skip to main |
skip to sidebar
God knows, that as techno-oriented as I am, I love throw-backs. Although, in the modern era, I've not been much of a professional football fan; I was always a fan of this guy....Brian Urlacher of the Chicago Bears. A modern day Dick Butkus! Maybe its a function of me getting old, or maybe its just another aspect of my weirdness, but I'm willing to embrace it.
The trend has always been strong in the photographic industry. It could be due to the engineers that still run many of these firms, or possibly that it's all a marketing ploy to get old guys like me (the more well-heeled versions) to buy these nostalgic creations. It's always been around, but it really got going a few years ago with the introduction of the Olympus Pen Micro 4/3rds camera. Clearly it's design cues were taken from the original Pen F of the '60s, but whatever the reason, it was an unequivocal success.
Of course, there were those companies who never did change their product much, even with changing over from film to digital as witnesses by the Leica M9. However, as the movement gained steam in the last few years, it's gotten too much for even the mainstream companies to ignore.
Surprisingly, the company that got this segment of the market really heated up wasn't any of the expected players. It was Fuji with the various models of the modern version of the interchangeable lens "rangefinder" idiom.
And now we have this.....the Nikon Df (f for fusion). If you are familiar with traditional Nikons, it'll be self-evident a fusion of what! A full-sized "FX" sensor from the flagship D4, focusing subsystems from the D610, and the concepts and designs of both the Nikon F3 and FM film cameras.
It's $3000 worth of ridiculously good and beautiful. I HATE it! More accurately, I hate that I can't run right out there and buy the thing! The only thing that I can do to soothe myself is to sit here with my D300 and hold it like some sort of talisman!
It's almost a perfect size. Compared to the D800 which is similar in size to the D700 which it replaced and was based on the D300 chassis, I can clearly see that it's significantly more compact. Almost an ideal "carry-around" size with full-on control knobs for it's major functions which are plainly visible. At the same time, this compact chassis is of the completely magnesium type common to professional cameras.
At the same time, when the camera is viewed from the back, it's clear that it's every bit the modern day digital SLR and all that they are capable. Yeah; I'm pretty much smitten.
In the photography world, people throw around the term "rangefinder" a lot. And in a photographic sense, I'd guess that some of them really do know what it is, but just for grins, I thought I throw out there the original use. If you'll look at the above illustration of a main turret from the battleship Yamato, you'll see two "ears" projecting from either side of it. Those are the two ends of optical "rangefinder" that it used to determine the "range" of it's target, so that it could train those 3, 18" guns.(the largest ever on an operational navy vessel) and lob shells the weight of a truck on it. Now, on to our originally scheduled program.
There was a time, back when cars had carburetors (sometimes 2 or more), crank up windows and people had one phone.....wired to the wall....the world was ruled by silver nitrate! Everyone aspired to a real camera, but most of us spent years with Kodak Brownies, or Instamatics, maybe even an Agfa C3. However we all knew that when we grew up, we'd have a 35mm camera, made in Japan, or if we were an engineer or doctor....maybe even an honest to gosh German one! A Rollei, a Voigtlander, a Leica or the "holy of the holy's"; a Zeiss Icon (ironically). Of course, everyone wanted a single lens reflex (SLR), but most would rather make a car payment (or two), maybe buy a washer. So they settled for an advanced rangefinder. In the late 60's to late 70's, most of these were similar to the Minolta Hi-Matic 7 illustrated above. Pretty much every maker had them and they were generally all pretty good. It didn't matter whether it was a Konica, Petri, Miranda, or Canon, these things were the "bread & butter" of the industry.
Then there were the system rangefinders. Some like the Nikon S3/SP were the last vestiges of an older era before they mostly succumbed to the onslaught of the 35mm SLRs. The main players were Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and Leica. These cameras were the province of old photojournalists who valued their simplicity, light weight and unobtrusiveness and old cranks who just didn't want to try the "new-fangled" stuff.
Then there was me. It was the late 70's and a 39mm (Leica) screw mounted Canon 7s was well and truly out of date. It wasn't anything like the Canon A-1 (which was considered to be the most advanced camera of that day) that I was using then, but I fell in love with it. The $200 that Plains Camera (of Lubbock, Texas) wanted was a lot of money to a 17 year old. But I save money from working in my mom's restaurant and with a little help from my brother, bought it. If you haven't used a rangefinder, you'll be amazed by it. They don't feel like, sound like, or work like an SLR. It's completely understandable why they are a street photographers dream. Mine came with a rather soft 50mm/f1.2, but as most of you know; available light is the point with this type of photography. So for a year or so, whenever I was was doing photography for me, this camera was the choice. I even bought a couple of old Canon screw mount lenses for it, but it was that 50mm that was on it almost all the time. Then came college, during which, I decided that if I took my cameras, I'd funk out of school. So my brother and I split what we had. He got the A-1 system and I got the 7s.....which I left at home. After college, I sold that system and bought a very usable Pentax rig centered around the MX, but that's another story.
In the meantime, rangefinders had become "retro-cool" So much so that little known Cosina, became hailed for recreating the classic rangefinder under the licensed Voigtlander brand, but in a modern idiom. I know that Contax had the amazing G series, but they didn't cause much of a ripple in the market-place as a whole. However, the retro-rangefinder craze had gotten so that Nikon even re-released newly built versions of their classic S3 and SP.
Of course I couldn't participate in any of that, being a young teacher putting himself through grad school. However, I do have one regret that I didn't jump in and pick up a Minolta CLE while their prices were still down. The CLE is of course a slightly revised version of the Leica CL that Minolta had collaborated on with the revered E. Leitz firm.
Time moves on and so did technology, however, certain concepts did not. The desire to do candid available-light photography is still strong in some of us. The Henri Cartier-Bresson in us still wants to document life, and the best tool to use for that is a "range-finder" camera, or one that mimics it's features. In combination with a resurgence in documentary style photography and of course instantaneous social media, candid photography is back with a vengeance! Compact digital cameras are everywhere, but of course given their limitations, the less said about them the better. The marketplace has seen an explosion of what some call "EVIL" (electronic view interchangeable lens) cameras. And these days, even the "old guard", meaning Nikon and Canon have jumped on the bandwagon. They've run the gamut from the truly astounding, like the Fuji X100/X10, amazing (in price and performance) like the Leica M9 as well as (IMHO) missteps such as the Nikon One series.
The majority of these have "large sensors" to up the image quality while avoiding the old noise bugaboo of the compact digitals. They range from the barely larger than compact digital Nikon J1/V1s, to the 4/3rds group all the way up to the full APS-C sized of Sony/Samsung/Canon and now Nikon with the Coolpix A. Olympus must be credited as being the "mover & shaker" behind the micro 4/3rd movement that has made such an impact in market acceptance of the concept.
These are without a doubt "serious" cameras with the expectation of performance close to, if not identical to equivalent generation DSLRs. The majority of them are systems cameras with the ability to change lenses and add shoe-flashes. Some even have optical viewfinders and many of the others have accessory electronic versions.
What does that mean for me? Well, barring a late life career change to something way more lucrative than a high school teacher: I'm not going to run out and buy the amazing Leica M9 and all the attendant E. Leitz glass. In all seriousness though, it's the concept that's important. As I've discussed before, I'm really drawn to the idea of "street photography", candidly recording life, as it happens. And based on my experience both from having owned and used the Canon 7s as well as trying to use my Nikon D300; I need to use something more in line with the former vs. the latter! I found that unless people were intensely preoccupied (like playing a sport), when I point the D300 with a super-zoom attached, it's something akin to pointing an RPG at someone. You have their complete attention.
So I'm looking forward to the Panasonic GF-1 as an alternative to the D300. I have to say that I'm truly amazed at all the choices that are out there today. Enough so that we can make choices of what works best for the type of photography I want to practice.
