View Full Version : Anyone in here give up on RF's?
I know this may seem blasphemous in light of the sign above the bar so to speak but since this is the corner where SLR users hang about I though I'd throw it out there.
Have you given up on RF's?
I've bought in to the mystique full bore (not just Leica mystique but RF as well) about how small and light and simple they are. How it's a camera that you can and that others have carry around the world to points unknown armed with a 35mm lens and bag of Trix and record anything you see. How they are the perfect camera for carrying daily and making a visual journal of your life. It all sounds awesome but it just doesn't seem to be working.....
I want to love it, I want it to become all that and more for me but it's not working.
I have two daughter's age 1 and 5 if I get close enough to fill the frame I run into the minimum focusing distance and it's blurry. I can't follow moving kids with it that well. I don't mind the loading (I actually prefer the M2 loading to M4 style) but it takes a while and it's tough to concentrate on it while looking after everyone.
I feel like I'm missing too many shots that I need to be getting and I know that the Leica glass is great but if I miss the "decisive moment" then I might as well have a dog turd in my hand for all the good it did me.
I guess I overdid it on the Red Dot Kool-Aid because I've gotten so knotted up about it I feel like if it's not a Leica it's junk and I know that's not true or that I'm somehow taking pictures of lesser value because I haven't done it "properly" like the great masters.
I've given it a good try and I'm not a bad or incompetent photographer by any means so I know how to take pictures and operate all varieties of cameras but enough important things have been missed with the Leicas and Bessas that I would have easily gotten with an SLR that my confidence is shaken and SWMBO has basically outlawed the M's (and film sort of) for anything of importance.
I just got today another M2 and mounted a recently purchased 35/2.8 Summaron on it and honestly it looks wonderful sitting on my desk but the thought of putting film in it makes me queasy.
I guess the fact that camera is getting in the way of my photography should tell me what the right answer is. I guess I still need some reassurance that holstering my N80 and saddling up doesn't constitute failure as a photographer.
Hell, I'm not so sure that film is even still something I should be messing with but that's another soul baring thread for another day.
Thoughts? Experiences? Comments? Advice? Mentorly wisdom?
Any or all of the above is sincerely appreciated.
Jim
I alternate between being convinced I'm really an SLR shooter and then maybe not ... constantly. :bang: :p
I think you just have to accept the fact that there are horses for courses and use whatever feels right on the day. I just did a job photographing a bunch of computer geeks doing their thing over a forty eight hour period in a very dark gallery ... it was purely available light so an SLR wasn't an option IMO. I was using Tri-X pushed a stop and an f1.5 lens at 1/30 sec ... I seldom missed focus and nearly all the shots are as sharp as they needed to be. An SLR (in my hands) would have really struggled in this environment!
The rangefinder has survived in a very comptetetive market for a good reason as far as I can see and I think it will be around for a while yet. For really close focus and totally accurate framing when it's required ... I'll use my OM-2 happily and leave the rangefinders at home.
Jim, it might not be for you and that's OK.
However, before you give up you might want to try a tele on your M2 or even better an M3. The stereotype that RFs and teles don't go together is just not true.
Brian Legge
10-19-2010, 16:47
Use the best tool for the job. Simple as that in my mind.
What traits would your ideal camera have? Once you sort that out, what camera is the closest to that?
Kids move fast and good moments occur in all light. Autofocus may be useful. Ability to take one photograph mid day and another closer to dusk could be useful - maybe something digital better suits your needs? Something you could carry all over and perhaps has zoom. Maybe a 4/3s camera would be a good fit? Or even a more basic digital point and shoot?
This says nothing about how good film or rangefinders are - only that there may be better fitting options for this particular need. If you enjoy using rangefinders in other situations, you can always hold on to one and save it for the times it better meets your needs.
Pickett Wilson
10-19-2010, 16:48
Any of my Canon DSLR's, with a Canon ST-E2 in the hotshoe, will nail focus 100 percent of the time in total darkness in the environment you were shooting in, Keith. Try that with an RF! :)
My 1DMkIV will focus track a football player running full tilt at me at 10 frames per second (unassisted) in light so bad I'm having to shoot at ISO 8000 and F 3.5.
Steve M.
10-19-2010, 16:54
Well, you always want the right camera for the job at hand. For sure a RF, or any camera for that matter, isn't an all purpose tool for every situation. I much prefer using an SLR for portraits. But all you need to do is use a Leica III w/ a 50 lens to appreciate what these cameras can do. Light, quiet, stealthy, and fantastic image quality.
Any of my Canon DSLR's, with a Canon ST-E2 in the hotshoe, will nail focus 100 percent of the time in total darkness in the environment you were shooting in, Keith. Try that with an RF! :)
My 1DMkIV will focus track a football player running full tilt at me at 10 frames per second (unassisted) in light so bad I'm having to shoot at ISO 8000 and F 3.5.
Big help if the job actually requires film Pickett. :D
How do these hot shoe things work ... do Nikon do this for their DSLRs?
jl-lb.ms
10-19-2010, 17:04
Not given up, but ... modulated. I've been mostly shooting an M8, just got a G1, and it really feels like the camera that fits me. Doubtful that I'll give up on the M8, but the reflex-like feel really fits. Maybe I just don't know what I like...
SolaresLarrave
10-19-2010, 17:23
I've had periods like that in which I simply give up SLRs. Then, come moments in which I give up rangefinders and shoot my SLRs. It's a matter of choosing the tool for the job. I can do close-ups with my son with my Nikons (except the Nikon S2), but when I want something like environmental portraits (he's playing in the living room, for instance), I'd rather use my RF cameras; the lenses are faster, which gives me an increased contrast between the types of light I have in his play area, and a shallower depth of field. Sure, I can photograph him with a Nikon and an AF 50mm f1.4, but then the camera is so big it's not funny.
In any case, if it doesn't give you pleasure but rather makes you feel guilt, then it's not meeting your needs. Who knows, maybe later you'll find the enjoyment.
The same thing happened to me with medium format. I honestly made an effort to like it... but I couldn't. Hence, the last line in my signature. Take care!
Maybe you just don't have the right rangefinder for you. When I first tried rangefinders out, I used a Kiev ( which I didn't like - I did like the focus wheel, however ) then a Canonet, which I liked so much that I jumped in and bought a Bessa. I had only used slrs ( and dslrs ) before that. I loved the small size and quiet of the Bessa compared to slrs.
As has already been said, if you don't like rangefinders, then you simply don't like them. There's nothing wrong with that. You may want to borrow another type of camera, though, before you feel that they're not for you. A Nikon/Contax type is very different in feel than a Leica or an Ikon or a Bessa.
I never had the desire for a Leica because I can't stand the way that you load the film! It may seem crazy to some, but it's something that I find extremely exasperating.
Maybe for your rangefinder requirments you should get an R3A or an Ikon if you can stretch the budget that far, use the excellent AE function on either of these cameras and concentrate purely on focusing and framing for a while.
Learning to use a rangefinder effectively is a little like learning to ride a unicycle IMO ... satisfying to master the skill but not everyone can be bothered.
I have a Leica system and a Canon system. Sometimes I get frustrated with the Leica because it seems like the Canon images just come out of the camera perfect just the way I like and the Leica M9 always requires fussing with the colors to get it the way I want.
I walked away from shooting RF's a while back because my interests at the time (sports, wildlife and macro) necessitated a DSLR. But when the itch returned to shoot street with B&W film using small lightweight gear, I bought back into it, first with the R3A and now with a ZI.
wgerrard
10-19-2010, 18:01
For me, the advantages of RF's come down to their size and superior ability to focus in lower light. (My "lower light" is 30 minutes after sunset, so I'm not pushing anything.) Neither of these attributes is, necessarily, limited to rangefinders.
The minimum focusing distance is a recurring annoyance, as is the inability to frame precisely.
The core of an RF camera is the rangefinding focusing mechanism, to which I am not at all wedded. I doubt my ability to focus as well as an autofocus camera. That is, when i use an RF and an autofocus camera in the same situation, I am usually impressed by the sharper focus of the autofocus.
Knowing how I do these things, at some point someone will bring to market a mirrorless digital that tickles my fancy and I will swap out a bunch of RF stuff and buy it, very likely keeping one RF for b&w.
Dave Jenkins
10-19-2010, 18:13
Jim, like you, I totally bought into the whole rangefinder mindset -- and still do, for other people. But I'm giving up on making it work for me. I gave it a much longer trial than you -- since 1969 or 70, in fact. I've bought and sold more Leicas and other rangefinders than I like to think about, and my last M3 will be appearing in the classifieds here very soon.
It has been very difficult for me to accept the fact that no matter how much I love the idea of shooting with rangefinders, I just can't focus them in any reasonable amount of time. Apparently, others can do it, and I do understand that a disproportionate number of the greatest photographers have used Leicas. But I just can't get on with them. I can manually focus an SLR much more quickly and accurately than I can a rangefinder.
In my heart I am a globe-trotting, Leica-toting, black & white documenterian of the human condition. In reality I am a DSLR, autofocus, zoom lens, color photographer. I'll just have to deal with it. __________________
I still use and will always use a system other than Leica.
I have a 3 year old and a 1.5 year old and I don't need to tell you that they are not camera friendly at all. There is just so much energy in them that being still even for a fraction of a second is not possible. I had a pretty good canon DSLR but the AF always used to lag behind the kids' actions and only occasionally I used to get an in-focus shot. I switched to manual focus on the DSLR but I can't describe how hard it was.
Now I use my M4 for the kids and its a breeze, I am getting more in-focus shots not because they have slowed down, but because manual focus is so easy on RFs. And I have gotten pretty good at guessing focus, I just dial the right distance on the lens, frame and shoot. I have tried this with SLR but it is much easier on the M4, I can't explain why :bang::bang:.
I have since sold the canon and bought a GF1, now I can use the leica glass on my digicam :rolleyes::rolleyes:. M4 still gets more use, but GF1 has its place and it gets used too.
Nikon Bob
10-19-2010, 18:30
Yea, I have basically given up on RFs for two reasons that are related . I have gone digital and nobody makes a halfway affordable M mount DRF. When they do I will be back in the RF game.
Bob
wlewisiii
10-19-2010, 18:38
Trying to use a wide close up on kids is often an exercise in futility, I agree. I've always done much better with my 50 & hyper focal scale focused. Makes a fast light P&S that does wonders for getting good shots of my son.
That said, I also use an SLR & LF. No need to only use one kind of camera.
well, i would say, keep the RF and buy an SLR.
I agree with what was said here, use the right tool (if thats possible, I have no children to feed and care... yet!)
the 35 cron asph I bought recently was from a father with little children who could not focus them on his M8 (it was already sold when asked about why changing the format)
He said: I just couldnt focus so fast the always moving kids (well there are techniques to compensate a little but it made sense for him to change format)
He got a D700 and is now happy... and I've got the best deal in the world near my city for a current production lens (wondering what the M8 would have gone for)
Since i first entered photography, i started with a consumer SLR, hated its focus system, went back a little in years and got a used and well cared MKIIn, AI Servo solved my focus on moving objects (birds)
So if it makes sense to you, try a pro body with AI servo, USM lens, L preferable (or the Nikon equivalent) and see what you get. Not the latest technology will save $ and maybe you can keep your beloved M
cheers
aperture64
10-19-2010, 19:04
RF is just another tool and doesn't replace the AF SLR. They don't work for everyone.
If rangefinders were meant to photograph fast moving objects, or your kids in this case, you would see sports sidelines filled with photographers using M9's instead of the fastest/latest SLR.
Go with what works for you and don't feel bad or look back on the decision.
heatherselkie
10-19-2010, 19:42
How many leicas do you have? What about trading the m system for the slr R system? I've been looking at the leica slr's ALOT lately and am smitten. They cost a bit less than Leica rangefinders. If you want to keep a toe in the rangefinder world sell some of your stuff and get a less precious voigtlander bessa or something to use some of your lenses on.
I like how I can get super sharp images with my rangefinders, but sometimes I get frustrated because the shots don't work out, are sometimes all blurry, cats and little people move faster than I can and if I want to get a shot of a bee or spider I can't do it. It's hard not to have camera lust, but I can't even afford $300 lenses while I could probably buy a whole film slr kit of some older top of the line nikon or canon for less than that.
If it doesn't work for you, don't worry about it. It's a learning experience.
My husband certainly can't figure out rangefinders.
BillBingham2
10-19-2010, 20:39
Jim,
I have to say look into using a P&S approach for the family. I used a Bessa L with a CV 25/4 and brightline finder. DOF is a wonderful tool that helps. I've never liked AF because of speed. I'm not really doing RFs right now, I know I will go back as time goes on. I move between tools as find the need to and don't worry about what is right, it's the journey, learning and having fun.
B2
I know this may seem blasphemous in light of the sign above the bar so to speak but since this is the corner where SLR users hang about I though I'd throw it out there.
Have you given up on RF's?
Don't worry. I think we have a significant share of users here who primarily use SLRs nowadays but who still hang out at the rangefinder forum. Nobody gets kicked out, at least not for that. ;)
I had pretty much the same experience as you did. I found myself doing more and more portraits, yet couldn't get the hang of rangefinders for everything over 50mm. Nowadays I use rangefinder cameras pretty much only with ultrawideangles, and I rarely use the rangefinder itself because focusing is so non-critical with them. At the moment it's the first time in seven years that I'm in the field with no rangefinder camera (currently I have here a Leica R5 and a Sigma DP1 digital compact).
I guess in the end it boils down to using what works best for you, and nobody will find anything wrong with that.
back alley
10-19-2010, 21:04
my first 'real' camera as a young man was a rangefinder...i have traveled back and forth between them and pro slrs for many years...but i am primarily an urban oriented photographer and much prefer rangefinders for that.
right now i have only rangefinders and a small micro4thirds camera, the panasonic g1 with a 'normal' af lens on it and a macro lens with adapter to play mr. close-up.
it's an ideal kit for me.
i plan on sticking with the rf approach...unless i change what i photograph.
I moved away from my rangefinder set up because ultimately, I was getting more 'keepers' with my current combination of a TLR and a point-and-shoot. It was a beautifully compact and simple set up which was a delight to see, use and hold, but at the end of the day, it is the images that count.
Like you I have fast moving kids, 20 months and 7 years. Minimum focus matters a lot to me. The 0.7m focus is tolerable, just about, but an SLR 50mm lens going to 0.45m or closer really makes a difference.
I don't really buy the "Leica glass is king" stuff. I've had great results from a Contax Aria, and from a Canon F1NAE (my SLR of choice now). The F1 is great because it makes enough noise that they often look round to see what Daddy just did, and thus shot 2 has them actually looking at me :D
I do still keep going back to the Leica though, although an M7 in my case. I'm happy with meterless RFs, but only really outdoors.
I sympathise with your challenge. I too have small kids, and using an RF is a bit of an ordeal at times. I do persevere however. When it comes to the kids I scale focus when there's enough light, meaning enough for an aperture of f4 or f5.6 (or more if possible). I then work at a set distance to the subjects, limited by the depth of field. The more dof you are able to set up, the more leeway you have. When light is not available I still scale focus, but this time flash assisted, apertures as before. I still miss some, and you don't always get those "the eye closest to you in absolute focus" moments, but I find it works better than trying to focus om moving subjects.
Should they sit still for a moment I focus normally ;)
shadowfox
10-19-2010, 21:46
Jim,
Sometimes it depends on what your expectation is.
I actually cherish most of the blurred, grainy laughs and smiles (mostly her feet when she moved too fast) of my daughter taken with my RFs, TLR, and yes, folders :)
Don't sweat it. If you think you get more "memorables" and "keepers" with your SLR, then forget RF.
Here's a different point of view:
I like cameras as objects and I really appreciate fine mechanical devices, Rangefinders or SLR's. So first I pick the camera I want to play with and then take the pictures that lend themselves to the camera at hand. Sometimes it is one of my M's, sometimes the R7, sometimes the F2AS or the Nikkormats. Same thing with the lens I grab that day from a modest arsenal. If I miss a shot, so what. I even have a few very nice old Voigtlanders - Vito B, Vito II, and Vitoret - that look and work like new and are great to play with. It's a hobby for me. I don't get paid for any of it, I only need to please myself, and if I get a good shot or two, I am a happy camper. I suffer no delusions of being an artist, and I am not trying to communicate a thing. Just having fun with cool gear. I'll never sell any of it and I will probably never acquire any more. Got enough to last the rest of my life.
vicop408
10-19-2010, 21:59
I have one 3-year old and another one on the way. Used to have a Canon 5DMkII. I found myself machine-gun shooting and sorting through tens of photos of the same thing. It just lends itself to that and I hated it. I wanted to slow down. So, I sold the Canon and got an M9. I wanted to try film so I also got an M6. I must have taken the M9 about 4 or 5 times and the M6 countless of times. If I can only take one camera with me I always choose the M6.
My daughter hates getting her picture taken. Every time she sees me approaching with a camera she runs away. I do get enough keepers that I don't think I will ever get back to SLRs as my primary camera. I did practice a lot to get to where I'm at. Initially, focusing was frustrating for me, but it's second nature for me now.
jsrockit
10-20-2010, 04:40
I've given up on SLRs.
Like what Ezzie said - for kids, stop down, zone focus, use a flash.
I started a similar thread several months ago. I have son who is just over 3 yrs and a 10 month old daughter. I found it very frustrating that I couldn't get in as close as I'd like. Almost gave up on the RF idea.
When my son was born I had stacks of time so took thousands of RAW files on my D200 and then D3, had time to process them and get lots of prints. When our daughter came along...time you're joking. I'm importing files from August as I type this. In the mean time I've had back half a dozen rolls of Kodak E100G slide film.
That doesn't answer the question but its something to bear in mind for those expecting another.
I still have my FM3A and a 50mm & 135mm Nikkor and keep thinking about selling it but then as much as I have come to love my M6TTL if I sold it and that Leica glass, just think what I could by from Zeiss for the FM3A. The thought of getting in to 25cm on a wide Zeiss is really appealling, not the kids, too quick now but general stuff. Yet looking back through my negs and slides I never really got that close often. Maybe it's the thought that if I wanted that option its a non-starter. At least with my Nikon the choice is there. As for running two systems, forget it, it gets expensive running one properly.
My focusing is quick and accurate now, although no kids ever out smarted my beloved F5 sold to buy the M6TTL or out ran the D3.
I now have a 90mm Elmarit and it does let you 'get closer', but thats not the point is it. Anyway the point comes when the kids wont do as they're told to have their photo taken so forget close-up work. There has been many a time I've said (out of frustration) to my 3 yr old son "You're doing this on purpose to annoy me" - through gritted teeth. There maybe a solution - he loves to look through the finder and press the button on the M6TTL to take a picture of his little sister (I know its wasted as she is quick), he thinks its great and knows its a Leica so now instaed of saying 'Cheese' - horrible , he says "Leica" in response to "Whats Daddies camera?". The shutter is that instantaneous its almost a dead-cert.
OH yes, thats alot more keepers on my film as I don't shoot billions of the same only a split second apart.
Phew!
Steve.
PS. I LOVE the feel of the Leica when I use it and the FM3A just feels clunky and slow now (a swinging mirror can make the difference I've learnt).
sojournerphoto
10-20-2010, 05:20
There's nothing wrong with prferring slrs to rf's. I use both, though the rf has current ascendancy or what I'm doing - usually candid portraits indoors in lowish light. My dslr is too big and noisy to make that fun, though it's perfectly capable.
The OP sounds like he'd benefit from a dslr with fast af - they're perfect for the task at hand. Depending on budget a Canon 7D might fit the ill.
Mike
Range finders are great, but for moving subjects, you can do better. Maybe use the N80 for the kids, range finders for what ever else you shoot.
noimmunity
10-20-2010, 05:55
It's always helped me in family photo situations being able to see well outside of the framelines, as RFs allow.
But fast moving kids are difficult.
I wouldn't even think of using a big SLR in those situations. Too obtrusive.
Maybe a Ricoh P&S with snap mode is the way to go.
mackigator
10-20-2010, 05:57
Regarding the OP: flash. I like this line of thought because it frees you from the tyranny of expensive glass and limited DOF, regardless of system. I'd experiment with a small hotshoe'd digital (G12 or LX5 or similar, assuming you don't have a DSLR lying around) running an off camera light, either optically triggered or via radio triggers. But then I'd move back to my film once I had confidence in my light setup. And I'd shoot an aperture priority body.
Here's another shooting family with his light dialed in: Furrukh Khan http://www.flickr.com/photos/furrukh/with/3672279576/
Frank Petronio
10-20-2010, 06:14
In terms of hitting focus and exposure then a Canikon semi-pro DSLR with a shoe-mount flash will deliver the highest percentage of technically good shots for young family documentation. Think of what most successful wedding photographers use -- an over-powering flash, a big viewfinder, a fast zoom.
But why do your family photos need to be so perfect?
Choose a camera that is a pleasure for you to use and carry.
Personally I really like using the lowly cheap Pany G1 w the small 20mm. It's not perfect -- it's too damn small and the knobs move too easily -- but thanks to the EVF, I don't need my reading glasses to adjust the damn thing. I process the noisy files to within an inch of their life in ACR and all is good.
I even do family photos, don't tell anyone though:
http://frankpetronio.blogspot.com/
I admit I love fondling Leicas. But I hate scanning and editing 35mm, and compared to the results I get from larger format film, I don't see the point of using 35mm. The best answer I've found is to buy an interesting old Leica, perhaps an old LTM w an Elmar, maybe even something broken. Put it on a shelf, next to the other brickabrack. Take it off the shelf and play with it when you feel in the mood. Shoot a roll of film if you feel wild and crazy. Put it back on the shelf.
Like an old bottle of scotch, military medals, your Father's 1966 Playboys, it's good to have a few mementos and you don't have to feel guilty about it.
A $300 beater Leica is probably a good investment if it keeps you from pissing big money on the fantasy of having an M-system that you don't need or even use effectively.
kermaier
10-20-2010, 06:35
I too have young children, ages 7, 6 and 2.
When the first was born, I was shooting with Canon F-1N and A-1 bodies and a mess of fast primes. It was sometimes difficult for manual focus and metering to keep up with a baby, but overall it was great -- I did my own processing and darkroom printing, and I have boxes of nice 8x10 fiber prints.
When the second was born, the oldest was only 13 months. It was about year before, with much tearing of hair and rending of garments, I accepted the brutal reality that I wasn't going to have the time for film processing/printing for at least a decade. So I got a digital P&S, a Canon SD550, which possessed the critical attribute of having the quickest shutter response time of any camera in its class at the time that the salesman at B&H was willing to lay out on the counter in front of me. I spent 2 years in camera purgatory: Crappy viewfinder; AF lag that forced me to pre-focus most shots anyway; tiny, fiddly controls; chimping mode that left the camera unready to take the next shot. I was getting enough keepers, but I was beginning to lose my joy in photography.
Then, about 2-3 years ago, I finally decided to get a good DSLR and try to revive my spirit. I'd settled on a Canon 5D, but just before I pulled the trigger I learned of the existence of the Epson R-D1 -- and I took a leap of hope. This camera has been almost perfect for me: Big, bright 1:1 viewfinder; very fast shutter response; has that manual focus, that film camera feel that makes me smile (even has a film advance lever to cock the shutter, and you can flip the screen around to hide it if you don't chimp); Leica M mount lenses; 1.5x sensor crop factor, but that's OK for now. It turns out that 0.7m is usually close enough, and zone-focusing with a 28mm or 35mm lens is also usually good enough for moving targets. I get lots of keepers, and 6 megapixels turns out to be good enough for 8x10 prints. And the ISO 1600 performance in B&W mode produces a film-grain look like pushed Tri-X.
However, as the kids grow and become more active, I'm beginning to think that some quick AF might be the ticket to more keepers. I may yet buy a Canon 5D or 7D, or maybe a Panasonic GF1 so I can continue to use all my M and LTM lenses (and even revive my Canon FD lenses). But I think I'm going to wait for the Fujifilm X100 to come out next year, and see if that's the perfect marriage of AF and RF. I'd probably keep it as a second camera, to bring along when I'm not likely to have the time for MF, and continue to use the R-D1 for most of my pleasure shooting. Maybe you could do the same alongside your M6.
Bottom line is, you have to find the gear that both gives you the results you want and the pleasure in shooting you need. I felt sick giving up my beloved Canon FD gear and B&W film, but it had to be done and I'm better for the transition.
::Ari
In terms of hitting focus and exposure then a Canikon semi-pro DSLR with a shoe-mount flash will deliver the highest percentage of technically good shots for young family documentation. Think of what most successful wedding photographers use -- an over-powering flash, a big viewfinder, a fast zoom.
But why do your family photos need to be so perfect?
Choose a camera that is a pleasure for you to use and carry.
Personally I really like using the lowly cheap Pany G1 w the small 20mm. It's not perfect -- it's too damn small and the knobs move too easily -- but thanks to the EVF, I don't need my reading glasses to adjust the damn thing. I process the noisy files to within an inch of their life in ACR and all is good.
I even do family photos, don't tell anyone though:
http://frankpetronio.blogspot.com/
I admit I love fondling Leicas. But I hate scanning and editing 35mm, and compared to the results I get from larger format film, I don't see the point of using 35mm. The best answer I've found is to buy an interesting old Leica, perhaps an old LTM w an Elmar, maybe even something broken. Put it on a shelf, next to the other brickabrack. Take it off the shelf and play with it when you feel in the mood. Shoot a roll of film if you feel wild and crazy. Put it back on the shelf.
Like an old bottle of scotch, military medals, your Father's 1966 Playboys, it's good to have a few mementos and you don't have to feel guilty about it.
A $300 beater Leica is probably a good investment if it keeps you from pissing big money on the fantasy of having an M-system that you don't need or even use effectively.
Hate scanning 35mm says the guy who just sold me an N80 :D
I've been down all of the roads you've laid out and am still on some of them.
I just unloaded the final Panny G1 that I had, I didn't like the noise level. I bought my wife a D5000 so we have a decent DSLR "in the family" but it's small and fiddly for my arthritic meathooks.
Beater Leica IIIa w/Collapsable Summar is on my desk at home as well. I think that it will serve the purpose you say in that I can still belong "to the club" and not have a ton of money tied up.
The money on the fantasy M has been pissed already, it's on my desk at home as well and it looks awesome but like I said above I don't know how long it'll be here. I love fondling them too but the images aren't proving out. Not too worried because I should be able to turn it around quickly.
I've thought of a TLR too but I'm back to the manual exposure, manual focus issues with that as well.
The only camera that's safe right now is my Linhof Kardan Color 45. LF has a defined place and doesn't enter into this discussion.
As far as the family photos being perfect, no they don't have to be but they've gotta be a more sure thing. My wife, being a scrapbooker and preserver of memories, is an unforgiving client/art director :angel:
I REALLY do appreciate all the advice and suggestions, I'm exploring all of them. I'm exploring several options right now:
-Digi P&S
-Leica CM
-Contax G
-DSLR
I'd look into a M8 but they are just crazy money....
I've fallen in and out various traps in the past, I've built up a classic Nikon F system and sold it, built up a Pentax M series SLR system and sold them, have been in and out of love with RF, and unfortunately I have collected and bought too much gear in the past as opposed to shooting images. As others have mentioned here I,m at that stage in my life where I know what I like to shoot and what is best to shoot it with. My kids are now 16 and 11 and don't move that fast, I tend to shoot them with a Pentax DSLR. Where I am at at th moment is that I'm obssesed with scale focus compacts, but I'm considering selling my Minox 35ML, Gl and Rollei 35S to fund a body for my Voigtlander 25/4 snapshot lens. I feel at prsent that my Planar 45/2 and my cv 25 are two lenses I could live with
If Nikon brought out a full-frame sensor FM3A (body size & real optical viewfinder) I'd probably flog the Leica stuff and get glass for both my manual Nikons.
Steve.
Well maybe keep the Leica and one lens - Doh!
bensyverson
10-20-2010, 08:46
I love rangefinders, but they are not kid cameras. You really want a modern SLR (film or digital, doesn't matter) with a fast autofocus lens. The best part is that they're simple enough for the kids to use, too! A lightweight SLR with a 50mm f/1.8 is light enough for an 18-24 month old to hold on their own (with supervision). Bring a lot of film -- they love the motor drive.
Of course you can get some good kid shots with any camera (just like you can technically shoot sports with a view camera), but an SLR is really the appropriate tool for this job.
It doesn't mean you've failed or are incompetent!
BillBingham2
10-20-2010, 09:31
Hate scanning 35mm says the guy who just sold me an N80 :D
....
Crazy thought look into the old Nikon slide copier attachment. A few years back folks used them and were quite happy. I never did so no first hand experience.
....I REALLY do appreciate all the advice and suggestions, I'm exploring all of them. I'm exploring several options right now:
-Digi P&S
-Leica CM
-Contax G
-DSLR
I'd look into a M8 but they are just crazy money....
What I carry these days is a GRD III and use it in snap/manual focus mode. The user interface is VERY GOOD and if you search the P&S forums here you will find a lot of other folks who love it. I have a black metal CV 28mm bright line finder on mine for the times I do not want to chimp (e.g. very cold weather to save power, existing darkness when I do nto want to be obvious).
Another option is to wait a bit and look at the Fuji X100. APS-C size sensor and interesting user interface. It might have a very intersting viewfinder hybrid of bright line and digital.
AF and little kids, unless you use some high end Nikon or Canon DSLRs and expensive glass is hit or miss with anything longer than a 35, at least IMHO.
B2 (;->
A $300 beater Leica is probably a good investment if it keeps you from pissing big money on the fantasy of having an M-system that you don't need or even use effectively.
Nicely said, Frank. I've been toying with the idea of a Barnack Leica because, first, I love the mechanical feel of the things and, second, because my 5D can't mount an uncoated Summar. :D
NickTrop
10-20-2010, 10:51
A rangefinder is probably the least effective photographic tool for shooting little kids who don't stay still for a second. Remember those who say they like the "slow, contemplative approach" of RF shooting? Little kids = wildlife photography, literally - birds or something... Hell, I take that back. Little ones set still less than birds. Go with a DSLR with a kit zoom and image stabilization. Hell, any ole soccer mom silver point-n-shoot digital would be better purposed than you Leica. In fact, that's what they're designed for - at least in part. I wouldn't sell the Leica though - you might appreciate it when they're a little older and will "let you" take a nice portrait of them (for an ice cream cone or somethin') with that great Leica glass.
Dave Wilkinson
10-20-2010, 10:55
Nicely said, Frank. I've been toying with the idea of a Barnack Leica because, first, I love the mechanical feel of the things and, second, because my 5D can't mount an uncoated Summar. :D neither can my Nikon - thank God! :D
Frank Petronio
10-20-2010, 11:21
I love the idea of Lecias but the hard truth is that I can almost shoot a medium format as quickly and then I have a real negative to work with. I have a few 35mm images that really seem to work and benefit from the virtue of being shot on 35mm film -- they're grainy and rough, they look like they're from the 1930s -- but the vast majority of the stuff I've shot with 35mm would probably be better done with a digital or larger format film camera. Heck even that noisy little Panasonic still makes a better image than film at ISO 1600. Right now I see using 35mm as a special effect, kind of a cool little crutch, like people who use Polaroids or Lomos.
I guess the real question is how useful is 35mm film? If you can live with it, then there are so many great options, from that cheap but very capable Nikon N80 I unloaded on you to the all-out Uber-Leica.
I love the idea of Lecias but the hard truth is that I can almost shoot a medium format as quickly and then I have a real negative to work with.
I guess the real question is how useful is 35mm film? If you can live with it, then there are so many great options, from that cheap but very capable Nikon N80 I unloaded on you to the all-out Uber-Leica.
That is a valid question.
What sort of MF camera do you have in mind?
Frank Petronio
10-20-2010, 12:05
Well I sort of settled into digital for kids, dogs, action, darkness, drunken partying, etc.
And larger film, like with a 4x5, for quieter moments, considered, posed portraits, landscapes, and good light. But medium format could substitute for 4x5 in a lot of the same situations....
I just find it easier to make a good scan on a cheap scanner with larger film than it is to attempt to make a decent scan on a cheap scanner from medium-sized film. If I had a CoolScan 9000 I would definitely shoot more medium format.
I think this is in part a question of using the right tool for the job. I think the best camera for little kids is a DSLR. Having said that, I have better luck with my M6 than I do with my FM2 or F3. I do fine with my N75. Trying MF or LF is an exercise in hair loss! :D
I'd actually list my Leica M6 TTL as the best film camera I have outside of the N75 for taking pictures of small kids.
Your choice of lens can make a huge difference on the speed of your focusing. I can focus my Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 lens almost as fast as my D300 with an AF lens. OTOH, it takes forever to focus my Soviet made Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 lens.
That makes sense on both counts. If your going to go to all the trouble of develop and scan might as well scan a 4x5.
I guess part of problem here too is admitting that digital is the best tool for the job at hand. I think this falls under the irrational attachment category as well.
Giving up the Leica dream and film. Sheesh....
If anyone needs me I'll be over in the corner dealing with a double paradigm shift.....
I think this is in part a question of using the right tool for the job. I think the best camera for little kids is a DSLR. Having said that, I have better luck with my M6 than I do with my FM2 or F3. I do fine with my N75. Trying MF or LF is an exercise in hair loss! :D
I'd actually list my Leica M6 TTL as the best film camera I have outside of the N75 for taking pictures of small kids.
Your choice of lens can make a huge difference on the speed of your focusing. I can focus my Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 lens almost as fast as my D300 with an AF lens. OTOH, it takes forever to focus my Soviet made Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 lens.
The N75 is a great camera. I shot one for a while and it lacked nothing. It's petty but I wish they came in black....
Jamie123
10-20-2010, 12:48
I just recently sold my Bessa III primarily for that reason. I find parallax extremely annoying as it somewhat defeats the purpose of composing carefully. Now I'm going back to a medium format SLR with ground glass focusing.
Jamie123
10-20-2010, 12:54
Well I sort of settled into digital for kids, dogs, action, darkness, drunken partying, etc.
And larger film, like with a 4x5, for quieter moments, considered, posed portraits, landscapes, and good light. But medium format could substitute for 4x5 in a lot of the same situations....
I just find it easier to make a good scan on a cheap scanner with larger film than it is to attempt to make a decent scan on a cheap scanner from medium-sized film. If I had a CoolScan 9000 I would definitely shoot more medium format.
I keep flirting with the idea of getting a 4x5 camera but reason tells me I should stick to medium format as I have a Nikon CS 9000. Not just that but film and processing costs would add up to about $9/sheet (c-41) which is quite pricey. Still, the slowness of LF cameras really appeals to me.
I appreciate your honesty, Jim. You're a few years ahead of me on the kids front, but I'll be there soon, too.
For me, I'm keeping my RF and using an EVIL camera for my digital needs. Grandparents and relatives want to see pics online ASAP, so the NEX-5 is good for that. Great in low light, takes adapted lenses when I feel like playing around, and AF is fast enough (for now, haha...). Hopefully next year Zeiss bring out a 35/1.4, which will be my prime prime! I like how compact this kit is, so I can always have it with me wherever I take the family. Plus I got an APO close-up lens that makes the system even more versatile for near-macro shots.
I use a swivel-tilt flash for shooting film with my RF indoors. My diffuser is a strip of Ikea clear shelf liner and a rubber band. All the ceilings and walls in my house are off-white, so bounced flash doesn't look bad at all. Flash sync at 1/125, zone focus, and essentially zero shutter lag.
izziebears
10-20-2010, 17:02
I made the switch back to SLR a few months ago. Found that I could get more bang for my buck by picking up a used Olympus om1n that came with a 50mm 1.4 and a 35mm-70mm zoom and was about the same size as my Bessa.
atlcruiser
10-20-2010, 19:40
I am stuck hard with RF cameras. I want simple, easy, smallish. I like the fussy aspects of Leicas. Also, I have no kids to worry about :)
I have a mamiya 645af. hands down I think it is about the best camera taking machine ever made. Fast to use, dead on AF, great meter, great glass, easy to use etc....It is also a TANK; heavy, hard to hold, difficult to use in the field...lots of downsides.
I just got a mamiya 7. It is quickly going to replace the 645af. it is a dream in size, glass, quality and easy of use. It is not perfect by any measure but it is crazy good :)
About 3 weeks ago I found my original OM-1n for about 1981. I half-assed restored it and started using it. Love the size, feel, speed and images. it is a SLR but the size of my M6. I carry both at once to confuse myself
I take pictures cuz i like taking pictures. My goal is to have fun........ If I could have more fun with a mac daddy nikon or canon digital monster machine I would go for it...not my thing but not a thing wrong with it.
Get the camera you want to use...not always the one you want to own :)
(I tell myself this all the time)
Oh yeah....looks liek I might be the pround new owner of a Calumet 4x5...answered an ad on craigslist and the guy was giving me a 4x5 enlarger then he pffered the camera mor eor less for free......no time.....gotta go scan :)
Just finally looked at the specs of the Fuji X100.....if it doesn't suck for some crazy design flaw no one foresaw it may be the answer for me.
Of course need to do something in the meantime.....
[quote=Brian Legge;1448057]Use the best tool for the job. Simple as that in my mind/quote]
This is indeed the sensible approach. I read somewhere that a good camera is one that you barely have to think about in use, and so doesn't get in your way while picture shooting. That said I often don't follow this advice because many RF's are just so darn much fun and I still haven't gotten over the novelty phase. When functionality does matter the most I reach for: 1) My Minolta XK when I feel I must have the best possible exposure and still get the shot fast, 2) one of several rangefinders when size, weight and useing slow shutter speeds become determining factors.
35mmdelux
10-21-2010, 17:18
Neverrrrr.
thawkins
11-18-2010, 15:02
I primarly use a D90. It is nothing more than a computer that takes very good pictures. The photographer in me cries out for control. I want to set the shutter speed, I want to set the f-stop, I want check the depth of field. I WANT TO BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!! So whenever I pick up the M3, a Retina IIa or QL17 I again feel like a photographer instead of a computer monitor. Long live film and mechanical cameras.
Brian Legge
11-18-2010, 15:13
A Nikon D90? ...did you try setting the D90 to manual? And I though it had DoF preview?
I'm not trying to evangelize digital here, but its possible to be relatively controlling over many digital cameras.
Jamie Pillers
11-21-2010, 19:52
Jim,
I know you posted this some time ago, but I just now ran across it. I've gone down exactly the same road as you regarding rangefinders. I can easily say that I could have written your post word for word. And I'd add one more issue... rangefinders viewfinders are a pain in the a** for glasses wearers. With the affordable Leicas and Bessas, you can never experience one of the key rangefinder benefits... seeing outside the frame! Not with the widest frame offered by the particular model. The only RFs I came across that gave me that pleasure were the Zeiss Ikon ZM and the Hexar RF. Maybe the Leicas newer than the M6 do that too, but that is WAY outside my wallet.
So I'm about to sell off the rangefinders... I'm tired of chasing the holy grail of RF. Too expensive and unsatisfying as a useful tool. And now that small digital gear has come so far, I think I'm ready. Good luck with your decisions and may they be painless. :-)
Jamie
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.