Sold all my RFs and bought D40 and prime

ywenz said:
RF and P&S digital cameras will merge as one in the not to distant future. The day that display technology improves to the point where they can fit a tiny ultra high-res screen into a viewfinder will be the death of the RF camera. Of course, this high-res screen will have to rival the image looking thru an optical RF finder.

The screen will show live image from the sensor and there will not be any black outs like today's P&S...
Click to expand...

it'll also spell the death of slrs. we're seeing some baby steps with the standardization of live view in dslrs. say goodbye to mirrors and pentaprisms. they'll probably do away with the long backfocus of slrs, too.

i can imagine the reemergence of the alpa concept, part slr and part rangefinder. one mode shows the dof at full aperture (and taking aperture when you press the dof preview button), while another mode shows everything in focus. more powerful processors will allow fast, accurate contrast-detect af, and you'll be able to move the focus point anywhere, aside from the usual arrays and modes we have now.

that sounds more like a rangefinder than an slr, but i'm biased.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
Click to expand...


i know even better thing efke 50 - everyone forget this film but it has much nicer grain and contrast than all others. you have to try it - you will like it.
 
jan normandale said:
I would be surprised if there is a member of RFF who doesn't have some form of digital camera, a P/S a phone camera, something for the family shots to send by email to relatives...
Click to expand...
Eh?... I don't own a digital camera. 6 film cameras, yes, but no digital.....:)
 
I have 2 SLRs (Minolta Dynax 7 film and Sony A100 digital) and now I have RF (Bessa R3A).
Why? Becouse RF is easier to focus manually. AF on my DSLR working awfully in the low light. and manual focus is tricky to use becouse of small viewfinder.
I use SLRs mostly for portraits , with big and heavy 85mm/1.5.
My RF I'm going to use for street shooting, becouse it's easier to carry on the neck strap. Of course, digital compacts are smaller and weight less, but focusing through the LCD in sunny day, lack of "normal" viewfinder and absence of accurate manual focusing drives me mad.
 
sitemistic said:
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."

I think this is kind of funny, actually. This forum is full of threads with folks extolling the virtues of 1960's point and shoot rangefinders. Of Olympus XA's. Of Canon GIII's. The D40 is in most every way superior to these cameras.
Amazing.
Click to expand...
I agree that the D40 is not a point & shoot camera -- it's actually a quite nice compact DSLR -- but neither is any range finder even if it has full program auto exposure. If you just "point and shoot" with a RF, you will get blurry pictures most of the time due to incorrect focus...

The only real point & shoot cameras are fixed focus and auto focus cameras that are designed to be used mostly with program AE or do not even provide any manual controls for exposure. Many modern digital compacts offer some manual exposure control, but if the controls are buried in menus I would still consider them point & shoot, since the manual controls are too difficult to use.
 
burninfilm said:
With this logic in mind, then rangefinders will also make no sense, right? I mean, we won't need a direct optical viewfinder anymore, just the incredibly improved digital viewfinder.
Click to expand...
There is a fundamental difference between TTL viewfinder and direct viewfinder: namely the way depth of field is (not)reflected. In contrast, there is only technical difference between SLR TTL finder and electronic TTL finder.
 
burninfilm said:
So, I guess, if what you say is true, then SLR's AND RF's are doomed to obselescence...
Click to expand...
From a technical point of view, yes. Folders and TLRs are obsolescent nowadays, although Rollei still makes the latter. Still many people use both and take great pictures and that will probably continue doing so as long as film is still available. Some people will still use their RF's and SLR's when electronic viewfinders are the norm. Cameras are creative tools and spesifically they are not like HiFi equipment or cell phones, where using old tech does not make much sense. But still most people want to use the latest tech for various reasons, many of which are not rational but some are.
 
Dr. Strangelove said:
I agree that the D40 is not a point & shoot camera -- it's actually a quite nice compact DSLR -- but neither is any range finder even if it has full program auto exposure. If you just "point and shoot" with a RF, you will get blurry pictures most of the time due to incorrect focus...
Click to expand...

This is simply false. The way most street photographers use rangefinders is like a point and shoot but one where you have complete control to set all the parameters, the trick is you do it in advance, not at the moment of capture.

I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. You can then micro adjust focus, aperture or shutter speed at the time of capture if you like but really you just frame and shoot. It's the absolute fastest way of taking photographs in my book and the thing rangefinders are uniquely suited for.

Blurry out of focus pictures aren't really the problem and neither is exposure, it's poor framing that gets me more often than not or simply uninteresting photos. Try it.

Theoretically, a digital point and shoot should be able to do this (I dismiss DSLRs because they are generally too large, although a Pentax with one of their digital pancake lenses is tempting) perhaps even better. The small sensor/wide depth of field thing makes it easier. The problem is that, with a few exceptions, everything is too screen driven and you can't tell at a glance how the camera is set. I can glance at my Leica and see the focus, aperture and shutter speed in a microsecond and have it to my eye to shoot a second later.

That's really all I need to know. To get this in a digital though you either have to get a DSLR and deal with it's size and basically fight it's desire to do things for you or get one of the fancy point and shoots that gives you control. I just got a Ricoh GX100 for just this reason but I still need to look at the screen on the back to see this basic info, not to mention turning it on and off.

Digital will surpass rangefinders for caputure at least, when a camera comes out that uses actually dedicated dials to adjust aperture and shutter speed and focus (hell I'd settle for aperture and focus and have it always in aperture priority so the G9 shutter speed wheel does nothing for me) and that turns itself on when you press the shutter which has 0 lag. The lens should also not retract. It still probably won't produce black and whites with the tones of film but that can come later. And I'm not prepared to pay $5000 for this privilege Leica, more like $500 for a body or a body and fixed lens. Charge me up the yin yang for lenses, I'll buy them used. Till then I'll keep my M4-P and 35mm Summicron, and dabble with digital point and shoots.
 
Last edited:
nightfly said:
This is simply false. The way most street photographers use rangefinders is like a point and shoot but one where you have complete control to set all the parameters, the trick is you do it in advance, not at the moment of capture.

I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. .
Click to expand...
It makes really no difference if you adjust the settings in advance or at the moment. RF's still requires manual adjusting of settings for different conditions. You can use manual focus SLR's or TLR's in a similar way, but they are still not point and shoot cameras. Or you can use a scale focus camera. Or you can shoot your RF / scale focus camera from the hip, in which case you don't really even point...

In any case, point & shoot camera implies that you don't have to do anything else than just "point and shoot" and you will get acceptable results every time without worrying about exposure or distance to main subject at all, in other words a true point & shoot camera is nearly idiot proof. The best point and shoot cameras in that regard are of course some of the new digital compacts, which have face recognition and huge depth of field due to small sensor. With them you don't even have to point at the main subject, if it is a person and there are not too many persons at varying distances in the field of view, since the camera will automatically focus on the faces.
 
Dr. Strangelove said:
In any case, point & shoot camera implies that you don't have to do anything else than just "point and shoot" and you will get acceptable results every time without worrying about exposure or distance to main subject at all, in other words a true point & shoot camera is nearly idiot proof.
Click to expand...

Right but the point of the argument was that the D40 was ONLY a point and shoot and it was used in a derogatory way. Like it's JUST a point and shoot not a "real" camera ie you have no control.

You're sort of bending the argument to say that yes, the D40 is a point and shoot and how wonderful whereas what I'm saying is that RFs in general can be used as point and shoots in the sense that you aren't fiddling around with a ton of setting with the camera up to your face, but that they offer a set of controls that allows you to have both the immediacy of a point and shoot (or even more immediacy since they are faster) and the control a photographer wants from a creative standpoint. I'm not suggesting my mom should run out and buy a Leica to take family thanksgiving photos.

Doesn't matter although this thread has not only managed to invoke the RF vs SLR holy war but the digital vs film holy war as well. If only it could bring in the Mac/PC holy war and someone compared another poster to Hitler it will achieve total internet holy war perfection.

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Dogman said:
Everyone has to do what works best for them.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true, and what is "best" varies from person to person.

I very recently returned to taking pictures after an absence of years. I've got much to learn and re-learn. Being inexplicably, and momentarily, flush with cash, I went out and bought more cameras than I need. I'll eventually sell most of them after the dust settles.

So, what I've decided is that it is the relationship with each individual camera that counts. It doesn't make any difference if the camera is digital or uses film, if it is an SLR or an RF, if it's a P&S or a 2-pound brick. If you asked me to vote, I'd vote for rangefinders. But, that does not mean that I'd always prefer any given RF to any given SLR.

What counts is the ease with which I can use a camera to capture the images I see with my eyes. So many variables come into play in that equation that it's impossible to validate dogma one way or the other.
 
I got tired of film labs screwing up

I got tired of film labs screwing up

And I could never get scanning right so, I got a mint used Pany L1 with the Leica lens. I put a Nikon adapter on it. So now all my Nikon pre AI(S) lens work beautifully.
20mm f4
28mm f3.5
50mm f1.4
200mm f4
Remember actual output is 2X.
Of course not as refined as my Zeiss Ikon, but it is about shooting pictures anyway.
 
RObert Budding said:
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."

It's difficult to take such silly statements seriously. The D40 has an AP-S sized sensor, very good low light performance, and hardly any shutter lag. It is, of course, limited to AF-S lenses for AF, but that was a reasonable trade-off for the price point.

There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . .
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't used an XA :)

Edit: I rescend my comment above, equating the XA with a p&s is too insulting for the XA :D
 
Last edited:
Just my 2 cents worth here: Digital images look funny most of the time, w/ objects in the background seeming to be lit w/ the same light of closer objects. People sometimes seem too sharply defined. Skin tends to look plasticy, hair can look wiglike, and detais seem to be lost overall that are sure there when shot w/ film. Digital B&W, well, the less said the better. Color? It is tempting as heck to go digital, but then I would end up w/ the same type of images that most people have. I would lose the ability to choose from a Kodachrome image, or an Agfa one, or a Tri-X one, etc. Digital wins in other ways though. Speed & cost primarily. Troll comments I do not get, and never will I suppose. Oh, I know the definition, but it still seems to be used to put someone down because they have expressed an opinion that differs from accepted dogma, or threatens the perceived status of an accepted elder. I would not want to see posts that aren't sometimes controversial or challenging. Internet forums are known to be churchlike. When someone offends the faithful, sparks fly. It's all so silly. I do like asking a question or answering one in a post, or finding out new information on equipment. The acid reply to a dumb question is usually a hoot to read too!
 
I'm wary of anyone who makes these ultimatum-type final pronouncements like "I'm getting rid of all of my X cameras and buying only Y cameras".

It's like the alcoholic who swears never to drink again, the person who gets religion and vows never to go back to his sinning, whorin' and feudin' lifestyle "ever again", or the vegan who suddenly announces he will never eat meat again.

It's more a reflection of something weirdly emotional going on inside the person's head rather than any sort of sound reality/fact based decision.

Me, I like anything that makes images. I have plenty 'o film cameras, Hasselblad, view camera, 35mm, and I always buy, sell and shoot with digital too. My Epson R-D1's (have three) have given me an unmeasurable amount of pleasure in the last couple of years.

I don't see the big deal of getting fixated on the pros and cons of any particular technology. I'm thrilled to be living in an era where we have the choice and that it's affordable/accessible to me. Everything has it's merits and drawbacks.

If I could make image captures straight off my optical nerves and preserve anything I look at when I see it, I think that would be best. Probably one day will be possible.
 
nightfly said:
...
I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. You can then micro adjust focus, aperture or shutter speed at the time of capture if you like but really you just frame and shoot. It's the absolute fastest way of taking photographs in my book and the thing rangefinders are uniquely suited for... shoots.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree with you, Nightfly. Although I've lately been taking my Minolta X370 manual SLR, with Rokkor 50/1.7 lens, out as a 'street' camera; I tend to use it just as you describe above in the mode that you say rangefinders are ideally suited for. The problem is, the operating mode you describe isn't at all rangefinder specific; it is more accurate to say that the shooting mode you describe is 'manual camera specific'. We tend to forget the great manual SLR's from the 1970's and 1980's operate very much as our beloved rangefinders. Except that these SLR's are better at compositional accuracy, and not as good at focus under dim light. As I indicated in another recent thread about SLR's vs rangefinders, it's about choosing a camera that gives accurate composition or accurate timing.

Camera technology has changed so much in the last 20 years that it is a mistake to hold onto the outdated notion that the choice is between SLR and rangefinder; I think a more relavent choice is one between manual camera (be it SLR or rangefinder) and automated camera (i.e. menu-driven film or dSLR). In the case of the manual cameras, their operation is much more similar than they are different, in comparison with automated cameras. As I talked about in my latest blog, it's really about choosing finely engineered mechanical tools designed for the ergonomics of the human hand and eye.

~Joe
 
loneranger said:
Have not, but I am a big fan of GRAIN in B/W, going for grainless and sharpness kind of beats the whole point of B/W for me. I guess Ansel Adams would argue otherwise, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes I like grain and sometimes I don't. When I do, I usually prefer T-Max 100, because the grain is quite a bit variable and can be controlled to more of an extent by method and degree of agitation, choice of developer, temperature, and etcetera (this is where taking those lab notes pays off).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom