FrankS
Registered User
Nicely said! Ditto.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Gulp, my Iphone 4 is always with me.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Yes, I think that most of us try to shoehorn our RF sensibilities onto digital offerings and appease the need for small, light, and quick with digital p&s cameras. We're still that place.
The only problem for me is that most digital gear lacks the ability of satisfying my need for the mechanical. It's the same thing that earned RFF the reputation as a gear fondler's forum. I've been shooting more film than ever, bought my first 120 folder a little while ago and picked up a Nikon F2. I like my digital gear, but I can only push buttons and navigate menus for so long before my need to fondle a real camera kicks in.
/
The only problem for me is that most digital gear lacks the ability of satisfying my need for the mechanical. It's the same thing that earned RFF the reputation as a gear fondler's forum. I've been shooting more film than ever, bought my first 120 folder a little while ago and picked up a Nikon F2. I like my digital gear, but I can only push buttons and navigate menus for so long before my need to fondle a real camera kicks in.
/
robklurfield
eclipse
we've been infiltrated by infidels. me? all my shooting is on RF's or, far more rarely, a TLR. I don't own a DSLR... never have. don't feel as if I'm missing anything that would make a difference to the way I shoot.
benlees
Well-known
Currently, there 42 rangefinder camera viewers and 26 non-rangefinder camera viewers. Considering the current market share of rangefinders to non-rangefinders, I'd say RFF is doing itself proud.
DNG
Film Friendly
So is my Droid 2....
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
I can't afford a full frame digital camera. The smaller sensored cameras (by far the majority available) have effectively killed wide angle photography with their crop factors. That is a giant step BACKWARDS for photography. Until then, I will stay with film, thank you.
NickTrop
Veteran
Juan - I got into rangefinders to shoot candids in available light and for street photography. - For this type of photography, my favorite type of photography, digital cameras were inadequate tools at that time. Rangefinders with fast lenses loaded with Tri-X was still the best way to go. - and a fun way to go. DSLRs were expensive, and camera companies were slow to put out fast prime lenses (at least for the APS-C stuff...), instead the cameras were mostly equiped with slow zooms. Additionally, DSLRs were too large. Smaller digitals had slow lenses and did a horrid job above iso 200.
That has changed - recently and quickly. I consider my little soccer mom silver Fuji F20 a better tool for street photography than a rangefinder. Why? Because its images are acceptable - better than that, with a little finessing in Photoshop. It's a capable shooter at high ISOs. The ISOs are variable - wildly variable, based on lighting conditions. The camera is completely silent. It has a 3X zoom lens that's "okay" (in terms of speed) at f2.8 at its widest, 35mm equiv. It has 50mm if I need it, and 100+ if I need it. I don't have to set it to f5.6 for max(ish) DoF and guess focus to shoot from the hip - like the old street shooters. It's will always be in acceptable focus and will auto focus. It's completely silent - makes no noise. I can fire off 3 pics per sec. It has a flash that reaches 21' at max. It has a nice macro lens capability and I can record video. I can operate the camera with one hand shooting from the hip. I don't have to advance film. I can shoot around 150-200 shots on a full charge that doesn't take that long. I can autoset white balance making color low light more practical (indoors).
- it has none of the vices either, shutter lag and poor battery life. I can shoot all day. A second battery is $20. Neither (shutter lag/battery life) is an issue now like it was a few short years ago.
- And best of all? It fits in my shirt pocket. And best of all again? I can shoot much, much, much more discreetly with this tool than any rangefinder. And best of all again? I can shoot as much as I want without it using up a somewhat expensive resouce - film. I have nothing to process. It's much more economical for this kind of photography that requires one to take a lot of shots. That's just the way it is. Nobody notices - ever, when I shoot, and It's always with me. I take it everywhere. It's never on the shelf. And that trumps all for the type of photograhy I enjoy most. Are the pics as nice as a Leica with a Cron? No. Of course not. But you know what else? It doesn't suck, and costs less (used) than a frigging Leica lens hood. A Leica with a Cron ain't doin' you any good sitting on a shelf in your house.
And that trumps all. Pragmatically speaking, they're just better tools (based on my criteria...) now. They're not as fun, mind you. But for street stuff? Sorry.
Know what else? Many still shoot with upscale expensive film cameras because they "won't be seen" with a soccer mom silver point and shoot digital.
Truth be told?
It's more an image thing - and I'm not talking about the images taken.... I'm talking about the image that someone knowledgeable in photography needs to be seen with certain "gear"...
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
I hope this isn’t too far off topic:
When working I use the current DSLR type cameras. For personal stuff, I still shoot film and will carry a Nikon P6000 for any digital snaps. I will likely up-grade the P6000 to a P7000 or a G12 in the next months. I see a progression to a RF like digital camera by other than Leica in the future.
Most of this is a weight issue for me. I pack so much gear when working on location, that it’s not fun dealing with all the hardware, when doing something for myself. If it’s a project requiring a FX format and Dynalites, I’ll do it. But it’s not taken lightly. So, as cameras evolve, we will likely see more of the High-End, RF-like cameras available. I would throw one of these in the bag with out a second thought. I watch this market more than the DSLR market because, it’s going to give me something for personal use, for “real photography”, the stuff I do, because I want to.
Here’s the OT: I find that a lot of commercial work, agency stuff, is being driven by the Photoshop skills of the newly hired “PS Wiz Kid”. A good Post-production Co. will charge $200-300 per hr. for Post. This cost is not high for the skill involved. Many agencies and some smaller design firms have built in-house Post services, to save money. The photographer, regardless of his PS skills or those of his staff, often, don’t make the final call on critical things like Lighting, Green Screen etc., unless he’s willing to eat the Post time. So, you see the AD consulting with the kid, to be sure he can do the necessary Post (within his skill-set) to bring the job in at bid. It was more fun in the film daze, with a better economy. I added this final bit for a response from Bill and others who may see this trend. And Fotocare is a gem. I've dealt with them often from the west coast.
When working I use the current DSLR type cameras. For personal stuff, I still shoot film and will carry a Nikon P6000 for any digital snaps. I will likely up-grade the P6000 to a P7000 or a G12 in the next months. I see a progression to a RF like digital camera by other than Leica in the future.
Most of this is a weight issue for me. I pack so much gear when working on location, that it’s not fun dealing with all the hardware, when doing something for myself. If it’s a project requiring a FX format and Dynalites, I’ll do it. But it’s not taken lightly. So, as cameras evolve, we will likely see more of the High-End, RF-like cameras available. I would throw one of these in the bag with out a second thought. I watch this market more than the DSLR market because, it’s going to give me something for personal use, for “real photography”, the stuff I do, because I want to.
Here’s the OT: I find that a lot of commercial work, agency stuff, is being driven by the Photoshop skills of the newly hired “PS Wiz Kid”. A good Post-production Co. will charge $200-300 per hr. for Post. This cost is not high for the skill involved. Many agencies and some smaller design firms have built in-house Post services, to save money. The photographer, regardless of his PS skills or those of his staff, often, don’t make the final call on critical things like Lighting, Green Screen etc., unless he’s willing to eat the Post time. So, you see the AD consulting with the kid, to be sure he can do the necessary Post (within his skill-set) to bring the job in at bid. It was more fun in the film daze, with a better economy. I added this final bit for a response from Bill and others who may see this trend. And Fotocare is a gem. I've dealt with them often from the west coast.
Last edited:
benlees
Well-known
This pretty much sums up any human endeavor. "Gear" can be a M9 or a shoebox and people will go to the ends of the earth to promote whatever virtues prop up their beliefs about said gear. Just the way it is. I could have taken every photo I ever have with a $50 digicam and it wouldn't really make much difference to the final image. I choose not to go this route. But it is not about the image is it? It is about play time, uh..., I mean using the "proper tools" to get "the shot."
Personally, bigger is better. Camera, negative, you name it!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Nick,
Hard to imagine better tools for street shooting than a small RF with a wide angle prefocused and film. No shutter lag at all. My XA is tiny, silent, and shoots instantly.
Apart from my other RFs, I also use a small zoom compact by Olympus: one of the last they made for film (not long ago) after the huge line that started decades before with the XA...
I adore the look of film, so I pay for it. Digital can be faster (sometimes it's not...) and certainly is cheaper, but I don't find it better than film in any way, not even for street, and I've used digital LF, MF, FF, DX and smaller digital formats. Sure I know what can be done with digital, but I also know what can't be done with it. I think the only way to leave film is feeling one's results are not as good as one's digital results.
Cheers,
Juan
PKR
Veteran
Well personally, I'll use any camera, as long as it isn't pink. I'll even shoot with a blue one. As for the Fuji that Nick mentioned, I'll give it a look. A small camera in the pocket, is a good thing. Capture lag and auto focus lag are an issue for me too though...
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
No lag. - Less than it takes to advance a film camera to the next frame, which is something that's never discussed with film zealots (of which I was one, myself) who bemoaned shutter lag. It's considerably faster. And don't just look at the F20. The latest generation of prosumer digicams have improved vastly - at least to ISO 800. Shutter lag is inconsequential now. Big requirement, however, is that the lens collapses inside the camera so you can put it in your pocket - literally.
@Juan - I said the same thing, used the same arguments. I like the look of film too. Take a look at Exposure 3 on a print (not on the web....) - color or black and white. If you're being intellectually honest (hard to do, and we're all "less than" - especially when our passions are driving us... self certainly included) you'd be "hard pressed". Download a trial - but make prints if you really want to compare. The differences - in small format, are trivial. The incremental - though rapid, improvements "in" and convergence "of" digital camera capabilities and software have negated the things that kept me shooting film/film cameras in small format. No digital touches medium or large format... but neither did any Leica.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Nick, it's alright if you see no benefits from film's or other formats' tonal range... Keep enjoying your digital cameras and prints!
Cheers,
Juan
NickTrop
Veteran
Ahhh... but Juan, you're missing the point a bit, me thinks. When you say "better than" I think you're talking about tonality, dynamic range - etc. This is technical stuff that only wonks like us care about.
The "better than" I'm referring to is far more global than these technical aspects. There are few - if any, 35mm film cameras you can genuinely fit right in your pocket without issue. Retinas? Other 35mm folders from the 50's? The small sensors in digital allow for proportionately smaller lenses that collapse right into the camera. With a lens protruding, the vast majority of film cameras simply are not practical to take with you everywhere. - So we don't.
Film is a consumable that costs money. So we pass up photo opportunities... Or - worse, don't take a camera with us. The ability to shoot in any lighting condition, nearly unlimited, with a camera that is no burden to bring with you anywhere at quality that - at this point, truly approaches 35mm to the point only wonks would care about the differences makes these little digitals "better than"...
You can't take a picture if your camera is on the bureau next to your bed. There's a reason why it's there, and not on your person. You never know when a photographic opportunity will arise. You need to have a camera with you when they do. - and you can't be "out of film" or not have your camera "loaded". And don't tell me this hasn't happened. It happened too often to me. Crap, left the camera home because I didn't feel like carrying it. Crap - out of film. Crap - only a few frames left so I better conserve, and pass this one up. Crap - changing rolls...
The little digital point and shoots allow you to do this in a way that's much "better than" a film camera because they're electronic and cram a lot of photographic capability into a few ounces that is not a burden to take with you at all times free of the constraints of the consumable - film.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
People love beautiful tonal range. Common people too, consciously or unconsciously.
Great photography has been done with film cameras. And sometimes not the smallest ones. Smaller than RFs is not a real need. I carry with me at least two film cameras. So we do.
I don't pass up opportunities, even if you do or say we and us. I take cameras with me. No burden at all. Small digital sensor cameras generally don't allow instant shooting: no problem if you don't care about that either, but I do. When I photograph and wet print film, it's my taste what I satisfy: I don't think of what any viewer will think of tonal range... It's just related to my visual education. It's personal. I use two small bodies with two films (100/400 and 3200): I'm ready to shoot in any light... From direct sun to low light. I can do both things aming to different places instantly. No shutter lag, no menus, no ISO settings, nothing. Film is the fastest I've used.
You're getting repetitive and this is not a film vs. digital thread. So I tell you once again it's cool you enjoy your small digital cameras, and I invite you to leave it: both of us gave our opinions already...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Hahaha.... I can see where this thread is going..
I think I would summarize that the majority of member on this forum regard the leica mp/m2/m3/m7/ZI as somewhat of a grail amongst working cameras, and that is now shifting to the m9 and whatever cameras are similar to it. Ones like the olympus pen and the samsung nx100 etc are bringing rangefinder style shooting to a more affordable level - just natural progression.
I think I would summarize that the majority of member on this forum regard the leica mp/m2/m3/m7/ZI as somewhat of a grail amongst working cameras, and that is now shifting to the m9 and whatever cameras are similar to it. Ones like the olympus pen and the samsung nx100 etc are bringing rangefinder style shooting to a more affordable level - just natural progression.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
What is "rangefinder style" about the Olympus Pen or the Samsung NX100? Nothing, really. They don't even have a rangefinder, or a viewfinder for that matter. That's it, really. The greatest common denominator is that they're small.
But would you hang around here if this was the "Compact Camera Forum" rather than the rangefinder forum?
gavinlg
Veteran
Well, the olympus pen body is around the same size and shape as an M rangefinder, as opposed to the DSLR shape, which is completely different in shape and size, and was the 'norm' of larger sensor digital cameras before the e-p1 came around.
The fact that they don't have an inbuilt VF or rangefinder is because they are products in their infancy - as they mature they will become better photographic instruments. You can see the progression from the e-p1 to the e-p2 which has a very good clip in viewfinder, and I'm sure in the next few generations that will change to a built in viewfinder.
It's less about what they are technically, and more about how they're used. I used my e-p1 in a very similar fashion - and for the same reasons I used my m6 - quiet, enjoyable to hold and use, small but with good image quality.
I'd love an m9, but for 12K australian I'd much rather a pentax 645d or a mamiya ZD, so the modern mirrorless digitals are actually a pretty good compromise, especially considering they're 1/10th the price. I'm sure within a few years we'll have full frame 35mm sensor versions with inbuilt EVFs, and those features will make it extremely comparable to the m9.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Note that you're basically confirming that small size is really all they have in common. (The Pen is actually quite a fair bit smaller than an M.) Sort of proves Bill's point.