noimmunity
scratch my niche
The excitement over the X100 seems to boil down to a kernel of the hybrid viewfinder.
Most everybody who comes here is attached in one way or another to the speficity of looking through a brightline finder, although I'm aware that there have been many variations of viewfinder in the history of rangefinder cameras.
Outside of rangefinders, there are a plethora of choices for viewing. Some shooters experienced in one focal length just compose in their heads!
What appeals to you in viewing, and why? What is an impediment? How does the media of viewing affect your photography?
Much has been discussed before, but never all in one single thread, I don't think.
I like being able to see outside the frame, with my eye to the camera, preferably against something that is basically optical. I get a libidinal thrill out of seeing the RF image coincide, but that's just me. Accuracy of framing is less critical to me, maybe because I just don't know how to use it. Composition, of course, is central.
Most everybody who comes here is attached in one way or another to the speficity of looking through a brightline finder, although I'm aware that there have been many variations of viewfinder in the history of rangefinder cameras.
Outside of rangefinders, there are a plethora of choices for viewing. Some shooters experienced in one focal length just compose in their heads!
What appeals to you in viewing, and why? What is an impediment? How does the media of viewing affect your photography?
Much has been discussed before, but never all in one single thread, I don't think.
I like being able to see outside the frame, with my eye to the camera, preferably against something that is basically optical. I get a libidinal thrill out of seeing the RF image coincide, but that's just me. Accuracy of framing is less critical to me, maybe because I just don't know how to use it. Composition, of course, is central.
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
I spent many years with a Black Lac M4 with just the 35 frame line in it. I had the rangefinder taken out. So, all I see is the world and what part I want to frame...
no ISO...cuse me...ASA ...no shutter speed....no fstop...no histogram etc....
I never used a meter on the street in over 35 years....
those were the daze....now I'm high tech digital......but I dream of my M4 and Tri-x and FG7..... then I wake up and I got the GF1 in my hand.... not so bad!
no ISO...cuse me...ASA ...no shutter speed....no fstop...no histogram etc....
I never used a meter on the street in over 35 years....
those were the daze....now I'm high tech digital......but I dream of my M4 and Tri-x and FG7..... then I wake up and I got the GF1 in my hand.... not so bad!
chrismoret
RF-addict
Looking through a viewfinder is for me the way of trying to make a nice composition. One eye on the finder, the other eye open to see a little more makes me feel I'm framing beter.
When shooting with a p&s (D-lux4) it always feels a little like I'm cheating on photography, some how. I think I'm a viewfinder-snob!
When shooting with a p&s (D-lux4) it always feels a little like I'm cheating on photography, some how. I think I'm a viewfinder-snob!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not really. I like the look of it because it's the nearest thing to a digital screw-mount Leica I can readily imagine, but with a 35mm (equivalent) lens instead of the 50mm Elmar that was my only Leica lens for the first year or two that I used them and a (probably) decent APS-C sensor. Even so, I'll lay off the hysteria until I've tried a production model.
For me, an optical viewfinder is far more 'unmediated' than a reflex or view camera, which in turn are more immediate and real than electronics. The logical extension of this is that frame finders are best of all, which is arguably true with LF cameras: it's just that frame finders on Leicas are bulky and it's hard to see the edges (and I've had 'em). They also tend to get knocked out of the shoe a lot, and besides, I like the combination of a rangefinder and viewfinder.
Cheers,
R.