Almost interested in this digital stuff...

[shadowfox]

Always glad to help craygc.

It's just my take on things. Digital is extremely seductive. Free film, so to speak. No labs to deal with, no developing, etc. Yet it comes w/ a price (what doesn't). For some the trade offs are worth it, for some they aren't.

A lot just depends on what your photographic goals are. I love black and white, and for me the gold standard is what once was, not what now is. Film gives me the black and white look that I like, although at this stage of my life I realize it's really about the shot, not the medium. My perspective isn't that of a purist. Different tools for different needs. It's like comparing a photograveure print to a mezzotint.

http://julieniskanen.com/mezzotint.html

The mezzotint is a real PITA to make. Endless rocking of the plate w/ a rocker tool, lots of time spent fixing mistakes, doing proofs, sore wrists, etc. But you get blacks that are incredible. You can't get them any other way, so the trouble is worth it.

Steve, thanks for that particular link.
I went to Iowa State University (where that lady do workshops).
Wish I had a clue about printing process back then 🙂

 

[kanzlr]

seconded.

If you like rangefinders and want to go with a cheap digital, get the Ricoh GXR with the M Mount Module. It is much nicer to use than the 5N (and I had both, just ebayed the 5N with EVF).

the Ricoh feels nicer, is a bit bigger, has better resolution (despite having less nominal megapixels) and has a more clever approach to focusing aids.

Nice photos! I really like #1, crop the couple out on the side and I like it even more.

The 5n is an amazing camera. But for a digital rangefinder experience, I actually prefer the Ricoh GXR with M mount. The body fits better into my hand and the customization of the buttons allows for quicker work. I also like the level and the way focus assist magnification works on the Ricoh. And the better details in the corners with wide angle lenses.

Not to knock the 5n, I've got that too! Wides on the Ricoh and a 50mm on the Sony are a great two body setup. And the hawk's helicoid M adapter make for some nice close focus work.

Oh and I love the size of these small digitals. I have a small sling bag and it holds the 5n and GXR, both viewfinders, a Leica M7, 5 lenses and film.

 

[douglasf13]

Just to make a counter point, I am able to focus the 5N as fast as any rangefinder, but I've been using focus peaking since a firmware update to the NEX-5 last summer, so I've had practice. Focus peaking is not something you can pick up and be perfect at. Like a rangefinder, it takes practice. Add a leather half case to the 5N and it pretty much negates any differences in feel and adds bulk to the grip.

As far as better resolution, there is a difference between the 5N and GXR in the corners with wide rangefinder lenses, but it isn't bad. In the center of the frame, it's close, but we should remember that removing an AA filter doesn't increase resolution. To quote Joakim, who works in the industry, on another forum:


"...RESOLUTION can never go up by getting rid of the AA filters. In fact it often goes DOWN in the purely factual sense when looking at a stitistical "average" scene - due to a larger number of situations where the interpolation fails to get the missing two colours per pixel right.

What you DO get is a higher contrast at the frequencies close to Nyquist, which can be mistaken for "higher resolution", especially since the main "benefit" you get from it is a very much stronger luma+chroma noise at the pixel level (100% Nyquist) in the interpolation stage of the raw conversion. It's quite easy to add a light sprinkle of "perfect" noise to a normal [with aa filter] image - most people will see that as "increased detail". "

 

[2tcreative]

Sober note: Some of us are still happily using 10-year-old digital cameras.

I guess it depends on what you have to have to keep you happy.

My antique Olly E-1 is still capable of producing better images than I can.

.

+1. Most cameras are capable of more then we can produce. I like to know what features my camera has and I want it to not impede me operationally, but we seem to have lost the meaning of why we make/take pictures. If we are only trying to produce the technically perfect image from a technically imperfect instrument we are going to be frustrated.

On the other hand, if we want to touch the heart with an image, though technically far from perfect, visually it conveys the message and more than we intend, then what does it matter if we do it with a plastic throw away camera or a multi-thousand dollar piece of jewelry around our neck!?

Let's make images that sing! Let's make images that talk to the heart, not just the head!

HCB was my hero! He could do it with something that none of us would touch given today's technically advanced photographic implements. Absolutely could do it and they may have been soft and even out of focus, but they moved me.

 

[YYV_146]

Speaking as an almost exclusive NEX user, I think Sony pretty much nailed everything, including the price point for the current crop of E mount bodies. I can focus my NEX7 as fast as most autofocus systems, with a lens of shorter focus throw, sports and street are not at all inaccessible. There is a learning curve, but Sony's focusing aid and operations are mostly intuitive.

In digital it's all about the processing. Jpegs are fine for quick work, but to do a full darkroom-style retouching one needs to learn how to use Lightroom (and Photoshop, to a lesser extent). Various third party filter plugins will help. I use Silver EFEX a lot, color EFEX for quick color tuning, portraiture for skin smoothing and sharpening/tonal contrast plugins. It can be tedious at times, but quite rewarding.

 

[Godfrey]

The problem here is, and it's just a digital trait, the lack of tonal range. No real whites or black, but a lot of gray. If you can live w/ that, or if you primarily shoot color, then you're good to go. I also found that my printed B&W digital files ended up looking even flatter (in tonal range) than they did on my monitor.

I don't know. I see plenty of whites and blacks in the OP's photos, and certainly in my own. And the prints look better than what I see on the screen.

Sounds to me like you need to work a little harder on your rendering and printing workflows. The latter might need a better printer with better inks and/or a more appropriate paper choice.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Sober note: Some of us are still happily using 10-year-old digital cameras.

I guess it depends on what you have to have to keep you happy.

My antique Olly E-1 is still capable of producing better images than I can.

.

The E-1 is a superb camera. I still have and use mine too. Mine was manufactured in October 2003 ... antediluvian in digital camera terms.

G

Olympus E-1 + ZD 50mm f/2 Macro
ISO 100 @ f/4 @ 1/500 second ​

 

[Godfrey]

seconded.

If you like rangefinders and want to go with a cheap digital, get the Ricoh GXR with the M Mount Module. It is much nicer to use than the 5N (and I had both, just ebayed the 5N with EVF).

the Ricoh feels nicer, is a bit bigger, has better resolution (despite having less nominal megapixels) and has a more clever approach to focusing aids.

I've been working with the GXR-M since it came out. It is indeed an excellent camera, and the most compatible with the widest range of short-focal-length M-bayonet lenses (it does even better than the M8/M9 with some). It has a plethora of customization options and is truly a high quality piece.

That said, I'd like to supplement it with another TTL electronic body. The NEX 6 appeals due to the same format, its sensor, and the built-in EVF is convenient (that's the only beef I have with clip-on EVFs ... they're not as convenient) as well as later generation EVF technology than the Ricoh EVF. I haven't shot with the NEX 6 yet, although I've played with one at the store. For manual lens use, it doesn't seem much more responsive than the GXR, which is one of my few beefs with the GXR.

But I'm also looking at the new Olympus Pen E-P5. Form factor is closer to the GXR, the new VF-4 is better than any other EVF I've seen, and it adds two other things that are very useful: 5-axis image stabilization and the best ultrasonic automatic sensor cleaning in the industry. The format's a little smaller, so I'll need one step wider lens for it (21mm is perfect for my wide on APS-C, I'll need a 15-18mm for the E-P5). The question mark circles around the sensor—does it perform with M-bayonet lenses as well as the Sony? or GXR?—and whether it's too close in type to the GXR.

One advantage to the Olympus is that I like to work square format a lot of the time. With a 16Mpixel APS-C camera, that means I lose 33% of the pixel resolution, netting about 10.5 Mpixels. With a 16Mpixel FourThirds format camera, I lost a little less than 25%, so that nets me 12 Mpixels.

Not a huge difference, but some.

G

 

[2tcreative]

Always glad to help craygc.

It's just my take on things. Digital is extremely seductive. Free film, so to speak. No labs to deal with, no developing, etc. Yet it comes w/ a price (what doesn't). For some the trade offs are worth it, for some they aren't.

A lot just depends on what your photographic goals are. I love black and white, and for me the gold standard is what once was, not what now is. Film gives me the black and white look that I like, although at this stage of my life I realize it's really about the shot, not the medium. My perspective isn't that of a purist. Different tools for different needs. It's like comparing a photograveure print to a mezzotint.

http://julieniskanen.com/mezzotint.html

The mezzotint is a real PITA to make. Endless rocking of the plate w/ a rocker tool, lots of time spent fixing mistakes, doing proofs, sore wrists, etc. But you get blacks that are incredible. You can't get them any other way, so the trouble is worth it.

If anyone prints their own images you should try this.

I print using an Epson R2400. Yes, I know it is old and there surely must be better out there, but it has been paid for now for sometime!

I print my black and white on Arches hot press 140lb paper. If you haven't tried this you will be amazed at the tones you can achieve. It almost looks like a paladium print to me.