rogerzilla
Well-known
The Leica style tends to be black and white, wide open and feel the grain. I don't really do the latter since I normally use ISO 100 film, but I have been lured into the shallow DOF thing.
emraphoto
Veteran
amen to that!
hatidua
Established
That is actually very common, I'm guessing that more than 50% of any given web photo forum would be in that category.
30 some years ago I had someone tell me there were two types of photographers (grossly simplified but amusing nonetheless) -
type 1) calls friend and says "come over and look at my latest images".
type 2) calls friend and says "come over and look at my latest equipment".
Certain brands would cease to exist if there weren't collectors that are infatuated with the gear more than the use thereof. It's not so unlike 4WD vehicles that never leave the pavement, or Rolex Submariner watches that have never been deeper than their owners shower.
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
I've only been around here a relatively short while and I was a bit surprised to find acceptance for other cameras besides rangefinders. In my case photography is strictly a hobby and it was nice to find a forum that covers most of my interests. My decision on what camera I'm using at any particular time is based on both what I'm planning to shoot and what I feel like shooting with. Sometimes the subject and camera are well suited for each other, and sometimes not, but that's part of the fun for me. That being said I do try to honor the orgins of this forum and post mosly rangefinder shots in my gallery.
Last edited:
hausen
Well-known
Keith, I think the reaction to your post illustrates the changes in RFF as a whole because you could have been hung, drawn and quartered back a few years after posting this. I agree with your sentiment and I think I have gone the other way. I came here as a DSLR guy who always loved the look of Leicas from afar and was looking for an excuse to get back into film. I never really had a style of what I liked to shoot so my gear reflected this and I had every Canon lens imaginable so if I saw something I could shoot it. Now I feel with my gear that I am so much more comfortable with RF gear and my style choice is also more relaxed because if I can't shoot it with RF I don't shoot it. I find this almost liberating. Also for me a I am really kinaesthetic and a large part of the RF cameras for me is the feel of it in my hands. I can walk for hours with M6 and M9 a small bag and a Gordy's strap and clip on and off and just shoot what I see. Would never have done that with my 5dII. Have no SLR or DSLR gear at all now and haven't missed it.
Not true, we burned witches like this at the stake.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Nothing against Keith, but he is not the reason why OM system is popular on RFF.
Plenty other people here promoting OM system way before he does. He's just one of the more popular persons around here period
If you want to credit someone for OM being highly regarded here, credit Earl (Trius).
Totally ... Earl was a very motivating force for me when I chose to get into the OM system. Plus the generally positive attitude of everyone here to the system which always surprised me considering the fairly hard core RF base.
He's a great bloke in my books because it turned out to be one of my better decisions!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
As said previously we disagree, it may have been the case in the 1960's that it was the best there was, but today is that really the case? ... I believe a D700, or equivalent, will give one twice the strike rate of the best RF in low-light.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
... burning's too good for em, I think
Even as a rangefinder lover and DSLR hater, I have to admit you are right.
SciAggie
Well-known
Keith, I think this is an interesting thread. In my experience rangefinders are a tool that I use in specific instances.
For my recent getaway to Boston, I would not have considered anything other than my Leicas; I carried one with film and my M8. They were well suited to the type of images I wanted and the size equipment I was willing to tolerate.
On Friday nights at the football game, my rangefinders are almost worthless. I drag out the DSLR and the big glass. The same for wildlife shots.
I guess this thread is making me think more that equipment may limit your style; then again I think that's also what the OP is saying.
For my recent getaway to Boston, I would not have considered anything other than my Leicas; I carried one with film and my M8. They were well suited to the type of images I wanted and the size equipment I was willing to tolerate.
On Friday nights at the football game, my rangefinders are almost worthless. I drag out the DSLR and the big glass. The same for wildlife shots.
I guess this thread is making me think more that equipment may limit your style; then again I think that's also what the OP is saying.
furcafe
Veteran
I don't think we're really disagreeing that RFs aren't the ideal solution for shooting in low light for everyone, but you seem to be leaning towards the position that RFs have no place in the toolbox, period, & that's where I would draw the line. I have a D700, so I know what you're talking about re: advances in SLR technology. However, there are 2 related problems w/arguing that a dSLR is the perfect solution for shooting, in low light or good light:
(1) Like all dSLRs, the D700 is a fat pig of camera, to be blunt, & has many features which are superfluous (same goes for the last generation of film SLRs). Yes, most can be turned off, but their mere presence accounts for much of the camera's size & weight. I have the D700 only because of its sensor's low light sensitivity & it happens to be a digital body that takes my old Nikon glass. I wish Nikon offered bodies w/VFs actually good enough for manual focus like the Sony Alpha 850 & 900 (they would still be fat pigs, but more fun to use), which brings me to . . .
(2) There's more to photography than just strike/hit rate, otherwise why not just wait for a pro version of the Lytro (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/19/lytro/) & spray & pray? I personally prefer to have a tool that fits my way of shooting rather than being forced to adapt to the form factor & operating systems of almost all modern cameras since autofocus became standard. For example, I find it easier to frame w/an uncluttered, bright optical VF. Even the slightly tinted 1950s M3 VF is still brighter than the view through a D700 & isn't dependent on lens speed; the saddest thing about the D700 & D3 (& their Canon equivalents) is that they have sensors that are so great in low light but are coupled w/VFs that are so dim compared to their manual focus ancestors. I also prefer using traditional manual controls that don't assume that I shoot w/the camera to my eye continuously. To borrow the overused vehicle analogy, if all you're trying to do is get from points A to B, an SUV or a motorcycle can both get you there, but the experience will be quite different.
The Fuji X100 & its ilk are already addressing problem 1, & to the extent that they can keep the option of a good optical VF (or really take EVFs to the next level) & minimize the use of menus & VF-dependent controls, they may also address aspects of problem 2 in the future. I think, or rather would hope, that there remains a place for the old-fashioned optical/mechanical RF & analog controls in the future, hence my preference for the M9 (or any improved successor) over the X100 (& any of its successors).
(1) Like all dSLRs, the D700 is a fat pig of camera, to be blunt, & has many features which are superfluous (same goes for the last generation of film SLRs). Yes, most can be turned off, but their mere presence accounts for much of the camera's size & weight. I have the D700 only because of its sensor's low light sensitivity & it happens to be a digital body that takes my old Nikon glass. I wish Nikon offered bodies w/VFs actually good enough for manual focus like the Sony Alpha 850 & 900 (they would still be fat pigs, but more fun to use), which brings me to . . .
(2) There's more to photography than just strike/hit rate, otherwise why not just wait for a pro version of the Lytro (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/19/lytro/) & spray & pray? I personally prefer to have a tool that fits my way of shooting rather than being forced to adapt to the form factor & operating systems of almost all modern cameras since autofocus became standard. For example, I find it easier to frame w/an uncluttered, bright optical VF. Even the slightly tinted 1950s M3 VF is still brighter than the view through a D700 & isn't dependent on lens speed; the saddest thing about the D700 & D3 (& their Canon equivalents) is that they have sensors that are so great in low light but are coupled w/VFs that are so dim compared to their manual focus ancestors. I also prefer using traditional manual controls that don't assume that I shoot w/the camera to my eye continuously. To borrow the overused vehicle analogy, if all you're trying to do is get from points A to B, an SUV or a motorcycle can both get you there, but the experience will be quite different.
The Fuji X100 & its ilk are already addressing problem 1, & to the extent that they can keep the option of a good optical VF (or really take EVFs to the next level) & minimize the use of menus & VF-dependent controls, they may also address aspects of problem 2 in the future. I think, or rather would hope, that there remains a place for the old-fashioned optical/mechanical RF & analog controls in the future, hence my preference for the M9 (or any improved successor) over the X100 (& any of its successors).
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
It really was not an "if you aren't for us you're agin us" thing, I'm sure it's possible to make all sorts of cameras do all sorts of things they were never designed to do. I was simply saying the novice could easily be misled by this forums enthusiasm. It isn't about your preferences or mine, it was in answer to the OP that I made the statment ...
... I stand by that.
... I stand by that.
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
No problems w/your stand. As I indicated before, RFs are not for everyone & I would never recommend them without reservations to a newby. However, I believe that they offer some practical advantages, even today, that many photographers can use to their benefit, i.e., there is some substance behind the enthusiasm on this forum that goes beyond mere nostalgia or fanaticism.
If someone allows an internet forum dictate an inappropriate camera choice, that's the photographer's fault, not the forum's. After all, as others have pointed out, this is obviously the "Rangefinderforum" not the "Photographyforum" or "Cameraforum", which is fair warning that its denizens are not exactly unbiased.
If someone allows an internet forum dictate an inappropriate camera choice, that's the photographer's fault, not the forum's. After all, as others have pointed out, this is obviously the "Rangefinderforum" not the "Photographyforum" or "Cameraforum", which is fair warning that its denizens are not exactly unbiased.
barnwulf
Well-known
I think RFF attracts people that have an interest in photography and in 35mm cameras and more spacifically rangefinder cameras in general and most likely Leica cameras. When I started to shoot scenic landscapes with the intention of selling my work in a gallery, I choose a Pentax 67 because of the large film image that allowed me to print 16X20 or 20X24 prints that would be sharp and clear. When I became interested in making the jump to the things I am shooting now and using B&W film, I started to look for camera forums that were oriented toward street photography. Many of my shots are taken on the street but I rarely have people in my shots. I could easily shoot what I do with a smaller light weight SLR, such as my Nikon FE2, but I got a little caught up in the Leica mistique and wanted to see what all the excitement was about. I had a couple of fractured vertebra and could no longer walk around with large heavy SLRs and large zooms. The Leica was perfect with it light weight and smaller lenses. It was a light weight kit that I could easily manage. I really don't think that my camera gear has dictated my style but the other way around for me. I have chosen cameras that worked well for the kind of shooting that I wanted to do. I am really enjoying my Leica and Nikon rangefinder cameras and more recently my 120 folding rangefinders. I love what I am doing and I am really enjoying RFF. Jim
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
What? You clearly haven't seen my gallery!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=159885&ppuser=35456
I needn't stress this was not shot with a rangefinder, do I?
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
(...) the tremors have mostly ceased since the round with cancer this year, allowing use of lighter bodies such as the r2m and barnack ...
That's excellent news, I'm glad to hear that!
FrankS
Registered User
With my wide selection of cameras, my style is not impeded by my gear. I just choose what will work best for the current task or mood.
konicaman
konicaman
@Keith - sure point taken, and your are right.
I haven't been hanging around here for more than a couple of years, and I originally came here looking for info on FSU gear (I had been pure digital for some years and was starting to go back to traditional B/W film as I couldn't get the right look from digital - and FSUs are cheap, right?).
Now the FSU section is the only place that I have felt a slight peer pressure - can't remember his nick right now "Ohh do not buy FSUs, they are crap" both to those of us who own a whole bunch of bodies and lenses already and to those who are newbies in that area, but that is just entertaining
The right gear for the job is my motto, and although I love rangefinders (and have been infected with GAS here shame on you all), my assignments (paid or "self inflicted") are so varied that I would have a tough time solving them with only a couple of rangefinders. So yes I am a gear head. I like lots of tools not only for photography.
The only place where I really is a minimalist is in the kitchen (I like to cook - my girl friend says, I am good at it, but I have a suspicion that's only because she hates to cook) where except from pots and pans, I only use a chefs knife, a spoon and a potato peeler to get the job done - having to clean all sorts of fancy gear afterwards is way to slow and very tedious.
Happy shooting with whatever gear you like...
I haven't been hanging around here for more than a couple of years, and I originally came here looking for info on FSU gear (I had been pure digital for some years and was starting to go back to traditional B/W film as I couldn't get the right look from digital - and FSUs are cheap, right?).
Now the FSU section is the only place that I have felt a slight peer pressure - can't remember his nick right now
"Ohh do not buy FSUs, they are crap" both to those of us who own a whole bunch of bodies and lenses already and to those who are newbies in that area, but that is just entertaining The right gear for the job is my motto, and although I love rangefinders (and have been infected with GAS here shame on you all
), my assignments (paid or "self inflicted") are so varied that I would have a tough time solving them with only a couple of rangefinders. So yes I am a gear head. I like lots of tools not only for photography.The only place where I really is a minimalist is in the kitchen (I like to cook - my girl friend says, I am good at it, but I have a suspicion that's only because she hates to cook
) where except from pots and pans, I only use a chefs knife, a spoon and a potato peeler to get the job done - having to clean all sorts of fancy gear afterwards is way to slow and very tedious.Happy shooting with whatever gear you like...