uhligfd
Well-known
Ok, this is not really a question about rangefinders vs SLR, nor about film vs digital.
BUT: the question clearly coming out of the post is:
Do I need to know/learn about f stop, shutter speed, focus, focal length, depth of field, contrast etc etc or can I just use that borrowed DSLR and enjoy vs do I need to get an RF because of that C.-B. influence ..... ?
Now to the answer: a definite "maybe". You might never need to learn a thing about your automobile, just drive it, put it into the shop when needed and travel around nicely, same if you use a bike ... Same with camera gear, many folks are perfectly content to use point and shoot cameras or their cell phones ... and take lovely pictures without any knowledge of the how and why. Monkey style, sort of.
What will you gain when you know the answers to all those subjects mentioned earlier that affect photography?
A sort of control over your pics. A conscious way of taking pictures with predictable results [And do not forget there are a few art classes in your future, too (in case you want to learn, not just use the medium): about composition, history of photographic art, techniques, artistic and technical) etc etc.]
So, in the end the "maybe" answer is one that you will have to decide yourself.
For the moment I would, however, suggest you just read a couple of photography technique books from the library. Study the concepts, experiment with your borrowed gear and learn to become cogniscent of what makes a picture.
No need to invest in any new gear until you have learnt enough to have some sort of understanding of it all. [I learnt my craft on a brownie type camera and learnt the art when I was ready for that. On mini cameras, SLRs, RF, and now TLRs. The growth never ends, does it? But it takes years and decades ... ]
Then as your needs for more complicated genres and techniques of photography grows, decide which gear at what price and learn how to use whatever you will come up with as "your need".
Camera systems are soooo different: SLR do well with macro, long tele shots, quick sports pics etc. RFs are more useful for wide angle views (better lenses), on the street, they carry better on a weak back etc etc.
Give yourself a few years, hold on to your money and learn first if you even like these visual challenges ...
Good luck!
And I do second Al (as always).
BUT: the question clearly coming out of the post is:
Do I need to know/learn about f stop, shutter speed, focus, focal length, depth of field, contrast etc etc or can I just use that borrowed DSLR and enjoy vs do I need to get an RF because of that C.-B. influence ..... ?
Now to the answer: a definite "maybe". You might never need to learn a thing about your automobile, just drive it, put it into the shop when needed and travel around nicely, same if you use a bike ... Same with camera gear, many folks are perfectly content to use point and shoot cameras or their cell phones ... and take lovely pictures without any knowledge of the how and why. Monkey style, sort of.
What will you gain when you know the answers to all those subjects mentioned earlier that affect photography?
A sort of control over your pics. A conscious way of taking pictures with predictable results [And do not forget there are a few art classes in your future, too (in case you want to learn, not just use the medium): about composition, history of photographic art, techniques, artistic and technical) etc etc.]
So, in the end the "maybe" answer is one that you will have to decide yourself.
For the moment I would, however, suggest you just read a couple of photography technique books from the library. Study the concepts, experiment with your borrowed gear and learn to become cogniscent of what makes a picture.
No need to invest in any new gear until you have learnt enough to have some sort of understanding of it all. [I learnt my craft on a brownie type camera and learnt the art when I was ready for that. On mini cameras, SLRs, RF, and now TLRs. The growth never ends, does it? But it takes years and decades ... ]
Then as your needs for more complicated genres and techniques of photography grows, decide which gear at what price and learn how to use whatever you will come up with as "your need".
Camera systems are soooo different: SLR do well with macro, long tele shots, quick sports pics etc. RFs are more useful for wide angle views (better lenses), on the street, they carry better on a weak back etc etc.
Give yourself a few years, hold on to your money and learn first if you even like these visual challenges ...
Good luck!
And I do second Al (as always).
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
After reading all the good advice above, I went back and looked at your original post. Why do you want a rangefinder? Just because HBC used one? As someone mentioned, that was pretty much it in 35mm photography in his time. You said you have been reading about RF. Did anybody you read not like RF? Try to find some that did not to see what they say. Read the above posts again.
Do you want to use film? Why? I know why I like film. Do you know why you might like it, or not? You also stated you don't know much about photography. Why will RF or film help you with that? Do you have manual settings on your digital? Have you ever used them? Do you know how or why?
My point is that jumping into RF may not improve your composition or exposure knowledge nor skills. Just my personal opinion, neither RF nor SLR are better. Each has its own reason for use. The same for digital versus film. I prefer film. I have a lot of film cameras, and I know what I can get from film. I prefer SLR for composition and dof control.
Since I have a Fujica ST 901, I can't even recommend RF for size or weight, nor would most who own an OM series SLR. I can recommend my Super Press 23 as an RF, but because of it's film real estate (a 6x7 negative size), but that negative size comes at the expense of camera and lens weight. 9x12 folders are better for negative size and weight, but don't interchange lenses.
Do you begin to see? There are trade-offs in all photography just as in life. I suggest you do a little more to improve your knowledge of composition and exposure, then give some thought to what if any camera type would help you improve that. Then you will know what you should have.
Do you want to use film? Why? I know why I like film. Do you know why you might like it, or not? You also stated you don't know much about photography. Why will RF or film help you with that? Do you have manual settings on your digital? Have you ever used them? Do you know how or why?
My point is that jumping into RF may not improve your composition or exposure knowledge nor skills. Just my personal opinion, neither RF nor SLR are better. Each has its own reason for use. The same for digital versus film. I prefer film. I have a lot of film cameras, and I know what I can get from film. I prefer SLR for composition and dof control.
Since I have a Fujica ST 901, I can't even recommend RF for size or weight, nor would most who own an OM series SLR. I can recommend my Super Press 23 as an RF, but because of it's film real estate (a 6x7 negative size), but that negative size comes at the expense of camera and lens weight. 9x12 folders are better for negative size and weight, but don't interchange lenses.
Do you begin to see? There are trade-offs in all photography just as in life. I suggest you do a little more to improve your knowledge of composition and exposure, then give some thought to what if any camera type would help you improve that. Then you will know what you should have.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
From the early 1960s on, with 35mm coming into its own, fixed lens RFDR cameras were what most people learnt on. Before that there were twin lens reflexes, and after that came single lens reflexes. The conclusion is that any light tight box which holds film and has a lens and a shutter is suitable for beginners.
delible
Established
I think that it's a fine goal to get the feel of taking pictures with a RF or direct viewfinder camera on 35mm film (it sounds like that may be part of your motivation) and I don't think that it takes a lot of knowledge, experience or justification to start. You can get an automatic, direct viewfinder camera such as the Olympus Trip 35 with a working meter (other models will work, too) and have a very nice viewfinder (without clutter) and a superb lens. It won't take long for you to find out if that way of looking out into the world helps you in making the pictures you want to make. IMO, the viewfinder is key, though in exploring this kind of photography; it's quite a different feeling when the only thing the viewfinder does is to frame your picture rather than give you technical information. I hope this helps in your decision making.
Chris101
summicronia
I like that!... HCB eventually gave up photography and went back to painting. Perhaps it was using an RF that drove him to abandon photography!
But I suspect that any artist who becomes associated with a style in their art, needs to change their medium in order to go back to experimenting.
arseniii
Well-known
RFs are addictive. My first camera was FED 3 (Russian version of Leica), and I learned everything very quickly.
sig
Well-known
Yes, if you want to try RF do it. RF is not more difficult than SLR or P&S (and you pictures will not be better or worse). If it is not for you, just keep it for bragging rights.
But Payasam is very correct when he sais 'The conclusion is that any light tight box which holds film and has a lens and a shutter is suitable for beginners.'
I would probably go for a DSLR.
You get all the manual settings (and auto settings for the times you do not have time)
You get zoom lenses (easier to test composition wide vs non wide)
You see the result right away and can do corrective actions
All camera setting data is saved (I liked that picture what f stop, iso, shutter speed etc did I use?)
No processing of film, cheaper and faster.
And if you want to go the pure road where you do not get instant feedback (turn off the display), have to process everything (give the mem card to you photo guy), have to write down your settings on the camera in a notebook for each picture (bring the notebook), not use a zoom lens (do not zoom!) and so on, you can also do that. It is your choice.
But Payasam is very correct when he sais 'The conclusion is that any light tight box which holds film and has a lens and a shutter is suitable for beginners.'
I would probably go for a DSLR.
You get all the manual settings (and auto settings for the times you do not have time)
You get zoom lenses (easier to test composition wide vs non wide)
You see the result right away and can do corrective actions
All camera setting data is saved (I liked that picture what f stop, iso, shutter speed etc did I use?)
No processing of film, cheaper and faster.
And if you want to go the pure road where you do not get instant feedback (turn off the display), have to process everything (give the mem card to you photo guy), have to write down your settings on the camera in a notebook for each picture (bring the notebook), not use a zoom lens (do not zoom!) and so on, you can also do that. It is your choice.
Richard G
Veteran
What an interesting thread this has become. I love the last paragraph of Merkin's advice regarding the tripod. I wonder whether the self-imposed discipline that Sig suggests with the DSLR is actually ever attempted. It could be. The fast learning curve of digital coupled with the discipline of manual controls and film seems the ideal combination to someone older, but when starting out one system might confuse another. My daughter is great with a point and shoot, but is yet to submit to the discipline of learning aperture and shutter speed with her manual SLR. But she wants to shoot manual rather than automatic, and many of her contemporaries want to pursue the more difficult things like manual cars, older art techniques and shooting with film. Young people are like that often. Let them at it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
To me, a tripod removes most of the point of using an RF -- though not of course all, as it will give you the best technical quality from the best lenses.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
sig
Well-known
I never did it, and would probably not do it. It was just a reflection on the 'you have to learn and always use manual settings or your photos will be not good'. And if you want to learn that way you can still use a DSLR.
Richard G
Veteran
Point taken Sig. Back to the tripod and Roger's comment. The thing about the OP's question is can a beginner use a rangefinder, and the consensus is yes, but with lots of qualifications. So with the tripod and learning photography with your light tight box with a lens, even a rangefinder, Merkin's point is a great reminder of the value of resorting to a tripod, beyond camera stability for a sharp image, that is to slow down and refine composition, which Merkin now does on the fly 'rangefinder style' but learnt to do the slower route. I recently got one of those ridiculously light Slik CF tripods and I am using one much more than I ever have and these will be a boon for beginners.
Bob Helmond
Member
Absolutely. My first experience with photography was with a Perfex44 given to me by a great uncle. The discipline of checking the extinction meter, focus and frame became second nature and freed me to interact with the subject.
dwr
Senile User
Hey guys, thank you all for the insights, links and questions I should ask myself, I appreciate that a lot. The majority of the negative opinions I get from friends and the Internet regarding using a rangefinder is the "you have to do everything by yourself" which is actually one of the reasons why I want to try it out. Not convenient is the word that popped up with the most frequency. I want to know why people like and dislike it with hands-on experience.
Like I said I had a good time shooting with the 300D and at first I shot with everything manual, but then the auto mode got the upper hand because it was there, so convenient, so in the end I just went full auto except focusing, but I felt quite cheap and unreal, I mean I could just shoot auto with my little Ricoh GX200, why would I need a much bulkier DSLR for that purpose? I wasn't satisfied at all, and I wanted to learn how to take good pictures, know the behind the scenes - both the technical and artistic knowledge - instead of just firing away. So I thought to myself, hey, why don't you go back to the basics and force yourself to learn with a full manual machine (I'm the sort of guys that have to be forced to learn)? I know it will take a whole lot more time and energy, but I think that's what will make me feel more satisfied in the process and in the end.
Taking classes is a wonderful idea, and one I've been seriously thinking about, both photography and art classes. One thing that buggers me a lot is that apart from having zero photographic knowledge, I possess equally zero art background. When I first began to have an interest in photography I was overwhelmed - and still am - by the sheer amount of knowledge and experience behind a good picture. It was so great that I was left unsure of what to do and where to begin.
Regarding the availability of old RFs, here in Taiwan I've found some used Yashica Elecro 35GSN, Olympus 35RD and Canonet GIII QL17 that are within the acceptable price range - more or less around US100. Most of the secondhand Bessa and Hexars fall within the US300-600 bracket and a bit stretching for my first attempt. I need to do more search work to see what more offers are out there.
And just one more possibly dumb question: Merkin you mentioned meter in manual mode, how is that accomplished? I thought the light meter does that by itself? Or did you mean change the aperture and shutter speed in accordance with the light meter reading?
Like I said I had a good time shooting with the 300D and at first I shot with everything manual, but then the auto mode got the upper hand because it was there, so convenient, so in the end I just went full auto except focusing, but I felt quite cheap and unreal, I mean I could just shoot auto with my little Ricoh GX200, why would I need a much bulkier DSLR for that purpose? I wasn't satisfied at all, and I wanted to learn how to take good pictures, know the behind the scenes - both the technical and artistic knowledge - instead of just firing away. So I thought to myself, hey, why don't you go back to the basics and force yourself to learn with a full manual machine (I'm the sort of guys that have to be forced to learn)? I know it will take a whole lot more time and energy, but I think that's what will make me feel more satisfied in the process and in the end.
Taking classes is a wonderful idea, and one I've been seriously thinking about, both photography and art classes. One thing that buggers me a lot is that apart from having zero photographic knowledge, I possess equally zero art background. When I first began to have an interest in photography I was overwhelmed - and still am - by the sheer amount of knowledge and experience behind a good picture. It was so great that I was left unsure of what to do and where to begin.
Regarding the availability of old RFs, here in Taiwan I've found some used Yashica Elecro 35GSN, Olympus 35RD and Canonet GIII QL17 that are within the acceptable price range - more or less around US100. Most of the secondhand Bessa and Hexars fall within the US300-600 bracket and a bit stretching for my first attempt. I need to do more search work to see what more offers are out there.
And just one more possibly dumb question: Merkin you mentioned meter in manual mode, how is that accomplished? I thought the light meter does that by itself? Or did you mean change the aperture and shutter speed in accordance with the light meter reading?
btgc
Veteran
dwr, meters of some of FL RF's work only in A[utomatic] mode. Olympus 35RC is known for this. If you want to meter while in manual mode, you have to switch to A mode to get ballpark figures.
There are FL RF's having metered manual mode (that is, meter is showing exposure in VF or on top readout) - to say, Ricoh 500G and 500GX, Konica Auto S and S2, Yashica Lynx series (latter use needle match readout instead of actual exposure values, which you anyway see on lens barrel).
I think Canonet and 35RC (maybe other Oly FL RF's, too) have design culprit not having metered manual mode. Think about them as more advanced cameras for users not needing hints when switching to manual mode
There are FL RF's having metered manual mode (that is, meter is showing exposure in VF or on top readout) - to say, Ricoh 500G and 500GX, Konica Auto S and S2, Yashica Lynx series (latter use needle match readout instead of actual exposure values, which you anyway see on lens barrel).
I think Canonet and 35RC (maybe other Oly FL RF's, too) have design culprit not having metered manual mode. Think about them as more advanced cameras for users not needing hints when switching to manual mode
Mcary
Well-known
Shooting in manual is pretty much the same as shooting with a non metered camera and a handheld meter. The reading from the meter is just for information purposes as the operator has to phyically change the camera's shutter speed and aperture to those given by the meter.
Older camera with internal meter simply showed needle going through a + () _ when the needle was over the + it meant the scene was over exposed, when it was over the- underexposed and over the () mean the exposure was correct based on 18% gray. One adjusted the exposure/needle by changing the shutter speed, aperture or both of them.
The answer is "yes", and there is only one qualification- that you want to learn how to use the camera. My first camera was a Brownie at age 6, a Kodak Instamatic 150 at age 8, and a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 at age 11. Well, I guess that does not qualify me as beginning with a rangefinder. But I started my daughter with a Leica M3 when she was 6...
caseyjames
Newbie
I learned the technical aspects of photography (aperture, shutter speeds, ISO, etc) on a YashicaMat TLR and continue to learn on a Leica M2.
The theories are all the same regardless of the type of camera, so try a variety of cameras and use the one that you feel most comfortable with.
The theories are all the same regardless of the type of camera, so try a variety of cameras and use the one that you feel most comfortable with.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
"Yes", with a few caveats...
I would bet that the majority of us here at RFF that began taking pictures prior to the digital age learned either on RF or scale-focus cameras.
Caveat 1: Make sure the RF you get is in good working order ( shutter, optics, light-tight, clean film transport, etc ). No sense in struggling with a camera that "has issues" - that is just asking for disappointment and frustration.
Caveat 2: Do you have an economical source for film / processing ? If not, digital might be a better choice.
Caveat 3: What is your motiviation ? ( Playing with antique machinery, taking pictures, making art, or a combination? )
My very first, "very own" camera was a Kodak Dualflex IV TLR that an aunt gave me when I was about six. I could swear I never got a sharp picture out of that dog, but that might have been operator error.
My first experience with a "real camera" was when I was about eight (1975), and my dad let me start using his Nikon S, but only under his direct supevision.
Since then, I've owned and used a whole menagerie of cameras, from pre-WW I box Brownies to fine German folding MF and 35mm to a "modern" Minolta XG-1 with auto-wind, even to a borrowed digicam.
I've learned to operate all these machines proficiently, at least in terms of focus and exposure. I still struggle with "composition" ( my arch nemesis ! ), which is an operator-issue, not the machine.
I like the idea of a manual camera... when my mom was taking photography at the local community college in the mid 1980's, her professor encouraged the students to use an SLR, but absolutely insisted that whatever the camera, all exposure and focus had to be done manually , by the photographer. Mom wound-up buying a Canon AE-1 Program, but religiously used the manual mode and a hand-held meter.
If you can find one in good working order, the Kodak Retina II & III are great little cameras.
Good luck !
I would bet that the majority of us here at RFF that began taking pictures prior to the digital age learned either on RF or scale-focus cameras.
Caveat 1: Make sure the RF you get is in good working order ( shutter, optics, light-tight, clean film transport, etc ). No sense in struggling with a camera that "has issues" - that is just asking for disappointment and frustration.
Caveat 2: Do you have an economical source for film / processing ? If not, digital might be a better choice.
Caveat 3: What is your motiviation ? ( Playing with antique machinery, taking pictures, making art, or a combination? )
My very first, "very own" camera was a Kodak Dualflex IV TLR that an aunt gave me when I was about six. I could swear I never got a sharp picture out of that dog, but that might have been operator error.
My first experience with a "real camera" was when I was about eight (1975), and my dad let me start using his Nikon S, but only under his direct supevision.
Since then, I've owned and used a whole menagerie of cameras, from pre-WW I box Brownies to fine German folding MF and 35mm to a "modern" Minolta XG-1 with auto-wind, even to a borrowed digicam.
I've learned to operate all these machines proficiently, at least in terms of focus and exposure. I still struggle with "composition" ( my arch nemesis ! ), which is an operator-issue, not the machine.
I like the idea of a manual camera... when my mom was taking photography at the local community college in the mid 1980's, her professor encouraged the students to use an SLR, but absolutely insisted that whatever the camera, all exposure and focus had to be done manually , by the photographer. Mom wound-up buying a Canon AE-1 Program, but religiously used the manual mode and a hand-held meter.
If you can find one in good working order, the Kodak Retina II & III are great little cameras.
Good luck !
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I was also that young. In fact, in 1957 I guess I was eight! Bought my own with my own earned money at 19.
kermaier
Well-known
It sounds to me like you're mostly interested in the full-manual aspect of learning photography fundamentals, not RF vs. SLR viewing/focusing technology.
As has been mentioned, you should be sure you're up for the whole film experience: delayed gratification/feedback and film/processing/scanning costs.
If you're OK with film, definitely get a good fixed-lens RF, or an older interchangeable-lens RF (like a Canon P) plus 1 normal lens (35mm or 50mm). That shouldn't set you back too much money, and they're eminently usable.
If film sounds like too much fuss for you, then you'd have to spend much bigger money for a digital rangefinder (Epson R-D1 ~$1300) plus 1 lens.
For a DSLR setup, you can probably get a relatively inexpensive Pentax or Nikon model from a couple of years ago, and put a manual-focus prime lens on it. If you have the discipline to keep the camera in full-manual mode, you can learn a lot quickly, with the instant feedback digital provides.
Enjoy!
::Ari
As has been mentioned, you should be sure you're up for the whole film experience: delayed gratification/feedback and film/processing/scanning costs.
If you're OK with film, definitely get a good fixed-lens RF, or an older interchangeable-lens RF (like a Canon P) plus 1 normal lens (35mm or 50mm). That shouldn't set you back too much money, and they're eminently usable.
If film sounds like too much fuss for you, then you'd have to spend much bigger money for a digital rangefinder (Epson R-D1 ~$1300) plus 1 lens.
For a DSLR setup, you can probably get a relatively inexpensive Pentax or Nikon model from a couple of years ago, and put a manual-focus prime lens on it. If you have the discipline to keep the camera in full-manual mode, you can learn a lot quickly, with the instant feedback digital provides.
Enjoy!
::Ari