jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
anselwannab said:
Ever seen the great 1967 Theodore J. Flicker film The President's Analyst, starring James Coburn?
Manifesto: Time to Kiss the M Mount Goodbye? [long!]
- Thread starter jlw
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 109
- Views 10K
Ever seen the great 1967 Theodore J. Flicker film The President's Analyst, starring James Coburn?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I still think interest in this newfangled film stuff will wane. Film produces inferior flatness (critical to sharp, high-quality images) and it requires a huge, complex industrial infrastructure to produce. Glass plates coated with albumen emulsion are flatter, provide excellent tonal range, and can be produced in your own kitchen.
Film bad, booooo! Glass plates good, yay!
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
RichC said:
This sums up the primary reason why I spent about $3,500 on film RF photograpy in 2006 and not a penny on dSLRs.
The convenience of digital media is not worth the frustration of operating a camera in a manner that some marketing/ergonomic design team never intended customers to use.
My secondary reason for investing in the M RF system has to do with focus. A RF can be focused quickly in even the dimmest light. Zone focusing and pre-focusing is also reliable. Auto-focus can be an invaluable tool. If I was a sports/action photographer I would use a D2Xs. If you spend an hour or so looking at posts on PNET's Wedding Photography group, you will learn that bullet proof AF photography requires the best bodies, lenses and lots of practice. RF shooters are not surprised by this because bullet proof RF focusing is made easier by the same things. The difference is: a RF photographer does it with their brain and the dSLR photographer does it with, and by adapting to, the camera's brain.
The compact size, lens issues (diversity and quality) and aesthetics follow behind – but not by much.
With regard to 4/3 and APS sensors and a new RF mount standard. The problem with these sensors in not how many megapixels can be crammed on a chip. The problem is the high thermal noise levels found on crowded chips.
What about digital M mount cameras? I chose not to head in that direction for purely subjective reasons. Many made the opposite decision. They are happy with the road they took, and I'm happy with the road I took.
Finally, if I was forced to down-size and could only afford one camera, I'd buy the Ricoh GRD and shoot in B&W. This would give me the 35mm film aesthetic for the least amount of money over a 3 - 5 year period.
willie
N
Nick R.
Guest
A non M mount drf?
dslr's have the same advantage over Drf's that slr's always had over rf's: the use of long lenses. Anything over 75mm on a leica M is pushing it, imo. My pentax spotmatic can run rings around my Leica from 100mm and up. The same applies to the drf. If you want longer lenses (adjusting for the crop factor), you'll have to get a dslr.
So what advantage can the rf have in the digi world? Well, using Leica M lenses for one thing and that may be the only advantage there is.
Size advantage? High-end digi point and shoots will be as small as any drf you can think of. View finder issues? A dP&S can have an optical viewfinder which removes that advantage from the dRF. A Digital p&s with a zoom lens will cover the entire range of usable focal lengths you would need to produce for your drf. So what does that leave you with? A camera that can't compete with dslr's because of the long lens issue and, for compactness sake, is not a better choice, imo, than a high quality digi point and shoot. The only reason to own one I can think of is to use existing M lenses.
Hence, we have the M8 and digilux 3. We know what the M8 does. It uses M mount lenses. It's the D3 that comes closest to what you want. It can mimic the RF feel and viewfinder with its unique reflex mirror design but still use the long zooms that make it relevant in today's camera market.
dslr's have the same advantage over Drf's that slr's always had over rf's: the use of long lenses. Anything over 75mm on a leica M is pushing it, imo. My pentax spotmatic can run rings around my Leica from 100mm and up. The same applies to the drf. If you want longer lenses (adjusting for the crop factor), you'll have to get a dslr.
So what advantage can the rf have in the digi world? Well, using Leica M lenses for one thing and that may be the only advantage there is.
Size advantage? High-end digi point and shoots will be as small as any drf you can think of. View finder issues? A dP&S can have an optical viewfinder which removes that advantage from the dRF. A Digital p&s with a zoom lens will cover the entire range of usable focal lengths you would need to produce for your drf. So what does that leave you with? A camera that can't compete with dslr's because of the long lens issue and, for compactness sake, is not a better choice, imo, than a high quality digi point and shoot. The only reason to own one I can think of is to use existing M lenses.
Hence, we have the M8 and digilux 3. We know what the M8 does. It uses M mount lenses. It's the D3 that comes closest to what you want. It can mimic the RF feel and viewfinder with its unique reflex mirror design but still use the long zooms that make it relevant in today's camera market.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
😱jlw said:
Nothing to add.
Rangefinder camera pedant? Huh ...
hth
Well-known
Given your arguments, I would say try to apply them in a film world. What advantages do a Leica M have of SLRs or high quality point and shoot cameras?
Size advantage? No, any high quality P&S is smaller and ligther and can cover a wider zoom range. A P&S can even have a decent viewfinder.
The Leica M cannot even compete with an SLR due to the long lens issue.
No difference, same issues as before. In the film days all three cameras even used the same (fullframe) sensor --- film.
Still, people used Leica M in these days over P&S and SLRs, even when they were equipped with the same sensor (film).
Is the difference only the M lenses? Hardly I would say. The main reason I choose an M camera (with non-Leica M lenses actually), is the control it gives me and the feeling. The control I have over focusing, framing (I can see what is outside the picture) and that I can see what happens even when I take the picture. The feeling of using a simple camera of high build quality, with a decent form factor that does not need battery changes all the time. All these items still persist (except the battery issue) in a digital world.
In addition to these issues that are relevant to me, a Leica DRF offers the ability to make pictures with short DOF, which is quite useful. No digital P&S offers that today.
You also say that "A dP&S can have an optical viewfinder which removes that advantage from the dRF." Well, I guess that it can have, but given the staggering amount of offerings in this area, have you ever actually seen one with a deceont viewfinder? I have not.
I would say that an RF camera has just as much reason to exist in a digital world as it had in a film world. It is just a different capture device, no fundamental change. Though, still these capture devices have strange issues and flaws that we are not used to see with film. Depending on lens system used, these issues show up to different degrees. Over time, this technology will improve and mature. My feeling is that it is more than enough ready to be used today, if you can motivate to spend the amount of money needed. It seems that everything related to photography have their quirks, issues and compromises. This is nothing new. If you need a digital RF, it is here today, just get it and learn to use it. (I have to wait as I lack economic ability, and I am not sure I want to leave film either..)
In the long run, the dRF and dSLR may face tough competition from properly made high end digital P&S. They could offer good handling, feeling and quality in a small package, which if good enough, can push the dinosaur system cameras into a very small niche. They have the advantage of being a closed system designed from scratch considering the current state of sensor technology, rather than doing the opposite, relying on legacy lens mounts and trying to make the sensor technology work with them.
/Håkan
Size advantage? No, any high quality P&S is smaller and ligther and can cover a wider zoom range. A P&S can even have a decent viewfinder.
The Leica M cannot even compete with an SLR due to the long lens issue.
No difference, same issues as before. In the film days all three cameras even used the same (fullframe) sensor --- film.
Still, people used Leica M in these days over P&S and SLRs, even when they were equipped with the same sensor (film).
Is the difference only the M lenses? Hardly I would say. The main reason I choose an M camera (with non-Leica M lenses actually), is the control it gives me and the feeling. The control I have over focusing, framing (I can see what is outside the picture) and that I can see what happens even when I take the picture. The feeling of using a simple camera of high build quality, with a decent form factor that does not need battery changes all the time. All these items still persist (except the battery issue) in a digital world.
In addition to these issues that are relevant to me, a Leica DRF offers the ability to make pictures with short DOF, which is quite useful. No digital P&S offers that today.
You also say that "A dP&S can have an optical viewfinder which removes that advantage from the dRF." Well, I guess that it can have, but given the staggering amount of offerings in this area, have you ever actually seen one with a deceont viewfinder? I have not.
I would say that an RF camera has just as much reason to exist in a digital world as it had in a film world. It is just a different capture device, no fundamental change. Though, still these capture devices have strange issues and flaws that we are not used to see with film. Depending on lens system used, these issues show up to different degrees. Over time, this technology will improve and mature. My feeling is that it is more than enough ready to be used today, if you can motivate to spend the amount of money needed. It seems that everything related to photography have their quirks, issues and compromises. This is nothing new. If you need a digital RF, it is here today, just get it and learn to use it. (I have to wait as I lack economic ability, and I am not sure I want to leave film either..)
In the long run, the dRF and dSLR may face tough competition from properly made high end digital P&S. They could offer good handling, feeling and quality in a small package, which if good enough, can push the dinosaur system cameras into a very small niche. They have the advantage of being a closed system designed from scratch considering the current state of sensor technology, rather than doing the opposite, relying on legacy lens mounts and trying to make the sensor technology work with them.
/Håkan
Nick R. said:
N
Nick R.
Guest
All the film RF's are legacy systems from the days before slr's. Even the CV uses legacy lenses. A new non-legacy dRF? No way.
anselwannab
Well-known
jlw said:
It would be interesting to see the forums from the 30s when 35mm rangefinders acame out and see the general consensus. Did they complain about the smaller image area, the lack of depth of field of the lenses and the fact that you could rip of 36 frames on one roll?
Bryce
Well-known
I've got a better idea- leave the M- mount alone, make retrofocus lenses that have the right thickness to use it. Simple enough, and keeps this crowd happy because at least their longer lenses will still work.
I don't see why the rangefinder mechanism is diffictult or expensive to make. There's almost nothing to it- a couple of low quality, simple lenses, and a couple of low quality mirrors, one only partially aluminized. From a manufacturing perspective, that's as simple and non- critical as it gets.
And it takes the place of a complex pentaprism, focus screen, and bouncy mirror? Surely slr's are at least as expensive and demanding to produce.
I don't see why the rangefinder mechanism is diffictult or expensive to make. There's almost nothing to it- a couple of low quality, simple lenses, and a couple of low quality mirrors, one only partially aluminized. From a manufacturing perspective, that's as simple and non- critical as it gets.
And it takes the place of a complex pentaprism, focus screen, and bouncy mirror? Surely slr's are at least as expensive and demanding to produce.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 4:33 AM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
JLW and crew,
What a great thread! JLW, that was a very thoughtful, and well-organized argument. It was a pure pleasure to read, and it encouraged some good discussion...notwithstanding a quixotic non-sequitor.
Personally I think sensor design will advance in ways we can't yet anticipate and what you suggest might just be in the future. Maybe we should petition one of the big gorillas, or the smaller but more agile simian, Olympus.
cheers and thanks
What a great thread! JLW, that was a very thoughtful, and well-organized argument. It was a pure pleasure to read, and it encouraged some good discussion...notwithstanding a quixotic non-sequitor.
Personally I think sensor design will advance in ways we can't yet anticipate and what you suggest might just be in the future. Maybe we should petition one of the big gorillas, or the smaller but more agile simian, Olympus.
cheers and thanks
Ororaro
Well-known
Why does one always have to want to change everything only to get back to square 1?
I will want a new mount once, and only once I have shot with all the lenses that are out there.
See my point?
I will want a new mount once, and only once I have shot with all the lenses that are out there.
See my point?
S
StuartR
Guest
To an extent, I agree with NB23. I think you are writing off the M mount entirely, when it does not need to be so binary. The M mount has already advanced slightly with the M8 while retaining legacy use of all the lenses. I don't see why you couldn't design a new mount that could adapt the older lenses while still making many of the technical advances you speak of. Sort of like the change from screwmount to M mount, only a step further. The idea of an electronic focusing cam is a good one and could possibly be made to work measuring exactly what the cam rolls on on today's cameras (I am sorry, I don't know what part is called on the lens...). Newer lenses could incorporate more sophisticated connections. While the M series lenses don't generally contact the inner part of the camera body other than at the cam roller, newer lenses could be designed with electronic contacts on the interior of the lens (not flat on the mount), such as they are in the Rollei 6000 series. That would allow the use of both the M mount lenses as well as newer, more sophisticated lenses. The disadvantage of this method would be that you were restricted to the same flange to sensor distance as the M mount. Personally, I think the advantages of retaining backward compatability and small size overcome the negative of lack of space.
I would agree with teleonius that you cannot completely separate the utility of the rangefinder focusing from the size advantage enjoyed with rangefinder cameras. Yes, the focusing is what defines them as rangefinders, but they are also almost invariably smaller than SLR's for comparitive film size (Leicas, the Mamiya 7 versus other 6x7 cameras etc). By choosing a significantly larger mount, you would lose the size advantage, which is one of the two most compelling reasons to choose a rangefinder.
Personally, I think that the strength of rangefinders is that they tend to place very little between you in the subject -- you look through framelines, possibly with both eyes open, and the cameras themselves are quiet, compact and unobtrusive. If they become the same size as an SLR, then they lose a lot of their compactness and unobtrusiveness.
Anyway, I think a new mount might be interesting, but I think maintaining a similar form factor is important. Ideally, something no bigger than an M5, yet with a full-frame 35mm sensor. Another alternative would be to go bigger, but also increase sensor size -- do something 645 sized in a body like a Mamiya 7II or Bronica RF.
I would agree with teleonius that you cannot completely separate the utility of the rangefinder focusing from the size advantage enjoyed with rangefinder cameras. Yes, the focusing is what defines them as rangefinders, but they are also almost invariably smaller than SLR's for comparitive film size (Leicas, the Mamiya 7 versus other 6x7 cameras etc). By choosing a significantly larger mount, you would lose the size advantage, which is one of the two most compelling reasons to choose a rangefinder.
Personally, I think that the strength of rangefinders is that they tend to place very little between you in the subject -- you look through framelines, possibly with both eyes open, and the cameras themselves are quiet, compact and unobtrusive. If they become the same size as an SLR, then they lose a lot of their compactness and unobtrusiveness.
Anyway, I think a new mount might be interesting, but I think maintaining a similar form factor is important. Ideally, something no bigger than an M5, yet with a full-frame 35mm sensor. Another alternative would be to go bigger, but also increase sensor size -- do something 645 sized in a body like a Mamiya 7II or Bronica RF.
40oz
...
jlw said:
way to make a point :/
Look, you want something that doesn't exist for a reason. Don't get pissy when people point out that the shortcomings of digital are becoming increasingly obvious, along with the strengths of film.
Film isn't going anywhere. "Most people" want Brownies, Imstamatics, and now P&S cameras. Digital P&S cameras are nice, because at first, it seems great - cheap, handy, nothing extra to buy but batteries. But as the medium matures, it becomes obvious to all but the most recalcitrant that digital is hardly the panacea it at first seemed.
There is this myth that digital is cheap. Howver, it doesn't cost any less for digital prints than it costs for film prints. And from what I've seen, people take far more digital snapshots than they ever would with film, totally destroying any perceived savings. Film processing itself is only a couple bucks, but the memory cards for a digital camera easily would cover a year's supply of film for most casual users. Then there is the computer that becomes mandatory if you wish to store, manipulate, and share your pictures. The cost of the computer easily covers years of film processing and prints, even postage for sharing. In addition, almost all people will probably be buying a new camera every few years, regardless of their enthusiasm for photography, simply because they can't take advantage of new imaging technology without doing so. These same people in the past would merely stash their film camera in a drawer until the next family outing or holiday, keeping cameras for ten years or more, and giving them to their children or relatives when/if they upgraded.
Sure, for certain professions, digital photography is great. But unless you are a paid photographer, chances are that you really aren't seeing any cost savings from going digital. And you are losing years of family memories any time a hard drive fails, unless you had the foresight to implement a back-up system.
The popular desire for digital P&S cameras is not because digital really has anything to offer other than convenience. And if you are going to willfully take the time to manually focus, manually meter, manually set the film speed, manually set the aperture, consider depth of field, development times, paper grades, etc., why the hell would the convenience of digital have any appeal? Once you take away the P&S aspects of a digital camera, there is no benefit at all. None. Nada. Just look at the images in the gallery to see the results of scanning. Having been down-sized for posting on the internet, there is no superiority to digital camera images at all, and most would say there is an inferior aspect to them. The actual scanning process might take a couple minutes per image, but no-one said you needed to scan every roll in entirety just to post a few shots.
The fact is, there is likely NEVER going to come a day when digital images downsized for the web will look superior to scanned film images downsized as well. And since film printing has been under development for far longer than digital printing, it has a head start that will probably never be made up. You are talking about a technology that has been worked, refined, researched, and produced for over a century compared to one still in its infancy. Everybody loves children, but the attraction often fades as they mature.
I'm not falling into the trap of constantly upgrading bodies because they are inherently flawed from the start. There's plenty of room for improvement in film and lenses that don't negate the value of my film camera bodies, but virtually no room for improvement in digital imaging that doesn't negate the value of the equipment. Any improvements in lens technology will benefit film images. Any improvement in film technology is inherently compatible with my current film bodies. Any improvement in digital imaging processing is inherently compatible with my film bodies. Any improvement in digital sensor technology is inherently useless with current digital bodies. Unless companies start upgrading sensor units in existing bodies for a nominal fee, there is no reason to buy an interchangeable lens digital body. It'd be like buying a car because it has replaceable windows. You still have to replace the entire car to benefit from improvements in drivetrain and chassis technology, the two areas that actually drive purchasing choices in vehicles.
If I don't want to spend top dollar on a film camera body, I can still get the same image quality, but give up only features. If I don't want to spend top dollar on a digital body, I give up image quality. What a stinking bargain :/
Last edited:
rvaubel
Well-known
RichC said:
I'm with Rich about an replacing the optical viewfinder with an EVF. But it must be an order of magnitude better than anything thats out there now. The technology simple does not exist for what I would consider an acceptible replacement for an optical viewfinder. But when a EVF with a resolution of about 2MP comes down the road, the advantages will far outweigh the disadvantages. Imagine a near full frame live view sensor feeding a 2MP lcd viewfinder. The M mount lens could be grossly focused manually and then the fine focus achieved ever manually or automatically with a moving sensor.
Such a camera could have a form factor all the way frame the size of a Minolta CL/Canon G7 allthe way up to a full size M7/8. Materials could range all the way from high tech carbon fiber to brass depending on the target market.
I think that a camera like I discribe would have a broad market...all the way from the high end point n' shoot crowd to the proffesional user needing a compact form.
Hope springith eternal. Meanwhile we have the M8 and the RD1
That's all folks
Rex
N
Nick R.
Guest
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the advances in electronics that have made P&S's superior pocket cameras. Auto focus, AE, and electronic shutters were not possible when RF's were introduced a zillion years ago. The GRD or something like it can do everything that you would want your digi rf to do. The only thing it can't do is use M mount lenses. Any other argument is just wishful thinking, imo.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I was pretty sure that's what you meant, and I concur. I'm not sure how much the major manufacturers are interested in getting to that level.RichC said:
willie_901 said:
Yes. The hallmark of the E-1 is its dynamic range at lower ISOs. "Everyone knows" that high ISO performance of the E1 is not the same as Canon sensors, etc. As I have stated elsewhere, I view the whining/complaining about high ISO noise is largely nonsense.
Earl
climbing_vine
Well-known
40oz said:
This is a rehash of an old, old argument, and it's been a long time since it carried much truth.
1. A 1GB memory card in most formats can be had for under $50 today, less than $30 on sale. Amateurs, with 4 or 5 or 6 MP P&S digitals, will almost never need more than 1GB. In a lot of places in the US, at least, $50 won't cover more than four or five rolls of film--less if it's traditional black and white. You may not have noticed, but film and processes prices have been shooting up and this is not going to change anytime soon.
2. Nearly everyone who buys a digital camera already has a computer that they use for other things. Including that cost is like including the cost of the walls of your house for hanging film prints. Absurd.
3. The people that will buy a new digicam every few years would have bought a new camera every few years. Those people are the ones who want the newest toy no matter what--they were on endless upgrade cycles with film cameras because they had to have the newest auto-focus and anti-shake and everything else. If you think digital magically turns people into consumerists, I don't know what to say.
So, so wrong. Getting a good scan without very expensive equipment is a laborious process, and some people just never get the knack for it. This entire point is an utter non sequiter. You're saying, in effect: "You're willing to take three extra seconds to exert manual control over taking a photo in order to make it look its best and feel good about it; so why not spend hours scanning in order to try to get a minimally-degraded electronic interpolation of that image."
Utter nonsense. As long as the shot doesn't feature digital's achilles heel (for now)--clipping to white in highlighted areas--a properly exposed digicam shot downsized for the web is already better than a print scanned with equipment in the same price point as that digicam.
That's because children have potential. I'm sorry to bring up what's been obvious for many years now, but film is finished. It'll still be available for a while, but it's not going to get much (if any) better than it is as we speak. There is nearly zero R&D in it, because nearly nobody buys it anymore. This has been gone over in detail by certain members of this forum past and present. Consumer digital, on the other hand, already beats 35mm in 90% of situations, and its where all the research is.
There *won't be* any more serious improvements in film technology. There haven't been any truly noticeable advances in 35mm film in over a decade, and that situation is not going to improve. You're right about sensor advances requiring a new body (at this point, anyway), but as long as your current cam does what you need it to do (as most already do for most people most of the time) then you don't *need* to upgrade.
There seems to be a consistent thesis here that sensor/film advances are what drives purchasing choices in cameras. No offense, but that simply isn't the case. Sure, maybe for a very small number of people like those who hang out on this board, but for 99% of the world the only sensor advance they care about is MP count.
It is a bargain, if you don't need the extra quality. And the number of consumers who print beyond 5x7 is small, those who print beyond 8x10 vaninshingly so.... you do the math. I'd be willing to put money down that less than 2% of even the population of RFF have ever printed larger than 8x10. I did it twice to play with a large format printer at work, never made a real print bigger than that.
I'm a little embarassed to have joined into a digiwar here, but people who run around touting an alleged decline of digital are the ones who make us film users look like crank cases, and a periodic reality check is a necessity.
BJ Bignell
Je n'aurai plus peur
I don't have much intelligent to add to this thread right now, but I found it interesting, and fun to read thus far. So, my 2 cents:
I find one solution proposed by jlw - to have a servomotor-based rangefinder - very interesting; this might even help to solve the problem of misaligned rangefinders. It would even be relatively easy to make this type of system self-healing. Imagine this: mount camera on tripod, set lens to infinity, and then press a button until the rangefinder patch lines itself up correctly. Repeat for 1m, and you're set. Have another button to adjust the vertical, and you're laughing. I would welcome this, as I have two Bessa R that currently need slight adjustment in both directions!
About replacing the lens mount, I don't know what to say... maybe it's because I'm not sure I see the need to change. The relatively small user base would seem to make it easier to replace the M mount, but the amount of history and emotion attached to the M mount might trump that.
Personally, I think that if a new system arrives, it must include compatibility for M (and thus, LTM) lenses if it wishes to succeed with the current customer base. And personally, if it results in a significantly larger camera (not larger like an M5, but larger like a 5D), I'm not going to be interested.
Cheers,
BJ
I find one solution proposed by jlw - to have a servomotor-based rangefinder - very interesting; this might even help to solve the problem of misaligned rangefinders. It would even be relatively easy to make this type of system self-healing. Imagine this: mount camera on tripod, set lens to infinity, and then press a button until the rangefinder patch lines itself up correctly. Repeat for 1m, and you're set. Have another button to adjust the vertical, and you're laughing. I would welcome this, as I have two Bessa R that currently need slight adjustment in both directions!
About replacing the lens mount, I don't know what to say... maybe it's because I'm not sure I see the need to change. The relatively small user base would seem to make it easier to replace the M mount, but the amount of history and emotion attached to the M mount might trump that.
Personally, I think that if a new system arrives, it must include compatibility for M (and thus, LTM) lenses if it wishes to succeed with the current customer base. And personally, if it results in a significantly larger camera (not larger like an M5, but larger like a 5D), I'm not going to be interested.
Cheers,
BJ
willie_901
Veteran
Trius said:
High ISO noise is irrelevant if you choose to make images that do not require high ISOs. Such images represent a significant portion of photographic endeavor. Low ISO photography appeals to many but it is not embraced by all.
Otherwise high ISO (800 or greater) noise is a relevant issue. The typical dSLR user has a very slow kit zoom lens and a barely adequate pop-up flash. Consumer-level dSLR cameras employ heavy noise filtering for ISO 400. Digital filtering reduces resolution (always).
For a dRF to be successful, it has to produce color images that compare to ISO 800 color film. This is more difficult with APS and 4/3 sensors.
B&W photography is another matter. Small (noisy) sensors can produce B&W images with the aesthetic of 35mm high-ISO film. The Ricoh GRD is interesting as it captures high-ISO B&W images that compare very well with high ISO B&W film. At the same time its low ISO color performance is very good. But its ISO 400 color images are not competitive.
willie
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
40oz said:
It's worth posting this again (if you allow me, 40oz).
I support this point. Maybe I'm a silly conservative, but all the fuss around digital "annoys" me a bit (don't take it bad, it's a general statement). As Nachkebia said on another thread, digital (even RF digital) cameras don't need advocate, film cameras do; and above all film deserves to be promoted.
I would like to add this, which is not a strong argument but only a suggestive point: that's true that typing on a keyboard is a pretty easy way to write and communicate on internet; would it be a good reason to ignore pens and handwriting?
Best,
Marc
