Photography 35mm

Question:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..

Response:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him

Sure.  I’m no pro, but I’ve shot a lot over the years, and I almost always try to predict what my meter is going to tell me before measuring a scene.   I’m never much more than a stop or stop-and-a-half off.  It’s not hard to imagine someone that could nail it all the time, if I can do that. Start with "Sunny 16" and go from there. Ken

Response:

<< I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? Sure, with black and white or color negative film you can get close enough relying on nothing but experience.  I’d have to tip my hat to someone doing it consistently with slide film though . . . Doesn’t really sound very "professional" to me though.

Response:

With print film yes…These films have a generous exposure latitude that can be 2 or 3 stops.  I forgot to change my ISO from 3200 to 800 and shot half a roll of Supra 800 at 3200.  I changed my ISO and shot the rest of the roll.  To my surprise the ISO 3200 shots were not bad at all…Some were still completely well exposed.  I have seen worse. JR – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him

Response:

If he shoots outdoors or uses the same studio set-up all the time he probably can do it. It’s pretty foolish to bet your income on so dishonest an indicator as the human eye though. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..

Response:

I guess if he’s a pro and using someone else’s money to pay for time and materials then he can bracket a lot.  If I were his client I would demand he buy and use a meter. Fred Maplewood Photography

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? Sure, with black and white or color negative film you can get close enough relying on nothing but experience.  I’d have to tip my hat to someone doing it consistently with slide film though . . . Doesn’t really sound very "professional" to me though.

Response:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good?

That might have been me, and the answer is a qualified Yes. That is, I’ll bet I can give as an accurate expose without a lightmeter as any amateur can with a meter, and often I can choose a better exposure then their meter. That said, however, when I was working with critical situations where 1/4 a stop is the critical metric, I would meter, then have the film processed and check, change and meter again.  But amateurs, for the most part, can’t see a full-stop let alone a quarter stop, and wouldn’t know an excelllent exposure if they, ah, saw it.

Response:

I guess if he’s a pro and using someone else’s money to pay for time and materials then he can bracket a lot.  If I were his client I would demand he buy and use a meter.

Oh, the pro has a meter and he will use to satisfy a dimwight client who is watching.  Most site professionals use prestige brand-name cameras for the same reason: to satisfy the shit-for-brains client who doesn’t know that the pro can shoot the same picture  with a less-prestigous camera.

Response:

      It’s possible to come real close by looking at the sharpness of the shadows on the ground, or looking at the back of your hand and judging the contrast; but I still like to make one test print per roll, and then pull any shot thru expecting to get a usable first print from any of the twelve. Therefore I still use a hand held meter. Bob Hickey Metering by eye??   I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..   http://photos.yahoo.com/rollei711

Response:

I guess if he’s a pro and using someone else’s money to pay for time and materials then he can bracket a lot.  If I were his client I would demand he buy and use a meter. Oh, the pro has a meter and he will use to satisfy a dimwight client who is watching.  Most site professionals use prestige brand-name cameras for the same reason: to satisfy the shit-for-brains client who doesn’t know that the pro can shoot the same picture  with a less-prestigous camera.

Sounds like you’ve got a lot of respect for your clients–time for a career change, perhaps? —–=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!  Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers!  ==—–

Response:

I wouldn;t be surprised if some really seasoned photogs who shoot in a relativerly narrow subject area, are more likely to succeed than someone who shoots a general variety of subjects and conditions.  especially on slide film. Many a year ago, the meter on my trusty Pentax quit.  I went ahead (already on vacation) and shot a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 anyway. Surprisingly, my judgement wasn’t bad.  Not surprising though, there were many frames that were way under or over exposed.  ’tis the nature of slide film of course. NASA did a measured study of the ability of astronauts to accurately measure color by eye.  They failed horribly for a variety of phsyiological reasons.  One of them being differerent lighting levels, the other being the angle of lighting source and background. Since the human eye and vision system have a hugely complex real-time exposure compensation system, and since we do not get the "data" (aperture) it makes it hard for us to accurately judge brightness and contrast.  One part of the retina is black/white sensitive, the other part color sensitive.  Does anyone know what the fixed aperture exposure latitude of the human eye is?  Is it different for the macula than the rest of the retina? You may get away with it in most daylight even lit conditions, especially if you care to remember the sunny-16 rule and then offset and reciprocate as required.  Success with print film will be higher thasn with slide… Note:  the wall of my living room, receiving indirect sunlight through large windows will be up to 6 stops dimmer than the direct sunlight lit house accross the street.  This is far beyond my ability to judge with my eye alone.  Yet I "see" as well in both situations without knowing how many stops up or down my pupil has changed… FWIW. Alan I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..

– Lert’s live longer. Be A Lert.

Response:

(snip) Since the human eye and vision system have a hugely complex real-time exposure compensation system, and since we do not get the "data" (aperture) it makes it hard for us to accurately judge brightness and contrast.

(snip) Trusting the eye alone will never work. However, many photographs were taken before light meters were common. As I understand it the photographer’s learned the light levels of their light sources (sun, moon, whatever) and the relative reflectance of their subjects and computed the exposure. I read somewhere that Edward Weston took as long as a half an hour to decide the exposure for a shot. He rarely shot more than one  negative (film was expensive and he was poor) yet his negatives are easy to print according to his son Cole. Of course he also developed by inspection so he had some post-exposure control over the density of the negative. — Tom Thackrey tom at creative-light.com www.creative-light.com  Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services     ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **                 http://www.usenet.com

Response:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible?

I suppose it’s possible, particularly if he repeatedly shoots under the similar lighting conditions a lot — like sunny conditions midday. But I’d be suspect if he said he could do this, for example, in that hour which is half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunrise. Light levels change so much in that period of time, that even after shooting for decades, I’d still be turning to my lightmeter for inital guidance. CJ

Response:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good?

Julius Shulman claimed the same thing, but then he didn’t do his own printing either. It makes you wonder B

Response:

The human eye is notoriously unreliable for assessing light levels objectively. However, an experienced photographer might be able to correctly guess lighting conditions in familiar situations.  It’s easier and safer to meter, but I suppose if a photographer is stuck with lots of equipment, but no meter, it might come in handy to be able to guesstimate the exposure settings based on familiarity with previous situations of similar configuration. Nobody can measure light directly with the eye, however.  Even relative assessments of, say, contrast are extremely unreliable.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? georgio who wished it could heppen to him — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..

Response:

I’d have to tip my hat to someone doing it consistently with slide film though . . . Doesn’t really sound very "professional" to me though.

In sunlight where I live, 1/250 at f/8 will work every time for Provia 100F.  However, that’s just a correct guess based on experience, not a direct measurement of light by the unaided eye.  And it’s still easier and safer to meter, so why bother trying to guess?

Response:

Does anyone know what the fixed aperture exposure latitude of the human eye is?

It depends on the dark adaptation of the eye.  The sensitivity of the retina can be modified in real time, over a range of some 13+ stops. The static latitude is still much better than film, but I’m not sure by how much.  Note that the aperture adjustment provided by the iris is a lot smaller than that provided by most camera lenses–only in the range of about f/3.5 to f/8, IIRC. Is it different for the macula than the rest of the retina?

Yes, but here again, I don’t have exact figures.  Also, not everything can be directly compared.  When you consider macula versus peripheral areas of the retina, it’s like looking at two different types of film being used simultaneously, and there are differences in lens performance, too.  Rods in the periphery of the retina are very sensitive to light, and can be further sensitized by many stops in darkness, but they provide very poor detail resolution, and they bloom when brightly illuminated, and they provide only monochromatic vision. Yet I "see" as well in both situations without knowing how many stops up or down my pupil has changed…

The human vision system is extremely well engineered in many respects. There aren’t any film or digital camera systems that can see equally well in starlight or on a sunlit snowfield.

Response:

I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? Julius Shulman claimed the same thing, but then he didn’t do his own printing either. It makes you wonder B

Many lousy negatives were saved by superior printing in the darkroom… BTDT — Regards, JT (Squinting in Austin, Texas) Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4…….

Response:

I suppose it’s possible, particularly if he repeatedly shoots under the similar lighting conditions a lot — like sunny conditions midday. But I’d be suspect if he said he could do this, for example, in that hour which is half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunrise. Light levels change so much in that period of time, that even after shooting for decades, I’d still be turning to my lightmeter for inital guidance.

What I found really helpful was using a handheld meter in sunny conditions with light cloud that was blowing about a bit. I’d take a meter reading, transfer this to the camera and be part through focussing when the sun goes behind (or out from behind) cloud. There’s a noticeable drop in brightness (or increase) and out comes the meter to take another measurement. I found this really helps my appreciation of what a ’stop’ actually means when related to light levels, by seeing the light change that quickly and comparing the two on the meter. Now I often don’t need the second reading (or when I take one guess what it’s going to be before hand). — John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

Response:

<< I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? Over thirty years ago I was too poor to own a light meter and I shot about 5 rolls a day, 5-6 days a week.  The lighting situations were pretty canned,–usually one of two standard setups.  By NOT owning a meter I was forced to learn how to read a scene.  I got pretty good at it.  Really good, actually.  Then, I got lazy and now I simply cross-check the meter with my predictions of what I should be expecting.  Also, I got a lot pickier with my EVs for color transparencies.  Most of that other stuff was black and white that I developed and printed (with the resultant ability to control the compensation). I think all photographers should try this for a year just to get their eyes calibrated to really ’see’ a scene for its lighting.  Those few years I was without a meter taught me a lot about ‘reading’ a scene.  I employ that still today to dial in EV compensation from my matrix metered SLR. Dan Lindsay Santa Barbara

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << I have read someone say that he doesn’t use any form of metering anymore..being a pro in the biz for more than 25 years is this really possible? can you really be that good? Over thirty years ago I was too poor to own a light meter and I shot about 5 rolls a day, 5-6 days a week.  The lighting situations were pretty canned,–usually one of two standard setups.  By NOT owning a meter I was forced to learn how to read a scene.  I got pretty good at it.  Really good, actually.  Then, I got lazy and now I simply cross-check the meter with my predictions of what I should be expecting.  Also, I got a lot pickier with my EVs for color transparencies.  Most of that other stuff was black and white that I developed and printed (with the resultant ability to control the compensation). I think all photographers should try this for a year just to get their eyes calibrated to really ’see’ a scene for its lighting.  Those few years I was without a meter taught me a lot about ‘reading’ a scene.  I employ that still today to dial in EV compensation from my matrix metered SLR. Dan Lindsay Santa Barbara

I think that you make a good point. For many years, I used a leica M exclusively and you don’t want to know the number of times I forgot my meter.  Using the "F-16 Rule" will get you into the ballpark in most instances. Another poster mentioned that the hours just before dusk and after dawn present a challenge and this is true.  Unless a scenic, probably some fill flash would be required and this can help overcome these challenges. And yes, everyone should give it a try without a meter.  Sort of like doing basic math without the aid of a calculator… — Regards, JT (Residing in Austin, Texas) Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4…….

Response:

I think all photographers should try this for a year just to get their eyes calibrated to really ’see’ a scene for its lighting.  Those few years I was without a meter taught me a lot about ‘reading’ a scene.  I employ that still today to dial in EV compensation from my matrix metered SLR.

It’s useful to determine when a meter has failed or you forgot to reset the EV compensation or you didn’t reset the ISO when you changed rolls or whatever. It’s also the first step to understanding and controlling contrast without having to spot meter everything in the frame. — Tom Thackrey tom at creative-light.com www.creative-light.com  Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services     ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **                 http://www.usenet.com

Response:

For many years, I used a leica M exclusively and you don’t want to know the number of times I forgot my meter.  Using the "F-16 Rule" will get you into the ballpark in most instances.

Either you use print film or aren’t too fussy about exposure.   My ballpark is pretty small.  A meterless photographer would get into it only rarely, not in most instances. Another poster mentioned that the hours just before dusk and after dawn present a challenge and this is true.  Unless a scenic, probably some fill flash would be required and this can help overcome these challenges.

Why, what makes fill flash necessary at dawn or dusk? And yes, everyone should give it a try without a meter.  Sort of like doing basic math without the aid of a calculator…

It is certainly a good way to learn the value of an accurate and repeatable meter. I understand, though, I’ve read posts from the people who can handhold a 300mm lens at 1/30 second.  Some people are just better at things than I am. Fred Maplewood Photography

Response:

For many years, I used a leica M exclusively and you don’t want to know the number of times I forgot my meter.  Using the "F-16 Rule" will get you into the ballpark in most instances. Either you use print film or aren’t too fussy about exposure. My ballpark is pretty small.  A meterless photographer would get into it only rarely, not in most instances.

You would be shocked to realise just how accurate the eye is at metering. When I was young and using a Retina 35mm rangefinder and a handheld meter, I really got to the point of being able to be as good as the meter. Those skills have pretty much drifted away since getting my first in camera spot meter (Miranda Sensorex) back in ‘69, but I still retain an understanding of scene lighting that cuts me free from depending on the camera’s choices. …. And yes, everyone should give it a try without a meter.  Sort of like doing basic math without the aid of a calculator… It is certainly a good way to learn the value of an accurate and repeatable meter.

Turn off the meters in your cameras, get hold of a decent meter and spend 6 months (a year better) using the handheld meter. Then you can spend some time with no meter and test your newly trained eye. The result will really be worth it! I understand, though, I’ve read posts from the people who can handhold a 300mm lens at 1/30 second.  Some people are just better at things than I am.

There is usually a wall to lean on but training in marksmanship and weapons handling was a *big* help. Now if I could get your skill in other photographic areas, I would be more than will to share some steadiness and an eye for light. (-; Charles — *  Charles Richmond    Integrated International Systems Corporation   * *  UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and  Custom S/W   * *         131 Bishop’s Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452         * *  (781) 647 2269   FAX (781) 647 3665   Cellular (617) 504 3379      *

Response:

For many years, I used a leica M exclusively and you don’t want to know the number of times I forgot my meter.  Using the "F-16 Rule" will get you into the ballpark in most instances. Either you use print film or aren’t too fussy about exposure.   My ballpark is pretty small.  A meterless photographer would get into it only rarely, not in most instances.

I’ve used both.  It’s a matter of experience. Another poster mentioned that the hours just before dusk and after dawn present a challenge and this is true.  Unless a scenic, probably some fill flash would be required and this can help overcome these challenges. Why, what makes fill flash necessary at dawn or dusk?

Note that I said "Probably." Not all circumstances indicate the need for fill flash… And yes, everyone should give it a try without a meter.  Sort of like doing basic math without the aid of a calculator… It is certainly a good way to learn the value of an accurate and repeatable meter. I understand, though, I’ve read posts from the people who can handhold a 300mm lens at 1/30 second.  Some people are just better at things than I am.

Yeah, but have you ever personally met someone that can hold a long lens at slow shutter speeds and get acceptable results? Of course, "acceptable," could be another matter for discussion… <G Fred Maplewood Photography

– Regards, JT (Residing in Austin, Texas) Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4…….

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << Is there any camera, either p&s, rangefinder, or SLR, new or used, that has a built-in flash that is far enough from the lens to greatly reduce red-eye? Ever play pool? The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. You point a light directly at a reflective surface (the back of an eyeball) and the light will bounce right back at you. The result? Redeye . . . You don’t want redeye? Don’t shoot posed pictures with the subject looking right at you (at least not when using on camera flash).

Yes, I understand the problem.  I don’t know what the critical distance is, between lens and flash.  How are the flip up flashes on today’s SLRs, for red-eye reduction?  I don’t mean in "red-eye reduction" mode, I mean just in regular flash mode.

Response:

Besides, Minnisota Fats will wipe you out. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << Is there any camera, either p&s, rangefinder, or SLR, new or used, that has a built-in flash that is far enough from the lens to greatly reduce red-eye? Ever play pool? The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. You point a light directly at a reflective surface (the back of an eyeball) and the light will bounce right back at you. The result? Redeye . . . You don’t want redeye? Don’t shoot posed pictures with the subject looking right at you (at least not when using on camera flash).

Response:

The further away the subject, the more likely to get redeye. Since the highest a built in flash ever gets is about 2 inches above the lens – redeye will be certain. A tall flash like a Vivitar 285 still pretty much gets redeye every time too. In horizontal mode on a 35mm camera the flash is a good 5 inches above the lens.     I have a bracket that goes up about 2 feet. It’s heavy, clumsy, positively dorky, and a major PITA, but I usually don’t get redeye when I use it at normal – 5 to say 15 feet. Beyond that I rarely use flash. When the bracket would be in the way I just hold the flash in my left hand, and keep it at arms length about 45 degrees from high noon position. Sometimes my hand is not pointed correctly and I miss the shot completely, but I hit a lot more than I miss. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << Is there any camera, either p&s, rangefinder, or SLR, new or used, that has a built-in flash that is far enough from the lens to greatly reduce red-eye? Ever play pool? The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. You point a light directly at a reflective surface (the back of an eyeball) and the light will bounce right back at you. The result? Redeye . . . You don’t want redeye? Don’t shoot posed pictures with the subject looking right at you (at least not when using on camera flash). Yes, I understand the problem.  I don’t know what the critical distance is, between lens and flash.  How are the flip up flashes on today’s SLRs, for red-eye reduction?  I don’t mean in "red-eye reduction" mode, I mean just in regular flash mode.

Response:

Is there any camera, either p&s, rangefinder, or SLR, new or used, that has a built-in flash that is far enough from the lens to greatly reduce red-eye? Thanks.

Response:

<< Is there any camera, either p&s, rangefinder, or SLR, new or used, that has a built-in flash that is far enough from the lens to greatly reduce red-eye? Ever play pool? The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. You point a light directly at a reflective surface (the back of an eyeball) and the light will bounce right back at you. The result? Redeye . . . You don’t want redeye? Don’t shoot posed pictures with the subject looking right at you (at least not when using on camera flash).

Response:

Question:

Is there a special trick for using polarizer filter on a rangerfinder camera. It must be difficult to see the polarization? Does the most rangefinders measure the light through the lens?…..else you must remember to compensate……like I do when using my HSB…. approx. 1.5 EV. Max

Response:

    In the good old days, they sold the filters with a little attachment that would stick out and you could look through to see the effect.  I never bothered, I just looked through the filter and make sure the orientation was the same as  when I looked through it.     Many but not all rangfinders had meters that would meter through the filter, only a couple as I recall filtered through the lens. — Dia ’s Muire duit Joe M

Response:

Add some numbered markings to the edge of the filter across 180 degrees.   Probably you could fit in 15 to 20 marks depending on the filter.   Look through the filter at your scene and just turn it by hand, noting the number at the top position when you get the effect you want, then mount the filter and turn it to the same position.     Leica also makes a pricey flip-over polarizer that is hinged to rotate 180 degrees and insert itself in front of the viewfinder.  Although expensive, it does have a hood and is very high quality, but it probably won’t be an option unless you use polarizers constantly.    I happened to get one at a good price and I do use it quite a bit, and I must admit it is a clever idea that saves me a lot of time.

Response:

Here’s a real rec.photo.equipment.35mm type solution: Carry an SLR for use with your polarizer; carry a rangefinder for use with your deeply-colored B&W filters…   "Excelsior, you fatheads!" -Chris-

Response:

The Leica swing out polarizer works on Leica M’s with both the external MR meters and on those with internal meters.   When using the MR meter, you clamp the filter to the lens so that when the filter is swung 180 degrees, it falls in front of the meter.  You rotate the filter to the desired effect (looking through the filter), press the button on the MR meter to take a meter reading and then rotate the filter back in front of the lens. This works better than it sounds. With Leicas with built in meters, you clamp the filter to the lens such that when the filter is swung out 180 degrees, it falls in front of the viewfinder.  You look through the viewfinder and rotate the filter to obtain the desired effect.  Then you swing the filter back in front of the lens and meter as you would normally. I believe that the Leica swing out polarizer will work with Contax G cameras (at least the newer version of the filter). — Bud Cook

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is there a special trick for using polarizer filter on a rangerfinder camera. It must be difficult to see the polarization? Does the most rangefinders measure the light through the lens?…..else you must remember to compensate……like I do when using my HSB…. approx. 1.5 EV. Max

Response:

See http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/polarizer.htm That page is oriented toward digicams, but the issues are very similar to those of rangefinder cameras. Some rangefinders meter through the lens, some don’t.  Some meter through a small window above the lens, but still behind the filter, which is the same as TTL for the purposes of filter compensation. You have to know which type you have before you can tell whether to apply compensation.  Hint: if the meter gives "reasonable" readings with the lens cap on, you probably will need to apply compensation. If the meter reading changes when you put the filter on, you probably don’t need to compensate. –Rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is there a special trick for using polarizer filter on a rangerfinder camera. It must be difficult to see the polarization? Does the most rangefinders measure the light through the lens?…..else you must remember to compensate……like I do when using my HSB…. approx. 1.5 EV. Max

Response:

<<I believe that the Leica swing out polarizer will work with Contax G cameras(at least the newer version of the filter). The set includes a 46mm adapter and does, indeed, work on G lenses with the reservation that the 28mm and 21mm might vignette.   (I don’t remember if the 21mm had 46mm filter threads.)

Response:

The way I use a rangefinder it just isn’t an issue. When I need careful composition I use an SLR. When I’m shooting documentary style — especially in quiet, low light situations — I use the rangefinder. It’s a case of horses for courses. As nice as the rangefinder is to use in SOME situations it simply isn’t the jack of all trades that an SLR is.

Response:

Max, I made one mark at the top of the filter’s lens ring corresponding with its location when the filter bottoms out on the lens’ filter threads. So all I do then is hold the filter with the mark upright and aim in the direction of the shot, and rotate until the pola effect is what I want, then mount the filter, dial in the exposure compensation and shoot. Heliopan Pola filters come with beaut numbers arrayed around the filter, but you don’t need any the numbers for the method described, provided the rings stay in the correct orientation as you mount the filter. What is useful is the resistance to movement between the inner and outer rings of the filter – fortunately, the HP filter is just right in this respect. SLR guys will say this is really hard, but I say it is easier than peering through a now-darkened SLR viewfinder… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is there a special trick for using polarizer filter on a rangerfinder camera. It must be difficult to see the polarization? Does the most rangefinders measure the light through the lens?…..else you must remember to compensate……like I do when using my HSB…. approx. 1.5 EV. Max

Response:

Max, I made one mark at the top of the filter’s lens ring corresponding with its location when the filter bottoms out on the lens’ filter threads. So all I do then is hold the filter with the mark upright and aim in the direction of the shot, and rotate until the pola effect is what I want, then mount the filter, dial in the exposure compensation and shoot. Heliopan Pola filters come with beaut numbers arrayed around the filter, but you don’t need any the numbers for the method described, provided the rings stay in the correct orientation as you mount the filter. What is useful is the resistance to movement between the inner and outer rings of the filter – fortunately, the HP filter is just right in this respect. SLR guys will say this is really hard, but I say it is easier than peering through a now-darkened SLR viewfinder…

In my Leica owning days I remember seeing a fellow Leica owner with an M3 fitted with a large polarising filter.   He had a bracket that fitted to the M3’s tripod mount.  It allowed a filter ring to be supported just in front of the lens.  Into this was screwed a large polariser – I cannot recall whether I asked the size but I would imagine it was at least 67mm, maybe 72 or 77mm diameter. The polariser was mounted off centre relative to the lens axis, but still covering the lens’ angle of view.  It was possible to look through the viewfinder and see what effect the polariser had on the picture.  A picture could then be taken without having to re-mount the polariser on the lens. Apart from the difficulty of mounting a lens hood, this seemed to me an excellent way of using a polariser on a rangefinder camera.  It was an accessory the Leica owner had purchased with the camera so he didn’t know where it could be obtained new. Perhaps someone on here is familiar with this accessory. — Tony Polson

Response:

Question:

Hi, I am going to buy a backup for my SLR. I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder. Compact PS’s don’t allow manual mode. Medium wide angle lens is enough for me. Private investigation results: Olympus 35RD Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII Konica Auto S3 Canonet GIII QL17 Ricoh 500G I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions. Best regards – Marek

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I am going to buy a backup for my SLR. I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder. Compact PS’s don’t allow manual mode. Medium wide angle lens is enough for me. Private investigation results: Olympus 35RD Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII Konica Auto S3 Canonet GIII QL17 Ricoh 500G I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions. Best regards – Marek

  Not familiar with the Ricoh, but any one of the others is up to the job. All kinds of these are on ebay, but the Canonet’s are by far the most common. I have two of them and they take great photos. For an evaluation of these go to http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm

Response:

Hi, I am going to buy a backup for my SLR. I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder. Compact PS’s don’t allow manual mode. Medium wide angle lens is enough for me. Private investigation results: Olympus 35RD

I don’t have this one, but it’s on my list. This is one of the later model Olympus compact rangefinders, all of which were pretty nice. It uses the unobtainable 625 mercury battery (USA, anyway); you would need to consider one of the work-arounds in powering the meter. Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII

Some folks swear by these. I have found the Minolta compact rangefinders, in general, a bit too cheaply made (well, other their their collaborations with Leica). Konica Auto S3

This is a wonderful camera, with one of the best lenses ever — nice and wide, too, at 38mm/f-1.8. I’ve been looking for one, at a good price, for years. It doesn’t meet your qualifications, though, as it’s aperature-priority auto-only, no manual speeds. If you get one, get the flash, too; the S3 has the most sophisticated automatic flash coupling system in any rangefinder of the day. Canonet GIII QL17

I have one of these; highly recommended. These are fairly easy to find, too, since Canon sold over a million of them, in the model’s 10-year run. The 40mm f-1.7 lens is nice and sharp. It’s got a nice, comfortably large film-advance lever for this class of camera. It has manual settings, but you don’t get the meter with these (like many of these types, the meter simply sets the exposure and tells you about it, it’s not geared to work as an uncoupled meter). The viewfinder is bright, and has real, moving parallex correction marks, kind of rare in this class of camera. The one downside (and really, this is the only thing I have a problem with — I still actively use mine) is that, like many early-to-mid 70s cameras, the GIII QL17 takes the 1.35V 625 mercury cell, which is outlawed in the USA. You can easily use the 1.5V alkaline version, 76A, but these are far from ideal — they start out high, but die slowly, so you’ll be well below 1.35V before they croak outright. The reason everyone used mercury was that they stayed dead-on at voltage until the bitter end. Silver oxide batteries are similar in this respect, and you can get a 1.5V silver oxide in the 76S type. Ideally, you’d have a regulator added, or (if possible, and opinions vary) a recalibration of the meter for 1.5V, to make this really work. I generally use the 76S and adjust the film speed. Given today’s latitudes, this gives results well within the capabilities of the camera, at least for print film. There are other solutions. Ricoh 500G

I don’t know a great deal about this one. However, the combination of the relatively slow f-2.8 lens and that same mercury battery would rule it out for me. One of the main advantages of the small rangefinders is a fast, sharp lens. I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions. Best regards – Marek

     "Whomever dies with the most cameras wins"

Response:

HI Also consider the Minolta Hi-Matic 7s. It is a little different to the 7sII It is fully auto or fully manual and the meter works in the manual mode which some other cameras don’t. Allan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I am going to buy a backup for my SLR. I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder. Compact PS’s don’t allow manual mode. Medium wide angle lens is enough for me. Private investigation results: Olympus 35RD Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII Konica Auto S3 Canonet GIII QL17 Ricoh 500G I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions. Best regards – Marek

Response:

Thanks Dave for explanation, I don’t have this one, but it’s on my list. This is one of the later model Olympus compact rangefinders, all of which were pretty nice. It uses the unobtainable 625 mercury battery (USA, anyway); you would need to consider one of the work-arounds in powering the meter.

I live in Poland, here PX625 is easy available for 1.5$. I have bought one last week for my Yama124G. Konica Auto S3 This is a wonderful camera, with one of the best lenses ever — nice and wide, too, at 38mm/f-1.8. I’ve been looking for one, at a good price, for years. It doesn’t meet your qualifications, though, as it’s aperature-priority auto-only, no manual speeds.

The compensation by film speed change is enough for me. But S3 is quite rare on ebay in Europe. I like it too:-) Canonet GIII QL17 I have one of these; highly recommended.,,,

I won an auction for it and I am waiting for delivery. To be precise, it.s also a heaviest in the family. But I hope I will be satisfied with mine. Otherwise I will put it in the auction again, Battery is not a problem, see above. Best regards – Marek

Response:

HI Also consider the Minolta Hi-Matic 7s. It is a little different to the 7sII It is fully auto or fully manual and the meter works in the manual mode which some other cameras don’t. Allan

Also have one of these. Bright viewfinder and great metering sytem for this class of camera. The downside is the larger size of the camera and the slightly less wide 45mm lens.

Response:

I assume you want it to have a built in meter, but that you aren’t requiring interchangeable lenses. I’ve had the 7sII and was dissapointed with the quality of the lens. Maybe I had a bad one. I also didn’t like the fact that metering only worked in automatic mode (not in manual). I also had a 7s and though it was significantly larger and heavier (close to SRT101 size), the lens was much better and it was also much cheaper. Don’t know much about the others you mention. However, if you’re willing to do without a rangefinder and scalefocus you might consider the Minox 35GT or it’s later cousins. Very small, very compact, very light, great lens, good meter. No manual mode though. If you can do without the meter, the Konica postwar cameras such as the Konica III can be a great, rugged camera with a great lens and a bright clear viewfinder. No meter though. There is one with a meter, but it’s fragile, avoid it. For a little more money, the Canon 7 can be a pretty decent buy. Leica thread mount lenses (50’s are cheap), built in selenium meter that seems to be pretty accurate (mine is at least), great viewfinder/rangefinder, and a pleasant rugged body. The 7s’s and the 7sZ’s are pricy, but the 7 isn’t too bad with a 50 attached. Anyway, good luck whatever you buy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I am going to buy a backup for my SLR. I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder. Compact PS’s don’t allow manual mode. Medium wide angle lens is enough for me. Private investigation results: Olympus 35RD Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII Konica Auto S3 Canonet GIII QL17 Ricoh 500G I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions. Best regards – Marek

Before you buy.

Response:

The Konica S3 does have both manually settable shutter speeds and apertures. Or at least my two do.  When the battery (or electronics) fail you lose the meter but not the shutter or aperture.  Very nice camera. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a wonderful camera, with one of the best lenses ever — nice and wide, too, at 38mm/f-1.8. I’ve been looking for one, at a good price, for years. It doesn’t meet your qualifications, though, as it’s aperature-priority auto-only, no manual speeds. If you get one, get the flash, too; the S3 has the most sophisticated automatic flash coupling system in any rangefinder of the day.

Response:

Question:

We have recently unearthed an old Vivitar 35ES 35mm rangefinder and would like to le our young daughter use it. Any ideas where we might find a reprint of the manual? Specific questions are: what is the GN setting. Looks like aperature, but without decimals: 7 – 14 –  28 –  56  Auto. Looks like I can set an aperature up to 5.6 to do aperature priority, or set AUTO to use shutter priority?? Good guess. But then, how do you know which shutter spee to set?? Meter needle seems always alive. Can it be shut off to save the battery?? all help welcomed

Response:

Chuck, I bought a 35EE a wee while back.  I’ve not yet used it, but it’s bound to be simialr to the 35ES (I am on the lookout for an instruction book, BTW). The GN refers to the Guide number of any flash unit (measured in metres, not feet you choose to attach to the camera.  Ordinarily, you would leave the camera in Auto mode (having set the ISO/ASA film speed on the dial (rotating bezel around the lens?)) and accept whatever settings the program gives you. At least I think this is how it works! HTH – and good luck!!!

Response:

Chuck, I bought a 35EE a wee while back.  I’ve not yet used it, but it’s bound to be simialr to the 35ES (I am on the lookout for an instruction book, BTW). The GN refers to the Guide number of any flash unit (measured in metres, not feet) you choose to attach to the camera.  Ordinarily, you would leave the camera in Auto mode (having set the ISO/ASA film speed on the dial (rotating bezel around the lens?) and accept whatever settings the program gives you. At least I think this is how it works! HTH – and good luck!!!

Response:

Ah .. Guide Number .. should have known! Thanks. We are also hunting around for our booklet. I believe they are available from ancraig camera for about 15 bucks. http://www.craigcamera.com/lit_top.htm BTW – what battery are you using? I think the ES calls for a PX625, but ours has a plain ol’ 675 watch battery in it now. Voltages are the same but milliamps differ. Think that’s ok?? chuck – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chuck, I bought a 35EE a wee while back.  I’ve not yet used it, but it’s bound to be simialr to the 35ES (I am on the lookout for an instruction book, BTW). The GN refers to the Guide number of any flash unit (measured in metres, not feet) you choose to attach to the camera.  Ordinarily, you would leave the camera in Auto mode (having set the ISO/ASA film speed on the dial (rotating bezel around the lens?) and accept whatever settings the program gives you. At least I think this is how it works! HTH – and good luck!!!

Response:

I own a couple of similar rangefinders, and I think I have seen the Vivitar 35ES (or a very similar one) recently. The Guide Number setting is for flash only. On every electronic flash unit, you will find a GN rating for different film speeds. When you set the GN ring to the proper setting for the flash you are using, the aperture will be set to proper value automatically when focussing (the aperture depends on distance of object and guide number). The shutter speed is set to 1/30 approx. which is good for both bulb and electronic flashes. As far as I remember, the Vivitar has a program shutter. In Auto mode, there is no choice of shutter speed and aperture – the camera will set both, starting with f/16 and 1/650 at bright light and going to f/2.8 and 1/30 at low light. No possibility to set other shutter speeds. (This is true if the camera has a combined aperture/shutter speed scale in the viewfinder.) As for the battery, these cameras need mercury cells, they cannot be replaced by alkaline cells. A 675 mercury cell instead of a 625 will work, but you should fill up the space in the battery compartment with some foam rubber. I know that mercury cells are hard to get in the States. If someone offers you a replacement called HD625 – this is NOT a mercury cell although its label says it is. This is the only drawback of these old rangefinders. I hope that the rangefinder still focusses correctly (point to a distant object and set the focus ring to oo, the two images in the viewfinder should match exactly). It is not impossible to correct a misalignment but it will need some disassembly. Winfried from Germany. Before you buy.

Response:

Question:

Any SLR, digital or not, will make noise.  It’s the mirror that’s the culprit.  It’s much louder than the shutter.  The motor drive also makes noise.  There are some cameras with partially silvered mirrors that don’t move -Canon’s RT series- but not many.  Rangefinders don’t work with long telephoto lenses. Photographers (damn, I teach photo and play a lot of golf) should know not to shoot until the follow through.  On movie/TV sets, still cameras are encased in sound deadening material.  I think photographers sometimes think thay are far enough away not to be heard.  They are also desensitized to the sound. Ted – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On another subject, quiet cameras.  Digital is quiet.  The problem is that generally the resolution of digital is not sufficient for magazine or newspaper reproduction. You’re wrong in a couple of respects here.  Most medium quality or better digital cameras (and ALL high end "SLR" type digital cameras with interchangeable lenses) have a shutter and/or other moving parts and make a click of one kind or another.  Obviously there is no motor drive to go "ZEEEE!," but in an SLR with a moving mirror the sound is just as loud as with a conventional (film) SLR. Magazine and newspaper reproduction are entirely different animals. Anything near a million pixels is fine for a newpaper image, whether color or B&W.  (And that’s overkill.)  High quality color reproduction requires about 300dpi, so for a magazine image that’s 5×7, you need 1500 x 2100 = about 3 million pixels.  You can now get 3 megapixel cameras with good optics for ~$3000 and up. It is possible to make perfectly quiet digital cameras, but digital exposure control is not considered "professional" quality at this time.  (I’m not sure of the reason for this.)   -joseph

Before you buy.

Response:

There was an incident where some American (I forget who) attempted to play out of a water hazard. He did pretty well but the cameraman didn’t know where it went. The ball hit the upslope and started to run down and almost hit that cameraman. Ir was just lucky that someone was there to pull him back.

That happened on the 4th when I was watching.  Not sure if that was the one you are talking about.  I thought it was Tom Lehman hitting the shot, but checking the shot-by shot on the web site, that can’t be right.  Must have been Kirk Triplet.  Whoever it was, he got all dressed up in his rain gear. I couldn’t actually see the shot because I was in the stands and he was down below the level of the green. But we could tell when he was about to take the swing becuse all the tv crew and officals standing around him took about 3 steps back at the same time. But I could see the camara man and the wire guy standing behind him.  And as the shot was made, it was the wire man who grabbed the camara man and pulled him back.  It’s common for camara men to have a guy behind him watching the wires and guiding the camara man so he can walk without stopping the shot.  So it’s not just luck that that guy was behind him, it’s how they do it. — Curt Welch                                            http://CurtWelch.Com/

Response:

On another subject, quiet cameras.  Digital is quiet.  The problem is that generally the resolution of digital is not sufficient for magazine or newspaper reproduction.  

You’re wrong in a couple of respects here.  Most medium quality or better digital cameras (and ALL high end "SLR" type digital cameras with interchangeable lenses) have a shutter and/or other moving parts and make a click of one kind or another.  Obviously there is no motor drive to go "ZEEEE!," but in an SLR with a moving mirror the sound is just as loud as with a conventional (film) SLR. Magazine and newspaper reproduction are entirely different animals.   Anything near a million pixels is fine for a newpaper image, whether color or B&W.  (And that’s overkill.)  High quality color reproduction requires about 300dpi, so for a magazine image that’s 5×7, you need 1500 x 2100 = about 3 million pixels.  You can now get 3 megapixel cameras with good optics for ~$3000 and up. It is possible to make perfectly quiet digital cameras, but digital exposure control is not considered "professional" quality at this time.  (I’m not sure of the reason for this.)   -joseph

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Chances are, Bruce, the offender was someone in the local media.  In the year or so I was out there every week, I got to recognize quite a few of the faces of the "regular" photographers.  They know the rules, and you’re quite right in saying, "it’s their living."  Most of them have a long-standing relationship with the TOUR, and they know the drill.  So I would be shocked if it was one of them who clicked the shutter in the middle of a swing. But the local newspaper people who don’t go to all the events and only see a TOUR event once a year when it’s in their home town (or, in this case, once every FOUR years), there’s a fair chance they DON’T know better.  They should, since it’s in the rules they must sign to get their "inside the ropes" badge (or arm band or whatever).  But you know how people can be sometimes:  "Sign this to get your credentials," and they sign it, sometimes without reading it.

Not once every FOUR years.  The Kemper Insurance Open is played here every year.  I don’t buy them not knowing better.  If they didn’t know better on Thursday, they should have had the drill down by Sunday. Kick ‘em out. Kenny – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Randy Golf help for newbies:  http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services:  www.randybrownproductions.com Stultz) [...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Maybe they should face suspensions, perhaps a one month ban from PGA Tour events? If that is the way they earn their livelihoods, I think they would quickly learn the rules. Bruce      RSG Roll Call:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm                        http://go.to/bruce_newman

Response:

Anyway, why can’t they design a camera that doesn’t make noise?

They do. I have several rangefinder cameras that are virtually silent, a digital that makes no sound whatsoever, and a Minox miniature 35mm that can’t be heard from a couple feet away. Trouble is, the cameras usually used by professionals are SLR’s (Single Lens Reflex) which include a moving mirror and a curtain-type shutter that can’t really be silenced much. Add a motor drive, and it’s gonna be noisy. The alternatives are 1) use a longer telephoto lens and work from further away, or 2) give up the SLR and use a quieter camera. I suppose we should be glad they aren’t using the antique Kodak AutoGraflex large format SLR from 1916 that is the centerpiece of my camera collection. It’s loud enough to be heard from the other end of the fairway on a par-5 hole. Eliyahu

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ll stir the President’s cup pot one more time and then I’ll go back to behaving myself. The idiots with cameras I’m speaking about aren’t the spectators that snuck their cameras in to the competition.  No, the idiots I’m speaking about are the MEDIA.  I recall seeing a videotape of Tiger hitting a shot out of the rough on either Friday or Saturday and a bunch of cameras went of during his swing.  He said a few words to the cameramen and obviously he was not happy. By blind luck, I happened to be in the grandstand behind the 15th today when DL3 clinched the cup by closing out Ernie Els.  I don’t know how much of this was shown on TV (the power went off and my VCR didn’t record), but when Ernie was blasting out of the trap some of the cameramen again got quick on the trigger.  Ernie looked over at them, but didn’t say anything.  Davis did though.  As soon as the match was over, he walked over to the jokers with the cameras and gave them a large piece of his mind. JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Kenny

Now I know nothing about photography.  F-stop?!?  What is that? Anyway, why can’t they design a camera that doesn’t make noise? Perhaps they already have or there just isn’t a large enough market for them.  Just wondering. Scott

Response:

Now I know nothing about photography.  F-stop?!?  What is that?

Isn’t F-Stop what you scream when you hit it too hard to a green with water in the back? Jeff

Response:

Correction. According to this morning’s Washington Post, the offending camera clicks went off while Davis was putting to win the cup (the putt he missed).  I couldn’t hear the clicks myself from where I was sitting and someone else in the grandstand told me it had happened during Ernie’s shot. It shouldn’t have happened during ANYONE’s shot. Just wanted to set the record straight. Kenny – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ll stir the President’s cup pot one more time and then I’ll go back to behaving myself. The idiots with cameras I’m speaking about aren’t the spectators that snuck their cameras in to the competition.  No, the idiots I’m speaking about are the MEDIA.  I recall seeing a videotape of Tiger hitting a shot out of the rough on either Friday or Saturday and a bunch of cameras went of during his swing.  He said a few words to the cameramen and obviously he was not happy. By blind luck, I happened to be in the grandstand behind the 15th today when DL3 clinched the cup by closing out Ernie Els.  I don’t know how much of this was shown on TV (the power went off and my VCR didn’t record), but when Ernie was blasting out of the trap some of the cameramen again got quick on the trigger.  Ernie looked over at them, but didn’t say anything.  Davis did though.  As soon as the match was over, he walked over to the jokers with the cameras and gave them a large piece of his mind. JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Kenny Kenny Stultz RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm

Response:

True, but it’s often a different photographer assigned each year, or, in some cases, each day.  I’m not making excuses for them, but merely pointing out that in all likelihood, it’s not the "regular" photographers who make all the TOUR stops that are the ones doing it. — Randy Golf help for newbies:  http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services:  www.randybrownproductions.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chances are, Bruce, the offender was someone in the local media.  In the year or so I was out there every week, I got to recognize quite a few of the faces of the "regular" photographers.  They know the rules, and you’re quite right in saying, "it’s their living."  Most of them have a long-standing relationship with the TOUR, and they know the drill.  So I would be shocked if it was one of them who clicked the shutter in the middle of a swing. But the local newspaper people who don’t go to all the events and only see a TOUR event once a year when it’s in their home town (or, in this case, once every FOUR years), there’s a fair chance they DON’T know better.  They should, since it’s in the rules they must sign to get their "inside the ropes" badge (or arm band or whatever).  But you know how people can be sometimes:  "Sign this to get your credentials," and they sign it, sometimes without reading it. Not once every FOUR years.  The Kemper Insurance Open is played here every year.  I don’t buy them not knowing better.  If they didn’t know better on Thursday, they should have had the drill down by Sunday. Kick ‘em out. Kenny — Randy Golf help for newbies:  http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services:  www.randybrownproductions.com Stultz) [...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Maybe they should face suspensions, perhaps a one month ban from PGA Tour events? If that is the way they earn their livelihoods, I think they would quickly learn the rules. Bruce Bruce Newman    *    Fredericton, NB, Canada    *

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –      RSG Roll Call:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm                        http://go.to/bruce_newman

Response:

Chances are, Bruce, the offender was someone in the local media.  In the year or so I was out there every week, I got to recognize quite a few of the faces of the "regular" photographers.  They know the rules, and you’re quite right in saying, "it’s their living."  Most of them have a long-standing relationship with the TOUR, and they know the drill.  So I would be shocked if it was one of them who clicked the shutter in the middle of a swing. But the local newspaper people who don’t go to all the events and only see a TOUR event once a year when it’s in their home town (or, in this case, once every FOUR years), there’s a fair chance they DON’T know better.  They should, since it’s in the rules they must sign to get their "inside the ropes" badge (or arm band or whatever).  But you know how people can be sometimes:  "Sign this to get your credentials," and they sign it, sometimes without reading it. — Randy Golf help for newbies:  http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services:  www.randybrownproductions.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Stultz) [...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Maybe they should face suspensions, perhaps a one month ban from PGA Tour events? If that is the way they earn their livelihoods, I think they would quickly learn the rules. Bruce      RSG Roll Call:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm                        http://go.to/bruce_newman

Response:

[...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Kenny

The problem is that when you get a big event such as a major, the Ryder Cup, etc., the "professionals" come out of the woodwork.  I doubt that any of these faux pas were by the professionals who follow the Tour on a regular basis.  However, every newpaper in northern Virginia, southern Maryland, maybe West Virginia and North Carolina may have sent a photographer.  This doesn’t count the local magizines who wanted photos.  This adds up to a lot of professionals who may never have stepped on a golf course out there running wild. On another subject, quiet cameras.  Digital is quiet.  The problem is that generally the resolution of digital is not sufficient for magazine or newspaper reproduction.  There are some top of the line digital cameras that produce newspaper quality output, but they cost anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000 for the body alone.  Someday digital may take the place of film in applications other than the web, but that day is in the future.  If you are using "old fashioned" film, you have mechanical parts moving, shutter, film advance, mirror slap (on an SLR anyway).  Even digitals are not completely quiet.  There is usually a shutter release at the minimum. Larry Connor

Response:

No, that’s F-Word….. — Fernando

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now I know nothing about photography.  F-stop?!?  What is that? Isn’t F-Stop what you scream when you hit it too hard to a green with water in the back? Jeff

Response:

There was an incident where some American (I forget who) attempted to play out of a water hazard. He did pretty well but the cameraman didn’t know where it went. The ball hit the upslope and started to run down and almost hit that cameraman. Ir was just lucky that someone was there to pull him back. Richard Bullock RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ll stir the President’s cup pot one more time and then I’ll go back to behaving myself. The idiots with cameras I’m speaking about aren’t the spectators that snuck their cameras in to the competition.  No, the idiots I’m speaking about are the MEDIA.  I recall seeing a videotape of Tiger hitting a shot out of the rough on either Friday or Saturday and a bunch of cameras went of during his swing. He said a few words to the cameramen and obviously he was not happy. By blind luck, I happened to be in the grandstand behind the 15th today when DL3 clinched the cup by closing out Ernie Els.  I don’t know how much of this was shown on TV (the power went off and my VCR didn’t record), but when Ernie was blasting out of the trap some of the cameramen again got quick on the trigger.  Ernie looked over at them, but didn’t say anything.  Davis did though.  As soon as the match was over, he walked over to the jokers with the cameras and gave them a large piece of his mind. JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Kenny Kenny Stultz RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm

Response:

[...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times.

Maybe they should face suspensions, perhaps a one month ban from PGA Tour events? If that is the way they earn their livelihoods, I think they would quickly learn the rules. Bruce      RSG Roll Call:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm                        http://go.to/bruce_newman

Response:

I’ll stir the President’s cup pot one more time and then I’ll go back to behaving myself. The idiots with cameras I’m speaking about aren’t the spectators that snuck their cameras in to the competition.  No, the idiots I’m speaking about are the MEDIA.  I recall seeing a videotape of Tiger hitting a shot out of the rough on either Friday or Saturday and a bunch of cameras went of during his swing.  He said a few words to the cameramen and obviously he was not happy.

That was an interesting moment, because Tiger and Notah had just won the first 6 holes in a row, right?  And this happened on the 7th and was probably responsible for stopping the "streak."  I don’t know what they were thinking because several cameras were VERY early on the shot.   -joseph

Response:

I’ll stir the President’s cup pot one more time and then I’ll go back to behaving myself. The idiots with cameras I’m speaking about aren’t the spectators that snuck their cameras in to the competition.  No, the idiots I’m speaking about are the MEDIA.  I recall seeing a videotape of Tiger hitting a shot out of the rough on either Friday or Saturday and a bunch of cameras went of during his swing.  He said a few words to the cameramen and obviously he was not happy. By blind luck, I happened to be in the grandstand behind the 15th today when DL3 clinched the cup by closing out Ernie Els.  I don’t know how much of this was shown on TV (the power went off and my VCR didn’t record), but when Ernie was blasting out of the trap some of the cameramen again got quick on the trigger.  Ernie looked over at them, but didn’t say anything.  Davis did though.  As soon as the match was over, he walked over to the jokers with the cameras and gave them a large piece of his mind. JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Kenny Kenny Stultz RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stultzk.htm

Response:

better idea, do what the reporters in court have to do when there’s no cameras allowed, givem a pad of paper and some pencil crayons:) mark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Stultz) [...] JHC, these people are supposed to be professionals.  They know not to take pictures when the players are taking their shots.  The whole bunch of them should have been promptly escorted off the property both times. Maybe they should face suspensions, perhaps a one month ban from PGA Tour events? If that is the way they earn their livelihoods, I think they would quickly learn the rules. Bruce      RSG Roll Call:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm                        http://go.to/bruce_newman

Response:

Question:

Hello All: I have been using Rollei 35’s for years.  I am thinking about trying a Contax T (the original model from the mid eighties…)for skiing, but have a few questions: 1.  It’s a manual focus rangefinder right? 2.  Does it have a manual setting for exposure or is it automatic? 3.  Is it a mechanical shutter? 4.  If the batteries give up, can I still shoot? I would like it to be manual focus, with apeture priority AE that I can also set manually with a mechanical shutter so I’m not dependent on batteries that can’t take the cold. Will it do? Thanks, Jeff

Response:

Hey Jeff, My experience has been with Minox 35mm cameras.  They are quite similar to the Contax T so most of my guesses will be based on the Minox cameras.  I would not call the Contax T a rangefinder, it is more of guess focus viewfinder (ie there is no confirmation that the desired image is in focus).  I believe that it is apeture priority only, it will set the shutter speed for you so you wouldn’t have much control in that area.  I think the shutter release it electro-magnetic so it will not operate without batteries.  So in conclusion I wouldn’t recommend you buy this camera for your purposes.  Actually, generally, unless you were a collector I wouldn’t push anyone to buy this camera because they tend to be quite overpriced and expensive to repair. Perhaps an older rangefinder would be better suited to your desires. -Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello All: I have been using Rollei 35’s for years.  I am thinking about trying a Contax T (the original model from the mid eighties…)for skiing, but have a few questions: 1.  It’s a manual focus rangefinder right? 2.  Does it have a manual setting for exposure or is it automatic? 3.  Is it a mechanical shutter? 4.  If the batteries give up, can I still shoot? I would like it to be manual focus, with apeture priority AE that I can also set manually with a mechanical shutter so I’m not dependent on batteries that can’t take the cold. Will it do? Thanks, Jeff

Response:

My experience has been with Minox 35mm cameras.  They are quite similar to the Contax T so most of my guesses will be based on the Minox cameras.  I would not call the Contax T a rangefinder, it is more of guess focus viewfinder (ie there is no confirmation that the desired image is in focus).

Whoa, you’re slightly off base there. The original Contax T (the one with the folding front door) indeed *WAS* a true rangefinder camera. It had a double-image coupled rangefinder focusing system, the same general type as used in a Leica M (although sized more like the rangefinder in an Olympus XA.) This is quite different from the folding Minox models, which *are* purely "guess-focus" cameras which rely on the user’s estimation of distance. The Contax T had an electronically controlled shutter with aperture-priority automation, a separate screw-on flash unit that coupled to the camera’s meter cell, and film advance via a manual wind lever. Incidentally, the film advance gearing has the reputation for being quite delicate, so if you’re planning to buy one of these cameras to *use,* be very careful when advancing the film and never force it. The later Contax T2 has motorized film advance and is more reliable overall… but of course this is an active-infrared autofocus camera that offers no visual focusing capability (although it does have an "infrared rangefinder" feature that lets you set focus distance manually based on guidance from the AF system.)

Response:

…This is quite different from the folding Minox models, which *are* purely "guess-focus" cameras which rely on the user’s estimation of distance.

The Minox is properly a scale focus camera. The distinction can be seen by examining two cameras — my Minox 35GT and my Petri 35. Both have no rangefinder. The Petri requires you guess the range and just set it to that range. The Minox gives you a depth of field scale that you use to estimate the range of focus you want (rather than just the distance). The difference is subtle, but I get better pictures with the 35GT so it’s moderately important. Actually, if you use a fast film (and thus have a fair amount of depth of field) the Minox is suprisingly easy to use well. I almost prefer it to the Contax T2 autofocus system because it forces you to think about what you’re doing. Before you buy.

Response:

Hey Jeff, My experience has been with Minox 35mm cameras.  They are quite similar to the Contax T so most of my guesses will be based on the Minox cameras.  I would not call the Contax T a rangefinder, it is more of guess focus viewfinder (ie there is no confirmation that the desired image is in focus).  I believe that it is apeture priority only, it will set the shutter speed for you so you wouldn’t have much control in that area.  I think the shutter release it electro-magnetic so it will not operate without batteries.  So in conclusion I wouldn’t recommend you buy this camera for your purposes.  Actually, generally, unless you were a collector I wouldn’t push anyone to buy this camera because they tend to be quite overpriced and expensive to repair. Perhaps an older rangefinder would be better suited to your desires.

Sorry, wrong.  The Contax IS a rangefinder.  This is one of the principal differences from the Minox 35mm cameras.  George Shadoan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Jeff Hello All: I have been using Rollei 35’s for years.  I am thinking about trying a Contax T (the original model from the mid eighties…)for skiing, but have a few questions: 1.  It’s a manual focus rangefinder right? 2.  Does it have a manual setting for exposure or is it automatic? 3.  Is it a mechanical shutter? 4.  If the batteries give up, can I still shoot? I would like it to be manual focus, with apeture priority AE that I can also set manually with a mechanical shutter so I’m not dependent on batteries that can’t take the cold. Will it do? Thanks, Jeff

Before you buy.

Response:

Question:

The EOS-3 makes a nice sports camera. I turn on CF4-3 which turns the * button on the back into the AF button and use the predictive focusing. I was out today taking photos of horses today. I could focus at any time, and then shoot without any shutter delay when the horses did something interesting. The best of both worlds. It’d be even better if I had enough for the 100-400mm EF L IS lens with FTM, but it gives me a reason to put in longer hours at my day job. Karen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s hear it for the Kodak Instamatic 110 camera!  OK, it’s hard to find film for them these days, but no shutter lag! Autofocus just isn’t very good for action.  It’s ironic that in the precise situation you’d think autofocus would be most helpful, it ends up costing you the shot.  You can improve it somewhat by buying the fanciest, most expensive autofocus camera available, which will focus a bit faster or allow you to turn off its autofocus mechanism to speed things up.  Or you can eliminate the problem entirely by buying a cheaper camera with manual focus or fixed focus. My recommendation:  The Nikon F2 was the best action camera ever made.  Get a motor driven one with a 250 exposure back. Then again, a Leica M-series would have even less shutter lag. Seriously, as Tom says below, any non-autofocus camera will do. –Rich

Response:

Let’s hear it for the Kodak Instamatic 110 camera!  OK, it’s hard to find film for them these days, but no shutter lag! Autofocus just isn’t very good for action.  It’s ironic that in the precise situation you’d think autofocus would be most helpful, it ends up costing you the shot.  You can improve it somewhat by buying the fanciest, most expensive autofocus camera available, which will focus a bit faster or allow you to turn off its autofocus mechanism to speed things up.  Or you can eliminate the problem entirely by buying a cheaper camera with manual focus or fixed focus. My recommendation:  The Nikon F2 was the best action camera ever made.  Get a motor driven one with a 250 exposure back. Then again, a Leica M-series would have even less shutter lag. Seriously, as Tom says below, any non-autofocus camera will do. –Rich Well, now that we’ve been through the feature set of the IX versus the IX Lite, and we’ve bought this young man several SLRs from a pretty inexpensive IX Lite all the way up to a pricey (relatively) Nikon F4, it seems this problem is easy to solve with a more expensive camera. In fact, it’s been suggested that the boy actually become a part-time commercial photographer.  All this is great, but the original problem is the delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture being taken. This delay exists in his Advantix P&S, as well as in every AF SLR made. Granted, the lag is much shorter on more expensive "pro" models like the suggested F4 or my EOS 1n, but I doubt someone using a camera in the P&S range really wants to go spend upwards of $1000 on a camera. Instead, they might find that a cheaper camera, specifically one with a fixed focus, rather than autofocus, lens does exactly what they want, because there’s no lag.

Before you buy.

Response:

Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this

It’s a trait of point-n-shoot camera. Point-n-shoot camera are generally not made for action shots. Get your son a good SLR camera. CC — Chieh’s Web – http://Chieh.CameraHacker.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Well, now that we’ve been through the feature set of the IX versus the IX Lite, and we’ve bought this young man several SLRs from a pretty inexpensive IX Lite all the way up to a pricey (relatively) Nikon F4, it seems this problem is easy to solve with a more expensive camera. In fact, it’s been suggested that the boy actually become a part-time commercial photographer. All this is great, but the original problem is the delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture being taken. This delay exists in his Advantix P&S, as well as in every AF SLR made. Granted, the lag is much shorter on more expensive "pro" models like the suggested F4 or my EOS 1n, but I doubt someone using a camera in the P&S range really wants to go spend upwards of $1000 on a camera. Instead, they might find that a cheaper camera, specifically one with a fixed focus, rather than autofocus, lens does exactly what they want, because there’s no lag. Just a thought.

I like that thought, and the unarguable logic behind it. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK

Response:

Well, now that we’ve been through the feature set of the IX versus the IX Lite, and we’ve bought this young man several SLRs from a pretty inexpensive IX Lite all the way up to a pricey (relatively) Nikon F4, it seems this problem is easy to solve with a more expensive camera. In fact, it’s been suggested that the boy actually become a part-time commercial photographer. All this is great, but the original problem is the delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture being taken. This delay exists in his Advantix P&S, as well as in every AF SLR made. Granted, the lag is much shorter on more expensive "pro" models like the suggested F4 or my EOS 1n, but I doubt someone using a camera in the P&S range really wants to go spend upwards of $1000 on a camera. Instead, they might find that a cheaper camera, specifically one with a fixed focus, rather than autofocus, lens does exactly what they want, because there’s no lag. Just a thought. Tom P. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this (although I have to admit I haven’t looked at that many reviews), nor can you tell in the store without putting a roll of film in.  Also, do digital cameras have this same bug?  (Not that a good digital camera is within our budget this year…) —     Mike Maxwell — — Faster than the speed of dark — Is light really that rapid? — Before you buy.

Response:

…2 cents worth: 1. Find a used Nikon F4 (or F4s) body. 2. Add a 70-210mm F4 (or the F4.5-5.6) AF Nikkor zoom lens. If your son is successful, he will have photographs that he might sell to the riders. The APS system was never meant for ‘light’ commerical photography. = = = – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this (although I have to admit I haven’t looked at that many reviews), nor can you tell in the store without putting a roll of film in.  Also, do digital cameras have this same bug?  (Not that a good digital camera is within our budget this year…) —     Mike Maxwell

– — Faster than the speed of dark — Is light really that rapid? — Before you buy.

Response:

My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  

I think it’s more of an autofocus point&shoot thing. Among my cameras, the worst offender for shutter lag is an autofocus point&shoot (35mm; I don’t own any APS gear); then the autofocus SLRs (but if you prefocus they’re not too bad), then the manual-focus SLRs and finally the manual rangefinder, which has pretty much no discernible shutter lag. I think what your son needs to avoid the problem with bike jumping is either an SLR with very fast autofocus, or a manually-focused SLR. But it may be that someone else on the group knows of a p&s that doesn’t have horrendous shutter lag. E.R. http://members.aol.com/ernreed If you aren’t spamming, avoid the junktrap

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this (although I have to admit I haven’t looked at that many reviews), nor can you tell in the store without putting a roll of film in.  Also, do digital cameras have this same bug?  (Not that a good digital camera is within our budget this year…) —     Mike Maxwell

I was using a point and shoot for general photography.  I found that things like street cars were ending up behind poles.  I could not get used to trying to anticipate in advance where a moving target would be. I have since replaced the point and shoot with an auto exposure manual focus SLR (Contax Aria).  The camera has quick response and shutter speeds up to 1/4000. Zeuspaul

Response:

My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?

It’s more an inherent trait of point-and-shoot cameras with autofocus — you’ll find that most 35mm P&S cameras behave the same way. With either type, the autofocus system needs time to measure the distance and position the lens at the correct focus setting before each picture — that’s what’s causing the delay. With more advanced autofocus cameras (35mm SLRs and the Contax G2 "autofocus rangefinder" camera, for example) there’s still a time lag, but it’s shorter and the camera provides you with a way to work around it — such as a way to lock the focus in advance, then fire the shutter at the desired instant. How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this (although I have to admit I haven’t looked at that many reviews)

Some of the reviews in camera magazines do talk about this trait — typically it’s called "shutter lag," and while they don’t always comment on it (since it IS fairly typical of this breed of camera) they sometimes mention if a specific camera has a lag that’s unusually long or unusually short. Some of the manufacturers of P&S cameras are starting to become aware of public demand for cameras that react faster, and are beginning to offer a few models with an "instant shot" feature (I can’t think of any offhand, since I don’t follow the P&S market very closely, but know I’ve read about this.) You’ll probably be more likely to find this on 35mm models rather than APS, though. nor can you tell in the store without putting a roll of film in.

If the camera won’t fire without being loaded, there’s no easy way to check (unless you’re lucky enough to live where there’s a store staffed by knowledgeable salespeople who know the products.) However, even if the salespeople don’t know, they should be willing to put in a "dummy roll" so you can try it. (Most good stores keep a few rolls of expired film around for just this purpose.) Also, do digital cameras have this same bug?  (Not that a good digital camera is within our budget this year…)

Although there may be exceptions, in my experience the typical "consumer" digital cameras are even WORSE when it comes to shutter response! Not only is there the same lag while setting the lens to the correct focusing distance, but AFTER pressing the release there’s usually a pause while the data is written to the storage card — frustrating if your son sees a second great picture right after the first! Again, there are cameras with features to reduce or eliminate this problem, but typically they’re the expensive semi-pro and pro models. Overall, you might be better off getting your son started with your "ancient SLR" — or buy him an old manual-focus camera of his own. He’ll get a faster-acting camera and might accidentally pick up an interest in photography on the side! PS — It’s not impossible to take good action pictures with a camera having long shutter lag. Many of the greatest sports photos of the 1920s and 1930s were shot with large-format Graflex SLR cameras; on these babies, you’d hit the release lever, the mirror would fly up with a thunk, and then — a couple of heartbeats later — the fabric curtain shutter at the back of the camera would go whirring across the film plane. How did pros deal with this ridiculously delayed action? They just developed a feeling for the timing, and would fire the camera just far enough in advance to capture the peak action on film. No, it wasn’t easy, but it could be done! Actually, you still have to anticipate the action a bit with any camera — there’s no such thing as a camera that fires "instantly" when you press the release, so you always have to anticipate SOME amount of delay to get good action shots.

Response:

My son likes to take action pictures (in particular, pictures of bike jumping).  Last year, we bought him a Kodak Advantix F600, which is an APS camera.  We were greatly disappointed to find that it is useless for action pictures: between the time you depress the shutter button, and when the camera actually takes a picture, there is a good second’s worth of delay. In contrast, with my ancient SLR there is only a momentary pause while the mirror flips up. Is this an inherent trait of APS cameras?  Or is it just a bug with this particular model?  How can we tell which kind of camera will take pictures "instantly"?  The reviews I’ve seen don’t seem to talk about this (although I have to admit I haven’t looked at that many reviews), nor can you tell in the store without putting a roll of film in.  Also, do digital cameras have this same bug?  (Not that a good digital camera is within our budget this year…) —     Mike Maxwell

Response:

Question:

this thread is really interesting in that i asked another question to the group some time earlier about shooting indoor concerts.. with the shots, i am looking to capture the vibe of the show.. crowd shots, backstage.. soundboard.. all that kinda stuff.. but i want to keep from using a flash.. it would appear that the minolta himatic would be a neat and cheap camera to try out with this setup, since it’s somewher around 1.4, and using a fast film, it woudl not be very invasive.. anyone use this camera for those kinda shots? i would also be using it for street photography before and after shows..

I’m the one who suggested the Olympus XA. I take it back. The lens isn’t fast enough for no flash. I saw the two recommendations for the Minolta. If it’s small enough, go for it. If it’s not, you might consider the Olympus 35 that Bob suggested, though I don’t know what maximum lens aperture is. If it’s f 1.8, which it probably is, you’ll have to balance size and speed. Your key phrase was non-invasive. I was into a similar scene, R&R world. You don’t want to be "carrying a camera," it should just "be there." — Charlie Dilks    Newark, DE  USA

Response:

this thread is really interesting in that i asked another question to the group some time earlier about shooting indoor concerts.. with the shots, i am looking to capture the vibe of the show.. crowd shots, backstage.. soundboard.. all that kinda stuff.. but i want to keep from using a flash..

Me again, I read all the threads and though I’m personally still reading about and drooling over the Voigtlander Bessa R, I’m back to thinking that an Olympus XA might be your best bet. The only Minolta I saw had an f 1.7 lens, maybe there’s an f 1.4. The thing is, both it and the Olympus 35 are big. I was assuming the Olympus 35 was small, because smallness is one of the things Olympus is known for. The reviewer said he liked it because it was big. You’re "carrying a camera." The only smaller cameras suggested were around f 2.8. For an f2.8 rangefinder with an excellent lens that you don’t know you’re carrying (it easily slips into a jeans pocket), I recommend the Olympus XA. Even cameras of the same size aren’t as pocketable due to it’s clamshell design. Here’s a URL for the XA: http://cameraquest.com/xa4.htm — Charlie Dilks    Newark, DE  USA

Response:

the canonet G3 ql17 is significantly smaller than the minolta hi- matics. it’s not really a pocket camera, since the lens sticks out, but it’s discreet and quiet. max aperture of 1.7 or 1.8 i believe. mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read all the threads and though I’m personally still reading about and drooling over the Voigtlander Bessa R, I’m back to thinking that an Olympus XA might be your best bet. The only Minolta I saw had an f 1.7 lens, maybe there’s an f 1.4. The thing is, both it and the Olympus 35 are big. I was assuming the Olympus 35 was small, because smallness is one of the things Olympus is known for. The reviewer said he liked it because it was big. You’re "carrying a camera." The only smaller cameras suggested were around f 2.8. For an f2.8 rangefinder with an excellent lens that you don’t know you’re carrying (it easily slips into a jeans pocket), I recommend the Olympus XA. Even cameras of the same size aren’t as pocketable due to it’s clamshell design. Here’s a URL for the XA: http://cameraquest.com/xa4.htm — Charlie Dilks    Newark, DE  USA

–    mike perkowitz                     www.perkowitz.net/photo Before you buy.

Response:

Take a look at Minolta himatic 7SII. It is pretty small… Lens is (I think) 40mm/f1.7 I think it uses 2 LR44 batteries for metering, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the canonet G3 ql17 is significantly smaller than the minolta hi- matics. it’s not really a pocket camera, since the lens sticks out, but it’s discreet and quiet. max aperture of 1.7 or 1.8 i believe. mike

Response:

Secrete police of the 35mm newsgroup?

Out of which orifice does he secrete the police? Wait — I don’t want to know. —

Response:

Greg: Most people seem to be recommending rangefinders or old manual SLRs, but I say: Why not the Nikon N80? It’s small, quiet, light — and it’ll work with any autofocus Nikon lenses you already have for your N90S. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice.

Response:

There have been many good suggestions so far, but I think that the Konica Hexar AF is probably the one that best fits the bill.  It is compact, lightweight, discreet and very quiet.  The 35/2 lens is hard to beat.  And it’s relatively inexpensive, especially if purchased used.  The Hexar is basically an automated camera, and Greg has to decide whether he wants automated or manual operation, as this will obviously affect his choice. I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Before you buy.

Response:

Canonet GIII

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Response:

Get a cheap Minolta Himatic 7s rangefinder camera. It ca be had for about US$35-$45 in ebay.  I have two of them. It is quiet and looks old and cheap. Nobody will bother you at all. ==

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Response:

If you want really cheap, get a Lomo 8M.  Quite, discreet, very cheap.

I think he was asking about cameras.  I second the motion for the Nikon FM. Regards, Edward Craft

Response:

I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

A used EM with  the 50mm f1.8 E lens. The combo be had for well under $100 on eBay and will perform very well even though auto only. It’s small,  very light and black. If lost or stolen, not a big loss. The f1.8 E is super sharp, even wide open. At that price, you can’t go wring. Mark

Response:

Get a cheap Minolta Himatic 7s rangefinder camera. It ca be had for about US$35-$45 in ebay.  I have two of them. It is quiet and looks old and cheap. Nobody will bother you at all.

Good choice. If you want something with interchangeable lenses, probably the maximum in value for cheap would be the selenium-metered, well-made and humongous Canon 7. It uses any Leica-type screwmount lens, has a pretty good rangefinder with finder frames for 35-135mm lenses, and you can often find one in the couple-of-hundred-bucks range, especially if the selenium meter is dead as it often is (and you don’t care because it’s not very sensitive even when it’s working.) Also pretty quiet, also looks old, and if anybody DOES bother you while you’re lugging this beast… well, give it a quick swing via the neckstrap and conk ‘em in the head with it, and they’ll drop like a stone.  

Response:

I have the same slr setup, so you can understand why I went to a black Voigtlander Bessa-R/50mm/f1.5 Nokton. No, it wasn’t cheap (about a third of the price of a Leica,) but then again, this camera/lens combo is capable of stunning photo’s, probably only second to Leica. Before you buy.

Response:

Greg, I started with a chrome Nikon F and black tape. If I really wanted quiet, I used a WA lens and locked up the mirror. I now have a M6 and it is what it is. I also have two AF Nikons. For the situation you talk about, I’d love to have my F back but now lust for a FM2N but doesn’t have MLU (as many long and enduring threads on this group will attest). There is no real point here except you already have a very good Nikon lens. Perhaps a www.keh.com bargain FM/EM might give you a little more of the edge you were looking for. BTW: I also have a Minolta 7sII that I recently pressed back into service as a travel street snap camera. Black tape again . It’s really been a durable camera and very good picture quality from it’s 40mm f1.7 lens. If you go that route, check out the features. As I recall it is a little shutter speed limited and I’m not sure w/o the camera here what are the max ISO settings. Aperture preferred, if I remember correctly. Regards, Roger <To respond by email, please edit the email domain as directed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Response:

if you don’t need interchangeable lenses and you’re steady, an f/2.8 lens and 400 to 800 ASA film is all you need for a lot of low light work. one of my favorite cameras for this is a Minox 35GT-E: it’s tiny, quiet, has a very sharp lens, aperture priority exposure automation, a manual (scale) focus lens, and is very unobtrusive in use. See <http://www.minoxlab.com/ for details, and take a look at my latest gallery of pictures shot on the streets of NY a couple of weeks ago:  <http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/nybynite/nybynite.htm Godfrey

Response:

             I think it was Practical Photography last week that reviewed four old, excuse me, "Vintage" rangefinders. I haven’t got it in front of me but the Olympus 35 won out over the Canon and Minolta. Really a good read. But I would go with the Konica Hexar Silver for no particular reason.                               Bob Hickey

Response:

this thread is really interesting in that i asked another question to the group some time earlier about shooting indoor concerts.. with the shots, i am looking to capture the vibe of the show.. crowd shots, backstage.. soundboard.. all that kinda stuff.. but i want to keep from using a flash.. it would appear that the minolta himatic would be a neat and cheap camera to try out with this setup, since it’s somewher around 1.4, and using a fast film, it woudl not be very invasive.. anyone use this camera for those kinda shots? i would also be using it for street photography before and after shows.. ___ sergio www.Village-Buzz.com

Response:

Or a Retina folder with an f/2 lens, you can keep it in your pocket when it’s not in use.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Canonet GIII I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Response:

Warning!  Leicaphile troll! "Excelsior, you fatheads!" -Chris-

Response:

Godfrey, nice images!  -Dave – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if you don’t need interchangeable lenses and you’re steady, an f/2.8 lens and 400 to 800 ASA film is all you need for a lot of low light work. one of my favorite cameras for this is a Minox 35GT-E: it’s tiny, quiet, has a very sharp lens, aperture priority exposure automation, a manual (scale) focus lens, and is very unobtrusive in use. See <http://www.minoxlab.com/ for details, and take a look at my latest gallery of pictures shot on the streets of NY a couple of weeks ago: <http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/nybynite/nybynite.htm Godfrey

Response:

I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

I faced the same dilemma. After reading all the Leika threads I decided I "needed" a Cartier-Bresson type camera and looked at used Leicas. I figured I could afford a $1000 toy. $1000… Ha! $1700 was the cheapest I saw. Then I got to thinking; I have a very good one right now. It’s an Olympus XA, a "pocket" manual rangefinder. It has a 35mm f 2.8 lens and is tiny and light. It’s so light that I, a little guy, was routinely carrying it in my shirt pocket ’till I bent over to pick something up and it fell on a concrete floor and flew into many pieces. The clamshell cover is very convenient for "piece of life" photos. I used to use it with Tri X and set to ISO 800, the highest setting. I was developing in Perfection XR-1. It was one of the "magic elixirs" that was well known to to advanced darkroom workers, but difficult to make. This stuff came in convenient, 4 roll packages. Taking Tri X to 800 with this developer was not even beginning to take advantage of it. Fine grain, great depth. The flash has ISO 100 and 400 settings. Shooting ISO 800 film worked well, since these little flashes are always a bit weak anyway. I had it with me always, it fit easily into a front jeans pocket, and captured my "life’s moments," at work, out to dinner, parties etc. It was perfect. The 35 mm lens was just right for me. Whatever you get absolutely HAS to be manual focus, and the dumber the light meter, the better. Auto cameras have to take time to think. Even my manual SLR, an Olympus OM-1, is too slow. I thought of using that. In fact some have called them a "poor man’s Leica." Not true. It has a mirror to wait for. If you don’t believe a mirror will get you in trouble, I was taking pictures of birds that had landed on my bird bath with a 90mm lens on my OM-4 with winder about 5 feet away on a tripod. The shots turned out to be of birds leaving. All had heard a noise before the camera fired. Could have been the motor too, but you get the point. In shooting with my XA, I found that I was faster in most cases than an autofocus camera. In just about all cases I knew knew what the general scene would be because I was already there. I would unobtrusively get the camera out and set a good aperture, warm up the flash or whatever. If I had to be real sneaky, I’d estimate range and scale focus, then grab an instant shot. Usually, people knew I was shooting and I had time. The important thing for "piece of life" is to have the shutter fire as soon as you press the button. Even for a posed subject. The instant you see that absolutely perfect expression is when you want to shoot. From observation to moving the finger, there’s the human delay. We don’t want to make it any worse. From what I saw of the birds flying away, I’m =guessing= that the mirror delay might be about the same as the human delay, maybe half; significant anyway. The only time an autofocus camera might be faster would be in a case where something suddenly happened that I was unprepared for. If I remembered, I left the camera with the focus set to the dot and at f8. I would have been close to begin with for an instant shot. Finer focus for the second if there’s time. I sold an "as new" Olympus XA with the A-11 flash for $150 several years ago. — Charlie Dilks    Newark, DE  USA

Response:

I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Response:

How about the Konica Hexar Silver.  Your stuck with a fixed lens, but even with the new models with no quiet mode it is difficult to hear from more than a couple yards away… Before you buy.

Response:

I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

Used Nikon FM, black.  I alternately use my old FM, new FM2n, or F2AS for this very thing. Mac

Response:

If you want really cheap, get a Lomo 8M.  Quite, discreet, very cheap. Todd I enjoy low light street scene photography occasionally as a fun thing , but it’s hard to be discrete with a F90x with MB-10 around your neck. With a 50 f/1.8 it can do the job but I think a small range finder or at least a small quiet SLR might be a better choice. A Leica M6 would be perfect but that’s well beyond my budget. I want to keep this under five hundred bucks so I’m probably wanting something on the used market. Any suggestions.

– Spam filters in place.  If you are accidently blocked, remove nospam.

Response:

Question:

How important a consideration is barrel distortion considering a len’s performance in the  20-35mm range? Is significant distortion only a problem with formal architectural photography… or is also a problem for professional landscape, photojournalism or enviromental portrait photography? Steve

Response:

How important a consideration is barrel distortion considering a len’s performance in the  20-35mm range? Is significant distortion only a problem with formal architectural photography… or is also a problem for professional landscape, photojournalism or enviromental portrait photography?

It all depends. You can even take photos with a fish-eye lens that don’t look like they’ve been taken with a fish-eye lens. Some subjects show distortion more noticeable than others. In general, though, less distortion is better. Most certainly so in architecture, less in other fields, least perhaps in photojournalism.

Response:

How important a consideration is barrel distortion considering a len’s performance in the 20-35mm range?

I’ll take a contrarian view: some small amount of barrel distortion is actually GOOD in a wide angle lens.  Otherwise, people’s heads appearing in the corners get too deformed-looking. Is significant distortion only a problem with formal architectural photography…

For architecture you need a tilt-shift lens or view camera, anyhow. or is also a problem for professional landscape, photojournalism or enviromental portrait photography?

With landscapes you might not notice.  With photojournalism, I would prefer a rangefinder camera for wide angle.  With portraits, people in the corners look better when there is barrel distortion. Pincushion distortion, on the other hand, is totally evil.

Response:

How important a consideration is barrel distortion considering a len’s performance in the 20-35mm range? I’ll take a contrarian view: some small amount of barrel distortion is actually GOOD in a wide angle lens.  Otherwise, people’s heads appearing in the corners get too deformed-looking. Is significant distortion only a problem with formal architectural photography… For architecture you need a tilt-shift lens or view camera, anyhow.

Need?  No.  Nice to have?  Yes! You could use an ultra wide lens, keep the vertical plane of the subject and the film plane parallel, use slow film, and crop. Mac

Response:

For architecture you need a tilt-shift lens or view camera, anyhow. Need?  No.  Nice to have?  Yes! You could use an ultra wide lens, keep the vertical plane of the subject and the film plane parallel, use slow film, and crop.

This technique works. But to keep the end results in acceptable quality range (ultrawide angle lenses produce low magnification images, plus heavy cropping) is best performed on large format… And (would you believe it!) most large format cameras come with swing and tilt!

Response:

For architecture you need a tilt-shift lens or view camera, anyhow. Need?  No.  Nice to have?  Yes! You could use an ultra wide lens, keep the vertical plane of the subject and the film plane parallel, use slow film, and crop. This technique works. But to keep the end results in acceptable quality range (ultrawide angle lenses produce low magnification images, plus heavy cropping) is best performed on large format…

I get good results with an 18mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor and Elite 100.  I’m trying Provia 100F as well. I used to have a 4×5, but sold it because I didn’t want to carry it around, framing the upside-down image is aggravating, focusing on the grounglass is tough for me to do, and loading film in the holders was a real pain in the a** (being sure to get the emulsion side facing out in the changing bag or the darkroom).  I don’t have any of the PC Nikkors because using them would make me wish all my Nikkors, except those above 85mm, were PC (Once you’ve used it, you want it on almost everything.  I do.). And (would you believe it!) most large format cameras come with swing and tilt!

and a lot more shift! Mac

Response:

loading film in the holders was a real pain in the a** (being sure to get the emulsion side facing out in the changing bag

Nothing like having your arms in a daylight changing bag with a dozen 4×5 holders and sweat pouring off your face and an itchy nose

Response:

loading film in the holders was a real pain in the a** (being sure to get the emulsion side facing out in the changing bag Nothing like having your arms in a daylight changing bag with a dozen 4×5 holders and sweat pouring off your face and an itchy nose

Been there done that.  How about the sweat pouring off your hands and arms onto the film while they’re in that changing bag? Mac

Response:

This technique works. But to keep the end results in acceptable quality range (ultrawide angle lenses produce low magnification images, plus heavy cropping) is best performed on large format… I get good results with an 18mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor and Elite 100.  I’m trying Provia 100F as well.

But you know how the results are using 4×5, or even a PC lens on 35 mm. Better, don’t you think? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I used to have a 4×5, but sold it because I didn’t want to carry it around, framing the upside-down image is aggravating, focusing on the grounglass is tough for me to do, and loading film in the holders was a real pain in the a** (being sure to get the emulsion side facing out in the changing bag or the darkroom).  I don’t have any of the PC Nikkors because using them would make me wish all my Nikkors, except those above 85mm, were PC (Once you’ve used it, you want it on almost everything.  I do.). And (would you believe it!) most large format cameras come with swing and tilt! and a lot more shift!

You’re absolutely right. How could i forget to mention shift? Plain stupid? (No, it can’t be me, must be the weather, you won’t believe the heat!… and the humidity too… maybe i didn’t get enough sleep… and i work too many !^$ hours anyway… could be something i had to eat, yeah must be yesterdays lunch!) But i see you still got my point!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For architecture you need a tilt-shift lens or view camera, anyhow. Need?  No.  Nice to have?  Yes! You could use an ultra wide lens, keep the vertical plane of the subject and the film plane parallel, use slow film, and crop. This technique works. But to keep the end results in acceptable quality range (ultrawide angle lenses produce low magnification images, plus heavy cropping) is best performed on large format… I get good results with an 18mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor and Elite 100.  I’m trying Provia 100F as well. I used to have a 4×5, but sold it because I didn’t want to carry it around, framing the upside-down image is aggravating, focusing on the grounglass is tough for me to do, and loading film in the holders was a real pain in the a** (being sure to get the emulsion side facing out in the changing bag or the darkroom).  I don’t have any of the PC Nikkors because using them would make me wish all my Nikkors, except those above 85mm, were PC (Once you’ve used it, you want it on almost everything.  I do.). And (would you believe it!) most large format cameras come with swing and tilt! and a lot more shift! Mac

I suspect if excellence and perfection was easier to achieve we might see more of it. Gary Frost

Response: