Bill Pierce
Well-known
I think the forum is just keeping up with the current world. In an earlier world where 35mm meant rangefinder or reflex, the rangefinder had a number of useful differences. It was smaller, quieter, no mirror shock at slow speeds, had a bright line finder that let you see outside of the frame and had good visibility in low light. Before autofocus or manual focus with magnification, the rangefinder provided superior focusing for wide angle lenses. But today’s other mirrorless camera provide many or all of those features. Thus, in the digital world, there are realistic alternatives to the rangefinder camera that may offer lower price and greater versatility along with many of the features that once made the Leica rangefinder unique .
When there was competition to Leica’s film rangefinders from Canon, Nikon, Kodak and a number of others, it was well regarded, but not the only camera that had its desirable qualities. Then the competition disappeared. Now in the digital world, it has reappeared, and once again Leica is no longer the one, the only. It's the one and only with an optical rangefinder, but not the one and only with many of the features that have made high quality "mirrorless" increasingly popular.
LCSmith
Well-known
These are interesting questions which I also consider from time to time. My entrance into "serious" photography was through Fujifilm's mirrorless cameras, then to Sony's mirrorless, and now finally to Leica M. I also shoot and develop black and white film in 35mm and 2.25in, and occasionally 4x5.
The Fujifilm cameras are fun and capable, but something about the facade of being a rangefinder without really being one bothered me. In general, I don't like fake things. The Sonys are amazing cameras with mind blowing capabilities (e.g. Eye Focus, DR, etc.). But I just really didn't like using the Sonys. Photography is something I do for enjoyment. The Sonys make everything too easy, and as a result we see a homogenous output from them.
I enjoy using Leica Ms (both digital and film), to quote JFK, not because it is easy but because it is hard!
There is also a subtle but important difference between an EVF and an OVF. When we are using an EVF we essentially consent to an image presented to us by the computer. We say, "OK computer" and release the shutter. When we are using an OVF we must imagine the image first. I find this to be a much more engaging pastime than consenting to a pre-made image. There is more of me, the photographer, in the making of the photograph. This can only make me a better photographer.
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
Many will be. But many people are open-minded enough to look for new (old) solutions and then decide to use what is actually the best fit for them. For some, it will be a digital rangefinder camera and they will then switch. Whether that is enough to sustain Leica or any other company remains to be seen. Leica of course has also buyers who are perhaps less interested in the usefulness of the tool.
RichC
Well-known
I strongly disagree...
I've been an RFF member for 12 years (!), and joined because I used the world's first digital rangefinder - the Epson R-D1. I replaced the Epson with a Leica M8. I used a rangefinder for 6 years, until 2012 when I bought an SLR - a Nikon D800E.
All these these cameras had an OVF. My current camera is a Sony A7R II, with an EVF.
The Sony has transformed my photography: the EVF broadly shows what the sensor captures - exposure, white balance, blown highlights, flare...
With an OVF, not knowing exactly how the photo would turn out was stressful - and with LCDs not being rubbish in sunlight, sometimes I couldn't check images were OK until later, when I discovered problems... With an EVF, I can see what I'll get before even pressing shutter the button.
As for "pre-made" images: simply, "no"! I always imagine - previsualise - the image first. I don't even need to bring the camera to my eye. The EVF simply confirms my technical decisions, ensuring that the picture I had in my mind is created.
In short, the EVF makes me a better photographer than an OVF. Digital works similarly for me compared with film - as I can see results immediately, and either confirm I made the right decisions or make changes accordingly.
The forum has evolved similarly over the past decade: although RFF is a lot more popular now, it has, I suspect, proportionally fewer rangefinder users than when I joined; I also suspect that a lot of members use EVF mirrorless cameras - the modern equivalent of the OVF rangefinder. If Cartier-Bresson or Capa were born later and alive today, I expect they'd use EVF cameras.
What hasn't changed about the forum is the genuine interest in all areas of photography shown by its members - whether technical or philosophical or art historical or any other aspect.
Yes, I think so. Most of us here at least have used rangefinders, and even if we do not now, we still respect them and love them.
It's just that for the photography I want to do, I find mirrorless to be better for my wants and needs. At least my mirrorless cameras are rangefinder shaped and feel like a rangefinder (X100F / X-Pro2). Mirrorless has opened up the forum to a new world... different bodies for those old lenses... you can't blame people for trying them out.
LCSmith
Well-known
Thanks for taking time to reply and for articulating your disagreement so well. I suspect that the EVF has been a glorious revelation to you because you are already a good photographer. You use it simply to confirm a vision which you already had in your mind. I also used to own and use quite frequently a Sony A7RII. A miracle of a camera! I paired it mostly with the Zeiss 55 1.8. Wonderful combination, wonderful images. You can hop all around Manhattan with your finger on the eyefocus and pretend you are Bruce Gilden.
For my own growth as a photographer, using an optical viewfinder has demanded more out of me, has made me think more about my images before making them. That's why I like the OVF.
I should also note that my objection to the EVF is much more philosophical than practical. They're marvelous tools, to be sure; but also, in my opinion, they have the undesired effect of reducing aesthetic vision.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I tend to take want I want from forums etc. and ignore the rest.
So for me, yes it is still a rangefinder forum. Maybe not for others.
The good thing is that there is sufficient diversity here to cater for (almost) everyone.
John
RichC
Well-known
I started photography with an SLR - the Canon 10D - but as I started to learn how to take photographs I began switching stuff off - programme mode became manual, multi-point focus became single point...
The Epson R-D1 was a revelation. I wasn't actually after a rangefinder: what attracted me was a review I found - which is still up after all these years (here). It gave it a 1 star rating out of 5, and began
and concluded:
Another reviewer complained that
This sounded like my type of camera!
Using an all-manual OVF camera - and the Leica M8 after the Epson - taught me the essentials of a good photograph: framing, exposure, aperture, shutter speed and focus. No other distractions.
Even today, despite how much I like my new EVF, I still use my Sony like a manual camera. Manual mode, manual (Nikon AI) lenses, and apart from the aforementioned basic controls I mostly just use ISO and focus magnification in addition - I rarely even use the white balance button (my default is "sunny" outdoors - after all, we used that for film for decades!).
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I think the EVFs in my XE2 and XT2 are fine. The OVFs in my OMs are fine too. I also like the the ground glass on my Minolta Autocord and Technikardan 45. I just use them to compose the image and they seem to get the job done. No magic. One may have a preference, but none is going to improve your images over another. That's done between your ears.
willie_901
Veteran
The ability to compose while considering what's outside the frame is not fake. The scene in the finder is analog.
Whether a camera uses a mechanical-optical RF mechanism or a Reverse Galilean viewfinder (FUJIFILM OVF) doesn't really matter. You can see outside the frame lines with both systems using analog optics. Likewise both systems compute frame line and parallax frame line correction estimates are computed. I don't see how electronic estimates should be called fake though.
FUJIFILM does offer a variety of optional focusing aids and one of these does simulate a spit-image display. FUJIFILM markets this optional an "Electronic Rangefinder". If you want to claim this is fake, that's up to you. However that's exactly what it is –*a computed focusing estimate displayed electronically.
BTW, it is possible to use a minimalistic OVF display for an uncluttered, distraction free view. But you do have to read the manual.
Lee Rust
Member
Think of a Leica M as a very small yacht. At this point in history, a rangefinder camera is not that different from a sailboat. They are both old-fashioned tools that have been thoroughly outmoded by faster and more capable technologies. Nevertheless, the antique methods are still pleasurable and emotionally rewarding for some of us, so those who have the time and money to indulge in them are free to do so. There's nothing rational about it.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Even film Leica RFs are too expensive for many photographers, old or young.
I know many young photographers would simply bypass any RFs and just stick to SLR. The reasons are simply, because there are more things can go wrong with a RF, in a tedious way. And having a RF serviced costs quite some money, with the same money you could buy one of two quality SLR cameras in working condition, without sniping on eBay.
I think RFF is still a RF forum, but not a Leica forum anymore (if it was). We have some very knowledgeable persons who provide technical information on how to make crippled RFs back in action, we also have a few people who do DIY works on RFs. I would still show off the camera down here on RFF rather than any other forums
:
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
Even film Leica RFs are too expensive for many photographers, old or young.
I know many young photographers would simply bypass any RFs and just stick to SLR. The reasons are simply, because there are more things can go wrong with a RF, in a tedious way. And having a RF serviced costs quite some money, with the same money you could buy one of two quality SLR cameras in working condition, without sniping on eBay.
I think RFF is still a RF forum, but not a Leica forum anymore (if it was). We have some very knowledgeable persons who provide technical information on how to make crippled RFs back in action, we also have a few people who do DIY works on RFs. I would still show off the camera down here on RFF rather than any other forums
That's a sexy XA3. I actually shot about a fourth of my last trip to Japan on an XA. Great companion camera to a fully grown camera.
As far as the forum is concerned, I'm not bothered. This place, to me, was always about more than just rangefinder cameras. It was and is also about what these cameras allow you to do and about reflecting on all sorts of questions relating to that, far fetched as they may seem. The fact that quite a few people of enormous talent and knowledge of all sorts have passed through here, broadening the forum's horizon on both photography and photographic gear tremendously, rangefinder or not, has nothing but contributed to the RFF's wealth and appeal.
Rangefinders and/or more exotic film cameras in general are what generally brings people here. The rest is what they make of it. Everyone is free to start a new rangefinder-related thread every day and they should if they have interesting things to tell, show or ask. Either way, when I feel like I have pictures that the RFF crowd should see, I will share them, whatever they were taken with.
Here's a dirty digital SLR picture of stuff.
and here's a picture of an M2 that lives with me but used to be Tom's, who certainly contributed to this forum more than most ever have or ever will, and who certainly wasn't worried about limiting the sharing of his passion to one kind of camera (he just rightly knew M2s were the best, so if you ask me, we might as well call this the M2 forum and you'll still be allowed to talk about M3s and 50mm lenses and all that nonsense).
LCSmith
Well-known
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I think you may have misunderstood my meaning, which is no doubt my fault for poorly articulating it.
I have always marveled at the University of Michigan (a top university) and its proudly clinging to the moniker "the Harvard of the Mid-West". Despite the fact that Harvard is an elite school, why would anyone want to be the anyone else of anywhere? It's a subtle point, but an important one. You ought to be the best of what you do and who you are, not a derivative lackey. If I were designing things (and I don't), that would be my philosophy, at least. I wouldn't try to make things that looked like other things. I would make things that worked and looked exactly as they did, doing what they do.
Sony makes highly competent ugly cameras, but at least they don't try to make their cameras look like things they are not.
I realize it's a subtle point.
But the thing that really bothered me about the FUJIs (again, this bothered me, which means it probably didn't bother most people) was the pseudo focus ring and the pseudo aperture ring. It is a trick of the eye. Neither does any such thing.
Axel
singleshooter
I think "rangefindering" has some special aspects in obtaining a picture.
Personal, subjective but the stuff that brought us here and that is still faszinating people.
Personal, subjective but the stuff that brought us here and that is still faszinating people.
Gregm61
Well-known
If “all” one is interested in, is really good still photography imaging, an MP240 or M262 will be perfectly acceptable for a long time. I have a beautiful 30x45 inch metal print from an M262 file last Fall that is just gorgeous.