strange developments in the 35 rangefinder world

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Robert Feinman, Sep 30, 2004.

  1. Both Voigtlander and Zeiss have announced new M mount
    rangefinder models at Photokina.
    There are two new Bessa R models with different finders
    and a whole new camera and lens line from Zeiss.
    cameraquest.com has a write up of the Bessas, you can
    do a search of the Zeiss site for the press release on theirs.

    Seems like a strange development if film is supposedly rapidly
    dying.
     
    Robert Feinman, Sep 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Feinman

    Skip M Guest

    It's not so much dying as becoming a niche product, as are the cameras that
    are being introduced by Cosina. The argument could be made that the F6 is
    also a niche product, a high priced, pro level film camera. The only
    anomaly is the Canon 7N/I.
     
    Skip M, Sep 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Robert Feinman

    Jeremy Guest

    Amen! Perhaps this is a taste of things to come in the film camera world:
    Top-shelf cameras and lenses will remain available, for those that haven't
    jumped ship and gone digital. The rest of the consumer-oriented camera
    lines may fizzle away. (Didn't Nikon recently announce that they were
    abandoning their P&S line?)

    We'll have fewer film camera systems, but the ones that remain will be good
    ones. Makes sense. Now if Kodak would only bring back Kodachrome 25, if
    even if only as an expensive niche product.

    The Chinese may introduce a few low-cost models to fill the vacuum in the
    lower-end film camera market. Perhaps a 35m equivalent to the (MF)
    Seagull??

    Perhaps this latest development represents the beginning of the cloud of
    confusion being lifted.
     
    Jeremy, Sep 30, 2004
    #3
  4. Robert Feinman

    Böwzér Guest

    News flash: you can ue both. It is possible, and I have it on good authority
    that some shooters actually use both. This is amazing! Apparently, these
    shooters aren't the least bit concerned with anything but the final image!
    They'll use whatever works! WOW!

    Film ain't dead, or anywhere near. Digital is just a new choice. But I think
    you already knew that.
     
    Böwzér, Sep 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Robert Feinman

    Tony Guest

    No doubt for the collector market. Here is a camera YOU can afford (no
    matter how bad) that will take those lenses you can pick up off ebay.
     
    Tony, Sep 30, 2004
    #5
  6. Robert Feinman

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Umm... are you trying to say that there has been a time when high end
    cameras - whetever their name is F4 or F5 or F6 or D2X or whatever
    have *EVER* been anything but niche product?
     
    Sander Vesik, Sep 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Robert Feinman

    Chris Brown Guest

    Cosina have been selling their Voitlander Leica mount rangefinders for
    years...
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 30, 2004
    #7
  8. Robert Feinman

    Skip M Guest

    No, but they are become more of a niche product as more and more pros go
    completely digital.
     
    Skip M, Oct 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Robert Feinman

    Dallas Guest

    Any "pro" who goes completely digital is not thinking clearly. I would
    think that if you were shooting medium format and you dropped that in
    favour of an APS sized digital camera (even a 35mm size sensor), you would
    be making a grave mistake.

    I wonder what conversations would have abounded here if this group had
    existed at around the time Polaroid was thrust upon the photographic world?

    Give me film over digital anyday (and I've been shooting digital since the
    D30 first came out).
     
    Dallas, Oct 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Robert Feinman

    Skip M Guest

    I
    guess I meant "pros go digital for the overwhelming majority of their
    workload." I know a few pros who shoot nothing but film, and I know
    significantly more who pretty much all digital. The quality available in
    prints from today's 8-16mp cameras, and the advantages in workflow trump any
    advantages, perceived or otherwise, of film.
    A couple of years ago, about the time the D30 came out, I was as vociferous
    as any about how it'd be a cold day in hell before I went digital, now, 80%
    of what I shoot is digital, the only film I shoot is for art exhibitions,
    and not even all of that.
     
    Skip M, Oct 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Robert Feinman

    Dallas Guest

    I was just Googling some of my posts here from when I first got the D30 in
    November 2001 and I think one of the respondants was yourself!

    Look, digital does make a big difference to your photography *depending*
    on what type of work you do. Of that there is no argument. There are cost
    savings and it definitely speeds up the learning curve.

    I also shoot mostly digital, but that's only if I am commissioned to do
    that or if the end result is only going to be put on the web. I'm
    certainly no exhibitor, but if I was going to be an exhibitor I would
    definitely choose slide film and have my prints made at a pro lab.
     
    Dallas, Oct 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Robert Feinman

    zebra Guest

    It all depends on the end product.
    For graphic applications, for most print, where digital image manipulation
    is required (e.g. beautifying models' faces, placing SUVs on top of Mount
    Everest, combining images, etc.) digital is the way to go.
    Where the end result is to be a fine print, a large print, a "permanent"
    print, an archival fine-art print, an exhibition print, FILM rules.

    If you are not a "pro", i.e. cater to client & industry dictates, but
    consider going digital, please consider the need for a computer, printer,
    imaging applic, time to learn, time to play with images in post-processing.
    Are you gaining anything or are you being sucked in by dig. camera ads?

    IMHO, you don't need digital for family and pets and vacation snapshots. No
    harm in going dig., if you have the time, money and skill to produce your
    own masterpieces.

    ------------ SNIP-----------
     
    zebra, Oct 13, 2004
    #12
  13. Robert Feinman

    Jeremy Guest

    For the casual user, assuming that he/she already has a computer, digital
    can be a lot cheaper than setting up a wet darkroom, playing with chemicals
    & temperature control, buying an enlarger and a GOOD enlarging lens, and
    spending hours making prints that are not meant to be exhibited or sold.

    One does not need a printer. I have OFOTO do all of my digital prints, and
    they come back printed on real photographic paper, not inkjet.

    Besides, some of us don't have the room to set up a darkroom, even if we
    were passionate enough about making our own wet prints.

    Editing software does not have to be expensive. I have both PhotoShop and
    Paint Shop Pro, and I prefer the much cheaper Paint Shop Pro. Much shorter
    learning curve. Does everything I need. Low cost. Lower system
    requirements.

    And periodic hardware and software upgrades are NOT mandatory. If one is
    happy with the computer, monitor and editing software, there is NO
    requirement that one keep buying more advanced hardware or software.

    It just may be a lot less expensive, and a lot more convenient, for the more
    casual photographer to maintain a digital darkroom rather than a wet
    darkroom.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 13, 2004
    #13
  14. Robert Feinman

    zebra Guest

    Jeremy, you are 100% correct in everything you say.
    However, there is no question of a casual user ever (well, hardly ever)
    setting up a darkroom.

    The case is between going digital (whether a computer, etc. is already owned
    or not) OR staying with film & commercial processing & printing of 4x6
    snaps.
    Everyone is fighting the war of digital vs. film, it seems.
    I like to consider the desired end product, then work it backwards to
    determine how to best achieve it. If you are a "hobbyist" then of course no
    rationale is required for your choice.


    -------------------SNIP-----------------------------
     
    zebra, Oct 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Robert Feinman

    Jeremy Guest


    This film vs digital thing is just a variation of the old "35mm vs. MF"
    debate. No camera is right for everything. I use digital, 35mm and MF--and
    I am an amateur, who never sells or exhibits his work. I do it for personal
    enjoyment.

    No way do I have the need or desire to set up a wet darkroom. And I have
    found that even pro labs don't always produce prints exactly as I would have
    liked them to look--after all, they can only guesstimate at what I want.

    What may be right for one shooter may be awful for another. These film vs.
    digital threads never seem to focus on that. The tendency is for posters to
    assume a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

    Digital imaging is fast becoming perfectly acceptable for a wide variety of
    shooting situations and objectives. It pretty much does everything that a
    casual user needs. Like it or not, it is marginalizing film. And the big
    R&D money is going into digital, not film.

    MF and larger will have a film quality advantage for some time. The big
    battle right now is for the 35mm user. Despite all the theoretical
    advantages of 35mm, my digital prints often look better--if only because I
    can fine-tune them.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Robert Feinman

    Bob Hickey Guest

    Having worked as a pro for 7 or 8 or 9 years.....memory
    lapse due to malnutrition......I enjoy the hell out of amateur photography.
    You can shoot what you want, when you want; print as good as you want, or as
    badly; upgrade or not, and hate what you're shooting and just stop. There's
    no need to decide what's obsolete, or even care. When I charged for a shot,
    it was never enough; when I give them away, I"m happy. Strange. Come to
    think of it, I havn't a clue what an MB or a pixel looks like. Wouldn't take
    a picture of it anyway. All I know is, color seems to have more. Most times
    too much. Too much for what, I'm not sure. My 30 year enlarger always seems
    to have exactly enough. If not, I have to push it up. Simple program. Free
    too. But it's probably obsolete, I guess.
    Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Oct 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Damn, Bob. Are you sure we're not related...? <g>

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Oct 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Robert Feinman

    Bob Hickey Guest

    I don't know who I'm related to. I looked thru the old
    papers this week, and it looks like every time some beauracrat found a
    pencil, our name changed. I guess they didn't know Lithuania was on the
    same side. Over 3 syllables, they want a raise. Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Oct 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Robert Feinman

    Rich Pos Guest

    Bob,

    Your posts are classics and always get me chuckling.

    Cheers,

    RP©
     
    Rich Pos, Oct 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Ha! Didn't earn it with me!

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Oct 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.