>> |
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.
|