film and rangefinders alive and healthy!!

DanOnRoute66 said:
So you're surveying film users or otherwise have access to data that show "most of their film is lost with bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on ..."? As far as "detail that is provided in a typical raw file," film STILL has higher resolution than digital (although I expect that digital will overtake film at some point, perhaps soon).
Click to expand...

It may have a higher resolution but there is not anyway near the amount of detail, and before anyone starts saying my 5x4 has more detail than a DSLR, I'm talking about DSLR v 35mm.
 
emraphoto said:
You didn't offer any perspective. In short you dismissed a whole group of people with an air of superiority. Normally I wouldn't concern myself with it but in this instance it must be challenged. Current and prospective participants in this forum deserve it.

I have long maintained a commitment of positive contribution to this forum and it's membership and this is entirely out of character but... The notion that 'different' somehow amounts to 'less legitimate' is childish.
Click to expand...

Regarding the bold part. Maybe he does not know better.... that can only be done with people who use DSLRs, Holgas, Lomos and FSU gear here. Maybe this should be added to the rules of RFF*

* Maybe it is already there but I have not read them.....
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
So, why don't RF makers fix this by doing retrofocus designs? The RF lenses are sharper and have better bokeh in the non-retrofocus designs.
Click to expand...

Regarding your statement about bokeh, I'm not sure whether there is any connection between out-of-focus areas and non-retrofocus construction, (and the wider we get the less of a criterion it becomes).

And actually there are a lot of retrofocus wideangles in the RF world. In fact practically everything shorter than 28mm that has been produced over the last 25 years is a retrofocus construction. In that sense your statement reflects 1970's wisdom, but we have come a long way construction-wise since then. For 21mm lenses, compare light falloff from a Super Angulon 21/3.4 and either a Voigtländer 21/f4 or a Leica 21/f1.4 (top and bottom end) and it'll be obvious which of those is the non-retrofocus lens with cos^4 falloff. For a 12mm or 15mm lens it's pretty obvious if you take a look at the lens and then remember that the flange of a screw mount lens sits at 28.8mm from the film plane. Those simply have to be retrofocus constructions - if a 12mm lens was a symmetric construction, the front lens would sit inside the camera body, Hologon-style.
 
This entire thread got off course (though what do you expect) when someone decided there was something wrong with being cool.

What's wrong with it? I love it. Give me all those Japanese kids with their crazy film cameras and far-out lenses and stickers on them and woven straps.

Makes the world a more lovely place.

Maybe folks just want to use something because they want to.
 
Roger Hicks said:
ebino said:
But that's not the case, cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras are hot because they look cool and make their user feel pretty smug since they're doing everything manual and so on, while in fact most of their film is lost with bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on...
Click to expand...

Ebino's rant was weird. I doubt many Leica users give a toss about being 'cool', and maybe he's bored, but I'm not. Nor do I lose most of my film is lost to bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on. Again, speak for yourself, sunshine.
Click to expand...

I guess he isn't really speaking about photographers who have been use Leicas (does he use the name?) since the 1970s, but about young people who buy mechanical cameras older than themselves as fashion items, because they're "hip" and "retro". You can't really deny that at the moment there is a subculture where mechanical cameras are items of conspicuous consumption. And I'm convinced that there's a fair number of Leica users who do give a toss about being 'cool'.

Or if not 'cool', then at least 'authentic', because that's cool, too, at least at the moment. Authenticity has been a lifestyle trend for the last five to ten years. It doesn't concern only cameras. For example, in Germany this telephone is available for 239 EUR new. I have a friend who collects and refurbishes old telephones, and I've been a witness several times that people under 30 came in and told him what 'cool' telephones he had.

So, Leicas or Ebino's "cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras" (are you talking about the same?) are cases of 'cool' with the right audience. Even if you're not part of them, and even if he's overgeneralizing, these people definitely exist. I'm pretty sure there are some here at RFF, and maybe even at Arles.
 
rxmd said:
I guess he isn't really speaking about photographers who have been use Leicas (does he use the name?) since the 1970s, but about young people who buy mechanical cameras older than themselves as fashion items, because they're "hip" and "retro". You can't really deny that at the moment there is a subculture where mechanical cameras are items of conspicuous consumption. And I'm convinced that there's a fair number of Leica users who do give a toss about being 'cool'.

Or if not 'cool', then at least 'authentic', because that's cool, too, at least at the moment. Authenticity has been a lifestyle trend for the last five to ten years. It doesn't concern only cameras. For example, in Germany this telephone is available for 239 EUR new. I have a friend who collects and refurbishes old telephones, and I've been a witness several times that people under 30 came in and told him what 'cool' telephones he had.

So, Leicas or Ebino's "cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras" (are you talking about the same?) are cases of 'cool' with the right audience. Even if you're not part of them, and even if he's overgeneralizing, these people definitely exist. I'm pretty sure there are some here at RFF, and maybe even at Arles.
Click to expand...

Of course you're right, but wow! What a generalization on his part! I apologize for taking the bait and oversimplifying almost as much.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'm just happy to now know that when I go out with my black R4M wearing the great big 35/1.2, all the cool kids are jealous. ;)

The M2 with the 90/4 Elmar extended with its hood ought to score even more points. Looks like something from a cheap 1950's sci-fi flick.
 
The fact of the matter is, the old AF film SLRs may still have a place...but many people (myself included) shoot old cameras for the superior user experience.

Who wants something that operates just like a DSLR except more expensive and with smaller capacity to take photos? Not me! I own two AF film SLRs, they are both Pentax and I shoot them least of all of my cameras. Even my auto-everything point and shoots go out more often.
 
ebino said:
Here is what I think. The rush for RF and other classic film cameras has to do with boredom. If these people were really serious about film, most AF SLRs wouldn't be selling dirt cheap. I mean you can buy a Yashica GSN and a Nikon N80 for the same price! That tells me its not about film or photography, its just another cool trend.
Click to expand...


I dunno, I think a lot of people want a smaller, less conspicuous camera than an slr to take pics, but they want something more than a compact digital.
 
unixrevolution said:
The fact of the matter is, the old AF film SLRs may still have a place...but many people (myself included) shoot old cameras for the superior user experience.

Who wants something that operates just like a DSLR except more expensive and with smaller capacity to take photos? Not me! I own two AF film SLRs, they are both Pentax and I shoot them least of all of my cameras. Even my auto-everything point and shoots go out more often.
Click to expand...

I think you get a far better user experience with an F4 than an F, maybe its a generational thing, when I was a teenager and would look in the camera shop window at the new Nikon F4 for £1800 and know I couldn't afford one but now you can pick them up for £100 for a bit of nostalgia. But I still wouldn't use a film camera for anything serious (no offence to anyone that does).
 
Soothsayerman hit the nail on the head. When shooting for myself, I don't want to drag an SLR around all day, but I want to be more involved with the act of photographing than what I experience with a typical compact digicam. The M6 is a perfect package for this problem, for me. Plus, no shutter delay or burnt highlights. AND...I can get lots of megapixels if I scan for them.

The downside...time and involvement. But...I'm not interested in photography because it's easy.
 
David_Manning said:
Soothsayerman hit the nail on the head. When shooting for myself, I don't want to drag an SLR around all day, but I want to be more involved with the act of photographing than what I experience with a typical compact digicam. The M6 is a perfect package for this problem, for me. Plus, no shutter delay or burnt highlights. AND...I can get lots of megapixels if I scan for them.

The downside...time and involvement. But...I'm not interested in photography because it's easy.
Click to expand...

a hearty cheers!! when it gets easy i am done.
 
I was at the Long Beach Marathon last week, and I saw loads and loads of DSLRs. I couldn't spot a film camera anywhere. Just phones, point and shoots, mid-sized point and shoots, and a bunch of large lensed DLSRs. One interesting thing of note however, is that some photographers were set up on parts of the route (I ran the 5k) and snapped photos - Lo an behold a week later I get an email with photos of me in it. However, I'm not going to pay $15 for a digital photo of me.

Conversely, I had an awkward situation yesterday. I was walking through Old Towne Orange with my Autocord around my neck, and spotted a young man with a a DSLR set up for some reason. He saw my TLR, but his glance seemed strange. I might've wanted to start a conversation but this threw me for a loop and my reaction might've seemed odd as well. It was bizarre.
 
Its so easy using digital cameras, its not real photography if you don't shoot film:D
There seems to be a bit of a back lash on this forum against anything digital maybe it should be Rangefinderonlyfilmforum.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom