ISO1600 wrote:
this just in, Braniac hates the FE2.
Shame on you, Braniac. I have been using this camera for over a year now, quite regularly. First of all, i don't feel the exp. compensation NEARLY that complicated to operate, and secondly, i hardly ever feel the need to use it- i just exposure lock like a madman.
I love the FE2. I used to own one proudly a long time ago. What I hate about it is the fact that to set EC, you have to hold down that fiddly little button on the top plate, or do you have to lift the iso dial, I can't remember, but either way you simply can't do it while looking through the camera, or holding a big lens. I am right handed and putting EC on the top left is a disaster for me. Also the detents aren't that clear so I found it quite easy to set +1 instead of +2/3 by accident, and not notice.
I am not too keen on exposure lock. I can't remember how to do it on the FE2, but it usually involved holding something down which can be irritating. Also it doesn't maintain your compensation rate in changing light.
The reason why I suggested a Contax RTS is that it has an EC knob that you can click with your thumb and forefinger while looking through the viewfinder. We get to know when our camera's meter gets fooled, or we decide to over or underexpose for technical/artistic reasons on occasion. Being able to quickly EC a meter reading while shooting is vital to me. On my Canon's the first thing I do is put EC on the big back wheel so it's always handy.
For me that's the achilles heel of the FE2, and it really is a deal breaker when other better thought out cameras exist.
brainiac wrote:
Surely the most sensible sideways direction to step in is the direction parallel to the focal plane, in which case focus remains perfect as you maintain the camera's bearing by hand.
The problem in that sentence is that you assume the focal plane to be parallel. As far as I know field curvature is more prominent the wider and the faster the lens is. So that back/front-focus trick sould work more or less, combined with a bit of DOF calculations for a particular lens and camera combo. If it works for the particular user, fine, if not, fine.
This discussion is all too playground-oriented though, especially since counting steps and using a compass is involved. For every photo of an accurately focused rangefinder shot I can find an out-of-focus one and vice versa. Which goes to prove nothing and everything for either side of the arguement.
panos.v wrote:
The problem in that sentence is that you assume the focal plane to be parallel. As far as I know field curvature is more prominent the wider and the faster the lens is.
I agree - field curvature is an issue too, quite separate from the deliberate design limitations of rangefinder focussing. Field curvature makes it even harder to accurately focus a rangefinder, since field curvature will often increase the discrepancy between the centre-frame and the rest. On an SLR field curvature is less of an issue, because you can compose first, and then focus using whichever part of the frame you wish, field-curvature and all. Sometimes you can even see field curvature through an SLR finder, and find a good compromise by looking around the frame.
> For every photo of an accurately focused rangefinder shot I can find an out-of-focus one and vice versa.
Are you saying that half of all rangefinder pictures are out of focus?
"Even without the designed errors of rangefinder focussing which we have been discussing, recompose still sucks because it often still leads to errors during the swing. That's why I compose this kind of shot first and focus once still."
Does the fact that a FF SLR focuses a 35/1.4 with roughly three times less accuracy than a rangefinder when the subject is centred in the image mean we should talk about 'design errors of SLR focusing'? Remember, if we are talking about a 35/2, then focus accuracy is almost four times worse.
> Does the fact that a FF SLR focuses a 35/1.4 with roughly three times less accuracy than a rangefinder when the subject is centred in the image mean we should talk about 'design errors of SLR focusing'? Remember, if we are talking about a 35/2, then focus accuracy is almost four times worse.
craig_oz_land wrote:
Sorry Brainiac, I don't understand.
now find someone who's used the camera in production, and see what they think about it! I've not had one used at our studio, but from what I've heard it's not very fun. It's got a rolling shutter (wobbly motion blur), and the digital files are a pain to actually use in existing pipelines.
...that's probably because professional working methods are very entrenched. Look how long it took for digital to start to dominate photography. Movie-making is even slower to adopt and upgrade. I don't think many people doubt it will get there, it's just a question of how long. We're going to see some very dodgy skin-tones in the cinema over the next 20 years. I remember Vanilla Sky had some quite bad colours in some scenes. OTOH, the recent digitised blade runner was the most breath-taking print I've ever seen in a kinema.
Jaap, the focus point is very nearly in the middle of the picture. That would incur a negligible error, and since it's f1.2, I assume this was a 50mm lens, effective 65mm, in which case the the amount of swing will be too small to introduce an error anyway. As I have said from the beginning, white swans aren't evidence that black swans don't exist. Rangefinder recompose errors will be seen with non-central subject matter, wide apertures, and normal to wide lenses. Try shooting a 28mm or 21mm wide open or one stop down, with the subject towards the edge of the frame, and focus-recompose should be noticeably inaccurate.
foto-z wrote:
I think film will go away, at least from the retail market, unless you live in a huge city which is big enough to support a specialty store. I was recently living in a city of 250,000 people, and the last pro lab closed 2 years ago. There is nowhere left in that city to buy 120 film or get it processed. The film-based photographers there were forced to go digital whether they wanted to or not. As this pattern repeats itself in 1,000 other cities, the demand for film will almost completely die.
Perhaps the film producers will start selling over the internet as they run out of retailers....Show more →
I believe there is only one E-6 lab left in Phoenix , down from 6 a few years ago .
ericevans wrote:
I believe there is only one E-6 lab left in Phoenix , down from 6 a few years ago .
last time I was in Phoenix I went to photomark to pick up some 8x10 film cause I ran out while on the road. I was saddened to see only one emulsion of B&W in 8x10, Tmax 100. And it looked like I only saw one box of color 8x10 there as well, didn't catch what it was though.
What's funny about this whole discussion is that when I use my fancy Canon SLR in low light situations with a 1.4 or 1.8 lens, I typically only use the center focussing point and recompose. Exactly the same way I do with my rangefinder.
I have a rangefinder and I shoot film. I love it. I also have a Canon SLR which is really great too - that's usually reserved for concert photography.
I would second the advice to get a used Bessa, or at most, a used Zeiss Ikon plus a CV lens. CV makes some very nice lenses for not too much money. If it jives with you, then you can think about upgrading. Yes, rangefinders are less versatile than SLRs. Who cares. If you like it, then you like it. I have no problems focusing my rangefinder off center and in low light.
I pretty much stopped shooting digital when I started shooting B&W film. I don't think it's all that hard to scan with a decent scanner, I can make prints in a darkroom when I feel like it, and can get 24"x18" prints from scans that blow me away. I actually have to admit, I don't really care for prints that large...
I should add: do what makes you happy. Thank god I don't make a living at photography.
