Who wants an "Evil SLRs" link in the forums list (left)?

Who wants an "Evil SLRs" link in the forums list (left)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 135 60.8%

  • No

    Votes: 45 20.3%

  • I don´t care

    Votes: 42 18.9%
  • Total voters
    222
This forum is about rangefinders??!!! Holy s**T!!! Who knew? I thought it was a GEAR forum. Well, slap my a$$ and call me Judy. :D

But seriously, strangefinders outnumber other cameras chez moi about 2:1 - that doesn't mean I don't like SLR's, just that I like rangefinders more. And I like gear. Which is why I come here - to exchange information about gear I'm interested in, and to absorb some technique from folks more talented and experienced.

I voted yes. I'm just the charlie-browniest. :rolleyes:
 
Click on Forum, scroll down, click on "evil slr" link. How hard is that. I say we leave it like it is, but really I don't care.
 
Well, I voted for "I don't care" because I never use the links on the left. However, it does seem a bit silly to exclude it from the list, I mean if we have the forum for SLRs we might as well have the link. Unless there is some reason for it, like there are too many forums to include or something.
 
The slr played a big roll in 20th Century photography and as such we should have a link. Many RFF members own and use slrs. Instead of being a niche player, a slr link would broaden the base.
 
I think there will be a better chance of seeing a micro 4/3 than an evil slr. Stephen is already asking for deposits for the adapters for the G1. I don't blame Stephen a bit for doing it. People seem really excited about the opportunity to use their M lenses on it. But then you might get both, but looking down the list there isn't much room for add on's.
 
gb hill said:
I think there will be a better chance of seeing a micro 4/3 than an evil slr. Stephen is already asking for deposits for the adapters for the G1. I don't blame Stephen a bit for doing it. People seem really excited about the opportunity to use their M lenses on it. But then you might get both, but looking down the list there isn't much room for add on's.
Click to expand...

What intrigues me about the G1 is that I can use both M lenes and Canon FD lenses on the G1. So, ALL my old pre-digital stuff can go on one digital camera.

And, I did vote Yes, as I do have Canon SLRs, and a Samsung DSLR. Sure, I belong to a Yahoo! FD group, and peruse the Pentax Forum on www.dpreview.com, but sometimes I'd rather just ask all the questions here to save time.
 
I voted for Mabelsound;)

I'd wager most of the Evil SLRs posted about have a rangefinder kind of zen about them - small manual focusing old school.

I would happily discuss my OM 1 or even 4 here, because I think it kind of fits with the vibe. I might even ask people (because I would probably get at least some knowledgeable responses) if they've ever noted a difference between a MIJ zuiko 50mm 1.8 and a single coated g series...

and I've bought a couple of nice Zuiko's here in the classifieds mostly to fund RF purchases of other members - would classic old SLR lenses disallowed in the Classifieds make the SLR haters happy?

But you won't catch me asking about Custom Function 18 on my Dynax 9 vs Alpha 700...I'm not gauche you know...;)
 
Last edited:
No. I know where they are when I want to post about that. Otherwise this is RFF. Don't like that? Post on P.nut. They don't care if you know what exposure is.

William
 
I don't know what the basic idea of this forum is. A TLR is certainly no rangefinder, but then neither is a scale focus 35 or most half frames. Maybe it's about quirky cameras.
 
I remember the days when RFF was only for RF's and if you had a DSLR there was DSLRexchange and the rest of the net, gas was cheap and no meant maybe after a few drinks. How things have changed.
 
SLR cameras are NOT rangefinders nor are TLR's such as the Rollieflex or Minolta Autord. Press cameras like the Speed, and Crown Graphics, Busch Pressman, Linhoff Technica either came with rangefinders or were equipped with one by your local repair guy. View cameras didn't and couldn't be.

We should include scale focussing viewfinder cameras such as the Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100, Bessa L, and the various scale focussing viewfinder only 35mm cameras, which in most cases were simplified versions of rangefinder models by the same makers.
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
I would prefer the TLRs in there, they match the basic idea of this forum better than SLRs
Click to expand...

why does a tlr "fits in" while a SLR doesn't?

cameras are cameras. it's photographers who make the difference: HCBresson made a difference because he DID something different.
turning cameras into a fetish does NOTHING for difference.
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
I'm glad! And I will tell you why. People who are into rangefinders by and large have a certain attitude towards photography, one I find appealing. These people value spontaneity over technical excellence, process as well as product, beauty in design and not just functionality, simplicity over unnecessary complexity. They like FILM. They're resourceful, do their own repairs, and appreciate the obscure, unusual, and forgotten technologies that most photographers aren't interested in.

All those people are here. And when I want to talk to people about SLR's, I don't want to talk to SLR people. I want to talk to rangefinder people who ALSO like SLR's, because they value the same things I do in photography.
Click to expand...

then true rangefinder people shouldn't even use internet! since the internet is basic culprit of the digital photography growth.
 
I can see why a TLR just might fit in if you shoot it the way many pros did in the fifties and sixties, well up into the seventies. The open sports finder in the hood was where you viewed and composed. You focussed by scale or via the eyepiece on the back of a Rollieflex's hood that let you see the only the very center of the ground glass via a second little mirror, complete with an upside down and right/left reversed image. I doubt if many of today's TLR shooters could learn to compose that way without chopping off heads, and the thought of scale foccusing would send them running into the next county.
 
Lets all get along.

Lets all get along.

Since most everyone has multiple cameras of different types, sure, why not allow some diversions. After all, the reader still can choose what they want to read.
 
colker said:
then true rangefinder people shouldn't even use internet! since the internet is basic culprit of the digital photography growth.
Click to expand...

I understand mabelsound's point. RFF members are a hardy, resourceful bunch. And I agree with his point about the value of process, not simple technical excellence. If there's one thing of value to me here, it's the discovery of "street photography" ethos.

But, I also think evil SLRs should appear in the forum list at left. Large Format is there, and that seems to contain a lot of threads about non-rangefinder cameras. Half-Frames contains a lot of Olympus Pen (which is an SLR). The 120 Forums contain a lot of Hasselblad threads. It's silly to pretend we're staying true to our roots by hiding the link to SLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom