Bill Pierce
Well-known
Rangefinder cameras dominated early 35mm photography. The first SLRs, cameras like the Exacta, didn’t have instant return mirrors or auto-diaphragms. They really didn’t offer any advantage over the reflex housings that allowed rangefinder cameras to use long lenses and macro lenses. That’s kind of changed - a lot. Instant return mirrors, auto diaphragms, TTL metering and auto exposure made the film SLR a much more universal tool. Those features were improved when the DSLR appeared. And for some time now, those photographers that think the DSLR has become too big for their purposes and in the past might have turned to the smaller rangefinder camera, have had mirrorless cameras to turn to. Small size, quiet operation, bright-line finders, features that defined the rangefinder as much as its rangefinder focusing, are now available elsewhere.
Are digital rangefinders, and that means Leicas, good cameras? Of course they are. But while used film rangefinders are affordable, the digital rangefinder is out of the price range of many young photographers, amateur or professional. By the time they can afford a digital Leica, they will probably be fixed into another system. I look at film Leicas that are over half a century old and still excellent working cameras. They make me wish that I wasn’t a working stiff that had to quickly transmit images to a client. I look at a digital Leica, and I know the body casting and the lenses are going to last forever. It’s just that in a field that is changing so rapidly I don’t know if lasting forever is a good thing.
I guess my question is this - are we still a rangefinder forum?
Are digital rangefinders, and that means Leicas, good cameras? Of course they are. But while used film rangefinders are affordable, the digital rangefinder is out of the price range of many young photographers, amateur or professional. By the time they can afford a digital Leica, they will probably be fixed into another system. I look at film Leicas that are over half a century old and still excellent working cameras. They make me wish that I wasn’t a working stiff that had to quickly transmit images to a client. I look at a digital Leica, and I know the body casting and the lenses are going to last forever. It’s just that in a field that is changing so rapidly I don’t know if lasting forever is a good thing.
I guess my question is this - are we still a rangefinder forum?
Franko
Established
My guess would be that a majority of us here are not working photogs and are as much into the "craft" of photography as any of it. Like me, many are quite happily using equipment considerably older than 50 years. There are plenty of other latest greatest gear sites so I hope this remains a rangefinder site for awhile
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This forum has been morphing away from being "rangefinder exclusive" to something broader and less well-defined since forever, Bill. Most of the people on here seem to despise the only true rangefinder camera maker left nowadays.
I am sure that any digital M past the M9 will last a very long time. The M9 generation was the first "real" digital M and had some unforeseen problems, but those have been solved in subsequent models. Decades? Maybe even that; I mean my Olympus E-1 is past 15 years old now and still going strong, but I doubt that many people want to keep any modern camera for decades.
G
I am sure that any digital M past the M9 will last a very long time. The M9 generation was the first "real" digital M and had some unforeseen problems, but those have been solved in subsequent models. Decades? Maybe even that; I mean my Olympus E-1 is past 15 years old now and still going strong, but I doubt that many people want to keep any modern camera for decades.
G
Timmyjoe
Veteran
You bring up a few issues that have concerned me for a number of years. I like my Leica ME, and I liked the Leica M8.2 I used to have, but they certainly weren't cost effective, not to mention the cost of Leica glass for those cameras. I've got over 100,000 actuations on my Nikon D4, and it's still roaring along (something I don't think I'll be able to say about any Leica digital M). With a Nikon Pro level 24-70 and 70-200, the total cost for camera and glass is about what a digital M and a couple of primes would run. And for what I do, the Nikon kit has it covered much more efficiently than the Leica kit would.
When I have time to slow down, the Leica kit is much more pleasurable to use (I find the older I get, the heavier the camera packages seem to be), but I doubt sincerely I'd be able to make deadlines just using it.
I've got a Canon 6D and a 24-70L lens that I've been using for local work lately. Both were bought refurbished directly from Canon, and the two together are considerably less than I paid for the ME body alone (no glass). So if I were a young person just starting out (oh, how I wish), it would be a no-brainer to go with the Canon system.
I love the way the Leica rangefinder works, and love to use them, but are the digital ones practical. For people on this forum, I guess they are. For the general public, not so sure.
Best,
-Tim
When I have time to slow down, the Leica kit is much more pleasurable to use (I find the older I get, the heavier the camera packages seem to be), but I doubt sincerely I'd be able to make deadlines just using it.
I've got a Canon 6D and a 24-70L lens that I've been using for local work lately. Both were bought refurbished directly from Canon, and the two together are considerably less than I paid for the ME body alone (no glass). So if I were a young person just starting out (oh, how I wish), it would be a no-brainer to go with the Canon system.
I love the way the Leica rangefinder works, and love to use them, but are the digital ones practical. For people on this forum, I guess they are. For the general public, not so sure.
Best,
-Tim
shimokita
白黒
I still think it makes sense to purchase selectively, quality is still a factor for the majority of items in consideration of individual price point threshold. Chasing rainbows never made sense... why buy a corn dryer when a crib will do?
I can pick up a film RF or SLR and get good results from both and except for some operational details the overall experience and results are about the same.
I have given up my old film / early digital P&S, and Betamax gear but I can still shoot with a Canon 30D...
For the majority of photographers is the field really changing that rapidly?
I can pick up a film RF or SLR and get good results from both and except for some operational details the overall experience and results are about the same.
I have given up my old film / early digital P&S, and Betamax gear but I can still shoot with a Canon 30D...
For the majority of photographers is the field really changing that rapidly?
lynnb
Veteran
Certainly a broader focus on other camera types compared to what it was... and I'm a relative latecomer. However this is still a rangefinder forum, and its strength is the knowledge base of experienced users who generously share their collective wisdom and experience. I think that's RFF's great strength, and I believe that will continue to attract people who become interested in rangefinder cameras.
Mirrorless cameras are gaining an increasing share of an overall declining market (excluding cell phones), and with Canikon releasing major models within the next 12 months, I'd guess this forum will see members continuing to play in both sandpits.
Leica's new CL seems to be the future of affordable Leicas to me. I don't own one but I've played with a friend's, and it handled well, and costs much less than digital Ms. But it's not a rangefinder.
-----------
I'll add: people who take photos for a living mostly use DSLRs or mirrorless, for reasons others mentioned. In addition Nikon's CLS made things easy for using flash (and Canon appears to have caught up). Leica's digital technology lagged Canikon's, particularly with high ISO/low noise and colour science. So Leica has become sidelined, mostly for the more well-heeled amateurs, if buying new. The second hand market is a little different - there's a lot of choice for rangefinder enthusiasts, some very inexpensive, even for Leica - a IIIc and a few lenses doesn't cost much. However I wouldn't want to try to earn a living with one.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
"I guess my question is this - are we still a rangefinder forum?"
That was the early years of the rangefinder forum, when we still discussed FSU cameras and questions on repairing them and hacking lenses to mount on other RF cameras and shared tips on Black and White film development.
Those years are long gone.
That was the early years of the rangefinder forum, when we still discussed FSU cameras and questions on repairing them and hacking lenses to mount on other RF cameras and shared tips on Black and White film development.
Those years are long gone.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Are we still RFF? Yes, we are. I'm not so sure if LUF is. Not by the amount of RF dedicated threads, but by the output. On RFF we have photography which I would define as RF photography. Which is done with something like GR II.
On LUF... I joined it in the hope to see more RF photography, but I'm very disappointed...
Eventually any OVF will be phased out by EVF.
First, it is dirt cheap to make EVF. Because no human factor is involved. No human factor - more profit to be made.
Second, it is that coming generation only knows. They grow into photography by taking images on mobile phones.
You will be very surprised how much and on that young ones are spending money.
1K$ winter jackets, every pair of shoes must be not less than 200$, 1K$ mobile phones, Uber instead of walking, numerios vacations, dining, take out food and so on. Did you check how much gaming gear cost?
Used digital rangefinders are available. And not only Leica. And those cameras will be just fine with 100$ lenses. Even M240 which is coming below 3K$ price tag for used, while still made.
I know young one with two M8 and young one with most expensive 50mm in M-mount.
I have seen thread on LUF about buying "Leica as old as me", it was about 18 YO Leica.
But RF, DSLR, MFT it doesn't matter. Photography is changing rapidly.
Here is the state of photography we get used to:
PS: something might be fishy with how this picture is shown. It was smugmugged.
On LUF... I joined it in the hope to see more RF photography, but I'm very disappointed...
Eventually any OVF will be phased out by EVF.
First, it is dirt cheap to make EVF. Because no human factor is involved. No human factor - more profit to be made.
Second, it is that coming generation only knows. They grow into photography by taking images on mobile phones.
You will be very surprised how much and on that young ones are spending money.
1K$ winter jackets, every pair of shoes must be not less than 200$, 1K$ mobile phones, Uber instead of walking, numerios vacations, dining, take out food and so on. Did you check how much gaming gear cost?
Used digital rangefinders are available. And not only Leica. And those cameras will be just fine with 100$ lenses. Even M240 which is coming below 3K$ price tag for used, while still made.
I know young one with two M8 and young one with most expensive 50mm in M-mount.
I have seen thread on LUF about buying "Leica as old as me", it was about 18 YO Leica.
But RF, DSLR, MFT it doesn't matter. Photography is changing rapidly.
Here is the state of photography we get used to:
PS: something might be fishy with how this picture is shown. It was smugmugged.
Contarama
Well-known
Well I know when I need to communicate with "smart" camera folks I come here. If I could afford it I would gladly use a digital rangefinder but even old 6mp ones go for just a bit to much for me. I have 2 film rf's, 1 slr, & 1 dslr...the rf's are fixed lens units which are great but boring. Now a M2 & M9 pair to go alongside the Df and F2 would only leave me wanting a big digital Pentax...haha Cool thing about RFF...one can talk about any of that here...usually with someone who knows what they are talking about.
Dogman
Veteran
I came to RFF at the time I was still using film Leicas and, possibly, during my infatuation period with Kiev RFs. Soon after that I started using digital and eventually I stopped using and sold off the film cameras. Knowing I could not afford a digital Leica, I tried to find a Leica equivalent in digital. There was none. Today, still none. And digital Leicas cost even more today. As well, new film rangefinders are nonexistent now that Cosina's Voigtlander is gone. Thus it seems logical that rangefinder enthusiasts are buying and using older film Leicas and other old RFs. And we see a lot of posts today about film, older cameras of all configurations and about camera problems and repair. So I guess RFF continues to have a base in rangefinder users.
But RFF is not an exclusive club. Many of the rangefinder enthusiasts who shoot with film Leicas also shoot with Canon, Nikon and other brands of digital cameras--some professionally. Many of us no longer own rangefinder cameras at all. Some of us are using mirrorless cameras that approximate the experience of shooting with rangefinders while offering modern features we find essential today. It's a big club.
As for whether today's digital cameras might last "forever", I think it's a possibility. Electronic stuff seems to have become more reliable as long as you keep out moisture and give it power. The things that fail are often mechanical and these can still be repaired if someone has the technical ability to disassemble and reassemble these complicated devices. And digital cameras may be reaching a plateau of function. Manufacturers seem to be offering more and more features on their cameras while providing fewer improvements in actual picture-taking ability. I can see someone using a professional grade digital camera from 2018 in 2068 as long as batteries and cards are available. I'm just not sure anyone in 2068 will give a flip about using an antiquated device that produces something as useless as a picture. Who can say how the future will evolve.
But RFF is not an exclusive club. Many of the rangefinder enthusiasts who shoot with film Leicas also shoot with Canon, Nikon and other brands of digital cameras--some professionally. Many of us no longer own rangefinder cameras at all. Some of us are using mirrorless cameras that approximate the experience of shooting with rangefinders while offering modern features we find essential today. It's a big club.
As for whether today's digital cameras might last "forever", I think it's a possibility. Electronic stuff seems to have become more reliable as long as you keep out moisture and give it power. The things that fail are often mechanical and these can still be repaired if someone has the technical ability to disassemble and reassemble these complicated devices. And digital cameras may be reaching a plateau of function. Manufacturers seem to be offering more and more features on their cameras while providing fewer improvements in actual picture-taking ability. I can see someone using a professional grade digital camera from 2018 in 2068 as long as batteries and cards are available. I'm just not sure anyone in 2068 will give a flip about using an antiquated device that produces something as useless as a picture. Who can say how the future will evolve.
roscoetuff
Well-known
I've used and owned a number of digital EVF so-called rangefinders. All mirrorless Fuji's. The experience in shooting relative to a film RF is completely different. And as much as mirrorless is where I re-entered photography as a hobby and as wonderful as Fuji's are and can be, the complexity of the camera in digital is still very much a part of a mirrorless RF. By contrast, a lot of the complexity for a film RF begins after the shot in my mind: Development, Enlargement, and Printing (or if hybrid, scanning, post-processing and ink-printing). I believe the process is almost as different in how we think it through as much as the techniques differ... though there are many analogies between one and the other.
The question is probably less whether we're still a RF forum and more whether RF's have evolved or not, is the shooting experience of a RF with an EVF really different from a DSLR? Certainly the mystery of what you shot and the sense of relying on your instincts for composure and light management is lost to digital's instant access. I think also digital reduces the value of rugged reliability that Leica's were known and prized for because you know immediately whether you got the shot. But is this helpful or an impediment? Was it ever helpful? and was the RF a conscious design decision or just a step in a process of evolution that may have stopped for one company and one type of shooter? I don't think these things are as simple to resolve in our heads - and they are in our heads - as we'd like to think, and perhaps the whole is more akin to asking why Andre Segovia played so many scales on his guitar in "practice" when in fact he'd tell you "practice that isn't done with musicality is worthless." Ditto for photographic arts.
The question is probably less whether we're still a RF forum and more whether RF's have evolved or not, is the shooting experience of a RF with an EVF really different from a DSLR? Certainly the mystery of what you shot and the sense of relying on your instincts for composure and light management is lost to digital's instant access. I think also digital reduces the value of rugged reliability that Leica's were known and prized for because you know immediately whether you got the shot. But is this helpful or an impediment? Was it ever helpful? and was the RF a conscious design decision or just a step in a process of evolution that may have stopped for one company and one type of shooter? I don't think these things are as simple to resolve in our heads - and they are in our heads - as we'd like to think, and perhaps the whole is more akin to asking why Andre Segovia played so many scales on his guitar in "practice" when in fact he'd tell you "practice that isn't done with musicality is worthless." Ditto for photographic arts.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The film RF camera experience in a digital camera is best achieved by the Leica M-D typ 262. It's a true RF camera. There are literally no configuration options beyond setting the time and date, whether to use EV compensation (in aperture priority mode), and whether to use single, multiple, or self timer drive modes (colocated with the main power switch). A button allows you to view battery state and space remaining on your storage card. All other operations—setting ISO, shutter speed (or auto), aperture, focus, and releasing the shutter—are pretty close to identical to using a film M7 camera. The M-D only produces raw files, so all exposures must be processed to obtain a viewable image file. There is no LCD and are no in-camera image processing controls; there's not even a way to erase or format the storage card in-camera.
It's my favorite Leica M. For me, a perfect blend of the simplicity and durability that the film Ms embody coupled with the practical usability and low cost per exposure of making photographs with a digital camera. And essentially the film camera workflow transposed to an image processing workflow instead of having to drag out the chemistry and enlarger.
G
farlymac
PF McFarland
"Are we still a rangefinder forum?"
Bill Pierce
I would certainly hope so, Bill. I just got my first real Leica rangefinder, after having messed around with a lot of FSU, and Leica copies. Though I've mostly been an SLR user over the years, I've always owned at least one rangefinder at any particular time except in the early days when I would trade in what I had for something else (I always kick myself for trading in a Vitessa L).
Coming here has informed me as to the variety of equipment available, and whether it is useful or not. The experience of many has created a place where it's okay to not be locked into one system or brand. Sure, there is something to be said about a site that only covers a particular style of photography in minute detail, but here we now have many forms of photography covered in detail, and that's what makes it so nice to visit with you all. Even the great TomA was not strictly a Leica rangefinder guy, though he certainly was an expert who related what he knew to other brands and types of gear.
I like that I can expand my knowledge base by visiting all the various sub-forums here, that I don't have to be pigeon holed into just the rangefinder group, or one particular brand for that matter. But those that have a particular style by using only one type or brand of camera should also be able to feel at home here. It's good that way.
Even if I were to ever give up all but one of my cameras, I'd like to think that RFF is the place to come to when I have a question, or need some inspiration.
PF
Bill Pierce
I would certainly hope so, Bill. I just got my first real Leica rangefinder, after having messed around with a lot of FSU, and Leica copies. Though I've mostly been an SLR user over the years, I've always owned at least one rangefinder at any particular time except in the early days when I would trade in what I had for something else (I always kick myself for trading in a Vitessa L).
Coming here has informed me as to the variety of equipment available, and whether it is useful or not. The experience of many has created a place where it's okay to not be locked into one system or brand. Sure, there is something to be said about a site that only covers a particular style of photography in minute detail, but here we now have many forms of photography covered in detail, and that's what makes it so nice to visit with you all. Even the great TomA was not strictly a Leica rangefinder guy, though he certainly was an expert who related what he knew to other brands and types of gear.
I like that I can expand my knowledge base by visiting all the various sub-forums here, that I don't have to be pigeon holed into just the rangefinder group, or one particular brand for that matter. But those that have a particular style by using only one type or brand of camera should also be able to feel at home here. It's good that way.
Even if I were to ever give up all but one of my cameras, I'd like to think that RFF is the place to come to when I have a question, or need some inspiration.
PF
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Sure we are, geeks and weenies are not so easily discouraged. When the last film maker turns off their lights, the fun will really begin here!
Pioneer
Veteran
This is where I come to revive my rangefinder batteries so to speak. So, for me it is still a rangefinder forum.
I am aware that a lot of the people here use other types of cameras, and discussions often include their experiences with the other cameras they own, but the rangefinder content is still dominant.
I am one of those fortunate enough to own a digital rangefinder. Though I prefer to work with film the ability to shoot digitally with a camera that is very similar to my film cameras is actually a great experience. I know that the digital rangefinders are very expensive, and it seems sometimes that the maintenance of them is even more expensive. Though that does bother me occasionally because they can appear to be a luxury item, and to some that is what they are, personally I realize that they are very unique in the world today. That alone makes them worth the extra cost to me.
I hope that Leica continues to make these cameras and I also hope that this forum continues to maintain that rangefinder perspective that makes it so valuable, and so different in our current world.
I am aware that a lot of the people here use other types of cameras, and discussions often include their experiences with the other cameras they own, but the rangefinder content is still dominant.
I am one of those fortunate enough to own a digital rangefinder. Though I prefer to work with film the ability to shoot digitally with a camera that is very similar to my film cameras is actually a great experience. I know that the digital rangefinders are very expensive, and it seems sometimes that the maintenance of them is even more expensive. Though that does bother me occasionally because they can appear to be a luxury item, and to some that is what they are, personally I realize that they are very unique in the world today. That alone makes them worth the extra cost to me.
I hope that Leica continues to make these cameras and I also hope that this forum continues to maintain that rangefinder perspective that makes it so valuable, and so different in our current world.
css9450
Veteran
I see a lot of overlap amongst the various forum sections; many people post on the rangefinder section as well as SLR, MF, etc as well as the film and darkroom sections, etc. This is a good thing I think. Its a rangefinder forum as well as a lot more. And in this age of many dying forums (replaced by a multitude of often redundant or competing Facebook groups), having this forum available to us (and still quite busy) is a very good thing.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Yes ... well said
michaelwj
----------------
Yes and No.
RFF still has a lot of RF talk, and is still the largest topic as far as I see. But, RF is a niche, and for whatever reason (RF users also use other cameras?), RFF also seems to include other niche photography areas (like film, manual focus, medium format, etc) but not really large format, probably due to it's RF beginnings. Even those who are full modern digital, they are mostly the niche makers (Fuji) and the niche products (Df). There aren't a tonne of "Latest and Greatest full Canon kit" types for example.
I suppose it could be called "Medium and small format alternative photography forum"
RFF still has a lot of RF talk, and is still the largest topic as far as I see. But, RF is a niche, and for whatever reason (RF users also use other cameras?), RFF also seems to include other niche photography areas (like film, manual focus, medium format, etc) but not really large format, probably due to it's RF beginnings. Even those who are full modern digital, they are mostly the niche makers (Fuji) and the niche products (Df). There aren't a tonne of "Latest and Greatest full Canon kit" types for example.
I suppose it could be called "Medium and small format alternative photography forum"
ptpdprinter
Veteran
My sense is that the forum has evolved into a general photography forum.
oftheherd
Veteran
I think that is accurate, but that RFF is a dominant type of camera. When RFF started, people would apologize if they posted photos from other than RF cameras. I think it is better the way it is now, but did enjoy the early forum.