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2579050056_919ca4e2a9.jpg

Since that picture was taken we've replaced the plain prism finder with a metered one and added a Polaroid back. Anxiously awaiting the results of running some (expired*) Provia 400F and Astia 100F through it. The Polaroids have been variable in quality (using 690, which requires a bit of exposure compensation - it's all I could find on a quick lunch-hour trawl round Soho). This stuff is crazy cheap on eBay now - we paid £26 for the ME prism; they used to retail for about 20-25 times that.

* - part of a set of 41 rolls of expired 120/135 slide film we got on Freecycle; and if that didn't get us back into shooting film, acquiring the below - also for nothing - a week or so later definitely did:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2374962333_04fef02c44.jpg

(The 430EZ Speedlite didn't work terribly well with my EOS 300D and now has a new home; I have a 420EX flash now, another eBay bargain).

I was only talking about getting into medium format with some flickr pals last week. I love the - well I'm not sure of the word, but maybe 'depth' is the right one? - that you get. Quite apart from the fact that the cameras look cool.

Looking forward to seeing your results.

Sitting in a friend's garden on Sunday, I took the prism off and was kinda amazed at the clarity and three-dimensionality of the image coming through the focusing screen. You can see why waist-level finders are so popular with these cameras. Surely we can find one of those for a fiver?! But then we're back to guessing the exposure...

Love my old Bronica SQ-A, haven't used it in some time except for a few slides since I don't have darkroom access or a scanner. But oh how I miss 6x6.

I prefer the waist-level finder and guessing exposure - with color neg or B&W, you've got plenty of leeway. Or you can pick up an incident light meter cheap ($25-100), meter a patch of light that's similar to whatever you're shooting (assuming you can't meter directly at your subject).

I <3 medium format

I just bought one of these

http://www.leicagallery.com/images/gr1.gif

Hey, I've got a major problem. The aperture on my lens (on a Pentax K1000) doesn't seem to be moving. When the lens is out of the camera it's normal, but when it's in, it stays wide open the whole time. My light meter is working fine though, which is kind of wierd, I guess.

How worried should I be?

These look like expensive fun:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0807/Nikon/pcelenses.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070102nikonpcemicro45mm85mm.asp

Hey, I've got a major problem. The aperture on my lens (on a Pentax K1000) doesn't seem to be moving. When the lens is out of the camera it's normal, but when it's in, it stays wide open the whole time.

Do you mean: even when you change the aperture setting the iris doesn't move? That's normal (certainly on most SLRs including my Pentax ME) - the iris doesn't actually stop down until you take the picture, so that you have maximum brightness in the viewfinder. If it didn't work like this, then your viewfinder would be too dark to see very much when you're stopped all the way to f22. This is why lots of SLRs have a "depth of field preview" control, to override this behaviour.

Ed: oof, very nice. Even if they wouldn't work on my F801!

brilliant!!

http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/2008/07/samsung-tl9.jpg

http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/2008/07/samsung-tl9-2.jpg

Ha! I saw some old film compacts recently (Nikon?) that had analogue display dials in the top-plate - only they were for aperture/shutter speed settings, I think.

nikon, yes

mmmmmm dials

Yes, that was it! Smashing. Anyway, there are a couple in a display case in the Camera Cafe in Bloomsbury if you're interested. Not to mention multiples of every Leica M body...

droooooool
http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/

Hi,

who can recommend me a camera in the $200-350 range? I already spend enough of my time fetishizing analogue by making 16mm films so I want to keep this simple and get a digital camera. Cannot afford to go higher on price but want something that isn't just a total point n' click and maybe with half-decent low light capability?

Thanks!

I've been eyeing this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B002LITT42

Thanks! Pleasingly retro looking

there's discussion here too

Compact camera recommendations

Any thoughts on the Nikon D3100 and/or what would you buy around the £300 mark?

And will I regret going for an 18-55 lens rather than an 18-105?

And will I regret going for an 18-55 lens rather than an 18-105?
--djh

Depends on the type of photos you want to take?

I prefer prime lenses so don't really know!

aperture range on both?

Is there an option of a kit with one or the other, or are you buying the lens separately?

I had the 18-55mm with my D40x and it was fine, but rarely use it after i got the 35mm f1.8 prime - very good lens (bar a little barrel distortion) and remains my default.

The smaller lens was a Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR.

Not really sure *what* I want to take photos of, really ...

it might be a default camera snob position but I think a prime is always the best bet.

(Excuse the naivety) Prime?

fixed focal length, not a zoom basically

(usually) faster and with better glass.

I'd say I value the wider aperture of a prime over the ability to zoom in on things - if I use my 18-70 it tends to be wide open for landscape stuff, very occasionally.

I'd go with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens with the small Nikon DSLR bodies.

Thanks all.

Close to pulling the trigger on a Fuji x100f
Walmart has it for a 200 discount somehow

Woop out of stock

It’s a great camera tbh and if you can get a deal it’s a fun carry. I’m not 100% on where they are in the update cycle tho so buyer beware

I want that large sensor for low light shenanigans

True. Also a little light rigging makes the onboard flash v pleasant

Also looking at the new XF10 and the Ricoh GR ii. ... just can’t justify that $1.3k price for the x100F.

I bought my X100 (original model) used about 6 years ago - the sensor on these handles light and colour so beautifully. It's got its quirks but I have never felt like leaving it behind.

pre ordered the xf 10

Can’t wait to use an image sensor 10x the size of what’s in my phone

had my original X100 for about 5/6 years. love it. might jump on the next model after the X100F

the x100 series are maybe my favourite cameras ever

Those of you that have the x100 - what is it about that camera that you really enjoy, or that’s unique? The new XF has the same sensor but is only $500...

it takes great pictures, with minimal fiddling required. great low light performance, great JPEGs, and - even though it’s not required - it has the settings/features that let you fiddle if you want to

it’s silent too. leaf shutter fires with minimal pressing. it’s unobtrusive so can be carried all day when on holiday or strapped across the back if cycling. great B&W JPEGs too

it’s idiosyncratic as all hell but once you get used to it, it’s a great camera. love it

things I’d like: better colour reproduction; faster focus; better manual focus. I gather the X100F improves each of these

yeah, it weighs next to nothing, it's essentially silent, the quality of images is wonderful

if you're not used to shooting with primes it'll probably take a bit of getting used to but it's worth it

Great RAW set; I like the color and contrast out of camera. I find that the lens has character, moreso than a more expensive prime or 2000 dollar zoom that has to be uniform/perfect. It pairs well w my 5D when I have two cameras going at once. The rangefinder is just something I’m used to, so having that feature in a digital is pretty great. In terms of useability it’s set it and forget it, so even though it has a lot of features that you can micro manage it’s simple enough to effectively become a point n shoot w a fixed lens

I alternate between wanting it to be wider (like and 18mm) and being satisfied w what I have but that’s not a complaint

The wide converter has stellar reviews, reputed to be even sharper than the prime it's going through ... I don't even know how this is possible?
And yeah its low light and colour rendering are just beautiful. Original X100 has a different sensor setup (Bayer filtered CMOS) to the later models (X-Trans filtered CMOS II for the S/T or CMOS III for the F).
This is a JPEG literally straight out of the X100, point and shoot: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3798/12351945543_afc3631df0_o.jpg

I had a X100 and then an X100T - what everyone else said but I will say that I never used the optical viewfinder on the T. It didn't offer anything over the EVF for me. The size of my X-T2 and a lens isn't that much larger than the X100F (neither is pocketable since I live in a place where I don't own a coat), the XF would be even closer.

re: quality, I like the design of the Fujis but I don't think it's really better (image-wise) than any of the other cameras on the market now and there's still a big jump between APS-C and full-frame (but you'd have to drop $4k+ to get the equivalent of an X100F in full frame from Sony or Leica).

Fuji's in-camera JPG processing is fantastic, but I run everything through LR so in-camera JPGs don't matter much to me.

The xf 10 doesn’t have the x trans

How do you guys side re: Bayer vs X Trans?

I think it's matters much less than a good lens (and comfortable body). Fuji's X-Trans quality is not noticeably superior to an APS-C camera from Nikon/Canon/etc. or even the micro-4/3 cameras and there are some downsides because it's so different - Lightroom processing was pretty bad for a long time with the X-Trans cameras. I get their arguments about sharpness and whatever but I've never seen evidence that it mattered in the end when you're displaying on a screen or printing.

https://keithwee.com/portfolio/an-users-review-of-the-fujifilm-xf10-camera-with-lots-of-samples-the-love-thats-pocketable/

The lack of an EVF would be a deal-breaker for me, though. Years ago I had one of the early Ricoh GR-Ds (before they had a big sensor) and it was a fine camera but relying on the rear screen never felt right to me.

Got my Fuji x70 in the mail today. Can’t wait to try it ...

i've had an original x100 for a long time now. i got it secondhand just after the first refresh (x100s?) came out. it was a very extravagant purchase at the time and i had to give up my old canon camera to finance it. i felt foolish about the purchase so i haven't bought another camera since then, and it is the only camera i own at the moment (well, not counting my phone). anyway i was feeling that sense of foolishness a couple weeks ago when i took it to the zoo (my nieces were in town). i knew it was going to be really shitty. it was a really sunny day with sharp shadows from all the foliage. most of the animals were far away, and many of them (including my nieces) were moving pretty quickly. it was a perfect storm of shittiness. i took about 100 shots over the day and have since tossed about 90. this is the only one i'm proud of. could i have gotten this shot without the x100? i don't know

http://i.imgur.com/XkgBvfa.jpg

Those of you that have the x100 - what is it about that camera that you really enjoy, or that’s unique?

so basically that it's pretty good at taking portraits. it sucks at a lot of other things, but when i look at my photo library i have a lot of really good photos of friends and family in intimate scenes and ultimately that's the stuff i really want to remember

I don't think the camera quite nailed the colour balance on the zoo shot - taken through glass I guess?
https://i.imgur.com/7GddVYF.jpg

yeah, thick glass and i didn't touch the jpg at all. nicely done, matthewk!

Pretty happy with the x70 (coming from a phone camera). Have got some nice bokeh without even trying and the colors seem a bit more saturated, which suits me fine. In my little photoshop type app I’ve noticed new ranges for RGB in the curves editor, which was a nice a surprise. I do the miss the zoom but I’ll get used to it I’m sure. Also May just be my imagination but the sunlight has some nice new character to it that’s not just pure white. Only had one session with it so far - feel pretty goofy with the thing around my neck like a tourist but it’s the quickest way to capture something without doing some ninja arm motion when I have it sitting on my shoulder

Also the folding viewfinder makes staying incognito and stalking a LOT easier

Fucker is really wide angle though

I was about to post something about that lens mimicking a mobile phone lens in terms of focal length but apparently an iPhone has something like a 32mm equivalent lens

I have an X-T10 which I love. I save both RAW and jpg and bring them both into lightroom then I compare. Sometimes if its a quick thing I just use the jpg, sometimes if I see there's some issues I want to deal w/ esp in highlights, I go back to the RAW. You can emulate all the Fuji jpg modes in LR so you can split the difference.

I love my X100T. Drawback is that it only has one lens. Well, I bought the tele-converter, but it's pretty bulky, so I don't use it a ton. I think I'm also waiting for whatever's after X100F, or maybe I'll get one of the Fujifilms with changeable lenses.

A few recent shots from our summer vacation:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1805/28546076977_fab9eff375.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1766/29545991738_f2e86a6083.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1790/29545767378_883e6be853.jpg

These all were shot as JPGs and then edited in Lightroom.

I picked up a used original X100 a couple years ago and I love it. It's slow and misses a lot of shots, but when it gets it right, the photos are just unbeatable. I have my iPhone when I just need to capture something, but when I want something special I bring the X100 along which is pretty often as it's small and light (my DSLR only comes out at birthdays or something like an air-show or zoo when I need speed and zoom).

Spencer Chow: Airshow Aficionado

Haha, going to my first for years next month - meant it more as the type of thing you might need a DSLR for..

But i need to go to more airshows

Fond memories of the Edwards AFB one

I picked up a pretty heavily used ("7/10") X-T1 last week from Wex in Aldgate. Bowing USB door, spongy grip, lots of paint loss, sticky power switch, no battery or strap clips and a filthy sensor...but barely a quarter of original retail. Dates from Dec 2015, shutter count 21000. Bargain-ish.

I hadn't been using my X-M1 very much lately (and cursing my shoulder every time I took the Canon out) and rationalised the purchase of what is essentially the same sensor in terms of the EVF (it's amazingly good) and the manual focus aids (digital split screen is great). It's given a new lease of life to three manual primes (and maybe my big stupid neglected mirror lens if I can find an adaptor for cheap).

A couple of early shots, taken with a 1970s Canon FD 50/1.4 lens, with X-FD adaptor (first one slapping on the Velvia simulation).

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1837/42377031720_aa210f2d84_b.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1883/43279351155_03ee440022_b.jpg

I bought a first generation X100 from a friend a few months ago, as I'd always wanted to try one. Haven't got to grips with it yet, and as Spencer Chow points out, it can be slow.

Nice work as always, Michael.

Very happy with the start up and auto focus speed on my x70. I was able to capture an approaching monorail yesterday that I was sure I would miss based on past experiences with my phone.

Love how this is now just the Fuji X thread. As it should be.

I’ve gotten used to the wide angle of my x70 over the last few months and I’m now at a point where I’d like to experiemenr with a zoom, as there are many times I have to give up on a shot just because the subject is so far away. But I love the compactness of the x70 and the fact that I can just put it in my coat pocket when I’m not using it. I don’t want to be one of those schlubs who walk around with huge DSLRs around their shoulders. What to do

That’s what all the Fuji mirrorless camerqs are for. An xe3 or xt-20 is waaaay smaller and lighter than any dslr. Even the xt3 is consideravly bigger and heavier than the xt20.

Ooh - non-Fuji here.

I just got my hands on a very used but still working Canon EOS 5d Mark iii a few weeks ago, but the weather over the last few weekends has been atrocious for photography.

I like to shoot in the rain. Water reflects light and light is an asset to the photo

Damp feet and lens mould can be off-putting though.

My 5Dii is still going strong after seven years. Though I'm using it way way less now that the Fuji x100s have entered my life (see compact camera thread), so maybe that's extending its lifespan. Only break out the DSLR plus lenses when I'm on a specific photographic mission. The quality difference and having the choice of primes is still a meaningful difference, altho it's a lot easier to blow out my highlights on the 5D.

What is the smallest and lightest full frame?

Sony RX1r?

can anyone recommend me a point-and-shoot I can find for less than ≈$50 on eBay? I like the specs on the Canon PowerShot S95 (1/1.7" sensor, f/2.0–f/4.9 lens, 10MP, manual focusing and exposure, shoots RAW, seems to work well in low light) although the 3.8x zoom is a slight drawback. I just want a solid carry-around camera and I don't really care if it's 5+ years out of date as long as the image quality is decent.

(I also posted this on I Love Photography, but I'm pretty sure that board is dead these days)

have you looked @ B&Hs used dept?

It doesn't get much use these days but my wife's S95 took great photos. Low light performance was one of the reasons we got it, being generally against on-camera flash.

The Canon 5D iii mentioned above was a bargain purchase and it’s a great camera, but I still tend to default at weekends to an older Canon 5D i. The 5D i is so much lighter to carry round and I really love the images it produces.

yeah the 5d was a very special camera, still occasionally miss mine despite having long since jumped ship for fuji

I miss my original 5D as well.

The Mark III just doesn't have the same magic, even if it's technically superior.

At least in the UK the early Micro Four Thirds bodies are now well under £50 on the used market. I picked up an Olympus E-PL1 for £34 recently just to try out the format, although that didn't include a lens or the electronic viewfinder, which is more or less mandatory if you ever shoot in the sunshine. A little bit of extra money will get you an adapter ring for almost literally any format ever made. Here's my camera with an Olympus OM 24mm f/2:
https://i.imgur.com/L4Okx5m.jpg

Off the top of my head the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 was a big hit when the M43 system was new and is still the default cheap, good-quality do-everything Micro Four Thirds lens, although it's not very wide. A couple of weeks ago I popped off to Feltre in north-east Italy with the same camera using an Olympus 21mm f/3.5, which again still isn't very wide with a 2x crop factor:
https://i.imgur.com/CFYHd3N.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/6njJpjK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/m8Cfr0i.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CEsPsnD.jpg

I also bought an Olympus 9mm f/8 fisheye body cap, which is fun.

thanks for the input (and nice photos, Ashley)! I might consider the Canon 5D in the future when I'm ready to upgrade to a DSLR, but for now it's a little outside my price range (afaict a used Mark i body typically sells for $200+ on eBay). I wasn't aware of the MFT system, but I'll look into that too — it seems like an affordable middle ground between a compact and a DSLR. all I have now is an old PowerShot SX230 point-and-shoot, which is alright for learning purposes but doesn't have an optical viewfinder and (not surprising given its f/3.1 max aperture) performs pretty poorly in low light. at this point I'm the most amateur of amateurs, so I'm really just looking for something slightly less basic than my current setup.

https://i.imgur.com/bRnIJou.jpg

There were a bunch of advanced point-and-shoots that got released before smartphones killed the market segment, and I suspect they're all very cheap now. The Canon S95, various Lumix LX-series cameras, Olympus XZ-1 and -2, and a few nice Fuij compacts.

Yeah, I remember the S95 was really nice when I had a play with one a few years back. Control ring around the lens, etc. Does the 3.8x zoom put you off cos it's not enough of a range? Sounds plenty to me.

All those 1/1.7in-sensor "prosumer" compacts have probably been outstripped by modern smartphones, but you don't get the imaging tech of the latter without shelling out $$$ for a phone/contract which you maybe don't need/want. So now the high-end compact segment is deploying large APS-C or FF sensors (which you'll never get in a phone), and are $$$ as a result.

8yo+ mirrorless and DSLR bodies are an absolute steal, but you can't get away from the expense of the lenses (and the worry that the shutter mech is maybe near the end of its life). They always hold value. Unless you're going to be happy with just a single prime or go the adaptor/manual focus route (and then you really do need viewfinder/focus aids).

Got my old Canon Ixus i out of a drawer the other day (2003-vintage 4MP compact). Had forgotten how tiny it was. The absolute smallest/lightest kit I take anywhere these days is Fuji X-M1+27mm pancake, but that's 410g. Ixus was 100g!

I have a pocketable fuji camera I still use sometimes, but I'm sometimes surprised how great photos turn out when I pull out my leica d-lux 4 (basically the rebranded panasonic LX series) I'd bought years ago.

Which Fuji?

XF1, I believe

My parents still use my old LX3 (basically the same as your D-Lux 4), and I'm genuinely curious how much its RAW files would benefit from modern processing. I remember the CCD sensor being somewhat behind the times even when it was new.

You can get some pretty good raw file processing! The main issue in the past -- haven't checked lately -- is the raw format wasn't supported by all software. I think most do support it now, but it was easy to get around by using Adobe's DNG Converter in the past.

The in-camera processing is pretty good, although I've only use the D-Lux version and not Panasonic and there are small profile differences

I also have the kludge of a wide angle lens for the camera -- it's basically a fisheye lens that screws on *over* the existing pop-out lens, so you have to have the internal lens extended all the way.

It's depressing to open up my Lightroom archive and see how long it's been since I took anything I gave a shit about but I'm thinking about trying to get a Fuji X-T3 to shoot video for work. But then I'd really need a decent gimbal for a few hundred more and it all starts to add up.

I used to use flickr and actually curate real cool-looking photos I took, but outside of crappy instagram junk and posting on other social media, there are about a half dozen there over the last eight years. Thinking about getting back to it

or figuring out and becoming whatever a “vsco girl” is

Vsco allows you to shoot raw on your phone fwiw

Xt3s are cool but if you’re going aps c why not go full frame or even medium

yeah, vsco app pretty good. halide is an even more fine-grained raw camera app on iphone

Vsco be free though

xp - because the Fuji is half the price of a full frame with the video capabilities of the Fuji and I already own the Fuji lenses I'd use.

When I was actually, uh, 'doing photography seriously' I had a 5D and then a D700, and they were great. Full frame certainly has its benefits (though narrower these days), but I'm actually more fond of the mirrorless setup - autofocus is just as fast and the accuracy is so good. The autofocus correction on a digital SLR body drove me up the wall.

I've realized the cut-off for me was not making prints. When my Epson inkjet died I never replaced it, ink was such a monster cost and the Epsons had issues with clogging that wasted a ton of it.

Amazing that VSCO is such a thing. I bought their first Lightroom profile pack (long ago) and they were pretty much garbage IMO.

I’m thinking about going back to a separate camera and realised I know nothing about his any more but spent some time walk-in around Bic camera trying things out and made a list. I definitely want a viewfinder, I definitely want it to be small. Not sure about zoom or interchangeable lenses, maybe a good prime lens is good enough especially when 24mpx seems to be the norm now.

Anyway here is a list of things I like the look of.

Fuji xt100
Fuji xt3
Fuji x/pro2
Sony a 6000
Sony a 6500
LUMIX tx2
LUMIX lx100
LUMIX gx7
Olympus Om-d

Any thoughs

Large sensors are *awesome* imho but it’s still the moment and/or composition that trumps all

always thought SX-70 and SX-680 polaroid cameras produced the most beautiful images, they seemed like paintings to me

My experience with micro-4/3 was short, several Olympus generations back - I hated the aspect ratio and didn't like having to do some relatively heavy-handed cropping to get to the 3:2 that was ingrained in me.
OTOH, the camera was great so if the aspect ratio doesn't bother you they're a fine option.

One of Fuji's strong points is the JPG output, if you want to be able to skip RAW editing.

If I hit the lottery, I'd get one of the (rather outdated now) Leica Monochrom M... though if I hit the lottery I could afford to just shoot film again.

Fuji X-T3 of those you list, I think. My ex has Panasonic GX7 and it’s nice but she can’t really get strikingly shallow DoF off that m43 sensor even with the 20/1,7 pancake or her Sigma 60/2,8 unless subjects are really close.

My battered secondhand X-T1 is a joy to use, especially with old manual lenses. X-T3 is just a leap forward in terms of AF speed. Super quiet shutter too (silent is always an option, mind, as long as you’re not under artificial light).

Still use the Canons for “work” (paid or otherwise) cos they’re so much faster and one of them is FF. But the latest Fujis probably close that gap.

Upgraded to xt30 from xt10. Other than weather sealing always seamed like a good idea to go with the little sibling version.

That's fair enough. When Fuji originally brought out the X-T10 I though they'd basically killed the X-T1 as it was everything the bigger camera had for much less money, and with the latest AF tech. Weather sealing, extra physical dial(s), slightly bigger EVF aside. They did bring the X-T1 up to spec with firmware updates. (To be honest, the dials on my X-T1 can be a pain; seems like the whole thing was dunked in syrup at some point, they're so sticky - moving speed dial inadvertently moves the photometry ring beneath it too, ISO dial changes shooting mode ring, etc).

Oh, and the joystick AF on the later models is so great - I really miss that. Canon dropped that feature in the models I have!

If I'd really made a commitment to switch systems (selling off the Canon glass), rather than just getting a pocketable back-up (X-M1 in 2015) I'm sure I'd be happy with just Fuji for everything. The lenses are so good.

Gonna switch from canon to Sony after whatever the October announcement is

What's it gonna be in Oct? a9II? a7IV? a7sIII? I don't know much about the Sony lenses. Never actually handled one of their cameras. Everyone raves about the performance, it seems. Canon/Nikon's belated entry into mirrorless FF world last year got rubbished in comparison.

Supposedly an a9ii but I’d also go w 7iv. I’m just tired of waiting for canon to catch up and my 5d system is literally falling apart

Actually, what didn’t make it onto that list band probably should is the Fuji x-e3. It seems to be pretty well featuredfor the price.

The X-Es are really nice but: lower res and magnification EVF (also placement of EVF in corner favours right-eye dominant people) and fixed LCD. It's all trade-offs... Body weight not a big factor once you stick a lens on there.

some more recs/musings here: Compact camera recommendations

I’m right eye dominant, so the placing of the evf really works for me, I’ve had a couple of plays.

The x100f is really super cool but maybe a bit limiting with only a fixed lens. The x-pro 2 is probably overkill and an x pro 3 is about to appear.

Is seems to be a choice between the xe3 and the Sony a6500.

X100 series are rad. must be due an upgrade?

I got a first gen X100 for a great price last year and love it. As much as I’d like to take my DSLR out hillwalking it’d be too heavy to carry all day, the X100 has been a very capable stand-in.

Just got a Sony rx1, shooting some raw 2night

Got a used Leica d lux 109 and took it out last night for some test shots. I guess I was expecting more from the low megapixel count and 3/4 sensor, I was not impressed with the detail or overall quality in low light. Though I have to say that there was a nice bloom in the whites and even some of those nice spectral effects where the light turns into a many pointed star. Nice to see it shooting at 1.8 even in dim light, the glass is a highlight. Also, 72 mm zoom is a nice option. I found myself composing and framing the shots more often that not with that while using the EVF.

That's a Leica-fied LX100, right? I like the overall package but wouldn't expect miracles in low light. Image circle limitations of the (admittedly neat) lens design and multi-aspect ratio cropping ability mean that it never uses the full area of the 4/3 sensor. Wish they iterated the design a couple models more, because it came so close to being perfect.

Film forever!

One of these days Austin will have highs that dip into the sub-90s, I hope. Then it's home darkroom time for gelatin silver prints.

Nikon F2AS, usually with a 28/2.8 AiS, sometimes an 85/1.4 AiS. I used to play with a MF Rollei 6006 and an ancient 4x5, but I really prefer the F2 for my style of picture-taking.

My wife and I share 3 Ricoh GRs of various editions, and I have a Sigma Merrill and she has a Canon 6D, so the digital side is covered. But I prefer the magic of wet prints. . . .

It's past argument that the fine-grained emulsions on film and photographic paper can deliver results that aren't within reach of digital sensors. But you can make truly excellent photos with digital cameras, just like you can with a crude pinhole box camera. Just choose your tools and make images.

Past what argument? Full-frame digital (and even APS-C or 4/3 really) surpassed even 50ISO 35mm film in everything but theoretical dynamic range and magic feeling a long time ago.

Anyone interested in the new Sony a7c? Looks pretty sweet

Analog/digital discussions often focus on the technical limitations of the formats and, as with audio, that's never really the issue. I think it's more about how it informs the creative practice and shapes the user experience.

Any idiot (i.e., me) can comp a decent lead vocal from 30 takes with a DAW, but it takes tremendous skill and patience to do the same with tape, so probably better to create the conditions for just a good single performance out of a few efforts. Similarly, any fool (also me) can spray-and-pray at an event and come away with a few moments-(in)décisif, but with 36exp in yr camera that takes great anticipation, prep, sensitivity, etc. The balance of effort is maybe more in the moment (or pre) than in the post with analog capture.

That said, I can generally tell immediately what is film and what is merely digital processed to be filmic, even on IG. But I bet that's down to the subject matter giving clues to the photographer, and hence the medium I know they favour.

Meanwhile, I have a drawer full of expired/exposed 120/35mm rolls that I never get around to sending off to a lab, but I poke around in Lightroom every night (to mediocre effect).

Develop your own film--it's easy. Arguments about the relative merits of digital vs. analog or sensor sizes, etc., bore me. All that matters is the art you can make. I also paint with goache, water colors and acrylics, so it's all . . . a wash?

I happen to use an old 35mm film camera because I find it harmonious with the way I like to take pictures/make images/look dorky.

But what I put on the wall or put in a box is why I do it in the first place.

I should acknowledge that, like 99% of the population, my phone is what I use most often, purely for snapshots (documentation).

Past what argument? Full-frame digital (and even APS-C or 4/3 really) surpassed even 50ISO 35mm film

Who specified 35mm?

Oh, you were talking about 8x10 contact prints, 'kay.

I enjoy shooting film and was quite serious about the 'magic' reference above - seeing a print come up in Dektol is a different world from Lightroom. There are, as always, process-oriented reasons to do whatever you like but in terms of 'results' those reasons are lacking (or maybe you're paying $250 per frame for drum scans of 120, who knows?).

Revive!
Just ordered a Fujifilm x100V. Have always wanted a second camera with a short fixed lens, something I'll take with me everywhere and also supplement my Nikon. Anyone here own one? What are your thoughts?

I have an F and i still love it

yeah i carry the F with me basically wherever i go. it was a big purchase but it's really the center of my photographic hobby at this point. had it out for repairs earlier this month and constantly felt like something was missing.

I have an x70 and love it, great color and detail. Only problem I have with it is lack of stablilization. Night exposures become a bit tricky…
Not sure if the latest 100s have integrated anything like that yet.

I have the T and still love, it, though I could use the extra pixels. I bought the "telephoto" adapter and never use it.

i don't believe there's any proper IS in the 100s, but they perform so well at high ISOs that i've been very satisfied shooting my night photos at my usual shutter-speed "floor" of 1/30 sec. not sure if they'd survive being blown up to REAL big prints, but i've got a lot of night shots i'm really happy with.

I, too, have a X100v. It is nice.

I bought a used Fuji X10 for $200 a few years back and it's been a lot of fun.. basically a point & shoot but the pics can be astounding if I pay attention to what I'm doing. I originally wanted a X100 but the zoom lens has come in really handy at times.

Im using an a9ii for my primary but i think fuji stuff replicates the structure of film grain better as the gain goes up

Fujis make great jpgs in camera. I've never been able to get comfortable using those instead of raw+editing but the X series film profiles are great.

yeah i shoot raw with mine, and flip around between the profiles in lightroom at the start of editing. then typically i either increase contrast/vibrance, or ease it back, and go from there.

still love my OG X100 but I hear the Vs are wonderful

by the way, for anyone mystified by the letter designations, it's
X100
X100S econd
X100T hird
X100F ourth
X100V (fifth but F was taken)

Also using an OG X100, mostly when I’m out hillwalking, and think it’s great.

omg i finally understand the naming

Good luck with naming the sixth model, Fuji.

Agreed on Fuji profiles and JPGs. But I trust the metering on my Canons a bit more; the evaluative mode there is a bit better than Fuji’s centre-weighted average so I still err on the side of raw for post.

Well I said I ordered it, but I ended up canceling after realizing it was a gray market model. It seems to be out of stock everywhere, but still intend to buy one once they come in.

I just went through the same thing with the X100V (love it) and struck out on the usual/larger online retailers but found that if you looked for regional/local camera stores w/online presence (seemed mostly in NE for whatever reason) there were a few who had 'em stocked, YMMV

How long til phones get to full frame
Never?

Yeah physics, we know

The camera bump would be quite the thing

I’m just going to tape my phone to my x70

just imagine the entire back of your phone is the sensor

just an entire plane for finger smudges

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x0~articles/8974175294/ProductShots/Fujifilm_GFX_50R_X-E3_side-by-side.jpeg

Just watched a video on the rangefinder style medium format Fuji, looks so fun (if you've got $4500+lens laying around). Also has a crop mode to match the Hasselblad XPan I would have died for 20 years ago.

oooooh

I dream of medium format

Hired the Fuji GFX50S a few years ago for a (grey, wet) Easter weekend, with the 110/2.0 prime. It was pretty great, but a bit of a chunky beast. They seem to have streamlined the medium-format bodies.

My Bronica is still in the same place it's been for a couple of years, on a shelf. I really need to get back into it, with a drawer full of (expired) 120 film, but I say that every spring and... suddenly it's October.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_t_9LXcjBE

Looks even bigger in his hand than that still photo lol

Lovely stuff. Maybe I'll shoot at 24mm FF and crop everything to 2.71:1 for a while :)

The GFX was my first ever experience with an EVF, and it kind of spoils you for other lesser models. Wandering around looking at the world with an Acros filter was nice.

Here's the (then) 13yo toting the big bugger around Fitzrovia...

https://live.staticflickr.com/881/39491176020_4fa94fc5a1_b.jpg

And the (then) 11yo working the other Fuji, as shot with the GFX...

https://live.staticflickr.com/796/41237312082_16d9e812da_b.jpg

beast mode

fantastic!

https://i.tformers.com/g/generated/46865/Takara%20TOMY%20Canon%20EOS%20R5%20x%20TRANSFORMERS%20Optimus%20Prime%20Official%20Image%20(14)__scaled_800.jpg

(from https://tformers.com/takara-tomy-canon-eos-x-transformers-optimus-prime-r5-crossover-official-images/46865/news.html )

:)

Even has the tantalising dream of a L-grade pancake (optimus) prime on there.

Hilarious !

The light was fantastic today in London when the sun was out: everything crisp and clear, and trees and foliage drenched with light as if illuminated specifically for photographers. I took my EOS 5D out for the first time in quite a while, and the colours were fantastic. I particular like the way bright colours - such as red and orange - seem to almost pop out of photographs. For example a red and white polka dot blouse against a background of green foliage and a bright orange Vespa against grey brickwork. What a camera!

Let’s see some shots!

https://rollei35af.com/products/rollei-35af

Man, I want one of these… right until I consider how much film and developing cost and what a nightmare it is to scan.

Looks great

developing film and scanning it is not that bad to DIY, AMA

Pretty cool... Pentax has a new film camera out I think as well

The old Rollei 35mm mini's have held their value pretty well

i expressed a mild interest in returning to film photography and my dad (a former serious amateur photographer) gave me basically all of his old camera. several minoltas of different vintages, but also an old rollei 35s that's engraved with his name. the rollei is my favorite to use because of its size and feel but it's the hardest to use as someone who has forgotten all photography skills, since you can't see the focus through the viewfinder and have to work based just on estimated distance (i know there's a technical term for that but i'm blanking on it)

zone focusing

I thought they had a little rangefinder, no?

they do not, although rollei later did make a rangefinder which was just a re-branded cosina voigtlander

right until I consider how much film and developing cost and what a nightmare it is to scan

a lot of labs will scan your negatives for a nominal charge (or it's included)... then you can just order prints from Walgreens or whatever, if you want them

I never found the minilab Frontier scans useful - JPGs and even on the highest settings too crappy to make decent sized prints. If I got back into film I'd go with one of the light box/macro lens setups to "scan" film with my Sony but even thinking about that pretty much wipes away my nostalgia for film.

I think I'll be idly browsing Canonet QL17 GIII listings and Fuji medium format rangefinders (I never got to buy the Fuji 6x9 Texas Leica of my dreams when the market was at rock bottom - $400! - now they're back up to $1200+) without buying until I'm dead or luck into enough money to have a permanent darkroom set up for chemical prints.

I wonder if my college still has the color print processor or if they're just stocked with Epson inkjets (and if so how does the department keep them from choking to death on ink, because I never managed that).

you have to print constantly with epsons and they can last decades. but if you sneeze and forget to print the printhead goes and the cost to fix it is the same as buying a new one.

canon's you don't have to print much at all. still good to do it, but you can go a while without. but the printhead WILL die, maybe in 2 years, maybe more. In that case you can buy a new printhead and install it yourself. It is not cheap, but it's cheaper than a new printer, and you don't have to scrap an old printer.

god, I have not had any more than a Brother that I use for printable documents at home in an eon, but I still have regrets about the Epson inkjet I had over 20 years ago. I would have great results for weeks printing b&w, print one color thing, and I’d have to run the printer clean/test, glare, attempt to wipe out the clogs in some way
I think the ink was better overall but they really just needed a “purge the print heads with rubbing alcohol because you haven’t printed in 48 hours” function

I just upload things online to Walgreens, they have free shipping back... but this is just for snapshots etc. I did do an 8"x8" enlargement from a friend's wedding (B&W) and it came out really nice

I switched to Costco for a long time for large prints on a Epson large format something or other but they shut down the photo center here. 16x20 on archival paper for $10 was impossible to beat with home printing.

Are you guys taking about printing photos for framing?

I am. I'm only talking about the high quality stuff. And happy to do any printing esp if you're local. I use a Canon 4100 and the good papers.

I just go to adorama

this was the little Rollei rangerfinder I was thinking about upthread

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/26745-the-mighty-rollei-xf35