First time rangefinder buyer, digital or film????

[kanzlr]

got into rangefinders late in the game by means of a used M8.
nowadays I have five rangefinder cameras at home, but none of them digital... 🙂

so I would recommend a digital RF for the start, if you like it, upgrade to a film body *g*

 

[back alley]

Thanks for the compliment on my photos.

Maybe a bit harsh, but I am still curious what fact I missed.

A good photographer can take a good pic with any camera. For sure, certain families of camera are better suited to certain applications than others but I do agree 100% that one could take an excellent picture with an RD-1, just as people have taken excellent pictures with pretty much every other camera in history.

I just cant see why someone would buy an RD-1 today. Is there something that the RD-1 does that newer cameras do not? The only thing I can see is that the RD-1 has a real rangefinder, but is that worth the baggage in the sensor?

What does the $1000-1200 used selling price of the RD-1 buy you with any other digital camera? A lot more than 6mp. A lot more than ISO-400. More dynamic range. Less expensive *and* frequently sharper wide angle lenses. A current warranty. Lack of corner-color shift with short focal length lenses.

The RD-1 leaves a lot to be desired when so many newer cameras outperform it at the same pricepoint or even a lower pricepoint. So the newer cameras may not have a *real* rangefinder and may not be native M-mount, but with electronic viewfinder windows and M-mount-adapters who cares? The size and feel of the M4/3 and fuji cameras is very rangefinderesque, so why the RD-1?

so much more erudite than 'it sucks'...thank you.

first, don't underestimate the appeal of a real rangefinder. i have been shooting for the past 40 years and have preferred the rangefinder throughout, so it is worth it to me.
i just sold a d90 and still have a d200, both fine cameras but much harder for me to get a good image from.
the nikon colour is just not the same (or as good) as the colour from the rd1.
as has been stated before from many, 6mp works for many of us.
i'm an amateur, don't print large and rarely sell prints...the rd1 works for me.

 

[luibargi]

I just bought a Kiev-4 RF with 2 lenses, paid 80€.
As you see it's very cheap to choose a film system.

 

[John Bragg]

I have never owned a digital rangefinder and have always used film. I can see the attraction of digital to those who know no different but a dabble with FSU Zorki 4K was enough to give me the rangefinder bug 15 years ago and I took the plunge and bought a Leica. Get a good cheapie and dabble with film at the same time. If you hate it you will have lost little but you may like it, and believe me rangefinders are infectious. Then decide whether to commit real money to either a digi or film rangefinder. Film is not so scary after all and it is surprising just how many folks brought up with digital eventually gravitate to a film system as well or even instead of. Good luck in your choice. There is no wrong choice just enjoy what you get.

 

[mfogiel]

If you shoot colour, then you should try to stick to digital, RF or whatever else. If you like to shoot B&W, then you might not even know it, but shooting film is still delivering superior results, and shooting film rangefinders is lots of fun. This is the first decision you have to take, then you can start consideing various options.

 

[hausen]

I have fallen in love again with my M6 and Velvia so I wouldn't discount color on a film RF. The color and texture is so pleasing to my eye that my M9 has been at home for over a month. I would try film first because there are so many cheap choices that will give amazing results. I had a Konica AS3 which I bought for less than NZ$100 which got me hooked. Shoot film first and if you like the RF experience then you can go RF digital later.

 

[loquax ludens]

The way I interpret your OP, Dan1984, is that you want to try a rangefinder camera (primary desire), and you aren't sure whether you should go digital or film (secondary question).

I can't know your values, but if it were me, I would buy an inexpensive but easy to use film rangefinder camera, and answer both questions at once. A film RF plus 10 rolls of color negative film and processing will be considerably less expensive than buying an RD-1. If it turns out you don't like using a rangefinder, you can sell it for what you paid for it. Then you'll also know that an RD-1 is not for you either, since it is also a rangefinder. If you find that you like the rangefinder style of camera, then your decision about film or digital becomes much easier by virtue of having just shot 10 rolls of film. You'll have some immediate film results to compare your existing digital experience to.

If you decide you like RF and decide to go digital, then you might still want to keep that inexpensive film RF and explore B&W films and home processing. A little variety never hurts.

 

[shadowfox]

I love the bessa r3a but I am concerned that I am going to spend a fortune on film and I've not much of an idea about processing and developing it myself.

Spending a fortune on film is a myth that I'd love to debunk.

You *don't* start out Film Photography by spending tons of money on film.
You start with one roll. Pick an easy one to begin with: Ilford XP2.
Yes, you have to spend the "expensive" outlay of at most, 6 USD for one roll.

Shoot it, bring it to your nearest minilab, and tell them it's C-41. Have them scan it on a CD, and enjoy the images.

If *and* only if you like the images, you may consider buying another roll. If you don't like it, stay within the ease and convenience of digital.

You don't spend a fortune on film *unless* you just love it.
I do and don't regret it for a second. 😀

 

[Dan1984]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all of your replies which are much appreciated. i think I am going to pick up a film rangefinder and just start shooting a few rolls to see how I feel and if I like it over time I can look into developing and processing it myself.

If I send my film off to be developed and returned with a CD of the scanned images am I then able to post process those images in photoshop???

I assume that I wont have as much control as I would with a RAW digital file but can I still play around with shadows and highlights, levels, contrast etc?

Thanks again for all the responses

Cheers

Dan

 

[Jockos]

If I send my film off to be developed and returned with a CD of the scanned images am I then able to post process those images in photoshop???

I assume that I wont have as much control as I would with a RAW digital file but can I still play around with shadows and highlights, levels, contrast etc?

If you get JPEG files the editability will shrink considerably compared to RAW from a digicam. Some scanners however offers a "RAW" from the scanner, often packaged in a .tiff file format, which can be way better than a JPEG for post processing.

 

[thegman]

I would suggest that you go with your instinct, what feels right?

Humbly, I would suggest that you don't heed the advice that digital is best for colour, and B&W is best for film. Many people prefer film for colour as the dynamic range is better, and you're less likely to blow the highlights. On the other hand, many people prefer the smoothness of digital black and white to the grittiness of black and white film.

You can look at colour film vs. high end digital here:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

Film is still very nice for colour, and slide film can look stunning.

Just go with your gut, if you buy one or the other, you won't lose much on selling if you feel you've made a mistake.

 

[Dan1984]

Thanks,

So I would send my film off to be developed abc request that the scanned images returned on the CD are tiff files which will give me greater control in post processing?

 

[thegman]

Thanks,

So I would send my film off to be developed abc request that the scanned images returned on the CD are tiff files which will give me greater control in post processing?

Some labs will do this, some won't. I would suggest you get your own scanner, and either have the lab not scan at all, or just take whatever small scans they do as previews. Then you only need scan the keepers yourself.

For 35mm you can get brand new Plustek scanners, not that expensive and by all accounts pretty good.

 

[shadowfox]

Thanks,

So I would send my film off to be developed abc request that the scanned images returned on the CD are tiff files which will give me greater control in post processing?

The lab scan typically is useful for identifying which photos is worth selecting and processing (and posting on the internet). But it's an easy way to start with film.

Btw, there are still some amount of contrast control even with JPEG files.

Later, when you are sure that you like film, pick out a film scanner which will give you tiff files.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Maybe a bit harsh, but I am still curious what fact I missed.

"Facts" as a plural of the noun "fact", i.e. general sense; no specific fact was referred to. (read: when things are learned vs. expectations formed)

You missed the whole syntax and meaning of the sentence and filtered it through bias. That, for example, is a fact.

 

[paradoxbox]

What does the $1000-1200 used selling price of the RD-1 buy you with any other digital camera? A lot more than 6mp. A lot more than ISO-400. More dynamic range. Less expensive *and* frequently sharper wide angle lenses. A current warranty. Lack of corner-color shift with short focal length lenses.

R-D1 is definitely not limited to ISO400, have you ever shot with it before?

if the noise of an R-D1 at 400 or 800 is bad for you then film must have been hell - I shoot with Tri-X 400 all the time and there's always visible grain in it.

As for DR if you want DR then you should shoot with film. You can get 12ish stops of DR for about $4 in a roll of color negative film. Try finding a digital camera that can do that for under $1500..

IMO film is the cheapest way into photography but if you like rangefinders the R-D1 is the best choice for someone on a budget.

as for developing your own film.. you can buy c41 color developing kits for around $25-$30 and that will have enough chemicals to do a batch of around 12 rolls, maybe more. You will also need a developing tank (These can be found free sometimes but otherwise around $20-$50) and an accurate thermometer. You'll also want some measuring cups that you'll never use for food again. Developing color is pretty simple, you just have to keep the temperature steady - I do it in a bathtub or sink full of water at the correct temperature.

Black and white film is extremely easy - temperature doesn't even matter with some developing agents.

 

[bugmenot]

If you want instant gratification, no need for developing and scanning and all the cumbersome effort that comes with shooting film, I would say go Digital. Unfortunately, there are only three options for actual Rangefinder shooting (four if you count Monochrom as a new RF), and only one (the R-D1 and the successive refreshes) are affordable by the common man.

So ... if you have your eyes on the R-D1, get it, and get some good lenses to go with it.