View Full Version : Why do we shoot 35mm rangefinders?
In today's "got to have it now" mentality why would we prefer to shoot a 35mm rangefinder camera? Ever ask yourself this question? I have and for me the answer is simple.......I enjoy the challenge and the results.
I personally shoot longbows, fly fish the salt, and ride a cruiser motorcycle. You could sort of say I enjoy the traditional way of doing things and consider it an advantage using these methods and the resulting rewards they offer. I won't tell you that I don't or haven't enjoyed the "fast lane techno paths" in these activities but I get more enjoyment traveling the slow road.
How about you? Why do you shoot a rangefinder 35mm in today's megapixel world of photography?
I shoot a 6 MPix rangefinder. Does that count? :p
I like the division of activities, meaning I do not enjoy taking pictures AND looking at them simultaneously. My fridge is full of film taken from the past year. That's really great because I have my memory of the events and later I get to see something else.
Like most other people here, I also like the quality of film. For those few really good pics I have taken, I like to see them in large print sizes with good resolution. Only film can offer this at a low price. Speaking of quality, how am I supposed to know if a picture is going to be good BEFORE I take it?
Moreover, rangefinders fired from the eye are great tools for photographing people up close, the most interesting subject of all subject matters.
Finally, I like being old-fashioned if you were to call it that. It goes well with getting older.
Kevin
Basically I shoot my M2
for the sheer please of holding a nice piece of machinery (I like watches too for that matter)
for the glorious view/rangefinder (no ground glass or LCD between the subject and myself)
and because the pics come out nice
I have not (yet) converted to digital because
I can update my sensor every 36 views (Reala is backward compatible with my Kiev, which is a 1935 design)
35mm film is a nice archival medium to me (I reckon most of my pics have more value 10 years later than 10 minutes later)
shooting color negs almost guarantees correct exposure
next year's digital is going to be so much better (I can't see 50 years of technological advancement between M2 and MP)
It's fun!
I don't need more reasons :-)
Ofcourse I do like quality machinery too...
But there are some other quite well built tools on the other side...
The RFs are before them for their size (as system) and convenience of use.
However sometimes I feel them limiting - macro and tele.
I hope that recent digital development will solve that.
A well thought out digital RF could handle the focussing with longer teles aswell as macro...
Cheers,
nemjo
I have asked this question myself. Why not just ditch all 35mm rangefinder cameras and just use a medium format rangefinder?
The things holding me back are that the 35mm RFs are quicker too use, the Leicas has such wonderful feeling, I can use faster lenses and I have Focomat V35 which will not take medium format (though I have no darkroom anymore after my last move).
I am also not totally convinced about the build quality of my Mamiya 7 so I will definitely have to wait a couple of years to see if I can/should just get rid of all 35mm gear.
/Håkan
It just feels right for what I do.
35mm rangefinders match my style of photography and amplify my efforts. As such maybe it makes no sense to rationalize my choice.
They fit better in my small 'man purses' :D And I needed something small AND no battery dependant on a daily basis
TPPhotog
07-22-2005, 01:36
I'm with Socke "It's fun!" and they allow me to capture the type of pictures I like !!
Those are the only reasons I need :D
Pherdinand
07-22-2005, 01:54
Because a digital one or a medium format one (ok, except my ikonta) is too expensive...? Because I like the exciting time of waiting for the results...? Because I can hang around this forum thanks to the RF's:)
Pherdinand
07-22-2005, 01:57
Oh and, whenever in a social happening somebody kindly offers to take a photo of me, with my camera, to make sure i'm also on the pictures, it will never work out properly. It either will be out of focus completely, badly exposed, blocked by fingertip or my head is chopped off due to the framelines :) and that's just sooo funny to see, when i look at the prints
Brian Sweeney
07-22-2005, 02:48
I was using a Nikon S2 in our local "Old Town" area, a wedding had just finished in the same outdoor park, and photo's were being taken under the gazebo. An older gentleman in a three-piece suit made his way over to us and volunteered, "Would you like me to take a picture of you and your daughter together!" He did not offer the same service for those using digital and P&S cameras.
It gives me a sense of satisfaction and achievement not felt with other types of camera! Makes me feel I am part of the image making process unlike an auto do everything high tech SLR (film or digital).
In today's "got to have it now" mentality why would we prefer to shoot a 35mm rangefinder camera?
In this "got to have it now" age, I'm going as far as to question this "convenience" of the digital cameras. Sure, the image appears on that teeny screen a few seconds after you press the button. (LOL - the shutter fires a few seconds after you press the button too!) :) However, the time and effort to see that image in print is still on the same order as it would be with traditional film. Is the futzing with the cable and the downloading and storing and photoshopping of the image really more convenient than dropping off the film at Walgreens?
Then if you want to do something with those new digital cameras other than use the defaults, there are all those teeny-tiny buttons and menus that are, well, inconvenient.
Add to the confusion. A friend has a Kodak digital, and yes, I've been impressed with the photos it takes, actually, but nobody can figure out what those settings that imply landscapes and such are really supposed to do, as far as exposure and focus control and such. (No, TFM didn't help much.)
Oh well ... :)
Oh and, whenever in a social happening somebody kindly offers to take a photo of me, with my camera, to make sure i'm also on the pictures, it will never work out properly. It either will be out of focus completely, badly exposed, blocked by fingertip or my head is chopped off due to the framelines :) and that's just sooo funny to see, when i look at the prints
ha! lol! That's a good tactic. I always try to decline, because I know what I look like and I want memories of my friends, not me. But that makes for a good memory too! Unless the friend is a photographer and the CV 35/2.5 is too unforgiving :(
tetrisattack
07-22-2005, 07:12
'Cause digital cameras aren't hard enough to be interesting.
Seriously, I'm an IT professional, I speak digital fluently, but learning about the b&w process has been deeper, more challenging, and more rewarding than any certification I've ever studied for. My progress through photography has been backwards, from digital SLR to film SLR to medium format to large format and now to rangefinders. And over the course of that time I've started to bulk roll my own film, develop my own film, make my own prints with equipment for various sizes, etc.
And rangefinders are inherently part of that desire for more challenge, more opportunity to prove my skills as a photographer, more new things to try, more things to become proficient at.
'cus it's fun! Using a Leica IIIa or the Kiev's and other FSU RF's are not the easiest way to get it done with the knob-winders and aux-VF's, but a nice challenge which leds to satisfaction. The 70's fixed-lense RF's are fast and capable shooters which gives me a different sort of satisfaction since most have had a little DIY work done.
My SLR's & digital's have their own place too, along with the MF & LF gear.
Some great replies so far....and I am sure the "fun" issue is a big part of what we do but do others find that they tend to participate in other life activities or values in a (for lack of a better term) "traditional" manner as well? I know I do as I explained earlier and I see Kevin mentioned this in his reply as well.
Aha, I perceive that this is actually a two-part question!
Why I shoot 35mm rangefinder cameras:
-- Medium format is great for quality, but you get fewer shots between film changes, the range of lenses available isn't as great in terms of either focal length or maximum aperture, and I don't happen to own a medium-format film scanner.
-- Large-format RFs are very cool, but I'd collapse under the weight of hauling around a Super Technika and a bunch of film holders on a hot day.
-- It's gotten really hard to find a decent selection of films for pocketable RFs such as the Canon 110ED or Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 (anybody remember those?)
-- I kept leaving the little tiny glass plates for my Compass (http://www.geh.org/fm/lol/htmlsrc/mC737100001_ful.html) camera in my pocket, and they'd mess up my clothes when my pants went through the wash. ;)
Why I shoot 35mm rangefinder cameras:
-- Geez, didn't I just write a whole essay about that? :)
Hi dmr436,
add a try to one of the Digilux2/LC1 pair....
Maybe your oppinion on digitals change to less characteristc.
Cheers,
nemjo
Mike Richards
07-22-2005, 10:17
Compared to a SLR, the rangefinder is just more intuitive to operate with both eyes open. There's less thinking about focus accuracy and other technical aspects and more concentration on the subject and image. The shutter releases quietly, immediately and is almost an unnoticed reaction. You capture moments that you would miss with an SLR.
A good analogy would be in the shooting sports where shotgunners and riflemen have very different techniques and mind sets. Shotgunners are like rangfinder shooters. They "point" the firearm, swing, keep both eyes open, and intiutively slap the trigger at the right moment. Riflemen have to be very deliberate, using a step by step approach, concentrating on sight alignment, target picture, breathing, aim, and squeeze the trigger only when everything is right.
Can't carry the analogy too far, but it seems that rangefinder shooters have the advantage of a camera that seems more of an extension of the brain and operates intuitively, where the SLR shooter has to be more deliberate, ordered, and thoughtful.
Cos you know when the shutter has fired, even on a Leica!
I use digital SLR's for things that other people want or if I'm doing a light test (beats a Polaroid back for speed and you don't have to walk about with a wast paper bin)
Otherwise it's My M7 that I use for taking 'my pictures'.
It's a lot less intrusive in the outside world as well, I just get ignored by people who think I'm still using one of those little quaint filme cameras and that I'm nuts.
2 part? Not really, just a question who's answers may say something about the way we look at photography and possibly the way our lives our affected as well. From what I have seen with saltwater fly fishermen and traditional archers it is more about the journey than the destination. I think a person using a 35mm rangefinder camera falls into the same mentality....it's the journey (method) that is just as important as the destination (results).
Can other methods achieve similar results? Of course, but for us it's the way we are involved in the process and the personal satisfaction we feel when we see the results that makes how and what we shoot important. Rangefinders force the photographer to be more involved in the process just by their nature and those that get enjoyment from being involved say's something about the person who uses them.
Does anyone else feel that the method say's something about the person?
As several members have already said -- 'because it's fun'. I don't need any reason more than that. I don't use 35mm RF's exlusively -- I greatly prefer my digital SLR for nature shooting, especially macros and tele work -- but I come back to RF's for their fun and clean shooting ... plus my love of B&W film. Nothing quite like 'em!
Gene
Byuphoto
07-22-2005, 12:04
Well for me it is the completion of a circle. I started with a TLR then a RF because I could not afford a SLR back in '70. I use them for the same reason I still drive a '72 Ford Bronco and an '81 Toyota truck, why I still ride my '77 HD Lowrider I bought new ans still have my first real SLR, a Pentax ME super. I shoot a recurve bow and hunt with a Sharps .45-110 buffalo rifle. I like 35mm because of the ease of finding it and the size compared to MF. I still use a TLR and a RF645 when I am going out to shoot a specific scene. But day to day I use my 35mm RF. I have owned and sold a Canon DREb, 20D, 1D MKII and 5 L lenses in the last year. My SLR's are now Canon FD mounts. I like well built non-disposable machines. Not plastic disposable Bic wonders. That is why I carry a Zippo, use a wind-up Seiko and carry a bone handled/carbon steel pocket knife, in my pocket, not clipped to it.
My personal carry gun is an old Colt .45 auto, not a plastic, wonder 9mm. It is 70 years old and I have rebuilt it 4 times by myself. I can work on my RF myself. Try that with your new 16mp Gee Whiz 2000
Byuphoto, I like your thinking!!! ;)
To paraphrase.... "You have an overdeveloped sense of individuality, and it's GOING to get you in trouble one of these days."
Byuphoto
07-22-2005, 13:06
Byuphoto, I like your thinking!!! ;)
Thanks, very much.
To paraphrase.... "You have an overdeveloped sense of individuality, and it's GOING to get you in trouble one of these days."
I hope you are not referring to me. I thought that was the principle this country was founded on. I am not a sheep and do not follow the flock. This will get you run over a cliff
Roger Hicks
07-22-2005, 13:12
Wow, hard question:
Small, light, reliable, high-precision cameras (MP anyone?)
The choice of the best lenses in the world (75/2 Summicron, anyone?)
Superb quality (even a Zorkii 4K and Jupiter 8 beats most zooms)
No battery dependency (OK, buy an M7 or R2A/R3A but don't expect any sympathy...)
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances,.com)
Richard Black
07-22-2005, 14:26
I find this bit quite interesting. As way of introduction, I drive manual transmission vehicles exclusively, ride bicycles as often as possible, and have only three battery-dependent cameras. Aging makes focusing quickly on rapidly moving grandchildren quite difficult. When not taking photos of the boys, I will be using Fuji GS645, the folder, Bessa R with a variety of lenses, Mir (ditto), Leica IIIa, Isolette, C330f, Rolleiflex, Yashica 124, you get the picture, pun not intended, and a Minolta X370 and a Zenit 412DX. Now why, the feel of the mechanics, the Leica is smooth. The comfort of a system that works well. The digital I own is OK, but it does not satisfy the experience that these mechanical marvel provide. The history of these cameras add to the charm as well as the photos. Not just mine but look at the gallery here, AMAZING GROUP OF PHOTOGS!!!
simonankor
07-22-2005, 15:15
All of the reasons listed above. And one of the most fun ways of explaining it to digi-heads... you can't get a digital camera built this well with interchangeable lenses for under $500.
As this is in the Contax G group, I have to chime in again :-)
I shoot semi auto with my Contax G2 and G1 as with my 89 year old 9mm DWM Pistole 08. I like the AF, it works for me most of the time, more often than MF on my Contax SLR and the Kiev and Zorki.
I have a compound bow made from magnesium, bone and wood which I haven't used since 1989 as well as the Savage rifle with a .22 wmr and a 16/70 barrel, just like the Rolleiflex :-)
Actualy I like autoexposure and autofocus, one of the reasons to get the G2 was to add AF to my arsenal without compromising on size. It isn't so much smaller than my 167MT SLR and if there were a digital body for my G lenses, I'd buy it.
Since the stone age humans believe that, for example, by using a bear fur they not only protected themselves from cold, but acquired some of the bear's features. That's the main idea of modern marketing propaganda.
By using classical old cameras I feel more connected to ''true" photography, the same as by using the newest digital plastic, consumers feel as an integral part of the ongoing digital-technological revolution.
Is it all a question of feelings ? Not at all. Photography and many of its masters have allways been at the cutting edge of technological advance. Digital is progress, and much of it is still hidden from us by military use. I do not own any digital camera just for the issue of price/convenience, as I am no pro, in need of immediate results for the crazy market.
Cheers,
Ruben
I hope you are not referring to me. I thought that was the principle this country was founded on. I am not a sheep and do not follow the flock. This will get you run over a cliff
I'm sorry, I thought everyone on the planet had seen "The Princess Bride". The whole movie is rather tongue in cheek. I was joking that many of us, probably myself included, do it just to be different, whatever reasons we may tell others (and ourselves). The actual quote is "You have an overdeveloped sense of vengeance, and it's going to get you in trouble one of these days", said by the six fingered man (Count Ruegen) before he begins the fight with Inigo. (Inigo wins). I highly recommend seing the movie - but dont watch it by yourself the first time - you need friends to watch this one. Think Monty Python suitable for the whole family. It's probably one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.
XAos, "To be different" it may be.......but that could be because the masses images don't satisfy our desire in either capturing or viewing the final image. Sometime traveling the road less traveled will get us to our desired goals. Doing something that has been time tested and proven even if it is unique or different by todays standards will still end up with the time tested results.
Honestly, I like the process/journey as much or more than the outcome/destination. I recently read a bit about a photographer from the area where I grew up, Russell Cothren (http://libinfo.uark.edu/info/artexhibit.asp#cothren). He made an interesting assessment of his work that I think resonates with many of us here. “You look and see a picture. I look and see a memory… As an artist, my muse is about exploring my land and its people,” says Cothren. “My photographs are postcards of the experience.” For me, the process is as much a part of the experience and memory as is the subject.
(1) No bats
(2) Unique quality of pictures
(3) User control
(4) A myriad of alternatives
(5) They're cheap
(6) No plastic
(7) I like shooting cameras that are at least my age
(8) And ahh shucks ~ I just like lookin' at the little rascals!
I think the fact that I’m fifty pretty well explains a lot of it. But from many age groups, I’m seeing more kindred spirits here. When bass boats got bigger and faster with sonar and GPS - I bought a fly rod and went lookin’ for a creek. When multi-cylinder plastic Japanese crotch-rocket motorcycles flooded the streets – I bought a Norton. When rock turned to disco I bought country. When country turned to rock I bought bluegrass.
I refuse to eat with those danged little plastic spoons with teeth and don’t even try to serve me coffee in a Styrofoam anything. I want a heavy mug. I drink Starbucks with friends, but use Folgers at home. I prefer to dine at eateries where waitresses bring real plates to your table; I don’t like standing at a trough waiting for my paper feedbag. I like Coke from a glass bottle, old books and my Bible has a leather cover – not “pleather.” I guess the further down the road I get, the more I want to slow down, look around and enjoy the journey.
Yep, I shoot 35mm RFs because, like I tell my granddaughters, “I’m fifty and like being fifty and acting fifty. Deal with it.”
CVBLZ4, I can definitely identify with your post...... ;) The less traveled road is my preferred route as well.
Roger Hicks
07-23-2005, 12:20
Starbucks with FRIENDS? What do you drink with your ENEMIES?
Cheers,
Roger
back alley
07-23-2005, 12:44
cvblz4.84765344 :)
i'm with ya except for the coffee you drink.
folgers & starbucks! eeewwww....
send me your address and i'll send ya some 'nabob full city dark', my favourite blend.
good canadian coffee maker that 'nabob' is.
joe
ErnestoJL
07-23-2005, 13:35
I feel like Byuphoto and some other guys in this thread:
I still use some old manual or auto winding wristwatches, (Seiko, Citizen, Gladiador, Baume & Mercier, Vostok, etc), still shoot with the same auto handgun which is also 65 y.o. still love mechanical wall clocks...those machines were made to last... they are not disposable plastic gadgets like the wonders we have today, made only to last a mere 4 or 5 years....
Besides, I love and I´m aimed to have everything under my own control....I do not adhere to fully auto cameras... just because a perfectly (?) exposed and focused picture is not allways what I want... then the small error is what makes it almost perfect (at least for me).
I´ve been shooting with several SLRs and TLRs for the past 30 years, but at last I found , that the only camera that gives me the possibility to make pictures the way I want is an RF.
Another fact I have to take care of is that almost 95% of my pictures were shoot through a normal lens...extreme tele and/or macro is beyond an RF ... then comes the SLR.
I know that digital is here to stay, but it will take some more time to get the same we have today with good film cameras, in the digital universe.
Wayne R. Scott
07-23-2005, 13:56
The reason I shoot 35mm rangefinders is because they don't make 38mm rangefinders.
Wayne
Roger Hicks
07-23-2005, 14:09
Dear Wayne,
Ah, I think you have not tried some of the Kievs with the REALLY bad quality control...
And of course if you want a magnum there's always 70mm.
Cheers,
Roger
Byuphoto
07-23-2005, 14:49
CBLZ4 wrote: I prefer to dine at eateries where waitresses bring real plates to your table; I don’t like standing at a trough waiting for my paper feedbag. I like Coke from a glass bottle, old books and my Bible has a leather cover – not “pleather.” I guess the further down the road I get, the more I want to slow down, look around and enjoy the journey.
Here, here. I could not have said it better.
Joe wrote:send me your address and i'll send ya some 'nabob full city dark', my favourite blend.
good canadian coffee maker that 'nabob' is.
Send me your address and I will send you some Community Dark roast. Of the smell of chicory in the morning.
One sip and you are fully awake, one cup and you are up all day, one pot and you will never blink again ;-)
Byuphoto
07-23-2005, 14:58
I'm sorry, I thought everyone on the planet had seen "The Princess Bride". :bang:
No problem. But as far as movies if it does not star Tom Selleck, Sam Elliot, Mel Gibson or Tommie Lee Jones I don't even consider it. Since the era of the great Western matinees wnet out :mad: there are only a hand full of movies I have seen. The best are, IMHO, Quigley down Under, The Sacketts, TR, Lonesome Dove, The last of the Mohicans The Patriot and Braveheart. As you can see I don't do comedy ;)
Richard Black
07-23-2005, 15:26
I might suggest Open Range with Kevin Costner and Robert Duval. It is from the old school westerns. Has any of you tried the pinon coffee from the Owl Cafe in Albuquerque? It may not knock your socks off, but it is one fine cuppa! (I guess this is a different group)
back alley
07-23-2005, 15:30
Send me your address and I will send you some Community Dark roast. Of the smell of chicory in the morning.
One sip and you are fully awake, one cup and you are up all day, one pot and you will never blink again ;-)
sounds delicious & scarey at the same time.
joe
Byuphoto
07-23-2005, 16:02
I might suggest Open Range with Kevin Costner and Robert Duval. It is from the old school westerns. Has any of you tried the pinon coffee from the Owl Cafe in Albuquerque? It may not knock your socks off, but it is one fine cuppa! (I guess this is a different group)
Saw it not bad but could have been better without Costner. Never did care for him just like SavingPrivate Ryan would have been better without Tom hanks. he should stick to comedy ;)
Hicks wrote: "Starbucks with FRIENDS? What do you drink with your ENEMIES?"
Ha!! Guess I’ve outlived my enemies. "Starbucks with friends" means "they're buyin'!" But hey, I like Starbucks okay. I'll tell ya though, byuphoto, Starbucks and Folgers may be pretty rank, but if you ever see me drinking anything that ends with letters "c-c-i-n-o" or has an apostrophe at the end of it, just go ahead and use that Sharps on me and put me out of my misery.
I grew up drinking Folgers, the poor folks coffee I guess. My Dad started me on it when I was about five, brewed in a steel pot called “The Percolator,” not “Mr. Whatever” that’s sifted through some paper something. (The same Dad that told me all my life about the time he left his Leica in the back seat of a Yokohama taxi after the Big War. "Kicked myself a thousand times over that one.")
And thanks for all the offers of "the good stuff," but your grand beans would pretty much be wasted on me. The truth of the matter is, my brain cells that run my taste buds didn’t survive the 70’s anyway. When it comes to flavor, I'm up Juan Valdez's mountain without a donkey. So Starbucks or Shineola, it all tastes about the same to me.
back alley
07-23-2005, 20:15
just for the record, nabob coffee is from the supermarket, it's not a 'premium' coffee at all.
i just like the flavour.
joe
Byuphoto
07-23-2005, 20:27
Between the coffee, Bikes and cameras here and the guns and cameras on the what else turns us on thread, I think we need a coffee, guns, bikes camera forum
Byuphoto
07-23-2005, 20:31
Community is not a premium either. It was a poormans coffee made here in New Orleans and sold statewide. Just has that deep south flavor. Chicory was used during the depression as a way to stretch the coffee. It was later sold as Stretcher during the war. When you ran out of coffee you boiled the stretcher. Till you have had stretcher coffee ran through an old sock you haven't lived(back in the '60's we had a very primitive hunting camp)
Fedzilla_Bob
07-23-2005, 20:34
My work as a designer has gone digital. My entertainment is nearly all digital. My Canon G2- digital, and fidgety (I still get some fun out of it).
I enjoy photography. But I missed the simplicity of loading a cassette of film, turning the focus and aperture rings and releasing the shutter. Beside having a very brief adventure at 16 with an Argus C3 (hated it), I had only SLRs to work with. I didn't know much about rangefinders.
Last winter I began researching rangefinders on the Web. I knew about Leicas, their reputation is grand. But then I learned about Canons, Yashicas and Others. I was very intreagued when I learned about cameras from the FSU. Jim Blassick's site was my downfall.
I have an SLR, an old Canon T70 that had barely been used by my wife. However, whenever I pick up a camera these days it is most likely a rangefinder.
I find them to be simple, lightweight and straight-forward in use. The oldies like my Argus C-44 and Canon QL17 are a treat. My Bessa R is very handy with it's metal shutter, built in meter and decent ergonomics.
:bang:
No problem. But as far as movies if it does not star Tom Selleck, Sam Elliot, Mel Gibson or Tommie Lee Jones I don't even consider it. Since the era of the great Western matinees wnet out :mad: there are only a hand full of movies I have seen. The best are, IMHO, Quigley down Under, The Sacketts, TR, Lonesome Dove, The last of the Mohicans The Patriot and Braveheart. As you can see I don't do comedy ;)
Lonesome Dove is the best western ever made -- for TV or as a motion picture. Kinda scary, however that it was written by the same guy who wrote "Terms of Endearment."
My second choice is "Jeramiah Johnson". Or the scene from "Gettysburg" near the beginning with Sam Elliott at the Union cavalry commander. I would give up all my Zorkis to have Sam Elliott's voice:)
Byuphoto, Lets make it a Camera, Bike, Coffee, Shooting forum (all that shoots doesn't go bang) ;)
Byuphoto, Lets make it a Camera, Bike, Coffee, Shooting forum (all that shoots doesn't go bang) ;)
JimDE - I'M IN!! :D
And Kiev4a,
"I would give up all my Zorkis to have Sam Elliott's voice"
Ya know, I just happen to have Sam Elliott's voice right here in a small [but deep] container. I think we can work out a trade. Send me your stuff first... :)
stephenprice
07-29-2005, 15:34
As for my Contax G2:
1. it has no reflex mirror
2. lenses are smaller
3. it is lighter than a typical SLR
4. therefore handholding is easier at slower speeds
5. therefore I can shoot in lower light conditions
6. or use a slower film
7. this means I can potentially enlarge more
8. it is less conspicuous
9. it still has: exposure compensation, bracketing, autofocus, auto/manual metering
10. it is well made
Despite all that a camera is only a means to an end - a tool.
Raucousimages
09-23-2005, 10:36
Maybe I just don't fit into the modern disposable world world. I collect and shoot classic firearms. My last .22 was made in the 1890's and works great. I gave my mint 62 lincoln to my father in law for christmas and I am still driving a 66 mustang that once belonged to his father. I am still wearing the Rolex I purchased in 84 when I was in the Marines. I can still use a slide rule. I do some printing with an Ellwood enlarger from the 50's. I dont have cable tv but I average $100.00 a month on books. It is no supprise that my cameras are Contax G2 and Leica rangefinders, Hasselblad 501 and Mamiya C330 Med. format and 4x5 and 8x10 LF. I may sound like a snob but I know that these things will last for another generation or two and that means somthing to me.
I think older gadgets alllow you put more of yourself into whatever you're doing. I own a '68 morris minor and a '74 MGB. I service them myself and do some repairs as well. I if car I running nicely I know that it is something I did and I derive more satisfaction from driving . The same with cameras if you have an all manual camera you know the pictures it takes are due to your skill. If you use an Eos on program with an image stabilising zoom you'll shoot great pictures but you not such a big part of the process -technology dehumanises the endevour lessens the amount the you matter. David Bailey said that Digital makes good photographers look average and average photographers look good.
I want my abilties -good bad or indifferent- to be reflected in my work that's why I use an RF camera
MacDaddy
09-23-2005, 13:49
Man, what about "Monte Walsh"? One of Selleck's best westerns, if you ask me! As for getting back on topic, all the reasons stated above are why I dropped digital and went (back) to RF cameras. After 27 years of computers, I want old fashioned quality in my photos and digital don't do it! That's why I do woodworking with hand tools and wooden bodied planes as well. Besides, THAT saves my hearing and gives me that tactile sense no power tool can give. Sorry, Norm Abrams!
dostacos
10-28-2005, 13:49
because I can!
I am in a Photography class that is mostly digital. They all tend to get a little slack jawed when I talk of pictures without batteries [Pentax S1a, and a meter that has no batteries] and they totally freak out when I mention rangefinders :D :dance:
dostacos
10-28-2005, 14:34
:bang:
No problem. But as far as movies if it does not star Tom Selleck, Sam Elliot, Mel Gibson or Tommie Lee Jones I don't even consider it. Since the era of the great Western matinees wnet out :mad: there are only a hand full of movies I have seen. The best are, IMHO, Quigley down Under, The Sacketts, TR, Lonesome Dove, The last of the Mohicans The Patriot and Braveheart. As you can see I don't do comedy ;)
I found Quigley Down Under VERY funny.... "don't kown where we're goin', but there is no sense in being later geitin' there" Matthew Quigley :eek:
Frank Granovski
10-29-2005, 00:12
Re: "why do you shoot a rangefinder 35mm in today's megapixel world of photography?"
Mainly because they're simple and sharp and no the slapping sound. I guess I grew up with them so nothing else matters except 3 other things. :cool:
Why do we drink fine wine, and smoke fine cigars in a world of Hi-C and Marlboro Ultra Lights? WHy do we buy McConells ice cream when we can buy fat free soy frozen dessert? Or for those of culinary virtues that avoid the vices, why do we still build fires with wood when we have electric heat and on-screen fireplaces? Why do we put our savings into that vintange Corvette when it sucks up so much gas, and Honda makes a cheap, low operating cost, fast little car? Because, we prefer the real thing. That's why.
Like implants. They seem like a good idea, until you find out thet are certainly not.
Pherdinand
10-29-2005, 03:28
Like implants.They seem like a good idea, until you find out thet are certainly not.
Huh? at this point i lost it...why are they not a good thing? I mean the best thing when the original component does not work properly anymore, and a CLA proves to be insufficient? My sister can walk again due to an implant in her knee. True, the first few months were horrible but things actually did make a u-turn and now it's better and better.
Pherdinand
10-29-2005, 03:29
By the way...film and gasoline can produce an interesting competition of which will resist longer:) or, film rangefinders and corvettes. What do you think?
RObert Budding
10-29-2005, 03:35
I'll take this as a "Why do you shoot film?" question because I mostly shoot medium format.
The answer, in a word, is workflow. I like to process my own B&W. And I've always loved seing an image magically appear on paper when I'm in the darkroom.
Besides, I use computers during the day. Why would I want to add endless hours in Photoshop to the 30+ hours of weekly screen time that I already log?
Robert
Huh? at this point i lost it...why are they not a good thing? I mean the best thing when the original component does not work properly anymore, and a CLA proves to be insufficient? My sister can walk again due to an implant in her knee. True, the first few months were horrible but things actually did make a u-turn and now it's better and better.
maybe he means a boob job
Richard Black
10-30-2005, 03:47
I think it has been said before in this thread but it bears repeating, "because we can". I don't defend my choices on cameras, cars, pipe tobacco, or anything else. I gave that up with adolesence.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.