Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Peter,
I could not agree with you more, if you have narrowed or refined your photographic goals to a specific area and the rangefinder is the best tool for your goals then you would have no need for a slr or any other type of equipment other than a beautiful elegant rangefinder of your choice. I am happy for you, but my goals are not your goals and vice versa. I happen to like making pictures of all types, be it landscape, people street photos, formal portraits, contact prints from large format, or fruit flies mating and I have yet to find a single camera type and/or lens that does all of my interests. Therefore, I have many (too many) types of cameras, but so what? It really does not matter what I or you choose to use as long as we enjoy what we have and what we do.
Life is too short to agrue with our keyboards as to what type of metal, glass, and plastic we use to put between our mind's vision and the "real world" to create our end result.
By the way, I wouldn't really be caught dead on a golf course.
Wayne
S
Stu :)
Guest
Back to subject at hand...
...I don't own a 35mm SLR. Had the full professional Canon EOS kit with "all" the lenses. Then one day I got my hands on a Canonet, instant convert. Light, quick to focus, inconspicuous and smallish (compared to my EOS 5 with 50mm). Did some research and I'm now packing a Bessa R with several lenses. The kit fits a small-medium Crumpler bag, with gobs of room left over. Where as the EOS kit got carted around in either a big aluminium case or in a largish Lowpro backpack.
However... I still own and heavily use my Hasselblad (6x6 SLR). But that camera has a purpose, same with the Sinar 4x5 and the Toyo 8x10. I wouldn't go out start doing holiday snap-shot photography with my 8x10 or use the Bessa R for architectural work (yet...).
Only problem I can think of with 35mm RF is the lack of realistic and/or easy macro work. But if I really _want_ to shoot some close up work, I'll use my 'blad or Sinar and get a better resolution. I don't miss macro on 35mm. Other than that, it does pretty much the same job as the EOS did.
Stu
...I don't own a 35mm SLR. Had the full professional Canon EOS kit with "all" the lenses. Then one day I got my hands on a Canonet, instant convert. Light, quick to focus, inconspicuous and smallish (compared to my EOS 5 with 50mm). Did some research and I'm now packing a Bessa R with several lenses. The kit fits a small-medium Crumpler bag, with gobs of room left over. Where as the EOS kit got carted around in either a big aluminium case or in a largish Lowpro backpack.
However... I still own and heavily use my Hasselblad (6x6 SLR). But that camera has a purpose, same with the Sinar 4x5 and the Toyo 8x10. I wouldn't go out start doing holiday snap-shot photography with my 8x10 or use the Bessa R for architectural work (yet...).
Only problem I can think of with 35mm RF is the lack of realistic and/or easy macro work. But if I really _want_ to shoot some close up work, I'll use my 'blad or Sinar and get a better resolution. I don't miss macro on 35mm. Other than that, it does pretty much the same job as the EOS did.
Stu
K
konpikoulas
Guest
First one "sees" the photograph. Then one takes it using a camera that will convert the "seeing" into the final print. That's all.
I do own two Pentaxes SLRs with lenses, but I feel better with my mamiya 7ii in my hands.
I do own two Pentaxes SLRs with lenses, but I feel better with my mamiya 7ii in my hands.
TWO dozen Pentaxes?? That makes me feel better, not so embarassed to admit to one dozen! We must be fond of Pentaxes.
Ah, oops, I don't know how I "saw" you use the word "dozen"! TWO Pentaxes should be sufficient for most!
Russ
Well-known
I too have many SLR bodies, and a couple dozen lenses that I would never give up. But man, it's so free and liberating to wander the streets with one of the rangefinder's!
KK
KK
JohnL
Very confused
I don’t own an SLR right now, or even a ‘proper’ rangefinder.
I was given my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Box, in the early 50s, when I was about ten. I think it was so I would keep my fingers off my father’s Leica, probably a IIIf. He later traded it for a Bolex 8mm cine camera. A few years later, my grandfather gave me his 1936 Rolleiflex which had not had a film through it for maybe twenty years. This was an excellent camera. When I was at college in the early 60s, I bought myself a very used, but still functioning Leica that was even older than the Rollei. It must have been one of the first Leicas with interchangeable lenses. It had an uncoated 50mm, f/3.5. It was not quite as sharp as the Rollei (more magnification, less contrast), but it was a lot easier to carry.
I bought my first new camera, a Canon Pellix, in 1966. This was also an excellent camera. It made no more noise than a rangefinder, with its fixed mirror. About 1971, I traded the Rollei, the Leica and the Canon in part payment for a Rollei 6x6 SLR, with three lenses. This was an outstanding camera, but I took fewer pictures than before, because of its bulk and weight and film cost, so for general use I got myself an Olympus half-frame viewfinder camera. Given its limitations, this was very good. Later I sold the Rollei and bought an Olympus OM1. Over a number of years I added to this system and ended up with three bodies culminating in an OM2N and several lenses. This was a good system, but not, for me, as good as the Canon SLR I owned earlier. The whole system, except for one camera and lens that I had on me, was stolen in Buzios (near Rio) in the 80s from a friend’s car. Buzios is a beach resort that became notorious in the 60s on account of Brigitte Bardot, who spent time there, we are told, some of which without her bathing suit.
I collected the insurance (what there was), sold the surviving camera, and replaced it with a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses. This was a nice little system that was eventually stolen from a (non-camera) bag while in custody of the bellhop at a New York hotel. I only found out after we arrived at our destination. It was not insured. Over the years I also owned a Nikonos and a Nikonos II at different times. I used them while sailing, not for diving. My son used the earlier one for diving, and eventually inherited it. A while later, I bought a Canon Sureshot Z115 point-and-shoot. Taking this to the UK, my father liked it, so I gave it to him. Back in the US, I bought myself a Canon Sureshot Z135.
My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica which I bought about 1997. It had 0.3MP resolution and recorded the images directly to a floppy disk. In retrospect, it was pretty clunky. Later, I got a Canon Powershot S20 with 3.3MP and a 2x optical zoom. This was a very good camera within its limitations. It got me into photography again, and digital photography in particular. Last year, I bought a Canon Powershot G5, which is what I have now. I am very pleased with this camera. Print quality is close to the best I could get with 35mm. At times I use it like a rangefinder, fully manual, sometimes more like an SLR, mostly in aperture priority, and sometimes fully auto.
So now I’m truly hooked again, where do I go from here? I am considering three options, all of which would be as well as, not instead of, the G5:
1 Canon Pro1 – this is the new compact digital from Canon: 8MP and zooms 28 to 200mm EFL. Won’t replace the G5, though, because it doesn’t have an optical viewfinder. Would use the same flash as the G5. According to situation, I’d carry either or both.
2 SLR – would have to be film, since I can’t justify getting anything digital with a full-frame sensor – cost is too high. Could add some versatility over the Pro1, if I ever get so much gear. And would I carry it?
3 RF – maybe the Bessa R2. There is no such thing yet as a digital RF with a full-frame sensor, and it would cost too much if there was. The R2 is not too big and would add versatility at the very wide-angle end, but how much would I use that? Ergonomics are better too.
Both the film-based options have a (slightly) lower initial cost than the Pro1, but would cost more long-term, with extra filters, lenses etc., not to mention the cost of film and processing, and time required for scanning.
I'd be happy to hear your expert (but not too partisan) considerations!
John
I was given my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Box, in the early 50s, when I was about ten. I think it was so I would keep my fingers off my father’s Leica, probably a IIIf. He later traded it for a Bolex 8mm cine camera. A few years later, my grandfather gave me his 1936 Rolleiflex which had not had a film through it for maybe twenty years. This was an excellent camera. When I was at college in the early 60s, I bought myself a very used, but still functioning Leica that was even older than the Rollei. It must have been one of the first Leicas with interchangeable lenses. It had an uncoated 50mm, f/3.5. It was not quite as sharp as the Rollei (more magnification, less contrast), but it was a lot easier to carry.
I bought my first new camera, a Canon Pellix, in 1966. This was also an excellent camera. It made no more noise than a rangefinder, with its fixed mirror. About 1971, I traded the Rollei, the Leica and the Canon in part payment for a Rollei 6x6 SLR, with three lenses. This was an outstanding camera, but I took fewer pictures than before, because of its bulk and weight and film cost, so for general use I got myself an Olympus half-frame viewfinder camera. Given its limitations, this was very good. Later I sold the Rollei and bought an Olympus OM1. Over a number of years I added to this system and ended up with three bodies culminating in an OM2N and several lenses. This was a good system, but not, for me, as good as the Canon SLR I owned earlier. The whole system, except for one camera and lens that I had on me, was stolen in Buzios (near Rio) in the 80s from a friend’s car. Buzios is a beach resort that became notorious in the 60s on account of Brigitte Bardot, who spent time there, we are told, some of which without her bathing suit.
I collected the insurance (what there was), sold the surviving camera, and replaced it with a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses. This was a nice little system that was eventually stolen from a (non-camera) bag while in custody of the bellhop at a New York hotel. I only found out after we arrived at our destination. It was not insured. Over the years I also owned a Nikonos and a Nikonos II at different times. I used them while sailing, not for diving. My son used the earlier one for diving, and eventually inherited it. A while later, I bought a Canon Sureshot Z115 point-and-shoot. Taking this to the UK, my father liked it, so I gave it to him. Back in the US, I bought myself a Canon Sureshot Z135.
My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica which I bought about 1997. It had 0.3MP resolution and recorded the images directly to a floppy disk. In retrospect, it was pretty clunky. Later, I got a Canon Powershot S20 with 3.3MP and a 2x optical zoom. This was a very good camera within its limitations. It got me into photography again, and digital photography in particular. Last year, I bought a Canon Powershot G5, which is what I have now. I am very pleased with this camera. Print quality is close to the best I could get with 35mm. At times I use it like a rangefinder, fully manual, sometimes more like an SLR, mostly in aperture priority, and sometimes fully auto.
So now I’m truly hooked again, where do I go from here? I am considering three options, all of which would be as well as, not instead of, the G5:
1 Canon Pro1 – this is the new compact digital from Canon: 8MP and zooms 28 to 200mm EFL. Won’t replace the G5, though, because it doesn’t have an optical viewfinder. Would use the same flash as the G5. According to situation, I’d carry either or both.
2 SLR – would have to be film, since I can’t justify getting anything digital with a full-frame sensor – cost is too high. Could add some versatility over the Pro1, if I ever get so much gear. And would I carry it?
3 RF – maybe the Bessa R2. There is no such thing yet as a digital RF with a full-frame sensor, and it would cost too much if there was. The R2 is not too big and would add versatility at the very wide-angle end, but how much would I use that? Ergonomics are better too.
Both the film-based options have a (slightly) lower initial cost than the Pro1, but would cost more long-term, with extra filters, lenses etc., not to mention the cost of film and processing, and time required for scanning.
I'd be happy to hear your expert (but not too partisan) considerations!
John
Last edited:
Hi John -- You have such an extensive history of various camera types that I'm sure you'll have a much better idea of what you'll enjoy and use than I! You could approach the question by considering what sort of photos you'd like to be taking that aren't so easy or convenient with the gear you have. Then shop for something to fit that role. Or just whatever appeals to you the most!
GeneW
Veteran
JohnL said:
John, you're an old hand with gear so you'll likely come to your own best resolution on this. But I'll add my $0.02.
1. The Pro1 is not a huge step up from the G5. For the price you could get a DSLR with kit lens. I went from a Canon G2 to a Digital Rebel and was astonished at the quality jump. I'm not brand loyal and if the Nikon D70 had been available, I might have gone that way. With digital, the *key* attribute is the size of the sensor, IMO. The larger the sensor the cleaner the image. You don't need to wait for full-frame DSLRs. The APS size sensors of the DR and the D70 will deliver enlargements that will challenge anything you can do with 35mm.
2. SLR's are good and relatively inexpensive to get into. But to get the most of them, digitally, you need a top-end scanner. And scanning is a drag. I do a lot of scanning and like the results, but don't like the the time it takes. This one is a toss-up.
3. RF. Well obviously I like RF's or I wouldn't be here
I get more use out of my RF's than I do my film SLR's simply because they fill a niche that neither SLR nor Digital currently reaches. They're small, fast to work with, pack great lenses, and they're fun to drive ... You still have the scanning issues for digital of course, so for 2 out of 3 of your options, a scanner may be a complementary purchase.
I recently moved up to a Minolta 5400 and can recommend it as a very excellent scanning machine ...
Gene
JohnL
Very confused
Thanks, Doug. You are right, of course, I know. I'm really just fishing for thoughts that might not have occurred to me!
John
John
JohnL
Very confused
Thanks, Gene.
I just ordered a scanner because I want to recover some of my better old photos on film. I'll be away for a month or so shortly so this project will be starting only in June.
Pro1 vs G5: Not a huge step up, I agree, but I see them as complementary, and the Pro1 should cover most of what I would want out of an SLR. The step from 5MP to 8MP is significant, but not huge. The greater zoom range is also a factor. I'd keep the G5 as my "carry-everywhere". I'm not really brand-loyal either, but at least between the G5 and Pro1 I'll have compatible flash, memory and software. This the way I'm tending for the next step right now.
As to a digital SLR, if I ever do get one, I'm thinking I'll wait (maybe three years?) until full-frame sensors become affordable. Then the lenses will be the focal length they say they are and we'll be using all their covering power. Same for digital RF. I like these too, but don't have one right now, and not sure if there is one in my immediate future! I tend to use the G5 a lot like an RF.
You are right entirely about the current sensors being on a par with 35mm. The full-size sensors with 11+MP are nearer to 6x7. Even the G5 pushes 35mm pretty close, so long as you keep the ISO down.
I certainly take your point about scanning being a drag. I have over 10,000 old negatives and slides, and I plan to organize them all, but only scan a few hundred. To attempt more would be crazy.
John
I just ordered a scanner because I want to recover some of my better old photos on film. I'll be away for a month or so shortly so this project will be starting only in June.
Pro1 vs G5: Not a huge step up, I agree, but I see them as complementary, and the Pro1 should cover most of what I would want out of an SLR. The step from 5MP to 8MP is significant, but not huge. The greater zoom range is also a factor. I'd keep the G5 as my "carry-everywhere". I'm not really brand-loyal either, but at least between the G5 and Pro1 I'll have compatible flash, memory and software. This the way I'm tending for the next step right now.
As to a digital SLR, if I ever do get one, I'm thinking I'll wait (maybe three years?) until full-frame sensors become affordable. Then the lenses will be the focal length they say they are and we'll be using all their covering power. Same for digital RF. I like these too, but don't have one right now, and not sure if there is one in my immediate future! I tend to use the G5 a lot like an RF.
You are right entirely about the current sensors being on a par with 35mm. The full-size sensors with 11+MP are nearer to 6x7. Even the G5 pushes 35mm pretty close, so long as you keep the ISO down.
I certainly take your point about scanning being a drag. I have over 10,000 old negatives and slides, and I plan to organize them all, but only scan a few hundred. To attempt more would be crazy.
John
JohnL
Very confused
Well, Gene, I've thought a lot about what you said and reviewed just about every review I can find. I finally summoned up the courage and ordered a 10D with a couple of lenses. This has the same size sensor as the Rebel, I think, and one or two additional features that attracted me.
Once again, thanks for your wisdom. I'll be keeping my G5 as my "rangefinder" and carry-everywhere camera.
John
Once again, thanks for your wisdom. I'll be keeping my G5 as my "rangefinder" and carry-everywhere camera.
John
GeneW
Veteran
John, congratulations on your purchase! The 10D and the 300D share the same sensor but the 10D has a much nicer feature set overall. The APS-size sensors produce astonishing image quality. I think you're going to be a very happy camper!
Gene
Gene
L
lars
Guest
On a very vaguely related note, I have also taken a step into the digital camp. I've been very busy lately so no time for b/w developing scanning, which is why I haven't posted anything here for a while. In an attempt to stave off my urge to go into debt to buy the Minolta DSLR when it debuts this fall and to enable me to more easily keep up with my PAW project, I bought a Minolta A1 digicam.
Pretty good ergonomics (ie: mechanical zoom ring, dedicated dials for f-stop and shutter) but anything over iso 200 is noisy. I am hoping this will keep my occupied long enough for the Minolta DSLR to debut, get the bugs worked out, and then come down in price. So basically, the A1 must keep me satisfied for about 2 yrs at a minimum.
My film cameras are much faster to use but it's nice to be able to shoot colour under a variety of lighting conditions without worrying about colour balance.
...lars
Pretty good ergonomics (ie: mechanical zoom ring, dedicated dials for f-stop and shutter) but anything over iso 200 is noisy. I am hoping this will keep my occupied long enough for the Minolta DSLR to debut, get the bugs worked out, and then come down in price. So basically, the A1 must keep me satisfied for about 2 yrs at a minimum.
My film cameras are much faster to use but it's nice to be able to shoot colour under a variety of lighting conditions without worrying about colour balance.
...lars