jomyoot
Member
Just so that I can use a RFF? I definitely cannot afford M8, but Zeiss Ikon is 'barely' within my price range. However, I will have to revert to using film, which will definitely make my process more difficult. However, if I will get that much better pictures, then it definitely will be worth it. I don't take pictures for a living, but I really do enjoy taking street pictures. So I require pocketability and discreetness.
My favorite camera of all time was 2nd-hand Contax G2, which I sold to buy a brand new digital SLR. Ironically, I ended up taking fewer pictures because it's become difficult to take a camera around with me. Also, people tend to get very nervous with a big camera where they don't with smaller camera like Contax G2.
Additionally, should I look for a used Contax G2? What kind of risks do I have in buying this camera now that the company is under. I know i will definitely have easier time finding accessories with Zeiss Ikon because its newer. But, I reallly miss the AF of Contax and the styling.
Jomyoot
My favorite camera of all time was 2nd-hand Contax G2, which I sold to buy a brand new digital SLR. Ironically, I ended up taking fewer pictures because it's become difficult to take a camera around with me. Also, people tend to get very nervous with a big camera where they don't with smaller camera like Contax G2.
Additionally, should I look for a used Contax G2? What kind of risks do I have in buying this camera now that the company is under. I know i will definitely have easier time finding accessories with Zeiss Ikon because its newer. But, I reallly miss the AF of Contax and the styling.
Jomyoot
hth
Well-known
Try to make your DSLR kit smaller. Like get a smaller lens and omitting the grip might help. Otherwise a Pentax DSLR with a pancake lens should be fairly small and light?
If on the other hand you prefer to work with film (though it does not sound like that), I would at least not sweat over using a Contax G2 even if it is orphaned. Just get what you want to use. If it breaks and is not repairable, get another one, they should be cheap enough these days.
/Håkan
If on the other hand you prefer to work with film (though it does not sound like that), I would at least not sweat over using a Contax G2 even if it is orphaned. Just get what you want to use. If it breaks and is not repairable, get another one, they should be cheap enough these days.
/Håkan
edodo
Well-known
try a pocketable fixed focal lenght rff that should cost less that 100 bux these days. It is a must in discreetness as you wish!
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Look at Voigtlander instead of Zeiss.
The Voigtlander is less expensive than Zeiss and a very good camera system.
The Voigtlander is less expensive than Zeiss and a very good camera system.
DavidH
Overweight and over here
jomyoot said:
Better pictures? In mono - yes. Film still has that edge. For color it really depends on the digital camera you're comparing it to. It's not so clear - but the extra latitude of negative film helps in awkward lighting situations - one of the reasons I've switched back to film for everything except macro, long lens wildlife and specialist work.
Film has more obvious up front costs for processing...digital has so many hidden costs that it soon mounts up - software, upgrades, backup storage, and bodies which are a compromise (dslr) that tempt upgrades every couple of years to get genuine improvements...
(I've never seen/used a digital compact that produces results I like - I sold mine and bought a Contax T3 over a year ago and it's the best compact I've ever used - with stunning results that I've used professionally as well as for fun.)
Processing your own film and scanning is a good middle ground - but still leaves you open to some of those software costs. This is what I now do for both work and personal use - my work images have to be delivered as digital files anyway.
jomyoot said:
I use a G2 now and have grown to love it - it suits me better than mf bodies. Compared to my Nikon kit, well, fast Nikon DSLR lenses are so damn big - and the 70-200 VR (my favorite lens of all time) is a true monster - not for casual strolls and snapshots.
Response of most people to the G2 is curiosity, the occasional laugh - "looks like something my grandad uses" - but never that nervous self-consciousness that I get when shooting portraits on location with the 70-200. Being able to keep both eyes open when shooting also seems to maintain a link with the subject...a subtle but real difference.
jomyoot said:
The ZI is expensive - I like the look of it but couldn't justify the cost on top of all the other cameras i have. The G2 is cheaper - and getting slightly cheaper (though prices vary a lot). Has a more restrictive range of lenses...but the ones available are very good and I find that I use them without thinking that maybe I'd do better with an x, y or z lens - because they won't fit the G2...so I concentrate on shooting and not gear.
Other than my D70, I've never bought a new camera - or lens. 2nd hand prices are good - especially for film gear. The G2 bodies are widely available and seem pretty robust - I don't baby my gear and have dragged my G2 to the Tundra and the jungle - and you can always pick up another if it dies - still for less than most new rf bodies.
Ultimately - it's your call. Maybe one of the new Pentax K10 dslrs with a small, slower lens, might be the best option. But no matter how small, a dslr is always seen as a dslr when you're out shooting where a rf of any kind tends to be ignored by all and sundry.
If being discreet is the most important aim, then maybe a small fixed lens cam is best - as suggested above.
Happy hunting
Bike Tourist
Well-known
For a purely pleasurable experience during the picture making phase, I really prefer a rangefinder. However, based upon results, I have to give the nod to digital.
Besides the personal aspect, I also derive a small income from stock sales. It takes a great deal of PS effort to get even one scanned film image to the level of quality that might get it accepted into the image library of most stock agencies.
So I have to shoot my 5D for business and the R2A or R3A for pleasure. If one were only interested in prints made directly from negatives then probably film would be the way to go, but as soon as scanning of the film is introduced as a factor then I think digital blows film away. My scanned film images from my Nikon V ED, while very nice and with a certain character, do not compare at all in IQ with the 5D's output.
Like many others, my obvious solution would be to have digital rangefinder. The two available are too costly for me in the light of their many issues. So I will continue to shoot both film and digital until that mythical digital rangefinder appears.
. . . I'm waiting . . .
Besides the personal aspect, I also derive a small income from stock sales. It takes a great deal of PS effort to get even one scanned film image to the level of quality that might get it accepted into the image library of most stock agencies.
So I have to shoot my 5D for business and the R2A or R3A for pleasure. If one were only interested in prints made directly from negatives then probably film would be the way to go, but as soon as scanning of the film is introduced as a factor then I think digital blows film away. My scanned film images from my Nikon V ED, while very nice and with a certain character, do not compare at all in IQ with the 5D's output.
Like many others, my obvious solution would be to have digital rangefinder. The two available are too costly for me in the light of their many issues. So I will continue to shoot both film and digital until that mythical digital rangefinder appears.
. . . I'm waiting . . .
Diggin99
Established
Hi! I agree with hth, if you think film might be more fun then do that, but if you think you really like working in digital more, then look at a smaller digital. Prersonally I went to Best Buy recently and was very suprised at how much the smaller cameras had gone down in price, from a few years ago. I have a perfectly good Canon sureshot S45, 4mp that was top of the line a few years ago but can be picked up for like 1/4th of the cost at Keh today. Thats just an example, used or new I smaller digital might be the thing to try first, they are not that much anymore!
Nancy
Nancy
Uncle Bill
Well-known
I shoot film exclusively, so I do have a bias. As mentioned above, you have to compare the upfront vs the backend costs for each medium. In my case, I find film has more character, I can control the look with the combination of film and developer. Unfortunately sensors take away that unique look when you are playing with a DSLR. It comes down what kind of photography you want to do, just sort of go from there.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I just got some slides back. They were 120-type but 135 cost the same. It cost me over euro 7 per roll to develop it!! That means a 100% price invrease since my last E-6 developing, about 5 months ago. Add at least 4-5 more, per roll, to buy it, that's getting then rather expensive.
SO i start to doubt if it's really worth it (now that I bought a good scanner, LOL). Of course black and white is still going fine, it costs much less to home-develop it, and sometimes one can get great deals on expired or short dated film...but still.
SO i start to doubt if it's really worth it (now that I bought a good scanner, LOL). Of course black and white is still going fine, it costs much less to home-develop it, and sometimes one can get great deals on expired or short dated film...but still.
Nachkebia
Well-known
I am getting enlarging system soon!!!! I love it! I love it! it worths every $ I have spend all this years
GeneW
Veteran
B&W film is lovely stuff. Nothing digital really touches it. It's still in a class of its own and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
On the colour side, digital has most of the advantages. I shoot a lot of col film but nearly always get superior colour images when I shoot digital.
Gene
On the colour side, digital has most of the advantages. I shoot a lot of col film but nearly always get superior colour images when I shoot digital.
Gene
telenous
Well-known
Film is expensive, there's no getting around that and no argument based on a purported sense of economy stands scrutiny (IMO). But B&W film has a different feel than digital (not better, just different) and if you like it then you stick with it no matter how much it costs (well...). I don't do much colour (no other reason but to avoid the expense) but, many an opinion to the contrary, I still prefer it over digital colour photography.
If you like rangefinders but you dislike film, you 're in a bad fix, really. It looks like the RD1 or the M8 are your prefered mediums but they are both quite expensive. The answer to the question whether it's worth shooting film for the benefit of using a rangefinder, is one only you can give for yourself. For me it does because I like both.
If you like rangefinders but you dislike film, you 're in a bad fix, really. It looks like the RD1 or the M8 are your prefered mediums but they are both quite expensive. The answer to the question whether it's worth shooting film for the benefit of using a rangefinder, is one only you can give for yourself. For me it does because I like both.
Last edited:
DavidH
Overweight and over here
Pherdinand said:
Yes, commercial processing costs are expensive...I don't use slide film any more and didn't have the best results in home E6 processing. Costs for color in C41 at home were covered in a thread a few days ago - and really aren't that expensive - assuming you then scan and complete in CS or equivalent. Black and white is even cheaper.
Film can be picked up cheap'ish from a few places - even here in taxed-to-hell UK...and buying bulk cuts costs even further.
No help to you Pherdinand with E6 - sorry - but from the pov of negative film, there's still some mileage left. Using Reala, proc at home and careful scanning I've managed results that equal my old slide film days...and if I can do it...
But then I enjoy shooting film, enjoy processing at home and don't mind running the scanner in the background while working on other things. If the original poster doesn't want the hassle of all that...then he needs to think digital...and fight the damn camera all the way on blown highlights...
kshapero
South Florida Man
Bike Tourist said:
I'm in line right behind you.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Regardless of film based or digital, if you liked the G2, having one seems like the thing to do. Doesn't need to replace your other camera but to complement it. RFs and SLRs do things very differently and can play well together.jomyoot said:
Find a G2 from a reputable seller and go for it. I like RF cameras but that doesn't mean everyone has to use them.
Did you enjoy the G2 because it is a rangefinder camera or because of its other qualities?
And if discretion is the important feature, then a smaller camera than a typical DSLR is going to be hard to beat--whether that is a film RF or a good compact digital.
Some non-caffeinated thoughts about your question.
Rob
R
ruben
Guest
You are right. There is no reason to buy a film camera only to participate in our forum. But who said with digital only you cannot participate ?
Therefore don't waist your money. Take part in RFF, tell us about the wonders of digital, as some members like me are absolute ignorants in the stuff, and we all will have a good time.
But remember that if within 3 months rangefinders GAS will explode inside your mind, no need to go to the doctor - intern yoursef with us. Plenty of empty beds here.
Cheers,
Ruben
Therefore don't waist your money. Take part in RFF, tell us about the wonders of digital, as some members like me are absolute ignorants in the stuff, and we all will have a good time.
But remember that if within 3 months rangefinders GAS will explode inside your mind, no need to go to the doctor - intern yoursef with us. Plenty of empty beds here.
Cheers,
Ruben
dnk512
Well-known
The thing with small digitals is that you give up almost all control. Ability to focus, or even zone focus and aperture settings are something I can not be without. If you point and shoot then stay with any small digital (suggest you look into Fuji F30). If you think you care about film RF, try a cannonet in serviced condition (less than $100). If you decide to sell it (either because you upgrade or because you do not like RFs) you will get most all your money back. Oh, a final note: Small digitals that claim manual settings are fair for exposure settings. Focusing manually on such cameras is PITA.
Last edited:
R
ruben
Guest
Or in other words, it is not an issue of convenience, but love
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
If the Zeiss Ikon is in your price range, so should be the RD-1. The vast majority of the users of this digital RF seem to be very happy with the camera, the price went down in the last months and you can even get some refurbs from time to time. To me this sounds like the best option.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
jomyoot said:
No, but I know I was happy to discover film thanks to some wonderful discussions on RFF
To me, film is not troublesome at all, I stay with C-41 (both color and bw) so I can just use the minilab development, scan the negatives and go digital from that point on.
Lately, I've been intrigued enough to use silver-based bw films and discover to my horror that I have to pop $5.50 per roll just to develop them
So I'm now trying to decide if I can develop my own bw films.
jomyoot said:
I did street-photography using an Olympus OM-2n with a wide-angle lens. It's compact enough, and looks old so people most of the time just ignore me.
jomyoot said:
Even a used Contax G2 is more than my RF system (interchangeable lenses) budget, I'd rather spring a little bit more and get a Leica M3
My suggestion is to consider other classic RF cameras with fixed lenses, they produce surprisingly good to exquisite results. My recommendation based on IQ would be an Olympus 35 SP (or its variants, SPn and UC if you can find them). Any other cameras of the same ilk (Canonet GIII QL17, Minolta 7SII, Konica S3, Yashica Electro GT) will be equally good for street-photography.
Also if you like to tinker and be surprised with the results, don't discount the FSU cameras, most of them has interchangeable lenses.