oldschool photo
Newbie
Went out shooting with newer Lumix 5 digital camera. On my camera, I have shoe mount viewfinder from another camera that has sufficient frame lines to mimic the ranges from 24mm to 80 if only approximately.
But what was fun, was the completely different style I went about yesterday shooting a subject. I came upon the scene yesterday and knew how I wanted to frame/capture it. So raised viewfinder to my eye and clicked. I checked the back screen LCD to compare what I was after in my head and from the viewfinder and it didn't quite line up.
So what was interesting to me in retrospect was the reconciliation process I went through noticing how key geometric points of the image and contributed significantly to the image as a whole either did or did not align with the way I wanted. It was a very Zen Like moment. So back I went to click again. And I did it a few times until the image on the back matched the way I was seeing through my uncoupled viewfinder and desired outcome.
I guess what I am saying is that the disconnect between the viewfinder and the result, being a film rangefinder user or a digital SLR user, was interesting for a couple reasons.
First, with film rangefinders, obviously you take a couple photos and hope you captured it and everything lined up as you intended; no way to confirm on the spot. So in that respect, nothing new there; can do the same process with SLR; look, snap, peek, repeat.
But with SLR, you’re inside the frame when you’re taking your shot and perhaps looking far more closely at how the subject fills the frame compositionally but not necessarily how the subject itself in the context of the whole scene is composed to convey it correctly to the viewer and make the whole composition compelling; not just the content. And while I use zooms and primes which can be changed to include more or less ‘context’ rather than ‘subject’ , It seems to me that with the digital SLR I am primarily concerned with the content of the frame and details, rather than the compositional whole in the broader context of the scene. It was really an interesting sensation to go back and forth from Viewfinder to LCD to align the major geometric points and shapes until it matched in my head. And in this situation, the context and geometry of the whole mattered a great deal or the whole ‘thing’ itself would have been an epic fail of a detail without meaning.
This is interesting to me for a couple reasons. My friend shoots with Leica rangefinders almost exclusively; digital these days. And he goes on about rangefinder cameras and techniques making better photos. But I attributed that to what I hear about stealth, speed, and the like. I even heard what he said about seeing and framing the whole scene for decisive moment, but that did not match this experience; my subject wasn’t moving.
So my epiphany is that I do indeed like the rangefinder experience. But for me, it is a real benefit if also associated with Digital and LCD so I can do the reconciliation process. Rangefinder and Film simply hasn’t and doesn’t allow for it for me. But put together a rangefinder, optical viewfinder and digital LCD and capture, that is an experience I am newly appreciating. Coming from and SLR, I guess I am seeing the bigger picture.
But what was fun, was the completely different style I went about yesterday shooting a subject. I came upon the scene yesterday and knew how I wanted to frame/capture it. So raised viewfinder to my eye and clicked. I checked the back screen LCD to compare what I was after in my head and from the viewfinder and it didn't quite line up.
So what was interesting to me in retrospect was the reconciliation process I went through noticing how key geometric points of the image and contributed significantly to the image as a whole either did or did not align with the way I wanted. It was a very Zen Like moment. So back I went to click again. And I did it a few times until the image on the back matched the way I was seeing through my uncoupled viewfinder and desired outcome.
I guess what I am saying is that the disconnect between the viewfinder and the result, being a film rangefinder user or a digital SLR user, was interesting for a couple reasons.
First, with film rangefinders, obviously you take a couple photos and hope you captured it and everything lined up as you intended; no way to confirm on the spot. So in that respect, nothing new there; can do the same process with SLR; look, snap, peek, repeat.
But with SLR, you’re inside the frame when you’re taking your shot and perhaps looking far more closely at how the subject fills the frame compositionally but not necessarily how the subject itself in the context of the whole scene is composed to convey it correctly to the viewer and make the whole composition compelling; not just the content. And while I use zooms and primes which can be changed to include more or less ‘context’ rather than ‘subject’ , It seems to me that with the digital SLR I am primarily concerned with the content of the frame and details, rather than the compositional whole in the broader context of the scene. It was really an interesting sensation to go back and forth from Viewfinder to LCD to align the major geometric points and shapes until it matched in my head. And in this situation, the context and geometry of the whole mattered a great deal or the whole ‘thing’ itself would have been an epic fail of a detail without meaning.
This is interesting to me for a couple reasons. My friend shoots with Leica rangefinders almost exclusively; digital these days. And he goes on about rangefinder cameras and techniques making better photos. But I attributed that to what I hear about stealth, speed, and the like. I even heard what he said about seeing and framing the whole scene for decisive moment, but that did not match this experience; my subject wasn’t moving.
So my epiphany is that I do indeed like the rangefinder experience. But for me, it is a real benefit if also associated with Digital and LCD so I can do the reconciliation process. Rangefinder and Film simply hasn’t and doesn’t allow for it for me. But put together a rangefinder, optical viewfinder and digital LCD and capture, that is an experience I am newly appreciating. Coming from and SLR, I guess I am seeing the bigger picture.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Ok interesting, One man's point of view. Some of us want something more immediate and are willing to wait for the "surprise". Still it is important for each of us to find our own place in photography. BTW what is a Lumix 5. I googled it and about 10 Panasonic cameras came up.
thegman
Veteran
You have found what works for you, and I can agree on some levels. I like range finders out and about, for the size mostly. Compare a Zeiss Super Ikonta III to any 6x6 SLR, or indeed any 35mm SLR.
On a tripod, though, with all the time in the world, I'd rather an SLR, or perhaps one day a view camera, so I can see exactly what I'm getting. There is no perfect technology, just one that suits the task.
As for waiting for the results with film, or the immediacy of digital, at the moment I'm completely and totally a film user, with no interest in digital. However, I can certainly see what drives people to use digital.
On a tripod, though, with all the time in the world, I'd rather an SLR, or perhaps one day a view camera, so I can see exactly what I'm getting. There is no perfect technology, just one that suits the task.
As for waiting for the results with film, or the immediacy of digital, at the moment I'm completely and totally a film user, with no interest in digital. However, I can certainly see what drives people to use digital.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
You were using an auxilliary viewfinder that wasn't corrected for parallax though... and that makes a big difference in the way you frame. What you were experiencing was parallax; the viewing lens seeing slightly differently than the taking lens... Cameras with a coupled rangefinder and parallax corrected viewfinder do, indeed, very closely approximate what the lens will see. Your friend is right, and he's on to something. You ought to give it a try sometime. 
Dwig
Well-known
... only at the plane of focus and only with respect to framing.
Such "corrected" VFs still suffer from parallax error with respect to the alignment between foreground and background objects. The only way to avoid this type of error is to have the viewing lens at exactly the same position as the taking lens. Something that an SLR, digital or film, or digital camera with an EVF, rear panel or eyelevel, provides.
paradoxbox
Well-known
the first time that happened to me i realized i just need to move my head down (or up) slightly to get the actual position of the lens from the perspective i want to take the picture. the parallax correction only helps with the angle the camera is pointed - try moving your whole body with the camera in whatever direction the parallax correction is moving and your photo will match whatever it is you envisioned.
people using a very tall camera like an epson r-d1 or bessa r3 have to get used to this real quick - especially with the r-d1 as its 50mm frame is tiny and moves a huge amount with parallax correction.
people using a very tall camera like an epson r-d1 or bessa r3 have to get used to this real quick - especially with the r-d1 as its 50mm frame is tiny and moves a huge amount with parallax correction.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Probably the LX5, Akiva. It doesn't have a built in VF, though you can mount an uncoupled/analog or buy the Lumix EVF.