Ronny
Well-known
Absolutely not!
kain500
Newbie
great post dct.
no matter how much photography evolves with technology with stitched panos and increasing post production opportunities for the photog's minds eye;
framing for me is very much at the heart of still photography.
RF's provided better cognition of framing for me as well.
no matter how much photography evolves with technology with stitched panos and increasing post production opportunities for the photog's minds eye;
framing for me is very much at the heart of still photography.
RF's provided better cognition of framing for me as well.
myoptic
Member
I'll be blunt, if the camera has so much to do with it, then why is it that some of the worst photos I have ever seen have been taken with Leicas? Just because some dentist or wealthy collector can afford to buy the very best is no guarantee that they won't produce the utmost ****e. fwiw Edward Weston used crap cameras, as he was for the most part, quite poor. My contention is that the camera is a box and the important bits are the glass and the box. People like Weston became great because of their understanding of the medium and their tools, not because of rare elements in their lenses, or having come out of some factory where photographic angels ply their trade in perfect instruments.
steve kessel
steve kessel
I'd forgotten one could do that (tho one could do that with any camera but not in the same way)
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I don't think anyone denies you can take rotten pictures with any camera, so you don't really need to be 'blunt': you're merely stating the blindingly obvious.
Conversely, a good photographer will normally take his best pictures with the cameras he's happiest with, and which are suitable for the job in hand. Most of the stuff that Weston is best known for made no very great demands on equipment: just about any old LF camera can deliver more than adequate quality for shooting still lifes of peppers and shells, so in that sense, using 'crap cameras' (something of an overstatement, in any case) was completely irrelevant to his work.
But if you want to make reasonable size enlargements from tiny negatives, it's quite a good idea to have a precision camera with sharp lenses. Most sharp lenses, for the last 60 years or more) will have rare earth glasses. It doesn't need to be a Leica, but then, I don't think anyone said it did.
In other words, what are you actually saying?
Cheers,
R.
Rui Resende
Member
Well, i've seen crappy photos coming from leicas and pretty much every other camera brands, from nikon to cellphones. That's not my point. My point is that one has always to understand the limitations and possibilities of each camera, and choose it accordingly. And of course, there are personal sympathies, many times cameras with obvious limitations work for you and not for other people, etc. But camera Does matter, even if it is many times, or always, a matter of personal choices...
yes, so do i! this is no exclusive to leicas, but it does work with prime lenses. Since i decided to use mostly prime lenses, i have perfectly defined in my mind what a 28, 35, and 50 will cover in each situation (only rarely do i use anything longer). It's a really strong point, something i really appreciate being able to do...
malcD
Well-known
what is better --- sharp --- content --- b.w. --- colour --- subject --- or what YOU ARE HAPPY WITH --- with me it's the moment if I happen to catch IT
konicaman
konicaman
I can not completely agree wit h this. Once I had a T3 that was in need of a CLA. Every 3-4 frames the shutter would fire as soon as I had wound on. Some of the photos the camera took were actually a lot more interesting than mine
Robert Lai
Well-known
It's primarily what you're familiar with. I've shot with a Nikon F3 for over 25 years, so I know what to expect out of it, what I need to do in certain situations.
Yesterday, I tried to take pictures of my son with Santa Claus using a newly overhauled Zeiss Contessa. From film loading onwards (forgot about the resetting the film counter on the bottom), I flubbed it. I wasted 1/2 a roll of film before I reset the counter. When we got to Santa Claus, I ran out of film on a newly loaded roll. Needless to say, the wife was NOT amused.
A few more rolls for practice will get my mind and hands learning the steps required to work this camera.
Yesterday, I tried to take pictures of my son with Santa Claus using a newly overhauled Zeiss Contessa. From film loading onwards (forgot about the resetting the film counter on the bottom), I flubbed it. I wasted 1/2 a roll of film before I reset the counter. When we got to Santa Claus, I ran out of film on a newly loaded roll. Needless to say, the wife was NOT amused.
A few more rolls for practice will get my mind and hands learning the steps required to work this camera.
damien.murphy
Damien
In my mind, the camera assists you in getting the shot, and the lens decides the ultimate technical quality of that shot, so yes, if a rangefinder is the camera a person works best with, then yes, a rangefinder takes better pictures (over other cameras), for that person.
myoptic
Member
What I AM saying is that there Is No Truth to the notion that a RF takes better photos.
To clarify, RF cameras are better at some types of photography, but are seldom used for birding, sports, insect, macro and astro photography..for many good reasons.
Yes, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon made excellent rangefinders and many great lenses to go with them. I'll acknowledge a great fondness for RFs and an appreciation for the mystique of several makes, but Lartigue, Mary Ellen Mark and Leibovitz aside, there are very few great photogs known as primarily RF shooters. Many of the well known ones are equally well known as Blad or Rolleiflex shooters, etc.
So I would say no, an RF does not take 'better' photos, but may certainly be more useful in certain settings and have notable advantages over LF or SLR in places where quiet must be maintained, or where unobtrusive portability is a key issue.
I don't think I have ever held a camera that was as well made as the M3 DS I once had, well, except maybe an Alpa, but it did not have me become a better shooter nor were the images I took with it better than what I took with my OM-1 at the time. I actually took much better pix with my Razzledog 4x5, which I loved, but again, I took better 4x5 pix using my groundglass.
And my aside about the rare earth glass was actually about Heliar lenses and the like, which are highly sought after for mostly dubious reasons, much like the 0.95 Canon lens, and some Nokton types.
Hopefully there is no doubt about what I was trying to say this time.
Pablito
coco frío
Last night I went through probably thousands of photos I have taken over the past 6 years. I shoot with rangefinders, SLR's and digital and the majority of my favorites were taken with RF's. And my absolute best shots were fairly evenly spread between Leicas, Zeiss Ikons and Voigtlanders. Now granted this is my own judgement on things but I was amazed by the results of my findings. The other interesting fact was that I was able to easily remember which rig I used for just about every photo.
Three cheers for RF's.
At best it means YOU take better pictures with your RF cameras. Whatever "better" is.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Well, yes. See my post 7, in response to the header to the OP's question:
No.
Cheers,
R.
But that has nothing to do with your side-swipes at Leicas, dentists, or rare earth glasses, and even less to do with still lifes taken with LF cameras.
Sorry to be contrarian, but you seemed in your earlier post to be surprisingly aggressive in attacking viewpoints that no-one postulated.
Cheers,
R.