First time rangefinder buyer, digital or film????

[Dan1984]

Hi everyone,

I have posted in the Epsom RD1 forum as I am considering buying one. I currently have a canon 450d SLR. I really want a rangefinder and have been looking at the RD1 because I've never shot film.

I love the bessa r3a but I am concerned that I am going to spend a fortune on film and I've not much of an idea about processing and developing it myself.

Do you guys all develop and process your own film?

[ruby.monkey]

Black-and-white, yes; it's pretty straightforward and requires only a small investment in terms of equipment. Having said that I personally would go digital if most of my shooting was in colour.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Dan1984

Do you guys all develop and process your own film?

No. I send it out. Scanning is an enormous time investment and the learning curve and space requirements of a wet darkroom for making prints is simply not possible for many.

[jsrockit]

Film rangefinders are cheaper... it may be more sensible to try a cheap film rangefinder to make sure you actually like RF cameras.

[Jockos]

Yeah, why not get something like a cheap Canon Canonet before committing?

BW film and chemicals are cheap, color a bit more expensive, both are equally easy to develop at home (albeit a bit differently), no dark room required.

Scanning on the other hand is about as fun as eternally drowning in river Styx.
If you can make/borrow a darkroom however, the benefits of film will be much clearer. Nothing beats handing you mom a nice fiber print of her grandson.
Mothers love that ****!

[msbarnes]

Yeah, you can get a decent film rangefinder for <$50 (e.g. canonet, konica auto s2, etc.) to see if it suits your fancy.

[Austerby]

If film them factor in the cost of the home developing and scanning, plus the time to do these things. It'll be a steeper learning curve, certainly, but potentially a more involving and rewarding process.

Basic home developing kits are not too expensive - eg everything you need for £50 here http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/pat...kit-2562-p.asp

A home scanner such as an Epson V500 is less than £200.

[back alley]

the world is moving rapidly towards digital...what is the attraction of film for you?

[kshapero]

When I jumped back into using rangefinders in 2006 after a 20 year absence, I tried a lot of "cheapies". Then I tried a Voigtlander Bessa R3A with 40/1.4 and I was hooked. I would start with this or a R-D1 if digital is your thing.

[Range-rover]

I just got back into rangefinders myself, I picked up a Nikon S2 with a 35mm f2.5 lens,
I've been a Leica user for years, and have this now and I really like it, it uses film of
course, but later I would love to try a digital rangefinder. and the film issue it's like
records and turntables there be around for the specialized user who wants them.
if you can get digital try it.

Range

[ped]

Get the R-D1, try it, see if RF is for you.

THEN

Buy a film RF and try it - see if film is for you.


Two seperate areas that need investigating as such, I think.

ped

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you can afford it, try the R-D1. That way you can shoot without worrying about (film) development costs, you can learn the differences between SLR and RF -styles of shooting.

Then move to film. I think doing all of it may be too overwhelming, unless you're not the kind that freaks out very easily when your perception of things is challenged by facts.

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Then move to film. I think doing all of it may be too overwhelming, unless you're not the kind that freaks out very easily when your perception of things is challenged by facts.

What facts?

The fact that the RD-1 sucks, and that you could buy an older Japanese RF with a lens for 1/6 the price of the RD-1?

If there are other facts please LMK.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

If you can afford it, try the R-D1. That way you can shoot without worrying about (film) development costs,

Well, the difference between a R-D1 and a affordable film rangefinder would pay for several hundred rolls of film, even more so if we take into consideration that M-mount lenses that are normal to wide relative to the APS-size R-D1 (and perform well on its rather telecentric sensor) are far from cheap.

If cost is an issue, go film, by all means - by the time you have exposed 6000+ frames with something meaningful, you'll have realized that travel or other arrangement cost for photo ops usually is the most expensive factor in photography, and exceeds the price of any camera system, whether digital or film...

The R-D1 has the advantage of faster turnaround, which can help when learning. But it hardly is a budget solution.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

What facts?

The fact that the RD-1 sucks, and that you could buy an older Japanese RF with a lens for 1/6 the price of the RD-1?

If there are other facts please LMK.

that's pretty rude talk even for a jersey boy!
i've seen your stuff and you're a good shooter so maybe take another look at what the rd1 can produce before shooting off your trap about it sucking.

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by back alley

that's pretty rude talk even for a jersey boy!
i've seen your stuff and you're a good shooter so maybe take another look at what the rd1 can produce before shooting off your trap about it sucking.

Moderate if necessary.

[BobYIL]

Dan, you have a DSLR so you know what digital is.

How about buying that R2A with a 35/2.5 Skopar to start with a few rolls of film. Let a lab develop and scan them for you at the beginning. This will give you an idea of whether RF is for you or not...

If you liked it then:

- Sell your Canon and R2A to buy an R-D1, use your Skopar.. (Ignorable or no loss with the R3A)

- Sell your Canon only to buy an R-D1 to share the Skopar with the R2A, to reach the nirvana of RF by having two worlds

(In the second option, get yourself a developing kit and a scanner on the way to Heaven..)

[kshapero]

An R3A is not designed for a 35mm lens. 40mm is the limit and even that IMHO is pushing it especially if you are bespectacled.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by kshapero

An R3A is not designed for a 35mm lens. 40mm is the limit and even that IMHO is pushing it especially if you are bespectacled.

Wooops! Thanks Akiva.. (Edited..)

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by back alley

that's pretty rude talk even for a jersey boy!
i've seen your stuff and you're a good shooter so maybe take another look at what the rd1 can produce before shooting off your trap about it sucking.

Thanks for the compliment on my photos.

Maybe a bit harsh, but I am still curious what fact I missed.

A good photographer can take a good pic with any camera. For sure, certain families of camera are better suited to certain applications than others but I do agree 100% that one could take an excellent picture with an RD-1, just as people have taken excellent pictures with pretty much every other camera in history.

I just cant see why someone would buy an RD-1 today. Is there something that the RD-1 does that newer cameras do not? The only thing I can see is that the RD-1 has a real rangefinder, but is that worth the baggage in the sensor?

What does the $1000-1200 used selling price of the RD-1 buy you with any other digital camera? A lot more than 6mp. A lot more than ISO-400. More dynamic range. Less expensive *and* frequently sharper wide angle lenses. A current warranty. Lack of corner-color shift with short focal length lenses.

The RD-1 leaves a lot to be desired when so many newer cameras outperform it at the same pricepoint or even a lower pricepoint. So the newer cameras may not have a *real* rangefinder and may not be native M-mount, but with electronic viewfinder windows and M-mount-adapters who cares? The size and feel of the M4/3 and fuji cameras is very rangefinderesque, so why the RD-1?

[kanzlr]

got into rangefinders late in the game by means of a used M8.
nowadays I have five rangefinder cameras at home, but none of them digital...

so I would recommend a digital RF for the start, if you like it, upgrade to a film body *g*

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Thanks for the compliment on my photos.

Maybe a bit harsh, but I am still curious what fact I missed.

A good photographer can take a good pic with any camera. For sure, certain families of camera are better suited to certain applications than others but I do agree 100% that one could take an excellent picture with an RD-1, just as people have taken excellent pictures with pretty much every other camera in history.

I just cant see why someone would buy an RD-1 today. Is there something that the RD-1 does that newer cameras do not? The only thing I can see is that the RD-1 has a real rangefinder, but is that worth the baggage in the sensor?

What does the $1000-1200 used selling price of the RD-1 buy you with any other digital camera? A lot more than 6mp. A lot more than ISO-400. More dynamic range. Less expensive *and* frequently sharper wide angle lenses. A current warranty. Lack of corner-color shift with short focal length lenses.

The RD-1 leaves a lot to be desired when so many newer cameras outperform it at the same pricepoint or even a lower pricepoint. So the newer cameras may not have a *real* rangefinder and may not be native M-mount, but with electronic viewfinder windows and M-mount-adapters who cares? The size and feel of the M4/3 and fuji cameras is very rangefinderesque, so why the RD-1?

so much more erudite than 'it sucks'...thank you.

first, don't underestimate the appeal of a real rangefinder. i have been shooting for the past 40 years and have preferred the rangefinder throughout, so it is worth it to me.
i just sold a d90 and still have a d200, both fine cameras but much harder for me to get a good image from.
the nikon colour is just not the same (or as good) as the colour from the rd1.
as has been stated before from many, 6mp works for many of us.
i'm an amateur, don't print large and rarely sell prints...the rd1 works for me.

[luibargi]

I just bought a Kiev-4 RF with 2 lenses, paid 80€.
As you see it's very cheap to choose a film system.

[John Bragg]

I have never owned a digital rangefinder and have always used film. I can see the attraction of digital to those who know no different but a dabble with FSU Zorki 4K was enough to give me the rangefinder bug 15 years ago and I took the plunge and bought a Leica. Get a good cheapie and dabble with film at the same time. If you hate it you will have lost little but you may like it, and believe me rangefinders are infectious. Then decide whether to commit real money to either a digi or film rangefinder. Film is not so scary after all and it is surprising just how many folks brought up with digital eventually gravitate to a film system as well or even instead of. Good luck in your choice. There is no wrong choice just enjoy what you get.

[mfogiel]

If you shoot colour, then you should try to stick to digital, RF or whatever else. If you like to shoot B&W, then you might not even know it, but shooting film is still delivering superior results, and shooting film rangefinders is lots of fun. This is the first decision you have to take, then you can start consideing various options.