Is this really an RF forum?

NickTrop said:
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 breaks that "imaginary line" quality threshold.
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 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.
Click to expand...

It's more a philosophical question.
That's not photography for me.
I do believe there is no skill involved, just editing skill.
 
In another post in another thread I worked out why I like film: it's the whole process.

Here in this last post, I worked out why I don't like digital that much: it makes it too easy to select a "best" frame from a whole bunch.

These 2 factors pretty much explain my preference for film. But to each their own. This is just the right answer for me, not necessarily for anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Of course!

This game is about getting it when we shoot, not about picking an image from a security videocam.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Nope. You're both wrong. Sorry. For this kind of photography you're still seeking interesting (usually) human subjects (skill one - having an eye for an iteresting subject). You're still shooting discretely as possible (skill two - essentially the same). You're still composing this interesting subject in as an engaging manor as possible (skill three - essentially the same). Only thing is now you might have three frames to select from instead of being stuck with the one frame - which might not have been optimal.

Don't (or didn't) you pick the one, two, or three frames from a contact sheet to enlarge? Isn't that "editing" too? You don't make enlargements from every picture on a contact sheet - you picked the best. This is the same principle, except you have more choices. More choices = better output.
 
FrankS said:
I do believe there is no skill involved, just editing skill.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot street, so probably lack, umm, street cred on this issue, but I dunno if I'd agree with that.

If skill is needed to determine when to point a still camera at someone or something and press the shutter button, then isn't essentially the same skill needed to know when to point another kind of camera at someone or something and run of a 5-second burst of video? In both instances, the photographer needs to know how to set up the camera beforehand, and then to instantly frame the shot. Likewise, in both instances, the photographer needs to know enough about human behavior to predict the optimum time to act. (That, I expect, is the lure of the great game of street photography.)

Now, the video approach would, in fact, add to the editing burden, but so do bracketing or using a motorized drive.

As you say, it's a philosophical thing that comes down to the pleasure and fulfillment we derive from how we've chosen to use cameras. There is no right or wrong approach, and no absolutes. One very positive thing that digital has done, whatever each of us may or may not think about its virtues and vices, is that the technology has created many new ways to enjoy photography for many people who otherwise would never have picked up a serious camera.
 
@Juan and FrankS... Once I let go of my biases against all things digital - that I held on to when this technology was still evolving, gave a decent newish one a try... I simply find that my output is better. I've had scads of film cameras and said the same things you're saying... love the old cameras, owned scads of them, still enjoy using them. But as a tool for street photography (not the studio, not portraiture, not landscape etc.) - some selective models of the lowly, much maligned, soccer mom silver fully automated point-n-shoot digitals are better tools. In fact, they're much better tools. And - no, never thought I'd hear myself say that.
 
Nick, I'm fine with anyone using anything that floats their boat. I know what floats mine. But I'm not trying to convince others they are wrong. I'm just saying what works for me and why.
 
NickTrop said:
@Juan and FrankS... Once I let go of my biases against all things digital - that I held on to when this technology was still evolving, gave a decent newish one a try... I simply find that my output is better. I've had scads of film cameras and said the same things you're saying... love the old cameras, owned scads of them, still enjoy using them. But as a tool for street photography (not the studio, not portraiture, not landscape etc.) - some selective models of the lowly, much maligned, soccer mom silver fully automated point-n-shoot digitals are better tools. In fact, they're much better tools. And - no, never thought I'd hear myself say that.
Click to expand...

And why are you limiting yourself believing you couldn't get better results with film? This is what digital is about 99% the times...

I can get just as great results with digital, but not with ANY digital camera: only with the most functional ones...

Your case is not about what you feel you get with digital, but about what you feel you didn't get with film.

Not everybody's case for sure.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
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
Click to expand...

Personally, the M9 is the perfect example of a product that combats the 21st century. It is basically a recreation of 1954 technology using modern electronics. But the look and feel- 1950s. I like that.
 
Brian, thanks a lot for a kind answer: this was not personal of course...

Interesting point, for sure...

I'd buy a small digital camera with M9's control and instant shooting... I'm fine with 6MP as output, but I really think at least APS-C size would be a good idea... I'd buy it for color, and for fun and family... Maybe that will happen soon... I'd need selective focus lenses too... And in camera rangefinder, with framelines and space around them... I'd really love a fast moderate wide fixed lens camera... At CV they make so many dreams come true...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
Nick, I'm fine with anyone using anything that floats their boat. I know what floats mine. But I'm not trying to convince others they are wrong. I'm just saying what works for me and why.
Click to expand...

Point taken - I overstated. I do that from time to time 😉
 
So all someone needs to do is come out with an adapter for the u4/3rds with a viewfinder and coupled rangefinder, with the RF pickup built into the adapter. M-Mount might not give enigh width, but S-Mount, Contax mount, and Retina mount should work.
 
NickTrop said:
Point taken - I overstated. I do that from time to time 😉
Click to expand...

Me too, Nick... One thing I'm sure of is we all love shooting and we all want to see these great latest changes in technology give us a hand... We're in the middle of the best moment... Things are happening right now...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
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
Click to expand...

Juan;

I use 3 digital cameras with 3 versions of Raw. I have a couple of old Nikon F3s i use for my film addiction. I've come to think of the digitals like laptops. They change so fast, that I'm not willing to invest a lot of money in a camera unless I think it will be with me for a while. The first digitals I bought were Kodak 14n and 14 NX. I still have an NX. I think it was about $6500 by the time I had the $1500 upgrade installed. Two years later, it was out of the running for it's cost/performance. I stay with a brand because of my lenses, and the support from the manufacturer. I have little attachment to any of my digital gear as It might be sold tomorrow for the latest greatest wiz-bang version of what ever..

So, an investment in a digital Leica is not a good thing for me .. unless the sensor was up-gradable. The Red Camera, in the motion picture world has an up-gradable sensor and will mount to most manufactures primes and zooms. It's akin to the 4/3 cameras in the respect to lens use. If Leica or Nikon or Canon.. were to build a camera where my investment would stay in place for more than 2-3 years, I would consider a purchase of their top of the line camera. In the film days, I bought new nikons (usually 3, 2 w/motors) every 5 or more years between model releases. Things in the digital world are changing really fast. Maybe things will change to upgradable gear..maybe

http://www.red.com/

p.
 
Last edited:
All this requires a change... What's great about u4/3 is the lack of mirror and the small size... Sooner or later we'll have something close to an M9 but smaller... That will be great... Photographers and non-photographers will enjoy photography on such cameras...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
All this requires a change... What's great about u4/3 is the lack of mirror and the small size... Sooner or later we'll have something close to an M9 but smaller... That will be great... Photographers and non-photographers will enjoy photography on such cameras...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

We as photographers, who work and use this gear professionally, need to tell the manufactures what we want. Their sales aren't based on our buying, but their ad campaigns are. I would buy a good quality RF like digital (Canon G11, Nikon P6000) at once. I took some interest in the camera mentioned in a previous post. The ability to pre-set a zoom to a 35mm lens, and have the camera open to that setting would be a plus. This is an easy firmware app. Not a big deal. I know the Mfgrs. Reps read these pages..
 
fdigital said:
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.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I shoot only B+W film with one of two RFs, a M2-r or a MP. At this point they do everything I want...well, almost🙂 I'd like to buy a F6 someday; but there is no "natural progression" to digital for me. I have nothing against digital work or those who like it, however it does not interest me; thus I have no desire to stop ordering film and chemistry for my Leicas until it is no longer available. I hope to shoot B+W film for as long as I live, but we shall see....
 
Congratulations to Bill, for setting the cat among the pigeons for a very lively exchange!
As for me, I would rather die than chimp. I meter incidentally; I shoot trannies in my M2 with 35 Summilux; I collect from the lab and I project. End of story. I hear people hotly debating something called "workflow". Reminds me of earlier guys messing with sweet oil and bitumen of Judea, sixty years before Rodinal was thought of. And in 100 years time we'll all be dead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom