View Full Version : Anybody NOT own an SLR?
That Guy
03-10-2004, 18:18
I finished a roll in my SLR the other day. Disassembled it, capped everything, and put it all in it's storage case. It got me thinking about when I'll use it next. Sure I'll miss the auto-exposure. And the zoom. But already I love my Bessas. And I should get my Electro 35 working any day now (okay, so I'll have some AE).
So, I've been thinking about possibly selling off or giving away my SLR gear. I don't know if that would be a good thing or not. Anybody made the switch completely? Or would you never give up your SLR kit?
An interesting question, TG. While there's some overlap, I tend to use different kinds of cameras for different things. Most of my nature photography is done with SLR and I couldn't give up through-the-lens viewing, or the lenses. For this kind of work, I shoot mainly with long telephoto or macro lenses.
RF's for me are mainly normal-to-wide angle cams and wonderful to use for street shooting or shooting anywhere in low light. And the small ones are wonderfully portable, making them great carryaround cams.
Where it's a toss-up for me is in the 90-100mm range. At those focal lengths I just grab whatever's handy.
My $0.02
Gene
I would never give up my SLRs ... there are times when I absolutely need parallax-free viewing, such as for copy work, macro work, and telephoto photography. But I still love my rangefinders.
back alley
03-10-2004, 20:14
i have not had a slr in years.
don't really miss them much.
before when i needed one i could rent it but i have pretty much given up any kind of shooting that would require a slr.
i mostly like to walk around and shoot.
joe
Rich Silfver
03-10-2004, 20:44
In 35mm I'm almost all rangefinder these days - but that's mostly because I'm currently not into neither macro nor 90+mm focal lengths. Once I get into either of those again I - like most any of us - will have to resort to an SLR camera. I must say that I really enjoy the small compact rangefinder cameras a lot and carry one with me most days.
In Medium Format I'm almost all SLR (borrowing a M6MF from time to time) as I'm a huge Hasselblad fan and love the way it forces me to slow down.
Guess I'm more about picking the tool that fits the need the most.
Yup,
I've given up on 35mm SLRs alltogether. I just can't get used to all the settings; whenever I picked one up it was always in the wrong AF-mode, AE-mode, multi-exposure mode, continuous-drive mode, and what not. About every other frame, they refused to take a picture for a completely obscure set of built-in software driven interlocks. You should have seen me curse them everytime I pressed the shutter release an nothing happened!
About two years ago, I sold off the last of my Nikons, and bought a Hexar-RF and somewhat later a Hexar-AF. Not a single second have I regretted this decision. Especially the Hexar-RF made photography a joy again. Press the shutter release and it goes.
To be fair though, I do have a 6x6 Bronica SLR for close ups etc.
But lacking any automation whatsoever, it feels closer to an RF than a 35mm auto-everything SLR.
I'd be hard for me to swear off SLRs! They are so very flexible.
The automated interface issue is something else again, and I wouldn't necessarily link it to SLR cameras. Just look at the present state of the digital camera for a real user-interface horror story. None of my SLRs have AF or zooms or motorized this and that... Just a little aperture-priority AE here and there. <grins>
I think the benefit is that once you learn the basics of what photography is all about, most common cameras are pretty similar in how the controls work. Very little additonal learning and study is needed when you get a new mechanical camera.
But it seems that each computerized camera has its own interface, much as old computer software did before the Mac and Windows came along to standardize things. Each DOS program had its own user interface, proprietary fonts & print drivers, etc. Ugh.
So the new camera user exhausts himself learning all the electronic ins and outs of the new toy; essential to get it to perform basic photographic tasks, which the user now doesn't have to learn! A net loss, in my view. :-)
Brian Sweeney
03-11-2004, 02:30
I find SLR's are better for macro photography, scientific photography, and long (>135mm) Telephoto work. I had the N8008s with an SB29 ring light out just the other day taking pictures of the SP's the other day. I use an F2AS and Nikon Ftn a lot.
I find the RF's better for people photography.
Did somebody say Fast Moving Kid?
Canon 7 (RF, not that plastic thing!) w 50mm F1.4 Canon @F4.
Brian Sweeney
03-11-2004, 02:35
One More; Meter reading using the Selenium cell off of my hand, crawling into the tunnel. Nikki is at full speed; I have a sequence of shots, all in focus and run from F8-F1.4-F4 as she progresses from the bottom to the top of the tunnel-slide. I do better with the RF at the playground than the F2AS or the N70 that I gave to my Mom. The AF "latency" spoiled to many shots that are now just fading memories.
Canon 7 w Nikkor 5cm F1.4 @F1.4,
Wayne R. Scott
03-11-2004, 04:06
I would no more give up slrs for only rangefinders than I would step onto the golf course with just a putter or just a nine iron.
All of these types of cameras are just tools and a means to an end, which is to "make" a good picture.
A true warrior has no favorite weapon, he is equally skilled in all weapons.
View cameras, rangefinders, slrs, tlrs, autofocus, and (Gasp!!! I can't believe I am saying this last one)
even digital cameras have purposes for which they are better suited than any other camera.
To exclude all other cameras and use one type only for everything is either ignorant or just stated by someone who lives under a bridge and eats goats as they cross. Their purpose is to start a flame war. I hope I didn't rise to the bait.
Wayne
wierdcollector
03-11-2004, 04:22
I like to use whichever strikes my fancy on a particular day. This week I've tried out my Ciro 35, Tower 57, Ricoh KR-10, Yashica FR-I and Retina II. Weather permitting, today is the day to try my Lordomat. Wayne, I love the "lives under a bridge and eats goats as they pass" reference. Hilarious. By the way, if anyone wants to give up their SLR's. they can cheerfully give them to me and I'll give them a loving and caring home. Curt
I've got them all. I have a full Minolta MD system starting from what I aquired from my father (so inexpensive to put together it is amazing), Canon EOS I started when I graduated from college in 1988, all my RF friends, the new Hassy, a Yashica Mat. So, I need a folder and a field camera and I will have a pretty complete type set. I do use the RFs mostly as my photography revolves around people, my main subject is a little younger than Brian's. The EOS 10s has been a trusted friend theme parking over the last couple years, I can chase my son and shoot at the same time. I am using the Hassy for myself, I have been making time to go out myself and to see what I can do. The TLR arrives today, that will be fun to play with. Sure, you don't need them all, but why not?
oftheherd
03-11-2004, 05:04
I only have one RF, it being my Super Press 23. I won't give it up but it isn't the only camera I would want to use either. I have two 35mm SLR systems, both older cameras, with autoexposure, but auto nothing else. I am not against automation by any means, but I have just gotten comfortable with what I have. I very much like their versatility as I have prime lenses from 18mm to 400mm, and zooms from 18mm to 260mm. What else do I need but a stronger back? :p
I have a 9x12 which I have yet to use (I just like them), an 8x10 and 4x5 that I am about to get into, and a Welti (why I can't make myself get a small RF) that I really like. I don't intend to give any of them up, although the 8x10 has to prove itself to stay around (expensive lenses, film, paper, etc).
I still use my SLR's a lot, but try to always carry the Welti or a P&S, and look forward to the LF's.
Well, now you know that my only tenuous hold to this forum is the Super Press 23. So I am still legit. :D
back alley
03-11-2004, 06:20
To exclude all other cameras and use one type only for everything is either ignorant or just stated by someone who lives under a bridge and eats goats as they cross. Their purpose is to start a flame war. I hope I didn't rise to the bait.
Wayne [/B][/QUOTE]
that's a bit harsh...i use only rangefinders and really don't see myself as a troll.
i have owned many types of cameras and been involved in many types of photography and have settled on a type that i prefer. i have no real need for more than the rangefinder.
and i certainly don't see myself as a warrior in need of weapons...
joe
That Guy
03-11-2004, 07:05
Thanks, Joe. My feelings exactly. :rolleyes:
I think for now I'll keep my MD-Rokkor kit. I'm quite comfortable with it, even if it is old tech. Just enough automation for when I need it. I would have missed a few shots myself without the telephoto power that I can get from a big lens. So some good points by a few folks that I hadn't considered.
I mostly find myself doing people and street shot the last few years. And when I go on vacations, it's mostly landscapes. It crossed my mind whether RF only would be a viable option.
Originally posted by Wayne R. Scott
To exclude all other cameras and use one type only for everything is either ignorant or just stated by someone who lives under a bridge and eats goats as they cross. Their purpose is to start a flame war. I hope I didn't rise to the bait.
Wayne
LOL, Wayne! :D
I agree with you wholeheartedly -- I use MF, SLR, DSLR, RF and small digicam -- and enjoy them all and use them for different purposes.
However, I am sometimes tempted by another point of view -- a kind of Walden, let's simplify life, point of view: strip things down to the essentials. Use *one* camera (or maybe a pair) not from ignorance or because you like the taste of goat, but just to keep things simple and to work within the capabilities of that framework.
My best analogy to this is acoustic blues on the guitar. The form is relatively fixed, and acoustic has limited range. But the sound is wonderful and the creative variations on a theme are real, convincing, and satisfying.
I must have muched too many M&M's this morning. Back to my camera herd ... :)
Gene
oftheherd
03-11-2004, 08:31
Originally posted by Gene
LOL, Wayne! :D
I agree with you wholeheartedly -- I use MF, SLR, DSLR, RF and small digicam -- and enjoy them all and use them for different purposes.
However, I am sometimes tempted by another point of view -- a kind of Walden, let's simplify life, point of view: strip things down to the essentials. Use *one* camera (or maybe a pair) not from ignorance or because you like the taste of goat, but just to keep things simple and to work within the capabilities of that framework.
My best analogy to this is acoustic blues on the guitar. The form is relatively fixed, and acoustic has limited range. But the sound is wonderful and the creative variations on a theme are real, convincing, and satisfying.
I must have muched too many M&M's this morning. Back to my camera herd ... :)
Gene
"Back to my camera herd ..."
Hmmmmmmmm:)
Brian Sweeney
03-11-2004, 12:17
Hmmm. Maybe I should be a little more forthcoming. I own about 35 Nikon SLR's, going from an Early F to a D1x. Lenses from 20mm to 1000mm. Manual and AF. But I still find the lower latency in the RF's a real advantage in taking kid pictures. You know you are a camera nut when...
I have a few SLRs and if I can do give up RF or SLR, I would toss the RF without a second thought. SLRs are just so much more versatile that for me, they are a necessity.
As for the dizzying array of functions on today's AF, uber-computerized SLRs, it's up how to configure them so they best use your personal tastes. I leave my Minolta on aperture priority mode, single frame advance, matrix metering, user-selected focus spot. It works just fine that way and I only screw up if I change the settings and forget to switch them back. But that happens rarely, kind of like leaving the lens cap on a rangefinder or missing a shot because you forgot to wind or adjust your zone focus or the aperture, etc.
Shooting with an RF is much more fun but my Minolta Maxxum 7 provides a much higher percentage of keepers. And that's not even counting flash shots. Hmm...come to think of it, shooting with my old Nikon F bodies is also fun. I love that loud THWACK that the mirror makes.
...lars
Originally posted by Wayne R. Scott
To exclude all other cameras and use one type only for everything is either ignorant or just stated by someone who lives under a bridge and eats goats as they cross. Their purpose is to start a flame war.
Wayne
So spoken like a true warrior...
However, and keeping with your analogy, some people are entirely satisfied to live under a bridge and restrict their diet to ruminants.
Their purpose is not to start a flame war, but to clarify whether you can achieve your photographic goals without amassing all possible gear that's available on the planet. They may not be warriors, but to me they're heros...
Wayne R. Scott
03-12-2004, 19:47
Their purpose is not to start a flame war, but to clarify whether you can achieve your photographic goals without amassing all possible gear that's available on the planet. They may not be warriors, but to me they're heros...
Peter,
I could not agree with you more, if you have narrowed or refined your photographic goals to a specific area and the rangefinder is the best tool for your goals then you would have no need for a slr or any other type of equipment other than a beautiful elegant rangefinder of your choice. I am happy for you, but my goals are not your goals and vice versa. I happen to like making pictures of all types, be it landscape, people street photos, formal portraits, contact prints from large format, or fruit flies mating and I have yet to find a single camera type and/or lens that does all of my interests. Therefore, I have many (too many) types of cameras, but so what? It really does not matter what I or you choose to use as long as we enjoy what we have and what we do.
Life is too short to agrue with our keyboards as to what type of metal, glass, and plastic we use to put between our mind's vision and the "real world" to create our end result.
By the way, I wouldn't really be caught dead on a golf course.
Wayne
Back to subject at hand...
...I don't own a 35mm SLR. Had the full professional Canon EOS kit with "all" the lenses. Then one day I got my hands on a Canonet, instant convert. Light, quick to focus, inconspicuous and smallish (compared to my EOS 5 with 50mm). Did some research and I'm now packing a Bessa R with several lenses. The kit fits a small-medium Crumpler bag, with gobs of room left over. Where as the EOS kit got carted around in either a big aluminium case or in a largish Lowpro backpack.
However... I still own and heavily use my Hasselblad (6x6 SLR). But that camera has a purpose, same with the Sinar 4x5 and the Toyo 8x10. I wouldn't go out start doing holiday snap-shot photography with my 8x10 or use the Bessa R for architectural work (yet...).
Only problem I can think of with 35mm RF is the lack of realistic and/or easy macro work. But if I really _want_ to shoot some close up work, I'll use my 'blad or Sinar and get a better resolution. I don't miss macro on 35mm. Other than that, it does pretty much the same job as the EOS did.
Stu :)
konpikoulas
03-13-2004, 10:32
First one "sees" the photograph. Then one takes it using a camera that will convert the "seeing" into the final print. That's all.
I do own two Pentaxes SLRs with lenses, but I feel better with my mamiya 7ii in my hands.
TWO dozen Pentaxes?? That makes me feel better, not so embarassed to admit to one dozen! We must be fond of Pentaxes.
Ah, oops, I don't know how I "saw" you use the word "dozen"! TWO Pentaxes should be sufficient for most! :-)
I too have many SLR bodies, and a couple dozen lenses that I would never give up. But man, it's so free and liberating to wander the streets with one of the rangefinder's!
KK
I don’t own an SLR right now, or even a ‘proper’ rangefinder.
I was given my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Box, in the early 50s, when I was about ten. I think it was so I would keep my fingers off my father’s Leica, probably a IIIf. He later traded it for a Bolex 8mm cine camera. A few years later, my grandfather gave me his 1936 Rolleiflex which had not had a film through it for maybe twenty years. This was an excellent camera. When I was at college in the early 60s, I bought myself a very used, but still functioning Leica that was even older than the Rollei. It must have been one of the first Leicas with interchangeable lenses. It had an uncoated 50mm, f/3.5. It was not quite as sharp as the Rollei (more magnification, less contrast), but it was a lot easier to carry.
I bought my first new camera, a Canon Pellix, in 1966. This was also an excellent camera. It made no more noise than a rangefinder, with its fixed mirror. About 1971, I traded the Rollei, the Leica and the Canon in part payment for a Rollei 6x6 SLR, with three lenses. This was an outstanding camera, but I took fewer pictures than before, because of its bulk and weight and film cost, so for general use I got myself an Olympus half-frame viewfinder camera. Given its limitations, this was very good. Later I sold the Rollei and bought an Olympus OM1. Over a number of years I added to this system and ended up with three bodies culminating in an OM2N and several lenses. This was a good system, but not, for me, as good as the Canon SLR I owned earlier. The whole system, except for one camera and lens that I had on me, was stolen in Buzios (near Rio) in the 80s from a friend’s car. Buzios is a beach resort that became notorious in the 60s on account of Brigitte Bardot, who spent time there, we are told, some of which without her bathing suit.
I collected the insurance (what there was), sold the surviving camera, and replaced it with a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses. This was a nice little system that was eventually stolen from a (non-camera) bag while in custody of the bellhop at a New York hotel. I only found out after we arrived at our destination. It was not insured. Over the years I also owned a Nikonos and a Nikonos II at different times. I used them while sailing, not for diving. My son used the earlier one for diving, and eventually inherited it. A while later, I bought a Canon Sureshot Z115 point-and-shoot. Taking this to the UK, my father liked it, so I gave it to him. Back in the US, I bought myself a Canon Sureshot Z135.
My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica which I bought about 1997. It had 0.3MP resolution and recorded the images directly to a floppy disk. In retrospect, it was pretty clunky. Later, I got a Canon Powershot S20 with 3.3MP and a 2x optical zoom. This was a very good camera within its limitations. It got me into photography again, and digital photography in particular. Last year, I bought a Canon Powershot G5, which is what I have now. I am very pleased with this camera. Print quality is close to the best I could get with 35mm. At times I use it like a rangefinder, fully manual, sometimes more like an SLR, mostly in aperture priority, and sometimes fully auto.
So now I’m truly hooked again, where do I go from here? I am considering three options, all of which would be as well as, not instead of, the G5:
1 Canon Pro1 – this is the new compact digital from Canon: 8MP and zooms 28 to 200mm EFL. Won’t replace the G5, though, because it doesn’t have an optical viewfinder. Would use the same flash as the G5. According to situation, I’d carry either or both.
2 SLR – would have to be film, since I can’t justify getting anything digital with a full-frame sensor – cost is too high. Could add some versatility over the Pro1, if I ever get so much gear. And would I carry it?
3 RF – maybe the Bessa R2. There is no such thing yet as a digital RF with a full-frame sensor, and it would cost too much if there was. The R2 is not too big and would add versatility at the very wide-angle end, but how much would I use that? Ergonomics are better too.
Both the film-based options have a (slightly) lower initial cost than the Pro1, but would cost more long-term, with extra filters, lenses etc., not to mention the cost of film and processing, and time required for scanning.
I'd be happy to hear your expert (but not too partisan) considerations!
John
Hi John -- You have such an extensive history of various camera types that I'm sure you'll have a much better idea of what you'll enjoy and use than I! You could approach the question by considering what sort of photos you'd like to be taking that aren't so easy or convenient with the gear you have. Then shop for something to fit that role. Or just whatever appeals to you the most!
Originally posted by JohnL
So now I’m truly hooked again, where do I go from here? I am considering three options, all of which would be as well as, not instead of, the G5:
1 Canon Pro1 – this is the new compact digital from Canon: 8MP and zooms 28 to 200mm EFL. Won’t replace the G5, though, because it doesn’t have an optical viewfinder. Would use the same flash as the G5. According to situation, I’d carry either or both.
2 SLR – would have to be film, since I can’t justify getting anything digital with a full-frame sensor – cost is too high. Could add some versatility over the Pro1, if I ever get so much gear. And would I carry it?
3 RF – maybe the Bessa R2. There is no such thing yet as a digital RF with a full-frame sensor, and it would cost too much if there was. The R2 is not too big and would add versatility at the very wide-angle end, but how much would I use that? Ergonomics are better too.
John, you're an old hand with gear so you'll likely come to your own best resolution on this. But I'll add my $0.02.
1. The Pro1 is not a huge step up from the G5. For the price you could get a DSLR with kit lens. I went from a Canon G2 to a Digital Rebel and was astonished at the quality jump. I'm not brand loyal and if the Nikon D70 had been available, I might have gone that way. With digital, the *key* attribute is the size of the sensor, IMO. The larger the sensor the cleaner the image. You don't need to wait for full-frame DSLRs. The APS size sensors of the DR and the D70 will deliver enlargements that will challenge anything you can do with 35mm.
2. SLR's are good and relatively inexpensive to get into. But to get the most of them, digitally, you need a top-end scanner. And scanning is a drag. I do a lot of scanning and like the results, but don't like the the time it takes. This one is a toss-up.
3. RF. Well obviously I like RF's or I wouldn't be here :)
I get more use out of my RF's than I do my film SLR's simply because they fill a niche that neither SLR nor Digital currently reaches. They're small, fast to work with, pack great lenses, and they're fun to drive ... You still have the scanning issues for digital of course, so for 2 out of 3 of your options, a scanner may be a complementary purchase.
I recently moved up to a Minolta 5400 and can recommend it as a very excellent scanning machine ...
Gene
Thanks, Doug. You are right, of course, I know. I'm really just fishing for thoughts that might not have occurred to me!
John
Thanks, Gene.
I just ordered a scanner because I want to recover some of my better old photos on film. I'll be away for a month or so shortly so this project will be starting only in June.
Pro1 vs G5: Not a huge step up, I agree, but I see them as complementary, and the Pro1 should cover most of what I would want out of an SLR. The step from 5MP to 8MP is significant, but not huge. The greater zoom range is also a factor. I'd keep the G5 as my "carry-everywhere". I'm not really brand-loyal either, but at least between the G5 and Pro1 I'll have compatible flash, memory and software. This the way I'm tending for the next step right now.
As to a digital SLR, if I ever do get one, I'm thinking I'll wait (maybe three years?) until full-frame sensors become affordable. Then the lenses will be the focal length they say they are and we'll be using all their covering power. Same for digital RF. I like these too, but don't have one right now, and not sure if there is one in my immediate future! I tend to use the G5 a lot like an RF.
You are right entirely about the current sensors being on a par with 35mm. The full-size sensors with 11+MP are nearer to 6x7. Even the G5 pushes 35mm pretty close, so long as you keep the ISO down.
I certainly take your point about scanning being a drag. I have over 10,000 old negatives and slides, and I plan to organize them all, but only scan a few hundred. To attempt more would be crazy.
John
Well, Gene, I've thought a lot about what you said and reviewed just about every review I can find. I finally summoned up the courage and ordered a 10D with a couple of lenses. This has the same size sensor as the Rebel, I think, and one or two additional features that attracted me.
Once again, thanks for your wisdom. I'll be keeping my G5 as my "rangefinder" and carry-everywhere camera.
John
John, congratulations on your purchase! The 10D and the 300D share the same sensor but the 10D has a much nicer feature set overall. The APS-size sensors produce astonishing image quality. I think you're going to be a very happy camper!
Gene
On a very vaguely related note, I have also taken a step into the digital camp. I've been very busy lately so no time for b/w developing scanning, which is why I haven't posted anything here for a while. In an attempt to stave off my urge to go into debt to buy the Minolta DSLR when it debuts this fall and to enable me to more easily keep up with my PAW project, I bought a Minolta A1 digicam.
Pretty good ergonomics (ie: mechanical zoom ring, dedicated dials for f-stop and shutter) but anything over iso 200 is noisy. I am hoping this will keep my occupied long enough for the Minolta DSLR to debut, get the bugs worked out, and then come down in price. So basically, the A1 must keep me satisfied for about 2 yrs at a minimum.
My film cameras are much faster to use but it's nice to be able to shoot colour under a variety of lighting conditions without worrying about colour balance.
...lars
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.