xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Bill Pierce said:
Yes the M8 is the only game in town except for the defunked Epson.
If you are not ready to plunk down 5 G's so you can use all your M mount lenses, the only hope we have that might be half realistic is a G9 type camera with a decent viewfinder and a fixed 40mm equivalent lens of F 2 or so, for around 600 dollars.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
For a decent-size sensor, which I want, you have dSLRs (small ones like the Oly 420 or Pentax K100D with small primes look interesting if you want a special-purpose camera, especially the latter with built-in anti-shake), the RD-1 or M8. None quite suit me (esp the cost of the latter two), so I stick with film for that purpose right now.
...Mike
...Mike
Dogman
Mentor
Too bad there's no real small digital camera equivalent of the T3, Minilux, Rollei 35, Oly XA or even the Stylus Epic.
I don't keep up with equipment availability very much but I was thinking of buying a small digital recently. Something pocketable with a real viewfinder (I can't tell crap from "live view" LCD screens) and a reasonably fast prime lens and a reasonable amount of image quality. Something that I could also give the wife to use when she wants pictures I'm not interested in doing. You know what I found--there ain't none.
If I wear my old Banana Republic vest, I can carry an M6 in one of the pockets. Otherwise it's an XA or Sylus Epic.
I don't keep up with equipment availability very much but I was thinking of buying a small digital recently. Something pocketable with a real viewfinder (I can't tell crap from "live view" LCD screens) and a reasonably fast prime lens and a reasonable amount of image quality. Something that I could also give the wife to use when she wants pictures I'm not interested in doing. You know what I found--there ain't none.
If I wear my old Banana Republic vest, I can carry an M6 in one of the pockets. Otherwise it's an XA or Sylus Epic.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
My Nikon DSLR_s are point and push. You do get to select a focus area or if you insist - focus manually using the electronic green dot - which Nikon calls a rangefinder.
You are in effect shooting by wire. Point the heavily computerized camera at your subject, set your aperture or shutter speed, compose, push the button and leave the rest to the camera.
It's still photography, abeit with millions of lines of mathematical code - which are ones and zeros.
Just stay away from those EVF_s - because I can't tell if you chimping or taking an exposure.
You are in effect shooting by wire. Point the heavily computerized camera at your subject, set your aperture or shutter speed, compose, push the button and leave the rest to the camera.
It's still photography, abeit with millions of lines of mathematical code - which are ones and zeros.
Just stay away from those EVF_s - because I can't tell if you chimping or taking an exposure.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
ampguy said:
That walk-through is far away from the central business district, which is quite built up and has, yes, several insurance buildings. The one you're probably thinking of is the long-standing flagship building on the Mutual Of Omaha campus, surrounding 33rd. St.
There's some of Omaha's urban core on these pages:
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/02/look-through-any-window.html
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/01/city-streets.html
Of course there's some Chicago, Lincoln, and maybe some others in there too.
And you will notice the absolute zero quantity of chain Mexican places there. None of the Taco Alpo type places would ever make it in that district!
Yes, this area is predominately Hispanic now. It's always been ethnic, but from the mid 1800s until the mid 1900s was mostly middle-European, Czech, Polish, German, Lithuanian, etc. It seems like the Gen-X and later middle-Europeans fled to the 'burbs or out of the area.
This area is one of the still-vibrant urban business neighborhoods of old construction which is well-maintained and still thriving. It's a part of Omaha that seldom gets any exposure, even though it's directly southwest of the area of Rosenblatt Stadium and the Zoo.
There are a lot of Omaha history books out there. The one I recently got to read was Streetcars Of Omaha and Council Bluffs by Richard Orr, which tells the story of Omaha's once extensive but totally demolished trolley system.
Many of the books on Omaha are not complimentary, they focus on things like dirty politics, hard times, civil unrest and such.
One book was prefaced with a poem about early Omaha having lines such as "... where all the steamers are aground and all the shantys are afloat" and "... now that you have found it, for God's sake go around it!"Thanks, and sorry for the digression.
To get back on topic, and I did post some of this in the latest FvD thread here, this was also kind of an eye-opener, in that I became (more) aware that to many, particularly the younger DSLR fans, the (film) Point And Push (is that what we're calling them now?) is not seen as a viable tool for semi-serious photography.
On one of the local (non-photography) boards here, one guy complimented me on the photos, not knowing what I used to take them. He then asked what I used and I told him an Olympus P&S (P&P?). He then said that if he had known "that was all I had", he would have loaned me his DSLR. LOL, some people just don't get it, even those who are supposedly into serious photography.
Oh well ...
myoptic3
Well-known
I have a small, older Fuji E-550 for my small digital P&S. It has a sharp lens, RAW, and the feature I bought it for, very little shutter lag. It also has an optical viewfinder. But I do not like using it. I use it for pics around the house or posting web shots. Nothing beats a good film camera, especially for B&W. Others will disagree, and that's fine. I need a little more control whem I am out shooting too, and a faster lens than the Fuji's zoom. My favorite walk about camera right now is a Nikon N80 w/ an 85 1.8 lens and hood, loaded w/ HP5. I purposefully bought a silver body, and w/ the smooth bodied Nikon lens on it everyone assumes it is a Digicam and I am your usual Digicam touristo. They never give me a second look. You can set the camera to Program, focus, adjust your aperture/shutter speed w/ the thumb wheel, and fire off a shot, all in the blink of an eye. But truthfully, if anyone uses any good, metered camera consistently, even a manual focus one, they can grab a shot pretty quickly. So for me, the lil P&S cameras can't replace a good SLR or RF camera.
mpjmp
Member
For me, no digital P&P camera yet manufactured has taken the place of my 35mm rangefinder.
Ten years ago, I used a Contax G1 outfit and a Leica minilux as my "pocket" option. Today, I use a Leica MP with several Leica lenses.
Last week I bought a Canon G9. I was attracted to the concept of a small, yet high quality digital camera with solid feel and above average image quality. After living with the G9 for the better part of a week and snapping a few hundred photos I returned it yesterday evening for a refund. Why? It's just not quite "there." It's not quite the minilux or T3 of the digital age that I was hoping it would be. We need a camera like that. Something with cut-above build and image quality that appeals to real photographers, as opposed to plastic Swiss Army cameras intended for the general consumer. There was a market for such high-quality compacts with 35mm, and there is still the same market for digital.
Digital cameras are in thier infancy. I think the technology is rapidly appoaching the point where manufacturers will start experimenting with more variation of design in order to meet the demands of niche markets. The rugged, minimalistic digital compact with a fast 35mm or 40mm equivalent lens and APS-C sized sensor is almost upon us. The Sigma DP-1 is the closest yet. Soon, I believe, we will be seeing the digital equivalents to yeterdays Konica Hexars, Leica CMs, and even Contax Gs with interchangeable prime lenses. The G9 is a step in the right direction, but just not quite there yet in my opinion to justify keeping it. As much as I wanted it to be, it simply wasn't. I will keep using my beloved MP and 35mm film as my primary tool until such a hunk of electronics comes along at a reasonable price (i.e. anything less than an M8!).
-Mike
Ten years ago, I used a Contax G1 outfit and a Leica minilux as my "pocket" option. Today, I use a Leica MP with several Leica lenses.
Last week I bought a Canon G9. I was attracted to the concept of a small, yet high quality digital camera with solid feel and above average image quality. After living with the G9 for the better part of a week and snapping a few hundred photos I returned it yesterday evening for a refund. Why? It's just not quite "there." It's not quite the minilux or T3 of the digital age that I was hoping it would be. We need a camera like that. Something with cut-above build and image quality that appeals to real photographers, as opposed to plastic Swiss Army cameras intended for the general consumer. There was a market for such high-quality compacts with 35mm, and there is still the same market for digital.
Digital cameras are in thier infancy. I think the technology is rapidly appoaching the point where manufacturers will start experimenting with more variation of design in order to meet the demands of niche markets. The rugged, minimalistic digital compact with a fast 35mm or 40mm equivalent lens and APS-C sized sensor is almost upon us. The Sigma DP-1 is the closest yet. Soon, I believe, we will be seeing the digital equivalents to yeterdays Konica Hexars, Leica CMs, and even Contax Gs with interchangeable prime lenses. The G9 is a step in the right direction, but just not quite there yet in my opinion to justify keeping it. As much as I wanted it to be, it simply wasn't. I will keep using my beloved MP and 35mm film as my primary tool until such a hunk of electronics comes along at a reasonable price (i.e. anything less than an M8!).
-Mike
R
ruben
Guest
I must say that I could start integrating digital with the new Oly dslr pancake lens. Their rediscovery of Maitani breakdown in compactness for success is a great step forward for them. But....f/2.8 ? Sorry Olympus, see you next two years again, and then with an outstanding viewfinder too.
Meanwhile, my daughter's small Canon.
Cheers,
Ruben
Meanwhile, my daughter's small Canon.
Cheers,
Ruben
pvdhaar
Peter
I think we're not really being fair about the (de)merits of digital point and shoots. Bashing them for merely having a small sensor makes no sense to me. Now, I'll be the first to admit that they are susceptible to noise from ISO 400 and up, but I doubt there's anyone here who honestly believes they can get grainless results from TMZ3200. We all go 'ooh' and 'aah' over a gritty black and white print with grain the size of golf balls, but why does a bit of noise in a digital image cause such an uproar? If that bit of noise is what makes or breaks a picture, you can wonder whether the picture itself is interesting enough.. Besides, built-in image stabilisation takes some of the sting out of the need for high ISO.
Quibbling about (lack of) depth of field or bokeh is another thing that totally puzzles me.. Anyone who's really serious about this should ditch their 35mm cameras and lug a couple of Hasselblads around..
And when it comes to the other Achilles heel of digicams, their somewhat sluggish AF performance; I'd seriously want to know who really focusses their Leicas fast and accurately in the dark and doesn't fall back on zone focussing in fast paced situations..
Digital point and shoots may not be a complete replacement for a 35mm rangefinder in all circumstances, but I for one am really amazed at what these mini-marvels are capable of.
Picture: straight from the digicam with yellow B&W filter setting.. merely resized to manageable proportions.. second one is a 1:1 crop of the first.
Quibbling about (lack of) depth of field or bokeh is another thing that totally puzzles me.. Anyone who's really serious about this should ditch their 35mm cameras and lug a couple of Hasselblads around..
And when it comes to the other Achilles heel of digicams, their somewhat sluggish AF performance; I'd seriously want to know who really focusses their Leicas fast and accurately in the dark and doesn't fall back on zone focussing in fast paced situations..
Digital point and shoots may not be a complete replacement for a 35mm rangefinder in all circumstances, but I for one am really amazed at what these mini-marvels are capable of.
Picture: straight from the digicam with yellow B&W filter setting.. merely resized to manageable proportions.. second one is a 1:1 crop of the first.
Attachments
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have a Pany LX-2 that I got as a pocket digital "RF". Can't stand having no viewfinder. Even with Image Stabilization, I get shaky shots. I now use it only to photo my real RF or out of guilt (I paid money for it.) My main camera decision each day is whether to leave the house with a 50mm or 35mm lens on my ZI. Nuff said.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Digital P&P
Digital P&P
As a committed film user, I find myself using my GR Digital more and more. It's more compact than even my GR1s film camera and is more easily carried than my Olympus XA.
It goes everywhere with me and I'm really starting to like the results. I shoot mainly in B&W at 400 ISO, and the results straight from the camera are very pleasing. The lens is excellent and when set on 'snap' focus setting, there is no AF lag which makes it excellent for 'street' photography.
For more deliberate work, I still use my M2 and M4 and sometimes, when I have lots of time and a tripod, my Hasselblad SWC.
The point is, the GR Digital is the camera that I reach for first. I also use a D Lux-2, which also provides excellent results, especially when a longer focal length is needed.
I think that these small sensor cameras are now mature enough to be accepted for 'real' photography, whatever you decide that may be.
Regards
Ernst
GRD 200 ISO
GRD 100 ISO
GRD, 400 ISO
Digital P&P
As a committed film user, I find myself using my GR Digital more and more. It's more compact than even my GR1s film camera and is more easily carried than my Olympus XA.
It goes everywhere with me and I'm really starting to like the results. I shoot mainly in B&W at 400 ISO, and the results straight from the camera are very pleasing. The lens is excellent and when set on 'snap' focus setting, there is no AF lag which makes it excellent for 'street' photography.
For more deliberate work, I still use my M2 and M4 and sometimes, when I have lots of time and a tripod, my Hasselblad SWC.
The point is, the GR Digital is the camera that I reach for first. I also use a D Lux-2, which also provides excellent results, especially when a longer focal length is needed.
I think that these small sensor cameras are now mature enough to be accepted for 'real' photography, whatever you decide that may be.
Regards
Ernst
GRD 200 ISO
GRD 100 ISO
GRD, 400 ISO
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Me neither. They are what they are. They have different characteristics. I like my small-sensor digicam, and I like some of the photos I take with it. I really enjoy their kind-of sketch-like effect:
But that has its limitations as well. Serious ones.
Because grain can be nice, but digital noise is always ugly. Really. Sometimes you can use that. This is supposed to be ugly:
(Public transport in Sydney is ugly; especially when all the trains have failed and you're left, hours later, queueing for taxis that aren't there.)
Firstly, I'd ask why on a rangefinder forum you're suggesting that small and portable is unimportant. But I'd concede, say, a Mamiya or Bronica might be that and still give you MF. Yet even then, where do you get an f1.4 lens? Or faster? If you do, its neither common nor cheap. And if you think 35mm is too small a format to really allow selective DOF, I'll point this out:
which wasn't even shot wide open.
In low-light situations I tend to use my 75 'lux wide open. Zone focus doesn't work for that. Sure, sometimes I miss focus. But sometimes I hit. When I do its obvious. When I miss, its often pretty obvious that I've missed or (at best) I've focused on the wrong thing. With a small-sensor digicam, you tend to end in a muddle where everything is too much in focus, yet with nothing much particularly sharp. Image stabilisation doesn't help that. And I don't like that look at all.
As I said earlier, I really like my small-sensor digicam. I really do. Some of my comments may not come off that way, but I genuinely appreciate them. Especially for their size and for other characteristics as well. But I also know their strengths (good light, no selective use of DOF required). Macro and (sometimes, with the right camera) flash photography can work well for them. Available darkness generally (but not always) doesn't.
The way we view photos, the "everything almost in focus" look tends to make things look "flat" unless the photographer has used compositional elements to add a "3D" effect a small sensor size doesn't naturally help. (That may be, as much as anything else, due to an audience with an "eye" trained to seen 35mm film, and its various effects and "look" as being a normal photograph with anything else being somewhat unconvincing or jarring.) I don't like "flat" looking photos, and small sensor cameras tend to encourage that. OTOH, I find small-sensor cameras something of a challenge, and try to produce shots I regard as photographically good with them. Perhaps I don't like them enough because I'm not good enough to succeed at that especially frequently.
...Mike
pvdhaar
Peter
Valid points Mike, and I hope you're not all too upset..
I think your last paragraph hits this issue at its core.. If someone's trying to emulate the looks of something like a 75Lux with a compact digicam, they're going to be disappointed. But use and judge a digi-P&S on its own merits, and it's a tool with tremendous possibilities.. Sort of 'you can't make a cat bark, and you can't make a dog meow'..
Joke: how can you make a cat bark? Anwer: dip it in lighter fluid and light it with a match.. whhhhooofff..
Joke: how can you make a dog meow? Answer: put it in the freezer and cut it in half with a circle saw... mmmmeeeoowwww..
I think your last paragraph hits this issue at its core.. If someone's trying to emulate the looks of something like a 75Lux with a compact digicam, they're going to be disappointed. But use and judge a digi-P&S on its own merits, and it's a tool with tremendous possibilities.. Sort of 'you can't make a cat bark, and you can't make a dog meow'..
Joke: how can you make a cat bark? Anwer: dip it in lighter fluid and light it with a match.. whhhhooofff..
Joke: how can you make a dog meow? Answer: put it in the freezer and cut it in half with a circle saw... mmmmeeeoowwww..
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
Off topic:
did I get it right that you use the b&w settings of your GRD and take jpegs ?
On topic:
full format (24 by 36 mm) is not as limitating as small sensors of digital point and shoots. To me each one has pros and cons. Like ernstk i do like the Ricoh GRD. It´s small and light, the quality is really more than just okay. Maybe the GRD is the type of camera Barnack would have made these days as somone else somewhere else wrote not long ago.
Used within its limitations a digital point and shoot produces good results. As long as the user is aware of the limitations and knows how to handle them he can get astonishing results with a point and shoot. That´s what counts - at least to me.
Thomas
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Yes, That's right. I set it to B&W and use the F setting for picture quality. I'm not even using RAW, tho I believe that the GRD gives both a RAW file and a JPEG on this setting. On my GRD photos above, the 100 ISO shot was straight from the camera with no sharpening or any other processing. The 2 others had very slight sharpening and some contrast added.
Ernst
ampguy
Mentor
I agree
I agree
Raw is completely unneeded, provided you get the exposure and white balance correct in the capture.
My fuji f30 and f31 have very little noise at ISO 3200, probably less than tri-x enlarged, and probably less than in color than that big Nikon D3 photo ad in the magazines of the motorcyclist which has noise all over the place on the yellow cycle.
I think that digital products will evolve towards intelligent iso independent of sensor formats (1/1.8, 1/2.5, APS-C, 4/3, FF), sensor microlens sizes (~1-8 microns), and start allowing for different relative ISO speeds in different portions of the image. The first camera shown to do this is a P&S shown at PMO and is mentioned in the latest Rangefinder magazine.
Here are some high ISO photos from the F30:
http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
I agree
Raw is completely unneeded, provided you get the exposure and white balance correct in the capture.
My fuji f30 and f31 have very little noise at ISO 3200, probably less than tri-x enlarged, and probably less than in color than that big Nikon D3 photo ad in the magazines of the motorcyclist which has noise all over the place on the yellow cycle.
I think that digital products will evolve towards intelligent iso independent of sensor formats (1/1.8, 1/2.5, APS-C, 4/3, FF), sensor microlens sizes (~1-8 microns), and start allowing for different relative ISO speeds in different portions of the image. The first camera shown to do this is a P&S shown at PMO and is mentioned in the latest Rangefinder magazine.
Here are some high ISO photos from the F30:
http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
Matthew Allen
Well-known
Raw does let you stretch the dynamic range slightly, and DR is one of the areas where P&Ss score poorly when compared to DSLRs.
Your Fuji may produce less noise than the D3 at ISO 3200 but it's only because of the smearing effect of noise reduction. I think the effective resolution of a D3 image would be an order of magnitude higher than the Fuji's - to me the samples you linked to look more like paintings than photographs because of the degree of noise reduction applied.
Matthew
dazedgonebye
Mentor
May I take this moment to once again say...Digital Hexar AF!
APS-c sized sensor and 35mm f2 equivalent lens.
Please.....
APS-c sized sensor and 35mm f2 equivalent lens.
Please.....
ampguy
Mentor
Thanks Matt and Leicasniper, Yes I do see some water color effects in the color ones. Some folks mention the F31 reduced the NR a bit, but these were taken with the f30.
Perhaps RAW does give more DR, but I'm not into HDR, and the DR of these already exceeds that of say Velvia 50 film.
Here is one (window photo) where I don't see any water color effect at 1600:
http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
Perhaps RAW does give more DR, but I'm not into HDR, and the DR of these already exceeds that of say Velvia 50 film.
Here is one (window photo) where I don't see any water color effect at 1600:
http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
maggieo
More Deadly
I'm just glad to see that El Alamo is still open. I may go there this weekend.