hap
Well-known
I would like to try a Light 16. Maybe Godfrey will loan his out. Undoubtedly there will be serious innovations in image making systems. Perhaps one of those innovations is the doing away with opaque menus. Leave a few levers and dials just to keep our fingers from falling off.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
I’ve spent over 40 years as a firmware engineer, so I’m not afraid or ignorant of technology. I have more than a few digital cameras. What I find is that older mechanical things bring me more enjoyment.
Film SLRs and Rangefinders will always be around for the minority of people like me who enjoy them. The focusing accuracy, mechanical tolerances, and image quality that existed in 1971 is still more than good enough for me in 2021.
It’s not worth a rat’s buttocks to me that digital images or cameras “outperform” rangefinders or film cameras. But actually they don’t - because my measure of performance is different.
Since I’m a mere hobbyist rather than a professional photographer, my measure of performance is the enjoyment and the look of the images I get from film, the enjoyment of selecting and loading film, the engagement and involvement I have using such a camera. I enjoy dedicated manual controls. I enjoy the viewfinders of 1970’s cameras. If I make a good photo, what I have is a product of my work that I can be proud of. If my exposure or focus is off, what I have is still a product of my work. If I were a professional who needed to provide pixel-peeping quality and HDR-tweaked images, then obviously I’d choose digital imaging. But I’d probably change professions.
Film SLRs and Rangefinders will always be around for the minority of people like me who enjoy them. The focusing accuracy, mechanical tolerances, and image quality that existed in 1971 is still more than good enough for me in 2021.
It’s not worth a rat’s buttocks to me that digital images or cameras “outperform” rangefinders or film cameras. But actually they don’t - because my measure of performance is different.
Since I’m a mere hobbyist rather than a professional photographer, my measure of performance is the enjoyment and the look of the images I get from film, the enjoyment of selecting and loading film, the engagement and involvement I have using such a camera. I enjoy dedicated manual controls. I enjoy the viewfinders of 1970’s cameras. If I make a good photo, what I have is a product of my work that I can be proud of. If my exposure or focus is off, what I have is still a product of my work. If I were a professional who needed to provide pixel-peeping quality and HDR-tweaked images, then obviously I’d choose digital imaging. But I’d probably change professions.
hap
Well-known
I did not change profession...still a dinosaur. Profession all digital all day. otherwise, analogue dinosaur.
farlymac
PF McFarland
As for Nikon, I think the D6 is the end of the line, and I don't see them coming out with a digital rangefinder camera for us old fogeys to gloat over. So I've started the changeover to mirrorless, and am liking it so far. Still, some of my old film gear will be with me till I pass on as it's too nice to give up on as long as there is available good film stock. I don't count the Argus cameras in with that bunch though. They're just too anachronistic for me to get any enjoyment out of proving I can get a decent shot with one.
I wouldn't mind having a digital Leica M, but for now I can use those lenses on the Z5. It just won't be the same experience though.
PF
I wouldn't mind having a digital Leica M, but for now I can use those lenses on the Z5. It just won't be the same experience though.
PF
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Well build SLRs and primitive (FSU and else) rangefinders were made in huge quantities for decades.
With film been obsolete for masses, those cameras will lasts until humanity will run Earth down to all irons coals taken out. Once metal is only renewable, it will be the law of Eurasian Union (Capital in Beijing) which will declare fancy metal things as RF, and SLR, else as subject for "donation" at recycling centers (which would also become as behavior correction camps).
Before it happens, I plan to use as much digital cameras as I can. Because once what I described will happened, digital cameras will be only allowed for members of SS (surveillance services).
hap
Well-known
Hard to argue with that.
markjwyatt
Well-known
BillBingham2
Registered User
Just curious- which categor(y/ies) do you fit in?
One I left off the list, Village Idiot...........
B2 (;->
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
Sign me up for that category! If I had an ounce of sense, I'd ditch this photography nonsense and star doing something productive, like collecting Hummel figurines.....
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
My next camera will likely be some iteration of the SL (likely an SL2) with a L-M adapter. This is mainly because M cameras have gotten outrageously expensive, pixels continue to grow, and Leica either can't or won't put IBIS in their digital M cameras. The SL2 has plenty of pixels, has IBIS, and all of the M lens profiles.
580/Q
200 frames a day
Bill, I seem to have really found a happy working relationship with the Fuji X100 series. I use that system a lot. I use the tele conversion lens when I need longer.
Right behind that is an iPhone, and then couple of other big boxes (D3, D750, D4s) and some small digicams (GR/Coolpix/Powershot blah blah). The iPhone makes me think of a view camera. The Fuji is a rangefinder (purists, I hear you. But, by other means than coincidence, any AF system does determine range) and the advantages of a rangefinder system are preserved with few of the disadvantages. I like that.
On the Fuji, I bounce back and forth between the optical and electronic VF when I'm working. About three years ago, I found that I often cycle between the two finders quite rapidly: EVF for exposure and framing and optical for context, I suppose. I haven't quite figured out what the unconscious process guiding the choices further than that. I think it really depends on the situation. But that's what I do.
I love it. I really hope they don't stop making them. But, if you work within the limits (mostly), pretty much any digicam will deliver, for me, anyway.
Ultimately, whatever is available, I will use. And I make no presumption as to what a camera will look like in ten years.
But man, these little X100 are stellar. And the X-T-series for longer focal lengths are incredible, even without the optical finder.
Right behind that is an iPhone, and then couple of other big boxes (D3, D750, D4s) and some small digicams (GR/Coolpix/Powershot blah blah). The iPhone makes me think of a view camera. The Fuji is a rangefinder (purists, I hear you. But, by other means than coincidence, any AF system does determine range) and the advantages of a rangefinder system are preserved with few of the disadvantages. I like that.
On the Fuji, I bounce back and forth between the optical and electronic VF when I'm working. About three years ago, I found that I often cycle between the two finders quite rapidly: EVF for exposure and framing and optical for context, I suppose. I haven't quite figured out what the unconscious process guiding the choices further than that. I think it really depends on the situation. But that's what I do.
I love it. I really hope they don't stop making them. But, if you work within the limits (mostly), pretty much any digicam will deliver, for me, anyway.
Ultimately, whatever is available, I will use. And I make no presumption as to what a camera will look like in ten years.
But man, these little X100
are stellar. And the X-T-series for longer focal lengths are incredible, even without the optical finder.hap
Well-known
THE FUTURE.....is for someone else
peterm1
Mentor
I may be wrong of course but my gut tells me that Leica's M series may eventually have seen its day. Two things make me say this.
The first is that as the OP says optical rangefinders are fiddly things- the product of an earlier generation of technology. Particularly egregious (I think) is the fact that they need regular calibration. An expensive and annoying requirement. It also annoys me that Leica has not (perhaps cannot) produced a viewfinder with inbuilt diopter adjustment as almost every other camera has as a matter of course. This dooms you to using fiddly and annoying screw in diopters and changing them every so often if your eyes change. This is one reason I use mine less and less. Add to this the fact that mirrorless cameras increasingly have features like image stabilization on sensor and better and better focus peaking combined with other focus "smarts" such as focus assist (e.g. image enlargement).
The second reason I say this is that Leica is already heading down the path of full frame mirrorless with the Leica Q series and the Leica S series. Is it beyond imagining that Leica M series will either stay behind the pack - sticking to a limited range of features which will doom it to becoming an increasingly niche product (even more than it is now) or it will innovate and merge with the Q and S series in features and eventually become an uneconomical "third wheel" eventually requiring Leica to cull the herd. If they do sooner or later the M series limitations may well mean it is the one which will be culled.
I think I have decided that if I buy another Leica camera it will be something like the S series not an M as it has more features (such as the ability to seamlessly use 3rd party lenses with adapters) and fewer shortcomings than M (such as the M system's problems with rangefinders and antiquated (though ins some respects still excellent) optical viewfinders.
The first is that as the OP says optical rangefinders are fiddly things- the product of an earlier generation of technology. Particularly egregious (I think) is the fact that they need regular calibration. An expensive and annoying requirement. It also annoys me that Leica has not (perhaps cannot) produced a viewfinder with inbuilt diopter adjustment as almost every other camera has as a matter of course. This dooms you to using fiddly and annoying screw in diopters and changing them every so often if your eyes change. This is one reason I use mine less and less. Add to this the fact that mirrorless cameras increasingly have features like image stabilization on sensor and better and better focus peaking combined with other focus "smarts" such as focus assist (e.g. image enlargement).
The second reason I say this is that Leica is already heading down the path of full frame mirrorless with the Leica Q series and the Leica S series. Is it beyond imagining that Leica M series will either stay behind the pack - sticking to a limited range of features which will doom it to becoming an increasingly niche product (even more than it is now) or it will innovate and merge with the Q and S series in features and eventually become an uneconomical "third wheel" eventually requiring Leica to cull the herd. If they do sooner or later the M series limitations may well mean it is the one which will be culled.
I think I have decided that if I buy another Leica camera it will be something like the S series not an M as it has more features (such as the ability to seamlessly use 3rd party lenses with adapters) and fewer shortcomings than M (such as the M system's problems with rangefinders and antiquated (though ins some respects still excellent) optical viewfinders.