Why an RF???

[grizzlyadam]

I am guessing it is obvious by my post count I am new here. In fact I am new to rangefinders in general. I was intrigued because I am looking at getting into photography a little more. I shot a few rolls about 6 or 7 years ago on an old Ricoh SLR. I then thought I would "upgrade" to an olympus PS which I used for a few more years. I liked the fact that it was way more inexpensive to deal with digital but absolutely hated the loss of control.
I have a few friends that have recently picked up Canon dSLRs and I thought that was the route I would like to take. I then noticed you were lugging around a humongous computer essentially and I wanted simple, but powerful control like my old SLR.
I have since checked out RF's because of their simplicity but their expense is scaring me. I would like to go digital because the community college in my area transferred to a digital darkroom and I would like to take some classes there.
My main questions are.

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

I guess that about covers my initial questions. Thanks, either way I am going to get out and start shooting again.

Adam

 

[Xmas]

If you look at current users viewing this post

'Xmas, grainhound, grizzlyadam'

...

Rangefinders are less complex and have less noise and less vibration,

There are only two digital ones, suggest try looking at the classifieds

Oh and welcome every one is more friendly than me...

Noel

 

[spyder2000]

I'm new here too. But I've used RF's for over 30 years, both professionally and non.

Most RF are smaller, lighter and less noticeable when in use. The brightness of their viewfinders is not a function of the lens. If you are using a flash, you actually see the subject when the flash fires.

I own a couple of digitals and I insisted they have viewfinders, not just LCD displays. I'd rather use a camera pressed to my face, not at arm's length. I absolutely hate the shutter delay on them. I'd rather use film and if I could still buy Kodachrome 25, that's what I'd shoot.

My RF's range from Leica to Graflex. They're all adjustable cameras and are exactly what a beginner should use. In fact, any of the fixed lens RF's with full control, like my Signet 35, is all it takes to make very good photographs.

 

[350D_user]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

I bought mine as a one-off thing. I'd regained employment, and had become part of a team at work. I've since relearned the fun element in photography, something that film (and digital) SLRs seem to have helped me loose previously.

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

Used Leicas can be bought for much less, "Eva" is proof. 🙂

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

Well, the majority of them are manual exposure only, some don't rely on any batteries, even less don't have a rangefinder itself. They're lightweight, and can produce good results when you're used to yours.

 

[doitashimash1te]

First of all, welcome!

So far, the Epson RD-1 and the Leica M8 are the only digital rangefinders. The Epson has been discontinued. Many of us hope that Zeiss or Cosina will come up with a -affordable- digital RF in the not too distant future, but that is not very likely. So a nice user RD-1 would be your way to go (for the time being.)

To answer your 3rd question: definitely yes! There is no better photography teacher than a RF.

Happy shooting!

 

[dmr]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

Why not? 🙂

Because they are nice small quiet reliable cameras, very easy to use, and capable of spectacular results.

I don't use RFs exclusively, and I daresay that many of the others here don't as well.

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. 🙂

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

Yes, and I speak from experience. 🙂

 

[mackigator]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

I take better photos with them than any other cameras I've tried.

 

[ully]

Because thats what I started with before there were many affordable SLR, they are quiet, and great to learn the basics with and inexpensive to get started with. Great lenses.🙂

 

[MartinL]

I am guessing it is obvious by my post count I am new here. In fact I am new to rangefinders in general.

Then listen to me. I've been doing RFs for 3 months. 🙂

I liked the fact that it was way more inexpensive to deal with digital but absolutely hated the loss of control.

IMO, digital has way more control. However, quality digi's make it lots easier to turn control over to the camera (and still get passable pics), and that's what most people decide to do.

I have a few friends that have recently picked up Canon dSLRs and I thought that was the route I would like to take. I then noticed you were lugging around a humongous computer essentially and I wanted simple, but powerful control like my old SLR.

Did you develop and/or print your own? IMO that's where the comparitively and marginally better control resides. Digital post processing (ex., PhotoShop) provides abundant controls.

My main questions are.
1. Why do you use RF cameras?

Because Leica has a digital model, and as you mentioned, my Canon kit weighs a ton and is no fun to travel with. I've bought a few (several) fixed-lens RFs on Ebay and they're great fun. But for me, as a steady diet, I'm not interested in a film workflow.

Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

Only a rational person would ask such a question.🙂 In which case, you probably don't want an RF. It's like asking if you would get a better deal if you waited for property values to drop before buying a house. Maybe, but meanwhile you might not be living how or where you want.

Best regards, and this is an interesting forum to help you think about it.
Martin

 

[amateriat]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

For the way I work now, they're the best option available. They're also, IMO, less obtrusive than most contemporary SLRs – the lack of a reflex mirror and its assorted escapement (not to mention the accompying noise and vibration) became a much bigger deal than I realized. Packing a lighter and smaller kit (two bodies and three lenses being the whole kaboodle for me) makes matters a lot more enjoyable for me; no more deciding what to take and what to leave before walking out the door.

Yes, I do still have an SLR around (Olympus OM2n), but it's mostly used for close-up work; even my little old Olympus digital p/s gets more use than it does.

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

One can only hope. Since I'm more than content shooting film for about 90% of what I do (for myself and others), I can't say I'm waiting on tenterhooks for one. But having an additional option in an M-mount digital RF can mean nothing but good overall. And I strongly believe it will happen...the only issue is when.

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

I don't see any good reason why it wouldn't be.


And, welcome to RFf. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[nomade]

Welcome Adam...

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

Because that's what I had at home, and then when I went shopping for more, I decided to buy more rangefinders, they are light, reliable, fast, easy to walk with 3 cameras and extras(for me), and quite enjoyable.

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

Perfectly good for a beginner, that's what I started with.

 

[markinlondon]

Hi, Adam.

My experience was similar to Alex's. I hauled around a SLR and all the focal lengths "in case". After doing this for a while I realised I got better pictures when I wasn't fussing with zoom lenses and limited myself to one FL. I bought a Bessa R and a 35 and things improved immediately.

 

[iml]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

Because no camera has a better viewfinder than a good RF, and because the lenses are great.

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a cheaper digital RF. Perhaps one day.

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

It's a very good way to learn, yes. Plus, you can get a nice old compact film RF like an Olympus 35 RC for very little money.

Ian

 

[grizzlyadam]

Well I think I am going to take the plunge and try these RF majobbers out. Someone has suggested an Olympus 35RC as a good used starter. I found one on eBay for under $200.
Are there any other suggestions for something under $300. for a starter?

Also to develop the film I am going to have to let someone else do that for me. I do not have the equipment or the desire to purchase the equipment. Also I would rather not have to invest in a film scanner unless they are under $100 for a decent one. I am a bit limited in my choices for developing, Walgreens or Ritz camera. there is also a Motophoto.
any suggestions? Also I would like to have my film digitized so that I can edit them in photoshop.

Luckily I do not have a wife to bother me about toy purchases...YET.
Thanks all

 

[iml]

Well I think I am going to take the plunge and try these RF majobbers out. Someone has suggested an Olympus 35RC as a good used starter. I found one on eBay for under $200.

You should be able to get an excellent condition RC for around £35 / $70.

Ian

 

[John Rountree]

I started with a Canon FT in 1970, but about a year later, a kindly camera shop owner realized I was serious about photography and introduced me to Leica. He even gave me too good of a deal on my Canon stuff so I could buy a Leica M4-2. I used the Leica for several years as a newspaper photographer but found it too limiting in the selection of lenses so I went back to SLRs. After I stopped working for newspapers I continued shooting with the SLR. About three years ago a dear friend gave me his CLE. It was like going home after a long time in the wilderness! Then, about two years ago I realized that in addition to really re-connecting with rangefinders I was just too weak to lug around 25 pounds of photo gear. I got rid of my Canon 1N and all of my lenses. I now carry an M7 with a 40mmm Rokkor CLE (modified to bring up the 35mm framelines) with the CLE as a back up. I use a 40mm Rokkor (not modified) on the CLE body. Once again I am really free to roam the streets without my gear becoming an imposition. I was also surprised to rediscover how unobtrusive the rangefinder is compared to that bazooka of a Canon with a 35mm "L" series lens. It's good to be home.

 

[jlw]

1. Why do you use RF cameras?

2. Is there any industry talk of a more accesible digital RF? I am thinking in the $1500 range. I am thinking of waiting for a used leica but figure that will still be around $3000.

3. Would this style camera be good for a beginner with a decent understanding of photography?

1) If you look at my gallery, you'll see that I do a lot of my photography in situations where the action is fast, the lighting tends to be terrible, and I usually don't know what's going to happen next. I use an RF camera because in these conditions, a coupled, combined optical RF system is the best way of aiming and focusing a camera, period. SLRs, even autofocus ones, just can't compare. A few reasons:

--The finder never blacks out. This is a huge advantage when you're trying to pick up the rhythm of motion. When using an SLR, you never actually see the moment you've photographed; with an RF, you get continuous feedback.

--With a normal or telephoto lens (which is what I usually use) the viewfinder shows you a big slice of the area surrounding your subject. You can monitor the entire scene, not just the part that happens to be in the frame at the moment. This is a big plus when you're monitoring a scene in which you don't know what's going to happen next -- you can pick up an interest area on the fringe of your field of view and train the camera on it very quickly.

--SLR AF systems have improved a lot since my old Minolta Maxxum 9000, but they're still not connected to your brain. An AF system can't know whether you're more interested in the foreground person or the background person, for example. An RF system lets you solve such problems immediately and positively, and it can do it in any light you can see by and regardless of what lens you've got on the camera.​

A lot of people here have talked about the compactness of RF camera equipment, and I admit that's a nice fringe benefit. But as you can see, for me the advantages of RF viewing and focusing are so profound that I would use an RF even if it were larger than an SLR.

2) Industry talk, no. Hopeful/wishful talk by RF enthusiasts, yes -- lots. (You can read lots of it in old posts here.)

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. By its nature, an RF camera with interchangeable lenses will always be more expensive than an SLR of the same level of quality -- that's because an RF system requires more precision machining and hand-calibration. Since RFs are a smaller market segment, meaning less sales volume to be had, RFs will always be less affordable than comparable SLRs both because they cost more to make and because fewer of them are sold.

3) Yes, an RF camera is terrific for a beginner who understands the basics of photo technology, especially if you're interested in types of photography involving people, close-in action, discreet documentation, etc.

In fact, I've sometimes argued that an RF camera is an especially good way for a serious beginner to get started, because its design limitations automatically shut you out from such SLR-enabled cliches and gimmicks as "creative" filters, weird lenses, look-through-the-keyhole effects, zoom/blur effects, ultra-closeups of boring subject matter, etc., etc.

It's actually sort of difficult to do any kind of photography with an RF camera except the kind that involves seeing clearly what's in front of you, framing it effectively in the camera, and releasing the shutter at exactly the right time. And when you think of it, most of the "great" photographs of the past century have emphasized those skills more than camera-based effects.

 

[shadowfox]

Hi Adam,

First, welcome.

Second, I'll answer your questions with my questions to you (don't you love it?) 😀

0. Why the need to go digital? you still can get and use cheap cheap film RF's and a one time purchase decent film scanner. Then you can burn the images to a CD/DVD and "digital-darkroom" them to your hearts content.

1. I use RF cameras because it's different than using an SLR and I kinda like it 🙂

2. Why wait for an affordable digital RF? read the rest of question 0.

3. This one is an honest to goodness answer to your question no.3: Both SLR and RF *manual* cameras are good starting points. But they offer distinct styles. With RF, you learn the limitations of the type of lenses you can use, you will also learn to compose using framelines (instead of chopping feet because you're used to SLR's viewfinder like me :bang🙂.

 

[climbing_vine]

Because that's what I had at home, and then when I went shopping for more, I decided to buy more rangefinders, they are light, reliable, fast, easy to walk with 3 cameras and extras(for me), and quite enjoyable.

I'm curious about the "reliability" that a number of people have mentioned. My personal experience (as an avid user and amateur repairmen of exclusively old, used RF and SLR) is that, for comparable periods from comparable manufacturers (ie, not comparing a solid mid-60s metal RF to a mid-80s plastic no-name SLR) the RF is invariably less "reliable". The difference being that the SLR can stand up to much more of the hard knocks of life, which would knock rangefinders out enough to make a difference at large apertures (shallow DoF).

That said, I much prefer to carry around my FED2 or Hi-Matic 9 than my Spotmatic, except for nature photos. 🙂

So I'm just wondering, I guess, what precisely people mean when they say "reliability".

 

[Sparrow]

The thing is, all cameras get between you and the picture in your head; an RF just obstructs the view less than the others, you end up closer to the concept in the print
🙂