Aren't they quieter than 35mm SLRs?
The advantage of viewfinder cameras I always thought was that because the shutter was in the lens and there is no mirror slap, it's quieter to use than an SLR. My Mamiya RB67 is pretty quiet in mirror-up mode which I always use when taking landscape shots, not that the birds mind the noise anyway.Not necesarily. An all-manual SLR makes a quick momentary clunk. Most of the point-and-shoots I've used have a very loud focus noise, which doesn't happen until I trip the shutter, so you have whiny gears to focus, and quiet click then whiny noise to advance the film. The whole thing takes much longer than the quick SLR kerchunk, and is a continuous pitched noise that will carry much more than the SLR sound. My Pentax MX is much quieter than my Pentax Espio.
The advantage of viewfinder cameras I always thought was that because the shutter was in the lens and there is no mirror slap, it's quieter to use than an SLR. My Mamiya RB67 is pretty quiet in mirror-up mode which I always use when taking landscape shots, not that the birds mind the noise anyway.
You look through the viewfinder and frame everything up and then release the mirror which locks up. Then when you're ready to shoot after the tripod stops vibrating, you release the shutter in the lens.With the mirror up, how do you see what the photograph will be or frame anything?
with a tripod, and composing the shot before flipping the mirror up, maybe? Or maybe he just uses the force?With the mirror up, how do you see what the photograph will be or frame anything?
What I like about my Chinon MF 35 is that it has a distance scale visible in the viewfinder. I know at what distance the AF is set to, don't know of any other AF camera with the same feature. What I don't like is it doesn't have window to show if the camera has film, being motor driven cannot use the rewind knob to test for tension, need to open the back in the darkroom.
What I like about my Chinon MF 35 is that it has a distance scale visible in the viewfinder. I know at what distance the AF is set to, don't know of any other AF camera with the same feature. What I don't like is it doesn't have window to show if the camera has film, being motor driven cannot use the rewind knob to test for tension, need to open the back in the darkroom.
I agree with this.Whatever brings people into photography, and especially film photography, is probably a good thing. We all have to start somewhere. My first camera came from a gum machine. You could actually win tiny zippo type lighters in those things in the 50's in the US. The camera was loaded w/ film, you sent the camera off in the mail and they sent it and the prints back, They weren't even thumbnail size.
Also had a $2 plastic 110 camera on a key-chain. I found some Kodak B&W film for it back in the 80's, brought it to a camera store on Market St in S.F. to get prints made, and a few days later they handed me some of the most beautiful hand size prints that you ever saw. You just never know.
No doubt there are many perfectly focused images made. The anti- f/64 ultra realism side has a lot of fans in large format. Fuzzy lenses sell for hundreds and even thousands of $ regularly. But the LF’ers don’t take a lot of shots!I am more concerned with when the bubble of the obsession with straight photography/ f/64 school,/ultra-realism bubble will burst. Especially with digital, I see endless images that are perfectly focused, and clinically perfect in many ways but boring/
I am afraid I may not know what is meant by the "point and shoot bubble". Perhaps there could be some examples of the purported problem. Walker Evans famously took pictures on a subway with a camera hidden in his coat. This might be considered a kind of point-and-shoot because he did not hold the camera to his eye. Yet is he celebrated for those impromptu images. I am more concerned with when the bubble of the obsession with straight photography/ f/64 school,/ultra-realism bubble will burst. Especially with digital, I see endless images that are perfectly focused, and clinically perfect in many ways but boring, and most importantly, unlike millions of others just like them. https://publicdelivery.org/walker-evans-many-are-called/
Here in my neck of the woods film sales is driven by GenX, they like film, they like film cameras, they spend so much time with smart phones and computers that they enjoy a hobby that is not bound to a screen, well not really most live in small apartments and scan their negatives. Those that I have talked to have a 35mm SLR and are looking for a smaller second body.
The photojournalist David Burnett has used Holgas and Speedgraphics and has won awards for his work . He did one of Al Gore in the presidential campaign. He said, that, at that time, the majority of photojournalists were using the same two camera bodies and same two lenses. This contributed to a sameness in their images even though they were technically correct. He felt that using film cameras helped him have a distinctive look. The quest for ever-greater sharpness, i.e., resolution, has been driving the design of modern lenses to the exclusion of other qualities. Many people using digital gear are getting clinically crisp, clean images, but in so doing creating work that tends to look similar. But that does not mean that people could not work in different ways, and some do, with digital gear. It is an aesthetic mindset that favors sharpness and realism that drives it.Did you mean to write, "exactly like millions of others just like them"?
Thank you. Wow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?