File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /p/,
i want a DSLR as similar as possible to my old FM-2 (which is all manual except it has a built in meter).
any sugestion?
>> Anonymous !04b63aysds
rofl.. Good luck!
>> Anonymous
well they're discontinuing all the good films and i want to be able to at least make use of my non d-series lenses...
(0_0)
>> Please put forth some effort Anonymous
Similar in what way? Apperance? Lack of capability? Size? Weight?

What is your price range?

You didn't tell us jack, and you are starting another "wut DSLR shud I buy lol" thread when there are already others.

Go, read those threads, read online reviews about cameras, then go to a store and actually TRY them. Pick them up, handle them, look them over, see their features.

If you still have questions after that, then post.
>> Anonymous
>>75035
well what i meant was i want something like the FM-2, with full control for focus, aperture, shutter speed and no fancy features.
i never learned to use all of the atuofocus and priority settings, etc. and i dont want to.
>> Anonymous
f
>> Anonymous
>>75036
All DSLRs have full manual mode. Just ignore the bullshit.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
Right, they all do full manual, but they all have other settings you just ignore.
The real shock will be getting used to all the other "fancy" things that you have to do. To get the results you want, like the film you're used to, you either have to shoot jpeg and set things in-camera or shoot raw and postprocess like crazy. That's the real culture shock, nm the camera controls.
>> deleted
Leica M8
Starting at 5K
>> Anonymous
I wish such a camera existed too. The Leica M8 is about perfect other than the price. Another option is the Epson R-D1, though they're hard to find and still pricey.

I really wish Nikon would introduce a digital version of the FM3a. I really miss the ergonomics of a full manual camera. I really like my D200, but I like the F2, FM-2, and FM3a better.

I hope now that sensor technology has started to plateau camera companies will stop clamoring for better numbers and concentrate on making cameras that are nice to use again. Nikon, in particular, has a history of re-introducing classic models with specifically updated features (i.e. FM3A), so I don't think it's unreasonable to see a digital version of the classic 35mm SLR sometime in the future.
>> Anonymous
>>75039
I find that even out-of-camera JPEGs never get quite the aesthetic fullness of film or a properly processed raw file. The latter two look different, but just as good. JPEGs are almost always undersharpened and look too flat and clean.

>>75041
He said he wanted a digital SLR, not a digital rangefinder.
>> phesarnion
apeture, shutter and metering can work pretty much the same as your FM2. heck, Nikon's centre weighted metering still uses 60-40 weighting if memory serves.
As far as in-camera is concerned, it's just a little more ergonomic nowadays. oh, and trust me, when you're shooting certain subjects, autofocus is a GODSEND.

With digital, it is possible to get good results out of the camera, same with a straight film print, but the best results often come with a little bit of postprocessing work. If you're entirely new to digital, i'd reccomend taking a class in "photoshop for photographers" or something along those lines. You won't regret it in the long run.

If you want to dive in at the deep end, you may want to use RAW, but this tends to need a firm grasp of the concept of white balance and so on. If you do decide to go down that route, then you will want to take another class on RAW Processing/Workflow. although i doubt this will be a local thing.

It sounds a lot, but the results can be very rewarding, artistically, financially (no film/chemical costs), and of course saves you one heck of a lot of time.

Wow! that was long winded
Whatever you choose good luck.

With regards to camera selection (someone correct me if i'm wrong) But I believe the the D200 offers stop-down metering with older Nikon glass
>> phesarnion
>>75043
Jpegs look shittier because they are for the most part, processed using middle-of-the-road settings, which give adequate results in most conditions.

In b4 compression and/or bits per channel argument
>> Anonymous
>>75047
>Jpegs look shittier because they are for the most part, processed using middle-of-the-road settings, which give adequate results in most conditions.
>Jpegs look shittier because they are for the most part, processed using middle-of-the-road settings,
>Jpegs look shittier because they are for the most part,
>Jpegs look shittier because they are
>Jpegs look shittier

It doesn't matter why; they do. Compression and bits per channel are part of it, but you're right: they're designed to be adequete. For anyone who takes what they're doing seriously, "adequete" really is "inadequete."
>> lol derailed thread des
>>75029
D200 with katzeye screen. Shutter speed on your thumb and aperture on the ring. LCD match "needle."

>>JPEG shitstorm
It's a matter of workflow preference. With custom curves/WB and sharpening at none to low, I could definitely do jpeg only.
It is my usual for product work. It's a lot easier to do a batch resize than render down a bunch of RAWs and edit.
>> Anonymous
find something with RAW mode an aperature priority/override.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75042

Image quality is noisier than a funfair.

I've just ordered a Fujifilm 6000/6500 - it's got a bunch of features I don't want, it's not an SLR and the lens is fixed to the body, but it's low noise and can be run in manual, and get this - CHEAP.

It's not the best, but I'm hoping it's worth the cash. I'm sure it will be. Later I plan on a Canon DSLR - they have the best sensors, and like Fuji, they make their own.

Should be good.
>> des
>>75069
if they fixed the horrible shmearing noise reduction it's probably a great little camera. I had it's grandma for a long time.
>> Anonymous
>>75071

Yeah, I noticed the noise reduction destroys fine detail - although it's not the worst. I plan on using it at ISO100 with noise reduction off, though.

I'm used to dealing with SLRs in low light, hopefully I should be able to get by with this without blurring/high ISO.

Hopefully I'll be able to upload a decent picture after it's delivered on Monday.
>> Anonymous
you should sell me your FM2 now that you're going digital. i'm thinking, like, ten bucks.
>> Anonymous !04b63aysds
>>75036

As has been mentioned, all DSLR's can be used in manual mode. With the full frame sensor cameras you can get away with using your old lenses and they wouldn't change. If you don't get a full frame, then the crop factor comes into play. But there is not much difference from a film to DSLR. Or you could fork out 3 grand on the Nikon F6. Or fork out something on a D80 or D200 or wait for the D300 or the D3. Depends on how rich you are, really.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>75071

I don't think you can turn off the noise-reduction feature in this Fuji. Still, it's not a bad camera.
>> Anonymous
>>75095

The difference, for me, is ergonomics. I really prefer the simple control layout and lack of buttons that the FM2 has. I like the feel of classic cameras more than modern ones.
>> Anonymous
>>75126

I'm not sure if you can turn off stabilization - because they had stabilized and non-stabilized pictures in the review, I guess you can. But since there's no specific setting for it other than 'Image Stabilization' as its own program, I'm not sure.

Oh well, it's a camera with a fairly good pickup and manual control for the price of a compact - I'm sure it'll be worth the cashmoney.
>> phesarnion
>>75129
I personally love the ergonomovics of my D80, I can use my index finger on the wheel at the front of the camera (which adjusts aperture) with no need to take my eye away from the viewfinder. same with the rear wheel which controls shutter speed. the current values for both settings are displayed in the viewfinder. turning the camera on is a cinch, and you are ready to shoot almost straight away.
Alas, it is harder to shange between modes with the camera to your eye, but this doesn't pose a huge problem. the D80 and D200 both feel very solid in their build quality, and both feel very balanced with average-sized lenses (i.e. not the 600mm F/4)

When you're used to the camera, as i'm sure you have found with your FM-2, things become a lot easier, so even if you have initial teething problems, these should soon disappear.
>> Anonymous
>>75129
If you like simple control layouts, check out the Pentax K100D. All DSLRs will be more complex than the FM2, but Pentax tries to keep buttons to a minimum.

There's buttons to view the top, front and back of it here: http://www.pentaxcanada.ca/digital/digital_slr/k100d/index.php
>> Anonymous
>>75235
The controls on the K100D are ok, but nothing spectacular. I find my D200 to be pretty good, though as I said I prefer the layout and style of classic cameras like the FM2.

Besides, I love the Nikon system and am heavily invested in lenses so I have no intention of going with another brand.
>> Anonymous
>>75041

M8's a rangefinder. Try the Leica Digital Modul-R in a Leica R8 or some other compatible R.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
I went from an FM to a D200. both are a step below the high-end pro cameras from nikon, so in that aspect you'll be satisfied with its quality.

on the other hand, its digital so get used to all the digital annoyances, the small viewfinder and the sloppy manual focusing

PS: spotmeter ftw, forget center-weighted and/or go matrix
>> FM2 torrrential
I started with the original FM and have still got F3, FG, FM, FA and a pile of lenses. I recently bought a D100 and it has given me a new lease of photo-life. Ergonomic and intuitive controls, every facility, useful and g33ky, 600 shots on a 2Gb CF card, extra battery pack, yet still light enough.
I guess, new, the D200, but the 100 is a superb bit of kit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Olympus E-400/410 is kinda similar to FM-2 in terms of size/shape and control layout, and it can use your Nikon lenses if you get an adapter. The small viewfinder will probably be frustrating, though.