I was going to resist but hey, I have a day off work and I re-read Bill's OP.
Many, if not most, dSLR shooters, have never shot 4x5; I'm sure quite a few think that LF film doesn't even exist any more. I'm sure Bill would not be comfortable with LF, especially a view camera, because it's not the way he likes to work. That, really, is the point. His "problem", if you will, is that he made all kinds of categorical statements:
"First of all, any SLR, film or digital, is inherently superior to a rangefinder camera. The ability to look through the lens is a huge advantage. Also, the rangefinder focusing mechanism is a Rube Goldberg setup that depends on precision machining to work properly. Let's face it; back when ordinary people could not afford a SLR, the rangefinder camera was king. But that was fifty years ago."
This logic is so tortured as to be sad or laughable, take your pick.
"Second, digital is superior to film. I had forgotten all the hassles associated with film; the cost, the inconvenience, and the delay. Today, everything converts to digital sooner or later, so add the hassle and expense of scanning."
So a little Fuji P&S (which he referenced later) is superior to an 8x10 transparency, just because it's digital? Bill, your problem is not that you have opinions on what equipment works best for you, it's that (with all due respect) you don't know how to write. Not everyone is a writer, not everyone can express themselves well online, so I'm not slagging you for that. I'm just stating that you clearly didn't fully think through what you were actually writing.
"From an engineering standpoint, a digital SLR is a more elegant image capturing machine than a film rangefinder camera."
I have yet to see a digital camera, especially a DSLR, that approaches the elegance of a Leica M, the new ZI ... hell, even my lowly Olympus 35SP blows away a Nikon or Canon dSLR ... in my estimation. Perhaps Bill should actually look up the definition of elegant and either change his adjective or add "in my opinion".
"A RF camera converts the fore-and-aft position of the lens to a split-image mechanism,"
I'm not optical engineer, but ... Huh? SO FREAKIN' WHAT?
"a 35mm camera requires that the image on the negative must be converted to digital."
Since when? Do you mean to say that I cannot take a 35mm negative (or transparency), and do a direct optical print/enlargement? Since I still have the darkroom equipment to do so, is it now illegal to make optical prints? Hey everyone, let's sign a petition because the government is once again assaulting the rights of us poor photographers!!
"Today, most of the people on RFF prefer shooting with 35mm RF cameras. That's fine; "
As other have noted, if that's the way you feel, then why post here (as your supposed last post) all the previous stuff? Why not just say, as others have indicated, "I tried RFs again but they just don't turn my crank. Thanks for being a great group!"
"Just don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that a 35mm rangefinder camera is superior to a DLSR in some ways"
Ah, I see. It is about drama. OK, the internet was made for you, Bill. It's just that on this site drama queens are quickly identified and called out.
Good luck, Bill. If you end up on other forums, maybe you could use a word processor or even a simple text editor to compose your posts, save them to files and re-read them the next day to see if you really wrote what you meant ... try to read from a neutral POV (think of how your English teachers evaluated writing assignments), or maybe get a neutral person (non-photographer friend, etc.) to evaluate before you actually post.
EDIT: Steve and Frank posted while I was composing, and made my point more succinctly. But I'm keeping mine intact since ... oh, I just am. 😀
