Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Brian Walters wrote: > I think lots of cameras have been tagged with the 'poor man's Leica' > motto. I've certainly heard the Canonet, Konica Auto S2 and Yashica > Electro 35 referred to in that way. I have one of the latter - it's > certainly an impressive beast but having never used any Leica, I can't > say if it deserves the tag. The only "poor man's Leica" I loved were my Leica IIf and IIc which I bought along with their Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5 and Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses in 1969 for $99, complete. I was a poor high school student, I was barely a man (14 yo at the time :-), and I liked them so much more than my mom's Retina IIIc. ]'-) The Yashica Electro 35 was a darn good camera however. Not a great rangefinder (better than the peephole junk on the Leica II ...!) but easy to load and a fine lens. When I was the chief of the photo staff in high school a year or so later, I bought six of them for the staff to use. They made a lot of great photographs. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:07 -0500, "P. J. Alling" wrote: > Hey, if you want to go old school, go /old/ school. Get a Kodak Retina > IIa. Great walking around camera, you can find good users for $25. > > They have relatively reliable shutters reasonably good combined > rangefinder/viewfinders and a clam shell folding mechanism that while a > bit quirky allows them to be very pocket-able. > > They used to be called the poor man's Leica. Hell I've used a Leica > IIIc and Kodak Retina IIa and much preferred the Kodak. I think lots of cameras have been tagged with the 'poor man's Leica' motto. I've certainly heard the Canonet, Konica Auto S2 and Yashica Electro 35 referred to in that way. I have one of the latter - it's certainly an impressive beast but having never used any Leica, I can't say if it deserves the tag. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > The only issues you might have are that the cocking rack is held in by a > set screw that loosens up and lets the rack become too mangled to work. > I think MicroTools still sells a replacement for a not impossible home > repair. The other is it's a meter less camera. But hell you wanted to > learn more about film exposure, (trust me you really do), who needs a > meter. > > On 12/24/2010 9:45 AM, Nick David Wright wrote: > > I have been using nothing but my 50mm (shooting film) for more than a > > year now. Not something I made a conscious commitment to do, it's just > > how I find I shoot anymore. > > > > I would love to have a rangefinder for my walk-around camera. But, > > like you, budgetary constraints prevents me, though I've been looking > > real hard at the old Olympus XA or Canonet. > > > > Also glad you're sticking with the group. > > > > ~nick > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Allen > > wrote: > >> First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > >> on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > >> straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > >> have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > >> > >> Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > >> I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > >> that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > >> (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > >> clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > >> had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > >> I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > >> this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > >> shooting versus a DSLR? > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew Allen > >> Freelance Photographer and Writer > >> www.andrewallenphoto.com > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Hey, if you want to go old school, go /old/ school. Get a Kodak Retina IIa. Great walking around camera, you can find good users for $25. They have relatively reliable shutters reasonably good combined rangefinder/viewfinders and a clam shell folding mechanism that while a bit quirky allows them to be very pocket-able. They used to be called the poor man's Leica. Hell I've used a Leica IIIc and Kodak Retina IIa and much preferred the Kodak. The only issues you might have are that the cocking rack is held in by a set screw that loosens up and lets the rack become too mangled to work. I think MicroTools still sells a replacement for a not impossible home repair. The other is it's a meter less camera. But hell you wanted to learn more about film exposure, (trust me you really do), who needs a meter. On 12/24/2010 9:45 AM, Nick David Wright wrote: I have been using nothing but my 50mm (shooting film) for more than a year now. Not something I made a conscious commitment to do, it's just how I find I shoot anymore. I would love to have a rangefinder for my walk-around camera. But, like you, budgetary constraints prevents me, though I've been looking real hard at the old Olympus XA or Canonet. Also glad you're sticking with the group. ~nick On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? -- Andrew Allen Freelance Photographer and Writer www.andrewallenphoto.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
There's a reason that Leica's and their ilk are Prime lens machines, the mechanical communications to make a zoom intigrate smoothly would be horrendous. The only lenses Leica makes for their rangefinders that approximates a Zoom are their Tri-Elmar's of three fixed focal lengths. I don't know if the 28-35-50mm lens will automatically set the viewfinder frames for you, (those things are seriously out of my price range for me to have a working acquaintance with them), but it's a certain fact that the 16-18-21mm won't, on that you;ll have to set the focal length on the lens then separately dial in the focal length on a variable focal length accessory view finder. You'll get seriously miss framed photos if you screw that up. On 12/24/2010 7:08 AM, AlunFoto wrote: Andrew, I have never owned an RF, but when I see people wielding Leicas and similar, it's usually with prime lenses. I have sometimes been tempted to buy an RF as a walkabout, but find that I can do just as well with a DSLR and one of the DA or FA Limited primes. To me, the 21mm is just about perfect, with its AOV almost like a 28mm lens on 35mm film. That said, my shots are all over the "normal" range too, and my most used lens is the normal zoom. Currently that is the 16-50/2.8 which is a bit on the heavy side for casual and walkabout shooting, but if I reckon I will need a zoom, I bring it. I find it hard to think of the normal range as "constrained", though... :-) Jostein 2010/12/24 Andrew Allen: First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? -- Andrew Allen Freelance Photographer and Writer www.andrewallenphoto.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Reply interspersed. On 12/24/2010 8:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Andrew, you have to keep in mind that this list is very cosmopolitan in nature. So, sometimes, it can be even a matter of mis-communication or language barrier. And mind you, this forum is very polite and courteous as compared to some others. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? I'd love to try RF myself. But a fellow list member gave me most valuable gift of Pentax MX to which I attached my A 50/1.2 and it effectively calmed me down /grin/. My wish was to do some full frame shooting and hopefully soon I will have processed the films from both MX and MZ-6 that I also have and use. I don't think that the limitations of focal length are really a constriction as you put it. I also tend to shoot in the range similar to yours, having found Sigma 24-60 to be sufficient for most of my photography. My widest is FA 20/2.8 and my longest is FA 77/1.8 Ltd (*). So that in 35mm equivalent figures it would be 30-120 mm, give or take. And I don't feel limited at all. In fact, very often while shooting with a prime lens I found it fascinating and igniting my creativity (no matter how little thereof there is). Like others said - you could buy an older fixed lens RF camera really cheap and give it a try. Notice few points however: 1. Modern Pentax cameras have really quiet operation. Not silent, but very quiet and stealthy. 2. Modern DSLRs have live view so that you effectively shoot somewhat like in RF manner, using the screen for composing your shot. And you don't necessarily have to take the camera to your eye to take a shot. 3. Add to these two points a small pancake lens such as DA 40/2.8 or DA 21/3.2 and you can practice stealth street shooting just fine. Let me also join others who expressed their will and desire to see more of your photography. Boris (*) Galia has FA 100/3.5, but I don't think I used it more than few times throughout 2010. She uses it for macro and does it really well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
I've thought about getting the optical finder for the EP1. It's a little wide but the combination makes such a good urban camera. -Original Message- From: Jeffery Smith Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:51:16 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's The 20/1.7 on the Panasonic is a wonderful combination for street if you have the electronic viewfinder. Jeffery On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > BTW, Godfrey, I also have the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro on my E-P1. It's a > wonderful lens. With the Lumix 20 1.7, it makes a nice little kit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
The 20/1.7 on the Panasonic is a wonderful combination for street if you have the electronic viewfinder. Jeffery On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > BTW, Godfrey, I also have the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro on my E-P1. It's a > wonderful lens. With the Lumix 20 1.7, it makes a nice little kit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
I find much of this discussion resonating with my own experience with one exception. I rarely use anything much wider than 20 or so with an APS-C body. My 50 is still a good normal. I get much use out of my FA135 because I don't live "in town"; I tend to walk along country roads and I need a little more reach. BTW, Godfrey, I also have the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro on my E-P1. It's a wonderful lens. With the Lumix 20 1.7, it makes a nice little kit. On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Andrew Allen > wrote: >> Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction >> I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find >> that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm >> (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - >> clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I >> had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course >> I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on >> this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street >> shooting versus a DSLR? > > I don't know whether I'd consider it an affliction. > > Most of my photography is done with prime lenses in the range of a > wide-normal to portrait telephoto. The longest lens I use with any > real frequency is about 135mm in Equivalent 135 terms, and even that > is infrequent compares to a straight normal lens, a modest wide angle > and a short portrait tele. I use primes mostly because I become very > comfortable with a particular field of view and would rather have just > that then be constantly trying to decide whether I want to try more or > less FoV (aside from the simple technical benefits that primes usually > show over zooms in terms of more lens speed, lack of bulk and lens > performance). > > Which specific lenses I use are dependent on the system I'm using, > which currently is Olympus FourThirds, so I won't bother with > extolling the virtues of my current lenses to the Pentax discussion > list. However, I've found that, for me, an ultra-wide zoom, a fast > normal, and a fast portrait tele* accounts for 95% of what I need/use. > I have longer lenses for those occasions when they're useful but only > rarely just head out the door carrying them for an unplanned photo > shoot. > > For Street Photography, I've used everything from a Minox subminiature > to a 4x5 Speed Graphic, but the handiest camera to have for this is > something with a wide-normal to normal lens that is modest size and > handles well. I don't find myself needing extremes of lens speed very > often since I usually zone focus for this kind of shooting ... f/5 to > f/8 is what the lens is usually set to. When I was shooting with > Pentax gear, the *ist DS and K10D fitted with either of the DA21 or > FA43 Limiteds were my favorite shooters for this kind of work. > Nowadays, I tend to use the ultrawide zoom at the wide-normal FoV > (18-22mm) setting or the normal lens (25mm). > > RF cameras like the Leica M have a small advantage in being a bit > quieter and slightly more compact, but the advantages of a particular > camera type are way over-rated. A good camera that works the way you > expect, responsively, and suits your hands well ... with a good > quality lens that suits your FoV preferences ... is all that's needed. > -- > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com > > > * If you want the detail: my entire present lens kit consists of > > Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 > :: a superb piece, better performance than nearly any set of primes > I've had with comparable FoV on any format. That's an EFL of about > 20-45mm > > Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH > :: The best normal lens I've had since I sold my Leica Summicron-M > 50mm f/2 in 2002. 50mm EFL > > ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro > :: An extremely high quality performer for a "consumer grade" lens at > a shockingly low price, useful for much more than just macro work. > 70mm EFL. > > ZD 50mm f/2 Macro > :: Without a doubt one of the very best 50mm lenses ever made for any > camera. 100mm EFL > > ZD 50mm f/2 fitted to EC14 - 70mm f/2.8 Macro > :: One of the best 50mm lenses ever made fitted to the best > teleconverter I've ever tried. This is my long lens. 140mm EFL > > Pentax SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5 > :: Amazingly good performer, very small and light, that I got for > nothing from a friend who found it in the disposal bin at Good Will. > EFL 270mm, 380mm with the teleconverter. > > I use the 25/1.4, 11-22, 35 and 50 in order of decreasing frequency > where the 11-22 and 35 are about on par and the 25 runs about 60% of > my shooting. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/p
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
I'm primarily a film shooter using lenses in the 24-85mm range myself. If you normally use 2-3 primes and spend most of your time with a 35 or 50mm lens and switch to the wider or longer lens on occasion, the RF is just about ideal unless you do a lot of close-up work. Note a 24mm lens needs an auxilliary finder on most RF's, generally the widest framelines are 28mm or 35mm. You want your widest framelines to match your first or second most heavily used lens. I actually do shoot an RF, I've got a Voigtlander Bessa R with 35, 50 and 85mm lenses (I use the 90mm framelines for the 85). I'll probably add a CV 25/4 at some point to that kit. Right now I shoot probably 20 rolls a year with it (out of 90 or so rolls of 35mm a year). If you tend to use more lenses in that range or shoot mostly within the 60-85mm range I'd stick with an SLR. An RF;s 75 & 90mm framelines tend to be a little small and working with longer than 50mm lenses is better left to a SLR if done in large doses. Additionally RF's are more accurate at focusing the wider the lens is and SLR's are the opposite. -Adam On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? I don't know whether I'd consider it an affliction. Most of my photography is done with prime lenses in the range of a wide-normal to portrait telephoto. The longest lens I use with any real frequency is about 135mm in Equivalent 135 terms, and even that is infrequent compares to a straight normal lens, a modest wide angle and a short portrait tele. I use primes mostly because I become very comfortable with a particular field of view and would rather have just that then be constantly trying to decide whether I want to try more or less FoV (aside from the simple technical benefits that primes usually show over zooms in terms of more lens speed, lack of bulk and lens performance). Which specific lenses I use are dependent on the system I'm using, which currently is Olympus FourThirds, so I won't bother with extolling the virtues of my current lenses to the Pentax discussion list. However, I've found that, for me, an ultra-wide zoom, a fast normal, and a fast portrait tele* accounts for 95% of what I need/use. I have longer lenses for those occasions when they're useful but only rarely just head out the door carrying them for an unplanned photo shoot. For Street Photography, I've used everything from a Minox subminiature to a 4x5 Speed Graphic, but the handiest camera to have for this is something with a wide-normal to normal lens that is modest size and handles well. I don't find myself needing extremes of lens speed very often since I usually zone focus for this kind of shooting ... f/5 to f/8 is what the lens is usually set to. When I was shooting with Pentax gear, the *ist DS and K10D fitted with either of the DA21 or FA43 Limiteds were my favorite shooters for this kind of work. Nowadays, I tend to use the ultrawide zoom at the wide-normal FoV (18-22mm) setting or the normal lens (25mm). RF cameras like the Leica M have a small advantage in being a bit quieter and slightly more compact, but the advantages of a particular camera type are way over-rated. A good camera that works the way you expect, responsively, and suits your hands well ... with a good quality lens that suits your FoV preferences ... is all that's needed. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com * If you want the detail: my entire present lens kit consists of Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 :: a superb piece, better performance than nearly any set of primes I've had with comparable FoV on any format. That's an EFL of about 20-45mm Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH :: The best normal lens I've had since I sold my Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 in 2002. 50mm EFL ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro :: An extremely high quality performer for a "consumer grade" lens at a shockingly low price, useful for much more than just macro work. 70mm EFL. ZD 50mm f/2 Macro :: Without a doubt one of the very best 50mm lenses ever made for any camera. 100mm EFL ZD 50mm f/2 fitted to EC14 - 70mm f/2.8 Macro :: One of the best 50mm lenses ever made fitted to the best teleconverter I've ever tried. This is my long lens. 140mm EFL Pentax SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5 :: Amazingly good performer, very small and light, that I got for nothing from a friend who found it in the disposal bin at Good Will. EFL 270mm, 380mm with the teleconverter. I use the 25/1.4, 11-22, 35 and 50 in order of decreasing frequency where the 11-22 and 35 are about on par and the 25 runs about 60% of my shooting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
And if one likes to shoot B&W film with a red or yellow filter, you aren't looking through a red or yellow viewfinder. Jeffery On Dec 24, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Collin Brendemuehl > wrote: > >> My all-time favorite classic rangefinder is the Canon G-III QL17. >> Very inexpensive and a lens which is quite good -- 40mm 1.7. >> They go < $50 in pretty good shape. Just use a 675 battery for proper >> voltage/metering. > > I also shot with the Canonet quite a bit, and really liked it. > > I found another advantage with the rangefinder. With a SLR, what you > see through the viewfinder is typically through the wide-open lens. > The result is that the background in the photograph will usually be > more cluttered than it appears in the finder. > > With a rangefinder, the opposite is true; everything is sharp in the > viewfinder, and some of it will end up blurrier in the photograph. > > For me, the RF made me more aware of distracting backgrounds, and > forced me to better compose the photo to isolate the primary subject. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Stan Halpin" Subject: Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's Short answer to your question: yes, I find myself using a fairly narrow range of focal lengths. But the longer answer is that the range varies according to where I am and what I am doing. If I am wandering through a museum or local street fair, I'll have the 16-50 on the camera and nothing else with me. If I am in a marketplace in Guatemala or Costa Rica, where I am being more intentional about the photography aspect of my visit, I'll probably have the 21/2.8 on one camera, 55/1.4 on the other. Or 16-50/2.8 on one, 77/1.8 on the other. But if I am in the Costa Rican rain forest or a Missouri National Wildlife Refuge, I'll have my 300/4.5 on one camera and the 60-250 on the other. My general rule of thumb is that for me cityscapes and people = shorter lenses, and more open spaces = much wider or much longer lenses. I think we all evolve a shooting style and develop a preference for the use of certain lenses. 15 years ago, I was in a comfortable rut, shooting mostly 50mm with an occasional 135mm telephoto shot thrown in. Then when I joined the PDML (12 years ago?) I was exposed to people who raved about their long lenses and the ability to isolate details in a scene. And others who were equally voluble in praise of their wide angle lenses. Its a heck of alot harder to pull off a great landscape shot with a wide lens IMO. I bought a 17-28mm SMC F years ago because of that challange & have yet to accomplish that result ! I never have owned a 35mm lens as far as I can recall. I had the 31mm Limited and hardly used it and didn't replace it when it was stolen. I had a 28mm but never used it. But then I got a FA* 24/2.0 and started to change my notions about wide angle. I think that is a great portrait lens! And then I got a 20/2.8. Meanwhile I kept getting longer lenses as well. So many choices, so little time! stan On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? -- Andrew Allen Freelance Photographer and Writer www.andrewallenphoto.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > My all-time favorite classic rangefinder is the Canon G-III QL17. > Very inexpensive and a lens which is quite good -- 40mm 1.7. > They go < $50 in pretty good shape. Just use a 675 battery for proper > voltage/metering. I also shot with the Canonet quite a bit, and really liked it. I found another advantage with the rangefinder. With a SLR, what you see through the viewfinder is typically through the wide-open lens. The result is that the background in the photograph will usually be more cluttered than it appears in the finder. With a rangefinder, the opposite is true; everything is sharp in the viewfinder, and some of it will end up blurrier in the photograph. For me, the RF made me more aware of distracting backgrounds, and forced me to better compose the photo to isolate the primary subject. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Sounds like a decent digital P+S would fill your need without breaking the bank. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "AlunFoto" Subject: Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's Andrew, I have never owned an RF, but when I see people wielding Leicas and similar, it's usually with prime lenses. I have sometimes been tempted to buy an RF as a walkabout, but find that I can do just as well with a DSLR and one of the DA or FA Limited primes. To me, the 21mm is just about perfect, with its AOV almost like a 28mm lens on 35mm film. That said, my shots are all over the "normal" range too, and my most used lens is the normal zoom. Currently that is the 16-50/2.8 which is a bit on the heavy side for casual and walkabout shooting, but if I reckon I will need a zoom, I bring it. I find it hard to think of the normal range as "constrained", though... :-) Jostein 2010/12/24 Andrew Allen : First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? -- Andrew Allen Freelance Photographer and Writer www.andrewallenphoto.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Fortunately for me, most of what I shoot can be captured in the 40mm-55mm range (in 35mm camera terms). There are a lot of reasons to use an RF for street photography, including smaller size, quieter shutter, no shutter lag, and quick manual focusing on a spot that you want to be in focus. As for film type RFs out there now, there are only a few...Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander. The latter two are made by Cosina in Japan. Stephen Gandy's web site is a great resource for RF cameras. www.cameraquest.com Jeffery On Dec 24, 2010, at 12:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
My all-time favorite classic rangefinder is the Canon G-III QL17. Very inexpensive and a lens which is quite good -- 40mm 1.7. They go < $50 in pretty good shape. Just use a 675 battery for proper voltage/metering. Another option might be a simpler rangefinder like the Olympus XA. 35/2.8. Also inexpensive. A76 battery. If you would like more electronics with it, there is the Contax T2. 38mm f2.8. Certainly the nicest point-and-shoot I've ever used. 123A battery. And you can always spend a bundle on a Leica. If you'd like the versatility of digital and a rangefinder together, with lens interchangability, there is the Leica D-Lux for $TooMuch, or its $500 Panasonic equivalent. I think I got this with with a Canon G-III: http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/nufsaid.html My favorite characteristic is that the viewfinder shows you extra -- this allows you to see what is coming in and shoot accordingly. It's just a fraction of a second, but it helps. And it is so light-weight that you can take it anywhere. The only issue is finding 48mm filters, but that's not a really big deal. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott >Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction >I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find >that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm >(this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - >clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I >had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course >I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on >this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street >shooting versus a DSLR? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Dec 24, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Nick David Wright wrote: > I have been using nothing but my 50mm (shooting film) for more than a > year now. Not something I made a conscious commitment to do, it's just > how I find I shoot anymore. > > I would love to have a rangefinder for my walk-around camera. But, > like you, budgetary constraints prevents me, though I've been looking > real hard at the old Olympus XA or Canonet. > > Also glad you're sticking with the group. > > ~nick Don't forget the thread-mount Leicas. You can usually get a iiiC in user condition for about $200. It takes a bit of effort to learn to load the film in an old Leica, but they're wonderful cameras with outstanding workmanship. Some of those old lenses are great, if you like 1950's desaturated color. And there are plenty of modern lenses available for them as well, including the Pentax 43mm limited. Paul > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Allen > wrote: >> First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions >> on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages >> straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must >> have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. >> >> Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction >> I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find >> that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm >> (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - >> clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I >> had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course >> I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on >> this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street >> shooting versus a DSLR? >> >> -- >> Andrew Allen >> Freelance Photographer and Writer >> www.andrewallenphoto.com >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > ~Nick David Wright > http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
I have been using nothing but my 50mm (shooting film) for more than a year now. Not something I made a conscious commitment to do, it's just how I find I shoot anymore. I would love to have a rangefinder for my walk-around camera. But, like you, budgetary constraints prevents me, though I've been looking real hard at the old Olympus XA or Canonet. Also glad you're sticking with the group. ~nick On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
You might consider a non-SLR camera like the Olympus E-PL1 or Panasonic GF-1. These have many of the advantages of an RF but at a much lower price. Both these bodies can also take an optional electronic VF. -Original Message- From: Andrew Allen Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:39:56 To: Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Focal Length Constriction and RF's First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street shooting versus a DSLR? -- Andrew Allen Freelance Photographer and Writer www.andrewallenphoto.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Short answer to your question: yes, I find myself using a fairly narrow range of focal lengths. But the longer answer is that the range varies according to where I am and what I am doing. If I am wandering through a museum or local street fair, I'll have the 16-50 on the camera and nothing else with me. If I am in a marketplace in Guatemala or Costa Rica, where I am being more intentional about the photography aspect of my visit, I'll probably have the 21/2.8 on one camera, 55/1.4 on the other. Or 16-50/2.8 on one, 77/1.8 on the other. But if I am in the Costa Rican rain forest or a Missouri National Wildlife Refuge, I'll have my 300/4.5 on one camera and the 60-250 on the other. My general rule of thumb is that for me cityscapes and people = shorter lenses, and more open spaces = much wider or much longer lenses. I think we all evolve a shooting style and develop a preference for the use of certain lenses. 15 years ago, I was in a comfortable rut, shooting mostly 50mm with an occasional 135mm telephoto shot thrown in. Then when I joined the PDML (12 years ago?) I was exposed to people who raved about their long lenses and the ability to isolate details in a scene. And others who were equally voluble in praise of their wide angle lenses. I never have owned a 35mm lens as far as I can recall. I had the 31mm Limited and hardly used it and didn't replace it when it was stolen. I had a 28mm but never used it. But then I got a FA* 24/2.0 and started to change my notions about wide angle. I think that is a great portrait lens! And then I got a 20/2.8. Meanwhile I kept getting longer lenses as well. So many choices, so little time! stan On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
Andrew, I have never owned an RF, but when I see people wielding Leicas and similar, it's usually with prime lenses. I have sometimes been tempted to buy an RF as a walkabout, but find that I can do just as well with a DSLR and one of the DA or FA Limited primes. To me, the 21mm is just about perfect, with its AOV almost like a 28mm lens on 35mm film. That said, my shots are all over the "normal" range too, and my most used lens is the normal zoom. Currently that is the 16-50/2.8 which is a bit on the heavy side for casual and walkabout shooting, but if I reckon I will need a zoom, I bring it. I find it hard to think of the normal range as "constrained", though... :-) Jostein 2010/12/24 Andrew Allen : > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. Glad to see you're back. Thus far, no one has directed any messages to you that did more than disagree mildly with some of your points. If that warrants the circular file, your mailbox will soon be empty. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? > Rangefinders are great for street photography, in that they're almost silent and inconspicuous. I spent about a year shooting exclusively with an old Leica iiif, and a Summicron 50/2 lens. I enjoyed it immensely. I was traveling quite a bit and did a lot of street shooting in Europe. It was a great experience Here's a small Paris gallery, all shot with that lens and camera: http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=311283 > -- > Andrew Allen > Freelance Photographer and Writer > www.andrewallenphoto.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:39 -0600, "Andrew Allen" wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? Glad you decided to hang around - we're generally a pretty friendly bunch of misfits. :-)> I don't really have any 'exotic' lenses and make do with consumer-grade glass and some old M42s from time to time. I find that my DA 16-45 meets most of my needs, which tends towards landscapes. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Focal Length Constriction and RF's
On Dec 23, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: > First, let me say thank you to those who e-mailed me with suggestions > on how to enjoy this mailing list and send some specific messages > straight to the circular file. That being said, I suppose one must > have a thick skin when dealing with any 'open' internet forum. If you think being on this list requires a thick skin, you must hang out in some mighty unusual net.fora. If the PDML were any less contentious they'd have to change the M to stand for "Mutual-admiration". > > Back to photography, I was wondering if anyone has the same affliction > I do; that is, using certain focal lengths almost exclusively. I find > that 90% of my needs are covered by the rough range of 24mm - 85mm > (this being a 35mm equivalent range). Are you shooting 35mm? Or are you shooting APS digital? Unless you're doing a lot of low light work, it sounds like the 16-50 would be a nearly perfect lens for you. > That is wide through portrait - > clearly, I don't do any birding or serious sports work. Interesting, in the past week the shortest focal length I've shot was 16, and the longest 1200. That's true mm, not converted to some arbitrary "standard". These days I mostly shoot 20, 31, 77 & 135, though traditionally I've used either the 40 or 50 a lot more than the 20. > Recently, I > had a friend told me I should try out a RF WTF is RF? > for my needs - of course > I'd love an M9 - but I've yet to win the lottery. Any thoughts on > this focal length constriction, and the use of a RF for street > shooting versus a DSLR? Oh, rangefinder! Last September, I ended up running about 7 rolls of film through a rangefinder, my Argus C3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624809385751/ you may find the gallery easier to view as: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624809385751/ That week, I shot about 10 times as many frames with my DSLRs (mostly at night), and when the time came to print out my best photos, about half of the prints were from the Argus and about half from the Pentaxes. My thoughts on the subject are that a competent photographer can get as good of a shot with any camera, but that not all cameras can get all of the shots. I also noticed that the rhythm of shooting with a fully manual rangefinder was very different than shooting with a DSLR. I spent a lot more time setting up the shots, and I didn't take nearly so many frames dialing them in until they were perfect. With digital it's click, chimp and correct, with film it's point, press and pray. Rangefinders have the same physics advantage as to EVIL cameras, in that you don't need to leave room for a mirror between the lens and the sensor. SLRs in a mount designed for an APS sensor, would have the advantage of a registration distance designed for a smaller mirror. In theory, a rangefinder could be a bit smaller, in practice my C3 is nearly as big as my K-x with the DA 40. For street photography you could be a bit more discreet if you had a TLR, so you wouldn't have to hold it up to your face. In practice, you're probably better off getting a pretty good point and shoot with a swiveling LCD for when you want to shoot from the hip. Or, you can do what I do, and just put a wide lens, which is forgiving of both aim and focus, on and shoot from the hip anyways. Which is what I did most of the night for Santacon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625448696367/ I put the sigma 20/1.8 on the K-x and half the time used it like a rangefinder shooting from the hip. I went back, turned off the sound on my computer, and looked at a bit more of your website. Your work doesn't seem to be limited by your equipment, unless there are a lot of shots that you're missing. On the other hand, I think I've seen you start a new thread what seems every day about another piece of kit. Looking at your website, I would have guessed from your style, that you shoot canon. A lot of the portraits seem to have large sections of the face that look almost like blown out highlights, which I see a lot in the photos of friends who shoot canon. I also, based on your style, guessed you to be pretty young. A lot of your work looks very heavily processed. I've noticed that people that grew up shooting film seem to work to make their photos look like they came out of the camera nearly perfect, while people who started with digital seem to treat the raw file as raw material for photoshop. That's an observation of style, not a quality judgement. What shots are you missing that you think you would get, or improve, by using a rangefinder and would it really give you any better photos than a decent point and shoot? I'm a huge gear head. I usually carries a bag with 2 bodies, 2 zooms, and six primes, and is almost always within reach of at least one camera. Mastercard will vouch for my love of toys. Even so, the answer to "What gear should I buy?" ra
