message in a 35 mm bottle?
I would be grateful for any suggestions from someone who was once in a similar situation ie. Still learning but intent on a lens collection and in the near future: a dark room.
The Nikon FM3a or the Bessa range of cameras?
Which camera would suit someone having passed beyond the beginner phase but still learning?
Greatly appreciate any input.
Each of those options is an excellent choice in its own right, but each has its own set of pros and cons.
Could you give us a bit more of an idea what style(s) of photography you intend pursuing (landscape, candid, still life, sports, wildlife, studio portrait, etc., etc.)?
The destination is important, but so is the journey
Originally Posted by FrankB
I was drawn to photography through an interest in art. I was frustrated with a metering system (Minolta dynax 5 - different title in US) I have never come to grips with, results from regular commercial printing services in b/w and my own lack of knowledge.
To answer your question I am particularly interested in people in landscape.
I have read up surfed the net a lot but have yet to draw any definite conclusions. I have a moderate to medium budget.
People in landscape? Or people and landscapes?
Either way, I personally prefer and SLR for those. Being able to see what you get (or at least 90-95% of what you get) is a key component for these types of shots.
I know there are many that use RFs for all kinds of shots, but I personally find myself relegating my RF cameras to situtations where the light is low or where I need to be quick.
People in places mainly. But with an emphasis on backgrounds. This brings in landscapes also.
What is the advantages of Rangefinders? Or the Bessa's? Clarity? Weight? Noise when clicking? etc.
again - grateful for any suggestions.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The advantages of RFs is a pretty big question, but I'l give it a go.
The main thing for me is that RFs don't have a mirror to bang up and down in the body. This means that you don't get the subtle camera shake that affects sharpness at about 1/10-1/15. If I'm in a really tough situation, I can handhold down to 1/15 and get about 40% of the frames back. Some are better at it than I am. Since I'm shooting with the fixed lens on the Canonet, that's a solid 1.3 stops or so better than I could do with an SLR.
I don't think the viewfinder is going to be any clearer than with an SLR. While there are some SLRs that are as light as RFs, I don't know of any RFs that are as heavy as the pro SLRs out there. Some RFs shutters are very quiet (particularly the leaf shutters in the fixed-lens 35mm models from the 70s), but the Bessa ones are supposedly quite loud (I don't have one myself, though I wish I did).
I think that's a good start.
This thread will probably draw about as many opinions as there are members! For 35mm here's mine: Olympus OM's. Specifically, I love my OM-1n's for landscapes because of the mirror lock up feature, and my OM-2n's for people stuff because in those situations I frequently make use of the AP off-the-film metering. And the Zuiko lenses are outstanding. I haven't found anything I thought would be worth changing to in 20 years.
If you're going to shoot at moderate to long distances with lenses of moderate focal length -- 35 mm to 135 mm -- it doesn't much matter whether you use an RF camera or an SLR. If you're going to use longer lenses, an SLR would be preferable. If you're going to shoot at close distances, and SLR would usually be preferable.
As for brand, well, that so many brands (= proprietary mounts) of SLRs persisted for so long is very interesting. If any were overwhelmingly superior, it would have driven the others out of the market. You'll have a hard time making a bad mistake if you buy into one of the major brands and get a body and lenses in good order.
To expose my prejudices, a long time ago I bought into Nikon, and there I stay. I don't regret it, but I could equally well have bought into Canon or Minolta or Pentax or ... and stayed with it.
I use and love rangefinders, but an slr is more versatile. Longer lenses are no problem, macro is easy, wide range of lenses available, probably cheaper too.
Thanks for all your help fellows.