gs363
Newbie
Does it make sense to buy a film RF (say a Bessa R3A or a MF one) in the digital age? I'd want to use a scanner and work with Photoshop. Is scanning a pain? I'd use the RF with a 75mm or 90mm mostly for low-light portraiture.
I'd get a DSLR if they weren't so ugly. (I use a Ricoh GRD, which I like, but its 28mm lens far too wide for portraits.)
I'd get a DSLR if they weren't so ugly. (I use a Ricoh GRD, which I like, but its 28mm lens far too wide for portraits.)
haagen_dazs
Well-known
there are going to be alot of reasons
scanning may seem a pain but once you have sort of a workflow in process, it isnt that bad. it may take more time for you to scan individual images eg 20 frames VS loading thousands of images via a fast USB 2 drive
BUT
the number of images to be scanned are far fewer. time has already been taken out initially to properly compose and make the shots... so at the end of the day, its pretty much equal imo
=) welcome to RFF
scanning may seem a pain but once you have sort of a workflow in process, it isnt that bad. it may take more time for you to scan individual images eg 20 frames VS loading thousands of images via a fast USB 2 drive
BUT
the number of images to be scanned are far fewer. time has already been taken out initially to properly compose and make the shots... so at the end of the day, its pretty much equal imo
=) welcome to RFF
Ducky
Well-known
No, no sense at all. That's the beauty of it, IMHO. There are some nice digitals in the small, compact sizes of RF but there is a special feel to shooting RF. If I could explain it, it would not be there any longer. I take less photos, better thought out photos, and when I do shoot digital I think I do a better job.
Scanning is not a problem and, as haagen_dazs mentioned, you only scan and work with the ones you want. preselection is done off the computer.
Shoot 36 on film or 360 on digital-seems clear to me.
George
Avotius
Some guy
scanning isnt as bad as it could be, for the post part the biggest problem is getting all that film developed. Frankly I bought a canon 20d, then got two kodak 3a's, two yashica gsn's, a bessa r2a, a minolta x700, and some other stuff im sure im missing. Either way its all good, I love film cameras, they are so cheap and fun.
JonR
Well-known
In my mind you should not make this a question of RF and FILM vs DIGITAL since if you try that you will allways be searching for reasons and asking yourself if it makes sense. To me it is really two different ways of expressing your photo hobby. I use digital heavily with a Nikon D80 and Photoshop Elements and it is a great way of combining my photo hobby with todays digital world. I also continue to use my older Nikon Film SLR´s and I have recently added Rangefinders to the palette also with the cheaper Yashica Electros and a Nikon S2. Why - simply because I love those cameras, it gives me pleasure to use them and see what results I can get! I have stopped comparing my S2 or Yashica Electro 35 CC with my D80 + VR & AF-S-lenses.
So - long and short.... don´t try to logically argue. If you want a RF get one and enjoy that angel of photographing. You will have fun and you will become a better photographer. There are many good to choose from in all price ranges so just go for it!
Practically what I do is that I send the films to a lab for processing including scanning. It is a little bit more expensive than scanning myself but instead you get it done quickly and in a consistent way.
Jon
So - long and short.... don´t try to logically argue. If you want a RF get one and enjoy that angel of photographing. You will have fun and you will become a better photographer. There are many good to choose from in all price ranges so just go for it!
Practically what I do is that I send the films to a lab for processing including scanning. It is a little bit more expensive than scanning myself but instead you get it done quickly and in a consistent way.
Jon
GeneW
Veteran
The only thing that bids me pause is your desire to shoot in the 75-90mm range for 'low-light portraiture'. Can be done, certainly, but fast lenses in this range for RF's are quite pricey, compared to the cost of film SLR lenses in this range. If f/2.5 is fast enough for your needs, then the CV 75/2.5 is a reasonably priced lens.
Gene
Gene
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
If you truly want to experience the sheer joy of photographing with a rangefinder then there is simply no digital camera made that fulfills this.
My (strongly negative) opinion of the M8 has been voiced here in the past and I no longer stir that hornet's nest, and while I am fond of the R-D1, it too represents too much of a compromise.
The strongest appeal of a RF camera is being able to use wide angle lenses.
Also being able to trust the FOV of your lenses; knowing that DOF is going to work for you (ie., I don't want the depth of field of a 28mm lens when framing a 35mm FOV photograph -- the crop factor makes this impossible to avoid).
Unless and until there is a full-frame digital rangefinder with the discretion of (ie. silence of) an M7 (or even a Hexar RF), the rangefinder experience will always be one of film for me.
My (strongly negative) opinion of the M8 has been voiced here in the past and I no longer stir that hornet's nest, and while I am fond of the R-D1, it too represents too much of a compromise.
The strongest appeal of a RF camera is being able to use wide angle lenses.
Also being able to trust the FOV of your lenses; knowing that DOF is going to work for you (ie., I don't want the depth of field of a 28mm lens when framing a 35mm FOV photograph -- the crop factor makes this impossible to avoid).
Unless and until there is a full-frame digital rangefinder with the discretion of (ie. silence of) an M7 (or even a Hexar RF), the rangefinder experience will always be one of film for me.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I expect you should have no problem getting us to offer some rationalizations for a film RF!
And I'm happy to offer mine:
They are simply fun.
And there are some good reasons for using them as well:
Fairly small size, no VF blackout while you're shooting, film has its own aesthetic appeal(as does film's "work flow") and good BW prints are a thing of beauty, with film there is a wide choice of looks based on the different films you can use.
RF cameras mostly have a mechanical elegance that, in my opinion, most DSLRs lack. Which lends a good tactile experience to their use, I think.
I'm sure there will be more and likely better reasons from other folks here.
Rob
And I'm happy to offer mine:
They are simply fun.
And there are some good reasons for using them as well:
Fairly small size, no VF blackout while you're shooting, film has its own aesthetic appeal(as does film's "work flow") and good BW prints are a thing of beauty, with film there is a wide choice of looks based on the different films you can use.
RF cameras mostly have a mechanical elegance that, in my opinion, most DSLRs lack. Which lends a good tactile experience to their use, I think.
I'm sure there will be more and likely better reasons from other folks here.
Rob
venchka
Veteran
I bought 3 RF bodies last year. Maybe I need help?
paragon
Established
If you want to shoot portraits use an SLR and a tripod
even more so with "low light" work
There are some great Nikon Bodies and Nikon Lenses around at a fraction of the price of Leica RF Stuff
With what you will pay for just an M3 body and "standard" lens you can buy a s/h Nikon SLR a couple of Nikon Lenses plus a DSLR
If you are doing portraits on Film, have it developed, pick the best, (two or three) and then have them professionally printed
RF Cameras? portrait work?
just my views others may differ
even more so with "low light" work
There are some great Nikon Bodies and Nikon Lenses around at a fraction of the price of Leica RF Stuff
With what you will pay for just an M3 body and "standard" lens you can buy a s/h Nikon SLR a couple of Nikon Lenses plus a DSLR
If you are doing portraits on Film, have it developed, pick the best, (two or three) and then have them professionally printed
RF Cameras? portrait work?
just my views others may differ
Last edited:
R
Richard Black
Guest
I must second Bill's point about portraits and r/f cameras. Logically slrs with 85mm-135mm lenses offer a low-cost entre into film photography. Fast lenses abound from all sorts of manufactures. One solution is a 42mm screw mount camera, Pentax, Fujica, and a host of East European and Soviet era cameras, are quite inexpensive and couples with a Jupiter 9, 85mm f2 lens, makes a fantastic portrait lens. One of my favorite pictures of my grandson was taken with this lens. Doubt you would be out much over $125 USD for camera and lens. It is a lot easier to frame a portrait with a slr than an r/f, imo.
Chyn
Established
For me, I think Leica RFs are really quiet and are less obstrusive than even smaller DSLRs. I got into photography by way of digital. I still a Pentax DSLR which really let me explore and experiment in a cost-effective manner. I like taking candids in available light at 35m to 60mm and although I got good at handholding a DSLR, the mirror slap draws too much attention from my subjects. After some research, I got a Leica M2 for its reputedly low shutter noise and handholdability.
So far, I'm very happy with the results that I get from film. I get great shots with a Nokton 40mm at shutter speeds that would have generated unacceptable camera shake. Scanning isn't a real problem, although I have to spend some time cloning away dust. You get to become quite critical in deciding which images you want to save because of the extra work involved in making a presentable web image. Perhaps this helps me become more selective in choosing what to shoot.
So far, I'm very happy with the results that I get from film. I get great shots with a Nokton 40mm at shutter speeds that would have generated unacceptable camera shake. Scanning isn't a real problem, although I have to spend some time cloning away dust. You get to become quite critical in deciding which images you want to save because of the extra work involved in making a presentable web image. Perhaps this helps me become more selective in choosing what to shoot.
mackigator
Well-known
Just go for it. Shooting slide is less scanning work for me than negative film because you can proof and grade your slides on a light box without the pain of "preview" scanning each negative frame, regardless of camera. I think scannig yourself is the only way to go, for creative control and quality reasons.
I also started with digital and moved "back" to film. The catalyst for me was a batch of 40 year old slides that looked better than anything I had ever done with a digital camera. If you are trying to capture something beautiful - i.e. your goals are artistic and you shoot to please yourself - I think you'll be happy with a RF and a scanner. It is more costly than digital and slightly more work (compared to a good RAW workflow). But, oh my, the look of good B&W or slow slide film! I haven't seen those duplicated often by digital, ignoring for the moment all the debates over resolution where film may or may not hold the edge.
The costs of film with a digital conversion are a significant consideration. Camera and lens costs are the first step. Then you'll have $3-5 a roll for the film, $4-5 to develop, and your time + $500 - $1000 for a good scanner. And it's absolutely worth it, IMHO.
I also started with digital and moved "back" to film. The catalyst for me was a batch of 40 year old slides that looked better than anything I had ever done with a digital camera. If you are trying to capture something beautiful - i.e. your goals are artistic and you shoot to please yourself - I think you'll be happy with a RF and a scanner. It is more costly than digital and slightly more work (compared to a good RAW workflow). But, oh my, the look of good B&W or slow slide film! I haven't seen those duplicated often by digital, ignoring for the moment all the debates over resolution where film may or may not hold the edge.
The costs of film with a digital conversion are a significant consideration. Camera and lens costs are the first step. Then you'll have $3-5 a roll for the film, $4-5 to develop, and your time + $500 - $1000 for a good scanner. And it's absolutely worth it, IMHO.
Axel
singleshooter
gs363 said:
Hi,
if it makes sense for you you can only decide if you try yourself I think.
For me, most times, my (D)SLRs are no option for low-light-portraits. Because their mirror-slap disturbes most situations and influences the behaviour of the people around me.
What you need is a quite fast lens for low-light anyway. So a rangefinder comes next.
Scanning is no pain with the right equipment. The advantage of having negatives or slides which don't disappear in the digital nirwana sooner or later is another important point for me.
Regards, Axel
VenturaMan
Newbie
mackigator said:
This is also a major reason to shoot film. I have also scanned slides that I took over 30 years ago.
How many of the digital shots you take today will be around in 40 years?
R
rpsawin
Guest
gs363 said:
If it's a matter of "pretty" look at the Epson RD1 or the Leica M8.
Bob
vicmortelmans
Well-known
'rationalize'....
can we talk about 'emotionalize'?
Groeten,
Vic
can we talk about 'emotionalize'?
Groeten,
Vic
mfogiel
Veteran
Your question has omitted an important element: do you want to shoot colour or b&w?
And it contains a certain contradiction too, you want to make portraits, but in low light only?
To my mind, making portraits involves most of all a certain ability to use the lighting for best effect - you either use the northern window type of light, but then you need static (collaborative) models, or flash one way or another, is indispensable. What counts most, is the possibility to focus accurately and controlling the depth of field helps. This puts an SLR in advantage. If on top of this you want to do it in colour, forget the film altogether.
On the other hand, if you are after a first rate b&w portait, including some ambientation of your subject - i.e. from half body to full body plus part of the room portrait, then a rf is a winning proposition - a Mamiya7 with a 65mm or 80mm lens plus Nikon Coolscan 9000 will probably set you back as much as a Canon 5D with a decent L lens, but the result will be much more rewarding, and even a Bessa R3A with a 75mm Voigtlander lens plus a Coolscan 5000 will be difficult to match in b&w.
The final point is: I have MF cameras, a DSLR and a SLR, but I find myself grabbing a Bessa with a small lens, loaded with XP2, whenever I go out of my home - why?
Because this is the most portable high quality no hassle combo I have, and as the adage goes, the best camera is the one you have next to you when the opportunity comes, so for me now this is the best camera.
And it contains a certain contradiction too, you want to make portraits, but in low light only?
To my mind, making portraits involves most of all a certain ability to use the lighting for best effect - you either use the northern window type of light, but then you need static (collaborative) models, or flash one way or another, is indispensable. What counts most, is the possibility to focus accurately and controlling the depth of field helps. This puts an SLR in advantage. If on top of this you want to do it in colour, forget the film altogether.
On the other hand, if you are after a first rate b&w portait, including some ambientation of your subject - i.e. from half body to full body plus part of the room portrait, then a rf is a winning proposition - a Mamiya7 with a 65mm or 80mm lens plus Nikon Coolscan 9000 will probably set you back as much as a Canon 5D with a decent L lens, but the result will be much more rewarding, and even a Bessa R3A with a 75mm Voigtlander lens plus a Coolscan 5000 will be difficult to match in b&w.
The final point is: I have MF cameras, a DSLR and a SLR, but I find myself grabbing a Bessa with a small lens, loaded with XP2, whenever I go out of my home - why?
Because this is the most portable high quality no hassle combo I have, and as the adage goes, the best camera is the one you have next to you when the opportunity comes, so for me now this is the best camera.
raid
Dad Photographer
It is a personal feeling and not a rational feeling.
I feel that film based photography has a human side to it that do not feel with a digital camera. Maybe it is the history behind the film and its cameras. Maybe it is the choices available to get a specific feel with a certain type of film. It still a personal choice and not a logical or rational one.
Raid
I feel that film based photography has a human side to it that do not feel with a digital camera. Maybe it is the history behind the film and its cameras. Maybe it is the choices available to get a specific feel with a certain type of film. It still a personal choice and not a logical or rational one.
Raid
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Raid,raid said:
I disagree a little with that; I may well be fooling my self but depending on how one defines one's needs and desires about photography I think it's plenty logical to choose a film RF camera.
In my own case it went like this:
I needed a hobby. I had been a photographer in high school and liked it. I didn't have a lot of $ to spend. That led me to FSU medium format. I wanted to get back to 35mm shooting and the good experience I had/have with my Arax 60 led me to FSU 35mm RF cameras. I've wandered a bit from the FSU gear but I still like their price/feature ratio.
Of course, this all may just be my own rationalization!
Rob