Is this really an RF forum?

@ Dogman... Spot on. I would only argue that the latest crop of the better compacts give you a decent 800 - even 1600 ISO (with a little noise reduction in post) and are genuinely pocketable, neither of these things the G5 could ever do (though it was a great camera in "its day", which was a few years ago). Also that the latest APS-C DSLR bodies have shrunk (especially with a fast prime instead of a zoom) in size that they offer more "bang for the buck" - especially since they have larger sensors for even better IQ at high ISO - along with an optical viewfinder, than 4/3-rds... but that's only my "take".

The G5 - the apex of prosumer compacts a few short years ago, is a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. Great camera by all accounts "for a digital" back then but its inability to shoot at high ISO and its "compact film camera" size precluded it as a tool for the type of photography I like. I passed, and continued to shoot film - rangefinders especially. Noisy images about ISO 200 was the deal breaker back then. However, that was a few years ago and those deal breakers really don't exist now.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
@ Juan - It's not a film v digital thread. I'm not a film basher at all. However, to me - and to Bill's initial question, and as others have alluded:

1. Rangefinders were/are/remained popular for certain types of photography because they were more discrete than other types of cameras... Hence, this forum' popularity.
2. However, technology has eclipsed the advantages of using them for this kind of photography...
1. Fast autofocus (and innately small "film plane") negates need to shoot at F5.6 for DoF
allows you to better shoot blind from the hip...
2. No need for film + gigabites of storage on a little chip + decent (lately) battery life to allow for volume shooting, no delays to load camera...
3. No shutter = completely silent operation. No noise at all. They're so quiet, in fact, that a fake shutter sound is added to let the user know if you've taken a pic. This feature can be disabled.
4. ISO is now variable, and the little cameras have overcome their major drawback - the ability to shoot in natural lighting w/o a flash. Multiple point intelligent metering allows for perfect exposure 98%(?) of the time. Many cameras have image stabilization (not the F20 but it uses another method...) negates the need to shoot at 1/30th to avoid camera shake.

Old school was to shoot at F5.6, 1/30, with 400 speed film in your camera. How can it be argued that the ability to shoot with a variable ISO, with a completely silent camera that weighs a few ounces, with a tiny camera the fits in the palm of your hand that has a lens that collapses right into the camera, that fits in a shirt pocket - no problem (with a decent built-in flash if you need it - yet), that you can take anywhere, that can rapidly auto focus, that can accurately set metering and exposure - all in less than a second, is not a better tool for street photography than an old rangefinder? Add to this the incredible flexiblity to do virtually anything in post... including making the output resemble Tri-X with grain added, or even add bokeh (though admittedly that takes a little work and is not always practical)?

The quality won't be as good if you pixel peep. It will look virtually indistinguishable to film - to my eye, on prints up to 8X10.

The aspects you mention are more important in other kinds of photography - not street photography, which is all about "the decisive moment" and composition. You simply don't need that much control for this... In fact, manual control gets in the way.

If your photography is about optimizing sharpness, dynamic range, tonality don't shoot digital or small format film. Neither digital nor small format cameras - including Leicas, come close to medium format in these areas... Shoot larger formats.

These are the reasons why digital has destroyed small format - even those "soccer moms" know this... Maybe they're the smart ones?

The reasons we (self included) continue to shot with film gear is the following:

A. We fashion ourselves as "photographers", have a certain image we want to project, and need to be seen with certain gear. We "get off" when people ask us "Wow... what camera is that Oh, Mr. So-and-so, are you a photographer? And we tell them about our darkroom and how we "still develop black and white..." blah, blah, blah...
B. We simply like the charm, or the tactile pleasure, or the nostalgia of older cameras. They're essentially toys - not tools.
C. We couldn't afford these cameras when they were new when they were "the cat's pajamas" and now that they're obsolete and we can afford them. We're like kids in a candy store and get "GAS" and buy up scads of them...
D. We like the manual "craft" for shooting film, developing our own stuff, and making our own prints.
E. We're really collectors but would never admit it openly.
F. We've always shot film, are set in our ways...
G. All of the above to varying degrees.

And there's nothing wrong with A,B,C,D,E,F,G! But let's be intellectually honest. The technical advantages of which we speak are largely rationalizations for A,B,C,D,E,F,G! - at least as far as small format is concerned.
Click to expand...

Nick, from your ideas (a mix of right and wrong ones including false generalizations) I can only deduce you were not able to get great results with film because you get more from digital and you consider small digital cameras "eclipsed":p film rangefinders for street shooting... Even though I explained to you how fast RFs are: I don't focus, and I don't mess with exposure (sun: preset, soft light: preset with 3200 and AE) and I have no shutter lag at all, no menus and no buttons, you insist in describing digital as faster: no, film is faster the way I use my film cameras. Maybe not for you, because you didn't get from film cameras all the speed you could have... But that doesn't speak about film cameras in general, but about you.

How can you say these things I mention are not important to street photography but to other kinds of photography? For other kinds of photography, like fashion and product I do professionally, I use digital and Hasselblad and LF, but for street shooting the best tool is a small RF with great control and quality, AND with instant shooting: film ones or M9 for sure...

If you prefer slower, cheaper and inferior quality, small sensor digital cameras with less control, it's your decision, but for sure those of us using better tools are happy. We're glad you're happy too. No need to discuss.

At least about film RFs being slower than digital cameras for street shooting, you're very very wrong... Maybe that was your experience, but you should ask someone doing it well years ago... Of course I've tried both ways... And this is not about media nor IQ, but about functionality. That's why the M9 is a great camera, just as great as film RFs.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
...
but for street shooting the best tool is a small RF with great control and quality, AND with instant shooting: film ones...
Click to expand...

+1 I haven't found anything better (close but not better) for street shooting than an RF film camera.


/
 
All the many Leicas I have owned through the ages are in my rear view mirror. In my retirement, cost is an issue, so my D300 does yeoman duty as an everything camera. When I equip it with a little 35/1.8 lens, the spirit of Leica lives on only the images are reliably better.
 
Bill Pierce said:
But digital is going to become, indeed, is, the main stream. A digital Leica is a tough call. So many existing lenses, so many edge rays coming in at different angles... relying on the lenses themselves (which will also be used on film bodies) to solve a number of problems where other manufacturers turn to digital correction. A camera that was a legendary “available darkness” tool now with a CCD sensor that falls far behind the high ISO performance of other professional level “35mm” digital cameras. And yet, if the camera moved too far away from the imprint of its film cousins, if it no longer looked and handled like the film cameras that earned Leitz its reputation, sales would probably drop. It’s really a tough problem for Leitz. I have no idea how you solve it. Maybe it isn’t a problem.
Click to expand...

Bill: If Leica moved to a TTL focusing system a-la m-4/3, and a FF chip, all of those folks with these excellent lenses would be lining up to purchase.

Make the VF and EVF and you're off to the races. Sure, it's simple to write it. . . If Leica faces a challenge, it is how to compete with giants when their tiny sales have to support R&D into this sort of thing.

Tell ya what. If I were Nikon, I'd take the FF chip from my D3 and put it in a rectangular box with an EVF right now and slap and M-mount on it. Sell for $5k. Poof. Instant Leica killer.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Bill: If Leica moved to a TTL focusing system a-la m-4/3, and a FF chip, all of those folks with these excellent lenses would be lining up to purchase.

Make the VF and EVF and you're off to the races. Sure, it's simple to write it. . . If Leica faces a challenge, it is how to compete with giants when their tiny sales have to support R&D into this sort of thing.

Tell ya what. If I were Nikon, I'd take the FF chip from my D3 and put it in a rectangular box with an EVF right now and slap and M-mount on it. Sell for $5k. Poof. Instant Leica killer.
Click to expand...

It might even come in way under $5K. Don't forget, the same chip is in the D700!
 
Bill Pierce said:
I wonder if the rangefinder forum, especially for the digital folks, isn’t turning into the cameras smaller than a big DSLR forum. What I liked about my film Leicas was the relatively small size and the brightline finder. These days I put accessory bright line finders on small digitals like the G10 and do the same thing to DSLR’s when I need to shoot at high ISO’s. I just don’t find myself using my digital M much. I wonder if other rangefinder folks are picking up on the small digitals as street cameras or the kind of cameras that you always have with you or I’m just part of some lunatic fringe. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Dunno about others, but every time I go out the door my Leica IIIf is with me. Summitar mounted, a J12 w/finder & a handful of film in my bag. If I need it, I have a little digital but it's for need not fun. :eek:

Now excuse me, but I just loaded a roll of Fuji Acros & I need to discover what this film is like. That's much more enjoyable than the navel gazing. :angel:

William
 
Why does it seem so difficult for the companies who are able, to understand that this is what everyone "in the know" is waiting for?

edit: This is referencing Ben's post #68.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
Why does it seem so difficult for the companies who are able, to understand that this is what everyone "in the know" is waiting for?
Click to expand...

I guess they think it won't be worth it because the target demographic is too small.

Does it really make sense to push a $5k camera into a market where people are constantly complaining about prices and clamoring for $1k digital Bessas? Where you can sell a $7k camera only if it works exactly like the cameras from the past? And the main unique selling proposition of your $5k camera is that people can keep using old lenses, meaning that future income streams will be rather slim?

This may make sense for $600 Micro 4/3 bodies where you have a lot of mainstream buyers, but not for a $5k camera for a niche market with a substantial initial R&D investment.
 
I don't know, but I like the photography philosophy around here (at RFF). So maybe the camera does not matter so much, it's more about the photographer and their way of seeing the world.
 
@Juan... guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, a little digital compact with good high ISO capabilities simply is faster. C'mon - I can shoot 2.2 frames per second, an uninspiring spec for digital but still considerable faster than a film rangefinder. You can't even advance a frame that fast. Again, I can walk into any lighting condition and take an acceptable picture - in color, without a nasty color cast. It has a flash if I need it and a reasonably fast lens. The camera fits in my pocket. If the differences between this camera's output was the same as the difference between small format film and medium format I would agree with you. There's quite a leap there. That's not the case, however. I don't have to futz with menus at all - very rarely. I set it to manual and set auto ISO. That's pretty much it. Then let the camera do its thing. I then simply walk around and shoot - from the hip. No need to focus, set anything, advance frames, shooting at 2.2 fps, snapping away as long as my finger is depressed until the tiny memory card is filled after 100's of shots.

I have to twist knobs and dials between every frame of a film camera, every single time. 2.2 fps? That's an impossibility with an old manual RF camera. If I'm not twisting something to focus, certainly I have to, to advance the frame! If not that then to adjust shutter or aperture. 90% of the time shutter/aperture combinations are rote, and the camera automation gets it right 99% of the time these days. This is a mature technology the bugs are all worked out now - including back lighting. Which is why I'm fine with +/- exposure only on these things.

To me, in weighing the advantages of the compacts with good high ISO capabilities: the Fugi Finepix 10-31 line, the Canon S90 (F2.0 lens), the Panasonic LX3's - etc vs. the slight advantages in IQ under some circumstances using film... there's, again, no comparison. The compacts have become - pretty recently, better tools.
 
Last edited:
Nick, do you really need that 2.2fps on RF? How's with decisive moment then - you wait for it and then capture it or just rely on multiple frames to select from? Have you given up on old game, gambling with photographic fate and training instincts?
 
btgc said:
Nick, do you really need that 2.2fps on RF? How's with decisive moment then - you wait for it and then capture it or just rely on multiple frames to select from? Have you given up on old game, gambling with photographic fate and training instincts?
Click to expand...

The ends justify the means. If shooting 2.2 fps and selecting the best frame means a better final output - then by all means, why not? Isn't the object to get the best picture? Why needlessly impose handicaps on yourself? There is most definitely skill involved to this - absolutely. In shooting blind, in framing, in composition, and getting the most out of a jpeg (yes, jpeg) in post. And - oddly enough as I now see it, there is less skill involved in the rote manipulation of aperture/shutterspeed. Much of this was necessitated by the fact that film speed had to be fixed. Now that's variable too - which is not insignificant.
 
Last edited:
So Nick, you have no issue with using a video camera for 5 seconds or so on a scene, and selecting the best frame? (Assuming the video camera has sufficient resolution, etc.)
 
NickTrop said:
Much of this was necessitated by the fact that film speed had to be fixed. Now that's variable too - which is not insignificant.
Click to expand...

ISO makes impact on final images, as well as speed and aperture do. If camera allows to set MIN and MAX ISO limits for ISO-shift program, then it can be usable feature.
 
Oh Yeah. This is RANGEFINDERforum.com.

Where else would the anachronists come out in droves to combat the 21st century.

Gotta love it.
 
btgc said:
ISO makes impact on final images, as well as speed and aperture do. If camera allows to set MIN and MAX ISO limits for ISO-shift program, then it can be usable feature.
Click to expand...

Many/most(?) DSLRs and compact digitals let you set Min/Max ISO or have a setting. The F20 lets you set a variable auto ISO at 400 MAX or 1600 MAX (they skipped 800, an admitted annoyance...) - My Nikon D5000 lets you set Max/Min at anything. Yes - it is beyond useful. Fixed ISO was a big taken for granted constraint with film cameras.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Oh Yeah. This is RANGEFINDERforum.com.

Where else would the anachronists come out in droves to combat the 21st century.

Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

What are you loving exactly? Shimming and testing for internet?
Who is combating 21st century? Lots of people here like the M9...

I appreciate -a lot- the best digital camera from this century, the M9... Small, high quality (image and build) and instant shooting: FUNCTIONALITY...

I also think the M9 is clearly above those small cameras some people like to use lots of different mount lenses on... Lenses' testing doesn't require fast acting like street photography...

Some photographers did wonderful photography then...

Cheers,

Juan
 
FrankS said:
So Nick, you have no issue with using a video camera for 5 seconds or so on a scene, and selecting the best frame? (Assuming the video camera has sufficient resolution, etc.)
Click to expand...

The realistic constraints to this oft-cited meme are twofold:

1. Video has insufficient resolution - like a megapixel or whatever. The lowish rez. is why cameras can shoot video now. However, resolution at this level breaks that "imaginary/intuitive quality line" threshold. - It's a deal breaker.
2. Too many extraneous frames would be produced to root through this way. But 2.2 fps in short bursts of a second or two - 3, 5, 7 frames (whatever) is certainly manageable.

It doesn't take the skill aspect away - trust me. It's the difference between catching someone "between facial expressions" or not, most often, or catching the moment that has the most impact, or simply picking the frame the works the best to your eye. You still need to find suitable subjects and compose as best as possible shooting discretely from the hip.

It's about finding something interesting to shoot (usually involving people) and then shooting that subject as discretely as possible and as rapidly as possible under any condition or circumstance with good composition from the hip while maintaining decent/acceptable quality. This trumps all.

The technical aspects of sharpness, dynamic range - blah, blah, blah are all secondary. Those things are the primary concern of larger format film shooters, which is what those tools are for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom