burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The Pen F Mark II is a great idea. There was a LOT to like about the first one, but AF performance and processing speed need a boost.

I'd also like to see Lumix re-do the GX-9 to give it PDAF and a much better viewfinder, and the sensor from the G9 II.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Speaking of Lumix, I was just looking at a gallery of pics which I thought were something else and was amazed at the IQ of the shots... Turned out they were from a FF Lumix S5. I was floored at the quality; will have to go back and see which Leica lens was used.

User ID

Probably an L-mount Sigma.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The new S5 Mark II and S5 Mark IIX are two of the best buys in the full frame market today. Especially if you make videos, the S5 IIX is a balanced hybrid (stills plus video) camera. Its video image stabilization is second only to the Micro 4/3 G9 Mark II. Both bodies feature Panasonic's new hybrid PDAF. The image processor is a joint venture with Leica, and includes their color science.

Since Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma are the PRIMARY licensees of the L-Mount, they all make "first party" lenses for that platform. Quite a few other manufacturers are making or designing lenses for L-Mount as well. The L-Mount Alliance is a partnership between Leica Camera, SIGMA, Panasonic, Ernst Leitz Wetzlar GmbH, DJI, ASTRODESIGN, SAMYANG and Blackmagic Design.

The L-Mount f/1.8 primes from Panasonic are affordable and sharp, and they don't BLOOM (change magnification) when you change focus during video recording.

Sigma makes a great $169 MOUNT CONVERTER MC-21 for Canon EF lenses to put them on L-Mount cameras. It retains full lens automation, including AF and IS and all lens information and correction information. So old Canon dSLR owners can use their existing EF glass on L-Mount bodies. The tests I've seen are impressive!

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I am a big fan of Sigma. the 30mm on my DP2 Merrill is world class. I am thinking of mating up a 35mm ART lens on my 6D kind of permanently.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I like the retro look, and I bought a Zfc because of that. If the ZF had that silver body, I might buy that. Companies make what they think people might want. If they sell a lot of them, they keep making them.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It's funny how Nikon used to charge a lot more for black bodies. Now, people want chrome. Such fickleness… Pros bought the black ones to remain semi-incognito. Many of them blacked out the white 'Nikon' logo with a piece of tape or some paint.

Lumix brought back that look with the S5 Mark IIX, which is all black and dark gray except for the red video Record button.

BebuLamar

I didn't think a lot. I think I paid and extra $25 for my Nikon F2AS to have it in black back in 1977. I can't remember how much it was for the body alone but I paid $750 for the body and the 50mm f/1.4 AI lens. When they introduced the F3 there was black only so no extra charge. Later they have the F3T in silver which was a more expensive option but because it made out of titanium.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

$25 in 1977 is roughly equivalent to $125 in 2024 value. Inflation has made everything cost more in 47 years.

I had two F3s at one point. I kept one. It's a specially modified version with a pin registration back and a precision grid in the viewfinder, used for copy work back in the 1980s to make multiple image slides via multiple exposures.

A lot of customers who bought the F3T did so to hold it as a collectors' item.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I didn't see the need to pay extra for black. That's why I'd like silver today.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Actually, Canon's move away from that "certain look" started with the T50 in 1983. SLR sales had been declining for the past few years and Canon decided that a more modern look with more automation was the answer. The T50 was an SLR but it only had one program mode and had to be manually rewound, so it was really more of a beginner's point and shoot camera with interchangeable lenses. Realizing they needed to give more control for serious photographers, they released the T-70 in 1984. The T-70 was the first Canon camera (maybe the first SLR?) to have an LCD screen to display setting information. The T-70 had several different modes, including a Tv mode where you could choose the shutter speed and, assuming the aperture ring on the lens was set to auto, the camera would chose the Aperture. According to Wikipedia, a Popular Science reviewer, the T-70 "could be too good for amateurs." (I wonder what that reviewer would say about today's DSLRs with multiple couples menu systems).

As it happens, my first serious SLR camera was the T-70. Up till then, I'd only had cheap point and shoot cameras that use, I think, 120 film. I never owned any of the SLR cameras with that "certain look." I had been stationed (air Force) on a remote mountaintop site in Greece in 1984. One day, while at the BX at our main base, Hellenikon Air Base, in Athens, I just happened to see a display full of cameras. Kind of on the spur of the moment, I thought that getting a "real" camera with interchangeable lenses and learning "real" photography would be a great way to fight the boredom of living on a remote mountaintop for 2 years. Not really knowing what I was looking for, and after some discussion with the sales representative, I ended up getting the T-70. I liked that it had a lot of automation, while still providing a lot of control over the settings. It looked more modern than the other cameras with all their dials and cranks. Being a bit of a gadget geek (engineer and former large mainframe computer technician), the LCD screen and automatic features appealed to me at the time. I still own and shoot with my T-70.

The T-90 came out a couple years later and took the already cool automated features of the T-70 to the next level. There was also a T80 a year after the T70 which was the first (and only) FD-mount camera with auto-focus. However, you could only use AF with a few lenses specifically made for the T80. Other FD lenses would work, but only as manual focus. Interestingly, Canon also sold a T60 (they sold it but didn't make it) which actually came out after the T90 but, while it had that T-series look, it was a fully manual camera, with manual everything.

But speaking of retro, fast forward to today - in addition to my R5, I also have a Panasonic "retro" LX100. This little camera is a real gem to use. It has mechanical dials on top to set shutter speed and exposure compensation, as well as a retro style ring on the lens to set aperture. Both shutter speed and aperture can be set to an auto setting to give you Av or Tv modes, in addition to many auto modes. There is something about having the tactile feel of those dials and switches that just adds to the enjoyment of using that little camera. Based on my experience with this little camera, I can sort of understand the appeal of some of those retro cameras.

BebuLamar

I paid $750 for body and lens but let say the body was $600 so it's $3053 today value and thus the $125 is only about 4% the cost which isn't much.

BebuLamar

I agree that Canon introduced the kind of look most cameras today have but I surely hate that kind of look. I like the old style look much better.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Like I said, my experience with my LX100 makes me appreciate the appeal. In fact, not just for the retro looks but also the amazing capabilities, I’ve been drooling over the new Fuji X100VI.

User ID

Back when I still cared to use SLRs I chose the EF 35/2.0 for its OIS. At that time there was also the rather similar Tamron 35/1.8 with OIS but I dont know if its still available.

Acoarst if IS is no of concern for you then you have your choice of any lens out there and the Sigma Art line is reeeeally impressive.