back alley
IMAGES
starting many years ago with the mamiya 6, then the bessa r, onto the canons p and then the zeiss ikon, i was strickly an rf kinda guy.
but the om has seduced me with it's quality and low prices. but it's just a diversion as i am an rf guy at heart.
but the om has seduced me with it's quality and low prices. but it's just a diversion as i am an rf guy at heart.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
As much as I know and understand the sentiment, I've found myself photographically reawakened to non-RF cameras, but reawakened because of my rangefinder usage. As much as I love RF cameras, I know they have limitations and I'm not willing to ignore that fact, nor am I willing to force my RFs to do what they simply do not accomplish as well as other cameras. THAT would sour me quickly on RFs. Instead, I return to RFs because through them I get to explore the type of photography that is closest to my heart and brings me the most joy.
I've an FM3A that I hold as dear as my RFs. Although someday I may, right now, I can't see parting with it. In its element, its a joy to shoot with, as is my Rollei, my P&S, my DSLR and my Polaroid, etc.
I've an FM3A that I hold as dear as my RFs. Although someday I may, right now, I can't see parting with it. In its element, its a joy to shoot with, as is my Rollei, my P&S, my DSLR and my Polaroid, etc.
peter_n
Veteran
Toby, awesome pic! Go for it!
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Toby, good fortune with your relocation and business launch. I too am very fond of my Pentax 6x7 and 67II. Your photo reminds me of that Karsh photo of your former PM having had the cigar plucked from his lips...
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I couldn't go rangefinder only. I don't every plan to limit myself to only one type of camera because they're all useful for different things.
But good for you.
But good for you.
Parkes Owen
grain fed
I`m also selling my two last slr`s(bronica and nikon),it`s not because rf`s are better, but my preferred focal lengths are super wide to 50mm, and the money will go toward an m6ttl/lux combo........ooooohh I can hardly wait!
OdDbaLL
Established
I sold my last SLR, my FM3a two months ago. It was somewhat difficult to part with, but I have no regrets. I used it only once since I got my MP over a year ago. But I also have a Rolleiflex and I'm not parting with that.
Robert Price
I missed what?
When it comes time for film I only use a RF camera. For my now all my film gets developed then scaned, that is untill my darkroom is finished. Being that I just recieved my Digital SLR (Canon) it will be my primary camera for digital work.
I always take my Contax G2 every where I go though. I shoot B&W only with the G2, Digital for color.
I always take my Contax G2 every where I go though. I shoot B&W only with the G2, Digital for color.
Bill58
Native Texan
I'm afraid we are dinosaurs in times we don't understand........ nor care about--two generations (SLR, digital) removed from modern civilization.
telenous
Well-known
Bill58 said:
Why dinosaurs? We are not extinct yet
Of course we are a rare species in the big photographic zoo but we are a thiriving small community and multiplying. For this reason, I think we are not even endangered in the present environment - we are more like vulnerable I should think (something akin to being the cheetahs of the photo world). VinceC
Veteran
In the autumn my 8-year-old daughter's soccer/football team moved up to a full-size field, and suddenly I wasn't able to photograph her games with 105mm and 135mm lenses. I gave the situation some thought -- I haven't shot an SLR since a work assignment in 2002 -- then put my Nikkor AIS 180/2.8 onto my unmetered F2 and took some very nice images of my favorite goalie. I enjoyed it.
My older brother, who rebuilds classic automobiles, taught me to always match the right tool with the job. So I also continue to use my 6-year-old Canon G1 digital point-and-shoot, which does handle like a rangefinder. I continue to do about 90-to-95 percent of my pictures with RFs -- their size and feel just fit me too perfectly -- but I don't mind making exceptions when the circumstances warrant.
My next camera almost certainly will be a Nikon digital SLR to take advantage of all my good SLR lenses that sit unused. Cosina's foray into Nikon-mount cameras was a market failure, so I've given up hope on getting a digital camera that uses my Nikon rangefinder glass. However, I'm not jumping in yet because there's always a possibility I'll do something utterly mad, such as buy a Leica-mount digital RF camera, plus one of those unbelievably expensive adapters which allow you to shoot Nikkor RF lenses on Leica cameras.
My older brother, who rebuilds classic automobiles, taught me to always match the right tool with the job. So I also continue to use my 6-year-old Canon G1 digital point-and-shoot, which does handle like a rangefinder. I continue to do about 90-to-95 percent of my pictures with RFs -- their size and feel just fit me too perfectly -- but I don't mind making exceptions when the circumstances warrant.
My next camera almost certainly will be a Nikon digital SLR to take advantage of all my good SLR lenses that sit unused. Cosina's foray into Nikon-mount cameras was a market failure, so I've given up hope on getting a digital camera that uses my Nikon rangefinder glass. However, I'm not jumping in yet because there's always a possibility I'll do something utterly mad, such as buy a Leica-mount digital RF camera, plus one of those unbelievably expensive adapters which allow you to shoot Nikkor RF lenses on Leica cameras.
telenous
Well-known
Well, let it be said clearly, before this thread becomes rf vs SLR: Option is king. To have so many different cameras with variable strenghts (and weaknesses) is a great luxury and it will a sorry affair when (if!!!) one of our options is no more.
Like others said, the FM3a was a joy to use in every respect, it was the ideal manual film SLR and I have no complaints. But it was less appropriate (for me!!!) as a camera for the two kinds of photography that interest me the most right now: street and low light (shutter noise and mirror vibration being an impediment respectively). I don't do macro, and I fail to be interested by sports/wild-life photography, so the long lenses are out. SLRs just don't fit with my photographic regime. That is not to say that I will never have another SLR or MF etc., it is just to say that right now I do not need one. There is one caveat in all that I have said, and that is that I want to learn to use a flash, despite the fact I am not the keenest of users. That is why I do not exclude another SLR down the road - perhaps sooner rather than later.
In fact I even know which SLR I will get for this purpose. But that is another story.
Like others said, the FM3a was a joy to use in every respect, it was the ideal manual film SLR and I have no complaints. But it was less appropriate (for me!!!) as a camera for the two kinds of photography that interest me the most right now: street and low light (shutter noise and mirror vibration being an impediment respectively). I don't do macro, and I fail to be interested by sports/wild-life photography, so the long lenses are out. SLRs just don't fit with my photographic regime. That is not to say that I will never have another SLR or MF etc., it is just to say that right now I do not need one. There is one caveat in all that I have said, and that is that I want to learn to use a flash, despite the fact I am not the keenest of users. That is why I do not exclude another SLR down the road - perhaps sooner rather than later.
In fact I even know which SLR I will get for this purpose. But that is another story.
VinceC
Veteran
Flash works just fine on a rangefinder camera. Arguably better than on an SLR. With no mirror blackout, you know the flash went off, and you can usually see if someone blinked.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
'Flash' (the word itself betrays violence) is not an option.
A photographer doesn't actively participate in a violent outburst of artificially-generated light; a photographer makes do with what light is there, as it is there, in the manner in which it is there, satisfactory or not from the point of view of convenience...
Photography comes from the Greek for "writing with light."
In the realm of documentary and photojournalism, the photographer's first duty is to record reality, as it exists and as it can be seen. Natural light is preferable. But sometimes natural light must be assisted in order to honestly capture and preserve the image. Sometimes the camera cannot see what the human eye can, at the moment it can be seen.
Photography seems natural but has many artifical qualities. It solidifies fluid, fleeting motions that exist for just 1/1000th of a second. Lenses isolate a thin plane of sharp focus whereas the human eye -- whose area of focus at any moment is actually equivalent to a 135mm lens -- is constantly sweeping and processing the image over a much larger area to create a living tapstry of a scene. Photographers marvel at "creamy" out of focus areas in their lenses, but those of us who require eyeglasses to see near or distant objects know that nature's Bokeh is harsh, jagged and distorted, with clumped, spoked highlights as our brains seek to apply a biological "unsharp mask" to that that which cannot be sharpened.
Flash has its place in serious photography, and it's not more artificial, I would argue, than a tripod -- and, for rangefinder photography, less intrusive and more practical.
A photographer doesn't actively participate in a violent outburst of artificially-generated light; a photographer makes do with what light is there, as it is there, in the manner in which it is there, satisfactory or not from the point of view of convenience...
Photography comes from the Greek for "writing with light."
In the realm of documentary and photojournalism, the photographer's first duty is to record reality, as it exists and as it can be seen. Natural light is preferable. But sometimes natural light must be assisted in order to honestly capture and preserve the image. Sometimes the camera cannot see what the human eye can, at the moment it can be seen.
Photography seems natural but has many artifical qualities. It solidifies fluid, fleeting motions that exist for just 1/1000th of a second. Lenses isolate a thin plane of sharp focus whereas the human eye -- whose area of focus at any moment is actually equivalent to a 135mm lens -- is constantly sweeping and processing the image over a much larger area to create a living tapstry of a scene. Photographers marvel at "creamy" out of focus areas in their lenses, but those of us who require eyeglasses to see near or distant objects know that nature's Bokeh is harsh, jagged and distorted, with clumped, spoked highlights as our brains seek to apply a biological "unsharp mask" to that that which cannot be sharpened.
Flash has its place in serious photography, and it's not more artificial, I would argue, than a tripod -- and, for rangefinder photography, less intrusive and more practical.
Attachments
shenkerian
Established
My opinion of flash is that when using it you capture an image that never existed.
VinceC
Veteran
Not using flash is often the best option. Being skilled in its correct, unobtrusive use allows you to capture an image that exists if there isn't another option.
W. Eugene Smith was a master at this back when film were much too slow to capture what could be seen.
W. Eugene Smith was a master at this back when film were much too slow to capture what could be seen.