lucasjld
Member
Hi there,
I've just registered this forum as I was looking for some info on the Zeiss Ikon ZM camera. I have a big doubt before switching to Rangefinder.
I currently work full time with ads and marketing, but still take some freelance jobs, mainly sports or weddings (yes, big contrast).
Unfortunately, I need to choose between both. They all affect each other, so I can't keep them at the same time.
I don't know why but lately I've been disappointed with my own work, not accepting wedding jobs anymore (also because its not my main income), even though I've recently updated all my equipment. I just got tired of people asking for stupid prices, not having time to travel, etc.
I'm thinking of leaving photography as a hobby only. And while I randomly looked for photo discussions, the Rangefinder cameras came through.
It just looked perfect. Light, compact, amazing IQ. I don't care if its film or digital. I was never interested in Leicas, mostly for the price, and didnt know the "incredible" world of rangefinder cameras.
So, I could sell all my DSLR stuff (Canon) and would have enough money to buy a Carl Zeiss ZM + 2 or 3 lenses.
I'm going on a big trip to Europe (I'm from Brazil), and I just felt it would be amazing to register such an experience with theses little cameras. I know I'll need 100 film rolls, but its doesnt matter as it would make me more "thoughtful" before pressing the shutter.
I didnt plan to write all that down and sorry for my "on, at, in, with" mistakes. I just wanted to know if anyone had the same experience or anything like it.
I've just registered this forum as I was looking for some info on the Zeiss Ikon ZM camera. I have a big doubt before switching to Rangefinder.
I currently work full time with ads and marketing, but still take some freelance jobs, mainly sports or weddings (yes, big contrast).
Unfortunately, I need to choose between both. They all affect each other, so I can't keep them at the same time.
I don't know why but lately I've been disappointed with my own work, not accepting wedding jobs anymore (also because its not my main income), even though I've recently updated all my equipment. I just got tired of people asking for stupid prices, not having time to travel, etc.
I'm thinking of leaving photography as a hobby only. And while I randomly looked for photo discussions, the Rangefinder cameras came through.
It just looked perfect. Light, compact, amazing IQ. I don't care if its film or digital. I was never interested in Leicas, mostly for the price, and didnt know the "incredible" world of rangefinder cameras.
So, I could sell all my DSLR stuff (Canon) and would have enough money to buy a Carl Zeiss ZM + 2 or 3 lenses.
I'm going on a big trip to Europe (I'm from Brazil), and I just felt it would be amazing to register such an experience with theses little cameras. I know I'll need 100 film rolls, but its doesnt matter as it would make me more "thoughtful" before pressing the shutter.
I didnt plan to write all that down and sorry for my "on, at, in, with" mistakes. I just wanted to know if anyone had the same experience or anything like it.
Chinasaur
Well-known
Factor in Film, developing & scanning costs (not trivial) unless you plan on doing both yourself. And if you develop and scan yourself, factor in the time (not trivial) needed to develop and scan.
Best of luck either way and have a great trip!
Best of luck either way and have a great trip!
Jobin
Established
I was in a similar situation a couple years ago. When I did shoot events for a short bit, I hated not being able to take photos the way I wanted. When photography is just a hobby it is much more liberating and less stressful. When I had a dslr I felt like I had to be using it daily or it wasn't worth having. I also had never had as much fun as I did when using a rangefinder. Light, compact, easy to use, and fun! I say make the switch, I don't regret it.
lucasjld
Member
I might develop myself and buy a film scanner. But I did consider both time and money.
Thanks
Exactly. My "best" pictures I took while going around trips or just carrying it around.
lam
Well-known
dSLR's is the reason why I dropped photography for a portion of my life.
It was actually the discovery of rangefinders from a friend, whom I randomly met at a thrift store one day. She carried an black MP taped up with gaffers tape, and that was that you could say.
It wasn't the that it was a Leica (took me a whole year before I could afford an M body), but more so a different technique with the rangefinder, composing using right eye, and using film again. That is what brought me back to photography as a hobby, as an expression, rather than just a paying servitude to people's wants and events.
I say go for it, it's the willingness that you show that tells me to say that.
—you live once, may as well try something different and new once in awhile, if you can sincerely give it up..
It was actually the discovery of rangefinders from a friend, whom I randomly met at a thrift store one day. She carried an black MP taped up with gaffers tape, and that was that you could say.
It wasn't the that it was a Leica (took me a whole year before I could afford an M body), but more so a different technique with the rangefinder, composing using right eye, and using film again. That is what brought me back to photography as a hobby, as an expression, rather than just a paying servitude to people's wants and events.
I say go for it, it's the willingness that you show that tells me to say that.
—you live once, may as well try something different and new once in awhile, if you can sincerely give it up..
AndrewNYC
Established
Just bear in mind
Just bear in mind
That taking a shot on film, and then scanning it, is another "capture" which can be just as complex and has all of the variables that your original capture. It is certainly possible to do it well, and to get your variables down to a handful, but it is another "picture" that you need to manage. First, get everything right in the photo, then getting everything right in the scan. It takes a significantly longer amount of time. But it can be worth it. However, I think you need to realize how much romanticism comes along with the "rangefinder". People will tell you that they can take pictures better because it is stealthy, but I woulda rgue this is self-defeating and causes worse pictures. I've yet to see any photos here, or on APUG or anywhere that were both good and coud not have been made with any dSLR. There are valid reasons to choose the lighter weight camera system, but we are speaking just to the photo.
Just bear in mind
That taking a shot on film, and then scanning it, is another "capture" which can be just as complex and has all of the variables that your original capture. It is certainly possible to do it well, and to get your variables down to a handful, but it is another "picture" that you need to manage. First, get everything right in the photo, then getting everything right in the scan. It takes a significantly longer amount of time. But it can be worth it. However, I think you need to realize how much romanticism comes along with the "rangefinder". People will tell you that they can take pictures better because it is stealthy, but I woulda rgue this is self-defeating and causes worse pictures. I've yet to see any photos here, or on APUG or anywhere that were both good and coud not have been made with any dSLR. There are valid reasons to choose the lighter weight camera system, but we are speaking just to the photo.
lucasjld
Member
Its a good point. I do realize the romanticism, the film thing, people talk about developing as the most amazing practice in the world. I do know some places that develop and have a nice price/quality balance.
I expressed myself not in a clear way when I talked about IQ. I don't think I'll get better IQ in film than with digital. They just look as good as. Of course, sometimes worse and sometimes better.
lucasjld
Member
I also considered a Hassey 500, as you can get extremely cheap deals nowadays and shoot landscapes a lot.
Have anyone tried 6x6 format?
Have anyone tried 6x6 format?
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
While small, the camera's and lenses are heavy.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
The way you describe it, you'll be going on a 'journey'. Breaking away from the mold. My two cents: using a Carl Zeiss ZM camera body with three lenses is a very good idea! Good luck and happy travels. Peter
okcomputer
Member
Go for it. I recently went on vaca to HK... I took along my 5Dii and a Zeiss Ikon with two lenses. I had been away from film for a couple of years. Ended up using film for just about all the photos and the (wonderful) 5D for movies of my daughter. I did take shots side by side with the 5D and film (which was scanned at a nice lab). On those shots I did a very casual comparison, the sharpness and resolution appeared better on the 5D, but I far preferred the look of the shots from the Zeiss Ikon. I suspect this has waaay more to do with the beautiful Ektar 100 and Portra 400 than the camera or leica/zeiss lenses..
old 35mm summicron/Ektar
Tmax/50mm Sonnar
old 35mm summicron/Ektar
Tmax/50mm Sonnar
boomguy57
Well-known
I agree that a rangefinder will not equate to better pictures. However, there are other factors in play here.
For many, the romanticism of rangefinders has to do with the simplicity of photography. To many, when they begin with photography it is very simple; you point, expose, and shoot. You have a camera and a lens, and you don't worry too much. It's fun, it's addicting...but as you get deeper into the hobby, you complicate things. This is natural, but by complicating things you can also rob yourself of the passion--and more importantly, the fun!--you had when you began.
More complex equipment--with more settings, more megapixels, more AF points, more matrix metering, etc--can create a shooting experience that is more stressful. Even if you allow the camera to set the bulk of the settings, you still have to now choose from the stable of lenses you have, set the ISO, and others. As you learn more about photography, you experiment with different styles and subjects, you play with light, depth of field, focus, composition, shutter speeds, etc. You try to emulate other photographers, or "discover your own style". You chimp obsessively, looking at composition and histograms. All the while you are generally accumulating gear and knowledge about said gear, and both your body and mind become tired. Maybe you do some paid gigs, which is okay for a while, but you soon find yourself not challenged, repeating past success and becoming stale. And then, when you start to become disillusioned, you put the camera down. It's big, heavy, time-consuming, and most importantly, you have found other things in life that are actually fun.
Enter the rangefinder. To many, the rangefinder is synonymous with putting simplicity first. Bodies and lenses are so expensive that you can't have an entire stable to choose from. There isn't a new model every year with improved IS or AF. So you dump your old baggage--mental and physical--and get a rangefinder. You find that all the knowledge you have accumulated about photography goes into it without having to think as much. It's smaller, lighter, quieter, and doesn't have a screen. No chimping. No histograms. No new model in 180 days.
It's easy to wax lyrical on the old cliche about "gear doesn't matter", but there comes a point when it does matter. I think the romance of the rangefinder, and the cult that it spawns is a bit tedious at times, but people like them. For whatever reason, there is an emotional bond that is formed with their gear. Most importantly, it's fun again. And to disagree with the other poster again: there are quite a few shots that I have taken myself that could not have been taken with a DSLR, for the simple fact that it is so noisy and large. The point of a rangefinder--nowadays--is simplicity of vision and execution of that vision, in an unobtrusive package. Documenting without disturbing.
My point, really, is this: the move to a rangefinder is for many a move back to what made photography fun in the first place. It's simplicity is the principal trait which people find attractive. It won't make your photos better, but if you carry your camera more often, you will take more pictures with it. If this is your hobby, then you should do what you enjoy, how you enjoy it.
At the end of the day, I'd argue that moving back to film is a better way to simplify, despite the fact that if you choose to digitize your photos you have in fact created more steps and more work for yourself (unless you send it off to be processed and scanned).
Now that I have abandoned the OP...I'll get back that way.
DO IT, MAN. Without hesitation. Enjoy it, and shoot film. Liberate yourself from the burdens that have been weighing down your creative potential.
For many, the romanticism of rangefinders has to do with the simplicity of photography. To many, when they begin with photography it is very simple; you point, expose, and shoot. You have a camera and a lens, and you don't worry too much. It's fun, it's addicting...but as you get deeper into the hobby, you complicate things. This is natural, but by complicating things you can also rob yourself of the passion--and more importantly, the fun!--you had when you began.
More complex equipment--with more settings, more megapixels, more AF points, more matrix metering, etc--can create a shooting experience that is more stressful. Even if you allow the camera to set the bulk of the settings, you still have to now choose from the stable of lenses you have, set the ISO, and others. As you learn more about photography, you experiment with different styles and subjects, you play with light, depth of field, focus, composition, shutter speeds, etc. You try to emulate other photographers, or "discover your own style". You chimp obsessively, looking at composition and histograms. All the while you are generally accumulating gear and knowledge about said gear, and both your body and mind become tired. Maybe you do some paid gigs, which is okay for a while, but you soon find yourself not challenged, repeating past success and becoming stale. And then, when you start to become disillusioned, you put the camera down. It's big, heavy, time-consuming, and most importantly, you have found other things in life that are actually fun.
Enter the rangefinder. To many, the rangefinder is synonymous with putting simplicity first. Bodies and lenses are so expensive that you can't have an entire stable to choose from. There isn't a new model every year with improved IS or AF. So you dump your old baggage--mental and physical--and get a rangefinder. You find that all the knowledge you have accumulated about photography goes into it without having to think as much. It's smaller, lighter, quieter, and doesn't have a screen. No chimping. No histograms. No new model in 180 days.
It's easy to wax lyrical on the old cliche about "gear doesn't matter", but there comes a point when it does matter. I think the romance of the rangefinder, and the cult that it spawns is a bit tedious at times, but people like them. For whatever reason, there is an emotional bond that is formed with their gear. Most importantly, it's fun again. And to disagree with the other poster again: there are quite a few shots that I have taken myself that could not have been taken with a DSLR, for the simple fact that it is so noisy and large. The point of a rangefinder--nowadays--is simplicity of vision and execution of that vision, in an unobtrusive package. Documenting without disturbing.
My point, really, is this: the move to a rangefinder is for many a move back to what made photography fun in the first place. It's simplicity is the principal trait which people find attractive. It won't make your photos better, but if you carry your camera more often, you will take more pictures with it. If this is your hobby, then you should do what you enjoy, how you enjoy it.
At the end of the day, I'd argue that moving back to film is a better way to simplify, despite the fact that if you choose to digitize your photos you have in fact created more steps and more work for yourself (unless you send it off to be processed and scanned).
Now that I have abandoned the OP...I'll get back that way.
DO IT, MAN. Without hesitation. Enjoy it, and shoot film. Liberate yourself from the burdens that have been weighing down your creative potential.naattik
Newbie
WoW !! That's some serious philosophy, great write-up !!!
WoW !! That's some serious philosophy, great write-up !!!
I always have a tough time choosing in between my latest DSLR and my Leica. I'm stuck sometimes trying to decide whether to get a new lens for the DSLR or an old but very expensive lens for the rangefinder. Rangefinder is very addictive indeed !!!
WoW !! That's some serious philosophy, great write-up !!!
I always have a tough time choosing in between my latest DSLR and my Leica. I'm stuck sometimes trying to decide whether to get a new lens for the DSLR or an old but very expensive lens for the rangefinder. Rangefinder is very addictive indeed !!!
AndrewNYC
Established
I second this thought...
I second this thought...
To me the cost/ benefit in 35mm just isn't there. In Medium Format, however, and alrger, frankly, the film work is WORTH it.
I second this thought...
To me the cost/ benefit in 35mm just isn't there. In Medium Format, however, and alrger, frankly, the film work is WORTH it.
AndrewNYC
Established
This is about the person, not the camera
This is about the person, not the camera
The rangefinder may force them into doing this. But any camera can do it. You can set you dSLR to full manual. This isn't about cameras. I've shot for the last 4 years with a Canon 5D and a 50mm only.
This is about the person, not the camera
The rangefinder may force them into doing this. But any camera can do it. You can set you dSLR to full manual. This isn't about cameras. I've shot for the last 4 years with a Canon 5D and a 50mm only.
redisburning
Well-known
I do this, I find it very simple.
The ZM lenses are very good. Im sure the Ikon is a great camera. I've been having a ton of fun scanning my shots from my ZM Planar + M2 combo as well as my OM-1; I can't imagine doing digital again at any real volume.
huntjump
Well-known
do it...when i hit a stagnant period in my photography pursuit from shooting DLSRs only...i was lucky and fortunate enough to discover on my own the world of RFs...and it was honestly life changing. I wouldnt recommend an M body only for sports/weddings if you are going to continue to get paid for those events...but for everything pleasurable and for YOU, i really think the RF world will change your perspective and keep you in photography.
Not so fast.
Have you shot film before? If yes, you probably know what you are doing, go ahead. If not, I strongly suggest playing with film and scanning for a little while to see if you like it.That said, Canon digital stuff is everywhere, so if you decide to sell now you will be able to acquire the same equipment later anytime if you want to.
I am currently shooting film and have ditched digital for the most part.
lucasjld
Member
Thank you all for the replies! These are some beautiful shots from HK!
"Boomguy" tears almost dropped from my eyes after that!
"Speedfreak", thats what I think. I can easily return to digital. But I'll never know how RF ir MF is without trying.
I have shot film before. I used to have a Nikon before the Canon. So I used some of my lenses with a FM body.
"Boomguy" tears almost dropped from my eyes after that!
"Speedfreak", thats what I think. I can easily return to digital. But I'll never know how RF ir MF is without trying.
I have shot film before. I used to have a Nikon before the Canon. So I used some of my lenses with a FM body.
Eric T
Well-known
It's clear that you like film and are interested in a very good rangefinder (Zeiss Ikon ZM) BUT consider the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and its three lenses. I recently bought that set and I am very pleased. I will likely be selling lots of other equipment soon.
I do have a Zeiss Ikon SW and I like it. I slapped a 15mm C/V lens on it and learned to develop color film (I use Kodak Ektar 100). It is fun but I don't come close to the image quality of the Fuji.
I do have a Zeiss Ikon SW and I like it. I slapped a 15mm C/V lens on it and learned to develop color film (I use Kodak Ektar 100). It is fun but I don't come close to the image quality of the Fuji.