mangydog

Well adjusted is the key here. I bought a 2.8F and used it for half a year with great success, usually at f8-f16. Then I started using it at 2.8 in low light. That's where the problem was, focus was beyond where it indicated and I had to get it serviced. Along with all the other small things that I did not know needed doing, it was expensive - 300 euros. I had the meter adjusted - 3/4 of a stop off, the auto loading device adjusted etc. I also put in a Maxwell screen (an extra 100?).

 

All that was in a camera that seemed in excellent working order, until I used it in critical situations. So when someone says a camera works very well, ask yourself what that really means; how critical are you? If you want it perfect, like I did, which makes sense to me with such high end equipment, then it may turn out to be more expensive than you'd anticipated.

 

Having said all that I now have a perfectly adjusted white face in excellent condition which cost me (everything included) under 900 euros.

Hey Brad, you little puppy, you're really snapping at peoples heels. And all that rant just because I said you were boring.

 

You can't even remember what you or the rest of your puppy friends have said on the self-same thread, so I wouldn't expect you to remember back to previous threads.

- 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.

It's a funny thing, but you get a couple of guys saying why they like rangefinders, they give their reasons, presumably those that come from experience, and then you get the guys that can't take it.

 

Seems like it's always the same to me. The Jeffs and the Brads and the Grants sound like schoolkids desperate to make us hear them - our equipment's just as good - we can do that too - look our photos are better than yours - we can make cool photos with anything, cos it's our vision stoopid - we're soo cool.

 

Well, really!

Trevor, maybe Mike just meant we could buy less; you know, as an alternative to being a lemming. It doesn't sound like the photo retailers have got much from Al Kaplan over the last decade or so, and he seems to be very much in this world.

But I love the B&W too.

What about the other variables in the chain, like the skill of the Fuji Frontier operator?

Thanks Ian, glad to know about it.

Bruno, are you saying they have to be consistent in their thinking!? Sure some 1.4's would make things more attractive for some, but perhaps they come later as the next incentive to buy.

 

Regarding the 15mm, I wonder how much cheaper the f4 would be? Probably still very expensive I should think, and then you still pay out a lot for a 20 or 22mm slow lens for your digital, albeit smaller and perhaps fast enough for some.

Peter, I've been worrying about the same things - keeps me up at night. I think you've hit on to something really important here 'what is rangefinder style' perhaps it is more of a sort of koan than anything and we ought to take the question deep into our inner selves.

 

It's probably something to do with 'it's the vision that counts, not the camera'. Since we've all been told this so many times it must be important - a deep and significant insight, obviously repetition is the key to true understanding. Maybe we can ask Jeff for just one more time...

Regarding why it has to be f2.8 and therefore so big, and also why it will have a different market from the fine, but slow, CV lenses, I assume it is because it is designed with a digital body and available light photography in mind.

 

So if the sensor has a 1.5x factor compared to 35mm it will work as a 22.5mm f2.8 and with a 1.3x factor then it'll work as a very nice 19.5mm f2.8. Prospective buyers of a Zeiss digital body might feel reassured to have such a lens in the range, even if they might never actually fork out the cash for it. At least it will be there if needs must.

>>> Now here's a plane that flies fewer people, makes more noise, burns much more gas, pollutes more, requires more space to land and more to take-off. And they're calling it 'progress.' I'm not so sure. >>>

 

Interesting quote: pity the same logic isn't used for all those SUV's so many people seem addicted to.

I agree with Kevin.