My 35mm rangefinder misadventure

Status
Not open for further replies.
RF photography is not for everybody, Bill. I'm happy you did find a mode of photography that you do get on with well. Different strokes for different folks. No need to slag the choices of those that do like RF photography, on a RF photography forum, is there Bill?
 
Having come late to the RF world, and having had my interest in photography re-kindled by digital and especially digital SLRs, I have some sympathy for the view that dSLRs are "better" than film RF cameras. Avoiding arguments about precise meanings of "better", I think that's so because in many applications dSLRs simply are better - long telephoto zooms, macro and suchlike that RFs can't do well if at all. And those things that RFs do well, dSLRs can also do.

So any argument would have to be in the area of overlap. But I'm not going to argue. I think much of this comes down to personal preference, habits of work and the different ways different pieces of equipment help or hinder the photographic process for the particular photographer.

I have found, personally, that the different view provided by an RF camera has allowed, or at least encouraged, me to see things in different ways. That has assisted or encouraged me to take different kinds of photos from those I was taking with my dSLR in similar circumstances. I've also found that the high quality prime lenses available for RFs give a favourable price/performance/size trade-off with equivalent AF SLR lenses - but others' calculations in this regard may be different from mine. I've also found that I can often get better focusing accuracy with a manual RF than I can with a dSLR (albiet within a rather restricted range on the RF) especially in low light / low contrast situations, and this has been evident in some of my photographs.

As to digital vs film, well, I can see some advantages to film in terms of subtleties of grain vs noise, tonal response etc. which (I'd guess) would be difficult to reproduce with digital. But I can also see the big disadvantages of film as well. If price were no object, I'd probably buy an M8 or even an RD-1 (and keep film as well). Digital and film are both available for RFs and SLRs although with different price trade-offs. I see that as a separate issue from RF vs SLR as a "way of seeing".

For me, right now, I'm very happy with the combination of a dSLR and a film RF. Most of my shooting is done with my Canon 30D or my Hexar RF (it's about 50:50) with other digital and film cameras getting lesser use. That works for me. I'm sure it wouldn't work for others. So what?

I don't mind that someone posts saying they found RFs weren't for them. I just wonder if they tried the most effective approach to testing the RF waters. While I love my Zorki 4, as an example, I doubt I would have stuck with RF cameras if that was all I'd seen in comparison to my dSLR, as it misses many of the advantages I've found with other RF cameras. So I probably would have preferred a "what am I missing?" kind of post, rather than the "there's nothing there" that was actually posted. RFs may still not have been the tool for him, but with a bit of assistance he may have discovered more than he apparently did.

...Mike
 
tetrisattack said:
Getting hung up on equipment is a great way to halt artistic development.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tetris, voice of reason.

I have three lumping great pro DLSR's - Nikon D1X, D1H and D2Xs with all the kit, including big long lenses so that I can do whatever pro job is thrown at me....and I love them, they help me to produce great results and get almost any job done.

I also have a Contax G1 and a Leica M6, I love these too ( especially the M6 ) and with only a few exceptions I could use them in my pro work.

The point is, and this is where Tetris so succintly put it - the equipment is just that, a tool. It is your eye, brain and heart (maybe even a pinch of soul) that makes an image, at least a good one, and a good photographer will get a good image with any tool.

There is always a discussion to be had around the finer points of photography but please never at the expense of the soul of photography, this can be done on any format and with great success.

All I ask is anyone bearing a camera and a self declared interest (in photography) of any sort, strives to use it as a tool for personal expression on a level to suit them

Bill - An inflammatory post it seems, personally I think its a shame you didn't give RF's longer ( I get on better with my new M6 than my older G1 ) to see if you 'got there in the end.' However, enjoy your digital - lets hope you use the instantaneous nature to learn when to takeover from the 'chip' and make the most of the TOOL that you have.

Apologies everyone for 'banging on'
 
Perhaps it was not what he said but how he said it. How about this:

Hi gang. Just wanted to let you know that after giving RF cameras a try for a while, I've found that I just like using dSLR's better and am going to continue my photography in that direction.

No problem. All the best to you, Bill!
 
At this stage of course ... Bill could jump in and pour a little oil on the waters by apoligizing for causing us all to mount our soap boxes and explain that he was only expressing his own perspective ... and didn't mean to cause any offence! :angel:

... but then again these type of threads always make for good reading ... and there hasn't been a stroppy M8 thread for a few days now!
 
Last edited:
Ummm...inflamatory statement...10 hours and 2 pages of responses...no OP.

I hearby pledge that, if I ever feel the need to toss a bomb in to this forum, I will stick around, or at least visit back once in awhile, to defend my position.
 
To those who suggested that I am wasting my time on RFF, you're correct. I should have explained that this post is my final one.

To those who suggested that I would convert to a RF lover if I would only try a Leica - a Leica M is undoubtedly a higher quality camera than a Zorki, but it suffers from the same inherent limitations as any RF/35mm camera.

Many people on RFF and elsewhere have explained the advantages of a RF camera, such as quiet shutter, small size, and so forth. These same advantages are found in point-and-shoot digital cameras like the Canon SD800IS or the Fujifilm F30 - except that the digitals are smaller, lighter, and have autofocus and zoom.

I believe my original post was clear. I have no issue with people who use and prefer RF cameras. My problem is with those people who seem to believe that a Leica M3, for instance, is a better camera than a modern DSLR.

For roughly the same amount of money as an M8, you can buy a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon DSLR that is weather-sealed, has sophisticated autofocus, and will accommodate zoom lenses. A Leica may have been the camera of choice for covering the Spanish Civil War or WWII, but I don't think you'll find a single war photographer in Iraq using an M8.

With kazillions of digital cameras being sold, there have been only two digital RF cameras in the history of the world. Only two. Why do you suppose that is? My original post suggested that RF is an outdated design. Let's look at a short list of camera manufacturers who agree with me: Canon, Nikon, Kodak, Olympus, oh gee, ALL OF THEM except for Epson and Leica. And we all know that Epson is a major camera manufacturer ... not. And these two RF digital cameras have been trouble-free ... not.

So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, goodbye.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To those who suggested that I am wasting my time on RFF, you're correct. I should have explained that this post is my final one.

To those who suggested that I would convert to a RF lover if I would only try a Leica - a Leica M is undoubtedly a higher quality camera than a Zorki, but it suffers from the same inherent limitations as any RF/35mm camera.

Many people on RFF and elsewhere have explained the advantages of a RF camera, such as quiet shutter, small size, and so forth. These same advantages are found in point-and-shoot digital cameras like the Canon SD800IS or the Fujifilm F30 - except that the digitals are smaller, lighter, and have autofocus and zoom.

I believe my original post was clear. I have no issue with people who use and prefer RF cameras. My problem is with those people who seem to believe that a Leica M3, for instance, is a better camera than a modern DSLR.

For roughly the same amount of money as an M8, you can buy a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon DSLR that is weather-sealed, has sophisticated autofocus, and will accommodate zoom lenses. A Leica may have been the camera of choice for covering the Spanish Civil War or WWII, but I don't think you'll find a single war photographer in Iraq using an M8.

With kazillions of digital cameras being sold, there have been only two digital RF cameras. Only two.

So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, goodbye.
 
JohnM said:
lol....did he just compare a Leica to a Fuji Finepix?

My daughter loves ours - she's 3.
Click to expand...


Yes, John, I did compare a Leica M8 to a Fuji Finepix F30. And in my opinion, the Fuji camera won, primarily because of price.

Leica themselves are not above comparing a Leica to a Panasonic. In fact, as you know, Leica will happily pick your pocket for $200 by selling you a D-LUX3, which is a Panasonic DMC-LX2 with a Leica logo. So, if you don't think it's funny when Leica sells you a Panasonic point-and-shoot, why does it make you laugh when I compare a Leica to a Fujifilm point-and-shoot?

When DP Review tested the Panasonic LX2, they rated it "recommended with reservations" because of the high noise level. The Fuji F30 is rated "highly recommended."

Somehow, Leica has created a cult of mindless people (mostly male) who think anything with Leica on it is perfect, and all other cameras are not even worth mentioning. They like to huddle in the corner comparing the exterior finish on their cameras while muttering strange incantations and worshiping the golden statue of St. Barnack.

Your daughter may only be three, but she is smart (and female) enough to know better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many people on RFF and elsewhere have explained the advantages of a RF camera, such as quiet shutter, small size, and so forth. These same advantages are found in point-and-shoot digital cameras like the Canon SD800IS or the Fujifilm F30 - except that the digitals are smaller, lighter, and have autofocus and zoom.
Click to expand...
Right. Complete with color fringing and noise!

lol....did he just compare a Leica to a Fuji Finepix?
Click to expand...
I think he just did.
 
BillRogers said:
To those who suggested that I am wasting my time on RFF, you're correct. I should have explained that this post is my final one.

To those who suggested that I would convert to a RF lover if I would only try a Leica - a Leica M is undoubtedly a higher quality camera than a Zorki, but it suffers from the same inherent limitations as any RF/35mm camera.

Many people on RFF and elsewhere have explained the advantages of a RF camera, such as quiet shutter, small size, and so forth. These same advantages are found in point-and-shoot digital cameras like the Canon SD800IS or the Fujifilm F30 - except that the digitals are smaller, lighter, and have autofocus and zoom.

I believe my original post was clear. I have no issue with people who use and prefer RF cameras. My problem is with those people who seem to believe that a Leica M3, for instance, is a better camera than a modern DSLR.

For roughly the same amount of money as an M8, you can buy a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon DSLR that is weather-sealed, has sophisticated autofocus, and will accommodate zoom lenses. A Leica may have been the camera of choice for covering the Spanish Civil War or WWII, but I don't think you'll find a single war photographer in Iraq using an M8.

With kazillions of digital cameras being sold, there have been only two digital RF cameras. Only two.

So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, goodbye.
Click to expand...


Dude, time for a deep breath.

Let me make this simple

My problem is with those people who seem to believe that a Leica M3, for instance, is a better camera than a modern DSLR.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a minority of RF users who are Leica lunatics. Yes, they are here. There are also Nikon Nuts, and Canon Crazy's and Funky Zorki Cats. But you are no different being a zealot battling a war against them.

You like/love your DSLR, you have stated that, now leave the rest of us to our own vices, no need to yell at us for it and we won't yell at you.

Thoughtful converstation is welcome, trolling just to get some juices flowing isn't.

No yelling on my birthday, keep this up and I will escort you to a quite corner and make you sing Kumbaya 10 times, that will teach ya.
 
This is an unfortunate thread. Thank you, Rover, for your intervention.

Bill - I'm glad you have found your métier. You will pardon me, however, for enjoying my film rangefinder and wet darkroom. You see, I have this hobby that I enjoy for its own sake and the distraction it provides me from my daily, often high tech, grind. I offer no rational explanation other than I like what I produce, and so do my friends and family.

Best to you with your cameras and remember to enjoy life, it is fleeting.

Alex
 
... If only the Fuji F30 came in black lacquer...
Seriously if Barnack could somehow see the F30, I think he'd love it.
Or most any other digital compact. They meet his criteria for a pocket camera that was good enough to make enlargable prints.
 
When I read Bill's post, this passage from the Ken Rockwell site about film vs. digital comes to mind:

"...OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

These are two crops out of this image, one shot on a brand new digital camera and the other on a cheap film camera with a 50 year-old lens:

Original image: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/McGeeIndex.jpg

Film Scan:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/4990scan.jpg

Digital Scan:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/digital.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
----------------

If you want convenience over quality, want something that's obsolete the second you buy it, want to be chasing megapixel counts every couple years, want to have an image capture technology that is entirely dependent on batteries that drain in hours rather than months/years (don't forget to keep your eye on that battery meter, Bill), don't particularly care for resolution, don't mind waiting for your camera to "boot" like your computer, think film grain is as distracting as digital noise, don't think you'll ever want to take a long exposure of something that lasts 5, 10, 15 seconds (or more), want to blind people with auto-white balance pre-flash, infrared zoom focus beam, then blind your subject with that flash needed to take pics as you sit on a comfy chair zooming in and out (rather than walking around the subject to properly compose your pic) as you jab your expensive and slow and crappy 3.5-5.6 auto zoom lens in your subject's face (as you wonder why people scatter when you reach for your camera), want to waste precious hours of your life in front of a PC futzing with Raw files, want an image capture technology that is eternally tied to finiky and ever-changing computer technologies and software, want to spend a small fortune on over-priced inks every month for your dodgey photo-printer, live in fear that your hard-drive will one day crash (and it invariabley will), hope you don't mind waiting for that autofocus to hunt in low light (when you could have focused in a fraction of a second like you can do with a manual focus rangefinder)... don't mind those dust spots on the sensor (Careful when you clean it! Best to send it out...), don't mind those 4 or 5 "stuck pixels". They're not too distracting, and you can always Photoshop them out - or just live with them.

...so quick burn those CDs for back up (just hope that too survive, and don't become unreadable on the day your drive crashes - IF you were lucky enough to back up those 50,000 images you captured), hope your camera makes it past warranty and don't mind springing for another $1000 to replace your toy if it breaks after the warranty expires since they're generally not "fixable" for reasonable dollars (rather than the $50-100 bucks it costs to CLA and cover most repairs for many film cameras, every 10, 20, 30 years - which is why several of the ones I shoot are pushing 40 years old and still work as new. Do you really think any DSLR anyone owns now will be around and 100% functional in the year 2043? ) if you think click-view-delete; click-view-delete; click-view-delete; click-view-delete...download images into HD, futz with images for hours is somehow enjoyable...

Then enjoy your new toy, there Bill. More power t' ya. Make sure you don't take that delicate electronic capture device out in any kind of inclimate weather, especially moisture and humidity or you'll end up with a $1000 paperweight. Enjoy having a computer chip and some algorythm some developer created take your pictures for you! Hope you don't miss highlight detail too much in those flat, unevocative, low-res, digital images you zoomed across the room to take (as you sat nice and comfy on a chair) with that $1500, 12mm-1550mm/3.5-5.6 zoom lens, and those CCDs don't like shiny things or hot areas too much, you know.

Perhaps, one day, computers chips and algorythms will handle everything for us! I like to draw and paint with watercolor. I "look forward" to the day when an some Japanese consumer electronics company develops a computerized paint brush, and I just tell it what to paint and it does it. Then that hobby I enjoy will be soooo much more convenient - with better results too! I can sit on the sofa, tell my electronic paintbrush to paint something, then I can "click-view-delete" until it comes up with something I like! All those "failed" attempts doing things the old school way (that I learned so much from) will be a thing of the past - and my amature watercolor gallery will be sooo much better, and more convenient! Who needs to go through all that trouble of actually developing and learning. I won't even have to think ; ) Just let the computer chip do it! Still waiting for that gallery of masterpieces created in Adobe Illustrater. That's been out a while - wonder why it hasn't happened yet. Think I'll "think about it".
 
Last edited:
I just wish I could understand the point of Bill's post. Did anyone upset him, or is he just one of those drama queens?

Don't let the door hit you in the back when you leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pioneer
Argust Day 25
Replies
0
Views
267
Pioneer
Pioneer
G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
WJJ3
WJJ3
V
First Rangefinder Suggestions
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
Godfrey
Godfrey
K
My Rangefinder search...
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
rfaspen
rfaspen
S
Suggestions / advice for new camera
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
silvershadelynx
S
Back
Top Bottom