How equipment choice can dominate your style ... if you let it.

[Sparrow]

Range-finders are by their very nature general-purpose, middle of the road sort of cameras

Great for taking middle of the road photos ... f5.6 to f11, 1/60 to 1/500 with lenses 35 to 90mm of subjects in the middle distance under moderate lighting. Yet oddly people seem to bang on about, close-focus wide-open low-light slow-speed stuff ... it's no wonder people who didn't grow up with them get confused which cameras suit what circumstances.

 

[Turtle]

This is very true and people swearing left right and centre that they can nail perfect focus on their children playing with their 75 Summilux wide open abound!

When I started moving into (head/head and shoulder) portraiture I abandoned RFs in the main and brought out my trusty Eos 1n and plonked a fast 85 on it. I was never going to mess about trying to do documentary portraits with a fast long lens on a RF - madness IMO! I feel very comfortable with that decision - heck, I don't even like shooting a 50 RF lens wide open unless I have time to carefully focus and can be sure everything is fairly still. With my SLR for portraits I can work quickly and very confidently and carry a body dedicated to the 85mm precisely for this purpose. In other words, unless shooting street, I will tend to carry both RF and SLR at the same time. This might seem inefficient, but I love how I can work with RFs for the more 'open' shots and pull out the SLR when I have a closer, tighter portrait opportunity. A split second after I get focus confirmation I have my frame. A RF cannot come close no matter how much I would love it to and save over 1kg in my kit bag.

There are plenty of clues in famous images as well as great ones on this forum. I just about never see super shots off RFs with fast long lenses under pressurised situation where speed matters. Great documentary shots using the 50 summilux asph wide open are also few and far between too IMO, but a lot of this is down to some RF users not really understanding how cameras are applied under circumstances less controlled than 'cat in living room' or 'coffee cup in cafe.' I know that sounds patronising, but I think it is true. There is a lot of great information here, but objectivity is not ever-present.

 

[Richard G]

I got a Hexar thanks to RFF and more importantly left the Leica fold (not solely RFF influence) and tried Zeiss lenses of which I now have three. Love them. Love RFF.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've always found that one thing cannot be the one answer to everything.

Most painters don't use only one brush. Most writers don't use only one pen vs. one keyboard vs. one dictating machine. Most doctors don't use only one medicine.

Confusing discipline with equipment is just...confusing.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I bought my first M3 in 1959 because the Augsburg camera store owner told me it was the best. It took quite a few PFC paychecks to settle the debt. Meanwhile, I used the M3 to supply photos to the division newspaper editor who said he would only accept 8x10s produced with a 4x5 Speed Graphic. He never knew.

Unfortunately, I became a camera junkie during the ensuing years, owning every exotic from 35mm up. It didn't help my photography much, but it sure was fun. I was always able to make photography pay for itself.

Now, in retirement, I get pangs of nostalgia for rangefinders, but I am more disciplined and am able to resist.

I shoot with a D7000 and an LX5 but I still like RFF because of the quality of the people and of the images and of the discourse.

 

[oftheherd]

...

At least RFF is about a type of camera rather than a specific brand. But rangefinders are a narrow niche, and many of us use more than one type of camera.
...

Peter

That seems to make a lot of sense. I had never thought of that before.

Joe - Personally, I rather like RFF as it is. But I enjoyed it in the days when FSU were much more popular as well. I guess I have just always enjoyed RFF. The demeanor of the people here, their experience they are always willing to share, and acceptance/tolerance of others who they may not always agree with, including choice of camera. Got to be the best forum around.

Keith - I have also been victim to GAS, but I blame myself for that more than others. I have more RF than I ever thought I would want. In fact, more than I can use. I have had a MF RF for a long time, but that was more availability and price at the time I got it. But like I think you are saying, I have enjoyed the ride.

I have gotten rid of some, and will get rid of more as well. I know what I like, and a desire to fit in to a niche that really isn't mine, isn't a reason to have too many of a camera that isn't preferred for most of my photography. I do enjoy RF cameras sometime, but not as my main type of camera.

That said, I wouldn't get rid of my Welta Perfekta, probably not my Rolleiflex, several of my folders, two or three of my 9x12, and would keep at least one LF. Naturally the Fujica and Contax aren't leaving me either. I wouldn't get rid of my Canonets or the Olympus SP either, and certainly no the XA.

Good grief! I'm hopeless. 😱

 

[Keith]

That seems to make a lot of sense. I had never thought of that before.

Joe - Personally, I rather like RFF as it is. But I enjoyed it in the days when FSU were much more popular as well. I guess I have just always enjoyed RFF. The demeanor of the people here, their experience they are always willing to share, and acceptance/tolerance of others who they may not always agree with, including choice of camera. Got to be the best forum around.

Keith - I have also been victim to GAS, but I blame myself for that more than others. I have more RF than I ever thought I would want. In fact, more than I can use. I have had a MF RF for a long time, but that was more availability and price at the time I got it. But like I think you are saying, I have enjoyed the ride.

I have gotten rid of some, and will get rid of more as well. I know what I like, and a desire to fit in to a niche that really isn't mine, isn't a reason to have too many of a camera that isn't preferred for most of my photography. I do enjoy RF cameras sometime, but not as my main type of camera.

That said, I wouldn't get rid of my Welta Perfekta, probably not my Rolleiflex, several of my folders, two or three of my 9x12, and would keep at least one LF. Naturally the Fujica and Contax aren't leaving me either. I wouldn't get rid of my Canonets or the Olympus SP either, and certainly no the XA.

Good grief! I'm hopeless. 😱

I think as humans we feel a need to fit in, to a point, with our chosen group ... it's in our make up IMO. Choosing to shoot with a rangefinder is not a prerequisite to hanging out here any more but I must admit I certainly felt that way when I joined the forum in 2006 ... I was probably fairly malleable in my thinking at the time and I did definitely want to 'fit in!'

My point is not which system is better because that doesn't really matter, it's more to do with listening to advice but ultimately making your own decision about what suits you photographically and not wanting a black paint MP because everyone thinks it's the world's sexiest camera. 😀

 

[paulfish4570]

the first photo i remember shooting was when i was in the seventh or eight grade - 13 or 14 years old - when i took a brownie type box camera to school. i snapped a shot of three girls from the rear as they sashayed on the playground in their long skirts and bobby socks. i framed from, oh, the small of their backs down. no more shooting until i got an intern's post while in college at a bi-weekly newspaper in tennessee. i was 19 at the time. the editor there put a yashica mat 124g with a studly pentax flash mounted in my hands, gave a few pointers and sent me to my first photo assignment.
after graduation, i went to work for another paper in the chain that owned the biweekly. i shot sports and other stuff with the same kind of kit - 124g and big pentax flash. a few moths later, i went to work for a very good small daily with a photo staff. since i'd be called upon to occasionally shoot photos with my stories from outlying areas, i asked what camera i should get. the staff advised a pentax or nikon slr. i started looking, and got my hands on an M3 at a big photo store in huntsville, alabama. it was a double-stroke with collapsible elmar 50/2.8 . i paid $125 - a week's salary - and fell in love. this was in 1974. the chief photog said i did well. the shutter went down while i was shooting a fire. the company paid $60 to fix it, but said i was on my own after that.
the M3 either suited my developing vision or style, or it pointed me that way. a few years later, i wanted the variety of lenses that an slr provided, and traded it in. that was shortly after my daughter was born. a couple of years later, and photography started fading as a hobby as i worked my way to city editor. fishing took over. the slr kit was sold. a variety of cheap P&Ss came and went for family photo duties.
years later came a praktica ltl with normal and 28mm lenses from a pawn, that i picked up to photograph some newborn neices and nephew - in BW, of course. more years, occasional shots of my sons and daughter. then the impending birth of my first grandchild, and my daughter's request for BW photos. out came the praktica and kodak bw400cn. a cojuple of months later came an issue with the praktica, and my search for a replacement, which ultimately led to RFF and other sites. oh, the GAS, and the return to RF's. i'm still mostly an RF guy. i am lousy at macro and other close-up stuff. the middle way of the RF best suits my vision/style. i also enjoy my nikon f2 and fe2, but i when i shoot them, i maintain that middle way demanded by the RF. so, did the RF define my style? or did my style find the RF best suited? i do like a compact, minimal kit, whether slr or rf.
most of all, i like this site with its knowledgeable, friendly, talented shooters - and the RF culture.

 

[paulfish4570]

ultimately, my right eye determined brand/type: bessaR2m, nikon slr, and barnack because of diopters. the nikons and bessas used the same inexpensive, readily available interchangeable corrective eyepieces; the barnack has a diopter lever.
also, a lot of previous GAS was caused by hand tremors that led me to heavier cams (FE2, F2). the tremors have mostly ceased since the round with cancer this year, allowing use of lighter bodies such as the r2m and barnack ... 🙂

 

[furcafe]

I think that's true only w/respect to focal lengths & focus distances (obviously no macro or super telephoto for RFs), not the speed & accuracy of focusing. I've always found it much, much easier to focus RFs, especially in low-light, than any other type of manual focus camera, regardless of the speed of the lenses (I'm generally shooting in the f/1-8 range, w/f/4 being the happy medium). Only a modern autofocus SLR is comparable (& superior if the subject is moving). For the type of photography I do (general documentary, editorial, & occasionally street, which I suppose could be called "middle of the road"), the only advantages of a manual focus SLR are that you can focus anywhere in the frame & compose more accurately in situations like Roger mentioned w/Singh's rearview mirror shot (& situations like shooting through fence posts, etc.).

Because of the limitations of RFs, I think of SLRs being more general purpose cameras, since you can use the same system to do macros of flowers, long distance shots of animals on safari, & anything in between. For that reason, I always recommend SLRs (or nowadays mirrorless EVF system cameras) to people who are getting seriously into photography. To circle back to the OP, I occasionally encounter the person who's dead set on using an RF, even when an SLR might be more appropriate, but they're the exception, not the rule. You have to be a pretty dedicated convert/devotee to spend the money & wear the hairshirt of an inappropriate system (e.g., using a RF to shoot stadium sports) just to make some lifestyle/fashion statement.

Range-finders are by their very nature general-purpose, middle of the road sort of cameras

Great for taking middle of the road photos ... f5.6 to f11, 1/60 to 1/500 with lenses 35 to 90mm of subjects in the middle distance under moderate lighting. Yet oddly people seem to bang on about, close-focus wide-open low-light slow-speed stuff ... it's no wonder people who didn't grow up with them get confused which cameras suit what circumstances.

 

[Sparrow]

I think that's true only w/respect to focal lengths & focus distances (obviously no macro or super telephoto for RFs), not the speed & accuracy of focusing. I've always found it much, much easier to focus RFs, especially in low-light, than any other type of manual focus camera, regardless of the speed of the lenses (I'm generally shooting in the f/1-8 range, w/f/4 being the happy medium). Only a modern autofocus SLR is comparable (& superior if the subject is moving). For the type of photography I do (general documentary, editorial, & occasionally street, which I suppose could be called "middle of the road"), the only advantages of a manual focus SLR are that you can focus anywhere in the frame & compose more accurately in situations like Roger mentioned w/Singh's rearview mirror shot (& situations like shooting through fence posts, etc.).

Because of the limitations of RFs, I think of SLRs being more general purpose cameras, since you can use the same system to do macros of flowers, long distance shots of animals on safari, & anything in between. For that reason, I always recommend SLRs (or nowadays mirrorless EVF system cameras) to people who are getting seriously into photography. To circle back to the OP, I occasionally encounter the person who's dead set on using an RF, even when an SLR might be more appropriate, but they're the exception, not the rule. You have to be a pretty dedicated convert/devotee to spend the money & wear the hairshirt of an inappropriate system (e.g., using a RF to shoot stadium sports) just to make some lifestyle/fashion statement.

Then we disagree, while no doubt you have found what suits you, I stand by my original statement and suggest that it would be wrong to propose that as a solution for other peoples' low light needs

I'm reminded of the many "How Low Can You Go" threads with regard to shutter speed that crop-up here from time to time. They would lead the novice to believe that hand-holding a RF down to 1/2 a second was normal and that the RF were markedly better than other types ... both of which are not the case

 

[jsrockit]

I'm reminded of the many "How Low Can You Go" threads with regard to shutter speed that crop-up here from time to time. They would lead the novice to believe that hand-holding a RF down to 1/2 a second was normal and that the RF were markedly better than other types ... both of which are not the case

I agree... one man's acceptable is another man's garbage. Also, the M8/M9 have been a lot harder to handhold at lower shutter speeds than many of the APS-C compacts have been, but that could be due to those cameras using leaf shutters.

That said, someone took a photo at one of our NYC meet-ups using my M9 at 1/2 a second and it was sharp... like me shooting at 1/250th sharp. Pissed me off. 😀

 

[Jack Conrad]

a lot of previous GAS was caused by hand tremors that led me to heavier cams (FE2, F2). the tremors have mostly ceased since the round with cancer this year, allowing use of lighter bodies such as the r2m and barnack ... 🙂

Wow, amazing and very cool to read.

 

[paulfish4570]

thank you, jack. 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Don't worry about it! But you are one the reasons why the OM system is so popular on RFF- much to the chagrin of Pentax users everywhere! LX ftw!

Nothing against Keith, but he is not the reason why OM system is popular on RFF.

Plenty other people here promoting OM system way before he does. He's just one of the more popular persons around here period 🙂

If you want to credit someone for OM being highly regarded here, credit Earl (Trius).

 

[shadowfox]

I'm not about saying that one system is better than the other because we are all individuals with our own needs and I'm sure there are a lot of SLR users out there who may be better off with a good rangefinder but haven't realised it yet. This is now a much better forum for 'photographers' than it used to be IMO because it no longer attempts to cater to a particular mindset ... and hasn't done for some time now.

Bravo RFF!

I think there is nothing wrong in general that RFF attracts only people that like a few styles of photography. For example, I don't see a lot of people whose main passion is to shoot birds using 500mm lenses.

So in that sense, the choice of equipment does follow the style of photography that we gravitate to.

 

[splitimageview]

Interesting thread. Personally I haven't seen 'peer pressure' here, per se; I would venture a more accurate term might be 'peer enthusiasm.' 🙂

 

[furcafe]

I think we can agree that people need to find what works best for them. It's not wrong to propose RFs as a "solution for other peoples' low light needs." RFs are better for low light, or any light for that matter, for many people like myself; same goes for handholding @ slow shutter speeds. It's just not the only possible or best solution for every photographer.

Then we disagree, while no doubt you have found what suits you, I stand by my original statement and suggest that it would be wrong to propose that as a solution for other peoples' low light needs

I'm reminded of the many "How Low Can You Go" threads with regard to shutter speed that crop-up here from time to time. They would lead the novice to believe that hand-holding a RF down to 1/2 a second was normal and that the RF were markedly better than other types ... both of which are not the case

 

[bobkonos]

Hmmm..food for thought. One of my styles, if you will, has me seeking the edges and weird angles I see, and ragefinders do the trick, in part for their carrying ease and accurate focus. But I like photographing mechanical details very close, another of my "styles", and my FM2 with Micro Nikkor is always used for that. And I love photograhing architecture, another of my "styles" so the Hasselblads will, eventually, be used for that (along with my current R4M with 21mm lens set-up). Hmmmm.....so for me, my styles dictate the equipment I use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've always found that one thing cannot be the one answer to everything.

Most painters don't use only one brush. Most writers don't use only one pen vs. one keyboard vs. one dictating machine. Most doctors don't use only one medicine.

Confusing discipline with equipment is just...confusing.

Eh? I do, unless it breaks/wears out and I have to get another.

Cheers,

R.