Obsolete?

[Bill Pierce]

We've been talking a lot about the limitations of the M8. But, could it be that the rangefinder model is becoming obsolete? After all, it's just one way of focusing. Once upon a time there was scale focusing, groundglass focusing and rangefinder focusing. But now there are several ways to autofocus, one of which could be made to focus very high speed lenses accurately if the subject had sufficient contrast and brightness. Some of the DSLRs come very close to that already. (And their very high speed lenses do well with groundglass focusing, also.)

The brightline finder on today's rangefinders are great. So much so that a lot of folks are slipping them in the accessory shoes of little cameras ranging from Minilux to Canon G9. And, by the way, it's not such a stupid thing to slip them into the accessory shoe of an SLR or DSLR - two good viewing systems in one body. I equipped my old Nikon F's that way and was thought of as, initially, totally crazy and, then, not so dumb.

I don't think the rangefinder is going to be replaced unless its manufacturers choose to cease producing. But, I'll keep my reasons to myself until after the first screams of outrage from my fellow forum members for even suggesting such a thing.

Bill

 

[Al Patterson]

Of course the rangefinder model is obsolete. My Canon 5D with an ST-E2 in the hot shoe will focus the fastest Canon EF prime perfectly every time in total darkness.

Like most other people here, I own numerous Leica, Bessa and Canon and other RF cameras and I love to pick one up and walk around town with it. But it's nostalgia, not a practical consideration. If a digital RF were not obsolete, Nikon and Canon would be churning 'em out by the millions. But only Leica soldiers on.

And I'm sure both of our posts will draw some flames. 😉

True statements are always the most controversial....

 

[gns]

What is an ST-E2?

 

[retnull]

Why not organize all human reproduction to be done via in vitro fertilization? It would surely be more efficient. However, I'm told that many people still prefer the obsolete, less efficient means of fertilization. ;-)

 

[ferider]

If you forget about the focusing method for a sec, a separate viewfinder built into the camera makes a lot of sense. Different DOF perception, brighter, no mirror slap, etc.

Now if this viewfinder is best coupled with a mechanical RF like in a Leica, or with a different focusing method is another question.

It can be coupled with an AF mechanism as sophisticated as in the Hexar AF, with adapting brightlines in the VF, etc.

It could also be overlayed with an LCD-based, digital RF patch AND with selectable autofocus. A technology already used for military purposes. It will still, strictly speaking, be an RF, and could feel similar to a Leica but be more functional.

That we will see sooner or later, I believe.

Roland.

 

[f/stopblues]

Like most other people here, I own numerous Leica, Bessa and Canon and other RF cameras and I love to pick one up and walk around town with it. But it's nostalgia, not a practical consideration.

I have to pick nits about just this statement, although I generally agree with what has been posted so far. I'm 27 years old and hold no nostalgia for any rangefinder. I was born in the hayday of the SLR. I moved to rangefinders for purely practical considerations. It is a specialized tool that fits my needs precicely. Right, it's probably not practical for even a majority of photographers, but a blanket statement such as that fails to acknowledge the motives of a large base of this forum, I would venture to guess.

 

[back alley]

it's me that's obsolete!!

 

[varjag]

Yes, it's Joe 😉

Roland made a good point that there are more differnces in/around viewfinder than just focusing method. That's what makes it for me. Nostalgia isn't that much of a factor, since RF doomsday predictions been around longer than I am, and yet all the film SLRs somehow vanished now, while RFs still being churned out for the devoted user base. Leica wrote the first chapter of 35mm photography, and ironically, now it's doing the last one as well.

 

[NathanJD]

Surely the format of a camera is simply it’s user interface, the actual functionality of it is the same as any other camera – it takes photos. Some people prefer it and some can’t stand it; it’s just the same as the cars we drive, shoes we wear, computers we use, sofas we buy, glasses we wear, you name it – if it is ergonomic in design there will be variation and preference. Otherwise we would live in a very boring, grey world.

Also, let’s not forget that this forum has 25,000 odd members, and that’s not all of the RF users in the world, for a 'niche' market that will never realistically have the lion's share that's not too shabby.

 

[parsec1]

Horses for courses. Use my M's for some work and Nikon DSLRS for when the picture desk is screaming. Sometimes use my M's when they are but 20 mins in snappy snaps on to cd into the mac and down the wire doesn't usually add much more to thier frenzied paranoia. Use what suits the subject and you best. Oh dear God I wish that M8 was what it could have been .

 

[jplomley]

Oh for gods sake....here we go again. Does anyone have a different song to sing?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course RFs are obsolete, in the same sense that propelling pencils are obsolete or silverpoint drawing or bicycles or wooden field cameras or SLRs...

But it ain't just nostalgia. As long as people like to work with a particular tool, and as long as they find they produce a different kind of work with that tool, and as long as they are willing to buy that tool, it isn't obsolete or even (more correctly) obsolescent.

Cheers,

R.

 

[joachim]

Hi Bill,

Since quite some time I hold the view that what is obsolete in the "digital world" is the SLR way of doing thing. Once live view has come of age, the clumsy swing mirror will be doomed. In particular since that interferes with the optics.

I see future in direct vision view finding, but am not sure how much mileage there is in an optical rangefinder.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Cherish obsolescence!

Vincent

 

[Solinar]

Obsolete but with three basic controls, I don't have to surf menus, press down on one of many hard buttons and thumb wheel through options, because there aren't any other options on an RF film camera. I can scale focus pretty quick a 28mm lens, too.

There is no need to hurry in my photography and I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had jiggle the cursor ring to select a new AF point on my DSLR's.

 

[parsec1]

A quick blink saved to brain implant and then shared by telepathy with your friends and clients. No cameras.
Yep been watching too much BSG on the Sci Fi Channel or Sky .Am I a Cylon ?

 

[brachal]

Obsolete is relative. Look at vacuum tubes. Musicians pay top dollar for a tube amp that weighs 4 times as much as its solid-state equivalent ... but people believe you can't get that special tube sound without one.

 

[brachal]

Right. The distortion that comes from driving the Vacuum tubes into saturation. There are some darn good modeling amps around now, though. Alas, even though I own a Fender twin, full of sweet vacuum tubes, I still suck as a guitar player! 🙂

Another important point ... the instrument does not make the artist! 🙂

I'm solid-state myself, but sometimes use an Electro-Harmonix English Muff'n (overdrive/preamp footpedal) with two good ol' 12AY7 tubes.

 

[tmfabian]

Well then, how about this....still image cameras are obsolete.
With the quality of high end video cameras these days...why not just walk around, video everything and then pick the stills out...i mean most video cameras aren't any bigger than the monster DSLRS of today.

on a serious note, I don't feel it's obsolete...it works the way it was designed, it's just not new technology any more. That being said...there's a reason I got rid of all my DSLR rubbish and picked up my leicas, and I will never go back to those mirror slapping, AF whining, thousand button monstrosities.

 

[Carlitos]

I think this is a perfect topic.

I cut my teeth on an FM3A, then D70, then RD-1, and now D700. Look at the evolution of photographic tools in just 7 years!!! Amazing.

Maybe the question is not, 'has this tool or that tool run its course?'; but, 'is there another purpose-built tool that delivers superior results in the hand of the creator?' Oil and pencil are still leading the world of contemporary fine art; they have their purpose, and Lucian Freud's current work will attest to this. Will the camera or computer kill the paintbrush? No.

If anything, the Rangefinder will push the DSLR to become something new that allows us to produce greater results than either as they stand today, and I think the D700 is the first step in that direction. However, for ergonomics, stealth, and scene composition - I don't think any current DSLR displaces the rangefinder.

Even with the latest DSLR, you will still catch me on the street now and then with an RD-1 or Leica in my hand and a smile on my face! And to me, those are the moments I produce my best work.