Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Chris,
For RAW processing I already own a pro digital camera. I know how to use it years ago... I would prefer for my B&W one to try to get the digital images very well exposed and contrast-wise from the moment of shooting, as with film, avoiding post-processing as much as possible. That's the game I like, not the post-processing one...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
1. To me, that's not de-evolving: it's evolving to faster, easier control of a tool for classic B&W shooting, but on digital format.
2. Certainly I don't enjoy what 95% of digital shooters enjoy. I know (and wrote) perhaps it wouldn't be a massive sales product.
3. I disagree... No digital camera I've seen has really fast contrast control the way I wrote...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Roger,
With limited I meant I prefer the digital capture to be as close to the final print as possible, because that's better to me than processing RAW files, both for workflow and for a better final image. Just the same way as a great, well exposed and developed negative is a better option for wet printing than a worse one even if there are darkroom options... This also includes the pleasure of doing it well from the shooting moment...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Introducing...... a simple digital camera:
Some things to note:
- The 'set and forget' things would take a total of 10 seconds to set.
- Despite the camera having an LCD screen, you don't have to worry about it, because you can turn it off. And it's a strong LCD (unlike the leica m8 and old nikons) that is very difficult to scratch or mark.
- AF set to single point is significantly faster to focus than anyone could manual focus a rangefinder, and accurate too, and it means the camera will focus exactly where you want it to 100% of the time - just focus and recompose like you would a rangefinder.
So basically the only external controls you would be likely to change when shooting would be - shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and JPEG picture control (changing contrast in monochrome mode).
You can't really get much more basic than that.
That's huge and ugly, and definitely doesn't have a fast switch for contrast. A boring camera, like the one I own.
Cheers,
Juan
j j
Well-known
Custom settings can serve that purpose admirably.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi jsrockit,
Yes, I do. B&W and color are two worlds totally apart esthetically speaking.
And I adore color, and love the best films availble 20 years ago. I test them and enjoy them, on slide film, print film and digital, but B&W is the real thing to me, and I don't need another color digital camera.
Cheers,
Juan
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"A boring camera, like the one I own."
So, you want to look cool while shooting? You think a Leica M is exciting? I can never understand threads like this.
So, you want to look cool while shooting? You think a Leica M is exciting? I can never understand threads like this.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Well, I really don't want to offend any forum member or create any kind of controversy... If someone has a link to a small camera for M lenses with a real fast contrast control switch that includes no menus or screen use, I'd appreciate it, even if the camera has a screen and records color.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Juan
Thanks!
Cheers,
Juan
igi
Well-known
sound like you want that Holga D concept... anyone got a picture of that?
Now you only have two problems:
1.) If you hate holgas.
2.) It's only a concept.
Now you only have two problems:
1.) If you hate holgas.
2.) It's only a concept.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Juan,
I don't think you're totally alone, but your list is quite extensive, it'd be pretty hard to find someone else who think exactly like that.
I buy the idea of a digital M-mount, preview-screen-less, camera with two dials, and several buttons that I can *program myself* (waiting for a brave manufacturer to give us this, since there's a computer inside the camera, this shouldn't be hard at all).
I don't buy the idea that color is not photography, and the zero post-processing concept that you mentioned. Post processing is the place to adjust contrast et al, since I also am looking at a bigger screen (my monitor) and I have plenty of nice tools to do it. I also do care about the sensor size, anything smaller than 4/3rd sensor is not going to get my vote.
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, you are – for all practical purposes – totally alone.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
But it is still a DSLR...
Too true but you could easily add DRFs to the list. They are just as flexible, in the fine tuning/set up department. I have not seen any digicam with stand alone contrast fine tuning though.
Bob
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yes you are totally alone here.
Why would you want a digital camera in the first place, if you don't want any of its advantages? If you are merely ready to "accept horrible things" like digital printing?
I don't see what a digital camera would give you. Just keep shooting B&W film and be happy.
Gid
Well-known
As you know digital, you'll know that you don't need to adjust contrast on the fly - thats a device to deal with the problem of having one film type and using it to shoot a number of different situations on the same roll. The decisions you make with film can be and are made later with digital. This actually gives you more flexibility, as does the decision to use colour or B&W. As to the interface you would like, some compromise will get you close - Epson RD1, Leica M8, M9 and with some more compromise any of the current crop of EVIL cameras with appropriate adapters.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You are very wrong.
I use digital too. Maybe "horrible" is too much, but I really like wet prints' tone better... And if I own a pro digital camera already, the only reason is because I accept the system as it is... Anyway, I would like to experiment with the newest (last three years) papers and printers to see what's going on there for beautiful B&W printing, but I won't do it with the big DSLR I own, and I'd prefer faster contrast control: one I haven't seen on digital cameras yet... An X100 or M9 (I mean both AF or MF) with the kind of fast contrast control I wrote, would be ideal for street shooting... This is my opinion, of course... This thread, or at least the OP, is about a digital camera I'd prefer to the ones own or can buy...
Have a nice day!
Cheers,
Juan
NickTrop
Veteran
It seems to me that your gripe with modern digitals is that "you're always futzing with things - too many features, etc. I was of the same mindset... until I actually bought and used one.
First off - like a guitar you might purchase, there's a "set-up". Set up the camera the way you want. Then - rarely if ever, futz with those features. Shoot aperture priority, shutter, or manual. There's a huge quality gap between the (literal) 35mm quality you get with an APSC sensor size and a tiny CCD compact. Go for APSC. One great thing about digital is "auto ISO". This is an underrated feature that I consider (like compact IS zoom cameras) groundbreaking. It takes an important factor in photography - sensitivity, that is a "fixed" variable in the film world and makes it as variable as aperture or shutter speed. Camera firmware algorithms are excellent at determining the lowest ISO for a given aperture/shutter setting.
If you don't want to chimp, get a DSLR with an articulated LCD and fold it in. - Just don't use it (which is what I do...) The only thing I really concern myself with among the myriad of features is the mode dial. Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual...
As for your Leica lenses, leave them for the Leicas and use a modern lens that's designed for you camera.
I love my entry-level Nikon DSLR. I realize I was wrong/silly Luddite near the end of my digital sucks days. At one point the gripes were legitimate. Now? The remaining grips seem silly - especially the "features" one. I set my camera up, leave it on "A", shoot aperture priority like a Yashica GSN. When Nikon began releasing affordable "nifty 50" lenses (35/1.8) that was the "final straw". Want to "test the waters"? Get a used 6 megapixel D40 used, cheap. And don't worry about "dim viewfinders"... They're bright enough to compose, and autofocus is faster than manual - sorry, it just is. Multi-autofocus points are a beautiful thing.
Oh - and shoot color, convert later.
The only area where modern DSLRS get blown away by 35 mm cameras is in the "charm" aspect and "tactile pleasure" aspects. Also, cameras like the Olympus XA and tiny cameras are still very relevant and there's full frame digital that can be reduced to pocket sizes. In formats bigger than 35mm film is still king. Also, you gripes about batteries have been resolved. No issue - they'll last a day of shooting, esp if you don't use your flash too often. To be safe, purchased a second. I found a deal for a second battery for my Nikon for $10 on Amazon.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Gid,
That's precisely the main point in the OP: I want to decide the look of my image when I expose it, not with post-processing...
You know, that 1800's game known as "photography"...
It's simple: I love film, and I could love digital if I could control contrast easily when I shoot, instead of stopping to go into menus... It would be nicer to me... About the other thing, I've done it for years and I don't enjoy it as it separates me from "photography"...Cheers,
Juan
Fraser
Well-known
I use multgrade paper to control my contrast.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Generations of photographers, from the 1800s onwards, used postprocessing to decide the look of their images. The whole positive process revolves around this. It may be part of your style that you don't want to do it, but it's somewhat particular, as if your darkroom supported no gradation other than 2 and no dodging, burning or toning.