Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The problem, Ian, is that what you reference has solely to do with format. It's as simple as that. Large format generally requires a tripod, so the style is going to be different. What you describe as "rangefinder" style applies to almost any 35mm camera or deSLR, and some of the newer digicams. I don't think there would ever be an argument that there is a difference between large format and small format cameras influencing style. But most 35mm cameras used by serious photographers are SLRs, and there isn't anything that distinguishes SLRs from rangefinders in terms of results. I have a book from the early 80s that profiles a bunch of different photographers and shows many of their photos along with interviews. Many of the photographers had switched from rangefinders to SLRs, due to the introuduction of the Nikon F. Not one had photos that could be identified as pre-switch and post-switch. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Matt, you seem to have lost sight of the question. If you can show me a photographer whose style is defined by minor differences in distortion characteristics of lenses, I'd be amazed. I certainly don't define the style of my photos by that type of criteria. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Jeff, agreed totally. As I say, it's just a tendency <i>some</i> people associate with equipment. It's a nebulous term with limited use, handy on occasion but not something to use everyday or let define how you approach photography. I used to have an F4s. Beautiful camera, very fondleable ;-) I often used to set it all manually, scale focus, guess focus, shoot from the hip or bring the finder up to my eye at the last moment, take butt shots, yada yada yada. I even put Tri-X in it! I changed to a rangefinder. The difference? Because it's more likely to get carried around, I take more pictures. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 FWIW, I prefer rangefinder viewing. The two film cameras I have are both rangefinder (well one is the Hexar AF, but close enough.) Both also have leaf shutters, which, if one prizes quiet operation, are better than any focal plane shutter camera in that regard. That doesn't mean they affect the style of my photographs, it's just that they are differences that affect preference, but that's about it. Hard to get real animated about minor personal preferences. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 we did get a bit ot i guess jeff. i was just disagreeing with your statement that the same image could be made on dslr w/ zoom as could be made with a rangefinder (leica) as well as the f.stop issue, we have the sensor issue. and unless shooting with a $8000 full frame canon, you're not going shoot the same wides that i can with my $600 m2 and $350 15mm heliar. those smaller sensors will also affect your depth noticeably when shooting close up and wide open. i could also get into the black and white issues and shooting high speed iso's (3200+) with digital, but that would further prove your statement wrong and turn this into a debate? cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 3200 iso, 1/8 of second, on a 35mm lens at f 1.7 get this shot with your dslr and zoom and i'll shut up. :))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Matt, Jeff'll do it. But then again, I like to see you continue talking ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangydog Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 - I can use a dSLR with a very noticeable zoom lens and a 35mm rangefinder camera and take the same photos, except that the zoom is a lot more flexible. - Jeff. - Let's see, wide zoom at 2.8 and wide angle lens at 2.8. I'm having a hard time getting the same DOF with the wide zoom as the wide lens, aren't I? -Jeff. - Not surprisingly, I can make the same argument with my tools and it is just as valid. - Brad. - Don't believe I've had much to say about my cam - I just use it. Ditto Jeff/Grant. - Brad. Pity you can't follow a sequence Brad. You seldom post without reference to what you can do better than others with your equipment and it gets really boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Very nice photo Matt. These are exactly the circumstances where I would use a rangefinder. I often find that I need the fast speeds and wide angles. I can't see much wrong with any of your other comments either. I find it hard to understand why Jeff and co. do. It seems obvious to me that in that in certain specified circumstances rangefinders have real strengths, and that can influence the style of photography I am prepared to do. It's not such a big deal but it seems churlish to deny it. But I suppose it doesn't do much good arguing sensibly with fundamentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 Thanks, all! Your comments and opinions on this topic are appreciated. Now if anyone besides me knows what a "muskie" is, write in and I promise not to post another query for at least a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Maybe Matt doesn't understand "style." One photo does not make "style." I've never seen anyone whose work was dependent on ultra-wide lenses at very large apertures for its style. All of which can be done with a film or full-frame SLR. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I don't much like the term "Rangefinder style" because, along with some other comments above, shooting with a rangefinder does not make a style and many of the shots created with various rangefinders are too different to differentiate a style. I do agree that some of the same shots can be made with slrs and rangefinders, however, arguing that an f2.8 zoom can shoot the same shot as a rangefinder is lame. Yeah, at f2.8 or f8 for that matter, the shots will look the same (probably) but you would need a fast prime lens hooked up to your slr to mimick a rangefinder with anything faster than f2. With faster primes and available light photography I like to use rangefinders, because I can focus much more accurately with one. I find it hard to shoot with slrs in dark places because I can't see well enough through the lens to focus. But this is my equipment choice and I am not advocating that others absolutely need a rangefinder for this kind of shooting. Remember, its not the equipment that makes the shot, its the photographer using the equipment and their vision that makes the shot. Just use equipment that you are comfortable with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I guess "style" is a concept that just whooshes by this community. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Hows that, Jeff? Many of the people on this thread and elsewhere agree that style has to do with vision not equipment. How is that wooshing over the community? What flew over my head is how you can claim to shoot the same shots using a f2.8 zoom lens as someone shooting fast primes. Apparently, the affect of aperture on depth of field has wooshed over yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 <I>You seldom post without reference to what you can do better than others with your equipment and it gets really boring.</I><P> OK, not that your tiny rant is worthy of a response, I challenge you to come up with said references saying that I can do better than what others are doing with my equipment. You can't.<P> I think you need some help. What value do you bring here? No advice, no insight, no help to others, no humor, no attitude, and certainly no pix. Nothing to share. You're just a sorry little person. Though <I>you may feel</I> your incessant twaddles garner you notice and respect from those who are photographers and contribute here, it is in fact just in your dreams. Why not bring something real to the table, if you can... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 yea, like some beer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 To answer your question about a muskie, A muskie is a freshwawer fish, commonly found in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ontario. They can become quite large and are a hoot to catch. They have a very large mouth with sharp teeth. That lure can be used to catch them, but I would choose something a bit more colorful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 jeff, please, your twisting words here. i understand style. you're back peddling. you made a false statement, realized you looked and sounded like an ass, and are now trying to cover up. you post some great work and some not so great comments. maybe spend some time working on the latter. cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Matt, you're the one twisting words. Here's what I said:<p> <i>I can use a dSLR with a very noticeable zoom lens and a 35mm rangefinder camera and take the same photos, except that the zoom is a lot more flexible.</i><p> Now I know what I shoot, and I know how I shoot, and I can tell you that, except for my concert work, nothing is shot that requires an aperture greater than f2.8. In fact, I tend to shoot more stopped down with a film camera. I try to capture as much as possible and deal with the look in the post-processing. Sort of a zone system for dof.<p> Now if you think that what <i>I</i> do can't be done without a lens faster than f2.8, show me the way. But I can't figure out how you could tell me how <i>my</i> style requires something that <i>you</i> think it requires. Maybe when you're the king, you can do that. Until then... Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 jeff, i never said anything about what 'your' style needed. you made a statement about creating the same image with two separate setups. forget the scenario's that you 'normaly' shoot in. normal is boring. you did not specify only situations when you made that statement. i've put you in a surrounding. now go out there and create the same image/effect/whatever with your dslr and zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Where am I going to find old people? They don't hang out in the tattoo parlors I frequent. And the jukebox? It just looks cheezy. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 jeff, maybe if you expand your horizons and get out of your narrow minded box, you'll realize there are other generations out there, and they are photographable as well. jukeboxes are cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maria_s. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 burp .... where's Boris? I have some selenium 1:7 fix for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Ah, there's a useful comment. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maria_s. Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 don't be jelous, i've got enough for you too, Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now