The RF Experiance

[DonLon]

Well, The “Great Experiment is over. I am giving up on rangefinders for now. I got tired of lugging around my DSLR gear and was looking for something lighter with good lens. RF seem the way to go. I got a Canon QL-17 and went on vacation. Sadly I am now back to the DSLR. The problem is not the camera or RF itself it is the use of film that is the problem for me. I have been too long in the digital world. I actually REALLY liked the camera. It was light and fun to use. RF does make you look at things differently. I found this a very positive and exciting aspect. The problem was the use of film. I found myself going from dark to light a lot (Washington DC Monuments ect.) and found the outdoor film to slow inside and the 400 too bright in the sun. Yes, I could have used a ND on the camera, and stuck with 400 speed. Part of the problem was that the QL-17 only goes up to 1/500. Faster shutters would have been nice, but for $40 it is a great little camera! The other aspect is the cost started to mount. $4 for a role of film then another $8 for a develop and scan. That starts to add up quickly. I was really limiting myself to about 3 rolls a day. You can say be more selective, but I shoot things I like and for different reasons some shots are for competition prints others are for projected shows. I also found myself bracketing to make sure I got the shot I wanted, but not as much as the old days(I have gotten better at evaluating light) .Over the 5 days I shot 14 rolls of film 14*12=168!
Again, I loved the RF concept. I like the cameras and lens. I will just wait until someone comes out with a rationally priced Digital RF (about$1500 or so). I will be on THAT waiting list. Until then I am going to keep reading the forum here and follow developments it is a lot of fun.

 

[wolves3012]

The cost of using film isn't that high. For starters, the initial outlay is small, processing is also cheap per-shot. For a digital camera the initial outlay is far greater. For starters, the camera itself won't be cheap if it's a decent quality. Add the almost-essential computer, software and a printer of good enough quality, plus paper and expensive ink. The only real advantage of digital is the possibility to review and re-take shots on the spot. As for being stuck with one film - 2 bodies is not an overly expensive outlay, although I admit it's more to carry.

There is a digital RF at the sort of price you mention - the Epson R-D1. No longer available brand new but they can be found in good condition.