RF cool factor?

[tedwhite]

Maybe tell her about the stealth qualities, the unobtrusivness, the fly-on-the-wall notion, the ability to photograph 'cool' guys without their knowledge. Tell her the world of the RF user extends from 4 feet to 25 feet.

Any slob can have an SLR or a digicam (God, how I hate that word). Tell her that.

On the other hand, ignore everything I said.

Ted

 

[RML]

Thanks for the welcome, guys!


DMR436 makes in fact some good points. The only thing I told my little girl (she just turned 7) is how to use her Oly Mju (I know, there's not much to that). I let her shoot whatever she likes, even if it is a bird 30 meters away. Only then will I tell her that she better get closer if she wants to take a nice shot of it.

I learned photography all by myself, ignoring such advice as people telling me (when I was 14 or so) that using slide film inside a darkish automobile museum, shooting it handheld without a flash, was impossible. I still have some very nice slides from that visit.

It took me a year or two to get the hang of all the intricacies of the modern SLR (my Eos 3000) and build up to a style I could call my own. When I got into RF I improved dramatically in vision, in style, in capabilities and in experience. It's evolution, and it needs to take its own course.

Now I'm a 'digital' man... . What's the opposite of evolution? Regression?

 

[back alley]

de volution

 

[DougK]

OK, this is probably going to wander slightly off-topic and even border on becoming a rant, but since that's never stopped me before, here goes.

Rangefinders, even the most sophisticated ones, don't look like "real cameras" to people raised on modern marketing; they've been fed the expectation (by the media and disappointingly the camera companies themselves) that the ONLY cameras for serious use are SLRs (whether 35mm or digital - medium format hardly gets a mention anymore, let alone large format). Let's face it, rangefinders DO bear more than a passing resemblance to the cheapo point-and-shoots which consumers are told can't produce "professional results". Most salesmen these days probably don't know the difference between the types either; they tend to be concerned with what they can sell the most of. Consider also what type of camera is recommended to beginning photo students. I can't recall seeing a single syllabus which suggested that anything other than a manual SLR would suffice for learning photography. Another point to consider: when was the last time you saw a reasonably priced rangefinder camera marketed to anyone who isn't already interested in photography?

I have to admit, I bought into all that hooey myself. What happened to free my mind? I noticed that a couple of photographers profiled in the National Geographic Field Guide to Photography whose work I've long admired and wanted to learn from were carrying these funny little cameras called "Leicas" and swore by them. Curious, I did a little digging on the Internet and found this website. Intrigued, I bought one, tried it out, and found that for the way I like to shoot and the subjects I choose to shoot, rangefinders WORKED without the camera getting in my way. The rest, as they say, is history.

With all that said, photography is still ultimately about the image and not the equipment. If she wants to shoot with an SLR or digital camera, fabulous! If she wants to try medium format, rock on! If she decides to try a rangefinder, awesome! As long as she has the right equipment for her to get the image she sees on film/paper/monitor, in the end that's really all that matters.

 

[Pherdinand]

Interestingly, my non-photographer friends had a completely unexpected reaction to the Contax IIIa when noticed it for the first(and, last )time in my hands. They have seen my TLR's already (two pictures at once?), my SLR with the prime lenses (where do i zoom?) and my yashica compact rf's (man, you went back to point and shoots?) - however, the contax they ripped out from each other's hands with sparkling eyes. All of them wanted to look through it. The weight, the shiny chrome, the big glass (sonnar 50/1.5 was on it), the oily metallic smell, or just the general look, dunno, something really made it look cool in their eye.

They are digicam-guys and everything else is antique, but they loved the 50 y old contax.

 

[Kin Lau]

Shooting digital is addictive, thought the 300D makes the addiction a little less compulsive. I just despise the size and weight of the camera and the 50/1.8 I use with it. But damn, digital offers some reaaaally interesting benefits (switching iso setting, setting white balance, no more films to develop, no more tedious scanning, and the 300D has a really low-noise shutter).

Good to see you back Remy. You might want to check out the new 350D/Digital Rebel XT, and the Sigma 30/1.4 .

 

[RML]

Good to see you back Remy. You might want to check out the new 350D/Digital Rebel XT, and the Sigma 30/1.4 .

I better not, Kin! I'm saving up for an R-D1. I already have about 10 euro, so only another 2990 euros to go. By the time Leica brings out a digital M, I'll have the money for the R-D1.

 

[alfa]

I better not, Kin! I'm saving up for an R-D1. I already have about 10 euro, so only another 2990 euros to go. By the time Leica brings out a digital M, I'll have the money for the R-D1.

you'll probably never buy an R-D1 if Leica's financial problem continues this way :bang:



returning to the point the fact that rangefinders pass by as point and shoot cameras is one their strongest points imho


and maybe it would be better if you buy your doughter a digital reflex, after a while she will want a rangefinder like I did (I'm not so young, 26, but....I feel very young inside if it counts)

 

[dmr]

Consider also what type of camera is recommended to beginning photo students. I can't recall seeing a single syllabus which suggested that anything other than a manual SLR would suffice for learning photography.

Back when I was in high school, and this was many years ago, my school did not offer a photography course, but I had friends in a school that did. They were required to purchase and use one particular model of el-cheapo roll film box camera for all of their course assignments. I remember being a bit surprised at this, but they did it for 2 main reasons.

First, it put everybody on an even playing field. The students who could not afford the nicer cameras were not at a disadvantage. Second, and this is what I thought was really important, is that it made them concentrate on composition and artistic technique, as opposed to the operation of the equipment.

At the time I was already spoiled and I remember I was glad I was not taking that course. I also wish that my school had offered a course in photography.

 

[DougK]

Hmmm, learning photography with a box camera... sounds like it would've been right up my alley

 

[dmr]

I learned on a Brownie Super-27. Had a two position aperture control and two position focus. I was 6.

My very first camera of my own was a Brownie Starflash. I remember the 2-position aperture, but this didn't have any kind of focus. 12 square format photos on a roll of 127 film.

So far Nikki has used the Retina IIIS, Leica M3, Nikon SP, and Nikon S3. Do you think I spoil her?

YES! (sheesh!)

 

[kzim56]

Again, thanks for the great responses. My daughter has been busy with piano and homework lately, but we'll try to shoot some pictures this weekend. Of course in the end, the image is the thing. I'm grateful that she has an interest and talent in this creative form of expression. She has expressed interest in a little Brownie Hawkeye we have, so I'll give her a roll to run through it.

Karl