Why RF

[Ruvy]

I have ran across a photog who wants to sell his RF because he shoots only with a digital slr now. It looks like a nice and small camera and easy to use. RF is one type of a camera i have not used and I feel attracted to it without understanding the logic of my attraction. At the present I am using DSLR and occasionally I'll shoot my Rolleiflex. My questions are these:
For what type/subjeccts of shooting RF is best? what makes it best?

 

[Al Kaplan]

Things it's NOT good for: Long telephoto lenses, close-ups, pictures where you need precise framing and lining up of background with foreground objects.

Things it IS good for: photography in dim light, whenever you need a very quiet camera, use with wide angle lenses, any sort of quick unobtrusive shooting, flash photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Al's right, but it's like religion: if you have to ask, you'll never understand.

On the other hand, it's like religion: the mere fact that you ask means that you already understand.

(Sorry, Grasshopper).

Try it. With a secondhand camera, it won't cost you a fortune if you're wrong. Small, light, fast-handling cameras with minimal automation; good focus in poor light; if you already feel the pull, it won't cost you too many shekels to see if this is the path for you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

Things it's NOT good for: Long telephoto lenses, close-ups, pictures where you need precise framing and lining up of background with foreground objects.

Things it IS good for: photography in dim light, whenever you need a very quiet camera, use with wide angle lenses, any sort of quick unobtrusive shooting, flash photography.

Fully agree except flash photography.

 

[Sonny Boy Havidson]

Other advantage: the use of filters like 80A, color filters for B&W as you donnot look through the lens.

 

[oftheherd]

I'm curious, what camera are you talking about? Although you already mentioned Rolleiflex, I expect you are talking about 35mm. Even so, there are fixed lens and interchangable lens, and differences amoung those.

Maybe not to others, but to me, those things make a difference.

 

[kshapero]

Al's right, but it's like religion: if you have to ask, you'll never understand.

On the other hand, it's like religion: the mere fact that you ask means that you already understand.

(Sorry, Grasshopper).

Try it. With a secondhand camera, it won't cost you a fortune if you're wrong. Small, light, fast-handling cameras with minimal automation; good focus in poor light; if you already feel the pull, it won't cost you too many shekels to see if this is the path for you.

Cheers,

R.

Agree, great place to start: CV Bessa R3A/M w/CV 40mm/f1.4

 

[cubastreet]

Fully agree except flash photography.

Good for daylight fill flash - a lot have diaphragm shutters and synch right up to 1/500

 

[Al Kaplan]

Good for ANY flash situation. 1) You KNOW if the flash fired. 2) With an SLR the mirror blocks the viewfinder when the flash fires. 3) many people blink from the sound of the mirror going up, just in time to be photographed by the flash with their eyes closed.

 

[mh2000]

honestly, I think that SLRs are better at pretty much everything (getting ready to duck and cover!), but that's how I feel... still I am often drawn to shoot my rangefinders and find satisfaction doing so. Logic? Nah... Buy the RF and find satisfaction in it! It is a different shooting experience and required different thoughts which I think can add depth to some people's shooting.

The Good: Mostly smaller and quieter, some good lenses and cool bodies. If you use filters you don't have to look through them.

The Bad: Mostly inaccurate finders, no DOF preview, different (harder?) critical focusing (I prefer a good course micro prism), either expensive or old. No close focusing. No zooms (well, I hate zooms, but some people seem to like them).

You may love it!

🙂

 

[-doomed-]

Coming from DSLR usage , i enjoy rangefinders more. The slr works well for anything, but the shutter is louder than on my R2A and my Canonet.There is something to using a small camera that doesnt attract attention like my canon 20d with my 70-200 hanging on it.

I agree in saying its like a religion , i got into it without any idea what the attraction was other than these things are interesting and you look like the average joe schmo wandering around with a rangefinder instead of an slr.
I feel more comfortable walking around my town with a rangefinder anyday.

 

[italy74]

Hi Ruvy
I thing one thing is really missing here, and it's OUTSIDE the camera itself.
It's a completely different way to approach your shooting. With DSLR you shoot what you see in that moment (you are "limited" by the lens angle of view) that is whatever DSLR you have, you start shooting a moment AFTER something is going on, no matter how fast is your af or manual focusing. with RF you can see the surroundings of your image and understand if something interesting is going to happen a moment BEFORE it really happens and use frame lines to get it IN THE MOMENT it happens.
However, in certain war areas, being stealthy with a RF can be vital to survive

 

[Ruvy]

Thank you all very much!!!

Reading your posts and visiting all galleries gave me just a vague reply. I think the most logical insight is to test it myself which is what I am going to do next.

The analogy to religion in nice in terms of dedication but its often comes with a cult connotation separating itself from other... I think that the dedication part is true for photography as a whole. However for most of us religion is something we are born into and die with - just a few lucky or unlucky persons are into it in sufficient depth to make a choice. Because where I now is a process of selecting a new tool and just adding it to existing tools the analogy to religion is very different from my this current experience.

If I understand you guys correctly, because its size and relatively quiet operation the camera is most suited for shooting things like candids or as its called now street photography however considering most come with 35-50mm lenses that mean I will have to get a lot closer to my subjects that I am used to with the DSLR. Isn't one contradicts the other?

At the moment I have a clear attraction with some reasoning that are not enough. The compact and silent nature is a part of it, love of gear that the quality is screaming out of every part of it is another reason but neither one makes any photographic sense when it comes to image quality which at the end of the day the only thing that makes me happy (on those rare occasions I get it).

When i am trying to look deeper into my attraction to this type of cameras few questions come to mind. Am I doing it just for my interest of controlling many tools? am I looking for it due to momentary poor subjects or lack of inspiration? Is it just a toy fancy? Again, I'll have to try RF to realize its creative offering.

Thanks again

Ruvy

 

[Al Kaplan]

Put a wide angle lens on a rangefinder camera and you CAN get close to your subjects, but they don't bite. It gives a sense of immediacy, of BEING there, that you don't get with a longer lens. Looking at the photograph you don't have the impression that you were shooting from across the room or across the street. The small camera doesn't appear threatening in any way, and once you learn to handle it instinctivly you'll almost "dissapear" while you're photographing. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6344/1997/1600/Al 23 e.jpg is a photo that I can't imagine shooting with a big zoom lens on an SLR.

This was shot with a Leica M4 equipped with a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor lens and printed full frame. Don't believe anyone who tells you that you can't frame precisely enough with a rangefinder camera. They probably can't get a decent composition wth an SLR either.

 

[mfogiel]

Ruvy
All what has been said above is true. apart from what mh2000 said - SLR's are not best at everything, and I can say that with confidence, because i shot SLR's all my life.
BUT, there are 2 factors that make the rangefinders really special:
- the focusing and framing of your image is much faster and easier than in case of SLR's - I am talking about normal range photography, there are exceptions
- the ratio between the size of the camera and the quality of the images it can deliver is such, that you truly feel like you can start "wearing" your camera every time you get out of your home, thus multiplying your photo opportunities

 

[Roger Hicks]

We may be in danger of over-intellectualizing this.

Either RFs suit you, or they don't. It doesn't cost much to find out, especially if you buy second-hand. Five hundred euros (or even dollars) should see a camera + lens, and if you sell it in 6 months you're unlikely to lose more than a hundred or two: cheap entertainment.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MacDaddy]

It's more about involvement with your surroundings to me. With a RF, I'm part of what is going on as I photograph it; with a SLR there is a "disconnect" from the process.

 

[MarkoKovacevic]

I don't know why RF. I took my Zorki out yesterday. It wasn't really comfortable to use, and I missed the color meter/AF/comfort of my F5.

 

[Michael I.]

Thank you all very much!!!

Reading your posts and visiting all galleries gave me just a vague reply. I think the most logical insight is to test it myself which is what I am going to do next.

The analogy to religion in nice in terms of dedication but its often comes with a cult connotation separating itself from other... I think that the dedication part is true for photography as a whole. However for most of us religion is something we are born into and die with - just a few lucky or unlucky persons are into it in sufficient depth to make a choice. Because where I now is a process of selecting a new tool and just adding it to existing tools the analogy to religion is very different from my this current experience.

If I understand you guys correctly, because its size and relatively quiet operation the camera is most suited for shooting things like candids or as its called now street photography however considering most come with 35-50mm lenses that mean I will have to get a lot closer to my subjects that I am used to with the DSLR. Isn't one contradicts the other?

At the moment I have a clear attraction with some reasoning that are not enough. The compact and silent nature is a part of it, love of gear that the quality is screaming out of every part of it is another reason but neither one makes any photographic sense when it comes to image quality which at the end of the day the only thing that makes me happy (on those rare occasions I get it).

When i am trying to look deeper into my attraction to this type of cameras few questions come to mind. Am I doing it just for my interest of controlling many tools? am I looking for it due to momentary poor subjects or lack of inspiration? Is it just a toy fancy? Again, I'll have to try RF to realize its creative offering.

Thanks again

Ruvy

Shalom,Ruvy!

While logic says otherwise,RF is ideal(for me) for 35 and 50 lenses.
I love the fact the lenses are small,the shutter unobtrusive(while not nescessary quiet) and the camera doesnt look threatning.

I also like the fact the whole vf doesnt change focus liek in slr.

 

[robbert]

It's more about involvement with your surroundings to me. With a RF, I'm part of what is going on as I photograph it; with a SLR there is a "disconnect" from the process.

+1

When I'm out with my EOS people are aware and stare. With my RF I am just one of the people and not the photographer.