Late night rants of an RF devotee

[doubs43]

Anyway, I'd submit that an intuitively laid out manual SLR, like a Nikon FM or a Leicaflex, is even more "close to flesh and bone" (hoo boy) than an M3. Here's why -- for me at least: I still have to make the leap of faith with a rangefinder that indeed the RF mechanism is properly aligned and that I've got my eye centered on the patch properly, and that the framelines (or external viewfinder) will accurately frame what I want them to. With an SLR, if my eye sees that something is in focus, it will be in focus on the film, and I can always check the depth of field. And there's no parallax to be concerned about.

I don't mean to make you paranoid but you've obviously never experienced an SLR with a mirror that's not properly adjusted. Believe me.... they exist and what you see in your finder won't be correctly focused at the film plane. It's not a common problem but can - and does - happen.

Walker

 

[yossarian]

Shutterflower, I don't know if you intended it, but I read your comments as pure Zen. I suppose it's the difference between image creation and image capture.
Capture...what sort of term is that for what some of are trying to do?

At 53 if I had written something like this it would be dismissed as simple nostalgia.
Chronologically I'm 53, but I'm really 17, and I always will be, so I am able to tap into what you're saying.

I'm dabbling with digital, using a Panasonic digicam, but so far there isn't one digital
SLR I'd take as a gift. My Olympus 35 RD is more responsive and intuitive than any
digital, and I'm not sure the electronics giants who will be producing our future cameras will ever really "get it".

And I, for one, have no problem with anthropomorphising anything. I share my space with one dog and one cat--nobody "owns" anybody else. It was how I was
brought up and just the way I like it.

To respect the camera is to respect what it will allow you to do. The closer that bond,
the better. Nobody is being forced to agree with you, but some of us choose to.

 

[goo0h]

Shutterflower's post IS way over the top, but I applauded it because of its passion and his willingness to take a risk by being so passionate.

I agree. I'd also add that I think it's important because it is hopeful to see a young person (or any age for that matter) shunning the conventional "wisdom" of the day. Particularly where freedoms are to be revered, this should never be disparaged.

To me the most essential aspect of the RF experience is that the image is not blackened-out. This has a simple yet significant impact. It lends to continuity of one's perception of and involvement with the environment. That's not to say that great photos are not possible with any tool and any medium. However, over the years it has struck me that more often than not there is a subtle difference with the RF (or TLR) images. I'd even say this quality is present in the first RFF book, which I absolutely love. (Can't wait for the next one!)

Well anyway, I should be working now. 😱

 

[sf]

Well -- while I appreciate shutterflower's sentiments, I get a little uncomfortable with the idea of anthropomorphisizing equipment. Don't get me wrong, I cherish my equipment as much as anyone else, but "holding the camera like some precious little creature" (and much of the rest of that paragraph) is rather over the top.

Anyway, I'd submit that an intuitively laid out manual SLR, like a Nikon FM or a Leicaflex, is even more "close to flesh and bone" (hoo boy) than an M3. Here's why -- for me at least: I still have to make the leap of faith with a rangefinder that indeed the RF mechanism is properly aligned and that I've got my eye centered on the patch properly, and that the framelines (or external viewfinder) will accurately frame what I want them to. With an SLR, if my eye sees that something is in focus, it will be in focus on the film, and I can always check the depth of field. And there's no parallax to be concerned about.

Whether RF or SLR, though, long live film!

I see your points about anthropomorphism. . . . it IS over the top. BUT it is also relevant, and I like it. And yes, I am corny after 2am or so, but that is just my love of photography and RFs in particular speaking out at full volume.

I am over the top. I would not have it any other - colorless - way.

 

[sf]

I posted something very different about 10 minutes ago, but am changing it because I don't want to get kicked out of this place.

But let me say this - these "film isn't dying" and "I don't just love my RF, I _LOVE_ my RF" threads are getting close to becoming "RFs and not other things" threads. In other words, I feel that we are getting close to moving from pro-RF to anti-other things.

APUG is another community in which I have tried to take part. However, I have been slowly driven away over the last year because the pro-film attitudes have turned into offensive and intimidating anti-digital ones. I still shoot film, but do the rest digitally, and I feel excluded and ostracized there.

This thread isn't like that. But please don't let this grow out of control.

allan

I would shoot digital for some things, had my D70 not died horribly last month. I was just singing in the rain, so to say. I would never say that digital is worthless, or that users of digital are not welcome, or that I dislike digital. What I would say, however, is that there are things that each offers. Things that are unique to each. Film and digital are two different experiences.

 

[sf]

[...]
Anyway, I'd submit that an intuitively laid out manual SLR, like a Nikon FM or a Leicaflex, is even more "close to flesh and bone" (hoo boy) than an M3. Here's why -- for me at least: I still have to make the leap of faith with a rangefinder that indeed the RF mechanism is properly aligned and that I've got my eye centered on the patch properly, and that the framelines (or external viewfinder) will accurately frame what I want them to. With an SLR, if my eye sees that something is in focus, it will be in focus on the film, and I can always check the depth of field. And there's no parallax to be concerned about.

Whether RF or SLR, though, long live film!

hey, my D70? It's mirror stopped working and it broke, and the electronics are funky. Gonna cost me $300 according to Samys in LA to fix things up with shipping figured in. While i miss having the simple, cheap to use, fast AF DSLR around for shooting pointless snapshots of friends and cats and dogs, I have a hard time shelling out the $300 to fix something that will soon be obsolete. That is something about the new science in cameras. PUtting money down to fix your digital is harder to do that to fix something that is more permanent. I mean, I could buy a new camera for just about twice that amount - or a used D70 body for about $350.

 

[kaiyen]

Well, there's a bit of perspective on the D70-death idea, then. Why would the D70 become obsolete? If it makes great pictures now, won't it continue to make great pictures later? Obviously, it will be _replaced_ by other models, almost all of which will have more resolution, be faster, etc, but it isn't really becoming obsolete. At least not any more than, say, an M2 became obsolete by the M3 or, perhaps more appropriately, the M6 TTL or M7.

The logic that one has to buy a new D200 or D2x or whatever is the same as for buying a medium or large format camera to replace your Leica. There is something that new item offers that compels you to buy that.

That's the way _I_ see it, anyway. Yes, a Leica lasts a lot longer than a D70. However, let's say they were equally robust, and required an equal amount of money to get back to spec. In that case, the decision seems a lot more even.

BTW - I am not commenting on the fact that your D70 died. That sucks, period, and it sucks that this new technology isn't as reliable as it should be.

allan

 

[sf]

[...]
That's the way _I_ see it, anyway. Yes, a Leica lasts a lot longer than a D70. However, let's say they were equally robust, and required an equal amount of money to get back to spec. In that case, the decision seems a lot more even.
[...]

allan

What I meant, was more that the technology itself, not the camera, is transient. You would probably find it harder to put money into fixing your old 386 desktop, when there are computers out there that clock alot faster, etc. That is really what I was trying to say. Leicas last longer. But, the D2X probably has a pretty strong lifetime, I would expect. And the Digital M, as well.

Oh, I would, however, change my mind about things if they were to figure some way of building a body that would allow simple, store bought, sensor upgrades.