The "New Rangefinder"

[Ken Ford]

I know this is an old thread, but...

Digital has almost completely replaced film in my life, but I'd like to add the ability of making decent scans at home to allow me to continue shooting Tri-X in my Leica and Nikons. The golden age of film scanners passed me by...

However, I really don't see myself going back to film based RF for the majority of my work. I find too many practical advantages of shooting digital, especially now that Fuji has recreated the parts of the RF experience that really matter to me - the optical finder with brightlines.

 

[GaryLH]

I am also almost complete switched over, but in still shoot some film. I do my own b&w development and use a scanner. When I do shoot film, it tends to be one of my medium format folders.. My days of darkroom and enlargers is way past, but I recently found a place where I maybe able to use a darkroom at a reasonable price.

The new 36mp sensor are getting pretty close, but because they are Bayer designs, the algo used sometimes will not always be able to show the small subtle details that a good medium or large format film image does. The tonal quality is getting better these days.

The foveon sensor design tends to provide better detail sometimes then even the bigger 36mp sensor.. NOTE I said sometimes, a lot depends on the image. I have seen sample where the 36mp did better and where the smaller 15 mega photocell foveon sensor did better. The new Quattro sensor will be interesting.

At the end of the day, digital is toooo easy to get a picture and I am plain lazy.

The big question is do u find digital acceptable enough?

Gary

 

[rybolt]

The big question is do u find digital acceptable enough?

Gary

Interesting question, Gary. I've seen an awful lot of bad pictures shot on film. And some really bad black and white pictures printed by people who should have been able to turn out good work.
If anything, I think the overall quality of photography is much better since 2002 when the first affordable DSLR cameras started appearing.
When you ask if digital is acceptable enough we need to know what to compare it to.
Personally, and I've made tens of thousands of prints, I find that once i'm dialed in I can make a better print digitally than I ever could in the darkroom simply because I have more tools available to me than simply dodging, burning, masking and screwing around with developer dilutions.

One of the many things that I appreciate about this forum is that there aren't many dilettantes. The ones whose camera is the price of admission to 'the club'. The people who come here are camera users and I don't think it makes much difference if they're getting the image on an Argus C3 or a Leica M as long as they're shooting and showing.

 

[GaryLH]

I look at one of my favorite photogs who past away before his time 🙁, Galen Rowell. I find that there are now better lenses and equipment then what he used in his day, but in all honesty, I don't care because I just love his body of work. My favorite being his mountain light series and his Tibetan stuff. The way he captured the light and composition is what it was about, not how good the equipment is.

I find that there are times I can c more dynamic range and tonal quality in the b&w prints from medium and large format prints that I not sure I can duplicate in digital, although I find that the foveon sensor picture do come close to close.

Anyway, I don't c a right or a wrong here, just shoot what works best for u.

Gary

 

[jpmac55]

I wonder which format they would opt for if original film rangefinder users were given a choice back then with digital technology. Not knocking film, I grew up using it but film cameras and processing is mostly a nostalgic connection.

Back in the day, we hung out on front porches with family & neighbors, then backyard decks came along and changed everything.

 

[Samouraï]

I wonder which format they would opt for if original film rangefinder users were given a choice back then with digital technology. Not knocking film, I grew up using it but film cameras and processing is mostly a nostalgic connection.

Back in the day, we hung out on front porches with family & neighbors, then backyard decks came along and changed everything.

I'm sure some wouldn't have even become photographers. A lot of great work would have been lost. Vivian Maier's amazing street work would have been destroyed by bit rot, long ago. I know much of my childhood and photographic family history (think great-grandparents) would have been lost as well, but thankfully those negatives are sturdy. Archival of digital pictures is still a major issue, and archival film is still the preferred method of storing motion pictures.

Maybe some of these photographers would have done something else with their talents. In fact, I'm sure of it. If photography were so ubiquitous and so kid-friendly (simple/easy) as it is nowadays.

I know that there isn't a digital camera out there that I enjoy using more than my Leica M3 or Mamiya 6. I'm hard pressed to say that there is a digital camera I genuinely enjoy using. It's all for convenience.

 

[rybolt]

I know that there isn't a digital camera out there that I enjoy using more than my Leica M3 or Mamiya 6. I'm hard pressed to say that there is a digital camera I genuinely enjoy using. It's all for convenience.

Can you say why this is the case? I'm really curious about this because f stops and shutter speeds and lenses that focus manually are parts of photography that cover both mediums. Is it the heft of the camera? Or the mystery involved in not knowing what you captured until the film comes out oft he fixer?
The bottom line is that the only difference is the thing that light hits. The vision that you have when you push the button doesn't care what it transmits to.

To be real honest to myself about this I think I agree with you more than I thought I would. When I went away from film I found myself getting more and more dependent on the technology and less involved in controlling the image.
When I went away from the DSLR cameras about 9 months ago and went to the Fuji X cameras I stepped back into manual exposure and away from just pushing the button. Due to advanced age I do let the camera focus for me but I'm much more aware of what it's doing. And I no longer use the barrage technique of bracketing and taking four shots when one will do.

Thanks for making me think.

 

[willie_901]

Can you say why this is the case? I'm really curious about this because f stops and shutter speeds and lenses that focus manually are parts of photography that cover both mediums. Is it the heft of the camera? Or the mystery involved in not knowing what you captured until the film comes out oft he fixer?
The bottom line is that the only difference is the thing that light hits. The vision that you have when you push the button doesn't care what it transmits to.

To be real honest to myself about this I think I agree with you more than I thought I would. When I went away from film I found myself getting more and more dependent on the technology and less involved in controlling the image.
When I went away from the DSLR cameras about 9 months ago and went to the Fuji X cameras I stepped back into manual exposure and away from just pushing the button. Due to advanced age I do let the camera focus for me but I'm much more aware of what it's doing. And I no longer use the barrage technique of bracketing and taking four shots when one will do.

Thanks for making me think.

Me too, I'm curious as I no longer miss using my departed film cameras and lenses. Even focusing using the lens collar is enjoyable with the newer Fujifilm bodies and lenses, especially the XT-1.

 

[Samouraï]

Can you say why this is the case? I'm really curious about this because f stops and shutter speeds and lenses that focus manually are parts of photography that cover both mediums. Is it the heft of the camera? Or the mystery involved in not knowing what you captured until the film comes out oft he fixer?
The bottom line is that the only difference is the thing that light hits. The vision that you have when you push the button doesn't care what it transmits to.

To be real honest to myself about this I think I agree with you more than I thought I would. When I went away from film I found myself getting more and more dependent on the technology and less involved in controlling the image.
When I went away from the DSLR cameras about 9 months ago and went to the Fuji X cameras I stepped back into manual exposure and away from just pushing the button. Due to advanced age I do let the camera focus for me but I'm much more aware of what it's doing. And I no longer use the barrage technique of bracketing and taking four shots when one will do.

Thanks for making me think.

I think it's a few things.
-The most important thing is that the image is a physical thing that I can hold in my hands. I can hold a frame of film and know that it existed in the same place that the image was taken.
-The texture of the image, too. And the construction of the image, silver halide crystals, etc. It's a little more interesting than a computer positing as to what it thinks your image might look like (interpolation and stupid CMOS technology).
-You're right about the mystery of wondering what will come out once you develop and project. That's like Christmas, sometimes better.
-And the simplicity of the cameras. Mechanically, they can be fascinating works of art in their own right. The fact that they can last for so long and still take great photos is amazing for anything in this digital age. If digital cameras were around way back, well the way digital technology moves, those photos would look very archaic compared to what might be available 50 years later--today. Whereas, film usually still looks a fair sight better than digital, 50 years later. In my eyes anyway.

Now, colour film is still a fair sight more dynamic than anything that colour digital has to offer. At least as far as the visible spectrum of light is concerned.

edit: and for the comment above. I can't see how those Fuji lenses could be anything close to as satisfying as a nice manual focus lens. Focus-by-wire is rotten. Heck, manual focus without hard stops is rotten, too.

 

[SausalitoDog]

My mantra was always that I would give my right arm for a camera that would fit in my pocket and that had the sensor power of a DSLR...the first one that really fit that definition for me was the Leica X1 which I bought the minute it came out. I love the size, quality, feel etc but just didn't really go for the LCD substituting for the VF. So the minute the Fuji X100 was released, I jumped on that and sold the Leica.

For me, the x100 (now s) has been just at satisfying to use as the old Nikon S2 that I used in the late 60s...only more so. I like the rest of the Fuji x line as well for the added lenses but I use the x100s more than ever. The concept of a top quality camera in my pocket is just over powering. Some of the other features that really knock me out are the silence of the leaf shutter, the fast (1/2000) flash sync, the macro switch, the hybrid finder (great to setup EVF to the BW setting which is really a stunning sight...actually SEEING in BW!)...all of these things worked to have me not consider a Leica, which is heavier, does not have an auto focus option, and costs prices that stop you in your tracks (though that wasn't the primary stopper). Leica quality is still there but the innovation has stalled. I know that many Leica owners and possible owners are willing to live with that but I'm not. (Leaving the door open to jump back to Leica the day they really beat the Fuji, Sony, Ricoh, Olympus innovators).

I'm mentioning primarily the Fuji because that's where I landed...so far. I know the Sony, Ricoh, Olympus models all have some great features as well, but I tend to stick with a brand until I am unhappy with it and I still have a lot more to learn about the x100s.

I have really gained a new lease on my photographic life with the x100...it's made it fun again!

Tom

 

[GaryLH]

When I was shooting w/ film .. There were good pocketable cameras w/ great iq such as contax T or Rollei 35. Even in medium format, my voigtlander perkeo can fit in my back pocket.

Even earlier than the Fuji x100, Panasonic lx3 showed me that a lens specifically designed for a sensor could provide some amazing results as long as u were shooting at close to base iso.

But like u, I yearned for a digital camera that was back to basics..and I did not want to pay Leica prices for it. Fuji x100 more than met my expectations. I bought one from the first shipment my local camera store received. Sure the af back then was not up to snuff, but what I shot did not need af speed most of the time. When I needed it, I just switched to zone focus just like I did w/ my rf film cameras.

Gary

 

[willie_901]

Like all technology, focus-by-wire gets better with every new iteration. When I started with the X100 almost three years ago, FBW was barely acceptable let alone a method I would choose to use. EVF performance and utility is a similar story. OLED technology provides a big improvement and the 5 millisecond lag is hardly a problem.

The FBW focusing on the XT-1 with the most recent XF lenses is not only practical and effective, I use it often because I enjoy it.

However, I understand and appreciate the feel of a precision-machined mechanical focus barrel is indespensible for many photographers. I just don't happen to be one of them.

 

[SausalitoDog]

When I was shooting w/ film .. There were good pocketable cameras w/ great iq such as contax T or Rollei 35. Even in medium format, my voigtlander perkeo can fit in my back pocket.

Even earlier than the Fuji x100, Panasonic lx3 showed me that a lens specifically designed for a sensor could provide some amazing results as long as u were shooting at close to base iso.

But like u, I yearned for a digital camera that was back to basics..and I did not want to pay Leica prices for it. Fuji x100 more than met my expectations. I bought one from the first shipment my local camera store received. Sure the af back then was not up to snuff, but what I shot did not need af speed most of the time. When I needed it, I just switched to zone focus just like I did w/ my rf film cameras.

Gary

I agree with you on the availability of pocket sized film cameras. I had a Rollei 35 but this was at the time that SLRs were crashing on the scene and I didn't really appreciate the Rollei as much as I should have 🙂

I've gone up the roller coaster (very willingly) with the massive DSLRs and now I'm riding back to the ground with mirror less smaller lighter cameras...there are still things I wouldn't shoot with anything but a D800 but they are fewer and fewer 🙂

On a walk around town, I always have a smallish camera with me...

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe some of these photographers would have done something else with their talents. In fact, I'm sure of it. If photography were so ubiquitous and so kid-friendly (simple/easy) as it is nowadays.

Excellent composition and compelling content is still hard to do ... technical concerns may be simpler, but it is still hard to make truly great photographs. Many great images in our current times are being made with digital.

 

[rybolt]

Excellent composition and compelling content is still hard to do ... technical concerns may be simpler, but it is still hard to make truly great photographs. Many great images in our current times are being made with digital.

The one constant is 'be there'. Recognition of what constitutes 'there' is also pretty useful.

 

[jsrockit]

The one constant is 'be there'. Recognition of what constitutes 'there' is also pretty useful.

True, that is the compelling content aspect IMO.

 

[Graham Line]

In the '70s and '80s I could swing the cost of a Leica, find work and make some money with it. That wouldn't work today. Digital Leicas are priced out of the working-person market. My monthly work is published digitally. The regular gig pays peanuts, but they pay far more peanuts for a 2-minute video bite.

The NEX5T is acceptable and I can occasionally use my M-mount lenses. A D300 is used for studio set-ups. A Sony A6000 will arrive next week and I expect it to be a big improvement over the NEX5.

 

[kbb]

I'm sure some wouldn't have even become photographers. A lot of great work would have been lost. Vivian Maier's amazing street work would have been destroyed by bit rot, long ago. I know much of my childhood and photographic family history (think great-grandparents) would have been lost as well, but thankfully those negatives are sturdy. Archival of digital pictures is still a major issue, and archival film is still the preferred method of storing motion pictures.

Maybe some of these photographers would have done something else with their talents. In fact, I'm sure of it. If photography were so ubiquitous and so kid-friendly (simple/easy) as it is nowadays.

I agree about the 'kid-friendly' part; digital enables better automation, craft goes bye-bye.
However, you must be aware that 99%(my guess) of family photos are prints only--most folks end up discarding the negatives, thereby crippling the archival-ness of chemical imaging.

 

[jsrockit]

I agree about the 'kid-friendly' part; digital enables better automation, craft goes bye-bye.

Automation does not mean you do not know what you are doing. You can use automation and still control how you want your camera to react.

 

[Samouraï]

Automation does not mean you do not know what you are doing. You can use automation and still control how you want your camera to react.

What would some of these kids do if they were given a roll of 135 and a completely manual body? Knowing how and why an artist's tool works the way it does matters. I'm certainly not as practiced or knowledgable as many of the photographers, here, and I'll admit that. But those who post an iPhone photo on Instagram and get a bunch of likes aren't necessarily exploring the art of photography in the ways that the craft deserves. Automated cameras aren't that, yet, but with the introduction of that new Lytro zoom camera, things seem to be getting stupider.

Is a 3D printed sculpture produced by a 3D scan as impressive as one chiseled from marble by a sculptor? That's an exaggerated example, but I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. Composition is well and good--that's the product, but the means of creation is vitally important as well.

We might be getting at different ideas. Automation isn't an evil. I just think it matters that an artist knows the how and why. Otherwise, would a painter who is great at composition and visualizing space be great if he didn't know how to paint? No, it requires practiced talent. Sometimes photography is just "press a button," and I think it should be held to a higher standard. Technology is reducing the art. Photography should be more than instinct.