Are rangefinder relevant to your photography?

Are rangefinder relevant to your photography?

  • Yes - I still use a rangefinder for most of my photography.

    Votes: 198 57.6%

  • Yes - but I use the rangefinder only at times and more often use a different style of camera.

    Votes: 90 26.2%

  • No - I like my rangefinder but rarely use one these days.

    Votes: 48 14.0%

  • No - never owned a rangefinder and don't think I ever will.

    Votes: 2 0.6%

  • Not yet but thinking about getting one.

    Votes: 6 1.7%
  • Total voters
    344
Easy to say that over 85% of my camera use over the past year has been with a film or digital rangefinder. Over the past five months I have picked up a Rolleiflex and Mamiya 7 II and have been shooting some medium format film about 10% of the time and my GF1 about 5%.
 
For the photography that I like to do for my own personal enjoyment, yes, it is very relevant. To me, shooting a rangefinder creates a sence of intimacy whereas shooting an SLR sometimes just leaves me cold.

Having said that, there are some types of photography assignments that require a macro or telephoto or 5-frames-per-second action sequences or complicated indoor lighting that is just more convenient (if not outright necessary) to shoot with a DSLR.
 
I enjoy shooting all kinds of cameras from 8x11 mm Minox to 8x20 inch LF. I only just discovered rangefinders a few years ago. I didn't know what I was missing. I really like the size and simplicity of a rangefinder. But I continue to use all types of cameras, even digital.
 
I don't want to photograph what the lens sees, I wanna photograph what I see in my mind. That's what Rangefinders allow me to do quite easily.
 
I'm really enjoying the responses here, and I'm a bit surprised to see the strong response in options one and two in the poll. Thanks to everyone who has participated and shared your thoughts too.
 
paulfish4570 said:
j, with me, it was my first "real" camera. i had used company-provided yashicamat 124 tlrs with big honeywell flashes when i worked for weekly newspapers a couple of years. mostly stand-and-stares, and some high school sports. that kind of sparked an interest in photography that blossomed when i got my first daily newspaper job. i hung around with photogs a good bit. they suggested a nikon f or pentax spotmatic for my very occasional photo duties and hobby. i looked at 'em in a shop, and made the mistake of handling a used double stroke m3 with 50/2.8 elmar. it was love at first touch. i think i paid $125-$160, more than a week's pre-tax pay at the time.
thus i began learning to see in 3:2. a couple of years later, i was in management, and seldom on the road any more. i got married, and sometime after my daughter was born ended up trading the M for an slr and couple of lenses. the photo hobby faded, other hobbies - and a divorce - intervened
i came back to photography 30 years later when my daughter asked me to photograph her daughter - my first grandchild - in black and white. i made some nice shots with a pawn shop practika ltl, and 50 and 28 lenses. then the cam failed, and then came my journey back to RFs.
the M taught me to see in a 50mm focal length, at polite distance. there is only so close one can get with a 50 elmar. the M taught me a cam could be carried at all times, just about anywhere. it taught me to keep things simple.
anyhow, that is how i taught myself to "see." i see the same whether it is an RF or SLR. the business about being able to see more while shooting with an RF doesn't work for me. i concentrate purely on the viewfinder. it is tunnel vision no matter what cam. the M also taught me what my hands like in the way of size and layout. that is why i like my x100 and om-1s and R2m. they feel right, and they see right.
Click to expand...


Great post Paul! :)
 
and speaking of RFs: i wonder if people being able to see more of the photog's face - including an eye - makes them less conscious of an RF than an SLR. the cam-at-arm's-length posture of LCD-screen cam use - with eyes "hidden" by their focus on the little screen - may somehow make others more aware. hmmmmmm ...
 
oh yeah...

oh yeah...

...there are times my mamiya6 is "the better choice" over my rolleiflex 6002.

the lack of viewfinder black out, the space outside the frame lines, the ease & speed of focussing, smaller lenses and lighter weight are key factors in choosing it over the 6002.

breathe, relax and enjoy.
smiling gecko, aka kenneth
 
I've used rangefinder cameras since I was 6 years old and will quit when I'm put into the ground..

My SLR's and digital gear gets used but not as much as my RF's..
 
I'm using my LX5 more and more, which saddens me as much as delights me. It's a fabulous camera, and I don't really miss film, but I do miss using the M2 and M4. I miss scale focusing, manual controls and of course the fantastic RF/VF.

I missed using the M lenses even more, so much that I'm trying M43 (Olympus E-PL1) with an M adapter. It works, but it throws me off my game. It's really an SLR when it comes to focusing, even though I'm using a Voigtlander OVF in the shoe. Doubling the focal length stinks. But on its own terms, it's easy to use, and the lenses work great (esp. 15mm Heliar, 21 Skopar, 35mm Ultron and 50mm Summicron). I shimmed the LTM adapter so the infinity stop works, and I can scale focus with some accuracy. In this sense, it's as fast as a traditional rf for street shooting. It's about as fast as a Leica or Bessa rf when focusing with the rear LCD (just aesthetically unappealing). I really didn't like the M43 lenses that use focus by wire though. Ick.

There is no way I would spend more than $1K for a digital rangefinder. They don't age gracefully like good film cameras. The GXR is the only camera I would consider beyond what I have.
 
I shoot streets with my CLE... Can't think about what could be better. Maybe a Leica when it'll die... like in 5 or 6 years.
 
been shooting rangefinders for over 30 years...i mix in other camera types occasionally, i currently have a nikon d200 with the 40 micro...all the other gear is gone...
 
I use my RFs for most of my photogarphy escapades..... the dslr is sitting nicely in the shelf, even thinking of letting it go as I haven't been using it at least for the past 1 year.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1908878#post1908878

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1908878#post1908878

It used to be relevant. Nowadays i mostly shoot with a point and shoot digital. i still shoot film but in a mix of SLR and M.Only a few rolls a month. The color i have scanned at high resolution.
The Leica allows me to see more! i have never been able to explain it..Photos simply jump out at me. If i carry a SLR it takes ages to finish a film, plus one or two, are badly focussed! Rats! The auto focus do worse in the light, where i have trouble, and no, i am not going to use flash!
i am toying with doing a project using film only, B/W and making all my own prints in a red light district. The M3 is growing on me again.
 
Relevant...not really...
I own two rangefinder cameras both are Olympus with very similar Zuiko lenses...
Neither one is my first choice when walking out of the house...but I would choose either one when wanting the "Look" they are both capable of giving...
Rangefinders are slow for me...if I'm shooting for fun/myself I might use one...
I took the Olympus SP with me on our trip to Boston and ended up shoot half a roll of color film with it...I finished the roll when we got back home...a roll of film in less than a week is a lot for me when it comes to using a rangefinder...
 
I think rangefinder are relevant for what I am photographing (documentation / the one or other portrait / snapshots) and besides that, I like Leica and Nikon rangefinder cameras.
 
For assignment work I use an SLR for accuracy. For personal work, a rangefinder because it's what I enjoy using. I'm hoping to bring a medium format camera into there as well, but one thing at a time.

paulfish4570 said:
i still see with a rangefinder aesthetic
Click to expand...
I've read and heard people say this before, but I have no idea what it means. Can someone explain?
 
I like rangefinder style cameras - they don't have to be specifically an optical rangefinder. I like the size, weight, quality tiny lenses, and I like having the frame lines that have space around them. Don't mind if the camera is AF, AF rangefinder, or full on rangefinder - as long as they have the above traits. Because of this, I shoot with an x100 and the contax G system. Soon to get into the Mamiya 7 system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom