Why a RF?

[ernesto]

Hello, all RF fans!

It is obvious that there is a special "I do not know what" that is feeding this Range Finder Rebirth. I must say that in this fast consumption society where everything gets obsolete one month after the release, I have got tech-stressed , and feel certain nostagie of the old times when a camera was something for all your life. My grandfather got his brand new Contax II in 1936, which was used by 3 generations, and it is still working 70 years later. In the meantime I have used a Fiesta, then the Contax II with the 21mm biogon, and a Canon F1, then a Nikon FM, an F3 with a 20mm, an F4 and F5, then got to the digital era with the Nikon D100, and some months ago have got a Bessa M3 with the Heliar 12mm lens. Some people told me that I am going backwards. My reason was simple: I love Architectural pictures, and played with extreme wideangles most of my time, and the Heliar 12 is a unique optical piece, that surprises me all the time. The extremely sharp images, as well as the straight lines that this lens can achieve, together with such a short focal distance cannot be reached with any other lens for a SLR system.

I was wondering which is your reason for choosing a RF camera?

1) It is fashionable.
2) I am tired of high tech.
3) Nostagie for non disposable goods.
4) Better Optical Choise
5) Lighter and more confortable equipment.
6) More discrete.
7) Better mechanical performance.


Ernesto

 

[David Goldfarb]

I use a rangefinder when it is impractical to focus on the groundglass.

 

[mfunnell]

None of the above. I use RF cameras for two different reasons.

Firstly, and probably more importantly, because I see and compose differently with an RF camera. I see what's outside the frame as well as what's in it, and I see everything in focus and imagine what I'm subtracting from what I see in the viewfinder by my choice of framing and aperture setting. With an SLR I (effectively) see only what's inside the frame and what's in-focus at maximum aperture, then have to imagine what I'm adding by an awareness (that I find far from total) of what I can't see through the viewfinder.

Neither is better nor worse in an absolute sense: I just find I compose differently with one from the way I compose with the other. I'll choose which camera to use partly based on what I think will work best for a particular task (or just as the mood takes me).

The second thing I find is that I get better focus accuracy with an RF camera (at RF-appropriate focal lengths) than I get from either MF or AF SLRs. I think a well-adjusted long-baselength RF has theoretical advantages over an SLR within their focal-length range - but I really think, for me, RF focusing just somehow suits me better.

...Mike

 

[ernesto]

Sorry guys! I should have added an option: "Others"

Anyway It is very interesting to see the reasons eachone have.
I am specially interested in human relationship with stuff we have, they use to be part of our identity for thousand of years, as we can see in prehistoric graves, which are usually found with lots of tools that belonged to the person.
Today the digital era, is breaking this old relationship, and something new is happening... I do not know where we are going.

It seems that a phisical paper photograph is something that can easily relate to us, but a digital file in a hard drive.... is much more impersonal.
Perhaps all the retro design we can see nowaday has an emotional reason... as a reaction against virtuality. It is true too, that old solutions are much more practical sometimes...

I know that tools are just that! only tools. And the only important thing is what we can do with them, so we shouldn´t worry. But perhaps we can feel the emptiness that was created by technological acceleration.

It is also true that human relationship with tools, helps learning how to use them in a better way everyday. I can recall the relationship between the samurais and their swords.
Can you imagine a samurai chaging his sword for a new model every month? Is is possible to train in the art, chaging the way we should use our tool so often?
In the same way if you feel comfortable with your camera, it will eventually become part of you, and then, it will work as yourself, making more natural the action of taking pictures.

Perhaps crazy stuff to think about...

Ernesto

 

[FrankS]

Not so crazy Ernesto, thanks for the question.

I have a great appreciation for well desinged and engineered tools and mechanical things. Watches, fountain pens, Japanese wood saws, chisels, knives, motorcycles (1970s BMWs), and cameras of the 1950s era (give or take 20 years).

 

[mfunnell]

It seems that a phisical paper photograph is something that can easily relate to us, but a digital file in a hard drive.... is much more impersonal.

Perhaps. Yet as I sit I'm looking at a letter-size proof print (on Hahnemuehle Photo Rag) of a shot taken on a (shhh...) digital camera that has moved from CF card to hard drive through Photoshop to an ink-jet printer. It makes a nice shot (though after watching it for a few days, I think I'll desaturate the reds slightly before I print the final). It is going to end up framed and on my wall and makes a very nice print.

It will join prints that were scanned from film, then have gone through a similar process.

I think I'm agreeing with you that "if it isn't printed, it isn't a photograph". (Alhough perhaps I mean "if it isn't good enough to be worth printing, it isn't a photograph". I've seen plenty of great photos on the web that I'll never see a print of.) I make a point of printing all my photos I think worthwhile enough to, say, post to flickr. About a third of those end up in albums. A much smaller number end up on the wall (and only a few of those end up staying there permanently).

But I don't think that something that started life as a digital file isn't a photograph (I doubt that you were saying that, though).

...Mike

 

[pvdhaar]

The big plus of an RF for me is the way the viewfinder shows the world. On an SLR, the viewfinder is a scanning device; you move the camera around to optimise the composition. An RF finder shows all the possible compositions at once, and you get to put the framelines exactly there where it's best.

Another advantage of a viewfinder that shows more than the actual crop, is that you've got a notion of what's going on outside the frame. Being able to anticipate when and where something enters the frame is a great plus for timing the shot.

 

[cmogi10]

It makes me happy, I'm comfortable with it, I like the results I get with it and It's a system that works for me.
What more could I ask for? It certaintly doesn't do everything, but what it does it does well for me.

 

[mdelevie]

A couple of reasons I shoot MF rangefinders:

1) for the image quality. The wide-angle lenses are much better, because they don't have to be retrofocus designs to clear the mirror box of an SLR. Less flare, less distortion, and to my eye, higher contrast, though that's probably unrelated.

2) for the challenge of "seeing" the image in my mind, rather than on a ground glass. Precise composition is great when it's called for, but I'm learning to loosen up a bit.

3) 'cause they're cool, and retro, and always start a conversation. In a room full of Nikon and Canon dSLRs, the guy with the Bronica or Plaubel RF stands out. ;^)

4) did I mention image quality? Seems like these posts always revert to the film-vs-digital war, which isn't my intent... take this only as my personal opinion, but for me, MF film still has everything over digital. I just scanned some 6x7 slides (RVP) from my Plaubel to around 120 megapixels, and they look fantastic. That might be pushing it a bit, but hey, I still have space left on my hard drive. Anyway, it's also more than just counting pixels, it's a look.

5) 'cause they're quiet and light and unobtrusive. I've shot a few weddings on film, and gotten complements for not disrupting the ceremony with mirror and shutter noises. (not so the ETRS, that would wake the deaf from a sound sleep)

I don't have a 35mm RF, only MF. The only reason I lust for the 35s is for the fast glass, my RFs are f/2.8 at best, and the Bronicas are f/4 max aperture.

Free internet opinion. Your mileage may vary. Don't smoke in bed. Refrigerate after opening.

Mark

 

[dcsang]

I think the question should be: Why Not?
😀

Dave

 

[narsuitus]

Of the options given, “6) More discrete” was the one for which I voted.

I use the quiet 35mm rangefinder and the relatively quiet 6x7 medium format rangefinder when the noisy SLR would draw too much attention.

I just wish Leica, Canon, or Nikon would produce a manual-focus digital rangefinder based on their old film rangefinder cameras (Leica M6, Canon 7, Nikon SP).

 

[kuzano]

Answering question with question...

Answering question with question...

Yeah, one of those kind of guys.
Why a classic car?
Why a bamboo fly fishing pole?
Why a first edition print of Robert Frost poem?

If you have to ask that question, I would not want to have lived your existence.

Because the answer is the proverbial and constant:

"Because the one who dies with the most toys wins!!!!"

 

[nikon_sam]

I don't have a fancy high price RF but a fixed lens Olympus 35-s with a 42mm G. Zuiko 1.8 lens...I know what this lens will produce when using this camera...
(If I could find this lens in a Nikon SLR mount I would use it instead...)
When I want this look in the final print I use this camera...The End...

 

[ruben]

The quiet shutter release and the faster manual focusing makes the RF the classical instrument for street shooting.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[CuS]

Exactly!

Exactly!

None of the above 🙂 I shoot rangefinders for some personal stuff because they slow me down. And that's occasionally a good thing.

RFs let me "stop and smell the roses."

I got into RFs by accident - picked up a pseudo-functioning Yashica Lynx 1000 at a flea market along with a Retina IIa for $20 (for both).

Granted, I've always had really bad GAS but I am mightily hooked now.

My 20D and L-glass weep as we speak.

 

[BillBingham2]

Ernesto,

I chose #6 after thinking about it. I am in the process of moving to digital for my main stuff (keeping a few choice film cameras) and when I think about it, a lot of my direction is because the camera feels comfortable and is reasonably discrete. When I think about it though, it’s no where near my S3-2000 or M4-P, problem is they are not digital.

When I look at the DSLRs most folks are using they have HUGE lenses even for wide angles, every single one is bigger than my 135/2.8 Komura. I have a hard time thinking I could ever blend in to a crowd with that much lens. Bodies are getting smaller but that glass is way over the top (IMHO).

Sadly I do think that my wonderful RF glass will find its way to a digital body that can keep up with it. On the positive side, we still have film and still have a wonderful time with two different but wonderful systems.

It’s interesting that some folks say it slows them down, for me it speeds me up. I do not have to think about the picture as much because I can see around the frame lines.

#6, more discrete.

B2 (;->

 

[Charlie]

Rfs are fashionably unhip.

 

[Ken Ford]

8) Because I like 'em.

 

[FrankS]

Ken, why do you like them? What is it about RFs?

 

[Rob-F]

After using my Leica M2 for many years, one day I put it down and bought a pair of Nikon FE2s. I shot a lot of good shots with the Nikons, much of it in Colorado. One day I put down the Nikons, bought an M6, and shot with it and my M2. Then I bought a second M6, and a third, and an MP and M3. My faithful Nikons are now waiting on the shelf for their turn to come around again; just as my faithful M2 once waited. The Nikons occasionally get their turn, but I've been shooting mainly with my Leicas for about 10 years now.

Why? The lenses, yes, but the Nikkors are pretty good too. It's not just that. I think the direct visual connection with the subject is part of it--even though I mostly shoot things, not people. I like the solid feel of the Leica in my hand, the smooth feel of the shutter. I have the utmost confidence with the Leica. I know I've got the picture.