File :-(, x, )
angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
Hay guyz, I just bought these today. Did I just shell out money for pieces of shit?

Yashica MG-1 & J rangefinders

Well, not that I really shelled out a lot.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-L1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:11 17:43:55Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Compulsory, Return DetectedFocal Length7.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Won't know for sure until you send a test roll through 'em.

How much did they cost you?
>> Anonymous
Won't be long now till you demand a Leica M, just don't forget about the good ol Bessa L and R's!
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
cost me 20USD, which I think is a so-so deal for these 2. Already went through a roll of film with the MG-1 and will get the photos tomorrow. I'll prolly go through another roll with the J, but I'm not getting my hopes up (especially with its dirty glass)
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
Lol, I don't think I would be able to afford a Leica. Ever. But if a Fed or any other good Leica imitation ever comes my way, I'd get it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54659
Dirty glass is teh suck. That's why I never use my Minolta HiMatic 7s rangefinder any more. I assume it's internal dirtyness, scratches, or fungus, and not just "I'm too lazy to blow on it and wipe the grime off"?

$20 each is so-so. $20 for the set is not bad, assuming the pictures out of the MG1 are good. Quick google says the MG1 doesn't have full manual as an option, but it does aperture-priority (which is my personal favorite mode). Kinda on the bignormous side, though.

If you decide you really like rangefinders, I'd recommend picking up a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. That's a damn fine little rangefinder. It's currently staving off my mad desires for a Leica.
>> Anonymous
hehehe, you've got it easy. I can't seem to flogg my M6 off to anyone I know. Everyone seems to shy away from it. Ah well, its a good camera and I shall keep it for now! Good luck with your cheapies, hope they create some good shots. :)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54674
...

How much?
>> Anonymous
>>54674

Well, I want about AU$2k for it, but I won't get that. So I think I will use it as a trade in for a D80 or D200. Which is something I need. There are plenty of cheap Leica's around tho. Check out Rangefinderforums and keh and such or australian sites.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54678
Aww. That's way more digits than I can afford to pay. Ohwell.
>> Anonymous
>>54682

they can be picked up secondhand in the uk with a lense for about £400. not sure on the specific "M" my friend just got but they arnt "that" expensive.

i really dont see what you guys see in the leicas. the results were no better than a canon sureshot i used to have. its almost like you care more about owning one then the fact that they arnt really that great and much better film cameras can be had for less money.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54688
You must be a total n00b. If you own a Leica, it means your penis is larger than the penises of people who don't own Leicas, *obviously*.
>> Anonymous
>>54688
I haven't seen many M's in functioning condition, especially with a lens, for that amount. Are you sure you aren't thinking of screw mount Leicas? They tend to be a lot less expensive.

In the US, the going rate for an M6 in functioniong condition is around $1000. Considerably more if it's in good cosmetic condition. About the Cheapest Ms are double stroke M3s, which still run around $600 for one in working order, no lens included.
>> Anonymous
>>54674
HOLY SHIT WE HAVE A LEICA USER HERE!

Please post scans.

>>54677
I lol'ed.

>>54688
>i really dont see what you guys see in the leicas
Leicas are well-known for being awesome in a literal sense in three areas:

1. Operation. Some design experts (according to Wikipedia, lulz) have called it the best-designed tool of the twentieth century. Supposedly (I've never shot with one) it provides a more natural, fluid shooting experience than most or all other cameras. Part of this is attributed to the rangefinder mechanism, and part of it is attributed to the simple design of the body.

2. Durability and reliability. Leicas take a beating more than most cameras, and with the exception of the M7 and M8 models, can work even if one is without batteries, and are completely mechanical except for the light meter.

3. The glass. Leica glass is absolutely the best, rivaled only by one or two other companies like Zeiss. (I'm not trying to start a flamewar here; I'm reporting on a conception that I do indeed share from the photographs I have seen taken with Leica lenses, but that's beside the point.) Supposedly above and beyond better rendering of the scene, Leica glass is supposed to give the photograph more texture and feeling to it, and just be better, in that ineffable way some things are just better than others, like shoes from Italy versus shoes from China.

4. Suitability for candid shooting. Beyond the rangefinder mechanism, Leicas are very small, unobtrusive, unlikely to be thought of as "professional" or worth stealing by someone who doesn't know what a Leica is, and have very little shutter noise.

>canon sureshot
I lol'ed, and sigh'ed.
>> Anonymous
>>54704
I failed, four areas, not three.
>> Anonymous
>>54688
I used to think that Leicas were overrated toys for rich people, then I came across one at a good price and bought it to re-sell. I played with it a little bit, decided to shoot a couple rolls of film with it just for fun, and now it's my favorite camera. It's by far the most plesant camera I have ever used and it is, in my opinion, as close to perfect as any human-made tool can be.
>> Anonymous
>>54717
These points don't actually contradict each other. Leicas were great cameras; but because of that, they've become much sought after, ridiculously expensive and now are mostly used as toys for rich people. Leica itself promoting their cameras as ZOMG WE'RE LEGENDARY IT'S LIKE TEH ROLEX OF CAMERAS doesn't help either.
>> Anonymous
>>54724
Two things:

First, the rich people buy those "special editions," with an ostrich feather as the film winder and human foreskin instead of leatherette. They don't buy used Leicas, generally.

How do we know? The price for the original Leica, the M3, is almost always lower than the M6 TTL, M7, and MP. Photographers buy used Leicas, or new baseline Leicas.

Which brings us to point two: the reason the M8 can be $4,975 (?) instead of $9,950, and probably even exist at all, is because Leica Camera AG is kept afloat by rich, old, stupid collectors who buy the overpriced special editions.

Leica is a small, old, company constantly on the verge of bankruptcy dedicated to keeping its R&D equal to those of huge multinational corporations, and its production standards higher. The rich collectors, while disgusting on a personal level, make this possible.
>> Anonymous
>>54728
>Leica is a small, old, company constantly on the verge of bankruptcy dedicated to keeping its R&D equal to those of huge multinational corporations, and its production standards higher. The rich collectors, while disgusting on a personal level, make this possible.

That's OK, but what do WE gain from this? In the past, Leica was a producer of high quality consumer cameras for reasonable prices. Currently, they only make small numbers of very specific (due to standards changing) cameras that are intended for the rich, like the aforemented M8. Any cheaper models they have are rebadged overpriced Panasonics.
As for the lenses, Leica hasn't made anything worth noting for the past twenty years at least. Those "Leica" lenses on Panasonic cameras generally aren't any better than lenses on other good brands of P&S cameras, plus they're often ruined by coupling them with subpar sensors.

tl;dr Old Leica was awesome. Current Leica is BS.
>> Anonymous
>>54728
I've never thought of it that way, but now that you say it I have to agree. There is no way to make a product of Leica's quality at a price that could sustain it in a basic consumer market. The rich collectors do keep the company in business.

Many people complain about how expensive the M8 is, but realistically it's pretty reasonable. It's price is about on par with any other top of the line digital camera from a major manufacturer, and if you consider that it's the first digital camera the company has produced, the amount they spent on R&D makes it surprising that it can even sell for what it does.


>>54734In the past, Leica was a producer of high quality consumer cameras for reasonable prices.

Not really, they have always produced professional grade cameras that came with a high price tag. The only exception is the 35mm point and shoots they made in the mid 90s, and the re-branded panasonic digital cameras they make now... neither of which really count as leicas and just exist to benefit from brand recognition.

>>54734Leica hasn't made anything worth noting for the past twenty years at least.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that either. Sure, the panasonic digital cameras are lame, but what about the M7, M8, R8, R9, the .58x finder, the Tri-Elmars, and some of the new wide M lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>54734
>that are intended for the rich, like the aforemented M8

The M7, MP, and M8 are all intended for working photographers, not rich collectors.

The high price is just a woeful effect of economic concerns.

>Those "Leica" lenses on Panasonic cameras generally aren't any better than lenses on other good brands of P&S cameras, plus they're often ruined by coupling them with subpar sensors.

I have to disagree, having a great amount of experience with a Panasonic-branded one. They're not full-blown "Oh, wow, THIS is a LEICA" quality, but I can tell the image quality on my DMC-FZ8 is higher than any other point-and-shoot I've shot with. I suspect that combination comes from being mass-produced as Panasonic lenses, though being designed as Leica lenses.

And IMO, the complaints about Panasonic sensors are largely unfounded. All the whining about NR is completely irrelevent if one shoots in RAW, which anyone who cares about the sharpness of their photographs should do anyway. They're not 5D's, but they're no where near as bad as people say they are, and I will cautiously venture that they are better than most P&S sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>54746
>The M7, MP, and M8

Oh, and I forgot: the R9 and the Digilux 3, although the Digilux 3 is a rebranded Panasonic based on an Olympus.
>> Anonymous
>>54742
>Not really, they have always produced professional grade cameras that came with a high price tag.
High price tag that was still quite reasonable and competitive with other brands, which allowed them to sell a lot of their cameras. As of now, I heard that sales of the M8 are somewhere around the 6,000 mark - while a success for a company this small, it's really miserable compared to the sales of Canon or Nikon professional cameras.

>what about the M7, M8, R8, R9, the .58x finder, the Tri-Elmars, and some of the new wide M lenses?
I was talking about lenses in that paragraph. So, the Tri-Elmars and M lenses. I couldn't even find any real photographic tests of them on the Internet; they're obviously of little interest for pro photographers, and Leicaphiles don't question their lenses. So these things are hardly a photographic achievement, they're just an attempt to prolong the life of once great, now dying rangefinder technology.
>> Anonymous
>>54704

hype. 35mm range finder cameras are only ever going to produce images or a certain quality.

Mamiya 7 > leica

honestly i would love to know the range of cameras that you guys have used to still think that one overpriced 35mm rangefinder is going to do to the quality of your photography.

have any of you actually used a rangefinder long enough to ever have it recalibrated?

its that old sentiment: a poor workman always blames his tools. leicas arnt the answer to making you a good photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>54746
Panasonic sensors are just noisy. RAW or JPEG, with or without the NR, I've yet to see a Panasonic camera that can yield acceptable results at ISO higher than 400. Which is a shame because I really like some of their models.

>>54747
Scratch Digilux 3 out of the list, if it's really 99% similar to the Panasonic L1, it's a fucking disgrace. While old Leicas were hailed for their ergonomics, the L1 seemed to me like an exercise in making a camera as uncomfortable as possible. (And the Digilux 3 is $1000 more expensive to boot!)
>> Anonymous
>>54751
>it's really miserable compared to the sales of Canon or Nikon professional cameras.
Yeah, because they're rangefinders and most photographers today prefer SLRs. That's just how the market is.

>I couldn't even find any real photographic tests of them on the Internet; they're obviously of little interest for pro photographers... these things are hardly a photographic achievement
You're making the same mistake as someone who assumes a lens must be great just because it's a Leica. The M8 fills a small market niche, as you pointed out, and so there wouldn't be so many tests.

And most photographers who use Leica would, I imagine, be the sort of old-school photographer that puts their stock in how the final print comes out, and not in a test.

Oh, and here's one I found with five minutes of looking:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/TriE1621/trielmar.html

>once great, now dying rangefinder technology.
I'll agree that it's dying, but what makes rangefinder technology "once great?" If it worked then, it will work now; if not, then it won't.
>> im in ur thread, trollin it up des
>>54728
>>and its production standards higher.

Which is why the M8 has a design flaw, amirite
>> Anonymous
>>54753
I don't think having a Leica would make me a better photographer, not at all.

What I do think may be true, from what I've heard from others, is that having a rangefinder camera is best for street and documentary photography, and that Leicas are the best, most fluid to use.

As far as lenses go, I've seen photographs taken with a Leica. They do look slightly better. Not enough to justify on their on own buying a Leica system, but a plus. That's what I think about this whole bit.

>Mamiya 7 > leica
Film format only affects image quality significantly with regard to how big of a print can be made. The lens is much more important up to most reasonable sizes.

But seriously, film format is not a good debate to have. It's like if some writers got in a debate about whether it is best to write in English, Spanish, or Russian. Here's the answer: On the Road would be best written in English; Don Quixote would be best written in Spanish; The Brothers Karamazov would best be written in Russian. Similarly, Garry Winogrand's work would best be done in 35mm, some photographer who always used MF would best be done in MF, and Ansel Adam's would best be done in LF.

>>54754
Noise is not as large of a problem as people make it out to be, in photography in general.

I find, shooting in RAW, that compared to the JPEGs out of the Canon S3IS (its closest competitor that I've shot with) the DMC-FZ8 is more noisy at ISO 400 and less noisy at ISO 800. Either way, all point and shoot cameras will have noise at anything above ISO 200. That can usually be dealt with to an acceptable level with in-computer NR.

>Scratch Digilux 3 out of the list, if it's really 99% similar to the Panasonic L1, it's a fucking disgrace.

My point was that it was intended for professional work. I'm not arguing it has anywhere near equal "Leica status" as the R9.
>> Anonymous
>>54757
>http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/TriE1621/trielmar.html
I can't say I'm too impressed, really... And the coupling mechanics are so exceedingly complex just to maintain the compatibility.

>I'll agree that it's dying, but what makes rangefinder technology "once great?" If it worked then, it will work now; if not, then it won't.

1957:
SLR: bigger, noisier, hard to focus with dark mirrors, everything is manual.
Rangefinder: smaller, quieter, more reliable, easier to focus, everything else is like the SLRs.

2007:
SLR: still noisy, but now with better mirrors, AF, TTL metering, TTL flash, zoom lenses, long telephoto, in-camera retouching, live view, anti-shake, weatherproofing, etc.
Rangefinder: stuck in 1957, except with a digital sensor.
>> Anonymous
the M8 is like a huge waste of money. thousands of dollars for a branded camera that have very poor results. the images speak for themself.

you can go on about the lense all you want but the m8 is a joke.
>> Anonymous
>>54767
Quit trolling, the M8 takes great images, it's just overpriced and based on outdated technology. And I'm the anonymous who's bashing rangefinders ITT.
>> Anonymous
>>54766
>I can't say I'm too impressed, really... And the coupling mechanics are so exceedingly complex just to maintain the compatibility.

I was just pointing out a detailed test of a lens, not saying it was particuarly impressive. To be honest, since I'm not going to have the money for a Leica anytime soon, I just skimmed it when I found it, for interest.

>still noisy
And therefore less suitable for some types of photography.

>AF
Is overrated. Manual focusing isn't hard or slow at all. If one knows what he's doing and is used to the lens and camera, it's almost instant.

Plus, AF screws up sometimes. Someone I knew was shooting a scene with some people in it at a distance a few days ago with a 20D, and instead of focusing on the person he was trying to get it to focus on- right in the middle of the frame, mind you- it focused on something else in the scene every time.

>TTL metering
Modern rangefinders have this.

>TTL flash
I don't know what rangefinders have this or don't, but the work rangefinders are used for today seldom involves flash.

>zoom lenses
>long telephoto

Again, seldom used in the short of shooting rangefinders are used for.

>in-camera retouching
Silly.

>live view
Only a few DSLRs have this.

>anti-shake
Point conceded here. Leica should develop some stabilized M lenses.

>weatherproofing
Again, conceded. It shouldn't be too hard for Leica to make the next version of the M8 weatherproof.

I'm not arguing that a rangefinder or an SLR is the right camera for every application. Both have their uses and places.
>> Anonymous
>>54770
That long list wasn't necessary, really. What I was trying to say was:

In 1957, rangefinders were equal or rivaled SLRs (and other types of cameras) for a lot of uses. People often bought and used them as all-round cameras, for sports and wildlife photography, etc. - areas where no sane man would use a rangefinder now.

In 2007, due to their inherent limitations, rangefinders now have a very small niche. And even in this niche many people opt for SLRs or even P&S cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>54770
>Plus, AF screws up sometimes. Someone I knew was shooting a scene with some people in it at a distance a few days ago with a 20D, and instead of focusing on the person he was trying to get it to focus on- right in the middle of the frame, mind you- it focused on something else in the scene every time.
1. Lock AF to the center point
2. ??????
3. PROFIT!

No one forces anyone to use AF exclusively. There's just a lot of situations when AF is more convenient, and it's better to have it in your camera than not to have.
>> Anonymous
>>54772
I understand your point, but that doesn't invalidate the M8, Leicas, or rangefinders in general for the right applications.

Although I do imagine that, if telephotos long enough were available, a rangefinder would be somewhat suited for some types of sports and nature photography.

>due to their inherent limitations, rangefinders now have a very small niche
And due to the inherent limitations of SLRs, rangefinders are still needed.

Seriously, while I understand the only way to get a TTL optical view is with a SLR mechanism, the SLR mechanism is really like some sort of cruel joke: when you press the shutter, the camera will belch out a loud clack that will alert everyone in the area that you're shooting, while a giant moving mirror shakes the camera and blacks out the view. Add onto this the extra weight and size of the thing, and you've got a pretty shitty, if necessary, workaround.

>And even in this niche many people opt for SLRs or even P&S cameras.

I will argue that anyone doing up-close candid photography with an SLR is making a serious mistake, simply because after the first shot the candid element is gone.

I use a point-and-shoot for this application, but only because I can't afford a rangefinder set-up.
>> Anonymous
>>54768

>>the M8 takes great images, it's just overpriced and based on outdated technology.

right so we are in agreement. the m8 isnt worth the money as much cheaper cameras perform a lot better.

well done Sherlock.
>> Anonymous
>>54751. I couldn't even find any real photographic tests of them on the Internet; they're obviously of little interest for pro photographers

Possibly because most pro photographers don't give a crap about lens tests. If a piece of equipment does it's job, that's all you need. It's the amateurs and gear geeks that spend all their time photographing brick walls and staring at MTF charts. And, yes, Leica has a limited draw in professional photography. They're not really suited to studio portraiture or sports photography, and not really versatile enough for bread and butter photojournalism when compared to Nikon and Canon SLRs. That doesn't make them bad cameras.

>>54765I don't think having a Leica would make me a better photographer, not at all.

Of course it wouldn't. Anyone that thinks any camera will make them a better photographer is an idiot and a bad photographer. It is, however, nice to use a piece of equipment that you enjoy using. Just because I could take the same photos on a Zenit that I could on an M3 doesn't mean I would enjoy shooting with the Zenit as much.
>> Anonymous
>>547662007:
SLR: still noisy, but now with better mirrors, AF, TTL metering, TTL flash, zoom lenses, long telephoto, in-camera retouching, live view, anti-shake, weatherproofing, etc.
Rangefinder: stuck in 1957, except with a digital sensor.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't especially want a lot of those "features" found on modern cameras. When I'm shooting with my D200, I often use it in manual focus, with prime lenses, with an external meter, I would have no use for a live veiw, and I've never had a camera fail due to exposure to the weather (including the little P&S digital I take caving, skiing, and climbing) so I think the whole weatherproofing thing is overrated. Anti-shake is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen, a complete marketing gimmick that people have been suckered into thinking they "need." Furthermore, most modern rangefinders have TTL metering and TTL flash. I would rather shoot with a simpler camera that does what I want rather than an extremely complex one that I have to trick into doing what I want.

>>54753honestly i would love to know the range of cameras that you guys have used to still think that one overpriced 35mm rangefinder is going to do to the quality of your photography.

That post said nothing about improving the quality of anybody's photography, just about the quality of the equipment. However, I have owned a fair amount of decent cameras and still like my M3 the best. Of those, my Nikon D200 and F4s are also high on the list, followed by the Nikon F5, Hasselblad 2000FC, Mamiya 645pro, Pentax K1000, Canonet QL17, and at the bottom of the list Canon EOS A2 and 20D.

>>54753have any of you actually used a rangefinder long enough to ever have it recalibrated?

Never needed to... my M3 was made in 1959 and has never been serviced. It's seen thousands of rolls of film (hundreds by me) and has never needed anything more than an occasional external cleaning. That says a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>54775

not these old shitty arguments. its not the 1940's. street photograpy, shutter clap...blah blah. where do you get these shit idead from?

>>What I do think may be true, from what I've heard from others, is that having a rangefinder camera is best for street and documentary photography, and that Leicas are the best, most fluid to use.

NO.

>>Film format only affects image quality significantly with regard to how big of a print can be made. The lens is much more important up to most reasonable sizes.

NO.
>> Anonymous
>>54778
D200 with an external meter, and anti-shake is a gimmick?
I bet you're browsing 4chan with NCSA Mosaic.
>> Anonymous
>>ive heard ,apparently, i know someone that once , i had a friend that owns, last year i met a guy that once saw.....etc...etc.

you guys mostly make up the shit you talk about. your all such equiptment whores and all of your academic understanding of photography starts and ends with ansel adams.
>> Anonymous
>>54778
>You say that like it's a bad thing.
That's not a BAD thing. That's just a thing that limits the camera's target group to a small number of retrophiles like you.
>> Anonymous
>>54780
Firefox 1.5.0.12, actually. I use what works and what I like. Perhaps some day when my D200 can meter multiple strobes effectively, or handle skin tones with odd lighting without error or having to check the LCD every other shot, I'll give up the external meter. As for anti-shake, I'm amazed by people who think it's useful, especially when there is such a cheap and effective alternative available... hold your camera still.
>> Anonymous
>>54778

by calling the M3 the best do you mean the image quality or the ease of use?
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54781
so what? this board is hosted on the same site as a board notorious for child porn and racist propaganda. you want technical understanding? go take a class. or friggen google it.

i don't like retarded equipment threads any more than you but i tolerate them because i like the harsh critique and the original work here. there are other, wiser photo boards on the interfucks. go to them as well.
>> Anonymous
>>54781
I'm an equipment whore and I'm proud of it.

Also, I like to hit people who diss my photos with my five kilogram catadioptric lens.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54786
is a catadioptric lens one of those monsters that lets you zoom in for like a billion miles at a fixed aperture by using mirrors like a telescope? because those rock stadiums full of ass.
>> Anonymous
>>54783
>As for anti-shake, I'm amazed by people who think it's useful, especially when there is such a cheap and effective alternative available... hold your camera still.
Wtf, it's not an alternative, it's a complement. Holding your anti-shake camera still >>> Holding your camera still (unless you're Tony Stark, and Tony Stark is a dick).
>> Anonymous
>>54787
Yes.

And they don't fit on Leicas, LOL.
>> Anonymous
>>54779
Explain both your "nos."

I'm willing to learn if you're right, but everything I said that you specifically quoted is what I have heard from every single thing I've read on the subjects.
>> Anonymous
>>54783
dude all the photographers here are noobs that just own cameras. the idea of using a tripod to most of them is a fallacy.

like this guy...

>>54785

its slim, the uber intellectual critique master.

>>i like the harsh critique and the original work here.

for a start you dont have a fucking clue what a critique is. Get of your fucking arm chair in whatever hole in middle america your stuck in and realise you have absolutely no knowlege or understanding of the subject.

second the work here is about as original as the shit on flickr.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54789
i don't know who tony stark is, but i like the cut of your jib.

opposing image stabilization is retarded. it doesn't affect image quality, it just takes some of the hassle out of steadying your camera. it's a completely benevolent and beneficial cost-free technology (except for the actual literal expense involved with implementing it). if you don't like IS then why not go get some flash powder instead of using your camera's integrated flash bulb? at least it's not the easy way out.
>> Anonymous
>>54794
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Stark
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54793
hey, DICK. i am PRO-tripod. i just... can't afford one.

or an armchair.

... or a photography class.
>> Photography expert (visited /p/ 300+ times)
Opposing advances in camera technology is retarded. Autofocus and diaplays on cameras are the greatest inventions since film itself.
>> Anonymous
>>54792

>>I've read on the subjects.

exactly. you havent done, youve read. go out and do candid street photography with both and see the difference between an slr and a range finder. big difference? no ive done a lot of both and ppl either notice the camera or they dont.

what the hell were you attributing film types to language. its the sort of ass backwards argument that someone that knows nothing would get into.

two camera bodies, one 35mm one 6x7. take the exact same film and shoot the same shot, framing exposure, bracket it whatever. print both the same size the same way in a color darkroom to the same standard. then come back and say sorry.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54801
all i'm saying is anything that makes the job easier without compromising the work quality makes sense to me. house painters probably freaked out for the same reason when they invented spray paint and roller brushes too.
>> Anonymous
>exactly. you havent done, youve read. go out and do candid street photography with both and see the difference between an slr and a range finder. big difference? no ive done a lot of both and ppl either notice the camera or they dont.

What I've read was written by people who have gone and out done with both.

>what the hell were you attributing film types to language. its the sort of ass backwards argument that someone that knows nothing would get into.
It was an extended metaphor. I was making the point that different mediums (film types or languages) are the best thing for different artistic projects.

>two camera bodies, one 35mm one 6x7. take the exact same film and shoot the same shot, framing exposure, bracket it whatever. print both the same size the same way in a color darkroom to the same standard. then come back and say sorry.

If the difference is that major, then why do people use 35mm and not medium format all the time?
>> Anonymous
>>54806

you paint your house with spray paint?

...slim are you still on crack in the basement.
>> Anonymous
>>54812

>>If the difference is that major, then why do people use 35mm and not medium format all the time?

good god your a noob and i hope your trolling.

35mm is cheap, the bodies are cheap, the processing is cheap. its easyer to load. film for the masses.

medium format is what most pro studio photographers shoot on when not (now) using digital. oh god your a dick that must have never shot any medium format.

mamiya, hasselblad..do these names mean anything to you. god you fail.

how about you actually shoot some and take you face out of a photography 101 book. which, by the way, are all bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>54784by calling the M3 the best do you mean the image quality or the ease of use?

I didn't say the M3 was the best, I said I like it the best. Image quality is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant. Any marginally decent camera can take perfectly good pictures. The important thing to me is how it feels to shoot with the camera.

>>54794
It is neither completely benevloent nor cost free. The fact that it makes the equipment more expensive is an important factor to me. Furthermore, it adds more things to break. If there is one common thing in my posts it is that simplicity is good, and I see no reason to add a complex and unnecessary feature to my camera/lens just because I can.

>>54801Autofocus and diaplays on cameras are the greatest inventions since film itself.

Not really, AF is wrong as often as it is right and in my experience gets in the way more than it is helpful. In-finder displays are nice, but hardly that great. You can also look at your setting dials or, god forbid, know your camera well enough to set it by feel.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54814
oh come on dude you never saw those big handheld professional paint-spraying hoses that are specifically for painting houses? spraypint doesn't just mean with the dollar wal-mart cans. it was just a metaphor for accepting industry revolutions as improvements instead of opposing them as 'too easy' just because you're used to the old way. like the story of john henry, the guy that beat the machine that was built to pound in railroad spikes at pounding in railroad spikes? you know what happened to him? he DIED, dude.
>> Anonymous
>>54825Not really, AF is wrong as often as it is right and in my experience gets in the way more than it is helpful. In-finder displays are nice, but hardly that great. You can also look at your setting dials or, god forbid, know your camera well enough to set it by feel.

A bit more on that... one reason I people are so dead set on AF is that a lot of the cameras today have piss poor viewfinders and focusing screens, as well as the terrible quality of manual focusing rings on most AF lenses, makes for a pretty miserable manual focus experience. Since a lot of people today have never used a good MF SLR or good rangefinder enough to actually get used to it, it's pretty easy to develop the mindset that it's something hard to do.
>> Anonymous
>>54824
>pro studio photographers
Not everyone shoots in a studio. What, do you think Cartier-Bresson or Winogrand should've schlepped a MF camera all over the place?

And to carry your argument out to its end, why not use large format instead of medium?

>mamiya, hasselblad..do these names mean anything to you
Yes, and so does "Leica."

>have never shot any medium format.
No, I haven't had the chance yet. Sometime in the next few months, I might buy a cheap TLR and try that out.
>> Anonymous
>>54826

spraypint doesn't just mean with the dollar wal-mart cans.

lol what about for the crack dens?

slim i like you. its just sometimes your full of shit.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54830
when are the times when i am full of shit?
>> Anonymous
>>54825

>>Image quality is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.

im confused. image quality is irrelevant to a point? almost like the act of photography is better than the result?

whatever lets all jsut have fun and agree that some ppl like horses and some ppl like cats.
>> Anonymous
>>54829

oh dont go on about the golden years...blah blah.

your just wrong , medium format cameras and film simply produce better quality photos when used in the right way. im talking purly technical aspects.

and yeah everyone has an opinion on what they like more but this isnt about that.

jesus you havent even shot any mediuam format so your stance is that of someone that has no experience on the subject.
>> Anonymous
>>54834
>oh dont go on about the golden years...blah blah.

Could you rephrase this? I have absolutely no clue what this was in reference to.

>your just wrong , medium format cameras and film simply produce better quality photos when used in the right way. im talking purly technical aspects.

I didn't argue with that. All I said was that, at a sufficiently low print size, it shouldn't matter that much.

And you didn't answer this: why not LF over MF?

>and yeah everyone has an opinion on what they like more but this isnt about that.

It is always about that, or rather, which set of tools is best applied to a certain situation by a particular photographer.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT SNAILS

LAAAAAAAAAAAA
>> Anonymous
>>54839

fuck off back to flickr.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>54839
Posting snails in a snail thread.

Laaaaaa

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:15 18:02:16Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-724631360Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>54855

ac shame on your...your becoming one of the /p/3.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54873
"One of the /p/3"? I don't know what that means.

I just wanted to support the ending of the stupid "ZOMFG LEICA IS TEH AWESOME" vs "ZOMFG LEICA IS TEH SUCK" flamewar. And that was my only snails.
>> elf_man
Man, ever since those snails were posted, laaaa just sticks in my head...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
is this a snail?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:07:26 06:30:46Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce, Return DetectedFocal Length26.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceFLASHImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingRED-EYEAuto Flash ModeBuilt-in,TTLFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeSPEEDLIGHTNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations490Image OptimizationNORMALSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
Jesus fucking christ! I should never have mentioned Leica..
>> Anonymous
Whoah, shitstorm in /p/

Anyway, the main reason why I'm into rangefinders nowadays is because I want to dive into the roots of my favorite type of photography. Most of the photographers I look up to (Bresson, Friedlander and Winogrand, mainly) used rangefinders for their work, and I wanted to experience how it feels doing things like they used to do. So I'm looking at it from a more practical point of view. This is my first time to use film so I'm still learning the ropes (lol, I had to make the lab technician show me how to insert the film in the camera). With that in mind, I think these dime-a-dozen rangefinders are adequate for my objective.

Hurrr... tl;dr. Let's all just get along.

By the way, the J is going to the shop after I found out last night that one of the shutter's blades is stuck (or can I fix that myself?). And why is it hard to find a lab which develops B&W film (at least here where I'm living)?
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
^that was me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54947
Because only pros and filmfags shoot B&W. And filmfags have their own darkrooms. B&W film processing uses different chemicals for developing than C41 (color negative) film, so your corner drugstore wouldn't do enough black and white business to justify the cost of maintaining the supplies to develop black and white.

What you might want to try is Kodak BW400cn or similar. It's black and white film, but designed to be C41 processed, so any 1 hour photo lab will be able to deal with it. Pretty easy to find in my experience, too.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>54981
Allan nailed it. If it's at all feasible for you (I know it's not for a lot of people, especially university-going people), look into setting up a small darkroom. It's incredibly cheap these days, since everyone is abandoning film left and right. Check craigslist for darkroom equipment, I've seen really nice setups go for $100 or less. And I'm sure the more expensive people can be talked down, especially after days with no bites.

I've used 400cn before. I'm kind of ambivalent. It gives decent, but not great, results. It's great to learn on, though.

I'm an XBOX HUEG fan of TriX 400, Delta 100, and Delta 3200 though. It's like the triforce of black and white film. Tri-X in particular is incredible because at 400 it's beautiful, and you can push it to 1600 or even 3200 with very good results. I hear you can pull it to 100, too, but I've never tried.
>> des
>>54990
400cn is great because it scans real easy. I'm pretty happy with it with a #21 orange and overexposed around a stop-ish. It's no replacement for tri-x but it isn't really fair comparing them; apples and oranges.
I do use it more than tri-x or hp5 these days but I'm fairly certain that's lazyness more than preference. :)