Is the G1 a rangefinder?

[Fred Burton]

In light of the debate about whether Evil SLR's should have a spot in the left frame of the home page, and the fact that discussions about the Panasonic G1 (and future micro 4/3 cameras I'm sure) are going to proliferate, lets ask the question up front:

Is the G1 by definition a rangefinder that has a place on this forum? This is a more complex question than it seems because apparently this thing will be adaptable to use all manner of SLR lenses as well as rangefinder lenses. How pure should the RFF forum remain? There will soon be thread after thread filled with photos from the G1 and "x" lens, so the question needs to be asked.

[sjw617]

There is a 4/3 forum here already.

[digitalintrigue]

There is no option to vote 'present.' :)

[back alley]

it's not a rangefinder.
it has the ability to use m mount lenses.

strictly speaking it has no place here at rff, but then neither do a few other forums that we have here.
all mr. gandy's choice.

what's really funny/ironic is a man hiding behind name after name asking us to be 'upfront'

[Gumby]

what's really funny/ironic is a man hiding behind name after name asking us to be 'upfront'

Crap... now I find out... a G1 isn't a real rangefinder and "Fred Burton" isn't a real man. :eek:

[back alley]

Crap... now I find out... a G1 isn't a real rangefinder and "Fred Burton" isn't a real man. :eek:

it may be time for a group hug/therapy...;)

[Fred Burton]

Pitxu has made the same statement that I'm somebody else. I'm Fred Burton. I'm not using a pseudo name like Back Alley. And I'm confused.

[MikeL]

what's really funny/ironic is a man hiding behind name after name asking us to be 'upfront'

Go easy on him Joe, he may just be lonely. The leica bashing gets old, but where else is he going to find an audience like this?

[back alley]

who would like some mystic pizza?

[Fred Burton]

What does a poll on the G1 have to do with Leica's? Now I'm really confused.

[cmogi10]

it's not a rangefinder.
what's really funny/ironic is a man hiding behind name after name asking us to be 'upfront'

seems a tad superfluous. thought it looked like a fair question.

[Fred Burton]

But if this is a problem, I'll delete the thread.

[Gumby]

No, please don't!

[Fred Burton]

Trolling? What the heck are you guys talking about?

[Gumby]

Woo hoo... it's going to be an interesting night. Some around here seem to prefer popcorn; I'm happy that the pizza delivery kid will be here monetarily!

Oops. freudian slip... I meant to say "momentarily".

[Fred Burton]

It's not going to be any kind of night. Moderator, remove my account from this forum.

[JoeV]

Ignoring the G1 and u43 for a minute, we already have legacy forums here dedicated to other camera systems that don't focus by using a rangefinder method. So I think this has already been addressed, in principle, years ago, despite the title of this site being "Rangefinder Forum."

~Joe

[Gumby]

Oh, Fred... bear with them. They get this way occasionally.

[cmogi10]

Jeebus people settle down.
It's the intur-web...and it doesn't matter.
:)

[digitalintrigue]

Pitxu you deleted the Post of the Year. :)

[MikeL]

Pitxu you deleted the Post of the Year. :)

I was thinking the same thing. Bad Mike, bad. ;)

[MacDaddy]

Hmm! I just got a G1. Why? Small, somewhat discreet, able to take M lenses (and Nikon, and Canon, and..) and seems to fit MY concept of a "Poor Man's M8". Go ahead and scream, weep and wail true RFFers, but this camera might be the forerunner of a system that beats the daylights outta the real M8 for the 70-80% of us without Leica-sized wallets! Seems to be just as acceptable as a couple dozen other camera systems allowed into the forums to me! Just my 2 cents; YMMV!

[al1966]

Well its not an RF simple it does not have one but then again its not an slr or a point n shoot. To me its the natural follow on from cams like the Minolta A1, Panasonic fzs etc. I love the concept but cant afford one :( and am hoping that the oly offering will be more reasonably priced.

[Merkin]

It took me a full page to realize that this is only half as trolltastic as I thought it was, on my first read-through I thought he was talking about the Contax G1 instead of the Panasonic G1. -1 to Merkin.

[Gumby]

It took me a full page to realize that this is only half as trolltastic as I thought it was, on my first read-through I thought he was talking about the Contax G1 instead of the Panasonic G1. -1 to Merkin.

DEFINITELY... a confession! Did you vote in the confession vs group-therapy poll yet? ;)

[Merkin]

DEFINITELY... a confession! Did you vote in the confession vs group-therapy poll yet? ;)


More an attempt at self-deprecating humor than a confession ;)

[Socke]

it's not a rangefind

Hm, I once used a device they called rangefinder to aim my 100mm guns on D182 and the 127mm guns on D171.
I know, that the M1 Abrams and the Leopard I and II tanks use rangefinders to aim their guns.

So what is a rangefinder? A device to measure distances, isn't it?

Or just try this link for an explanation http://www.rangefinder.com/

[Lani Kai]

I saw the thread title and thought, "how is the Contax G1 NOT a rangefinder?"

[bmattock]

So what is a rangefinder? A device to measure distances, isn't it?

Yes, but that's like saying that a roller skate is a device to travel - so cars are roller skates.

A rangefinder 'finds range' by performing a mechanical triangulation by optical-mechanical means. With regard to a camera, it traditionally means that the photographer manually aligns two visually overlaid images until they merge into one, the act of which also turns the focus mechanism of the camera's lens.

If the triangulation is done by electronic computation and the lens moved by motors instead of being coupled and calculated optical-mechanically, it is not a rangefinder in that sense, although it certainly can measure distance.

That does not mean that other means of achieving focus are not just as good or even better at doing so - it just means it is not a rangefinder in the traditional sense of the word.

[russianRF]

Well, it most obviously has no traditional rangefinder. I guess the real question, posed in a less controversial manner, would be - does the G1 satisfy your needs for a rangefinder?

If you use a rangefinder expressly for its focusing mechanism, then the G1 is yet another digital camera that has nothing to do with rangefinding. If you use a rangefinder because it is smaller, lighter, quieter, and sharper than an SLR, then the G1 is indeed a worthy replacement of, or at least, compliment to a classic rangefinder.

I've only been really using my rangefinder for a couple of months; the focusing mechanism is fun and clever, and I enjoy using it. As far as photographic results go, however, what I see is what I see and what I previsualize is what I previsualize and none of it has anything to do with how sublime the image looks in my rangefinder's viewfinder, split just so.

I think the M8 has more to worry about than classic film rangefinders; film has an appeal all its own, and is specially wedded to rangefinding; you won't ever have a live view LCD on a film rangefinder.

But if your information is all digital to begin with, why not have the most effecient and convenient format available for viewing? And if that format so happens to be a live view LCD, then so be it.

No, the G1 isn't a rangefinder, but yes it has many of the appealing features of a rangefinder.

[Debusti Paolo]

Ops I was thinking about contax g1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[djonesii]

My contax G1 is not a range finder by the strict definition, nor is my Fuji 645, both of which I found through this forum.

For the very cynical, this forum has been viewed on various other sites as an extension on Camera Quest dot com, For my taste, that is just a bit too tough to swallow, but ..... let us hope that the folks over in CV Land are watching this G1 closely, as with small changes, it gives them a new platform for their wares. Stephen is a strong CV proponent, and as such, he may be listened to, and by extension, this form may hold sway.

While technically, the G1 does not use a mechanical means to triangulate, nor does it super impose images, it does on the other hand offer many of the same advantages, and the appeal of those advantages will cross the needs/wants of the same type of photographer.

Unlike the M8 and RD-1, the G1 allows the ability to develop new methods of focus as the software in the G1 can be modified to allow just about any type of focusing mechanism that a photographer could want.

While no more of a rangefinder than some of the other cameras on this forum, it meets the already established "criteria" in the same spirit as other cameras on the LHS.

Dave

[Pherdinand]

it's a rather dumb question,sorry. It is OBVIOUSLY not a rangefinder.
That does not mean that it should be banned from the forum, of course.
But the title of the thread/poll makes no sense.

[Praxis Unitas]

It seems that there is no adequate industry acronym to capture this general mechanism (digital live view + manual TTL focusing).

Perhaps I've missed something, but if not, then how about Single-Live-view-reflex (SLiVR, pronounced 'sliver')?"

Any thoughts?

[NickTrop]

First - a question. Is the sensor on this thing large enough to throw the background out of focus? How fast are the lenses. Only zooms this far, it seems. Probably always.

It's not a rangefinder. It doesn't have a RF focusing mechanism. It's not an SLR - it doesn't have a reflex mirror. This is a different animal all together - finally someone built a digital camera that's not an extension of the mechanical (SLR or RF) of the past.

Let's call it an "ILDC" - an "Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera Looks like a pretty neat offering from Panasonic. I wouldn't buy it... but it still looks like they're heading in the right direction.

[Eric T]

The question is not whether the G1 is a rangefinder. It is not. The question is whether the G1 illustrates the direction that Leica should have taken into the 21st century (albeit with higher image quality than the G1 provides).
Taken from that perspective, the G1 is worthy of discussion here.

[Socke]

Yes, but that's like saying that a roller skate is a device to travel - so cars are roller skates.

Hm, a rangefinder camera is a camera with a rangefinder and rollers skates are skates with wheels.
With my syntactical analysis :) a rangefinder is not a camera and a roller is not a skate. Neither is a lowtech gasguzzling V8 engine a car.:angel:

Here in germany the Leica M was called a "Messsucherkamera", a camera with a measuring viewfinder, i.E. the combinded view- and rangefinder made the difference. The Barnaks where cameras with a seperate view- and rangefinder, both available built in or seperate.
Then there where no other means to measure distance than optical triangulation. Electronic viewfinders and phase detection focusing wasn't even SciFi then :)

Today cameras like the Contax G and Leica M are often referred to as Systemcameras here, i.E cameras around which one can build a system with a choice of optional components like flashes and lenses.

Within the Theroy of Sets, I have a set of cameras containing everything with which I can take a picture, a subset of Messsucherkameras with a non TTL viewfinder showing measurments like distance and exposure and what will be photographed, a subset of Systemcameras with exchangeable components, a subset of SLRs and so on.
Most of the subsets overlap at some point or other.

With this said, the Micro 4/3rds are certainly Systemcameras, they are not Messsucherkameras because the viewfinder is TTL and not seperate, but then they are compact cameras. They are not Reflex Cameras, neither in the single nor in the twin lens sense.

So they overlap with what is called a rangefinder here in the compact camera and the system camera sets. They don't overlap with the opto-mechanical seperate or integrated viewfinder clothshutter sub-sub-subset.

[delft]

It seems that there is no adequate industry acronym to capture this general mechanism (digital live view + manual TTL focusing).

Perhaps I've missed something, but if not, then how about Single-Live-view-reflex (SLiVR, pronounced 'sliver')?"

Any thoughts?

I've seen it referred to as an E.V.I.L. camera (Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lenses). I Like that acronym.

Dirk

[bmattock]

Hm, a rangefinder camera is a camera with a rangefinder and rollers skates are skates with wheels.
With my syntactical analysis :) a rangefinder is not a camera and a roller is not a skate. Neither is a lowtech gasguzzling V8 engine a car.:angel:

Here in germany the Leica M was called a "Messsucherkamera", a camera with a measuring viewfinder, i.E. the combinded view- and rangefinder made the difference. The Barnaks where cameras with a seperate view- and rangefinder, both available built in or seperate.
Then there where no other means to measure distance than optical triangulation. Electronic viewfinders and phase detection focusing wasn't even SciFi then :)

Today cameras like the Contax G and Leica M are often referred to as Systemcameras here, i.E cameras around which one can build a system with a choice of optional components like flashes and lenses.

Within the Theroy of Sets, I have a set of cameras containing everything with which I can take a picture, a subset of Messsucherkameras with a non TTL viewfinder showing measurments like distance and exposure and what will be photographed, a subset of Systemcameras with exchangeable components, a subset of SLRs and so on.
Most of the subsets overlap at some point or other.

With this said, the Micro 4/3rds are certainly Systemcameras, they are not Messsucherkameras because the viewfinder is TTL and not seperate, but then they are compact cameras. They are not Reflex Cameras, neither in the single nor in the twin lens sense.

So they overlap with what is called a rangefinder here in the compact camera and the system camera sets. They don't overlap with the opto-mechanical seperate or integrated viewfinder clothshutter sub-sub-subset.

It all depends upon where one draws the parenthesis to create verbal sets. Certainly both are cameras, certainly both take photos, certainly both have lenses, blah, blah, blah. The one characteristic that rangefinders possess that the Lumix G1 does not is - a manually-operated, optical-mechanical coupled, ranging finder.

No amount of gerrymandering of the description of 'rangefinder' can make a Lumix G1 into a rangefinder camera in the traditional and accepted use of the term 'rangefinder'.

That does not make it a less capable camera. It makes it not a rangefinder, in the same sense that a baseball and a football are both balls used for sports, but a baseball is not a football and vice-versa.

[photomoof]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[cmogi10]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


...Three...

[CameraQuest]

The Micro 4/3 forum is here at RFF because via adapters Micro 4/3 SLRs offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras. Not everyone wants to spend $6500 for a Leica M8.2, $4500 for a Leica M8, or even $1600 for a used Epson RD1 in order to use their Leica lenses on a digital body. Using Leica M or screw mount lenses on a relatively inexpensive digital body is a big deal. Personally I'm hopeful we will eventually see a relatively inexpensive Micro 4/3 rangfinder Leica M mount camera. Time will tell.

Also take note this is the FIRST time a SLR camera (even if a EVIL Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera) can use standard Leica M lenses and still focus to infinity. In SLR terms, the adaptability of the Micro 4/3 cameras is also a big deal.

Stephen

[wlewisiii]

I'll admit that the G1 interests me as well, but not for the M lens capability. I have seen an FD adapter and if one really is available, then I'll get the camera & one of those.

To me it's not a RF & not really needed as a means to use my RF lenses. OTOH, as a SLR to use my orphaned SLR lenses? Now that I can possibly enjoy.

William

[Uwe_Nds]

Well, I don't see a rangefinder anywhere on the camera, but it's adaptable to RF lenses, so what's the problem?

That would have been my vote.

Cheers,
Uwe

[wlewisiii]

You don't even need the "micro" 4/3 for that.
Quite a few different SLR lenses are adaptable for the FULL 4/3 format, eg: Olympus E-420.

To my understanding, micro-4/3 is the first to offer infinity focus without lenses in the adapter. Please point at an alternative if I am wrong :)

William

[digitalintrigue]

I think what Pitxu is saying is that if you want to use SLR lenses you don't necessarily need a micro 4/3, the regular 4/3 will work fine. In fact, you won't need the Panasonic DMW-MA1 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter if you go that route which saves about $150.

Canon FD lenses work on any 4/3 camera using one of these adapters: http://tinyurl.com/8zjg2y

To use M lenses, you'll need micro 4/3.

[wlewisiii]

Canon FD lenses work on any 4/3 camera using one of these adapters: http://tinyurl.com/8zjg2y



I understand what Pitxu is saying. That adaptor does NOT allow for infinity focus for FD lenses on 4/3 mount cameras. Micro-4/3 is the first mount that apparently does. Until now there has been NO good way to use FD lenses on ANY digital camera; this is why the G1 is of interest to me. I'm much more interested in using my 35/2 Chrome Nose or my 50/1.4 SSC (or even to have a good excuse to buy a 24/2.8 SSC ;) ) on a digital than I would be any Leica lens, but that's just my preference.

William

[digitalintrigue]

Hmm, yep. Not sure what the point of an adapter is if it doesn't allow infinity. Both Rayqual and Novoflex have announced support for Canon FD on µ4/3.

[NickTrop]

It's neither a rangefinder nor an SLR

It's an ILDCS

Interchangeable
Lens
Digital
Camera
System

... and it's about time.

Or maybe we can call it a DILC - more of a ring...

[johnastovall]

A growing list of G1 adapters can be seen here (http://rangefinderrestorations.com/photo_posts/G1adapterlist.html).

[Keith]

Reading through this thread is disappointing ... I don't give a flying f**k who Fred Burton is in some people's minds and if you're right I still don't give a flying f**k frankly because none of the previous incarnations you seem to be associating this person with bothered me much at all. There are far more irritating people currently present on the forum who seem to 'fit' better and aren't regarded as grains of sand in RFF's wonderful mechanism by certain members. YMMV of course!

And how a question about a camera that will affect us greatly regarding our M mount lens usage, as Stephen pointed out, can be regarded as trolling ... mystifies me no less!

[Socke]

That does not make it a less capable camera. It makes it not a rangefinder, in the same sense that a baseball and a football are both balls used for sports, but a baseball is not a football and vice-versa.

Bill, when I shot with the help of a rangefinder in the 80s, something got hit by a 100 or 127mm shell and I have no pictures to proof it :)

[Gabriel M.A.]

it's not a rangefinder.
it has the ability to use m mount lenses.

I'm confused.

Wait...so, my hamburger, if it has a bun, but it has chicken, then...whoa. I need a poll to find out what the h3ll I'm eating, these buns are confusing me.

[cmogi10]

that be a chicken burger.
Aint a hamburger.

[Socke]

The Micro 4/3 forum is here at RFF because via adapters Micro 4/3 SLRs offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras.

Micro 4/3 is an interesting technology, the G1 is a bit too SLR like for my liking. The faux mirror box for instance.
The Oly mock up is more like it, I wish for a compact system camera with interchangeable fast primes and zooms with a bigger sensor then what the current digital compacts have. The 4/3rd sensor is big enough IMHO. Sure, a 24x36 sensor would be better, but then the camera would be bigger and more expensive.
How focus is acquired is not so important as long as it's accurate and reasonably fast. Same goes for the viewfinder.

[Gumby]

Even a hamburger isn't a hamburger... it ain't HAM!

[back alley]

I'm confused.

Wait...so, my hamburger, if it has a bun, but it has chicken, then...whoa. I need a poll to find out what the h3ll I'm eating, these buns are confusing me.

keep reading on it and you will be enlightened.
it's a whole new world a comin'!

joe

[Socke]

that be a chicken burger.
Aint a hamburger.

Now I'm confused, what is a Burger with ham?

[Gabriel M.A.]

that be a chicken burger.
Aint a hamburger.

You think you're so smart, smarty-pants, pointing out things. :o

[Gabriel M.A.]

keep reading on it and you will be enlightened.
it's a whole new world a comin'!

I'll say. There's lettuce on this thing. I thought salads didn't come in buns.

[cmogi10]

Well actually apperently I'm not as smart as I thought I was. :D

God damn semantics....

[MikeL]

Reading through this thread is disappointing ... I don't give a flying f**k who Fred Burton is in some people's minds and if you're right I still don't give a flying f**k frankly because none of the previous incarnations you seem to be associating this person with bothered me much at all.


Keith, you obviously care a lot, or you wouldn't bother posting this or saying f**k. Did you pm the moderators about this?


There are far more irritating people currently present on the forum who seem to 'fit' better and aren't regarded as grains of sand in RFF's wonderful mechanism by certain members. YMMV of course!

I'm likely one of those irritating people. Sorry dude.

[cmogi10]

I'll say. There's lettuce on this thing. I thought salads didn't come in buns.


gardenburger?

[cmogi10]

Keith, you obviously care a lot, or you wouldn't bother posting this or saying f**k. Did you pm the moderators about this?



I'm likely one of those irritating people. Sorry dude.

I betcha I'm more irritating then you are!

[back alley]

I betcha I'm more irritating then you are!

i think it's me...

[jwhitley]

Poll is closed, but as stated I thought it entirely missed the point. I don't care whether the camera is a "rangefinder" or not. To me, the power of the rangefinder lies in its particular set of qualities as a photographic tool, regardless of the physical implementation.

In prior posts on RFF, I posed that electronic viewfinder (EVF) digital cameras were an approach to meeting many of these needs in a digital camera. The result in the G1, and in the much better EVF cameras that will follow, is something that's neither a direct-view RF nor an SLR. It benefits by losing the SLR's reflex assembly (like RF cameras), retains the pros and cons of TTL viewing (unlike RF cameras), and gains new features from its digital hertiage (histogram in the VF).

To me, much more interesting (and difficult) questions are:
Will mature EVF cameras challenge the SLR throne?
How well will future EVF cameras hold up to the various "rangefinder design ideals"?
Will hybrid direct-view/EVF finders emerge that provide the best of both rangefinder and SLR composition?

[back alley]

for me, the g1 is close to being the best of both worlds.

it has the speed and ease of a modern dslr with auto everything and it also has the 'feel' of using a rangefinder, small, discreet etc.

[MikeL]

Will hybrid direct-view/EVF finders emerge that provide the best of both rangefinder and SLR composition?[/LIST]

I think it would be cool to have the heads up display approach where instead of the patch you'd have a EVF projection. You could control the magnification to help with focusing.
You know, so old folks could crank it way up. ;)

[photomoof]

And how a question about a camera that will affect us greatly regarding our M mount lens usage, as Stephen pointed out, can be regarded as trolling ... mystifies me no less!

I think the trolling has to do with the original question "is it a rangefinder."

Obviously it is what it is, but one thing for sure, it is not a traditional manual focus rangefinder.

Of course, all modern SLRs with auto-focus, have to have a rangefinder in order to focus the lens, and the G1 is no exception. But the original question is just not all that interesting. Trick questions never are.

What is interesting to a lot of people is the just about any lens made can be mounted on a G1 with the right adapter, and work rather well.

As for banned members, who cares, yep, they keep getting thrown out - and keep coming back where they are not welcome.

[digitalintrigue]

Hey Butthead, let's go get some nachos.

[Keith]

Sorry guys ... I didn't mean to be such a pain in the arse! I just sent Joe a PM as he was puzzled by my outburst.

I'll repeat it for the rest of you and please accept my opology!


Sorry Joe,

I didn't mean to come across as so grouchy and unreasonable .... I still love you deeply! :p

A bit out of sorts today (personal stuff) and I took it out on the forum which is unfair ... I'll go out and burn a couple of rolls of film instead. My aplogies!

Cheers ... Keith. :o

[back alley]

hard to keep a good man down!

let us know if we can help.

[mh2000]

oops... I thought is was another old Contax G1 arguement :)

[photomoof]

Hey Butthead, let's go get some nachos.

If only... There is a great place in my neighborhood for sitting outside in the summer and having nachos... :D

i just realized that Nikon RF lenses are going to work also! You will need two adapters.

[wlewisiii]

i just realized that Nikon RF lenses are going to work also! You will need two adapters.

Nikon/Contax 2 M & then M 2 m4/3? Sure, makes sense, and it would be a hoot to use my 1937 50/2.8 Tessar on something without even an optical finder... :D

William

[digitalintrigue]

i just realized that Nikon RF lenses are going to work also! You will need two adapters.

Shhh. It's a secret.

The other secret is that unlike on any film camera, Contax RF lenses can work on the same helical as Nikon RF lenses. :)

[Tuolumne]

If by a "rangefinder" you mean a camera that focuses using a rangefinder mechanism, then it is obviously not a rangefinder. But "rangefinder" camera has come to take on other meanings. For example, is a rangefinder camera that has a lens mounted that only does zone focusing (e.g. the CV 15mm) still a rangefinder camera? Most people would say so, because it has the other attricutes of a rangefinder camera: small, unobtrusive, quiet, excellent at low-light/available light photogrpahy, etc. etc. In that sense, the G1 is the pure digital heir to the mantle of the rangefinder camera. As digital cameras develop we will see the current era as a time that gave us hybrid digital cameras - made like old film cameras but with a "digital emulsion". Cameras like the G1 move the development of the pure digital camera forward significantly. In that sense, it is the embodiment of a true new generation of entirely digital rangefinders. But of course, who really cares what it's called? It's just different and excellent.

/T

[Nh3]

G1 will be old news by spring because G2 would arrive with even more bells and whistles, but that would be overshadowed by 24 mp Canon G11, not to mention Lumix LX4 with 20/1.8 lens and usable ISO 6400.

All of the above announcements would be totally eclipsed by the first sub $1000 full frame SLR by Nikon and followed soon by Canon... And the year would end with Nikon medium format digital ranagefinder...

While all this is happening some of us still will be running around shooting with Ms or Bessas and other old friends who we know and trust, and they have hardly changed in decades.

Getting excited about digital cameras are like getting excited about sunrise or sunset. Bad example but what I'm trying to say is we all know the drill and its boring and predictable the same way that every day the sun will rise and sit.

[digitalintrigue]

Kinda like some posts.

[Nh3]

Kinda like some posts.

the first digital P&S that I ever bought, died recently. the sensor just went blank.

Anyway, I threw it away without a second thought.

My first film camera is in a box with silica gels and it is a P&S as well - i love it more than any cameras that I have owned.

[PhotoMat]

More an attempt at self-deprecating humor than a confession ;)

I don't know how you can be more self deprecating, given your chosen screen name. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin

[bmattock]

While all this is happening some of us still will be running around shooting with Ms or Bessas and other old friends who we know and trust, and they have hardly changed in decades.


Because film is a mature technology. Stable, predictable, and very useful.

Utterly boring from a technical point of view, but good for making photographs.


Getting excited about digital cameras are like getting excited about sunrise or sunset.


I get excited about sunrise and sunset, but perhaps not everyone feels that way. With regard to digital cameras, I get excited about a new technology that is advancing by leaps and bounds, and which I am alive to see begin to mature. That's cool stuff.

You remember, like when the first cars and telephones started showing up when you were a boy, grampa.


Bad example but what I'm trying to say is we all know the drill and its boring and predictable the same way that every day the sun will rise and sit.

I like film and all the advantages that a nice stable and mature technology can provide. And I like digital and new advances coming every day, making it better and better.

And that's bad because?

[bmattock]

the first digital P&S that I ever bought, died recently. the sensor just went blank.

Anyway, I threw it away without a second thought.

My first film camera is in a box with silica gels and it is a P&S as well - i love it more than any cameras that I have owned.

Of course. All film cameras are good, all digital cameras are bad. BORING. But whatever, let's have that stupid fight again. I'm sure no one will get their feelings hurt, say something horrible, and stomp off or get tossed overboard.

[JoeV]

I was thinking about this rangefinder definition as it pertains to camera usage modes. A rangefinder camera is not necessarily a requisite to the type of shooting that many people associate with rangefinder-type photography.

I used to have an Olympus Stylus film point-&-shoot. In actual use it was pretty close to "rangefinder-like"; not because it had a small focus patch in the middle of the finder (it doesn't); not because it manually focusses (it doesn't); not because you can use your choice of fine M-series glass (you can't); but because the wide, clear, optical viewfinder and the camera's general ease of operation made it transparent to the image-making experience. It was a useful, user-friendly tool; compact, lightweight, etc.

My Zorki IV has many of these same attributes, albeit minus the built-in light meter; and it weighs, well, a bit more than the film P/S, and certainly much more than the new Panny G1.

My Retina IIIC is also a very capable rangefinder; very similar to the Zorki in actual use, since the selenium cell meter is dead; but again, it's much heavier than a modern P/S.

Comparing the image-making experience of using the Retina vs the G1, I find the G1 at least as usable, and very "rangefinder-ish". I prefer to keep the LCD folded inwards and turned off, and use the EVF only. Should I desire the "purity of experience" of manual-focus only, I can set the G1 to manual focus (via a mechanical switch on top, not via a menu) and then upon twisting the lens focus ring a very rangefinder-like focus window appears in the EVF. Except this window you can choose to move around anywhere on the screen, and it's zoomed in. It's not a rangefinder-type of paralax focusing using overlapping images, but rather like a magnified SLF-style focus screen appearance. But very usable and practical.

In dim lighting I find the EVF's electronic amplification of the scene to be very useful for composition and focus; again, it's not directly rangefinder-ish, but at least as usable; perhaps more useful in dim lighting than a non-amplified optical viewfinder.

So technically, the G1 is obviously NOT a rangefinder. But it exhibits many of the attributes of a rangefinder camera in terms of usage modes. It's a very capable, easy to use tool for creating photographic images discretely and quietly, all the while maintaining a high degree of quality.

It has its down sides, too, being a feature-overfilled digital camera. You have to work with it for a while to learn which software features are useful to your style of shooting, and which to just ignore.

~Joe

[Ronald_H]

You know, I liked it here. Lots of talk and mostly laid back guys. The kind you'd like to meet whilst shooting an old camera. The kind with sound advice and a sense of (sometimes grumpy) humour.

But lately I see more and more pissing contests & hurt egos. Not amusing.

Btw, the G1 is not a rangefinder, but it is the revolution.

[ampguy]

The G1 looks pretty interesting. I think I'll check one out when they go down a bit in price, along with the adapter prices.

[digitalintrigue]

In dim lighting I find the EVF's electronic amplification of the scene to be very useful for composition and focus; again, it's not directly rangefinder-ish, but at least as usable; perhaps more useful in dim lighting than a non-amplified optical viewfinder.

So technically, the G1 is obviously NOT a rangefinder. But it exhibits many of the attributes of a rangefinder camera in terms of usage modes. It's a very capable, easy to use tool for creating photographic images discretely and quietly, all the while maintaining a high degree of quality.


Back to the topic, these are great points. Small, quiet, and doesn't bring attention to itself.

[Al Patterson]

It's neither a rangefinder nor an SLR

It's an ILDCS

Interchangeable
Lens
Digital
Camera
System

... and it's about time.

Or maybe we can call it a DILC - more of a ring...

Over at DP Review folks use the term EVIL

Electronic
Viewfinder
Interchangeable
Lens

So maybe here it belongs between a rangefinder subgroup and Evil SLRs?

I for one am intrigued with a system where I can use one digital device with either my FD lenses, or my M lenses.

[bmattock]

Some - People - Are - So - Literal - They - Become - Silly -

If 2 + 2 = 4, then there is no point in arguing over how much 4 resembles the letter 'A'. The G1 is not a rangefinder. Literal? Yes. Accurate, too.

Insisting that it is a rangefinder because it resembles the way a person might use a rangefinder, or insisting that it is a rangefinder because one chooses to use the term 'rangefinder' to mean a variety of things from fried eggs to firetrucks does not make it a rangefinder.

Whilst perusing your dictionary, consider the words 'simile' and 'metaphor'.

[Tuolumne]

If 2 + 2 = 4, then there is no point in arguing over how much 4 resembles the letter 'A'. The G1 is not a rangefinder. Literal? Yes. Accurate, too.

Insisting that it is a rangefinder because it resembles the way a person might use a rangefinder, or insisting that it is a rangefinder because one chooses to use the term 'rangefinder' to mean a variety of things from fried eggs to firetrucks does not make it a rangefinder.

Whilst perusing your dictionary, consider the words 'simile' and 'metaphor'.

You must be right because you must be right. And so you are.

/T

[back alley]

let's all take a deep breath...

[photomoof]

let's all take a deep breath...

Well yes... and you did the right thing by deleting some posts by moi, but this kind of trolling on both sides... :bang:

At least it's not about the election.

[back alley]

i don't think i deleted anything by you moof.

[photomoof]

i don't think i deleted anything by you moof.

Someone did, maybe it was me? This has been a long christmas... Something about the RIGID tools sold by Home Depot.