View Full Version : Sold all my RFs and bought D40 and prime
loneranger
11-21-2007, 10:03
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon 40D and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
jan normandale
11-21-2007, 10:11
It's all about taking pictures. DSLR's are fine or they wouldn't exist. Unfortunately I wasn't able to see a gallery for you so I can't comment on that. Choices I make or you make are just that, choices.
From the sounds of your post the digital world is where you want to be. Go shoot up a storm!
oftheherd
11-21-2007, 10:12
Everyone has to do what makes them happy. If you are happy, good for you. I have a digital P&S that I like, but I am not yet ready to give up on film and all those wonderful bodies and lenses I have invested time, money, and soul in. Obviously, your milage varies.
Al Patterson
11-21-2007, 10:12
Why not the D40x?
photogdave
11-21-2007, 10:31
Some of us simply prefer the actual shooting experience of RF vs SLR and personally I prefer the film workflow over digital.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint and daring to be different! ;)
Good luck with your photography!
didotcicero
11-21-2007, 10:33
I use both (Bessa R rangefinder and Nikon D50 dSLR). dSLR is my weapon of choice for concert photography 98% of the time.
Still my Bessa keeps amazing me. It feels so natural and never lets me down.
loneranger
11-21-2007, 10:49
I do not mean any disrespect to this wonderful community, I am after all still using a film rangefinder (mamiya) and in a heartbeat I would sell my DSLR and buy a the leica M8 if the price was even remotely reasonble. I just want some of you diehard RF fans to consider a different viewpoint, my point was that not all DSLRs are big and dumb, and they do not have to be used with zooms.
djonesii
11-21-2007, 10:52
Funny, I am brand new to the RF world because my DSLR was getting just too much, I seriously looked at the road you describe ...... The new CV 40mm pancake and a Catz eye focusing screen would make a cool addition.
Dave
jan normandale
11-21-2007, 10:57
...... and a Catz eye focusing screen would make a cool addition.
Dave
Okay .. what is a Catz eye focusing screen... ?
vincentbenoit
11-21-2007, 11:01
Condolences.
Vincent
FallisPhoto
11-21-2007, 11:02
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon D40 and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
Do you mean a 40D? The D40 is a Nikon. If you got the Nikon, I'm sorry to hear that you did that. If you had to get a Nikon DSLR, you would have been better advised to get a D50, D70 or D80. The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.
loneranger
11-21-2007, 11:03
Oh yes, the new CV 40 pancake looks COOL but I would only use it with full frame camera, on a crop camera, it is basically a portrait lens. Personally I like wide angles.
FallisPhoto
11-21-2007, 11:09
Okay .. what is a Catz eye focusing screen... ?
It's an aftermarket focusing screen for an SLR/DSLR. It uses a split image focusing aid that takes a sample from opposing edges of the lens. Focusing moves the split images in relation to one another. When they line up, the camera is in focus. Yeah, that's right -- in effect, it turns an SLR/DSLR into a rangefinder.
loneranger
11-21-2007, 11:18
Sorry, I meant canon 40D, the nikon D40x also makes an extremely compact package, but I prefer the canon, for other reasons....
nobbylon
11-21-2007, 11:22
The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.
Have you used one? I have and it's a great picture taking machine and yes i'm talking about the Nikon! It is so much more than a p&s.
Okay .. what is a Catz eye focusing screen... ?
It might help if it was spelled right. It's Katz Eye, www.keoptics.com
It works well enough, I have one, GeneW does/did also.
Shoot with what makes you happy, great images wll follow !
Don't try to jam a square peg into a round hole. :D
FallisPhoto
11-21-2007, 11:43
The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.
Have you used one? I have and it's a great picture taking machine and yes i'm talking about the Nikon! It is so much more than a p&s.
I own one. My Canon A630 gets more use.
photogdave
11-21-2007, 11:43
You can't curl your hair with a bowling ball either.
That's hilarious! :D
I have the 20D and love it! Canon makes some great cameras and glass! (Still like my M3 the best!)
I hope you never look back. Me, I got so involved, I had 6 digital cameras, Photoshop 7 CS, CS2 and CS3 + lightroom. Even started teaching digital camera selection and photography at the community education level.
But, I could never shake that unnerving visual difference between the best of digital and most shots done with film. So, now I have only three digital cameras largely unused, have my film professionally scanned and go digital after the capture. When it occurred to me that my photographic life was being dictated by TWO (2) computers... the camera and the desktop, I went back to film.
Still teach digital, so I keep up with the technology. It will never be better than film, it will just be different. I can do anything in CS3 with a scanned film image that I can do with the digital camera image, and I do see a distinct difference between what comes out of my film camera's and what came out of the digital camera's.
Good luck on your decision. I truly wish you no regrets.
FallisPhoto
11-21-2007, 11:52
I have the 20D and love it! Canon makes some great cameras and glass! (Still like my M3 the best!)
Canon makes some very nice DSLRs, and so does Nikon. It's just the D40 that I don't like. Canon absolutely does make the best digital p&s cameras though. Nikon p&s cameras have an issue with the gearing that extends the lens that they have never resolved.
amateriat
11-21-2007, 11:55
To distort yet another Paul Simon line: cameras is cameras, all over the world. Most of my cameras get loaded with film; one of them, which I took this photo with about 20 minutes ago, I loaded with an SD card:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52138&stc=1&d=1195677883
(A bit Hallmark-ish, but just to illustrate, and the first bit of sun we've had around NYC for some days. Taken with the tiny Casio.)
SLRs, be they film or digital in nature, don't do it for me much anymore. The VFs of the cheaper dSLRs are especially grating to my eye. Doesn't mean they can't do the job, and I've got pics I've taken with a few to prove it. As always, you find what works for you and go with it. And, as Joe Friday might say (not our Joe Friday, though I'm inclined to think he'd agree), you always have the right to change your mind.
Go forth, and keep taking pictures. :)
- Barrett
djonesii
11-21-2007, 12:05
Sorry about the C and the K, google will sort it out for you!
There's nothing wrong with making choices in photography. Not everybody shoots 8x10 LF, yet lots of people make nice landscapes, not everybody has the latest pro rig, yet there are lots of fine images made with equipment which is several years or even many decades old. This being said, I believe B&W digital sucks, so if you like b&w you might regret the decision, otherwise, I feel digital is the way to go in colour, so a D40 is going to do just fine.
As amateriat says, "cameras is cameras".
However, I'd just like to balance the argument against the little D40 - I had one on loan for about six weeks and it's now gone back. If I wasn't broke, and I actually needed it - I'd buy one.
The regular DSLR/viewfinder issues aside, I thought it was great with a Sigma 30/1.4.
Yes, you can set it up as a point and shoot and by default you get a rather annoying user interface, I changed it for the cleaner one but my sister who knows nothing about photography really liked it - it helped her learn what aperture is/does.
No problems with AF either. I had the AE button set for AF-ON which was handy for pre-focussing shots.
Only complaint is the lack of two scrolly wheels for aperture and shutter speed, and the UI can be a bit laggy (when used).
Sure it can be set up as a point and shoot... But then so can the D3.
Sorry, the above sounds a little combative - in no way intended. Just different points of view. I've tried to get on with Canon P&S's and have failed :)
loneranger
11-21-2007, 12:39
Agree completely that digital is useless for B&W. In fact, as far as I am concerned, there is only one game for b/w, that is TriX. Actually, the camera is not so important in the case of TriX, you can get fantastic results from a cheap point and shoot camera all the way to 8x10. I would even argue that the cheaper the lens and camera, the better the results.
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon 40D and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
good for you. I have both a DSLR and several RF cameras. I enjoy both immensely. I'm a advocate of "horses for courses." There are some things an SLR/DSLR does better than an RF (and vise-versa). But I doubt I could ever give up film entirely, nor could I give up the pleasure of processing b&w film and scanning film (both color and b&w). That stuff is just way too much fun. Good luck and keep shooting!
.
FallisPhoto
11-21-2007, 12:59
Agree completely that digital is useless for B&W. In fact, as far as I am concerned, there is only one game for b/w, that is TriX. Actually, the camera is not so important in the case of TriX, you can get fantastic results from a cheap point and shoot camera all the way to 8x10. I would even argue that the cheaper the lens and camera, the better the results.
Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
The 24 is my choice lens in the Canon system too. But I like film and still have some 300 rolls waiting to be used. It is a pity that Leica, or Canon or Epson, didn't come up with a cheaper full frame rangefinder. Others are sure to opt out the way you did.
Earlier in the year I kept my Leica equipment and bought a Tokina 12-24mm lens and a Canon 30D (40D had not been released at the time). I thought I would get back into shooting color again. I already use Canon EOS film bodies and I have numerous EF lenses so using the 30D was pretty easy to learn.
Then I bought one of several subsequent Kiev rangefinders.
I liked shooting with the Kievs. I liked the images they produced. The Kievs stimulated me to get out and shoot with the Leicas even more.
I haven't used the 30D much at all. Nothing wrong with the camera and I made some pretty decent shots with it. I'm keeping it but I don't foresee using it for anything I consider important. It doesn't get my juices flowing like that $60.00 Kiev did. I'm simply not comfortable with digital images. I'm a silver-based B&W kind of guy.
Everyone has to do what works best for them.
loneranger
11-21-2007, 13:13
Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
Have not, but I am a big fan of GRAIN in B/W, going for grainless and sharpness kind of beats the whole point of B/W for me. I guess Ansel Adams would argue otherwise, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon 40D and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
Sounds more you prefer digital over film, rather than slr over rf. Or else you would not play with the thought of buying a digital rf. I´m not sure this is really an "opposite story".................
bessasebastian
11-21-2007, 13:17
I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film.
This is what most people realized four or five years ago. Where have you been?
Personally, I enjoy having physical originals of my work rather than bits and bytes.
Welcome to the majority world, loneranger no longer. ;)
DSLRs are great. No argument.
It is a thread about choices and preferences. This is all.
I say potato you say potatoe ...
I wish you happiness with your choice in photography equipment (digital and film).
Happy Thanksgiving to people here who have such a special day in their culture.
JeremyLangford
11-21-2007, 13:43
I think that I will probable go digital eventually. I think eventually digital sensors will match film in dynamic range and quality.
And when that happens, I hope to buy a small, quiet, full-frame dslr.
I definately won't ever buy a crop factor dslr.
I own a Canon XT (350D in Europe). Great little camera. I own the 70-300 IS, and the 10-22. Well, since I bought my M6 in June, I haven't shot with the Canon. I enjoy the Leica a lot more, and I like the process of film more than the computer post-processing. Anyway I plan to use digital for certain things.
If you think you're going to save going digital, you're completely wrong. Start changing your digi body every 2 years, upgrade you memory cards to hold the gazillion megapixel increase, upgrade your computer every 3-4 years, buy Photoshop and buy the upgrades every year, buy a printer and use it everyday to keep the injectors flowing and not getting dry, buy the very expensive inks (7 cartidges), buy expensive paper, a Lacie photographic monitor (big $$$ here), a colorimeter for profiling... with all that, I can buy tons of rolls of film every year and develop myself. The workflow of digital is tedious and for me, very unfulfilling.
Anyway, enjoy you decision.
This is what most people realized four or five years ago. Where have you been?
Personally, I enjoy having physical originals of my work rather than bits and bytes.
Been searching high and low for photos of a trip a took in 2005. I found many, many cds and dvds except the one I really want. Bits and bytes indeed.
At least you're shooting with a prime. ;)
Seriously, I have been thinking about digital for awhile now. I am seeing more and more b&w from sensor that range from "I can live with that" to "Hmmm..." to "Wow". But I certainly would be sticking with primes. My weapons of choice would be, in descending preference:
1. M8 -- if I could afford it
2. RD-1(s) -- if I could feel confident it was a long term tool and I could acquire/afford a worthy successor
3. Olympus E-3 -- and use OM primes as well as one ZD wide-zoom (something like 11-22 or 7-14)
The 3rd option is the only likely one, I think. I might abandon film (at some point) for options 1 or 2, but not for #3. Even the E-510, which is much smaller than the E-3, is not a substitute for a well-balanced and fast-to-use RF.
congrats! I'm a new 24/1.4 owner as well. on a 40D, it's a 35/1.4 lens. Kick ass combo.
from a bday party:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2052915481_03b34e10f8.jpg
This photographer shoots primarily with the 24/1.4.. Wonderful work!
http://jeshderoxweddings.blogspot.com/
RObert Budding
11-21-2007, 16:58
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."
It's difficult to take such silly statements seriously. The D40 has an AP-S sized sensor, very good low light performance, and hardly any shutter lag. It is, of course, limited to AF-S lenses for AF, but that was a reasonable trade-off for the price point.
There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . .
amateriat
11-21-2007, 17:36
There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . . Of course, if you kick the little so-and-so's hard enough, you can get interesting b/w results out of them...but I still prefer film.
Here's a few from the itty-bitty Casio EX-850, in b/w mode (no conversion):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52153&stc=1&d=1195698630
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52154&stc=1&d=1195698732
But, at the end of the day, I load film.
- Barrett
First off, I love my 20D. With my 24-70 2.8L on it, it is a beautiful machine and lets me do some amazing color photogrtaphy (If you can, you should also try the Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro - wonderful machine that!).
For color photography, I can't see myself moving from the 20D
But, for B&W work, I prefer film (especially with Fuji Acros 100) - I am a sucker for suyper-contrasty images. For that, I will hopefully soon have a Besa R3M to accentuate my GSN.
My cameras are tools.
They are not all or nothing.
Altough I have as bad a case of GAS as any here, my preferences/bias are nothing more than opinion and are worth about as much as any of you paid for them.
Lets all stop pontificating and share some photographs.
mike goldberg
11-21-2007, 18:11
I have an excellent, small and light in weight Nikon D40... with it's highly rated 18-55 kit lens. For my rounds around town, the Canon SD800 IS with it's excellent 28-105 equivalent goes into a belt pouch.
I know that reasonable B/W conversions can be done in the camera and in editing. Yet I feel a different energy with an RF camera and B/W film. On flickr, I met a Dutch scientist named Robert Vonk who has an analog photography supply business. Here's a photo from the site's gallery:
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/displayimage.php?album=12&pos=0
Now, I KNOW this can be done in digital. The issue at hand is, how do I feel about it? Below is a favorite 1972 photo, done shortly after we arrived in Israel. The shoemaker, or "sandlar" in local slang was fixing my son's sandal. Note his workbench is a board on his knees in his tiny shop.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=36223&ppuser=5480
Cheers, Mike
SolaresLarrave
11-21-2007, 18:24
I do have an issue with LR. He claims he's seen several posts talking about abandoning digital and returning to film. To me, this is remarkable, atypical and infrequent. Besides, these posts are made in a film community. Now, LR kinda boasts of having done the opposite "just to show an opposite view."
I don't think it's tactful. It reeks of troll to me. If I went to the DSLR forum and claimed that I have seen the light, sold all my digital gear and bought a film camera... what reception could I expect? Not one as nice as in this forum, certainly.
But heck, you want to brag... you open yourself to posts like mine.
And BTW, I'm not a rabid film fan, but to me, these choices are personal, done for personal reasons and for a personal goal. In fact, I just purchased a digital camera (used, Lumix with Leica zoom that goes from 35 to 420mm). Am I ecstatic? No, but I won't go into further detail about it.
In any case, congratulations on your purchase and I hope you enjoy it a lot. :)
jan normandale
11-21-2007, 18:30
One more comment... before I leave this thread.
I would be surprised if there is a member of RFF who doesn't have some form of digital camera, a P/S a phone camera, something for the family shots to send by email to relatives...
IMHO this isn't a forum of "digital haters" it's a forum of people who want to talk about rangefinders. So when discussions of SLR's or digitals come up they are usually given a brief once over. We know where to go to discuss SLR's and digital but at RFF we have a focus which is what brings us here.
Don't confuse the nature of RFF for disdain, it's more like a poker party where some people keep trying to bring up bridge... not much interest and maybe even a grouchy reply.
So stick around and discuss film or your Mamiya 7, then go to DSLR or another site to discuss your specific new interests. You will be welcome in both forums I'm sure.
As sad as it is, I think the time may come when I will sell my rangefinder kit. As much as I enjoy using it, I hate having to have films developed and printed before I see what I have got. In short digital is just so damn convenient. As a result, I am using digital more and more, and rangefinders less and less. I still keep the rangefinders to take out and stroke by the fireside but when I want to shoot now, its probably 4:1 against them. Such is life.
solares, jan: until the Evil SLR group goes away, threads like this are fair game.
One more comment... before I leave this thread.
I would be surprised if there is a member of RFF who doesn't have some form of digital camera, a P/S a phone camera, something for the family shots to send by email to relatives...
IMHO this isn't a forum of "digital haters" it's a forum of people who want to talk about rangefinders. So when discussions of SLR's or digitals come up they are usually given a brief once over. We know where to go to discuss SLR's and digital but at RFF we have a focus which is what brings us here.
Don't confuse the nature of RFF for disdain, it's more like a poker party where some people keep trying to bring up bridge... not much interest and maybe even a grouchy reply.
So stick around and discuss film or your Mamiya 7, then go to DSLR or another site to discuss your specific new interests. You will be welcome in both forums I'm sure.
Unfortunately, Jan, this isn't the case anymore. This forum ceased to be a "dedicated" RF forum a long time ago—probably around the time that Jorge started taking membership fees and opened the gallery to SLRs/DSLRs and digital. Take note, this is posted in the "Evil SLR" forum. About all you can say now is that this place has heavy bias toward RFs. In the past we used to chase away DSLR and SLR posts in both the forum and the Gallery, but you can't really do that now.
.
burninfilm
11-21-2007, 19:29
I have been thinking today about SLR vs rangefinders as digital cameras.
Really in the long run the SLR makes no sense. Sooner or later two things will disappear, which will render the SLR a ridiculous idea.
1) Shutters will be gone. Motion and still capture will fuse, chips will be on all the time, images will be a capture.
2) Digital viewfinders will get smaller and improve making it possible to view them like an optical, and not tell the difference.
Cameras will be computer based, not these horrid VCR type controls with endless analog screens. iPhone type software will happen. The horrid era of the Japanese VCR-type analog control [with screen after screen after screen] will end. It will be a hard fight, the camera design world is still VERY primitive, but they cannot rule forever. Few people can use their VCR, fewer their DSLR.
If you have never seen an iPhone's interface, see it, you will understand.
All this in-camera preprocessing has to end, it is primitive and horrid to set up and use. Oddly the Leica M8 is currently the only camera that comes close to the model of simple capture, process in your computer.
With this logic in mind, then rangefinders will also make no sense, right? I mean, we won't need a direct optical viewfinder anymore, just the incredibly improved digital viewfinder.
So, I guess, if what you say is true, then SLR's AND RF's are doomed to obselescence...
dannynono
11-21-2007, 19:38
I went the route of LR a couple years back (or maybe he's following me?), Selling an M4-P kit to fund a 20d Kit. It was a good move for me at the time, primarily due to the ease of shooting digitally. I took the 20D to Belize last year with a couple 2Gb and the Storage device and shot nearly 10Gb a raw files over the 2 week stay.
Times change though. I've still got the 20D, but this past spring with the birth of my new baby girl impending the urge to have archival negs along with shooting in a more candid style (which for me means RF and TLR) brought me back to film. Picked up a sweet M6 along with a DR 50 summicron and shoot both cameras constantly. I tend to shoot the M6 first (or the C220) and then use the 20D to augment the film or to simply show my wife what I'm trying to capture. The best of both worlds.
However, when I can afford the M8 (or convince my wife that we can afford it or it's replacement) the 20d's days might be numbered, since I rarely shoot with longer lenses.
SolaresLarrave
11-21-2007, 21:10
I am grouchy tonight.
The moniker of "Evil SLR" strikes me as childish.
That's my opinion only, it's not true or important. Keep the dialog going. I'm going to bed after souping up some rolls of Fuji I shot a while ago.
jan normandale
11-21-2007, 21:28
Ray, Ywenz... yer right... so I'll roll over. Just rename this place.
ciao!
A good question, will some professionals and advanced amatures want a camera with manual focus and an optical view? My guess would be yes.
The thing I cannot stand is in-camera processing. I just don't get it, now that EVERYONE has a computer. I just want a camera with the standard 4 choices,
1) focus
2) f stop
3) shutter speed
4) film type
The rest should be done as we have done in the past, in the "darkroom," even when the darkroom is digital.
The Japanese are just determined to eliminate the computer, they are even building printers now that "do not require a computer," they just will not let go of the VCR interface for some reason, and move to into the computer era. I am not sure why, it may be some computer phobia I do not understand.
What are you talking about dude? VCR interface? Screen after screen? :confused: What is so revolutionary about the iphone interface? Nothing.. just a simplified touch screen 2D interface that mimic the interface of the computer operating system that we're all used to. Plus, a 100% touch screen interface of the iphone's sophistication can never connect with the human body as well as a well designed button-based interface can.
You can't stand in-camera processing.. okay that's fine - Go buy a niche camera that doesn't have in-camera processing. However the vast majority of consumers who purchase a camera will want in-camera processing to "automatically" adjust the image to an acceptable level.
The rest should be done as we have done in the past, in the "darkroom," even when the darkroom is digital.
Who is "we"? Not everyone developed their own images in a darkroom "back in the days". The future camera industry will move with the majority not the minority. Even when working with film, you are accepting the look of the film as designed by the film manufactured. Isn't that a form of the pre-processing that you are so against?
The Japanese are just determined to eliminate the computer, they are even building printers now that "do not require a computer,"
You're stuck with the traditional notion of what a computer is. Contrary to what you believe, a computer no longer consist of a: computer chassis+monitor+keyboard+mouse. The printer will have it's own processor, memory, and software and is capable of doing everything a printer is designed to do. To say that everything in the future should be routed thru a single "computer" is simply unimaginative at best.
burninfilm
11-21-2007, 21:46
A good question, will some professionals and advanced amatures want a camera with manual focus and an optical view? My guess would be yes.
Well, if the answer is yes, don't you think they'd want a parallax free viewfinder that was capable of showing an accurate frame for any lens mounted? A viewfinder such as this would be very difficult to create with a rangefinder type viewfinder, as it would need an immense number of framelines. And if the viewfinder used an optical zoom instead of framelines, it would be extremely limited by optical and mechanical factors, as well as seriously lacking in viewing quality and framing accuracy. But, a parallax free and infinitely flexible viewfinder would be nice. In fact, this type of viewfinder sounds very much like something in another type of camera...
RF and P&S digital cameras will merge as one in the not to distant future. The day that display technology improves to the point where they can fit a tiny ultra high-res screen into a viewfinder will be the death of the RF camera. Of course, this high-res screen will have to rival the image looking thru an optical RF finder.
The screen will show live image from the sensor and there will not be any black outs like today's P&S...
Ray, Ywenz... yer right... so I'll roll over. Just rename this place.
ciao!
it's still the best (only) place for RF talk, gear and photos. :)
.
RF and P&S digital cameras will merge as one in the not to distant future. The day that display technology improves to the point where they can fit a tiny ultra high-res screen into a viewfinder will be the death of the RF camera. Of course, this high-res screen will have to rival the image looking thru an optical RF finder.
The screen will show live image from the sensor and there will not be any black outs like today's P&S...
it'll also spell the death of slrs. we're seeing some baby steps with the standardization of live view in dslrs. say goodbye to mirrors and pentaprisms. they'll probably do away with the long backfocus of slrs, too.
i can imagine the reemergence of the alpa concept, part slr and part rangefinder. one mode shows the dof at full aperture (and taking aperture when you press the dof preview button), while another mode shows everything in focus. more powerful processors will allow fast, accurate contrast-detect af, and you'll be able to move the focus point anywhere, aside from the usual arrays and modes we have now.
that sounds more like a rangefinder than an slr, but i'm biased.
Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
i know even better thing efke 50 - everyone forget this film but it has much nicer grain and contrast than all others. you have to try it - you will like it.
burninfilm
11-21-2007, 22:54
If you are slyly asking if they will prefer an SLR, who knows, they do seem to serve some purpose clearly, but their size and complication is getting ridiculous, you need a handcart for most of them, and a portable manual.
But this is actually a moot point for me, I am pretty much doing everything these days with my dmc-lx2 lumix. A bit noisy, but I print 24x36+ with it all the time, and no one seems to notice the source. I hate the viewfinder, but have not really found an alternative with a wide sharp lens. The Elmarit is hard to let go of.
Yes, I was somewhat alluding to the manufacturer and consumer preference of an SLR viewing system. From an engineering and practicality standpoint, for an incredibly large range of focal lengths the SLR finder is a superior system for focusing and composition. However, some still prefer the RF, which is why this site exists. I highly doubt an optical viewfinder and an immensely improved digital viewfinder will be the future of the digital still camera. We'll either maintain the SLR system, or completely eliminate all other viewing systems for the digital viewfinder. Besides, if the digital viewfinder will be as good as you suggest, what would be the point of an optical viewfinder OR a focusing screen? Still, this is all conjecture based on technology we have available at this time. Maybe future innovations could restructure what we think of in a still camera?
Furthermore, you state that the size of DSLRs is getting ridiculous. I agree with you. However, it's not like you are stuck with only the large DSLRs. Many Olympus models and others, like the Nikon D40, are still very small, especially when paired up with a small prime lens. Besides, the simpler, lower end DSLRs lack the features of the top end cameras, but still featuring control of:
1) focus
2) f stop
3) shutter speed
4) film type
Once you turn off all of the automatic features and start manually focusing that lens, you'll find that you have a moderately compact, fully manual digital camera. Even if it is just a glorified "point and shoot" like the Canon Digital Rebel XT or Nikon D40.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that I also like the Panasonic Lumix line of digital cameras. They produce good results if you are willing to work the images in post-processing, and are aware of their limitations. I'm sure this is a good example where if you actually use the camera and make prints from it, you'll realize the quality level of a series of cameras generally disparaged due to noise issues. However, I tend to use the DMC-FZ7. It works well, even if rather limited on the wide range of the zoom. I'll have to look into the LX2.
c.poulton
11-21-2007, 23:57
I would be surprised if there is a member of RFF who doesn't have some form of digital camera, a P/S a phone camera, something for the family shots to send by email to relatives...
Eh?... I don't own a digital camera. 6 film cameras, yes, but no digital.....:)
minoltist7
11-22-2007, 00:07
I have 2 SLRs (Minolta Dynax 7 film and Sony A100 digital) and now I have RF (Bessa R3A).
Why? Becouse RF is easier to focus manually. AF on my DSLR working awfully in the low light. and manual focus is tricky to use becouse of small viewfinder.
I use SLRs mostly for portraits , with big and heavy 85mm/1.5.
My RF I'm going to use for street shooting, becouse it's easier to carry on the neck strap. Of course, digital compacts are smaller and weight less, but focusing through the LCD in sunny day, lack of "normal" viewfinder and absence of accurate manual focusing drives me mad.
With this logic in mind, then rangefinders will also make no sense, right? I mean, we won't need a direct optical viewfinder anymore, just the incredibly improved digital viewfinder.
There is a fundamental difference between TTL viewfinder and direct viewfinder: namely the way depth of field is (not)reflected. In contrast, there is only technical difference between SLR TTL finder and electronic TTL finder.
Dr. Strangelove
11-22-2007, 02:17
So, I guess, if what you say is true, then SLR's AND RF's are doomed to obselescence...
From a technical point of view, yes. Folders and TLRs are obsolescent nowadays, although Rollei still makes the latter. Still many people use both and take great pictures and that will probably continue doing so as long as film is still available. Some people will still use their RF's and SLR's when electronic viewfinders are the norm. Cameras are creative tools and spesifically they are not like HiFi equipment or cell phones, where using old tech does not make much sense. But still most people want to use the latest tech for various reasons, many of which are not rational but some are.
nightfly
11-22-2007, 03:36
I agree that the D40 is not a point & shoot camera -- it's actually a quite nice compact DSLR -- but neither is any range finder even if it has full program auto exposure. If you just "point and shoot" with a RF, you will get blurry pictures most of the time due to incorrect focus...
This is simply false. The way most street photographers use rangefinders is like a point and shoot but one where you have complete control to set all the parameters, the trick is you do it in advance, not at the moment of capture.
I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. You can then micro adjust focus, aperture or shutter speed at the time of capture if you like but really you just frame and shoot. It's the absolute fastest way of taking photographs in my book and the thing rangefinders are uniquely suited for.
Blurry out of focus pictures aren't really the problem and neither is exposure, it's poor framing that gets me more often than not or simply uninteresting photos. Try it.
Theoretically, a digital point and shoot should be able to do this (I dismiss DSLRs because they are generally too large, although a Pentax with one of their digital pancake lenses is tempting) perhaps even better. The small sensor/wide depth of field thing makes it easier. The problem is that, with a few exceptions, everything is too screen driven and you can't tell at a glance how the camera is set. I can glance at my Leica and see the focus, aperture and shutter speed in a microsecond and have it to my eye to shoot a second later.
That's really all I need to know. To get this in a digital though you either have to get a DSLR and deal with it's size and basically fight it's desire to do things for you or get one of the fancy point and shoots that gives you control. I just got a Ricoh GX100 for just this reason but I still need to look at the screen on the back to see this basic info, not to mention turning it on and off.
Digital will surpass rangefinders for caputure at least, when a camera comes out that uses actually dedicated dials to adjust aperture and shutter speed and focus (hell I'd settle for aperture and focus and have it always in aperture priority so the G9 shutter speed wheel does nothing for me) and that turns itself on when you press the shutter which has 0 lag. The lens should also not retract. It still probably won't produce black and whites with the tones of film but that can come later. And I'm not prepared to pay $5000 for this privilege Leica, more like $500 for a body or a body and fixed lens. Charge me up the yin yang for lenses, I'll buy them used. Till then I'll keep my M4-P and 35mm Summicron, and dabble with digital point and shoots.
Dr. Strangelove
11-22-2007, 04:43
This is simply false. The way most street photographers use rangefinders is like a point and shoot but one where you have complete control to set all the parameters, the trick is you do it in advance, not at the moment of capture.
I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. .
It makes really no difference if you adjust the settings in advance or at the moment. RF's still requires manual adjusting of settings for different conditions. You can use manual focus SLR's or TLR's in a similar way, but they are still not point and shoot cameras. Or you can use a scale focus camera. Or you can shoot your RF / scale focus camera from the hip, in which case you don't really even point...
In any case, point & shoot camera implies that you don't have to do anything else than just "point and shoot" and you will get acceptable results every time without worrying about exposure or distance to main subject at all, in other words a true point & shoot camera is nearly idiot proof. The best point and shoot cameras in that regard are of course some of the new digital compacts, which have face recognition and huge depth of field due to small sensor. With them you don't even have to point at the main subject, if it is a person and there are not too many persons at varying distances in the field of view, since the camera will automatically focus on the faces.
nightfly
11-22-2007, 05:11
In any case, point & shoot camera implies that you don't have to do anything else than just "point and shoot" and you will get acceptable results every time without worrying about exposure or distance to main subject at all, in other words a true point & shoot camera is nearly idiot proof.
Right but the point of the argument was that the D40 was ONLY a point and shoot and it was used in a derogatory way. Like it's JUST a point and shoot not a "real" camera ie you have no control.
You're sort of bending the argument to say that yes, the D40 is a point and shoot and how wonderful whereas what I'm saying is that RFs in general can be used as point and shoots in the sense that you aren't fiddling around with a ton of setting with the camera up to your face, but that they offer a set of controls that allows you to have both the immediacy of a point and shoot (or even more immediacy since they are faster) and the control a photographer wants from a creative standpoint. I'm not suggesting my mom should run out and buy a Leica to take family thanksgiving photos.
Doesn't matter although this thread has not only managed to invoke the RF vs SLR holy war but the digital vs film holy war as well. If only it could bring in the Mac/PC holy war and someone compared another poster to Hitler it will achieve total internet holy war perfection.
Happy Thanksgiving
My heart says Mac, my brain says PC.
Al Patterson
11-22-2007, 05:45
My heart says Mac, my brain says PC.
Yeah, but I'm still getting Ubuntu Linux on my next laptop....
Both my current systems are XP machines, although one does have an AMD chip.
wgerrard
11-22-2007, 06:31
Everyone has to do what works best for them.
That's certainly true, and what is "best" varies from person to person.
I very recently returned to taking pictures after an absence of years. I've got much to learn and re-learn. Being inexplicably, and momentarily, flush with cash, I went out and bought more cameras than I need. I'll eventually sell most of them after the dust settles.
So, what I've decided is that it is the relationship with each individual camera that counts. It doesn't make any difference if the camera is digital or uses film, if it is an SLR or an RF, if it's a P&S or a 2-pound brick. If you asked me to vote, I'd vote for rangefinders. But, that does not mean that I'd always prefer any given RF to any given SLR.
What counts is the ease with which I can use a camera to capture the images I see with my eyes. So many variables come into play in that equation that it's impossible to validate dogma one way or the other.
kshapero
11-22-2007, 06:31
And I could never get scanning right so, I got a mint used Pany L1 with the Leica lens. I put a Nikon adapter on it. So now all my Nikon pre AI(S) lens work beautifully.
20mm f4
28mm f3.5
50mm f1.4
200mm f4
Remember actual output is 2X.
Of course not as refined as my Zeiss Ikon, but it is about shooting pictures anyway.
shadowfox
11-22-2007, 06:43
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."
It's difficult to take such silly statements seriously. The D40 has an AP-S sized sensor, very good low light performance, and hardly any shutter lag. It is, of course, limited to AF-S lenses for AF, but that was a reasonable trade-off for the price point.
There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . .
You obviously haven't used an XA :)
Edit: I rescend my comment above, equating the XA with a p&s is too insulting for the XA :D
myoptic3
11-22-2007, 07:22
Just my 2 cents worth here: Digital images look funny most of the time, w/ objects in the background seeming to be lit w/ the same light of closer objects. People sometimes seem too sharply defined. Skin tends to look plasticy, hair can look wiglike, and detais seem to be lost overall that are sure there when shot w/ film. Digital B&W, well, the less said the better. Color? It is tempting as heck to go digital, but then I would end up w/ the same type of images that most people have. I would lose the ability to choose from a Kodachrome image, or an Agfa one, or a Tri-X one, etc. Digital wins in other ways though. Speed & cost primarily. Troll comments I do not get, and never will I suppose. Oh, I know the definition, but it still seems to be used to put someone down because they have expressed an opinion that differs from accepted dogma, or threatens the perceived status of an accepted elder. I would not want to see posts that aren't sometimes controversial or challenging. Internet forums are known to be churchlike. When someone offends the faithful, sparks fly. It's all so silly. I do like asking a question or answering one in a post, or finding out new information on equipment. The acid reply to a dumb question is usually a hoot to read too!
M. Valdemar
11-22-2007, 07:26
I'm wary of anyone who makes these ultimatum-type final pronouncements like "I'm getting rid of all of my X cameras and buying only Y cameras".
It's like the alcoholic who swears never to drink again, the person who gets religion and vows never to go back to his sinning, whorin' and feudin' lifestyle "ever again", or the vegan who suddenly announces he will never eat meat again.
It's more a reflection of something weirdly emotional going on inside the person's head rather than any sort of sound reality/fact based decision.
Me, I like anything that makes images. I have plenty 'o film cameras, Hasselblad, view camera, 35mm, and I always buy, sell and shoot with digital too. My Epson R-D1's (have three) have given me an unmeasurable amount of pleasure in the last couple of years.
I don't see the big deal of getting fixated on the pros and cons of any particular technology. I'm thrilled to be living in an era where we have the choice and that it's affordable/accessible to me. Everything has it's merits and drawbacks.
If I could make image captures straight off my optical nerves and preserve anything I look at when I see it, I think that would be best. Probably one day will be possible.
...
I can show you rolls and rolls of "point and shoot" RF photos and point to many pros who do this is as well. You set the aperture and shutter speed for the ambient light, pre-focus the lens at about 6-8 feet (or whatever is your comfortable shooting distance) at a mid aperture and with a 28 or 35mm or wider lens, you can nail focus 8 out of 10 times. You can then micro adjust focus, aperture or shutter speed at the time of capture if you like but really you just frame and shoot. It's the absolute fastest way of taking photographs in my book and the thing rangefinders are uniquely suited for... shoots.
In general, I agree with you, Nightfly. Although I've lately been taking my Minolta X370 manual SLR, with Rokkor 50/1.7 lens, out as a 'street' camera; I tend to use it just as you describe above in the mode that you say rangefinders are ideally suited for. The problem is, the operating mode you describe isn't at all rangefinder specific; it is more accurate to say that the shooting mode you describe is 'manual camera specific'. We tend to forget the great manual SLR's from the 1970's and 1980's operate very much as our beloved rangefinders. Except that these SLR's are better at compositional accuracy, and not as good at focus under dim light. As I indicated in another recent thread about SLR's vs rangefinders, it's about choosing a camera that gives accurate composition or accurate timing.
Camera technology has changed so much in the last 20 years that it is a mistake to hold onto the outdated notion that the choice is between SLR and rangefinder; I think a more relavent choice is one between manual camera (be it SLR or rangefinder) and automated camera (i.e. menu-driven film or dSLR). In the case of the manual cameras, their operation is much more similar than they are different, in comparison with automated cameras. As I talked about in my latest blog (http://www.joevancleave.com), it's really about choosing finely engineered mechanical tools designed for the ergonomics of the human hand and eye.
~Joe
All the current crop of digital cameras are point-n-shoot except for the M8, at least if we let the Japanese have their way. The elimination of both shutter speeds and now f-stops from analog control, now moved to buttons reminds me of my TEAC home stereo. TEAC decided that looking through stations using a knob, and analog window, was silly and decided to replace it with two tiny almost illegible buttons, and use the large tuning knob to select imput.
I finally got rid of my Nikon DSLRs because they no longer had any shutter speed dial, and every new Nikkor has no f-stops. Nikon is building black boxes, with no visible sign of settings. Might as well use my Lumix which has the exact same controls in a smaller format. Nikon (and Canon etc.) see the "viewfinder" not as a area to preview the image, but as a place to display endless unnecessary disinformation.
Lumix built a perfect digital concept-wise in their L1. The viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired, but you can actually quickly set the f-stop and shutter speed, without bringing the camera to your eye, you can get ready to shoot a photo ahead of time, without bringing the camera to your eye!
I could go on, but needless to say I am not a big fan of hard to view little screens, especially ones that are not intuitive.
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/OverviewInfo/shutter_speed.jpg
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/OverviewInfo/aperturre_lens.jpg
Um, I can't speak about nikon, but my 40d has, for me, the perfect interface. One wheel controls shutter speed, one controls aperture, my right thumb controls auto-fcous, my right forefinger controls the meter and takes the picture. My left hand controls zoom/manual focus. It's so easy, I don't need to look at anything except the viewfinder (which works perfectly in any lighting conditions). The only thing I don't like about the modern kit is the lack of depth of focus markings on the lenses anymore...
As for your comment about the iphone interface... it's OK. Played with it for a while at work. Has it's good point and it's bad points (texting is crap, the virtual keyboard basically sucks). I'm not sure I want it on my camera though. It just means even more grease marks on the LCD, and your nose randomly changing settings when looking through the viewfinder. Also it's impossible to change settings without turning the display on, and NO tactile feedback. I can change change exposure modes, ISO, and framerate without looking because I can feel the buttons and the wheels. This means I can concentrate on whats going on around me rather than staring at a screen, very useful when dealing with sports, busy streets, etc.
Cheers
Matt
FallisPhoto
11-22-2007, 09:02
Have not, but I am a big fan of GRAIN in B/W, going for grainless and sharpness kind of beats the whole point of B/W for me. I guess Ansel Adams would argue otherwise, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Well, sometimes I like grain and sometimes I don't. When I do, I usually prefer T-Max 100, because the grain is quite a bit variable and can be controlled to more of an extent by method and degree of agitation, choice of developer, temperature, and etcetera (this is where taking those lab notes pays off).
Here's Alex Majoli, a Digital P&S shooter:
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R13S3S3&nm=Alex%20Majoli
:rolleyes:
thanks for the link!
also check out Keith's (kbg) digital p&s street work in the Gallery here on RFF.
.
My brother's funny looking DSLR images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoartcanada/show
all those animals are plastic! ;) at least one would hope that that black bear or puma are plastic! :D your bro does nice work.
.
FallisPhoto
11-22-2007, 09:42
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."
It's difficult to take such silly statements seriously. The D40 has an AP-S sized sensor, very good low light performance, and hardly any shutter lag. It is, of course, limited to AF-S lenses for AF, but that was a reasonable trade-off for the price point.
There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . .
Going by personal experience, my D40 performs miserably in manual mode. The ability to use manual mode, and take control away from the camera, is the whole point of getting a DSLR instead of a p&s. If I'm going to be using it in automatic, a Canon A630/A640 is quicker and easier and (with the exception of not being able to use lens filters) does much the same stuff (since most of the digital variables can be controlled almost as well in photoshop as in the camera). I do know how to use a camera (I have about 100 of them at any given time, four of which are digital), and I have the awards to prove it. After owning a Nikon D50 (and a couple of Coolpix cameras and a Canon A630), I traded "up" for a D40 and was disappointed. It just simply doesn't work as well in manual as my D50 did. Next stop, D80 (I have too many Nikon lenses to switch to Canon DSLRs).
BTW, those of you who think that digital cameras are superior "in every way" must be scanning small format film. If you make your prints with an enlarger (one with a good lens) and you're using an ultra-high resolution film (or if you're using medium format), well, you're going to need a Hasselblad H2D to touch that.
Oh, and yes, I know I am disparaging about the D40. I think I've earned the right to do that. I feel that mine has not lived up to my expectations and has let me down. Nearly every SLR and DSLR I have ever owned or used has performed better than my D40. It fights me at every turn in manual, and it doesn't perform that well in automatic.
Ditto on the Nikon.
While you can control the F-stop and Shutter speed, you can only do it looking through the viewfinder, you cannot look at a camera hanging around your neck and have any idea what the settings are.
ummm, you can on a 10/20/30/40d or 1d MK whatever... there is an LCD with that info on it on the top.
Maybe iphone 2 when it has 3g and they've improved the virtual keyboard... and there is more than 1 server provider.
Matt
FallisPhoto
11-22-2007, 10:14
I do have an issue with LR. He claims he's seen several posts talking about abandoning digital and returning to film. To me, this is remarkable, atypical and infrequent. Besides, these posts are made in a film community. Now, LR kinda boasts of having done the opposite "just to show an opposite view."
I don't think it's tactful. It reeks of troll to me. If I went to the DSLR forum and claimed that I have seen the light, sold all my digital gear and bought a film camera... what reception could I expect? Not one as nice as in this forum, certainly.
But heck, you want to brag... you open yourself to posts like mine.
And BTW, I'm not a rabid film fan, but to me, these choices are personal, done for personal reasons and for a personal goal. In fact, I just purchased a digital camera (used, Lumix with Leica zoom that goes from 35 to 420mm). Am I ecstatic? No, but I won't go into further detail about it.
In any case, congratulations on your purchase and I hope you enjoy it a lot. :)
Film and digital cameras and processes are not interchangable, in spite of what the advertizing hype says. Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is entirely possible that the type of photography he is doing is far less suited to digital processes than it is to film photography, as is mine. If this is the case, then I don't blame him, and I don't think it is at all remarkable or atypical of fine art photographers, indeed I'd think it is advisable in many cases. However, a commercial photographer would have to be out of his <insert expletive of choice here> mind to switch from digital to film exclusively.
Digital photography, with photoshop, has a great workflow, and it is highly suited to commercial applications (it is easily post processed and can be transmitted electronically, with no image degradation). Because of this, digital cameras have almost entirely taken over photojournalism. If at any point, the photo has to be handled, transmitted or stored electronically, you are almost certainly better off using a digital camera.
However, if you are doing fine art work, and you have the option of making your prints with an enlarger, and don't have to send them electronically to anyone and can look at the physical print(s) and don't have to look at them on a computer monitor, and if you don't mind spending a little time and money on making those prints, then film is probably going to have a lot more appeal. Only the very most expensive digital cameras, like the Hasselblad H2D, with a cooled Dalsa back, can even remotely approach the quality of something like a 4x5 foot gold toned print on graded Oriental Seagull, made from a two hour exposure on an Efke KB25 negative, developed in Rodinol. There are hundreds of films, and they're all different. Each reacts in different ways to hundreds of different developers, in different dillutions. You only get one sensor though. Then there are also many different chemical processes and physical mediums that you just can't duplicate in photoshop.
I don't think it is an either/or scenerio. I think a really good photographer would have both systems. That is what most bothers me about the "I've sold all my Xs and switched to Ys" statements.
BTW, I don't think it is an either/or scenerio. I think a really good photographer would have both systems.
I couldn't agree more. For me digital has generally replaced what 35mm would have been used for... sports/action, general purpose usage, pocket cameras, snaps/touristy stuff, walkabout, and experimenting to a certain extent. For more serious stuff medium format comes to bare (I haven't used any large format yet). Even simply scanning in a negative gives me more scope for cropping and editing, never mind all the cool stuff you can do with photographic printing.
Doubt you have used one... everyone who has not, says exactly the same thing you are saying.
It does not mimic a computer interface.
Keep those analog buttons if you like them, apparently many Luddites love 'em, and buy like crazy.
How can you say I have never used one? (sock in mouth now)
I've used the iphone on many occasions and I own an Ipod Touch, which has the identical interface and the same disadvantages due to its 100% touch based interface.
I hate how with my iPod Touch, I can't change the volume or go to the next track without taking the device out of my pocket and double click to turn on the screen and then move my finger to the area of the screen designated as the volume slider or track navigation buttons. With the old ipods one can reach into the pocket and perform all of this (ironically) by touch. This is the exact reason why Apple put analog volume buttons on the iPhone. You're not an apple fanboi are you?
I finally got rid of my Nikon DSLRs because they no longer had any shutter speed dial, and every new Nikkor has no f-stops. Nikon is building black boxes, with no visible sign of settings. Lumix built a perfect digital concept-wise in their L1. you can actually quickly set the f-stop and shutter speed, without bringing the camera to your eye, you can get ready to shoot a photo ahead of time, without bringing the camera to your eye!
I could go on, but needless to say I am not a big fan of hard to view little screens, especially ones that are not intuitive.
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/OverviewInfo/shutter_speed.jpg
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/OverviewInfo/aperturre_lens.jpg
Dude I thougt you were all about the iPhone's approach and against analog controls.. make up your mind eh?
RObert Budding
11-22-2007, 19:24
Going by personal experience, my D40 performs miserably in manual mode. The ability to use manual mode, and take control away from the camera, is the whole point of getting a DSLR instead of a p&s. . . . I do know how to use a camera (I have about 100 of them at any given time, four of which are digital), and I have the awards to prove it. . .
Odd that I had no problems using a friend's D40x in manual mode - even though my own DSLR was a D200. Perhaps it was easier for me because I know the D200 very well and I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
SolaresLarrave
11-22-2007, 19:54
My brother's funny looking DSLR images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoartcanada/show
Thanks for posting, Nikonhswebmaster! That's very nice work. Reminds me of Mendelsen's images... or whatever be his name. There's a guy who made photography his business, and lives off selling his prints in very nice stores throughout the US. Gotta look for his name, but it's something like Peter Mandelsen or Mandelein. Can't remember now... arrgh! :mad: :bang:
LCDs belong on 1970s watches. They are the single thing I hate most about these cameras.
What do you think the display on the iPhone is?
Not in the bright sun you can't ... or may you can, I can't, and certainly not with a glance from 2 feet away.
LCDs belong on 1970s watches. They are the single thing I hate most about these cameras.
By the by re the iPhone, the keyboard is very sensitive and senses the middle of one's finger amazingly. Not talking about using it as a phone, thinking about its interface, and certainly not thinking about its typing interface, but it sliding, enlarging etc.
Well, you're going to struggle to use the iphone like interface without one ;)
My favourite part of the iphone is the momentum given to some objects. Thats works nicely :D
photogdave
11-23-2007, 08:13
Ditto on the Nikon.
While you can control the F-stop and Shutter speed, you can only do it looking through the viewfinder, you cannot look at a camera hanging around your neck and have any idea what the settings are. I am not sure if there is any chance that there will ever be many M8 or Lumix style controls around again. The Japanese seem determined to protect us from the reality of how simple a camera is.
I do not what to set the f-stop or shutter speed ONLY while I am looking through the lens... many times I want to do that in advance.
With a DSLR set to aperture priority and autofocus you don't need to set anything in advance. It'll be more accurate than pre-setting a manual camera.
I personally do not want to look at all that stuff in my viewfinder, but I understand some do not mind, I see you like it. I hate it myself. But I like a simple approach to mechanical things in general, don't even own a car, ride a single speed bike, don't own a laptop.
I think I hear the theme song to Gilligan's Island playing! :D
keithwms
11-23-2007, 08:26
I'd like to know what's wrong with manual mode on a d40 or d40x, so that I can educate myself on why I should have spent more money. Then I can sell my d40x and get a camera that has a fancier manual mode.
I just hate VCR interfaces, I have a total mental block for them. I want to set up my digital camera on my computer -- not on the camera itself. I want my camera connected to my computer by bluetooth, I want to look at an Apple Gui (or in a pinch a Windows Gui), but not VCR type menus, with left-right and up-down buttons controlling endless text menus.
etc.
While a touch based interface might be a more natural type of interaction with machine it's hardly the most efficient. Imagine for minute of how bad of an idea that would be to implement on a professional camera - Say you have the camera grip positioned comfortably in your palm and the other hand supporting the lens. In your perfect world, the camera would feature an iphone like interface where it requires you to move one of your hand to the LCD screen where you tap and pinch your way to the settings you want.
Okay I can see that some might enjoy that gimmick and would prefer to operate in that fashion. I certainly don't, and I suspect most would not either. My ideal way is to have the relevant controls reachable from the baseline position of my hands and control everything based on touch, experience and knowledge of the camera. I don't need no pretty iphone interface to guide me thru the features of my camera.
Oh come on! You can surely see the difference between the little gray LCDs on most cameras and the display on the iPhone, you are trolling. But now that you bring it up the iPhone display is invisible outdoors.
Not trolling. If we're to have a discussion on the said subject, it won't be a very meaningful one if we flip flop around.
I'd like to know what's wrong with manual mode on a d40 or d40x, so that I can educate myself on why I should have spent more money. Then I can sell my d40x and get a camera that has a fancier manual mode.
One disadvantage is that it only has one command dial so in manual mode you adjust shutter speed with the command dial, then to adjust aperture you have to press a button while turning the command dial. More advanced cameras with 2 command dials may be faster to operate in manual mode.
NIKON KIU
11-23-2007, 09:25
Do you mean a 40D? The D40 is a Nikon. If you got the Nikon, I'm sorry to hear that you did that. If you had to get a Nikon DSLR, you would have been better advised to get a D50, D70 or D80. The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.
Hey, watch it now...
No bad mouthing Nikons:p
D40 and lens $499.00
Hard to beat, price of a Bessa...
Kiu
FallisPhoto
11-23-2007, 09:32
I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
A good photographer can take a good photo with nearly anything. A bad photographer takes bad photos, regardless of what he is shooting the photos with.
FallisPhoto
11-23-2007, 12:44
Odd that I had no problems using a friend's D40x in manual mode - even though my own DSLR was a D200. Perhaps it was easier for me because I know the D200 very well and I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
I don't know, but maybe that is because the D40 and the D40x are two different cameras.
FallisPhoto
11-23-2007, 12:52
Hey, watch it now...
No bad mouthing Nikons:p
D40 and lens $499.00
Hard to beat, price of a Bessa...
Kiu
I like Nikons and I have several. I've got a 3100, a 2500, a D40 and a D50, plus some Nikon film cameras. I just don't like the D40. Personally, I'd rather have the D80, D70, or D50.
I think that you have made a wise choice. Particularly if you get your sallary in US dollars. The RF segment of the camera market is the most expensive one. The price, in dollars, of a M8 is rediculously high. This is mostly due to the fall of the dollar. Imagine if it was priced 40% lower in the US. That is about the price Leica could have hold on the M8 if the US dollar had kept a 'normal' level.
And the 40D is about the best amateur camera you can get today. The EOS system the largest and Canon is definately the strongest competitor in the digital market.
A wise choice.
PS.
(We here at the RFF forum are pissed off that you did not ask us for advice, ofcause. We missed out on a 1.000 plus reply discussion string, - concluding; stick with a RF camera!)
RObert Budding
11-23-2007, 14:17
A good photographer can take a good photo with nearly anything. . .
But not with a D40?
The D40 and D40x are identical - except for the sensor. Same body, same menus. It is, IMHO, a fantastic camera for the price. But I wouldn't give up my D200 for one.
keithwms
11-23-2007, 18:13
I use a d40x quite often. It's a gem. Comparing it to a p&s is nonsense.
For one thing it's small enough to take up in a small plane....
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/aerial/aero625bwsm.jpg
Fast enough to get off several shots from the hip while being strafed by an F-18...
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/cali/Fighter_series.jpg
Stealthy enough to get shots that the subject doesn't even hear...
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/ky_i_070807.jpg
And though I primarily use it to meter for LF velvia, it gives me a few shots now and then that ain't half bad....
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/dunes_deathvalley.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/bristlecone_upwards.jpg
seems to me you can't really compare the D40 or D40x, with it's aps size sensor to any p/s. Look at high iso performance alone.
mfunnell
11-23-2007, 19:05
Why all this either|or stuff? I'm quite happy with my Canon 30D and my RF gear. Even if price were more of a problem for me (I know that I'm more fortunate than some in that regard) my M3 wasn't expensive and a decent 50 isn't hard to come by at a good price. So, no matter what, I'll always have both.
...Mike
P.S. and BTW the 40D looks very nice - but not enough nicer than the 30D for me to upgrade. I think I'll skip a generation...
and, P.P.S. The thread title seems to have caused enormous confusion between the OP's Canon 40D and the Nikon D40
NIKON KIU
11-23-2007, 20:52
And though I primarily use it to meter for LF velvia, it gives me a few shots now and then that ain't half bad....
Ain't that bad?
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/dunes_deathvalley.jpg
Pertty darn good, I would say.
I use the D50 to meter Nikon S3 ;)
Kiu
As a hardcore devotee of classic cameras, I, until quite recently, had been shooting with a variety of mostly 50's folders, rangefinders, TLRs, and a Pentax SLR system. I've dabbled over the past year or so with a Canon A610 I purchased for my daughter & a Nikon Coolpix 990 given to me by my brother, appreciating their unique qualities when compared with my older machines, while never quite warming up to the uncomfortable cold feeling of operating an appliance, not to mention the digital nature of the images as compared to film.
After much careful consideration, I recently purchased a used, mint condition Pentax DS on Ebay for $350. I immediately removed the kit lens it came with & replaced it with a 55mm 1.8 bayonet mount Pentax prime, giving me in essence a nice, fast 82.5 portrait. I have since acquired an original Pentax M42 adapter so that I can use my arsenal of Takumar screwmount lenses in addition to my bayonet primes & manual zooms. I set my camera to full manual, taking readings, changing aperture, & focusing as I would with my Spotmatics. Shutter speeds are controlled with a thumb wheel. I find this camera to be quite a comfortable, easy transition, & use it as my digital-back Spotmatic along with my film Spotmatics when I go SLR shooting. Thank goodness for my long-standing Pentax affiliations, as I don't really see any equivilant alternatives to reasonable cost manual digital cameras among the other DSLR producing companies.
This being said, even taking into consideration the tremendous convenience & creative opportunities afforded the photographer by being able to immediately ascertain certain qualities, or lack thereof, & make the necessary adjustments accordingly, not to mention the welcome economies, I use my DSLR as an additional, not a replacement tool.
Putting aside my preference for analog over digital images, especially B&W, shooting with different instruments give me different perspectives, & consequently often quite different results. I wouldn't approach a subject the same way with my DSLR as I would with my TLR.
I usually keep a pair of unmetered, zone focusing folders, one a 35mm, the other a 120, a rangefinder of one sort or another, a TLR, & one of my Spotmatics, not to mention the aforementioned fully charged DS, loaded & hanging from a series of coathooks near my front door. grabbing whichever is my fancy as I leave the house,letting the chips fall where they may.
To each his zone.
RObert Budding
11-24-2007, 09:07
Nice shots, keithwms. Wayyyy better than any digi-p&s.
FallisPhoto
11-24-2007, 09:11
But not with a D40?
The D40 and D40x are identical - except for the sensor. Same body, same menus. It is, IMHO, a fantastic camera for the price. But I wouldn't give up my D200 for one.
You probably can, but why would you want to? Every other Nikon DSLR made will outperform it by a quantum leap. The key words here are "for the price," and the price is pretty darned low for a DSLR. Well, I don't have a D40x, and now I know not to get one. I was assuming it was different. I wouldn't give up any other DSLR for one.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.