The "New Rangefinder"

[giellaleafapmu]

So far, I haven't switched. I tried an Olympus E-1 and lenses when they first came out and found the results disappointing. For work, when I need color and fast focusing, the EOS system does the job. For my personal work and long-term documentary work - chronicling the local volunteer fire department for the past 35 years - its a film M system. Maybe some day I'll try the 4/3 system cameras again, but that would add just another system, and I don't need the complexity.

May I ask what was disappointing with the E-1 and why would you consider digital in the form of 4/3 system again if it was disappointing. It was 5 Mpx, so if you want to print very large the resolution is not enough but besides this I think it was one of the best systems when it come out. Now the 4/3 and Micro 4/3 system are not enywhere near the competiotion, except maybe for some nice lens which can be had for a bit less money than the equivalent in another system.

GLF

 

[Pablito]

My experience is the opposite. There was an initial carry over from those professionals who used film M's to digital M's. But as of late, I have only seen the newer M's in the hands of non professionals. Professionals are going to need multiple bodies, not just for the necessary back up against equipment failure, but to work with several lenses at the same time. The expense of multiple bodies of a camera that has become a conspicuous consumption item simply does not make sense, nor is it affordable, to most working photographers.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[thompsonks]

"If I were shooting something that I wanted to put in a gallery showing, I would certainly shoot FX sensor DSLR minimum, probably film and Medium Format at that."

Sorry, but if you look in most galleries you'll see that's not what's going on.

 

[Black]

If it doesnt produce a negative I'm not interested.

^ I like this ethos. I hope its true.

 

[mfunnell]

If it doesnt produce a negative I'm not interested.

No slide film allowed?

...Mike

 

[p.giannakis]

If it doesnt produce a negative I'm not interested.

I can see your point of view. For me, negatives are easier to archive and keep. I like the film as an end product, On my recent computer crash i lost 300 pictures and all my DVD's that are older than 5 years old cannot be read on my PC. That is why, i shoot only film.

(Just to confess my sin, i do prefer film SLR's. I am using a Barnak every now and then though...)

 

[Roger Hicks]

"If I were shooting something that I wanted to put in a gallery showing, I would certainly shoot FX sensor DSLR minimum, probably film and Medium Format at that."

Sorry, but if you look in most galleries you'll see that's not what's going on.

You will? How many galleries tell you what equipment was used?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No question that it would be nice to have the full frame on the 240. But to tell you the truth files from the Fuji are definitely large enough.

I don't think it's price of a Leica that is holding people back from buying it. I think it's the older technology. Why in the world doesn't like to put autofocus in their bodies – if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

I'm pretty well committed to Fuji now, and it will take an awful lot to pry me away at this point

And if you don't like it, you don't have to have it, either. Ive yet to find an autofocus lens with tolerable manual focusing. Also, putting autofocus on an M would make it a lot bigger -- and it's small size/high quality that attracts many people to Ms.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lss]

A new rangefinder would be great.

 

[Griffin]

I used to be able to develop and print all my photos for free at the lab where my mom worked before she retired. Then one day they told me they don't develop film anymore. I panicked and spent my savings on the digital solution that would allow me to use any or all of the lenses I've accumulated throughout the years. The Ricoh GXR. Currently I only have my 35/1,4 Nokton attached to it but am looking to get adapters for my FD-, PK- and Nikon-mount lenses.

I'm enjoying this camera immensely though I do feel a little guilty and dirty at times when I fire off a couple shots too many...

 

[shadowfox]

The members of this forum are not immune to preferring immediacy and convenience. At least here we still can talk about darkroom prints and film photography without being sneered upon.

I don't see it as a "switch," rather as an "alongside" matter. High-quality compacts are just that, they are easy to carry and produce acceptable results. So I use it alongside all of my film cameras.

What confuse me more is the resistance to trying out film rangefinders. For those who are not bound by any professional requirements, why deprive yourselves from the fun and very interesting world of film? Don't "switch" from your beloved digital, but at least give it a try.

 

[jsrockit]

What confuse me more is the resistance to trying out film rangefinders. For those who are not bound by any professional requirements, why deprive yourselves from the fun and very interesting world of film? Don't "switch" from your beloved digital, but at least give it a try.

I think, for some of us at least, we already have used film a lot, we just don't as much anymore. I've had a few people locally assume I've never used film because I'm not now. I went to art school in the 90s and focused on photography...so it was all film at the time. Film is nothing special to me at this point. Some of us prefer the output and look of digital. 😱 😀 For small format color, it makes sense.

I agree though... if I was just starting and only knew digital, I would certainly be open to trying a film Leica (or camera in general). Curiosity would get the best of me.

 

[kbg32]

If it doesnt produce a negative I'm not interested.

Well, a lot of people feel there are negatives associated with digital.

 

[willie_901]

...

If I were shooting something that I wanted to put in a gallery showing, I would certainly shoot FX sensor DSLR minimum, probably film and Medium Format at that.

Except for work that is highly dependent on selective DOF, I can't imagine a single fundamental basis for how an APS-C image is at a disadvantage to a 24 X 36 sensor image.

Large format film is an entirely different story.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Except for work that is highly dependent on selective DOF, I can't imagine a single fundamental basis for how an APS-C image is at a disadvantage to a 24 X 36 sensor image.

Large format film is an entirely different story.

Would you say the same about (for example) a Leica S2 or other 'medium format' digital camera as compared with 24x36mm?

Cheers,

R.

 

[anjoca76]

Sure, there is no denying that we are in the age of the digital camera, and that film is becoming a niche thing, but I can't help but assume that a significant chunk of traffic in non-film-related sub-forums is because these newer cameras are, well, new. There is not as much information accumulated about them as, say, the M3, which almost every regular RFF visitor either already owns or has at one time owned. If I want to know the difference between an M2 and M6, this has already been discussed to death and I can find my answers without starting a new thread. Bill makes a great point, or observation, but I think there is more to those numbers than meets the eye.

 

[doncraig]

My experience is the opposite. There was an initial carry over from those professionals who used film M's to digital M's. But as of late, I have only seen the newer M's in the hands of non professionals. Professionals are going to need multiple bodies, not just for the necessary back up against equipment failure, but to work with several lenses at the same time. The expense of multiple bodies of a camera that has become a conspicuous consumption item simply does not make sense, nor is it affordable, to most working photographers.

I have to agree with Bill. I believe that Leica has the equivalent of a perma-tan now. It has gone from luxury to vulgarity (see new shop opening in L.A.) OK. Start the hating now...

I switched from an M9 and R-D1 to the XP1 and X100 (now S) and use them for personal and professional work. Happily. I only switch to a D600/700 when I need a long lens or I am concerned with damaging the cameras (the Nikons are work cameras, Fujis are personal cameras).

The Fuji Xs are great working cameras and only improve with each passing firmware upgrade. With the recent purchase of an adapter and an inexpensive Zeiss 135mm f2.8 lens, I may have solved the long lens issue too.

 

[Shade]

I have my Fuji Xpro 1 as my main camera as soon as it came out and hve no regrets ever since. The combination of what it delivers and its price point seems just right to me. The lenses are also exceptional, and provides me with great results.

 

[Pablito]

Except for work that is highly dependent on selective DOF, I can't imagine a single fundamental basis for how an APS-C image is at a disadvantage to a 24 X 36 sensor image.

I don't have to imagine: I use both FF and APS-C cameras all the time. And there is nothing like a RAW file from a D800 (and I assume the Canon equivalent). The dynamic range and the subtlety of tone is unmatched with FF.

Yet I still use the APS-C cameras for a lot of work. The latest generation is very very good.

 

[thompsonks]

"How many galleries tell you what equipment was used?"

You can't tell the format by looking??