What is the closest MFT camera to your favorite 35mm film compact?

All the tiny 35 compacts had a lot of merit, my fav was the Rollei with the collapsible lens. It was to rich for my blood at the time and I was sorely tempted for years after as a used camera. So scratched that itch just recently with an LX100. Surprised its not getting any love here so had to put my vote in.:-)







--
Dennis
 

Attachments

  • 4268066.jpg
    4268066.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 0
I had several of those Rollei 35 cameras over the years. Wonderful, complex, cameras, but near impossible to get serviced now.
 
Surprised its not getting any love here so had to put my vote in.:-)
Well maybe because not everyone likes the retro design with all the shutter speeds and iso dials. In the digital age , nothing beats the front dial plus back dial and iso button

I had the LX100 and I did not keep it long because it was also a dust magnet . Never got so many dust spots in a camera so quick

Harold
 
The size of the sensor is irrelevant for your print (the size of the negatives be played of course a crucial role in analog times).
this is simply ridiculous . NOT true at all.
It is simply ridiculous and useless to make a statement like yours.
It is simply ridiculous to use the words, "simply ridiculous" when discussing art!

(
this is a strange statement . something does not become art simply because it is printed
You're right!



9e14fd0f2ca345369ed6c1cb7c2b95ac.jpg
 
My favorite 35mm film compact was the Rollei 35S, with the Sonnar 40/2.8 lens.

The closest MFT camera is the Panasonic GM5 with the 20/1.7 lens.

The GM5 is the same length and height, but obviously deeper as the lens is not retractable inside the body. The GM5 (with 20mm lens) is lighter though. And it is an ILC. As for image quality, the GM5 is vastly superior to 135 film. To me, it feels as good as 120 film was.
 
this is a strange statement . something does not become art simply because it is printed

Harold
I owned a portrait studio for many years, back in the film days - "art" was determined by how much people were willing to spend on the print, which was mostly a function of the size of the image and not necessarily the quality. Therefore:

5X7 or smaller = snapshot

8X10 = judgment call

11X14 or larger = art

20X24 canvas-mount in a fancy-schmancy frame = definitely art
 
this is a strange statement . something does not become art simply because it is printed

Harold
I owned a portrait studio for many years, back in the film days - "art" was determined by how much people were willing to spend on the print, which was mostly a function of the size of the image and not necessarily the quality. Therefore:

5X7 or smaller = snapshot

8X10 = judgment call

11X14 or larger = art

20X24 canvas-mount in a fancy-schmancy frame = definitely art
yes but since then the trends have changed . 10 , 15 years ago art collectors were often gang/ho for super duper large prints

Now I think , things have settled down a bit . Since my sales are for limited editions , I choose a size but offer some flexibility for buyers who want to buy the image in a different size . I would never decide arbitrarily that one size makes an image more artistic than others

It is just that most people wouldn't t spend significant money on too small prints

Harold
 
It is just that most people wouldn't t spend significant money on too small prints

Harold
Of course, one of Rembrandt's self-portrait's is less than 6" tall - but I'm no Rembrandt.
Neither am I ;-). But first there are exceptions to every general rule . Plus I was talking solely about Photography not about painting :-D

I am preparing my next exhibition for May so who knows ? maybe I would be seeing new trends

Harold
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top