NickTrop
Veteran
Yes - gas free, as if I downed a case of Beano, and chased it with a 5th of liquid Gas-X!!! Now, I'll explain why I have the greatest camera collection in the world, hands down, bar none. Let me qualify that last statement - best collection "for taking pictures". Certainly, it's better than yours, by far. The reason is that while I didn't blow as many dollars as you did, mine is better because of the thought I put into each purchase. Since I am a super-genius, and you are not, the result is a far better tool box for taking photos. Read, enjoy, and learn from me, the self-professed greatest expert regarding such matters.
First we have the basic SLR. Cosina (Vivitar branded). Still made today, purchased mine circa 1990. Small, black, light. OM-ish. Pentax-K. Cost $100 bucks in 1990 at K-Mart. Tops shutter speed is 2000. The most evocative pics are taken with RFs, due to their low-light capabilities, but SLRs are a better "interchangeable lens" system. I use this with the Jupiter 9 (adapted to Pentax-K). The 50 I use is the 1.4 Super Tak with the radioactive element. As good as a Cron but cost me $25 because it had yellowed (easily fixed by letting it sun itself). I have a cheap Vivitar 19mm superwide for the rare instances I need such a lens (superwides are really toys for spec-drunk lightweights, no sense in shelling out any real dough for this). And I have a 24mm Sigma - a great bargain optic that rates higher than Leicas on Photodo for this focal length.
As you can see, I did my homework. I have a killer SLR kit with incredible glass for not a lot of money. I don't use SLRs a lot - mostly for portraits. But when interchangeable lenses are in order, this is what I reach for. Interchangeable lensed rangefinders are silly devices when compared to SLRs. For interchangeable lenses, you need to see right through the lens. Forget all those annoying "framelines". That's just silly. An SLR is required for portraiture, macro photography. For the seldom used, and least useful "wide/super wide" in 35, yeah a Leica-style rangefinder is better but if you're with me so far, I say "who cares, who needs them". They're intoxicants for "spec-winos". This SLR is "all manual", which means it is a "virtual shutter priority" camera, in use, in reality. It's lighter, cheaper, smaller and therefore more useful - a better camera, than the "name" Nikons and Canons. Because I was - frankly, brilliant in my lens collection, it has better picture-taking capabilities than these cameras t'boot/more importantly.
Now lets move to digital. The only thing digital is good for are small sensor cameras to take advantage of the enormous "zoom" capabilities. Digitals are also good for webshots and prints up to 5x7.
Like the fact that "manual cameras" are really "virtual shutter speed priority" cameras. Megapixels don't really matter all that much in practical use, since nearly everyone who uses digitals post their pics to the web and view on computers printing out next to nothing, and when they do print, print small 6x4s. Also, this last statement being true, "in use" DSLRs are laughable overkill and almost entirely unnecessary. Furthermore - yeah, I want to lug around these ergonomic disasters with their futzy little buttons, lcds that wash out in daylight, want to carry several charged batteries, shoot with some crappy zoom lens (get off your ass and frame the shot, willya) and annoy everyone by blinding them with "autofocus assist lights", and "preflash" flash series, before the big blinding flash. Silly devices. You're welcome to keep them. Don't wonder why everyone ducks for cover when you start aiming your. Shoot that big 10 megapixel raw file - futz with that image in Photoshop, adjusting the curves like an OCD sufferer, only to "downsize" it to something your could have shot with 1/2 a megapixel because you're "album" is on Smugmug where you display all your pics. Hey, I think I'll print this one for granpa. He 97 and doesn't have a PC. Where's that 6x4 photo paper?
Hence, my 2.1 megapixel Panasonic FZ1 is an outstanding digital to own. It's tiny. Mine I hacked to make it an "FZ1v2" giving it aperture and shutter priority.
The only reason to own a digital is for web posting, small prints, and to take advantage of their amazing zoom capabilities. That I can shoot at f2.8 with a 420mm equiv zoom, hand-held (not on a tripod) with a tiny light camera is a tremendous capability. Digital wins on this one.
To sum up part one of this post. Virtual shutter priority "manual" SLRs are clearly better than any rangefinder for an interchangeable focal length system. Wide angle in 35 are for the "spec drunk". An SLR is a "necessary evil" and good mainly for portraiture and macros. Digitals have their place - one place really, compact super zoom models with image stabilization. DSLRS are a joke. There are a million DSLR models, and most are identicle, as opposed to the "golden era of classic film cameras" when there were real differences in both types of cameras and engineering approach in terms of both format and "approach".
However, the best cameras in 35mm are fixed lens rangefinders with superior leaf shutters where the lens is "one" with the camera. You only need one lens.
...to be continued.
First we have the basic SLR. Cosina (Vivitar branded). Still made today, purchased mine circa 1990. Small, black, light. OM-ish. Pentax-K. Cost $100 bucks in 1990 at K-Mart. Tops shutter speed is 2000. The most evocative pics are taken with RFs, due to their low-light capabilities, but SLRs are a better "interchangeable lens" system. I use this with the Jupiter 9 (adapted to Pentax-K). The 50 I use is the 1.4 Super Tak with the radioactive element. As good as a Cron but cost me $25 because it had yellowed (easily fixed by letting it sun itself). I have a cheap Vivitar 19mm superwide for the rare instances I need such a lens (superwides are really toys for spec-drunk lightweights, no sense in shelling out any real dough for this). And I have a 24mm Sigma - a great bargain optic that rates higher than Leicas on Photodo for this focal length.
As you can see, I did my homework. I have a killer SLR kit with incredible glass for not a lot of money. I don't use SLRs a lot - mostly for portraits. But when interchangeable lenses are in order, this is what I reach for. Interchangeable lensed rangefinders are silly devices when compared to SLRs. For interchangeable lenses, you need to see right through the lens. Forget all those annoying "framelines". That's just silly. An SLR is required for portraiture, macro photography. For the seldom used, and least useful "wide/super wide" in 35, yeah a Leica-style rangefinder is better but if you're with me so far, I say "who cares, who needs them". They're intoxicants for "spec-winos". This SLR is "all manual", which means it is a "virtual shutter priority" camera, in use, in reality. It's lighter, cheaper, smaller and therefore more useful - a better camera, than the "name" Nikons and Canons. Because I was - frankly, brilliant in my lens collection, it has better picture-taking capabilities than these cameras t'boot/more importantly.
Now lets move to digital. The only thing digital is good for are small sensor cameras to take advantage of the enormous "zoom" capabilities. Digitals are also good for webshots and prints up to 5x7.
Like the fact that "manual cameras" are really "virtual shutter speed priority" cameras. Megapixels don't really matter all that much in practical use, since nearly everyone who uses digitals post their pics to the web and view on computers printing out next to nothing, and when they do print, print small 6x4s. Also, this last statement being true, "in use" DSLRs are laughable overkill and almost entirely unnecessary. Furthermore - yeah, I want to lug around these ergonomic disasters with their futzy little buttons, lcds that wash out in daylight, want to carry several charged batteries, shoot with some crappy zoom lens (get off your ass and frame the shot, willya) and annoy everyone by blinding them with "autofocus assist lights", and "preflash" flash series, before the big blinding flash. Silly devices. You're welcome to keep them. Don't wonder why everyone ducks for cover when you start aiming your. Shoot that big 10 megapixel raw file - futz with that image in Photoshop, adjusting the curves like an OCD sufferer, only to "downsize" it to something your could have shot with 1/2 a megapixel because you're "album" is on Smugmug where you display all your pics. Hey, I think I'll print this one for granpa. He 97 and doesn't have a PC. Where's that 6x4 photo paper?
Hence, my 2.1 megapixel Panasonic FZ1 is an outstanding digital to own. It's tiny. Mine I hacked to make it an "FZ1v2" giving it aperture and shutter priority.
The only reason to own a digital is for web posting, small prints, and to take advantage of their amazing zoom capabilities. That I can shoot at f2.8 with a 420mm equiv zoom, hand-held (not on a tripod) with a tiny light camera is a tremendous capability. Digital wins on this one.
To sum up part one of this post. Virtual shutter priority "manual" SLRs are clearly better than any rangefinder for an interchangeable focal length system. Wide angle in 35 are for the "spec drunk". An SLR is a "necessary evil" and good mainly for portraiture and macros. Digitals have their place - one place really, compact super zoom models with image stabilization. DSLRS are a joke. There are a million DSLR models, and most are identicle, as opposed to the "golden era of classic film cameras" when there were real differences in both types of cameras and engineering approach in terms of both format and "approach".
However, the best cameras in 35mm are fixed lens rangefinders with superior leaf shutters where the lens is "one" with the camera. You only need one lens.
...to be continued.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
ONE hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”
d_ross
Registered User
my Fuji gsw69 has a zoom like that 
NickTrop
Veteran
M. Valdemar said:
No "sour grapes" here, m'friend. I work for a livin', have an okay paying gig, have too many credit cards, and can certainly get anything I want (within reason, of course). I have exactly the toolkit I want. I would literally not trade my collection for - literally, any other. I have no "gas" for any other camera for I have the "perfect" collection, not because of the money I spent on it, but due to the time and thought I put in to it.
FrankS
Registered User
So Nick, you'd say you were done then?
NickTrop
Veteran
FrankS said:
Yeah, I'd say. I will continue to explain in further posts why I have the cameras I have, why I opted out of others (like DSLRs) and how and why they effectively cover all photographic bases in a most cost effective fashion with zero compromises in terms of quality.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Gas Free! Why My Camera Collection is Far Better Than Yours...
Them's fightin' words ... gentlemen choose your weapons!
Them's fightin' words ... gentlemen choose your weapons!
NickTrop
Veteran
Continued... Why not?
My "Poor Man's Leica" system
Leicas are overpriced for minimal performace gains. They are "overengineered" in terms of everything that doesn't matter about taking pictures. Talking about the cameras here. That great "tactile feel" and "buttery smooth" film advance does not mean squat when it comes to their ability to take photos. Sure it "feels" nice, I guess but my God man, you're willing to pay, "say what?" for that "buttery film advance". And this aids you in taking pictures, how? So, they're built well, rugged. Guess what? Years later it seems to me they have no advantage in terms of how well they've held up and what servicing they'll need over far less expensive cameras. Sometimes when I hear the Leica folks talk, it sounds to me more like they're buying a comfortable pair of loafers instead of a camera.
That brings us to the lenses. Sure they're great. But guess what? By the 50's everyone was making great, fast, fixed lens glass, essentially copying the basic formulas of Zeiss and Leica anyway, just making them way less costly than the real deal without any meaningful degradation in performance. In the 30's, yeah, Leica had highly innovative lens designs along with Zeiss. The reputation from those eary designs carried them for decades. But guess what else? Do those little variences in signature really matter all that much? Did winning that "lens resolution test" matter - really? Really?!?
Of course not.
However, there is such a thing as "lens signature". So, I went with the extreme in terms of this as far as Leica is concerned, and purchased an f2 Summar. Yeah - it's got the "Leica glow" alright, and enough "signature" for any 10 lenses . It's a pretty neat lens, actually. Now, I wouldn't run out any buy an actualy Leica body for it - no way, I don't care how "buttery smooth" the film advance is, or how "contrasty" the rangefinder patch is...
Now I digress on the usability of "rangefinder patches" on which many keystokes have been made here. This is a boolean. True or false, yes/no, up/down, east/west, 1/0. You can either focus with the damned thing or you can't. Period. Gots me lots o RFs. Some have clearer or contrastier patches than others by a small margin. I can focus just as quickly with the worst of them as I can with the best of them. I have okay eyesight, maybe that's why. Dunno. If they're clear enough to align the images is all that matters, and I've yet to encounter one that isn't, and if it isn't it needs to be cleaned. But this seems much ado about nothing. I doubt I could focus any faster with a superior in contrastiness and clarity Leica RF than my slightly foggy Zorki. Speaking of which, is what I slapped my Summar on. Would I have wanted to slap it on a Barnack? Hell no! My $30 Zorki 4k has a film advance lever!
In truth, this is a fun little kit and I like the wacky Summar bokeh and lower contrast. It's a cool lens. But this is the only lens this camera will see. I have an interchangeable system that's superior in my SLR (for this one I would have to get a turret - pulease...) And, it's as far as I care to venture into Leica-ville.
My "Poor Man's Leica" system
Leicas are overpriced for minimal performace gains. They are "overengineered" in terms of everything that doesn't matter about taking pictures. Talking about the cameras here. That great "tactile feel" and "buttery smooth" film advance does not mean squat when it comes to their ability to take photos. Sure it "feels" nice, I guess but my God man, you're willing to pay, "say what?" for that "buttery film advance". And this aids you in taking pictures, how? So, they're built well, rugged. Guess what? Years later it seems to me they have no advantage in terms of how well they've held up and what servicing they'll need over far less expensive cameras. Sometimes when I hear the Leica folks talk, it sounds to me more like they're buying a comfortable pair of loafers instead of a camera.
That brings us to the lenses. Sure they're great. But guess what? By the 50's everyone was making great, fast, fixed lens glass, essentially copying the basic formulas of Zeiss and Leica anyway, just making them way less costly than the real deal without any meaningful degradation in performance. In the 30's, yeah, Leica had highly innovative lens designs along with Zeiss. The reputation from those eary designs carried them for decades. But guess what else? Do those little variences in signature really matter all that much? Did winning that "lens resolution test" matter - really? Really?!?
Of course not.
However, there is such a thing as "lens signature". So, I went with the extreme in terms of this as far as Leica is concerned, and purchased an f2 Summar. Yeah - it's got the "Leica glow" alright, and enough "signature" for any 10 lenses . It's a pretty neat lens, actually. Now, I wouldn't run out any buy an actualy Leica body for it - no way, I don't care how "buttery smooth" the film advance is, or how "contrasty" the rangefinder patch is...
Now I digress on the usability of "rangefinder patches" on which many keystokes have been made here. This is a boolean. True or false, yes/no, up/down, east/west, 1/0. You can either focus with the damned thing or you can't. Period. Gots me lots o RFs. Some have clearer or contrastier patches than others by a small margin. I can focus just as quickly with the worst of them as I can with the best of them. I have okay eyesight, maybe that's why. Dunno. If they're clear enough to align the images is all that matters, and I've yet to encounter one that isn't, and if it isn't it needs to be cleaned. But this seems much ado about nothing. I doubt I could focus any faster with a superior in contrastiness and clarity Leica RF than my slightly foggy Zorki. Speaking of which, is what I slapped my Summar on. Would I have wanted to slap it on a Barnack? Hell no! My $30 Zorki 4k has a film advance lever!
In truth, this is a fun little kit and I like the wacky Summar bokeh and lower contrast. It's a cool lens. But this is the only lens this camera will see. I have an interchangeable system that's superior in my SLR (for this one I would have to get a turret - pulease...) And, it's as far as I care to venture into Leica-ville.
Last edited:
Gradskater
Well-known
I think I am getting over my G.A.S also. My weapons as follows.
I have an slr , a minolta x-370n, black, with a 28mm, 55mm, and 135mm. The 28 and 55 are rokkor lenses. The x-370 has a plastic body, but its light and has an accurate meter and I can shoot in aperture priority. got the body for $35, the 55mm lens for $5, the 28mm for $15, and the 135mm for $10. glass is spotless on all the lenses.
Got a yashica electro gsn for $10, excellent shape (except a bent filter ring). My low light camera.
A black minolta hi-matic e for $15 in near perfect condition. Its a fun camera and takes no thought. Just focus and shoot.
And my FSU, a black Zorki 6 with jupiter 8 that cost me the most at $65. When I want to spend a little more time playing with exposures and such, I use this camera. I also have sekonic l-208 I use with the zorki. This was my major splurge at $100.
Is this the best kit ever? Probably not, but it was cheap and it works for me.
oh, and yes, NickTrop is right. The yashica electro is the best camera ever made.
I have an slr , a minolta x-370n, black, with a 28mm, 55mm, and 135mm. The 28 and 55 are rokkor lenses. The x-370 has a plastic body, but its light and has an accurate meter and I can shoot in aperture priority. got the body for $35, the 55mm lens for $5, the 28mm for $15, and the 135mm for $10. glass is spotless on all the lenses.
Got a yashica electro gsn for $10, excellent shape (except a bent filter ring). My low light camera.
A black minolta hi-matic e for $15 in near perfect condition. Its a fun camera and takes no thought. Just focus and shoot.
And my FSU, a black Zorki 6 with jupiter 8 that cost me the most at $65. When I want to spend a little more time playing with exposures and such, I use this camera. I also have sekonic l-208 I use with the zorki. This was my major splurge at $100.
Is this the best kit ever? Probably not, but it was cheap and it works for me.
oh, and yes, NickTrop is right. The yashica electro is the best camera ever made.
Last edited:
Anupam
Well-known
I paid $120 for my Nikon F3, compared to which the vivitar is a piece of crap. If you want Pentax glass, at least get a Pentax body. Vivitar?! Geez!
-A
PS: My gear is listed on my website, if anyone's interested.
-A
PS: My gear is listed on my website, if anyone's interested.
NickTrop
Veteran
Anupam Basu said:
The Vivitar "piece of crap" is made by Cosina, the now much heralded manufacturer of those fake Bessas everyone loves around here. Guess what? It's the same body as the Bessa, essentially, with the mirror and prism removed. It has worked flawlessly since 1990 without servicing. It is lighter than the F3. The apertures are the same as the F3, the shutter speeds are the same as the F3, and it measures light the same as the F3. It's as light tight as the F3. The glass I have amassed for it is terrific. The Jupiter 9 is a great, fast portrait lens - among the best ever made by anyone. I love its 15 blade near circular aperture, actually prefer its "clickless" aperture ring, and think more lenses should have been designed with a delimiter ring. I'll take if over - literally, any Nikon of the same speed and focal length. The 1.4 Tak is regarded by many as the best 50 ever made. Which puts it right up there with every other 50 ever made, since all 50's seem to lay claim to being the best 50 ever made
How is the F3 better?
Last edited:
Anupam
Well-known
LOL! Well, try changing out the focusing screen on your Vivitar. Better still try changing the the prism and putting in a 6x magnified viewfinder for precise focusing. I have the DW-4 and DE-2 finders with two different screens which let me go from normal matte to an aerial screen I use to go way beyond life size focusing. How about mirror lock up? Build? And I seriously doubt if it has a 80-20 meter like the F3, more likely 60-40.NickTrop said:
If you are seriously asking how one of the finest manual focus cameras ever made is better then your Vivitar then you have really lost the plot, I am afraid.
I know that Cosina makes the Bessas - I use them. They also make the Nikon FM-10 - a passable camera at best, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that it's a better body than any of the classic Nikons because its "lighter." The build of Bessas have imroved much over time, and I love them. But I wouldn't therefore ask "How is the M7 better." And in this case my "M7" cost almost the same as your "Bessa." Vivitar also designed some fine equipment, including one of the finest macro lenses ever put out for 35mm, but a lot of their stuff was junk as well.
-A
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Anupam Basu said:
I focus (no problem), meter, shoot. And the pics come out fine. How they look is a function of what lens and film I'm using. The camera is light tight, shutter speeds are accurate, the meter is accurate. It's been reliable - never failed, not once, in 18 years. And it's smaller and lighter.
So what would the Nikon "buy me" in a camera body over the Cosina? A name? In 2008 $20 more resell value ????????? Additional features I have no use for?
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
My 'collection' isn't superior to anyone's. It is mostly made up of stuff I bought as cheaply as I could over a long period of time. Unlike most 'collections', it has no real emphasis, like all left-handed tweezers made in the Grand Duchy of Fenwick during the reign of Duchess Glorianna. It's just stuff I thought was interesting and that I could afford (more or less).
Last week, I received a Fed 5. A couple days ago, it was an Agfa Super Solina. Did not need either one. But they are fun to play with. And that's the only reason I need.
Last week, I received a Fed 5. A couple days ago, it was an Agfa Super Solina. Did not need either one. But they are fun to play with. And that's the only reason I need.
Anupam
Well-known
NickTrop said:
Did you read my post? If you never push your camera, ANY camera will do, even a disposable - those are "light tight" too.
However, I do tend to push my equipment. I do shoot in situations where I NEED mirror lock up, an aerial focussing screen and a magnified waist level finder. Any camera which doesn't have that is dead weight in those situations - that's what the F3 buys me over the Vivitar.
-A
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Mine's better... for me
Mine's better... for me
I also have done a LOT of research and "trying things on to see how they fit". And so my camera/lens collection is The Best... for me... at this moment. I'll say more, but first a digression.
I returned to photography after a 15yr. hiatus. I'd left it because I no longer had time to spend hours in the darkroom... and I've never liked sending my negatives off to someone else to do the work (nor can I afford that anymore). So I came back when I saw that I could have a "digital darkroom" at a reasonable price and could produce reasonable photos. I'm not sure I spend a lot less time with the digital darkroom than I did in a wet darkroom, but at least I can get up from the computer and play with my kid when she calls.
When I returned to photography (about a year ago) I had the opportunity to reconsider the equipment I wanted to use. I initially thought a DSLR would do the trick... a digital version of the "aperture priority kick-a** SLRs I used in the old days. But after a few months of trying with a D80 and a few different small P&S digitals, I felt "something" was wrong. First I felt that reasonably-priced digital equipment just couldn't deliver the dynamic range I'd experienced with film. And the annoyance factor... geez! Let me say this for the millionth time... I DO NOT NEED AN LCD on the back of my camera. I don't want my brain cells consumed by checking every decision I make... while the subject matter slips on by!! So basically, I just couldn't get comfortable with all the adjustments of the digitals.
So... I've gone back to film and, mostly, rangefinders. I like the quiet simplicity of these cameras. I never considered Leica... the prices for that stuff is, well, stupid. And I like my lenses on the wide side, generally. Subject matter... wallowing around in the crowds out on the street mostly. And some close-up personal stuff with the family around home.
I ended up with a Voigtlander body and a couple of lenses ( I had to try a couple of each to find the right "fit" for my eye). I admit that at least part of the reason I went in this direction instead of, say, an old Canon or a Zorki, was that I wanted something new and shiny. And I wanted a built-in light meter. And I wanted aperture priority!! I got all this with the Voigtlander stuff, at what I considered a sane price.
I also bought a nice old Yashica Electro GX for my "take with me to the store and to work" camera. My web research found that this little camera has an exceptionally sharp lens and its wide enough (40mm) to satisfy my vision. And its aperture priority with matched stepless shutter speed... COOL.
And I have a little Nikon D40x with a Voigtlander SL II 58mm f1.5 lens. And I modified a Holga lens for this camera as well... for when I need a change of pace. I use this kit for informal portraits of my family and friends, and for still lifes. By the way... I tried one of Nikon's zoom lenses for awhile but... come on... they are terrible in low light! (Unless you want to throw down an arm and a leg for one of their quasi-fast zooms.) Give me an f2 or f1.4 prime lens any day!
I have the film developed and scanned at Costco. I use their scans as a sort of digital contact sheet. When I find the rare image I want to print, I rescan the film on my new little Nikon Coolscan.
The set-up is The Best... bar none.... for me... for now.
Mine's better... for me
I also have done a LOT of research and "trying things on to see how they fit". And so my camera/lens collection is The Best... for me... at this moment. I'll say more, but first a digression.
I returned to photography after a 15yr. hiatus. I'd left it because I no longer had time to spend hours in the darkroom... and I've never liked sending my negatives off to someone else to do the work (nor can I afford that anymore). So I came back when I saw that I could have a "digital darkroom" at a reasonable price and could produce reasonable photos. I'm not sure I spend a lot less time with the digital darkroom than I did in a wet darkroom, but at least I can get up from the computer and play with my kid when she calls.
When I returned to photography (about a year ago) I had the opportunity to reconsider the equipment I wanted to use. I initially thought a DSLR would do the trick... a digital version of the "aperture priority kick-a** SLRs I used in the old days. But after a few months of trying with a D80 and a few different small P&S digitals, I felt "something" was wrong. First I felt that reasonably-priced digital equipment just couldn't deliver the dynamic range I'd experienced with film. And the annoyance factor... geez! Let me say this for the millionth time... I DO NOT NEED AN LCD on the back of my camera. I don't want my brain cells consumed by checking every decision I make... while the subject matter slips on by!! So basically, I just couldn't get comfortable with all the adjustments of the digitals.
So... I've gone back to film and, mostly, rangefinders. I like the quiet simplicity of these cameras. I never considered Leica... the prices for that stuff is, well, stupid. And I like my lenses on the wide side, generally. Subject matter... wallowing around in the crowds out on the street mostly. And some close-up personal stuff with the family around home.
I ended up with a Voigtlander body and a couple of lenses ( I had to try a couple of each to find the right "fit" for my eye). I admit that at least part of the reason I went in this direction instead of, say, an old Canon or a Zorki, was that I wanted something new and shiny.
And I wanted a built-in light meter. And I wanted aperture priority!! I got all this with the Voigtlander stuff, at what I considered a sane price.I also bought a nice old Yashica Electro GX for my "take with me to the store and to work" camera. My web research found that this little camera has an exceptionally sharp lens and its wide enough (40mm) to satisfy my vision. And its aperture priority with matched stepless shutter speed... COOL.
And I have a little Nikon D40x with a Voigtlander SL II 58mm f1.5 lens. And I modified a Holga lens for this camera as well... for when I need a change of pace. I use this kit for informal portraits of my family and friends, and for still lifes. By the way... I tried one of Nikon's zoom lenses for awhile but... come on... they are terrible in low light! (Unless you want to throw down an arm and a leg for one of their quasi-fast zooms.) Give me an f2 or f1.4 prime lens any day!
I have the film developed and scanned at Costco. I use their scans as a sort of digital contact sheet. When I find the rare image I want to print, I rescan the film on my new little Nikon Coolscan.
The set-up is The Best... bar none.... for me... for now.
NickTrop
Veteran
bmattock said:
Well, you've conceded that your camera collection is not as good as mine. Wise of you. I win! Just be sure you read the warning label on that Agfa you just acquired. You wouldn't want to void the warranty.
__hh
Well-known
I was going to argue with Nick ... but then again... I rememberred a funny quote from one of our RFF'ers here .....
" arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, whether you win or loose, you are still a spastic..."
therefore, I refrain... I am going to put all my DSLR, P&S, and all of my alledged top-rate RF gear on fleaBay (but then again, no one would buy them after reading Nick's post here - I might as well throw them away)
" arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, whether you win or loose, you are still a spastic..."
therefore, I refrain... I am going to put all my DSLR, P&S, and all of my alledged top-rate RF gear on fleaBay (but then again, no one would buy them after reading Nick's post here - I might as well throw them away)
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
I agree with Nick ...... Leica is the way to go ... I love my M6 and my Ricoh GRD2 .
I got the M6 because my parents do not have a computer ......... so I take pics with this and send them the photos ...... they love it . The Grd2 I will use to post to my smug smug site when I get one ...... For now I just scan my negs from the Leica M6 and upload them to my i Web site which you can't do with the Ricoh because it's digital........
I got the M6 because my parents do not have a computer ......... so I take pics with this and send them the photos ...... they love it . The Grd2 I will use to post to my smug smug site when I get one ...... For now I just scan my negs from the Leica M6 and upload them to my i Web site which you can't do with the Ricoh because it's digital........
bigdood
wanderlustin'
i'm not sure why, but that's the coolest thing i've read in awhile. i love the thought of getting an envelope in the mail with random photos in it.
ok, we now return to our regularly scheduled pissing match.