I can see both sides. There are those moments that only occur once and no matter how much you look at your screen it isn't coming again for a do over. However, for static objects that aren't going anywhere... and when using a rangefinder, I'd rather check to make sure I got what I wanted within my framelines. With an SLR, it isn't as necesarry. It's about composition for me, not exposure.
I think there is some serious ego stuff going on with the "I never chimp crowd" ... like it is technically inferior to do so. However, the other side of the coin is that this crowd is also always ready for the next shot instead of just viewing the last one.
To me, there is no set rule... use what works for you. While in action, I don't chimp... when making photos of static objects, I chimp.
I think there is some serious ego stuff going on with the "I never chimp crowd" ... like it is technically inferior to do so. However, the other side of the coin is that this crowd is also always ready for the next shot instead of just viewing the last one.
To me, there is no set rule... use what works for you. While in action, I don't chimp... when making photos of static objects, I chimp.
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
Sometimes an advantage of film, is not so much the inability to chimp, but the inability of others to chimp. It can be annoying when you're out taking photos and others want to look at the screen on the back all the time, film takes that away.
Also there is a pleasure of attempting to get the picture right without chimping, it's not that you'll take better pictures, it probably makes no difference, it just feels a bit nicer.
I agree that there is a lot of ego surrounding chimping.
Also there is a pleasure of attempting to get the picture right without chimping, it's not that you'll take better pictures, it probably makes no difference, it just feels a bit nicer.
I agree that there is a lot of ego surrounding chimping.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
The inability to chimp is really useful with children as subjects. My girls mostly ignore the film cameras, but always want to look at the back of the dslr.
There is a lot of ego at work in a lot of photography (and presumably other passions) - when we measure our worth we always find ways to inflate ourselves
Mike
Edited to add a link to Wouter
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
wow! maybe some of us know what our exposure is going to look like without having to check? i don't need a little screen to know how things will appear.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I had a similar debate elsewhere in RFF about chimping.
I also subscribe to the "critical moment" notion and would keep shooting, bracketing if I must. Chimping can come later, and if the shot is not right, the moment is gone anyway.
For later reviews, an iPod, iTouch or iPhone in the pocket with an adapter for plugging into the camera works fine...saves manufacturing cost too.
zozio32
Member
well, I do chimp with digital camera, and I don't feel the need with film... mainly because you can do so many wrong things with digital: did you went back to 200 iso after the church, what's the white balance if shooting jpeg (I really dislike raw treatment), was my focus ok (just more difficult to judge that on a screen made for autofocus?
I just have a bigger need to check the photos when shooting digital
I just have a bigger need to check the photos when shooting digital
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Chimping makes sense only if the LCD is fine enough. Most built-in types are useless except for entertaining kids.
bwcolor
Veteran
I use to live or die per my histogram. At the same time all my technical photographic skills had gone to hell. I could push the button and my shutter still had another 150K to go. I don't think that there is high ground here, but for me, I prefer to see things in my head. It isn't that I'm great at getting things perfect, but I am getting better. Also, things flow better when I shoot without pausing to look.
A small, full frame, almost zero shutter lag, fast focusing..or manual focus that works, digital camera that produces great files will get my money. I don't really care who makes it, except I do want to buy from a company that provides long term support for their products. I will hesitate if the expense is prohibitive.
A small, full frame, almost zero shutter lag, fast focusing..or manual focus that works, digital camera that produces great files will get my money. I don't really care who makes it, except I do want to buy from a company that provides long term support for their products. I will hesitate if the expense is prohibitive.
Why does everyone think we only chimp for exposure. I chimp for composition since rangefinders are not exactly precise.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There is no such thing as live-view in RF, not even the almighty M8/9. Unless you mount the camera on a precise 3-way tripod head, you are unlikely to be able to fine tune composition either. No matter what, you will be doing it blind.
Regardless of whatever kind of tripod head used, you cannot adjust for FoV unless you move the whole works...because there are no zoom lens in RF cameras. Again, no live-view.
The LCD color gamut and resolution in digital cameras is so poor, checking focus, or color fidelity [hence exposure] is nearly impossible.
Chimping for whatever reason after the fact is always too late. So the only logical use is entertaining the kids...a must-have or me-too feature borrowed from point-and-shoot cameras that all have live-view.
bwcolor
Veteran
OK, fair enough. I've always shot DSLR and never felt the need to check composition. I've not really run into many shots where my rangefinder has let me down. Perhaps, I'm just less critical.
Huh? I never said anything about live view and yes, through chimping I get the exact composition I want on static subjects. I'm not blind... perhaps you are?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Good for you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's a missing option. Instead of $1000 to $2000 for an R5/RD2, why not postulate $200-400? If you're going to indulge in fantasies, do it properly.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Good point Roger... I'd like to buy my CV rangefinder from the 99 cent store please...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The thread was opened three years ago. Just give it a little time, and prices will drop.
heatherselkie
Member
I've given up on digital for now because there are too many problems. However my return to film has not been that successful so far. How did I take decent photos before 2003? My husband was showing me some photos on flickr from m9 cameras and while they look stunning and all, if you look closely there are pixels and digital weirdness that an image from a film camera would not have. Technology becomes obsolete overnight and digital cameras can and will have all kinds of degradation problems. Leica M8's have had sensor problems with lines, broken pixels etc.. My nikon was $1000 new and is now barely worth $100. It had sensor problems and although it was repaired it has never been the same. Digital cameras are victim to disposability and consumer consumption. Instead of waiting until a technology matures and the manufacturers can release a great camera that should be top of the line for a few years at least, they release the newest latest greatest every year. People want new and better. My husband and I got his daughter a used older but high end canon digital slr and her friends made fun of it because it wasn't new!!! Digital cameras lose their value so quickly and then who wants them? Down the road we will have a giant pile of ewaste. My point is the digital game produces so much waste and does Cosina want to get into the waste business? Film cameras have already pretty much been perfected and while there are lots of them out there and do not sell for much, they will likely last a very long time and could be somebody's camera for life. That said, I'd love an m8 or m9 but for that kind of money I would hate to watch it's value plummet whenever the next digital m comes out nor would I be happy about the camera going on the fritz.
In order for Cosina to make a digital camera affordable they would have to mass produce them and sell them like crazy and cosina would lose it's niche factor. They would have to catch up with research and development, they might make a few really bad digital cameras in the process until they get up to speed. Film cameras are still widely used in Japan and Asia in general but I do not know why this is....but there must be some reason!
In order for Cosina to make a digital camera affordable they would have to mass produce them and sell them like crazy and cosina would lose it's niche factor. They would have to catch up with research and development, they might make a few really bad digital cameras in the process until they get up to speed. Film cameras are still widely used in Japan and Asia in general but I do not know why this is....but there must be some reason!
JayGannon
Well-known
And some of us dont have to check our exposure.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Ff Evil
Ff Evil
Imagine a FF EVIL camera...perhaps soon offered by Nikon.
No RF, no adjustments, no patch flares, no frameline debates... RF cameras as we know it might soon be nothing but a legacy.
Now, if an upgradeable EVF is implemented, then finer/better VF upgrades can be had.
Elsewhere, many had already opined that the Pany G1 or Oly EVF [both at 800 x 600 x RGB] is good enough. I had seen through the Pany but not yet the Oly version. BTW, the VF LCD chip used in the Oly version was made by Epson.
I will be in Tokyo in a month, surely I can play with all sorts of new toys soon announced in Photokina 2010.
Ff Evil
Imagine a FF EVIL camera...perhaps soon offered by Nikon.
No RF, no adjustments, no patch flares, no frameline debates... RF cameras as we know it might soon be nothing but a legacy.
Now, if an upgradeable EVF is implemented, then finer/better VF upgrades can be had.
Elsewhere, many had already opined that the Pany G1 or Oly EVF [both at 800 x 600 x RGB] is good enough. I had seen through the Pany but not yet the Oly version. BTW, the VF LCD chip used in the Oly version was made by Epson.
I will be in Tokyo in a month, surely I can play with all sorts of new toys soon announced in Photokina 2010.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The retail price difference of the most modern RF is ~$600...price difference between the standard and SW version of the Zeiss Ikon. Meanwhile the OLY EVF can be had for less than half the price...plug and play.