Honu-Hugger
Well-known
No, I had already made the switch. I just had not found my "support" group
D2
D2
L
lars
Guest
I was already shooting RF a few months before RFF came about so the site hasn't encouraged me to switch. It has encouraged me to shoot more often but, alas, the purchase of a digital camera has drawn me away from my Bessa R. However, now that the weather has turned foul and the days are shorter, I am beginning to carry my Bessa R with a new (to me) CV50/2.5 and loaded with Superia 800.
The small size and full manual controls make it a good carry-around choice on those days when the small sensor of my A1 can't produce clean images.
90% of my shots are with my digital A1, then my Bessa, and then my film SLR.
Using the Bessa is quite enjoyable, though. For that matter, using any fully manual camera is more enjoyable. This is due, I guess, to the tactile feedback of those little mechanical parts inside.
...lars
The small size and full manual controls make it a good carry-around choice on those days when the small sensor of my A1 can't produce clean images.
90% of my shots are with my digital A1, then my Bessa, and then my film SLR.
Using the Bessa is quite enjoyable, though. For that matter, using any fully manual camera is more enjoyable. This is due, I guess, to the tactile feedback of those little mechanical parts inside.
...lars
Designer
Keven
To some extent, buying DSLR has drawn me away from film photography. But buying a rangefinder has drawn me away from digital.
S
sfaust
Guest
backalley photo said:
Mostly German descent, but there is some French Canadian in me! That must be what you are seeing
R
Roman
Guest
>Does RFF influence you to give up on other types of camera and only use rangefinder cameras for your photography?
Frankly, NO!
It was the other way round - I've been doing a little more RF shooting recently, and was looking for an appropriate forum; but I'm kinda with Stu - there's the right tool for every job!
For landscape, I still prefer an MF SLR; nothing can beat a 35mm SLR for macros, long tele use, or for quick, 'memory/holiday type' snapshots (w/AF and a zoom lens); but RFs shine when it comes to low light w/fast film, handheld, street-type photography, or as compact carry-everywhere cameras...
Frankly, NO!
It was the other way round - I've been doing a little more RF shooting recently, and was looking for an appropriate forum; but I'm kinda with Stu - there's the right tool for every job!
For landscape, I still prefer an MF SLR; nothing can beat a 35mm SLR for macros, long tele use, or for quick, 'memory/holiday type' snapshots (w/AF and a zoom lens); but RFs shine when it comes to low light w/fast film, handheld, street-type photography, or as compact carry-everywhere cameras...
Last edited by a moderator:
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
I quit shooting macro with 35mm and use MF SLR now instead -- and still believe that 35mm or the digital equivalent SLR is the way to go with long tele, though. I've come close to buying the Olympia telephotos for the Contax, but then ask myself "why?" It's so much easier to just use an SLR
D2
D2
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
"Give up onothertypes..." No not give up but I am using my rf gear more. Haven't owned a 35mm slr in ten or eleven years. My mf cameras were getting most of the use but I don't have a darkroom and processing is getting to be a hassle. My local 1 hour place does a good job and I treat the 4x6s as proofs then get pro enlargements of any shots I especially like. I also like the ease of sharing pictures online with my 35mm compared to my 120 shots.
I am defineitely buying more rf gear. I have got the FSU flu and suddenly "need" another body and four or five more lenses and a turret finder and a couple of tripod bushings and and and--sorry got to end now so I can get the froth off ny face
Rob
I am defineitely buying more rf gear. I have got the FSU flu and suddenly "need" another body and four or five more lenses and a turret finder and a couple of tripod bushings and and and--sorry got to end now so I can get the froth off ny face
Rob
S
Stu :)
Guest
sfaust said:
Oh yes, 8x10 Veliva is in league of it's own. Try imagine the first time you viewed a medium format transparency, then add the 'Holy Mother of >insert tastful language here<' factor.
Also contact prints from FP4+ are pretty too, grain... what's that?
I'd like to do some 8x10 enlargements, but the 8x10 darkroom at university has been in bits since I started and will most likely remain that way until I leave. One large format camera that does hold me in absolute awe is the Polaroid 20x24. An exhibition came to NZ a while ago with some prints by David Levinthal, brilliant!
Stu
PS. I'm selling my 8x10 and moving onto digital... bad Stu.
N
nwcanonman
Guest
While I still use "different horses for different courses, I use my RF's more widely now than I did before joining RFF.
P
Paul Connet
Guest
RFF's influence on camera choice
RFF's influence on camera choice
In my case, I think no real influence. Like many others my choice of what to carry on a walk-about or trip is based more on the expected subject matter. There are just too many subjects that can not be handled by the RF's in my possession. I do not own a Visoflex outfit, so for long tele and macro it has to be an SLR.
I started with serious RF use a few years ago and since retirement I do most of my informal people pics, (both street and family), with RFs.
Anyway, you guys are fun to listen to and I like your topic choices.
Paul C.
RFF's influence on camera choice
In my case, I think no real influence. Like many others my choice of what to carry on a walk-about or trip is based more on the expected subject matter. There are just too many subjects that can not be handled by the RF's in my possession. I do not own a Visoflex outfit, so for long tele and macro it has to be an SLR.
I started with serious RF use a few years ago and since retirement I do most of my informal people pics, (both street and family), with RFs.
Anyway, you guys are fun to listen to and I like your topic choices.
Paul C.
taffer
void
Hmm, in my case it may have had an important role. However my problem seems to be a complete addiction to all sorts of classic cameras ! so my vote is partially.
But yes, I've favored RF cameras lately, mainly due to their (generally speaking) smaller size which make them IMO perfect PAW tools if you combine photography with your daily life.
Uh, too serious a post for me, must include a or something...
But yes, I've favored RF cameras lately, mainly due to their (generally speaking) smaller size which make them IMO perfect PAW tools if you combine photography with your daily life.
Uh, too serious a post for me, must include a
or something...Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Maybe Weight is a Factor
Maybe Weight is a Factor
This hardly even qualifies as trivia, but it surprised me: I was loading gear for a hike (the hike I was taking Monday and still haven't gotten around to yet, looks like it will happen tomorrow) and walked past an accurate scale with a Rollei SL66 in hand (lens, finder, filmback -- ready to roll), it weighed in at 5 lbs. and 12 ounces!
I've never paid much attention to camera weight before, I figure it is sort of like gas mileage: if you own the car you're going to drive it regardless. Still, nearly 6 pounds was unexpected -- it's a beast! I stuck a Contax II on the scale, with lens and film: 1 lb. and 12 ounces, exactly 4 pounds lighter -- maybe my inherent laziness has unconsciously influenced my choice of cameras
D2
Maybe Weight is a Factor
This hardly even qualifies as trivia, but it surprised me: I was loading gear for a hike (the hike I was taking Monday and still haven't gotten around to yet, looks like it will happen tomorrow) and walked past an accurate scale with a Rollei SL66 in hand (lens, finder, filmback -- ready to roll), it weighed in at 5 lbs. and 12 ounces!
I've never paid much attention to camera weight before, I figure it is sort of like gas mileage: if you own the car you're going to drive it regardless. Still, nearly 6 pounds was unexpected -- it's a beast! I stuck a Contax II on the scale, with lens and film: 1 lb. and 12 ounces, exactly 4 pounds lighter -- maybe my inherent laziness has unconsciously influenced my choice of cameras
D2
AndColor
Member
i would say that rangefinders make for rangefinder photogaphers...it's the cameras - actually. that make us want to use them more than slrs...however. (here i hedge my bets) i was working with a small, very busy, almost-two-year-old last week and wishing every second that i had an auto-focus, auto expose, zoom, slr. so convinced was i that i hovered on the dark side and nearly bought one on ebay. (it got away).
then i think it's not just a matter or buying the next new and better thing. it's learning how to be brilliant with the tools you have and working like a fool until that happens. half a lifetime or so?
then i think it's not just a matter or buying the next new and better thing. it's learning how to be brilliant with the tools you have and working like a fool until that happens. half a lifetime or so?
S
sfaust
Guest
AndColor, you hit the nail on the head as far as the perfect subject for AF AE SLRs. Nothing better than a fast AF and good AE SLR to capture the essense of small kids, fleeting birds, sports, pets, or other fast moving 'vehicles'. You can do it with a rangefinder, and would/should be proud when you nail them with the RF, but you will get a larger number of keepers with an good fast AF SLR. Things just happen so fast, moving in and out of lighting conditions, focus range, etc, that it really taxes your workload and takes you away from concentrating 100% on the moment. Something you are fully aware of based on your recent experience
I feel that if the photographer can tell the camera to do exactly what they would do anyway, there is nothing wrong with letting the camera do it much faster so you can focus on the content and subject. And if it can't, or won't, turn it off and run fully manual in 'RF" mode. RFs are very cool, but they do have their drawbacks.
You can live on the light side and dark side at the same time. I guess that would be called the 'gray area'. Does anyone make any gray colored RF's?
I feel that if the photographer can tell the camera to do exactly what they would do anyway, there is nothing wrong with letting the camera do it much faster so you can focus on the content and subject. And if it can't, or won't, turn it off and run fully manual in 'RF" mode. RFs are very cool, but they do have their drawbacks.
You can live on the light side and dark side at the same time. I guess that would be called the 'gray area'
. Does anyone make any gray colored RF's?Honu-Hugger
Well-known
I think that there may be nearly as many shooting styles as there are photographers. Without making judgements the AE/AF style of SLR certainly lends itself well to fast action "grab every shot on an impulse" sort of photography. And there is nothing wrong with that as I am sure that many fine pictures have come as a result.
A friend recently made two observations, one having to do with the Leica DS and the other with the Rollei TLR: he likened the DS to a Waltz -- "one, two, shoot, one, two shoot.." and there may be something to be said for that. His other observation was the necessary act of bowing somewhat to focus a Rollei TLR, as though there were some humility involved in actually taking the shot. All of this may sound a little existential, but there may be some merit to it. Afterall, much of what we shoot is often done somewhat by either impulse or by unconscious patterns that we have developed through practice.
I for one enjoy the slower pace that my present choice of cameras pretty much imposes upon me. Sure, if I can anticipate a scene I can preset the exposure and hyperfocal if necessary, but I am enjoying much more deliberate shooting these days which allows me the luxury of often setting up with a tripod and carefully measuring exposure and composition. The fact that many of my cameras do not have lever winding mechanisms or fast rewinds does not bother me a bit -- I enjoy the extra time it takes to perform these functions. As before, "your mileage may vary..."
D2
A friend recently made two observations, one having to do with the Leica DS and the other with the Rollei TLR: he likened the DS to a Waltz -- "one, two, shoot, one, two shoot.." and there may be something to be said for that. His other observation was the necessary act of bowing somewhat to focus a Rollei TLR, as though there were some humility involved in actually taking the shot. All of this may sound a little existential, but there may be some merit to it. Afterall, much of what we shoot is often done somewhat by either impulse or by unconscious patterns that we have developed through practice.
I for one enjoy the slower pace that my present choice of cameras pretty much imposes upon me. Sure, if I can anticipate a scene I can preset the exposure and hyperfocal if necessary, but I am enjoying much more deliberate shooting these days which allows me the luxury of often setting up with a tripod and carefully measuring exposure and composition. The fact that many of my cameras do not have lever winding mechanisms or fast rewinds does not bother me a bit -- I enjoy the extra time it takes to perform these functions. As before, "your mileage may vary..."
D2
AndColor
Member
i don't post photo commissions on this site. but i have some recent family/kid shots on my website. feed back welcome.
btw. sfaust...what kind of slr do you favor?
linda
btw. sfaust...what kind of slr do you favor?
linda
S
sfaust
Guest
I don't see this as a style, but rather a lazy photographer or just plain novice. Using AE or AF does not preclude a deliberate shooting style. Rather, IMO it frees up the photographer to be MORE deliberate with regard to the subject, composition, facial expressions, close examination of the background, and other aesthetic contributions. If the photographer and camera both agree that the settings are as desired, it doesn't matter one bit who makes the actual settings in the camera. Much like it doesn't matter if your foot is on the gas pedal or on the accelerate/coast buttons while in cruise control, you are still the driver and have full control based on your desired results.
When I am shooting in AE and/or AF modes, I find I have a lot more time to devote to aesthetic considerations, rather than attending to the overhead of winding the film and setting knobs and dials to do exactly what both the camera and I would do anyway. I spend more time 'shaping' the image, or more closely examining the whole viewfinder in detail instead. Unless I am making a creative decision to override the AE or AF, any time spend winding film or changing the exposure controls is less time devoted to the subject, more missed opportunities, and more distractions. All the same creative decisions are being made, the only difference is that one can choose the most efficient method of implementation to effect those decisions. Sometimes its AE, AF, or both. Sometimes its all manual. But AE/AF or not, my frame rate would probably be best measured in frames per minute, not frames per second for most of my shooting. It rarely differs between manual and AE/AF modes.
There are also times I like to shoot just so I can fiddle the knobs and levers. Sometimes its the camera you want to 'use', more that the photograph you want to take. Especially when a new arrival shows up in the mail
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sfaust
Guest
Cross post
Linda, I really don't have a favorite per se. I use Nikon SLR's, but mainly because I have a slew of lenses for them. Currently I use the Nikon F4 and F5 bodies, and for digital its the D1x and Fuji S2Pro. But, I would be just as happy with a Canon for example. I go for what feels good in my hand, and is fast and easy to manipulate as far as the controls are concerned. Its really a personal choice, and one best made after spending as much time as possible with a couple candidates.
My only real stipulation other than the above is that the auto focus is very fast and accurate, the exposure and metering is well done and versatile, and the lenses available are of high quality. Lens quality speaks for itself, but I find it draws my attention away from the subject if I have to override the AE/AF all the time. I'm very happy with the F5 on these counts and find that for most of my work, and after setting the basic creative parameters I desire for the scenario (typically aperture, focus mode, etc), is to glance and check to see that its still on track and doesn't need any tweaking based on changing conditions. I can then just ride the aperture to vary depth of field as needed without worrying about the balancing the shutter speed. If I need to adjust both such as with a manual RF, I find that I usually drop the viewfinder from my eye so that I can verify the proper settings as I make them. This is also necessary since the controls are not easily placed for rapid and positive manipulation while still looking through the viewfinder, and there are no visual indications of the settings in the viewfinder either. On the F5, there is shutter speed dial perfectly placed under my thumb, and a aperture dial at my index finger position. Not only can I easily adjust them without taking my eye from the viewfinder, I also get a positive indication of the settings in the viewfinder, along with the recommended meter reading in 1/3rd steps, and they are very fast to change. This makes for very rapid assessments and changes to the technical details, while never leaving the viewfinder or your subject.
Its the speed at which you can deal with the technical details and get back to your subject that I find appealing in the SLR's, not the rate as which you can press the shutter release button and rack up the exposure count. I may spend minutes looking in a viewfinder following a subject while the focus and exposure vary widely without taking an exposure, but when the opportunity presents itself, everything technically is already dealt with. And the instant I take the shot, I am ready for a second if the situation warrants it.
So how does this fit with which SLR I find best? Any of them that allow the above, which is most of the advanced offerings from the major manufacturers. It really is a personal choice, and best if you can play with some cameras before hand. And you are correct that its about knowing your tools and learning to use them to their full potential. No matter what SLR or RF you choose if you spend the time to know it well, its advantages and limitations, you will run rings around those with better equipment who haven't taken the time to really explore their tools potential. But there is also using the correct tool for the job. Using a sledge hammer to pound a 16d nail works, but you will overwork yourself very rapidly compared to using a standard hammer no matter how well you know and understand that sledge hammer.
Sorry for being so long winded tonight (er, ah, every night ). But the Sox won tonight, and I'm wired
Linda, I really don't have a favorite per se. I use Nikon SLR's, but mainly because I have a slew of lenses for them. Currently I use the Nikon F4 and F5 bodies, and for digital its the D1x and Fuji S2Pro. But, I would be just as happy with a Canon for example. I go for what feels good in my hand, and is fast and easy to manipulate as far as the controls are concerned. Its really a personal choice, and one best made after spending as much time as possible with a couple candidates.
My only real stipulation other than the above is that the auto focus is very fast and accurate, the exposure and metering is well done and versatile, and the lenses available are of high quality. Lens quality speaks for itself, but I find it draws my attention away from the subject if I have to override the AE/AF all the time. I'm very happy with the F5 on these counts and find that for most of my work, and after setting the basic creative parameters I desire for the scenario (typically aperture, focus mode, etc), is to glance and check to see that its still on track and doesn't need any tweaking based on changing conditions. I can then just ride the aperture to vary depth of field as needed without worrying about the balancing the shutter speed. If I need to adjust both such as with a manual RF, I find that I usually drop the viewfinder from my eye so that I can verify the proper settings as I make them. This is also necessary since the controls are not easily placed for rapid and positive manipulation while still looking through the viewfinder, and there are no visual indications of the settings in the viewfinder either. On the F5, there is shutter speed dial perfectly placed under my thumb, and a aperture dial at my index finger position. Not only can I easily adjust them without taking my eye from the viewfinder, I also get a positive indication of the settings in the viewfinder, along with the recommended meter reading in 1/3rd steps, and they are very fast to change. This makes for very rapid assessments and changes to the technical details, while never leaving the viewfinder or your subject.
Its the speed at which you can deal with the technical details and get back to your subject that I find appealing in the SLR's, not the rate as which you can press the shutter release button and rack up the exposure count. I may spend minutes looking in a viewfinder following a subject while the focus and exposure vary widely without taking an exposure, but when the opportunity presents itself, everything technically is already dealt with. And the instant I take the shot, I am ready for a second if the situation warrants it.
So how does this fit with which SLR I find best? Any of them that allow the above, which is most of the advanced offerings from the major manufacturers. It really is a personal choice, and best if you can play with some cameras before hand. And you are correct that its about knowing your tools and learning to use them to their full potential. No matter what SLR or RF you choose if you spend the time to know it well, its advantages and limitations, you will run rings around those with better equipment who haven't taken the time to really explore their tools potential. But there is also using the correct tool for the job. Using a sledge hammer to pound a 16d nail works, but you will overwork yourself very rapidly compared to using a standard hammer no matter how well you know and understand that sledge hammer.
Sorry for being so long winded tonight (er, ah, every night
). But the Sox won tonight, and I'm wired
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Go Sox! Congrats Stephen!!!!!!