Rangefinder - Why???

Tuolumne said:
This is excellent. I may have to practice with my D200 more.

/T

Thank you. I personally envy the D200 - it has better low-light capabilities than my camera does. But I have crossed over some 60,000 shots with my *ist DS - if it stops working tomorrow (please God no), it will have earned its rest. The day I took this photo, I shot 2100 images. I could not focus with my left eye for the rest of that night; driving home was harrowing.
 
bmattock said:
Am I the only person who has figured out that there is an "M" setting on the dSLR that allows one to control aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and even focus? With the addition of a split-image focus screen, my *ist DS and my manual focus lenses do more or less just as I tell them to - just like my rangefinders do.

I have an "Auto" setting. But I can turn it off. Did I get a magic camera?

No, but I find the "manual" settings on digital cameras to be annoying to use. I'd rather use the Auto settings. If I want manual, I grab the film cameras.
 
bmattock said:
Thank you. I personally envy the D200 - it has better low-light capabilities than my camera does. But I have crossed over some 60,000 shots with my *ist DS - if it stops working tomorrow (please God no), it will have earned its rest. The day I took this photo, I shot 2100 images. I could not focus with my left eye for the rest of that night; driving home was harrowing.

I know what you mean about the eye problem. Even using AF mine starts to go blind from squinting in the VF after a couple of hours. I can't imagine what it would be like to shoot for that long with manual focus. My eyes are 61 years old and they have a hard time focusing a lens even when fresh.

/T
 
briandaly said:
Plenty of food for thought here.
I won't even get started on which camera to choose (M, Bessa, ZI...)

Sorry for taking your thread off target. The truth is, there are all kinds of great deals out there on rangefinder cameras, and it is hard to go too far wrong.

What it comes down to is what you expect the system to do for you, how you intend to use it, and how much you feel comfortable spending. There is something good in every price range there is - even $20.
 
SLRs are more versatile, no doubt, but they only do certain things really well. At other things specialized cameras have an edge. So while if I had to have one camera for everything, it would be an SLR, I use a view camera for landscapes and still life and a rangefinder for handheld street.
 
A Newbs Perspective

A Newbs Perspective

I can't really remember what it was that prompted me to consider a RF, but boy am I glad I did. It's hard for me to really qualify what it is, but there is something about the feel of a very well made mechanical camera. Add the fact that you have to do everything manual--hahaha--I'm hooked. I hate lazy digital P mode stuff. I shoot my D300 in manual mode alot, but it's not the same as shooting with my S2. Plus, scanning film and scans ( some from the 70's ), and I'm even more excited about owning a piece of history and USING it.
 
wjlapier said:
I can't really remember what it was that prompted me to consider a RF, but boy am I glad I did. It's hard for me to really qualify what it is, but there is something about the feel of a very well made mechanical camera. Add the fact that you have to do everything manual--hahaha--I'm hooked. I hate lazy digital P mode stuff. I shoot my D300 in manual mode alot, but it's not the same as shooting with my S2. Plus, scanning film and scans ( some from the 70's ), and I'm even more excited about owning a piece of history and USING it.

I'm hip. But I like them equally well. Digital, film, manual, automatic. I like photography. I'll shoot with my Agfa Karat IV right next to my Kodak C663 point-n-shoot digicam. They both work great.
 
Back
Top Bottom