@MichaelClark was struggling to word that comment to you. Hope it didnt come across rude or anything. Just not sure what you're trying to communicate in your last two paragraphs.

I just talked to a co-worker, who said he's got quite good results from digitally scanning old negatives from 20 years ago. He says he's even found some pictures that were underexposed and weren't worth to zoom with the analog tech back then, but now he's got somewhat reasonable (noisy of course) pictures from them.

Also, I asked my mother, and she said they have the negatives of their honeymoon in Greece. I've scanned a lot of shiny paper positives about that trip, but they're very faded in color, so there's a chance the negatives will be better.

So the conclusion is obvious, I'll eventually scan those negatives too, as well as continuing to go through the old positives to select good ones for scanning.

Also, in more urgent stuff, my brother is trying to figure out what kind of camera to buy, as in DSLR versus mirrorless, for photographing their son with a large diameter fixed lens.

@b_jonas Why the specific requirements (large diameter, and fixed focus)? We can guess why, of course. But how photographically savvy is your brother? Quite often, people think they need a super fast lens (fast in this case meaning large aperture), thinking they need the ability to collect all the photons possible. Certainly, reading lots of pro-oriented literature can lead one into GAS (gear acquisition syndrome).

DSLR vs. mirrorless is probably largely irrelevant in the discussion of picking large aperture fixed lens. It's putting the cart before the horse for the most part. Now, if there are significant secondary uses your brother is considering (video? landscape photography? astrophotography?), then perhaps DSLR v. mirrorless (or least lens availability for either platform) might be more important.

@scottbb Yes, large diameter for large aperture so he can make faster photos of a quickly moving kid in not always good lighting conditions, but also for smaller depth of field which can give more aesthetically pleasing photos for some compositions with portrays.

@scottbb Mirrorless vs DSLR simply comes up because he needs to buy a camera anyway. A mirrorless would be probably better because it's lighter.

As for secondary uses, he said he probably wants to buy two cameras, one is either a large compact or bridge camera for travel photos or everything else. He wouldn't carry it with him every day, because for every day not at home a mobile phone is enough. He doesn't need a camera at work anyway.

Video will probably come up with a kid. What's definitely important for the replacable lens camera is (a) not too heavy or too bulky, so it's easy to handle while also handling a kid, in ordinary home situations or whenever they go somewhere with the kid, and (b) fast reaction time of the camera.

As for photo experience, he's taken photos mostly of vacations with his wife with a nice Casio compact camera, which is four or five years old, has a nice quick reaction time and decent small lens, but a bad quality sensor.

I've also used that Casio compact a lot, and I liked it, but then one and a half years ago I bought myself a compact and I like that much more.

That's a Casio EX-ZR700. And he said it's exactly the bad quality sensor why he wants to buy a new compact, even though that camera still works and isn't too old.

I personally didn't find the sensor that bad, but then I have very different targets, I mostly photograph buildings.

On a completely different note, I should think of what lighting I want to redo this composite photo without the car. I want to do that one day, but not in a hurry. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kispest-jezus-szive-1.jpg

@b_jonas I could swear I remember that photo / discussion here awhile back, about removing the poles / lines, etc. If I recall, you were trying to document churches in your area, right? If I were you, I would look into renting a shift lens. Or, for the same effect, use a wider-angle lens than that image, compose your shot with the camera perfectly level with respect to the horizon, and crop the top portion. That achieves the same effect as a tilt movement in a view camera or tilt-shift lens.

@b_jonas I agree that larger aperture will yield shallower DoF. However, I do question the part about faster photos of a quickly moving kid in not always good lighting conditions. I'm not saying your (or your brother's assumptions) are completely wrong. It's just that IMO, faster autofocus is more important than light collection capability. A large-aperture lens with sub-par autofocus, even in a sunny park, might miss several shots of a fast moving kid, ...

... as opposed to a fast autofocus ƒ/2.8 or ƒ/4 lens.

I hate to complicate the decision for you / your brother. But you probably need to evaluate the lens/body combination. I'm not sure what the budget is, but I'd be willing to bet that any of the 24-70mm ƒ/4 lens/body combos for DSLR vs. mirrorless (full frame) will be plenty fine. For APS sensors, the 17-50/55mm ƒ/4 lenses (either DSLR or mirrorless) will probably also be just fine.

I know you said fixed focal length, so anything probably in that range will work. For general portraiture, I'd go longer (85-135mm full frame). But street-style photography / backyard action capture, 50-70mm (full frame) is probably perfect. For larger family/group shots, 35-50 probably (again, FF). These are all very rough generalizations, and strictly my opinion. But if people are asking for suggestions, I usually recommend zoom lenses.

People who want fixed focal length generally tend to know what they want/need (in terms of focal length)

Finally, as far as size is concerned, don't necessarily assume that mirrorless == smaller/lighter (when you consider body + lens total combination). Ignoring the clickbait-title of this article, petapixel.com/2016/04/04/…, and ignoring most of the body text, just compare the sizes of body+lens combos of Canon (DSLR), Nikon (DLSR), and Sony (mirrorless). The images are worth considering. The point is that, given a particular sensor size,

the body+lens length/depth dimension is more-or-less fixed (roughly speaking). Just because a mirrorless camera is quite shallow as compare to a DSLR, doesn't mean you can get around the physics/optics of a particular focal length and aperture. For a backpack full of several (say, 4) ƒ/2.8 to ƒ/4 lenses, a DSLR system might take less weight and/or volume than a mirrorless system.

Of course, if you're choosing a Micro 4/3 system, everything is smaller (lens length, and diameter) (although not directly proportionately so), so you'll certainly save space and weight that way.