I'm really astonished that there are so many RF cameras these days, and at such high prices!

When people see me shooting with my little old TC, they remark, "Gee that's a neat camera -- you focus through the actual camera lens itself?!? Cool!"

-- tm

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Answers

Yes, rangefinders!

Tom There is a whole generation out there that only understands rangefinders. All media advertising is geared to RF's! I recently took a young type to a swap meet and he thought he died and was in heaven, once he figured out SLR's, because there wasn't any RF's there. "Why aren't all cameras like this?" He asked over and over!

.......jim

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Yeah, Stinkin' Rangefinders

Fellas, It appears that the baby-boomers of photography are trying their damnedest to get back into the womb. The current trend (and that is all it is) to rangefinders (the more retro, the better) is caused by some illogical nostalgia for something that never was and that most if not all of the participants know nothing about, having never experienced it. I grew up photographically with rangefinders. Japanese variety, not the crappy, over-priced, out-moded German type. I soon tired of the Japanese attempts at making German cameras with interchangeable lenses and opted instead for the high-spec fixed-lens types. They are still my favorites. I have or have had a Minolta Hi-Matic E, Yashica Electro GSN, Olympus 35-SP, Canon G-III, Konica S2, Konica C35, etc., etc. In reality, most photographers today were born long after the demise of the high-end interchangeable-lens rangefinder in the market-place. They were borderline antiques 30 years ago. The big push since that time has been in SLRs, to the detriment of TLRs and press cameras. Konica, in particular, has led the new wave of high-end RF cameras. This is because the chairman of the company is a big fan of such cameras. Well, it must be nice for him. Heretofore, Konica has made its fortune with film sales and affordable, yet innovative, camera designs in SLRs, RFs, press, and, yes, even in TLRs. Their insistence on making only direct-finder cameras is an indication of the general lassitude in camera design today, no doubt because they expect film cameras to disappear soon. Personally, digital cannot do what I want in a finished print or slide, therefore it behooves me to hope most mightily that digital-only dominance is a long way off, however, I fear it is just a short time away. People will accept some really crappy results as long as it is cheap. This is what will do in film cameras, in the end. OK, end of tirade. Sorry.

Jon from Deepinaharta, Georgia

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Yeah, Stinkin' Rangefinders AND Digital Cams

I stopped by a local camera shop the other day (boy it was slow there) and struck up a conversation with the Proprietor. We discussed the (seeming) demise of SLR protography in general and the advent of Digital Cameras and the like. We lamented the rise of cheap one-use cameras and the move from SLR to RF full-auto cameras. We also discussed Digital "Photography" (picture-taking is perhaps a better term!)

Anyway, this guy is making (reasonably successfully) a transition from film to digital. While he has a number of digital cameras and printers for sale (and some rather impressive large prints from the 1 to 3 Mega-pixel cameras), he is by no means convinced of the demise of 35mm and other film photography.

We discussed the resolution of film vs. digital (no real contest right now -- the grainiest 35mm film requires 8 to 16 megapixels at least). There ARE such Professional Grade Cameras coming on the market with this sort of pixel count, BUT they are currently in the 23 to 24 KILO-buck range! With the additional computer hardware and software costs, it is still DIFFICULT and EXPENSIVE to "go digital" at the same quality as film.

Nevertheless, there may come a time when technology overcomes us -- but I (and this guy from the camera shop) don't think it will be for some time yet. An interesting side note, the lower resolution of todays CCD chips means one doesn't need much in the way of Good (Hexanon) quality optics, BUT to get the resolution of todays FILM and tomorrow's DIGITAL, there will (at some time) have to be a resurgence in Good Optics.

So it may be in the future that our children and grand children will think "film" is something you have to wipe off the lens, but it won't make your camera obsolete just yet! Finally, if you want to see an interesting combining of Digital and Film based photography, see the following site:

http://www.siliconfilm.com/mainindex.htm

Comments?

-- tm in COLDorado Springs!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Stinkin' Rangefinders AND Digital Cams

Tom:

I fully agree with you - I think that the 35mm is far from dead and it will talk quite a few years for digital to catch up with a reasonably priced camera.

The article on the E-film was pretty good - I signed up for further info and left a note that I had Konica SLR bodies...

Lee

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Stinkin' Rangefinders and Digital Cams!

As a user of both, yeah, digital (Canon Powershot Pro70) has a long way to go to replace chemical photography, but remember, they are computers. That means next years crop will be twice as good at half the price.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001