DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Skinning Cats (Street Photography)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/19/2007 10:48:45 AM · #1
Iím going to take a few seconds to express myself... I look forward to your opinions on this.

I did a lot of reading for the Street Photography Challenge. I enjoyed the preparation, the shoot, and the post-processing. I learned. I learned a lot.

But one thing really struck me about this challenge... or more specifically, this genera: Everyone seems to have a ďMy way or the High WayĒ attitude. According to most of the people I read, if you donít shoot with a rangefinder (usually Leica) and on film only, then you just are not a street photographer and you are not doing street photography. If your picture is color or pulled in tight, it just isnít street photography. If your picture doesnít look like their examples, it isnít street photography.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Any Photoshop user can tell you that.

Their way looks great and Iím probably going to get a rangefinder and try it. But I hope I never become too ridged in my definition of the street photography.

I want to compliment everyone who participated in the Street Photography challenge. According to the ďrealĒ street photographers out there, we are all DNMC (unless you used a digital rangefinder). But I am proud to be associated with a group of people who like to be pushed out of their comfort zone to learn another way to skin a cat.
02/19/2007 10:51:01 AM · #2
Yup, street photography is almost as hidebound as landscape photography in terms of people with a list of rules and 'thou musts'
02/19/2007 11:06:09 AM · #3
I don't even know what a rangefinder is. How can you tell if one is used in a photo?

Found this funny bit about rangefinders (I don't hink I have one ;)
rf

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 11:10:21.
02/19/2007 11:19:32 AM · #4
The only good thing over a digital camera a rangefinder camera offers is that the light comming through the lens is closer to the film plane (digital sensor plane) than a digital camera.

This technical aspect of rangefinders makes the camera superior over digital.

However, I have no knowledge of a digital rangefinder (which would be pretty cool). And even if there was one, who is the manufacture of the sensor? Sensors are as differant as a canon is to a nikon.

It's not the equipment that captures a good image. It's the eye.
02/19/2007 11:27:45 AM · #5
Originally posted by American_Horse:

I have no knowledge of a digital rangefinder (which would be pretty cool). And even if there was one, who is the manufacture of the sensor? Sensors are as differant as a canon is to a nikon.


Leica M8
02/19/2007 11:32:21 AM · #6
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by American_Horse:

I have no knowledge of a digital rangefinder (which would be pretty cool). And even if there was one, who is the manufacture of the sensor? Sensors are as differant as a canon is to a nikon.


Leica M8


Like I said, pretty cool.

But, a ccd?
02/19/2007 11:33:25 AM · #7
Originally posted by American_Horse:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by American_Horse:

I have no knowledge of a digital rangefinder (which would be pretty cool). And even if there was one, who is the manufacture of the sensor? Sensors are as differant as a canon is to a nikon.


Leica M8


Like I said, pretty cool.

But, a ccd?


What do you want for 5 grand Metal Flake! LMAO :-P
02/19/2007 11:36:59 AM · #8
Originally posted by American_Horse:


This technical aspect of rangefinders makes the camera superior over digital.


The supporting info I've heard for rangefinders for street photography would be:

Small, light, very quiet - helps you not be seen. Compare that with a 1 series DSLR with a 50mm 1.2 on it as an example.

Greater than 100% viewfinder - so you can see things falling into the frame and compose with the larger world view, compare with a 95% view sensor in a DSLR.


02/19/2007 11:48:21 AM · #9
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:



What do you want for 5 grand Metal Flake! LMAO :-P


Actually, it makes sense that a digital rangefinder would have a ccd system.

Even though with todays technology, cmos and ccd are pretty much even with image quality, ccd's capture at least 70% more light than it's film counterpart.

The micro lens that Leica includes on he ccd to help stop vinietteing (sp) is also a good thing.

But, the power consumption of a ccd to a cmos is pretty signifacant. I would have to think a stash of batteries would have to be a must for this camera.

Also, on the detailed preview it mentions that the camera has a shorter shutter lag. Does that mean for the money you are spending on this camera there is a shutter lag? Not impressive.

Doesn't Pentax own Leica? Pentax sensors are not all that great anyway, so, I just wonder why ccd?

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 11:58:25.
02/19/2007 12:18:50 PM · #10
Originally posted by American_Horse:

Doesn't Pentax own Leica? Pentax sensors are not all that great anyway, so, I just wonder why ccd?


Pentax does not own Leica.
The sensor is made by Kodak.

Why a CCD? Why not?

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 12:25:59.
02/19/2007 12:22:16 PM · #11
Originally posted by American_Horse:

Also, on the detailed preview it mentions that the camera has a shorter shutter lag. Does that mean for the money you are spending on this camera there is a shutter lag? Not impressive.


Shorter shutterlag compared to your 1D.

Any camera has shutter lag, it has to open a shutter right?


02/19/2007 12:23:43 PM · #12
Originally posted by American_Horse:



Also, on the detailed preview it mentions that the camera has a shorter shutter lag. Does that mean for the money you are spending on this camera there is a shutter lag? Not impressive.


It's physically impossible to have a camera without shutter lag. I'd be impressed if someone managed to break those laws I suppose. Otherwise I'm happy to cut them some slack for it. The M8 claims the shortest shutter lag of any digital camera currently available.

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 12:25:25.
02/19/2007 12:36:16 PM · #13
Originally posted by Azrifel:



Shorter shutterlag compared to your 1D.

Any camera has shutter lag, it has to open a shutter right?


Staying away from any arguments, and this is my final post on the subject.

Mine and Gordons 1D costs as much as the M8, so yes I would want my monies worth. And that would include a 100% respoce time.

Also, Kodack sensors are not that impressive either.

Cheese Puff.

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 12:39:17.
02/19/2007 12:38:59 PM · #14
Originally posted by American_Horse:


Mine and Gordons 1D costs as much as the M8, so yes I would want my monies worth. And that would include a 100% respoce time.


As said above. The M8 has a faster response time than the 1D. 100% response time is impossible.
02/19/2007 12:45:56 PM · #15
why is that an advantage?

Originally posted by American_Horse:

The only good thing over a digital camera a rangefinder camera offers is that the light comming through the lens is closer to the film plane (digital sensor plane) than a digital camera.

This technical aspect of rangefinders makes the camera superior over digital.
02/19/2007 12:46:37 PM · #16
Originally posted by metatate:

I don't even know what a rangefinder is. How can you tell if one is used in a photo?

Found this funny bit about rangefinders (I don't hink I have one ;)
rf


Almost all the P&S cameras seen on DPC are rangefinders. The true digital rangefinder would be the Lieca M8. The M8 stands for; mmmmm I'm glad it was only 5 thousand, not eight!
02/19/2007 12:49:38 PM · #17
nevermind ... answered my own question ...

" ... The lack of a mirror also allows lenses to project deep into the camera body, and so high-quality wide-angle lenses are easier to design. ... "

Originally posted by hopper:

why is that an advantage?

Originally posted by American_Horse:

The only good thing over a digital camera a rangefinder camera offers is that the light comming through the lens is closer to the film plane (digital sensor plane) than a digital camera.

This technical aspect of rangefinders makes the camera superior over digital.
02/19/2007 12:51:13 PM · #18
Originally posted by American_Horse:

[

Mine and Gordons 1D costs as much as the M8, so yes I would want my monies worth. And that would include a 100% respoce time.



Are you unhappy with the shutter lag on your 1D?

The M8 has even less.

No camera has ever, nor ever will have, zero shutter lag. It's a physical impossibility.
02/19/2007 12:59:12 PM · #19
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

No camera has ever, nor ever will have, zero shutter lag. It's a physical impossibility.


Just being picky, really, but actually, it is possible. It's even possible to have a camera with negative shutter lag. All that's required is a non-mechanical shutter and a very fast readout, say 30 frames per second (sound like video?). Half-press begins continuous acquisition, on full press, count back X frames and record. Same strategy as digital oscilloscopes use to capture onset of fast events.
Check out todays news items on DPReview, Sony just announced a 6-megapixel sensor that will read out at 60 fps (smaller sensor, though).

Message edited by author 2007-02-19 12:59:43.
02/19/2007 01:00:31 PM · #20
Originally posted by American_Horse:

Originally posted by Azrifel:



Shorter shutterlag compared to your 1D.

Any camera has shutter lag, it has to open a shutter right?


Staying away from any arguments, and this is my final post on the subject.

Mine and Gordons 1D costs as much as the M8, so yes I would want my monies worth. And that would include a 100% respoce time.

Also, Kodack sensors are not that impressive either.

Cheese Puff.


Have I already mentioned that the M8 lacks autofocus? :)

I wish could afford the lenses, the price of the body is ok.


02/19/2007 01:06:10 PM · #21
Like most times that I think I have a perfect entry it shows about middle of the road and that says to me I didn't do something right...damn.
02/19/2007 01:20:16 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

No camera has ever, nor ever will have, zero shutter lag. It's a physical impossibility.


Just being picky, really, but actually, it is possible. It's even possible to have a camera with negative shutter lag. All that's required is a non-mechanical shutter and a very fast readout, say 30 frames per second (sound like video?). Half-press begins continuous acquisition, on full press, count back X frames and record. Same strategy as digital oscilloscopes use to capture onset of fast events.
Check out todays news items on DPReview, Sony just announced a 6-megapixel sensor that will read out at 60 fps (smaller sensor, though).


True that. Sort of cheating though ;)

Even better would be some sort of 'Firefox' like system (the plane, not the browser) that could preempt the thought to press the shutter and capture the image before you push the button. That'd be niftier. I don't think I'd pay 5 grand for it though. Particularly if I had to think in Russian.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/18/2021 04:31:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/18/2021 04:31:06 AM EDT.