The wisdom of buying into a rangefinder system

[Stoned]

I've always wanted to own a G2 or G1 system, but in light of the recent cut-backs on 35mm film technology from major companies(for instance Nikon in today's newspapers) and MF technology(Bronica is dead now), will companies like Hasselblad, Leica and Contax be able to sell enough cameras to create a demand for film from companies like Fuji and Kodak that produce film?

Plonking down 2k on a G1/G2 system might have seemed like a good prospect perhaps 5 years ago, but how wise is it to actually buy such a system that may not even have film to use in 10 years time? I'm deciding between such a "classic" system and an MF one and at this point neither really seems like a wise financial investment(the road ahead looks bleak in terms of value retention).

I'm still completely enamoured by the design of the G2 and to me, it's easily one of the most beautiful cameras I've seen. Nevertheless, not being rash and impulsive, I've decided to seek the advice of people on this forum before even beginning to consider such a system or even a MF one. Would you buy into a film system now? given the current circumstances of the digital world today.

[jbma]

I think there is no avoiding it. Digital will replace film but not in the near future. Film will still be available for a long time to come though it may be more expensive. Even if it is in 10 years time, which I don't think so, it is still worth it. Imagine 10 years of using your new cam and having a time of your life with it. Nothing last forever. Just grab the opportunity while you still can.

My humble opinion.

[student]

There is absolutely no doubt that digital has taken over nearly all the commercial and photojournalist work.

But from a recent article in View Camera magazine, there appears to be an increase in sales of films, certainly largeformat films, and cameras.

There is money to be made for film. Just that the amount to be made is not to the liking of such like Canon and Nikon, and Kodak. But there are others who are happy with earning "peanuts".

Fear not. Film will outlast you.

[Stoned]

That's comforting to note! Now i'll just have to get all my finances in order before i bite the bullet. Thanks all for the advice.

[forward]

My prediction will come true. As soon as you got seriously enough into photography as an Art form, you will soon get involved with a film camera. You won't want a 35mm, the medium and large format is the norm. Think about the investment into a medium format rangefinder instead. Many of us are film shooters and going into Large Format is a sure sign of photography at its best.

Large Format user like "Student" can help you with his new skills.

-------------------------------------------
Helping others realise their potential
can be the most fulfilling thing you'll
ever do.

[student]

Originally Posted by forward My prediction will come true. As soon as you got seriously enough into photography as an Art form, you will soon get involved with a film camera. You won't want a 35mm, the medium and large format is the norm. Think about the investment into a medium format rangefinder instead. Many of us are film shooters and going into Large Format is a sure sign of photography at its best. Large Format user like "Student" can help you with his new skills.

Actually I am thinking of getting an M3 which is meterless. I am thinking of forcing myself to see light and meter according to my eyes. I do not do commercial work, and if my exposures are off, it really doesn't matter the least bit to me. I have recently looked again at Ralph Gibson's works, and I still feel challenged by his imagery.

[forward]

Originally Posted by student Actually I am thinking of getting an M3 which is meterless. I am thinking of forcing myself to see light and meter according to my eyes. I do not do commercial work, and if my exposures are off, it really doesn't matter the least bit to me. I have recently looked again at Ralph Gibson's works, and I still feel challenged by his imagery.

Well, getting an M3 with a standard lens can be a good option to start seeing with your eyes. The first thing to learn in photography is to be able to see light and even feel it. There is no substitute for the joy you will experience to seeing the world in black-and-white for whenever or whatever time you set yourself in, you still see colour. Get yourself acquainted with Man Ray too.

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by forward My prediction will come true. As soon as you got seriously enough into photography as an Art form, you will soon get involved with a film camera. You won't want a 35mm, the medium and large format is the norm. Think about the investment into a medium format rangefinder instead. Many of us are film shooters and going into Large Format is a sure sign of photography at its best. Large Format user like "Student" can help you with his new skills. ------------------------------------------- Helping others realise their potential can be the most fulfilling thing you'll ever do.

It's merely a format isn't it? I personally don't see why film is better than digital except in the areas of transparencies. The reason why i don't want to enter LF is because of the sheer bulk of the equipment. I hate lugging around so much stuff just to make an image and because of that I guess I'll never enter LF unless it's an inside-a-studio context where there's air con and no sun. MF is still a possibility because it's portable.

I'll have to consider carefully but I'm really leaning more towards the G2 set-up at the moment. I like the size and the craftsmanship. I'm not really buying it for better images. I reckon it wouldn't be a world of difference from my EOS 3's images.

Well i mean seriously, what can film give me that digital can't, other than great colour and contrast without PP. It's really all about the great design of these classical cameras for me.

[alvinchuan]

Originally Posted by Stoned I've always wanted to own a G2 or G1 system, but in light of the recent cut-backs on 35mm film technology from major companies(for instance Nikon in today's newspapers) and MF technology(Bronica is dead now), will companies like Hasselblad, Leica and Contax be able to sell enough cameras to create a demand for film from companies like Fuji and Kodak that produce film? Plonking down 2k on a G1/G2 system might have seemed like a good prospect perhaps 5 years ago, but how wise is it to actually buy such a system that may not even have film to use in 10 years time? I'm deciding between such a "classic" system and an MF one and at this point neither really seems like a wise financial investment(the road ahead looks bleak in terms of value retention). I'm still completely enamoured by the design of the G2 and to me, it's easily one of the most beautiful cameras I've seen. Nevertheless, not being rash and impulsive, I've decided to seek the advice of people on this forum before even beginning to consider such a system or even a MF one. Would you buy into a film system now? given the current circumstances of the digital world today.

Hi Stone

IMHO I don't think the film will not phase out in the next 10 years for a simple reason.
The resolution of CCD/CMOS sensor cannot compare to film and as long there are people using it there will be film.

Why worry of financial investment? In today’s digital world, the turnover of a digital SLR is 3 to 5 years and compact is every year or two. The cost of a digital camera compare to a film can be range to 10 times and the life cycle of sensor is short. There is no value retention for digital also. In general the overall upfront investment (camera, software storage device etc..) for a digital is very high compare to film. We choose digital is because of the low running cost and for convenient.

In short, if you appreciate the quality of G2 and satisfy you with the result it produce it is already a good investment.

This article might also interest you

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/c...ththenew.shtml

Cheers
alvin

[sabrewolf]

black and white film still have better dynamic range than digital and not many people can afford medium or large format digital. If you only print at 4R you might as well buy a point and shoot and forget about SLRs.

[student]

Originally Posted by Stoned Well i mean seriously, what can film give me that digital can't, other than great colour and contrast without PP. It's really all about the great design of these classical cameras for me.

If you feel that film cannot give you what digital can't, then you should not go into film for that reason.

For me there are at least three reasons why I like film.

1 I do B&W, so this point may not interest you if you are a color person. Looking at images from a piece of paper is basically looking at reflected light. (forget about how great images look on the screen). I think there is a difference between light reflected from the silver halide paper and the pigments. I just happen to prefer the former.

2 The use of a rangefinder, such a leica M, is very different from a digital camera. Again, what one likes is something personal. But it is different.

3 Talking about investment. Unless you are talking about investment from the returns of commercial work, digital equipments have very short life. Leicas made 50 years ago are still functioning. How many are using D30 now? How much is it worth?

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by student If you feel that film cannot give you what digital can't, then you should not go into film for that reason. For me there are at least three reasons why I like film. 1 I do B&W, so this point may not interest you if you are a color person. Looking at images from a piece of paper is basically looking at reflected light. (forget about how great images look on the screen). I think there is a difference between light reflected from the silver halide paper and the pigments. I just happen to prefer the former. 2 The use of a rangefinder, such a leica M, is very different from a digital camera. Again, what one likes is something personal. But it is different. 3 Talking about investment. Unless you are talking about investment from the returns of commercial work, digital equipments have very short life. Leicas made 50 years ago are still functioning. How many are using D30 now? How much is it worth?

1. I feel the difference here lies in the darkroom print and less so for the film. Certainly though, BnW looks MUCH better IMO, but the usage of coloured filters still doesn't come as naturally as the channel mixer. I still keep my EOS 3 and a set of coloured filters for the express purpose of doing BnW and slides. I still cannot replicate the exact effects in PS.

2. I'm buying mainly for this purpose. Did i mention how great I think the G2 is? Operationally and aesthetically.

3. The G2/G1 rangefinders and medium format equipment have dropped significantly in price over the last few years. Even the price of Blads have come down somewhat, though much less than say, Bronicas. Leicas are rather resistant, but they have come down a little as well. This is the only reason why I can afford such a rangefinder or MF system now. Undeniably, the prices of film systems have taken a major beating from the digital age.

[student]

Originally Posted by Stoned 2. I'm buying mainly for this purpose. Did i mention how great I think the G2 is? Operationally and aesthetically. 3. The G2/G1 rangefinders and medium format equipment have dropped significantly in price over the last few years. Even the price of Blads have come down somewhat, though much less than say, Bronicas. Leicas are rather resistant, but they have come down a little as well. This is the only reason why I can afford such a rangefinder or MF system now. Undeniably, the prices of film systems have taken a major beating from the digital age.

#2 Yup! And I do think the G2 is a great camera and sexy!

#3 Yes, you are right. I was thinking not so much from the absolute monetary aspects. Made me think of another thing. Years ago, it was thought that Mercdes and toyatas hold the values well. Not any more.

Well, not only film camera takes a beating, but the price of digital will fall too!

I was thinking more about the lifespan investment of the equipment.

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by student #3 Yes, you are right. I was thinking not so much from the absolute monetary aspects. Made me think of another thing. Years ago, it was thought that Mercdes and toyatas hold the values well. Not any more. Well, not only film camera takes a beating, but the price of digital will fall too! I was thinking more about the lifespan investment of the equipment.

Actually, come to think of it, the price and cost of photography is falling, which is really great news for all of us I think. The only people that wouldn't be happy is probably the working professionals that dislike the sudden influx of people taking up photography and "spoiling the market". I do agree, however, that film-based systems depreciate much more slowly than digital-based ones. It probably has something to do with the rate of technology development and new models bumping out the older ones. It's developing like PCs really.

[koolcat]

Don't get the g1 or g2 then. Get the Leica M so that you can use your lens on their Digital M system coming out next year.

[Stoned]

There's just one problem there, I don't like Leica aesthetics.

[surge]

digital have come to a time that it is as good as film if not better. many argue that film has so much more resolution that digital wil take a loooong time to catch up. but look at a 7mp printout at 8R, can you really spot the difference in terms of quality? is digital is less sharp cos film has 'more pixel'?

how many ppl will drum scan every slides to get the best out of it and how much are you willing gonna spent(time and money) doing those things?

if you have money to spare, get the contax cos its just simply beautiful......(i sold my bronica SQA and contax G2 cos i find digital more fun as end of the day photography is still about e images...and i ahve no spare cash for equipment)

if you wan to enjoy photography then print your digital images more often. one thing that digital seems less fun cos you don really get the see physical picture but on monitors of your pc.

print it, feel it and share it( i also find photography more interesting when ppl see the images i take and start asking where taken etc....) and you will find it more enjoyable.

watching your well capture images on pc is like selling london brigde for eg on tv....its not as exciting...


look at records vs ld vs cd vs MP3

many still thinks that the sound from a record cannot be reproduced on a digital media like cd or mp3. yso your film will be available for a very very looong time, dun worry( ld has died off but records still surviving)

[canturn]

If you want to work fast, get rangefinder, believe it or not, it is still faster.

Half the time, I pre-focus when I working for RF... During one of the weddings which the client requested for b&w film and digital, I was faster than my assisant using my 1D mkii to shoot colour for them. No prob under low light, everything is pre-focussed and have memorised the threshold distance for each F-stop for each lens ( i only use the 35mm and 28mm).

Takes practice, but once you're good, you can easily get an entire roll tack sharp w/o even have to spend time aligning the ghost images.

Apart from the LD analogy mentioned by Surge, some of these lenses, particularly the older summicrons from Leica are all about character. For documentry shots, I go for character of the prints over mere sharpness (actually, the summicrons I used are blistering sharp).

As for the wedding I mentioned, the couple ended up printing more from the B&W rolls than the digital colour. When asked why, they simply love the feel. Also, your subject relation is better when using a RF. Try it to believe it

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by canturn If you want to work fast, get rangefinder, believe it or not, it is still faster. Half the time, I pre-focus when I working for RF... During one of the weddings which the client requested for b&w film and digital, I was faster than my assisant using my 1D mkii to shoot colour for them. No prob under low light, everything is pre-focussed and have memorised the threshold distance for each F-stop for each lens ( i only use the 35mm and 28mm). Takes practice, but once you're good, you can easily get an entire roll tack sharp w/o even have to spend time aligning the ghost images. Apart from the LD analogy mentioned by Surge, some of these lenses, particularly the older summicrons from Leica are all about character. For documentry shots, I go for character of the prints over mere sharpness (actually, the summicrons I used are blistering sharp). As for the wedding I mentioned, the couple ended up printing more from the B&W rolls than the digital colour. When asked why, they simply love the feel. Also, your subject relation is better when using a RF. Try it to believe it

I've heard lots about the joys of the usage of RFs and really want to experience it myself.
I get what you mean about the speed but wouldn't this be a lot harder if you were using say a 90mm with much shallower DOF? Anyway, I probably wouldn't use it for assignments but for my own personal enjoyment. I remember when I started out with an FM2 i got pretty fast with the focusing too after some time, so I'll probably warm up to it after some time! Really itching to get my hands on a set but I need to sell my EOS 3 first heh. Else I'd have a body but no lenses

[canturn]

Originally Posted by Stoned I've heard lots about the joys of the usage of RFs and really want to experience it myself. I get what you mean about the speed but wouldn't this be a lot harder if you were using say a 90mm with much shallower DOF? Anyway, I probably wouldn't use it for assignments but for my own personal enjoyment. I remember when I started out with an FM2 i got pretty fast with the focusing too after some time, so I'll probably warm up to it after some time! Really itching to get my hands on a set but I need to sell my EOS 3 first heh. Else I'd have a body but no lenses

90mm lens is not very useful focal length to me for RF, I don't use that a lot.