Obsolete?

leicasniper said:
Actually, that was the 1D that had that problem under some circumstances and it was taken care of long ago. Never has been a problem with the 1Ds. Why doesn't she just return the camera?

I sure wouldn't accept an $8,000 camera that that wouldn't focus.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you were correct, it's her 1D3 not her 1DS3 that's going back...I'm a bit on the hungover side this morning and I always forget the whole d vs ds.


But no...they won't replace the camera because they keep claiming they can fix the thing, and under the warranty they're fully allowed to chose whatever method they want to resolve the problem.


Back on topic however...of course the RF focusing method is obsolete, that doesn't mean though that it doesn't do a spectacular job at what it does.
Even modern DSLR focusing methods are obsolete considering the current research being done into flexible lenses that will focus in much the same way as the human eye does.
Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean it's useless, it just means that there's no need for it, but needs and wants/preferences are 2 totally different things, I personally prefer the obsolete RF method but i'm not delusional in thinking that it's the best way for everyone, it's just the best way for me.
 
Last edited:
I have an M6 TTL and an R3A as well as an R8 and I use the R8 much more than either of the other two because there are numerous circumstances which require at least my 135mm Elmarit-R lens or my 180mm APO-Elmarit-R lens and I can focus R lenses faster than the M lenses. But there are also circumstances wherein I need the quieter shutter of the M6 TTL because I am stealthily capturing images of adults and children and don't want them to know I am capturing anything. In fact, two days ago I was doing just that and none of the adults and children were able to detect I'd even pressed the shutter release button on my M6 TTL (with the 90mm APO/ASPH lens attached). Additionally, with its smaller body I was able to quickly focus on the people and, if they looked at me, I could quickly aim a bit to the right or left to make them think I was aiming the lens at something else, then quickly aim back at them and fire away silently. So, rangefinder and SLR bodies continue to have their distinct benefits and with the aforementioned equipment (and dozens of Leica lenses that I have) I feel completely equipped to capture reality around me with today's outstanding films, especially black and white.
 
I started out with a 4x5, then moved to medium format, then moved to SLRS, and now use RF's.
Of all the systems, I honestly enjoy the RF experience the most, I never really enjoyed using SLRS, they were just a means to make money when I was a sports shooter, and of course in that field there's really only one game in town and that was SLRS because of their lovely telephoto lenses, and I admit to still owning a DSLR for that very reason, in fact the only lens I have for my D3 is an 80-200/2.8 VR. Try rocking one of those kinds of lenses on a RF and you have to modify the entire system so that it becomes an SLR and in that field an RF is completely useless. But that only covers a very small percentage of what I use my cameras for....hence the whole RF is best for me dealy.
But if we're all honest, every system has it's own inherent weak points and you chose the tool that works for you most of the time, heck I even use one of those olympus crushproof p/s cameras from time to time (notably when i'm going out to get completely trashed, i would really hate to drop my m's or my d3)

And I have to say I feel sorry that poor old leicasniper here has to keep defending the fact that modern AF doesn't magically focus for you, with these new cameras AF is fast and completely in your control, I honestly like RF focusing for the tactile quality of it....not because it's an advantage in low light (come on IR grid beam focus assist has been around for ages and it does a spectacular job.) not because I want to be in control of the focus (once again modern af puts you in control) and not because it's more accurate (they both get the same job done i different ways, neither is better or worse) I just enjoy the experience of focussing a smooth leica lens...

Life is too short to bicker about better or worse, use what you ENJOY, obsolete or cutting edge, as long as it gets the job done it's still relevant.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ironically the 'obsolete' procedures were the main procedures in art photography (museum stuff, not journalism) during the XX century.

But, for news and media the rangefinder concept is obselete. And it remains obsolete from the 80s. So, nothing new here.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill Pierce,

I don't know if you have gotten what you asked for, but I am sure you may have got more insight about the RFF crowd, if not about the relevance of the RF camera today.

Are we obsolete thinkers ? :)

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I'll never spend a penny on digital gear, but I just paid good money for a newly made RF lens that "looks like it fell off a 1970's slr". I'll probably buy more RF gear in the future.

Though when my kids get to be camera gear buying age chances are, well, uh, zero, that they will feel that way, ha. They might like rangefinder cameras though.
 
Last edited:
Obsolete is a harsh word...

Obsolete is a harsh word...

I would rather think that the rangefinder process may have run into a format of photography that will not justify development as a focusing tool.

Now if a consortium of interested parties, say one million people, each donating $10, were to get together and contact one of the premier manufacturers to develop a rangefinder digital from scratch, they may be able to lay down enough money for a retainer to get the project started.
 
It's all about the right tool for the right job. Some jobs take a screw driver and some take a hammer and nail. Both methods make a hole and fasten things together. But each has a different application.

Since I returned to RF photography (M8 and a nice pretty M4P) I am enjoying it immensely without the bulk, menus and other sophisticated but sometimes cumbersome refinements. They are simply nice to carry around, and shoot, especially in dim light, and produce wonderful images.

But next Tuesday, our camera club is going to an orchid and exotic plant farm, and I am using my D300 Nikon DSLR, macro lens, Expodisc, and ball head tripod. The live view feature should prove very useful. For that shoot, I wouldn't think of using either Leica RF's.

Both types are cameras, produce wonderful images, but each has a different application.

While film may not be survive the future, range finder cameras will probably survive, either with digital technology or some new and different imaging process that has not even been thought of yet.
 
Konica Auto S3. Nice RF, can focus in any lighting condition. "17 megapixel" resolution. Simple controls. Great glass, takes great pics. Virtually silent. Very fast operation. Battery lasts for years - no recharging required. Best of all? Fits in the palm of my hand. One of many examples. Load it up with black and white Arista (Tri-X), $2 a roll. Send it off to Dwyane's (that's what I've been doing with 35 lately, process my own MF only...) Better results - still, than digital with black and white, which is what I shoot 95% of the time. Camera cost $100 bucks, serviced. (Yes, a nice deal...)

Family snaps mostly. Throw them on the table when there's company - "Oh - I love black and white". And the genuinely do. No need for a computer or technology to view them. (Scan the few I want to send/post with a cheap Epson...)

This is obsolescence? How?
 
That's like writing with pen and paper is obsolete because of computers. In fact, in Singapore people are complaining that the new generation of kids have awful writing because they hardly write with pen and paper any more, they're doing powerpoint slides by 3rd grade.

But no, pen and paper isn't obsolete, it's necessary and it's the most convenient and most basic way of communication short of talking. It works without electricity.

So the rangefinder is just another way of focusing, it works without batteries too. Yes, there's better technology around, but just like pen and paper won't disappear, I doubt rangefinder focusing will disappear.


Bill Pierce said:
We've been talking a lot about the limitations of the M8. But, could it be that the rangefinder model is becoming obsolete? After all, it's just one way of focusing. Once upon a time there was scale focusing, groundglass focusing and rangefinder focusing. But now there are several ways to autofocus, one of which could be made to focus very high speed lenses accurately if the subject had sufficient contrast and brightness. Some of the DSLRs come very close to that already. (And their very high speed lenses do well with groundglass focusing, also.)

The brightline finder on today's rangefinders are great. So much so that a lot of folks are slipping them in the accessory shoes of little cameras ranging from Minilux to Canon G9. And, by the way, it's not such a stupid thing to slip them into the accessory shoe of an SLR or DSLR - two good viewing systems in one body. I equipped my old Nikon F's that way and was thought of as, initially, totally crazy and, then, not so dumb.

I don't think the rangefinder is going to be replaced unless its manufacturers choose to cease producing. But, I'll keep my reasons to myself until after the first screams of outrage from my fellow forum members for even suggesting such a thing.

Bill
Click to expand...
 
Yesterday afternoon I attended a seminar, hosted by an educator who is Taiwanese-born and is proficient in the use of the abacus, to teach grade-school educators in central New Mexico how to use the abacus, and how to teach the use of the abacus in their classrooms. Although the abacus, as an ancient calculation device, is considered obsolete, it sees common use in some Asian countries as a "gateway" device to interest students in math, and the abacus method is also useful for the teaching of Anzan, which is mental arithematic calculation. We saw a video where grade-school-aged children were multiplying and dividing numbers greater than 10 digits in length, using mental abacus math, in less than 30 seconds.

What's this have to do with rangefinders being obsolete? They're tools for making pictures. I agree that there are certain good aspects to the SLR method of viewfinding, as well as the rangefinder method of viewfinding, depending on one's needs. I also suspect we'll begin to see novel methods of viewfinding, such as what has been described as being offered in the new Panasonic micro-four-thirds camera, where a hybridization of both SLR and rangefinder methods is beginning to happen.

Personally, I have no preference other than what's useful to me as a tool. I like optical 1:1 viewfinders for their transparency of use; but for previewing DOF effects and being able to accurately discern manual focus effects neither the SLR nor the rangefinder (in their traditional form) are ideal for all situations. We may be on the cusp of a revolution in new camera technology that will obsolete both.

~Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom