Obsolete?

[tmfabian]

The Dallas Morning News has been using frame grabs from HD Video cameras as stills on Page 1 for a long time, now.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/d2-voodoo-tool.html

Yup, that was my point, a lot of papers are doing that, quite a few here in Boston do, in fact it's now a requirement to work with them that you know how to use video equipment.

and here's the video camera that will make still cameras obsolete...12mp video full frame 35mm (movie style) sensor, up to 100fps. Why bother trying to capture the right moment when you can capture them all and edit later.
http://www.red.com/cameras

For that matter why bother even sending a person out when you can just install a few of these around town...keep them running and edit a picture out later.

 

[maddoc]

An ST-E2, in addition to providing infrared remote control of Canon E-TTL flash units, can also be set to project an infrared grid on the subject when the shutter is fired. Since the grid conforms itself perfectly to the subject it is projected on, it provides a precise, high contrast target for the cameras AF system to lock onto. The AF system doesn't care what the aperture is, whether the subject is wearing flat black from head to toe, or even if there is any visible light at all. It locks to the grid and focuses the lens.

That is the first time I hear about an AF system, which can outperform a rangefinder in extreme low-light. The AF systems I have seen so far work well (and fast) with subjects in good light (and high contrast) but available light ... RF cameras are not so obsolete yet, IMHO.

 

[rpsawin]

As I draw toward obsolescence myself I find I tend to collect and cherish things of similar fate. I do beleive that there is a big difference between Obsolescence and Usefulness.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[myoptic3]

For me. a split prism finder in a SLR is easier to focus. Couldn't they make the same thing in a RF camera? Or I would prefer to have a RF camera that works like the old Leningrad. On it, the screen was split horizontally and you lined up the top and bottom sections. Much easier to see.

 

[Schlapp]

Out of interest, are there well known p/js still using [film]rangefinders all the time?

 

[amateriat]

Well then, how about this....still image cameras are obsolete.
With the quality of high end video cameras these days...why not just walk around, video everything and then pick the stills out...i mean most video cameras aren't any bigger than the monster DSLRS of today.

You beat me to the punch on this one

As far as my approach to photography is concerned, I'll simply borrow a quote from the gang at Low End Mac: It's Obsolete When I Say It Is.


- Barrett

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?

Cheers,

R.

 

[tedwin]

What's with all the justification?

What's with all the justification?

I have a use for a 35mm rangefinder. Therefore it is not obsolete to me


So what else matters?

 

[ruben]

"Do the words 'obsolete', 'obsolescent' or 'anachronistic' have any meaning in art, or in the tools used to produce art?"

Of course they have ..................... You could pay carpenters to build your house using only hammers, but would have a better built house that you could move into in months instead of years (and be left with a lot more money) if they used Paslode nail guns. ............

For a non-refined quality job, this may be true. But for a highly well done job, this depends very much on the skills of each craftman with his tool. Simply owning the more advanced tool is no guartanttee of success. I even dare to assume leicasniper will agree so far.

The very adventment of the internet has turn the very meaning of obsolence - into an obsolet and anachronistic term. Unless we are the owners of a camera manufacturing company and have to decide if to mess with digital or not.

====

As for our truly distinguished expert, our friend Bill Pierce, I think that although he may be somehow right in his definition of a RF camera as a certain way of metering distance, from here flow a whole series of differences between a RF and a SLR that may be of decisive importance in certain types of photography. Both ways.

Although you can perform street photography with any type of camera, according to your own temperament, in my opinion the RF remains so far the classic and irreplaceable instrument.

Now let's accept we are die hard wrong, and our RFs are definitely obsolete instruments. So ?

Are we a bunch of blind chickens looking for the fashionable and/or most advanced, as our sole starting and ending point of reasoning ? I don't think so. In fact we are not only an independent social phenomena but also a necessary retro backfire of the mainstrean current.

Are we in photography what in politics is called "reactionaries", or "restaurators", or "contras" ? This is a nice question, but more complex.

I would like to see ourselves as a kind of pluralists.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Harry Lime]

Obsolete may be the wrong word. 'Forgotten' may be a better description.

9 of 10 people who ask about my M cameras don't even know what rangefinder focusing is. Interestingly once you explain the concept and they give it a try, a lot of people actually like it.

I think an RF camera still has a lot of advantages over an SLR:

- Brighter viewfinder
- More accurate focusing in low light
- You can see the action outside of your framelines
- Smaller body due to the lack of a mirror box
- Can be quieter
- Less vibration due to the lack of a mirror
- Retrofocus lenses, but of course this is a two edged sword with digital.
- Ergonomics. WIth an RF camera the viewfinder is usually on the far left side of the body. That way the corner of the body containing the viewfinder fits neatly in your eyesocket and it's very easy to handle the camera, when you're in a hurry. The viewfinder of an SLR is in the center of the body and your nose is always in the way, unless you are an amateur boxer. Therefore it is clumsier and slower to quickly raise the camera to your eye. A good high eyepoint VF makes a big difference, but I have yet to find another camera that matches an F3 in that respect.

Autofocus is great at shooting sports, wild life etc (although some may argue with that), but I can guarantee that scale focusing in the right f-stop range is faster than any current or future AF system will ever be.

This is why I sold my Canon 5D and am switching to Nikon for digital.
It's one of the main reasons why I desperately wanted an M8.

In Canon's infinite wisdom and drive for total automation they crippled the distance and aperture scales on their lenses, so it is difficult or impossible to scale focus.

For street photography, documentary work and general shooting this is a disaster and probably the reason why you see so many photos these days with the subject centred in frame...

Nikon has followed a similar path, but at least they still give you the option to use older manual focus lenses on their newest digital bodies. With Nikon you get the best of both worlds.

I do not think that the RF concept is obsolete; it's just mostly forgotten.

HL

 

[Solinar]

But Harry - people today seem to be unable to scale focus a 28 or 35 mm focal length lens -with or without a depth of field scale. It is too much of a challenge. You need motors, movable AF focus points and a focus assist light to get the job done. Think power tools.

By the way, a RF camera has two focus modes, scale focus and RF assist. The former gets my vote about a third of the time.

 

[mfunnell]

We've drifted a bit off course, though, from Bill's original question. It was concerned specifically with the focusing system of rangefinders. And the modern autofocus camera has clearly obsoleted the manual rangefinder in its once advantage in focusing wide or fast lenses in low light. My 5D with the ST-E2 can focus my 20mm f1.8 lens perfectly in total darkness if I desire. You can't do that with a manual rangefinder.

Just because a relatively small number of people continue to cling to an outdated focusing method doesn't make it any less functionally obsolete.

Actually, I can focus my Contax G2 or Hexar (the AF one) in total darkness as well. Whether those cameras, or yours, have focused on what you want them to focus on is best left as an exercise for the reader.

And, in fact, you have not addressed the primary difference I, personally, find between focusing an SLR (AF or MF) and focusing a manual RF. Both SLR and RF systems give me positive confirmation I've focused on what I want to - the SLR by more-or-less direct confirmation (ie. I can see the image is in focus through the viewfinder) and the RF by coincidence of images at my desired point of focus (assuming my RF is in alignment).

The difference is that for practical purposes (at least in fast-moving hand-held work) the depth-of-field shown in the viewfinder of the SLR is that at the maximum aperture of the lens, and I have to imagine what will be included in the zone of acceptable focus and the transition to out-of-focus areas when the system stops down to my selected aperture as I release the shutter.

The RF system shows me essentially infinite DOF through the viewfinder and I have to imagine what will be excluded from DOF, transition to OOF etc. when the image is recorded at my selected aperture.

With an SLR I imagine what I'm including while with the RF I imagine what I'm excluding. This changes the way I compose photographs when working with the different systems. (Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.) For some things I prefer to do it one way, for others the other. Perhaps this doesn't matter to you - but it does to me and I know it does for at least some others.

Autofocus SLRs don't address this difference. Viewfinder AF systems (eg. the Contax Gs, the autofocus Hexar, other P&S cameras etc.) are more like the RF in terms of view through the finder - but they can't positively confirm focus is really where I want it to be. For example, when I use my Contax G2 focus tends to be spot-on or "missed by a mile" with nothing much in-between - my fault as I've had it focus on the wrong thing, but "its fault" in that I have no visual confirmation until I see the print. That doesn't help much with, say, zone focus as its no use having a 5m DOF if you've missed focus by 10m. (And, yes, I know I can scale-focus my G2 but that's a separate issue.)

So, if I want a viewfinder that shows everything in focus while composing yet gives me positive visual confirmation (not an electronic signal from an AF system) that focus is where I want it to be then I'm pretty much stuck with a manual coincident image RF system, pretty much like a Leica M (note: I often use Hexar RFs). I don't see how this viewfinder system is obsolete if there's nothing more modern that can do what it does when that is what I want. (I like AF SLRs just fine when that's what I want, too.)

Again, this may not be a concern of yours but it is one of mine.

...Mike

 

[David Goldfarb]

The main attraction of a 35mm-sized RF over an SLR would seem to me to be better, simpler, non-distorting, non-retrofocus lenses, and smaller, quieter cameras that focus well in low light are bonuses.

Smaller and lighter, I think become more important features in medium format rangefinders, because they can make the difference between shooting medium format or using a smaller format on any given occasion.

For large format I think the RF serves the function (except perhaps in the case of Polaroid conversions that are more like big Leicas), of making the big camera much more versatile by providing an alternative to groundglass focusing for moving subjects and handholdability, but I guess LF/RF shooters like myself are already a niche within a niche within a niche.

I don't see autofocus as a replacement for manual focus of any type. An autofocus camera can focus "perfectly" on what the camera thinks is important. I'd rather decide what's important for myself, thank you very much.

 

[shimokita]

Context, context, context. As the world of online reporting becomes more and more obsolete is it that thoses involved in that arena see everything in that light. The statements in the original post could be argued point by point if they were valid. How does the so called "limitation of the M8" generalize to the experience of using a film base range finder? Are we following the money or talking about a near religions experience. Do people still buy Leica cameras (since this is the camera mentioned in the lead statement of the original post)?

In a business context, I guess Leica still has some reasons for continuing the production. If only to keep something alive that will support their current efforts. But so what.... If it wasn't a leica M, it would be a Canon, Pentax, or any one of a number of film cameras. The DSLR is obsolete, but not yet common knowledge.

clh

 

[Harry Lime]

But Harry - people today seem to be unable to scale focus a 28 or 35 mm focal length lens -with or without a depth of field scale. It is too much of a challenge. You need motors, movable AF focus points and a focus assist light to get the job done. Think power tools.

I hate to say it, but you're right.

It's interesting how people react when you demonstrate scale focusing to them. Quite often you can almost see a lightbulb go on over their head and more often than not they are amazed that the system is not in wider use...

By the way, a RF camera has two focus modes, scale focus and RF assist. The former gets my vote about a third of the time.

Same here.
;-)

HL

 

[mfunnell]

In real world use, though, most people using either viewing system don't think about DOF at all when they shoot.

I'm wondering where that "real world" is. Are we now talking about the mass consumer market? Or are we simply going wherever we need to be to justify a contrarian position?

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

For a non-refined quality job, this may be true. But for a highly well done job, this depends very much on the skills of each craftman with his tool. Simply owning the more advanced tool is no guartanttee of success. I even dare to assume leicasniper will agree so far.

The very adventment of the internet has turn the very meaning of obsolence - into an obsolet and anachronistic term.

I would like to see ourselves as a kind of pluralists.

Dear Ruben,

Beautifully and tactfully phrased. To say that 'computer controlled water jets are the tool of choice' is pure twaddle: try forcing a sculptor who uses traditional tools to use computer controlled water jets, and see how long it is before you get a computer controlled water jet stuck up your jacksie.

There are no rules in art, and very few in craft; there are still those who prefer brass slot-head screws in mahogany to Pozidriv in medium-density fibreboard, even if the former does demand 'obsolete' skills.

As others have said, and as you say above, in a world of niche markets, 'obsolete' is an obsolete term.

Like others, too, I'm also slightly puzzled as to where this thread can lead. Is it going to change anyone's mind about using rangefinders? Is it going to make them better photographers? The only thing that stops it being trolling is that it is probably counterproductive, if the assumed troll question is 'Should we all dump rangefinders because they're obsolete'?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[robin a]

As I draw toward obsolescence myself I find I tend to collect and cherish things of similar fate. I do beleive that there is a big difference between Obsolescence and Usefulness.

Best regards,

Bob

Very well said...................Robin

 

[amateriat]

Of course they have meaning in tools to produce art, or anything else for that matter. A sculptor can cut metal shapes with tin snips or hack at granite with a chisel, but computer controlled water jets are the tools of choice these days. You could pay carpenters to build your house using only hammers, but would have a better built house that you could move into in months instead of years (and be left with a lot more money) if they used Paslode nail guns.

And a fast computer, a big, snazzy Wacom tablet, and Adobe CS3 are a hell of a lot neater and more "efficient" than messing about with oils, acrylics, charcoals and pencils...right?

It comes down to what you're trying to achieve, and why. One chooses the tools one groks with, old or new.


- Barrett

 

[crawdiddy]

Some tools are remarkably resilient.

The typewriter rendered pencils obsolete 150 years ago. Word processing software made typewriters obsolete about 20 years ago.

Yet you can still purchase new pencils. And yes, even a Brother typewriter, although it's been retrofitted with software.