strachan007
Newbie
Hi all. I just joined today. I'm trying to make some educated decisions about my camera collection situation and thought you might have some opinions about the following things. I have been spending the last several months investigating different formats of cameras (film dslr, film rangefinder, digital dslr, mirror less, etc). I am a newbie to photography and am interested in primarily developing my visual art skills.
1. I'm coming to the conclusion (but can be easily swayed!) that having a film rangefinder for the artsy stuff and a smartphone for everything else is the optimal solution for me. Does anyone else use this combination and only this combination?
2. The thing I try to minimize is lost capital. Namely, if I buy a used digital camera (which I recently did...the E M1 with a Voigt 25mm f0.95), I am concerned that in two years the re-sale value will have dropped considerably. If I chose to sell the system, I will be out a certain amount of $$. Now, if I had a film based range-finder, say a used Leica M6, the cost would primarily be in film and development, not in too much loss in capital. Then, say I don't shoot for a month, then I'm not losing any money on it. (I don't have a ton of money to forget about, so this type of thing matters to me.) Is this valid?
3. Another reason why I'm shying away from the digital is that my smartphone takes pretty great pictures. And, from my own synthesis of my experience, most of the memory makers with family and friends are just snapshots with whatever. Do you find this to be true?
4. I am just thinking that duplication of technologies is only going to increase the amount of stuff that I have, which I don't really want to do. The smartphone isn't going anywhere...and I get an new one every two years...camera quality is "good enough" for 90% of social functions. Any more thoughts?
This is seriously occupying too much of my time and I haven't really been able to hash this stuff out with people who actually might know what they're talking about, I look forward to reading your opinions. Thanks!
1. I'm coming to the conclusion (but can be easily swayed!) that having a film rangefinder for the artsy stuff and a smartphone for everything else is the optimal solution for me. Does anyone else use this combination and only this combination?
2. The thing I try to minimize is lost capital. Namely, if I buy a used digital camera (which I recently did...the E M1 with a Voigt 25mm f0.95), I am concerned that in two years the re-sale value will have dropped considerably. If I chose to sell the system, I will be out a certain amount of $$. Now, if I had a film based range-finder, say a used Leica M6, the cost would primarily be in film and development, not in too much loss in capital. Then, say I don't shoot for a month, then I'm not losing any money on it. (I don't have a ton of money to forget about, so this type of thing matters to me.) Is this valid?
3. Another reason why I'm shying away from the digital is that my smartphone takes pretty great pictures. And, from my own synthesis of my experience, most of the memory makers with family and friends are just snapshots with whatever. Do you find this to be true?
4. I am just thinking that duplication of technologies is only going to increase the amount of stuff that I have, which I don't really want to do. The smartphone isn't going anywhere...and I get an new one every two years...camera quality is "good enough" for 90% of social functions. Any more thoughts?
This is seriously occupying too much of my time and I haven't really been able to hash this stuff out with people who actually might know what they're talking about, I look forward to reading your opinions. Thanks!
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It depends on what sort of photography you're planning on doing really.
A smartphone might be fine if you do not need much creative control over technique (aside from maybe adding filters after the fact).
But with a proper DSLR, or film SLR, or RF cameras you're going to be able to have much more control over the actual taking of pictures in terms of selecting the shutter speed, controlling depth of field, etc. "Artsy" photos to me implies a situation where the photographer exercises a great deal of control over the creation of the image, rather than say candid/street photography. My choice for "artsy" would be a medium format camera or a 35mm SLR rather than a rangefinder in order to wring out maximum flexibility and image quality from the equipment.
While rangefinders are particular good at some things - when it comes to cost you can build a comprehensive 35mm SLR system for less than one Leica M6 and one Leica lens. So if you want to experiment with wide angle or long lenses, or other various accessories, you can do so for a fraction of the cost with any number of SLR systems. If on the other hand you know you want to work with film and you know you want just a 50mm or just a 35mm lens, then a rangefinder might be exactly what you need.
As for wasting money with digital, everything will lose value. So buy to keep. If you're not planning on reselling it, it doesn't really matter how much value it loses. I still have the Canon Rebel I bought five years ago and I'm sure it is probably only worth about 1/5 what I paid for it, but it is still in use so it doesn't matter.
A smartphone might be fine if you do not need much creative control over technique (aside from maybe adding filters after the fact).
But with a proper DSLR, or film SLR, or RF cameras you're going to be able to have much more control over the actual taking of pictures in terms of selecting the shutter speed, controlling depth of field, etc. "Artsy" photos to me implies a situation where the photographer exercises a great deal of control over the creation of the image, rather than say candid/street photography. My choice for "artsy" would be a medium format camera or a 35mm SLR rather than a rangefinder in order to wring out maximum flexibility and image quality from the equipment.
While rangefinders are particular good at some things - when it comes to cost you can build a comprehensive 35mm SLR system for less than one Leica M6 and one Leica lens. So if you want to experiment with wide angle or long lenses, or other various accessories, you can do so for a fraction of the cost with any number of SLR systems. If on the other hand you know you want to work with film and you know you want just a 50mm or just a 35mm lens, then a rangefinder might be exactly what you need.
As for wasting money with digital, everything will lose value. So buy to keep. If you're not planning on reselling it, it doesn't really matter how much value it loses. I still have the Canon Rebel I bought five years ago and I'm sure it is probably only worth about 1/5 what I paid for it, but it is still in use so it doesn't matter.
strachan007
Newbie
Tunalegs (Hah! Awesome.), thanks for your insights.
Right. How many family/friend memories are "captured" from photos that don't need creativity or technique? This seems to me to be sufficient (and not interruptive) in those environments. I suppose a small rangefinder would do something similar....we used to use that all the time when I was younger...except that my wife thoroughly enjoys posting on Facebook and such. I am slightly averse to using a distinct camera in social environments, since people might be interested in the camera itself....nobody gives a rip about a smartphone....which is nice.
Honestly, I don't really know what I mean when I say "artsy". I probably mean something like picking an object, like my baby daughter's left foot, and exploring its journey though photographs...and trying to learn a lot of visual art stuff in the meantime, like angles, light and filters and what not. Or, more generally, having deliberateness, intention, and understanding of how to construct something visually aesthetically pleasing (landscapes, architecture, people, objects, etcetera). My father in law has a medium format camera I could experiment with, but I'm a little put off by the cost per shot and the size. The SLR really just the size. I am also starting to believe that bringing the camera everywhere can make for interesting and unexpected creative endeavors. As such, portability matters. This suggests that I should get something small that I can put in my satchel (read: large man purse), diaper bag, or jacket pocket (when not in use, other wise I'll sling it indiana jones style). With the MF camera, my father in law and I will probably explore how to shoot landscapes together in Tahoe, since we go there every year...
I have already spent $2K on two lenses and the OMD EM1 and I was thinking that I'd want the 45, 75, and 12, and a macro and...and...ugh. This type of gear acquisition makes me a little nervous about my own self-satisfaction level. I am thinking that a single camera and lens will be much more productive for my learning than a "system". I was thinking of just keeping the body and a single 35 or 50mm lens. But then....
Okay, so this confirms my suspicions. Digital will lose value. Of course, there may be no need to maintain capital since I may own it until it dies. But, despite my intentions to keep things for-e-ver, I have come to know that I am a being with transient interests and finite monetary resources. Re-sale value matters. And for this reason (and perhaps this reason alone), film may be my best bet.
I appreciate your response...it has forced me to attempt further thoughtfulness and articulation. Thanks!
A smartphone might be fine if you do not need much creative control over technique (aside from maybe adding filters after the fact).
Right. How many family/friend memories are "captured" from photos that don't need creativity or technique? This seems to me to be sufficient (and not interruptive) in those environments. I suppose a small rangefinder would do something similar....we used to use that all the time when I was younger...except that my wife thoroughly enjoys posting on Facebook and such. I am slightly averse to using a distinct camera in social environments, since people might be interested in the camera itself....nobody gives a rip about a smartphone....which is nice.
My choice for "artsy" would be a medium format camera or a 35mm SLR rather than a rangefinder in order to wring out maximum flexibility and image quality from the equipment.
Honestly, I don't really know what I mean when I say "artsy". I probably mean something like picking an object, like my baby daughter's left foot, and exploring its journey though photographs...and trying to learn a lot of visual art stuff in the meantime, like angles, light and filters and what not. Or, more generally, having deliberateness, intention, and understanding of how to construct something visually aesthetically pleasing (landscapes, architecture, people, objects, etcetera). My father in law has a medium format camera I could experiment with, but I'm a little put off by the cost per shot and the size. The SLR really just the size. I am also starting to believe that bringing the camera everywhere can make for interesting and unexpected creative endeavors. As such, portability matters. This suggests that I should get something small that I can put in my satchel (read: large man purse), diaper bag, or jacket pocket (when not in use, other wise I'll sling it indiana jones style). With the MF camera, my father in law and I will probably explore how to shoot landscapes together in Tahoe, since we go there every year...
While rangefinders are particular good at some things - when it comes to cost you can build a comprehensive 35mm SLR system for less than one Leica M6 and one Leica lens. So if you want to experiment with wide angle or long lenses, or other various accessories, you can do so for a fraction of the cost with any number of SLR systems. If on the other hand you know you want to work with film and you know you want just a 50mm or just a 35mm lens, then a rangefinder might be exactly what you need.
I have already spent $2K on two lenses and the OMD EM1 and I was thinking that I'd want the 45, 75, and 12, and a macro and...and...ugh. This type of gear acquisition makes me a little nervous about my own self-satisfaction level. I am thinking that a single camera and lens will be much more productive for my learning than a "system". I was thinking of just keeping the body and a single 35 or 50mm lens. But then....
As for wasting money with digital, everything will lose value. So buy to keep. If you're not planning on reselling it, it doesn't really matter how much value it loses. I still have the Canon Rebel I bought five years ago and I'm sure it is probably only worth about 1/5 what I paid for it, but it is still in use so it doesn't matter.
Okay, so this confirms my suspicions. Digital will lose value. Of course, there may be no need to maintain capital since I may own it until it dies. But, despite my intentions to keep things for-e-ver, I have come to know that I am a being with transient interests and finite monetary resources. Re-sale value matters. And for this reason (and perhaps this reason alone), film may be my best bet.
I appreciate your response...it has forced me to attempt further thoughtfulness and articulation. Thanks!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'd love to reply but I've no idea what you mean by artsy, nor why you think some other camera is needed for it. Plus a lot of people turn out artsy pictures with smart phones and digital cameras.
Had you asked about just a plain simple film camera I could write pages about them all from cheapo P&S's to top of the range MF's and at the end of the day you'd be more confused because they all overlap a bit.
And I can't help thinking that borrowing one from your father in law might just be the answer, I just can't see how they cost so much, as you say, but that's based on my experience of MF and taking 12 or 16 carefully planned pictures. (12 or 16 cost a lot less than 24 or 36 from 35mm film btw.)
Have you thought of going through your smartphone pictures and picking out the ones you'd prefer to be taken with film? That might give you a clue as to what direction to take. Say "landscape" or "portrait" as the answer and you'll get the same answer from dozens of us...
BTW 2, I'll agree that most pictures, taken by most people, could be taken on almost any old camera or any brand new gee-whiz one.
Regards, David
PS Get a Leica or any other top of the range camera and lens and need it/them repaired and you'll soon discover how much value they can lose on resale. Get an electronic one and have it fail and you'll discover how few will repair them, making you purchase an expensive door stop or paperweight...
I'd love to reply but I've no idea what you mean by artsy, nor why you think some other camera is needed for it. Plus a lot of people turn out artsy pictures with smart phones and digital cameras.
Had you asked about just a plain simple film camera I could write pages about them all from cheapo P&S's to top of the range MF's and at the end of the day you'd be more confused because they all overlap a bit.
And I can't help thinking that borrowing one from your father in law might just be the answer, I just can't see how they cost so much, as you say, but that's based on my experience of MF and taking 12 or 16 carefully planned pictures. (12 or 16 cost a lot less than 24 or 36 from 35mm film btw.)
Have you thought of going through your smartphone pictures and picking out the ones you'd prefer to be taken with film? That might give you a clue as to what direction to take. Say "landscape" or "portrait" as the answer and you'll get the same answer from dozens of us...
BTW 2, I'll agree that most pictures, taken by most people, could be taken on almost any old camera or any brand new gee-whiz one.
Regards, David
PS Get a Leica or any other top of the range camera and lens and need it/them repaired and you'll soon discover how much value they can lose on resale. Get an electronic one and have it fail and you'll discover how few will repair them, making you purchase an expensive door stop or paperweight...
strachan007
Newbie
David, thanks for your thoughts. You hit the nail on the head with some of your comments.
You make a good point that I don't really need another camera other than my smartphone to explore certain aspects of visual art. As the other commenter pointed out, I would like to have more control over some aspects, such as depth of field and shutter speed and whatnot. I enjoy the act of taking pictures much more in the manual mode than I do in the auto mode.
Good point. I'll have to explore this a little more....fortunately I don't have to buy anything for the exploration...yet.
I'm sort of all over the map on this one. From portraits, to landscapes, to architecture to my air conditioner on the wall to my hand, etcetera. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to focus on. But if I had to choose, I'd say longer focal lengths (50mm and greater) for easier subject isolation and simplicity. I just can't get too much stuff in my frame otherwise it gets too jumbly and I don't know how to control it.
Okay, great. This was what I was thinking.
Do you mean that they lose value because they aren't completely original? Or do you mean that because I dump money into them in order to maintain them? Lastly, for me, quality is a big deal. I like the feel of nice things....and I am a firm believer that things that aren't designed to be fixed are hardly worth buying (well, with some things, I suppose). Anyway, thanks for the reminder of these costs.
I'd love to reply but I've no idea what you mean by artsy, nor why you think some other camera is needed for it. Plus a lot of people turn out artsy pictures with smart phones and digital cameras.
You make a good point that I don't really need another camera other than my smartphone to explore certain aspects of visual art. As the other commenter pointed out, I would like to have more control over some aspects, such as depth of field and shutter speed and whatnot. I enjoy the act of taking pictures much more in the manual mode than I do in the auto mode.
(12 or 16 cost a lot less than 24 or 36 from 35mm film btw.)
Good point. I'll have to explore this a little more....fortunately I don't have to buy anything for the exploration...yet.
Have you thought of going through your smartphone pictures and picking out the ones you'd prefer to be taken with film? That might give you a clue as to what direction to take. Say "landscape" or "portrait" as the answer and you'll get the same answer from dozens of us...
I'm sort of all over the map on this one. From portraits, to landscapes, to architecture to my air conditioner on the wall to my hand, etcetera. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to focus on. But if I had to choose, I'd say longer focal lengths (50mm and greater) for easier subject isolation and simplicity. I just can't get too much stuff in my frame otherwise it gets too jumbly and I don't know how to control it.
I'll agree that most pictures, taken by most people, could be taken on almost any old camera or any brand new gee-whiz one.
Okay, great. This was what I was thinking.
Get a Leica or any other top of the range camera and lens and need it/them repaired and you'll soon discover how much value they can lose on resale.
Do you mean that they lose value because they aren't completely original? Or do you mean that because I dump money into them in order to maintain them? Lastly, for me, quality is a big deal. I like the feel of nice things....and I am a firm believer that things that aren't designed to be fixed are hardly worth buying (well, with some things, I suppose). Anyway, thanks for the reminder of these costs.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hello and welcome to RFF!
I saw your post yesterday and have been thinking about it since.
That statement, right there, says a lot to me.
If you are primarily interested in developing your visual art skills, you are being distracted by the mostly trivial technicalities of camera equipment. While doing photography of any kind is utterly dependent upon the camera equipment in one sense, focusing on the equipment at the start is generally speaking the slow, long road to learning and developing your visual art.
Most of the photographers in my acquaintance who produce the most interesting visual art became interested and involved by making photographs, not by investigating equipment. Most just used what they had until they could afford better; it took them a lot of time to see how a "better" camera could make their photographs better. In other words, they were focused on the photographs, not distracted by the equipment.
I have made this mistake many times. The equipment is neither photography nor visual art; you don't need a camera collection to do either.
If you're focused on your art, the ONLY time you worry about what a piece of equipment costs is when you want to buy it ("Can I afford it?") and when it needs to be replaced. Worrying about resale value is another huge and unproductive distraction. Forget about the money: the value of a camera is extracted by using it.
Unless you are in business to do photography and accounting your equipment as part of the profit and loss statement, consider buying any camera equipment to be a luxury that you spend your discretionary money on to exercise your passion.
Like others have said, what is this distinction you're making between 'the artsy stuff' and 'everything else'? It doesn't make any sense. You don't reserve a good camera for when you want to do your "artsy stuff" and use a crap camera for pictures of your family and friends... I mean, don't your family and friends deserve to be photographed well too, as well as, if not better than the attention you put into the "artsy stuff"?
Think about it.
If you are "interested in primarily developing my visual art skills" and want to do that with photography, buy a good camera and get to work. What's a good camera? It's a camera that allows you to learn, allows you to get the results you want, and motivates you to make more photographs. Whether film or digital is inconsequential to the notion of developing your visual art, but has consequences on your wallet and the amount of effort you can put into making photographs. Like with any other art form, photography improves through doing it, discovering what works and practicing it. The more you do with studied intent, the more you complete, the faster you learn and grow in your art.
To learn photography, you have to think about photography—regardless of what camera you are using.
Confining digital capture to a smartphone ... well, modern smartphones have pretty good cameras AND image processing software. But the usual problem is that you just get sloppy with them and don't think about them in the sense of "doing photography." This doesn't get you anywhere.
Confining "the artsy stuff" to a film camera ... well, how often are you going to carry it? How often are you going to be thinking about doing photography with it? How much film and processing can you afford, do you have time for, etc?
I'd say: Buy yourself a good camera, film or digital, that you will carry with you as much of the time as you possibly can and use whenever you can. A camera that you like to use, that can produce the results you want, and all that. It doesn't have to be hyper-expensive or whatever. It just has to work and do what you want it to do.
Once you have it, stop reading all the specs and looking at new cameras. Exploit the camera you bought, use it until you can think photography without thinking about it at all. Focus, sensitivity, aperture, shutter time settings should become the completely invisible technical underpinnings of your visual ideas; you should be thinking of the visual ideas, not any of that stuff.
Keep the smartphone in your pocket for making phone calls and txting your friends. When you do take pictures with it, consider it a camera and put all the same focus and intent into your visual ideas with it that you do with whatever camera you use most of the time. Smartphones today have great cameras in them: use it as if it were a camera and you'll do best with it. You might even decide that it's all you need, no need for the "real" camera at all. Whatever serves your desire to develop your visual art.
And in that direction: Read books on photography; look at photographs; emulate, experiment, mimic, and try whatever you can think of with the camera, any camera, to see what it does and whether it meets your internalized notion of what you're trying to do. Become objective, think rigorously: study every photograph you make critically to see its flaws and what you messed up on. Figure ways to improve on them, and try them. Over and over again.
Like with any art, "It takes Everything."
iPhone 4S, Snapseed, Lightroom, Flare
enjoy
G
I saw your post yesterday and have been thinking about it since.
That statement, right there, says a lot to me.
If you are primarily interested in developing your visual art skills, you are being distracted by the mostly trivial technicalities of camera equipment. While doing photography of any kind is utterly dependent upon the camera equipment in one sense, focusing on the equipment at the start is generally speaking the slow, long road to learning and developing your visual art.
Most of the photographers in my acquaintance who produce the most interesting visual art became interested and involved by making photographs, not by investigating equipment. Most just used what they had until they could afford better; it took them a lot of time to see how a "better" camera could make their photographs better. In other words, they were focused on the photographs, not distracted by the equipment.
I have made this mistake many times. The equipment is neither photography nor visual art; you don't need a camera collection to do either.
If you're focused on your art, the ONLY time you worry about what a piece of equipment costs is when you want to buy it ("Can I afford it?") and when it needs to be replaced. Worrying about resale value is another huge and unproductive distraction. Forget about the money: the value of a camera is extracted by using it.
Unless you are in business to do photography and accounting your equipment as part of the profit and loss statement, consider buying any camera equipment to be a luxury that you spend your discretionary money on to exercise your passion.
Like others have said, what is this distinction you're making between 'the artsy stuff' and 'everything else'? It doesn't make any sense. You don't reserve a good camera for when you want to do your "artsy stuff" and use a crap camera for pictures of your family and friends... I mean, don't your family and friends deserve to be photographed well too, as well as, if not better than the attention you put into the "artsy stuff"?
Think about it.
If you are "interested in primarily developing my visual art skills" and want to do that with photography, buy a good camera and get to work. What's a good camera? It's a camera that allows you to learn, allows you to get the results you want, and motivates you to make more photographs. Whether film or digital is inconsequential to the notion of developing your visual art, but has consequences on your wallet and the amount of effort you can put into making photographs. Like with any other art form, photography improves through doing it, discovering what works and practicing it. The more you do with studied intent, the more you complete, the faster you learn and grow in your art.
Film costs more to shoot, takes more time to produce output, and presents more constraints. It tends to slow you down; it requires that you work into the future while understanding the present in order to make it produce what you want. At the beginning, most photographers generally see many more failures with film and have to work hard to persevere.
Digital costs more to get started, costs less to keep going with, and requires that you be more disciplined in how you work. It's "easy" in some senses in that you can see what you're doing after every shot and you can shoot as many as you like, with as many different settings as you can imagine. But it's hard in other ways because the burden of making it happen is so light: you have to work hard to keep your intent and focus strong, push back against getting sloppy and quick.
Digital costs more to get started, costs less to keep going with, and requires that you be more disciplined in how you work. It's "easy" in some senses in that you can see what you're doing after every shot and you can shoot as many as you like, with as many different settings as you can imagine. But it's hard in other ways because the burden of making it happen is so light: you have to work hard to keep your intent and focus strong, push back against getting sloppy and quick.
To learn photography, you have to think about photography—regardless of what camera you are using.
Confining digital capture to a smartphone ... well, modern smartphones have pretty good cameras AND image processing software. But the usual problem is that you just get sloppy with them and don't think about them in the sense of "doing photography." This doesn't get you anywhere.
Confining "the artsy stuff" to a film camera ... well, how often are you going to carry it? How often are you going to be thinking about doing photography with it? How much film and processing can you afford, do you have time for, etc?
I'd say: Buy yourself a good camera, film or digital, that you will carry with you as much of the time as you possibly can and use whenever you can. A camera that you like to use, that can produce the results you want, and all that. It doesn't have to be hyper-expensive or whatever. It just has to work and do what you want it to do.
Once you have it, stop reading all the specs and looking at new cameras. Exploit the camera you bought, use it until you can think photography without thinking about it at all. Focus, sensitivity, aperture, shutter time settings should become the completely invisible technical underpinnings of your visual ideas; you should be thinking of the visual ideas, not any of that stuff.
Keep the smartphone in your pocket for making phone calls and txting your friends. When you do take pictures with it, consider it a camera and put all the same focus and intent into your visual ideas with it that you do with whatever camera you use most of the time. Smartphones today have great cameras in them: use it as if it were a camera and you'll do best with it. You might even decide that it's all you need, no need for the "real" camera at all. Whatever serves your desire to develop your visual art.
And in that direction: Read books on photography; look at photographs; emulate, experiment, mimic, and try whatever you can think of with the camera, any camera, to see what it does and whether it meets your internalized notion of what you're trying to do. Become objective, think rigorously: study every photograph you make critically to see its flaws and what you messed up on. Figure ways to improve on them, and try them. Over and over again.
Like with any art, "It takes Everything."
iPhone 4S, Snapseed, Lightroom, Flare
enjoy
G
Addy101
Well-known
Well, why not use that E-M1? As long as you use it, depreciating won't be a problem as, well, you're using it and buying nothing else. I would first find out what kind of photography would fit before deciding on something new. That E-M1 can do "artsy" and it does "family" better then a phone.
If you want to get your feet wet with film, pick up a early 80's manual focus SLR. I'm partial to Minolta, so I would look at a X700 or XD7 with a 50mm, but any other make comparable camera will do.
If you want to get your feet wet with film, pick up a early 80's manual focus SLR. I'm partial to Minolta, so I would look at a X700 or XD7 with a 50mm, but any other make comparable camera will do.
strachan007
Newbie
Wow, Godfrey, that post was pretty intense. I had to read it several times, check my emotional status, and read several times more. I particularly appreciated your "I have made this mistake many times. The equipment is neither photography nor visual art; you don't need a camera collection to do either." I'm going to save that one for the future. [Note that I am finishing my Phd in an ME/EE dual, so I tend to get caught up in the science and technology.]
Okay, then. Well, I think the solution is quite clear then.
I am going to sell my OMD stuff, even though Addy101 you make a great point, spend some of that money on some photography texts to see the some of the work of the artists that I most resonant with and try to understand how their work speaks to me. Meanwhile, I will also get a portable film camera (due to my need for the slowness and my general lack of discipline with a digital camera) that I can take everywhere with me....thus it will be a rangefinder. I will buy the necessary developer stuff for home development and voila....no more thinking about equipment.
Now, about that rangefinder.....
Just kidding. ;-)
Okay, then. Well, I think the solution is quite clear then.
I am going to sell my OMD stuff, even though Addy101 you make a great point, spend some of that money on some photography texts to see the some of the work of the artists that I most resonant with and try to understand how their work speaks to me. Meanwhile, I will also get a portable film camera (due to my need for the slowness and my general lack of discipline with a digital camera) that I can take everywhere with me....thus it will be a rangefinder. I will buy the necessary developer stuff for home development and voila....no more thinking about equipment.
Now, about that rangefinder.....
Just kidding. ;-)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Just one answer now as it's late at night here:
"Do you mean that they lose value because they aren't completely original? Or do you mean that because I dump money into them in order to maintain them? Lastly, for me, quality is a big deal. I like the feel of nice things.... "
A lot of us would say that the last fine RF's were made around 1975 and so you may well be looking at one of these on ebay or at a dealers.
With the best will in the world people selling on ebay will tell you their Leica is in excellent condition and miss the fact that they deteriorate slowly and it usually isn't noticeable until a lot needs doing (but only one thing may notice and start the ball rolling). That may mean you have to pay for the repair and that can double the price of the camera or more. Ditto a lens.
Buy from a dealer and you'll pay more but - usually - get a guarantee. In neither case will you get your money back, unless you are very lucky. Look on ebay to see the wide range of prices things that seem to be identical get...
BTW, RF's don't like lenses longer than 135mm and, BTW 2, with a Leica M2, M3 or M4 you'll need a pretty decent meter or else years of experience.
You should also be aware that film cameras can be addictive and that searching for the ideal, these days is expensive. It was a lot easier a few years ago when digital came of age and hundreds of film cameras were dumped. Then people gave them away...
Regards, David
PS There's a thread "best pocket camera" here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145809 worth reading and will confuse you more.
Just one answer now as it's late at night here:
"Do you mean that they lose value because they aren't completely original? Or do you mean that because I dump money into them in order to maintain them? Lastly, for me, quality is a big deal. I like the feel of nice things.... "
A lot of us would say that the last fine RF's were made around 1975 and so you may well be looking at one of these on ebay or at a dealers.
With the best will in the world people selling on ebay will tell you their Leica is in excellent condition and miss the fact that they deteriorate slowly and it usually isn't noticeable until a lot needs doing (but only one thing may notice and start the ball rolling). That may mean you have to pay for the repair and that can double the price of the camera or more. Ditto a lens.
Buy from a dealer and you'll pay more but - usually - get a guarantee. In neither case will you get your money back, unless you are very lucky. Look on ebay to see the wide range of prices things that seem to be identical get...
BTW, RF's don't like lenses longer than 135mm and, BTW 2, with a Leica M2, M3 or M4 you'll need a pretty decent meter or else years of experience.
You should also be aware that film cameras can be addictive and that searching for the ideal, these days is expensive. It was a lot easier a few years ago when digital came of age and hundreds of film cameras were dumped. Then people gave them away...
Regards, David
PS There's a thread "best pocket camera" here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145809 worth reading and will confuse you more.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Film is a great way to slow down and forcing us to be deliberate and plus it's just feels so cool to see one or two photos that make us smile in a roll.
But digital is very handy to take on quick family events. Don't aim to just create family snapshots, but to capture the moments in a way that is different, and fresh.
SIDE NOTE: Some people look down at flickr photos, but I have never had a problem finding "family snapshots" that blows my mind in terms of just being a beautiful work of photography art.
Use every occasion to practice your composition, sense of timing and visual balance. I find smartphone cameras to be limiting in this regard, your OMD is as good as it gets.
I think every photographer should have both film and digital cameras.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Here's the rest of my thoughts:
"You make a good point that I don't really need another camera other than my smartphone to explore certain aspects of visual art. As the other commenter pointed out, I would like to have more control over some aspects, such as depth of field and shutter speed and whatnot. I enjoy the act of taking pictures much more in the manual mode than I do in the auto mode."
Hmmm, well, um, need I say more? I presume this is in manual mode on the digital camera. Film isn't much different but often the controls on the film camera are more straight forward. Usually, focus, aperture and shutter speed. It makes life simple but you need to know what you are doing. I find it useful to have an automatic mode "P" on my film cameras for grab shots.
"I'm sort of all over the map on this one. From portraits, to landscapes, to architecture to my air conditioner on the wall to my hand, etcetera. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to focus on. But if I had to choose, I'd say longer focal lengths (50mm and greater) for easier subject isolation and simplicity. I just can't get too much stuff in my frame otherwise it gets too jumbly and I don't know how to control it."
The traditional method with backgrounds is to walk about and crouch down etc. Best understood if you only have a prime lens on the camera. And I mentioned the 135mm restriction on focusing last night. It's only a restriction for wildlife and air shows; there you'll need 200, 300 or 400mm plus, meaning an SLR.
And there you have it; I think your problem is that you'd like to try film and don't know where to start. If it will help I'll give a rough idea of where we end; you start with a RF or SLR and the traditional 35-50-90/85 line up of lenses. Then you expand or realise that you don't need one of them. By expansion I mean 24 or 28mm at the wide end and anything at the tele end. Not needing one of the trad'l line up means 35 and 85/90 or 28 and 85/90mm. Some say 24 and 50mm btw. (85 or 90mm because that's the usual portrait lens, great for details etc on buildings.)
Then, if you bought a RF you buy a SLR and start agonising again or vice versa; meaning if you bought a SLR you look at RF's.
And you realise that you just can't live without a camera in your pocket and start looking for something that isn't so large and heavy, like a decent P&S (prime or zoom). With P&S's you can argue and go round and round in circles deciding between a prime version or a zoom version (and full or useful control). So you end up with one of each.
Then there's back up bodies and carrying two cameras for colour and B&W or else a tele lens on one and a wide on the other camera. It will drive you mad...
As for the budget and bearing in mind what you said about quality, I suggest you do a bit of research because I could suggest kits of 4 or 5 cameras for thousands or under a hundred or less. It's just a matter of thinking (say) Minolta X-300 instead of Leica R8 and so on.
Have fun.
Regards, David
Here's the rest of my thoughts:
"You make a good point that I don't really need another camera other than my smartphone to explore certain aspects of visual art. As the other commenter pointed out, I would like to have more control over some aspects, such as depth of field and shutter speed and whatnot. I enjoy the act of taking pictures much more in the manual mode than I do in the auto mode."
Hmmm, well, um, need I say more? I presume this is in manual mode on the digital camera. Film isn't much different but often the controls on the film camera are more straight forward. Usually, focus, aperture and shutter speed. It makes life simple but you need to know what you are doing. I find it useful to have an automatic mode "P" on my film cameras for grab shots.
"I'm sort of all over the map on this one. From portraits, to landscapes, to architecture to my air conditioner on the wall to my hand, etcetera. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to focus on. But if I had to choose, I'd say longer focal lengths (50mm and greater) for easier subject isolation and simplicity. I just can't get too much stuff in my frame otherwise it gets too jumbly and I don't know how to control it."
The traditional method with backgrounds is to walk about and crouch down etc. Best understood if you only have a prime lens on the camera. And I mentioned the 135mm restriction on focusing last night. It's only a restriction for wildlife and air shows; there you'll need 200, 300 or 400mm plus, meaning an SLR.
And there you have it; I think your problem is that you'd like to try film and don't know where to start. If it will help I'll give a rough idea of where we end; you start with a RF or SLR and the traditional 35-50-90/85 line up of lenses. Then you expand or realise that you don't need one of them. By expansion I mean 24 or 28mm at the wide end and anything at the tele end. Not needing one of the trad'l line up means 35 and 85/90 or 28 and 85/90mm. Some say 24 and 50mm btw. (85 or 90mm because that's the usual portrait lens, great for details etc on buildings.)
Then, if you bought a RF you buy a SLR and start agonising again or vice versa; meaning if you bought a SLR you look at RF's.
And you realise that you just can't live without a camera in your pocket and start looking for something that isn't so large and heavy, like a decent P&S (prime or zoom). With P&S's you can argue and go round and round in circles deciding between a prime version or a zoom version (and full or useful control). So you end up with one of each.
Then there's back up bodies and carrying two cameras for colour and B&W or else a tele lens on one and a wide on the other camera. It will drive you mad...
As for the budget and bearing in mind what you said about quality, I suggest you do a bit of research because I could suggest kits of 4 or 5 cameras for thousands or under a hundred or less. It's just a matter of thinking (say) Minolta X-300 instead of Leica R8 and so on.
Have fun.
Regards, David
strachan007
Newbie
Thanks David. I contacted Youxin Ye and we have been chatting about how to go about purchasing something on ebay or whatnot. His advice: send it to him directly after the purchase and make sure it has a full return policy. This is my plan. I am also looking at KEH and some other solid sites.
Thanks for the head up. I have been reading that smartphones have meters, the sunny 16, and also that handhelds are pretty great. I have been looking at the zeiss ikon or the m6 also, so it's possible the metering won't be an issue. I look forward to the challenge. Currently, it takes me a while just turn the shutter speed knob anyway even when I have a digital readout of the lighting. Some intuition on my part would go a long way to speed that up.
Yes indeed. The E-M1 is also pretty straightforward, but I tend to rely on the blinky lights and am more reactive than pro-active. I'm hoping the film will help me be more pro-active.
Thanks for the tip. Man, these things help!
Thanks for the prediction of what's going to happen over the next several years. I already feel me need to have restraint. This is partially the reason why I need to go simple!!!! And currently, I'm looking at a variety of RF possibilities from Leica to Zeiss Ikon to the more budget friendly options. If I start with a solid contender, then I won't be tempted to "upgrade". That sounds nice.
Hey shadowbox, I appreciate your comments about deliberateness with all of my photos. Getting lazy is probably really easy to do. Thanks!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
You said "I will buy the necessary developer stuff for home development and voila....no more thinking about equipment."
Here's my 2d worth: DON'T.
Starting film with a basic design of camera (that includes the Leica M6) means jumping in the deep end. You'll have enough on your plate with film alone...
Regards, David
You said "I will buy the necessary developer stuff for home development and voila....no more thinking about equipment."
Here's my 2d worth: DON'T.
Starting film with a basic design of camera (that includes the Leica M6) means jumping in the deep end. You'll have enough on your plate with film alone...
Regards, David
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I have to be honest, if you're teaching yourself to develop and/or wet print at home, then medium format is a better idea than 35mm.
Several reasons: fewer exposures per roll - you go from shooting to developing faster - so you see the results (or lack of them) faster. The larger negatives make it easier to see how well or bad you've done your technique. Lastly: larger negs are easier to make prints from. It's easier to make a good print from a non-perfect medium format neg than to make a good print from a non-perfect 35mm neg. In general the whole learning process is more visible and more intuitive when using medium format.
Better than this though would be to sign up for a darkroom course at your local community college, user their equipment, and see if developing/printing is something you'd even enjoy doing.
Several reasons: fewer exposures per roll - you go from shooting to developing faster - so you see the results (or lack of them) faster. The larger negatives make it easier to see how well or bad you've done your technique. Lastly: larger negs are easier to make prints from. It's easier to make a good print from a non-perfect medium format neg than to make a good print from a non-perfect 35mm neg. In general the whole learning process is more visible and more intuitive when using medium format.
Better than this though would be to sign up for a darkroom course at your local community college, user their equipment, and see if developing/printing is something you'd even enjoy doing.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I'd say you'd be doing yourself a big favor if you'd turn your present digital camera to FULL MANUAL and learn how to use it. Digital won't cost you anything while making mistakes and you'll see those mistakes a lot sooner than you will with film. Treat it like it was a film camera and report back here in say two or three months.
strachan007
Newbie
Thanks all for you advice. I feel good about my final decision for now. I decided to go for the Fuji x100s (which is on discount right now due to the x100t) to save me some money and to also understand how the rangefinder approach sort of works (with a different focus apparatus). The fixed lens at 35mm will help for discipline and GAS is limited with this purchase since you can only get two other lens attachments anyway, which I will wait on. The digital will make things quite convenient, and I will, based on AlwaysOnAuto's response, be able to see mistakes sooner than in film. Of course, I will put everything on full manual....and I will report back in a few months! I am also going to be experimenting with really long exposures and will be learning about using flash and whatnot, so it will be fun!
And, I will also try out my father-in-law's film cameras (both 35mm and medium format) and we will look at developing some rolls together. Should fun and good bonding time!
Also, the advice about everything non equipment oriented is more important to shape my perspective of photography than anything else. Much appreciated!
And, I will also try out my father-in-law's film cameras (both 35mm and medium format) and we will look at developing some rolls together. Should fun and good bonding time!
Also, the advice about everything non equipment oriented is more important to shape my perspective of photography than anything else. Much appreciated!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Good to see further development of your ideas.
I hope my note has helped.Similar to your X100S, I bought a Leica X at the beginning of October. I've basically used little else since then ... one camera and one lens, just work with it. I mostly have an optical viewfinder fitted—and ignore it half the time, I use the LCD. Whether I choose to use all auto, or all manual, or some mix of the two doesn't matter. The critical thing is to choose, to know the reason why I went one way or another. I'm delighted with the freedom that comes from the constraint of having few decisions to make.
Doing this has changed my perceptions, once more, of what I need and what my photography is about. With these kinds of change there is learning, there is growth ...
onwards,
G
Leica X
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Godfrey's advice is sound. I can't help but wonder why you think you need a single lens camera to bring you discipline though. I hear that a lot here. Discipline is something you develop, not something not something to be imposed by equipment limitations.
I agree with Tunalegs that for contemplative work, medium format is where it's at today.
Your gear is only important in the sense that it is competent to capture your vision. If it can do that, then it is fine. Only when it begins to limit you should you need to be concerned about finding something to ad to it.
I agree with Tunalegs that for contemplative work, medium format is where it's at today.
Your gear is only important in the sense that it is competent to capture your vision. If it can do that, then it is fine. Only when it begins to limit you should you need to be concerned about finding something to ad to it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know that I think I need a fixed lens camera to bring me the discipline I'm after. I bought the X because I felt it was a very good camera and well suited to my use, and because I felt that, for what I wanted it for, I didn't need the extra options and expense of an interchangeable lens camera. It was the lens and sensor combination I was after.
While the X enforces a lack of options, I can always just reach into the closet and grab another camera. I have to have the discipline going in to be happy working with the X.
Medium format... Like working with my instant film cameras, medium format has a much different tempo to it. But I wouldn't always call it contemplative, more "intense" perhaps. I like to make every shot count, it's an exercise in minimizing waste of a limited resource.
G