RF Appeal

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
4:25 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Is it possible that the main appeal of the digital rangefinder TODAY is that it is small, but, unlike most small digital cameras, you don't have to hold it at a shaky arms length while composing on a very small tv screen?
 
i'd say so. holding a p&s away from your body while trying to keep it still demands a surprising amount of muscle tone (tone? flexing? strain is what it is). and then you have to squint at lcds that wash out in the sun or burn your eyes in the dark. blech.
 
I've been holding my ZI at arms length... am I not supposed to do that? Perhaps it would help my composition.
 
back alley said:
bill, this may sound dumb but...i have found for me much of it is in the thumb advance of the rd1.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound dumb at all. As lines of small cameras evolve, many times the current model adds some little thing that aids in gripping the camera. As to the actual use of advance, note that even the M8 now allows you to separate the trip and their motorized advance to minimize noise at any given time.

I still put small and able to hold steady against my face as my number ones (oh - and image quality, too).
 
the panasonic g1 is small and i can put it against my face when i shoot. it's also very comfortable to hold - i like a grip on all my cameras - and the g1 could in reality handle all my photo needs (i'm just an amateur;)) and i can also easily manual focus the lens but it's the manual thumb advance i missed the most.
 
It's not that small, and RFs are in the process of losing even that small advantage as cameras lose mirrors while sensors become ever more capable. But it is, for me anyway, in that "just right" size category.

Size (or 'face-ability') is only part of the equation. The optical viewfinder with coincident rangefinder is truly unique and the pinpoint of my allegiance, along with a healthy dose of bucking the popular trend (not to mention awesome glass). Seeing a different way means just that.
 
I believe that the real appeal of a Digital RF is the ability to use 80 years worth of lenses. When I have to buy a Digital RF, I will do so to enable use of lenses going back to the uncoated Elmar.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I believe that the real appeal of a Digital RF is the ability to use 80 years worth of lenses. When I have to buy a Digital RF, I will do so to enable use of lenses going back to the uncoated Elmar.
Click to expand...

The fact that the M8 can shoot "test" shots and comparisons without the delay of developing and printing has really told me a lot about my lenses. I know the fact that you can look at a digital image at huge magnifications impresses a lot of folks. But I've learned more comparing two similar images from two different lenses at modest magnifications. And I can do it so quickly with digital that I actually do it rather than running out of patience.
 
For those of us who wear bifocals, holding a tiny digital camera at arm's length while tilting your head back to be able to see the tiny screen is a royal pain. With a viewfinder, I can look through the upper part of my glasses and aim the camera without a problem.
 
noimmunity said:
It's not that small, and RFs are in the process of losing even that small advantage as cameras lose mirrors while sensors become ever more capable. But it is, for me anyway, in that "just right" size category.

Size (or 'face-ability') is only part of the equation. The optical viewfinder with coincident rangefinder is truly unique and the pinpoint of my allegiance, along with a healthy dose of bucking the popular trend (not to mention awesome glass). Seeing a different way means just that.
Click to expand...

Not only do I agree, I also think the above answer is eloquently put :)
 
> And I can do it so quickly with digital that I actually do it rather than running out of patience.

Kodak needs the income from all of my test rolls! Got a roll back today from a 1936 5cm f1.5 Sonnar converted to LTM. Nailed the shim exactly. Used a Canon III for the collimation, and a Canon P for the test roll. It's a system. Slow System. M8 would have been faster. But how do I open the back to hold a Loupe to the image plane?
 
Yes... composing with an LCD annoys me to no end! Here's what I'm holding out for. An Olympus micro four-thirds camera (mock-up shown at Photokina) that has a built-in viewfinder and a rotating LCD screen that can be flipped over so the screen is hidden. Add to that the (hopefully) soon to be offered Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens. This combination would be a modern-day equivalent of the wonderful compact rangefinder cameras like the Yashica Electros!
 
I have to admit, while I do not use it all the time, the CV 28mm finder is perfect addition to my GR-D I. For me the ease of finding the best composition has become somewhat dependent upon around the edges. Doing the Monkey Dance (Chimping) feels just like an SLR, I only see what is on the frame. It is just so much easier to find the best framing with an RF, even if the finder is not any where near as accurate as a Nikon F.

I have always thought that basic photography (exposure and composition) can be better taught with a digital camera. Much lower cost and easy feedback. What is needed is actually a digital Bessa L with no LCD and a 1.3 crop factor, say 8 MP would be fine. This sort of camera would be a capture box, set the ASA, the shutter speed on the body and the aperture and focus on the lens. An M mount version and we are done. Capture everything in RAW and have software for Mac and PC that turns them into JPG/TIFF/etc.

1.3 crop factors allows you to use standard finders (e.g. 21mm lens becomes 28) so prices for users is lower. Perhaps a T might be better, but nothing more, simple, and low cost.

B2
 
I've never found composing on the LCD that big of a deal. When using my GR-D, I brace my arms against my body and hold the camera only slightly more than a wrist's length away from me. It gives me sharp enough images and, as an added benefit, lets me shoot at chest level without obviously contorting my body.
 
For me, it's the glass. Much better than those on the 'other' digital cameras.

And we're all different, so we all prefer different lens characteristics, we can all find something we like (someone earlier mentioned 80-odd years of lenses to choose from?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom