is a canon G10 a rf

ebino said:
Every camera is a point a shoot camera, that is what people do with cameras, they point and shoot.
Click to expand...

There is a convergence towards point-and-shootishness on more recent AF SLRs. Point and shoot may be an obsolete term when it comes to current digital cameras which all are multi-point AF. But for older film cameras, there still was quite a difference between point-focus-recompose-and-shoot and point-and-shoot AF cameras.
 
sevo said:
There is a convergence towards point-and-shootishness on more recent AF SLRs. Point and shoot may be an obsolete term when it comes to current digital cameras which all are multi-point AF. But for older film cameras, there still was quite a difference between point-focus-recompose-and-shoot and point-and-shoot AF cameras.
Click to expand...

Not really, most photographers used hyperfocal distance, zone focus, or prefocus... News photographers, street photographers anyone that shot action used one of those techniques.

But pointing and then shooting are the two essential functions of a camera. The genius marketing guy/girl that came up with the term was essentially trying to ease the fears of common people and make them buy cheap cameras that required little skill to use. Point-and-shoot is a brilliant Freudian sort of statement that subliminally tells the buyer "its easy to use".

Nevetheless, a photographer that knows what his doing is like Stig from Top Gear. Give him any car and he pushes it to maximum... People confuse photography gear with photography, this is the only issue at the core of all the endless debates over gear in amateur photography forums. , just as one might expect that by owning a Pagani Zonda, they're at the same league as Stig.
 
You can define it as an RF if you want, but plenty (including me) would define it otherwise. How much does it matter? Surely, only if you want to say, "I have a rangefinder camera," in which case you need to be aware that many people will disagree with you. As long as it takes good pictures and you're happy, why try to fight the generally accepted definition of 'rangefinder camera'?

Cheers,

R.
 
Hm. Yeah. No. But wait....what were rangefinder camera for, I mean, back then? Right, for easy picturataking they were made. Don't believe? As soon as progress allowed to automate exposures manufacturers used LV system, tied speeds to aperture, built in meters, or just put note with popular settings on back of camera, if nothing else. Family could go out of home and take back nice pictures made with rangefinder camera. Simply because nothing better were invented, yet.

So in some sense G10 or any other P&S camera can be thought as replacement of rangefinder cameras. Mainly, P&S solved issues with exposure and focusing (fixed focus or automation) but families do the same they did 50 years back. They take home pictures made without assistance of M.Sci.

Well, sure, those slowish power hungry AF compacts can not be thought as direct replacements of weapon of decisive moment, no, they aren't just like real men drive AWD SUV not tiny compact car with 1.3L engine but hey, things are just things, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom