how do you justify rangefinders?

anorphirith said:
what's HC-B ?
Click to expand...

You're pushing your luck here...

:)))

I think Tom nailed it.
I have a friend that would die to be able to use a Leica.
He just can't.

I, on the contrary, feel that an M2 with a 50mm is an extension of my hand and eye. My poor, beloved, Nikon F feel like a useless tractor to me when I force myself to use it.
Very personal, all that stuff....
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I don't get the obsession that amateurs have with 'justifying' a camera. If you can afford it and like the images you get with it, that's all you need.
Click to expand...

Chris speaks the truth.

I personally find focusing my range finders much easier than my Hasselblad, I find I can only focus SLRs with a split screen, otherwise, I don't have much luck.

I don't "justify" range finders, as technically, you're probably better of with an SLR unless you shoot lots of IR or something, and looking through an IR filter does not appeal. I use range finders because I like them, end of story.

These days, DSLRs can have quieter shutters than range finders (try an SD15), and the size of an Olympus OM is comparable to a Leica, so size and sound does not make much sense to me as an argument for range finders.

What does make sense is how much fun they are, how easy low light focusing is (once you get used to it). For slow shutter speeds I like how the finder does not black out during shooting too.

But in the end, it's about like or dislike, not technical arguments. If you give range finders a go, and don't like them, fine, move on and find something else. Hell, if you like the idea of owning a Leica, but want an SLR, check out the Leica R series.
 
Small, light, easy to use; easier for me to focus; the best image quality you can get from a small format; historically satisfying; and even, incredibly, inexpensive. I buy Leicas to keep, and across the years, the price per year is a lot less than many spend on buying a new Nikon or Canon every year or two. My M4-P cost me a few hundred, but after about 30 years that's twenty or thirty quid a year; or for the 20-25 years it was my main camera (before being supplanted by an MP), still about a dollar a week.

Turn it around: how do you 'justify' any camera? Professionally, because it gets the pictures that pay the rent; or as an amateur, because you enjoy using it. I find the original question slightly hard to understand.

Cheers,

R.
 
sanmich said:
You're pushing your luck here...

:)))
Click to expand...

I figured out what it means ... the context didn't make it easy to guess, I never saw this abbreviation before.

========

As for the other reply's I don't think I'm fit for an M, I had one and it didn't work out, & the cons don't justify the pros for me. I just really love the design. But I guess fujifilm finally got the remedie
Now, for the urge to use red dot stuff I'll just get an R9 & wait 20 years until Leica releases an auto-focus M (*this is a joke, take it easy*)

the reason why I was re-considering the M's is because every time someone sees the X100 they ask me "is that a Leica?" and it's kind of frustrating to answer "no it's a fujifilm"
(yes rangefinders aren't stealth anymore they actually attracts more attention than my big DSLR)
I guess I'm just gonna have to glue a red Leica dot on my X100 so that people can leave me alone (*this is a joke too*)
 
Tom A said:
...
Starting off with a M6 and a 0.95 is pushing it. At the best of time a "super speed lens" usually takes a lot of practice to master - and woebetide trying to wet print anything from a 0.95/f1.0 or f1.1. You spend a lot of time "chasing" focus on the easel.
Any lens longer than a 75/90 is also tricky. SLR's excel at long lenses and closer focus, Rf's are better with wides (21/25/28) - but in all cases, it is based on experience and trial/error (lots of errors = experience).
...
Click to expand...
Fully agree. Looking back at my photo "career", I started many decades ago with a zone focusing camera (Rollei B35). Learned guessing distances. Still use this skill on RF cameras. Then there was more than 10 years I used a manual focus SLR with microprism plate (Konica T3). Learned to master split image focusing, similar to the RF patch. After that I bought a SLR AF motor winder system (Minolta Vectis S-1). Both MF and AF modes are very reliable. Since two years I know there was (and are) RF cameras... :eek: Would I like that too?

To cut the long story short: I bought an inexpensive 40mm/f2.8 compact RF and did two months of RF focusing practice before I knew it. Yes. I'm in and it is big fun and I like that viewfinder composition much more than the SLR way. The OP should also have started with a simpler lens than a f0.95!

CK Dexter Haven said:
...
• Rangefinder Pros
...
+ The lenses actually ARE first-rate.
+ No mirror slap!
+ They're small-ish.
+ They look and feel cool.
Click to expand...
(deleted the psychological +)
I would add:
+ The framed viewer helps me better composing a picture
+ The framed viewer helps me avoiding disturbing objects at the margins

CK Dexter Haven said:
...
• Rangefinder Minuses
- Have to focus in the center. And then re-compose?
- Limited top-end shutter speed.
- Can't focus on a moving subject.
- They don't 'outperform' SLRs.
...
Click to expand...
(deleted the psychological -)
+/- top-end shutter? 1/4000 of my Hexar RF is more than enough
For the most topics I agree with you. And that's why I still use my SLR for macro, sports and tele work. Never would do that with my RFs.
 
I have no problem focusing my Canon 50/0.95 on the 50 year old Canon 7 or my Nokton 50/1.1 on the months old M9. I suspect the OP just did not give it long enough, or get the hang of it. AF cameras are easy to use, until the camera focuses on a point that was not the intent.
 
anorphirith: You sound like someone who should get an S2! Autofocus and you can tell everyone it's a Leica, a very very expensive one to boot!
 
The results: I get better images than with any other system for my needs.

All the above shots should have been very easy with a rangefinder.
 
anorphirith said:
...

Now, for the urge to use red dot stuff I'll just get an R9 & wait 20 years until Leica releases an auto-focus M (*this is a joke, take it easy*)

Funny. I like that!

the reason why I was re-considering the M's is because every time someone sees the X100 they ask me "is that a Leica?" and it's kind of frustrating to answer "no it's a fujifilm"

That shouldn't be frustrating. Say it with pride.

(yes rangefinders aren't stealth anymore they actually attracts more attention than my big DSLR)
I guess I'm just gonna have to glue a red Leica dot on my X100 so that people can leave me alone

Dont you dare! :D

(*this is a joke too*)
Click to expand...

What you wouldn't know is that I am a long time Fujica afficionado. I have had a Fujica ST 901 for something over 35 years. I love that camera and the Fujinon lenses. Although I don't know that I would like the X100, there are people who do, and that is fine for them.

That is the whole point as those with a thicker skin have already said. It doesn't matter whether you use a film or digital, RF or SLR or zone focus. I use all when I feel like it. If you enjoy a particular camera and it gives you the photos you like, that is the only answer you need. No more justification is needed.

I have the ST901 and several other SLR that I enjoy, especially a Contax 167mt. I have a MF RF. I like the big negative and put up the the RF. That isn't as harsh as it sounds, as I don't think at this point in my life I would prefer an SLR in MF; too heavy. I have a Kiev 35mm kit. It doesn't get much use. Not because it is an FSU, but because it is a RF.

I don't prefer RF. I can use it, but I am one who prefers SLR focusing. That's just me. Whichever I use, I can get just as good or bad photos as with another system. I enjoy SLR more so I use that more.

Good luck to you in deciding what you prefer most.
 
anorphirith said:
yes I'm trying to see how you make it work, not accusing your way of life !
for example does a leica viewfinder magnifier 1.4x helps in focusing ? I'm looking for solutions not arguing
Click to expand...

If you *want* to shoot with a rangefinder, then take it up as a new challenge and go at becoming proficient with it.

It's really not hard to grasp, the same way if you want to play the piano, practice, and practice some more. No use complaining why the keys are only in white or black, or that you can play the accordion faster, or why you can't play 'Night Birds' like Bill Sharpe (Shakatak) in the first year you bought the piano.
 
I really did not mind the original question, I objected to the conclusions the OP made before even getting any answers. It's like saying that because I can't drive a stick shift car, those who do are poseurs or collectors (I can drive a stick, by the way ...)

I think M cameras reminisce of classical photography, they are great for someone who already owns reflex cameras and wants to take some landscape pictures, they’re also attached to the names of a few masters of photography so they are regarded as great tool, but today it’s more like a collector’s or an amateur’s piece. Even though very few pros are still using them for their work, I don’t think it’s wise to take them out for some serious shooting
Click to expand...
 
anorphirith;1707025 If you are using a rangefinder as your main shooter said:
How do I shoot portraits with a rangefinder?
Simple I use a slight variation on focus and recompose called focus and flip :)
Click to expand...
 
Leica0Series said:
I really did not mind the original question, I objected to the conclusions the OP made before even getting any answers. It's like saying that because I can't drive a stick shift car, those who do are poseurs or collectors (I can drive a stick, by the way ...)
Click to expand...

As Obi Wan said in Star Wars a lot of things depend on one's prospective. Example when I see people lugging around huge oversized DSLR with an even more blotted zoom lens attached. Plus a huge backpack with 2-3 more blotted zooms just so they have every focus length from 10-600mm covered. I just figure they/ve decided to combine their photography and fitness goals into one activity :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom