shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
How about 'equally important' if not central? 
I love using rangefinder cameras.
And I know I'll get something I'd want to keep/print whenever I travel bringing my two most used RF cameras, the M4-P and the MUP.
But I also use SLR (big and small), and TLR.
I love using rangefinder cameras.
And I know I'll get something I'd want to keep/print whenever I travel bringing my two most used RF cameras, the M4-P and the MUP.
But I also use SLR (big and small), and TLR.
oftheherd
Veteran
There are times when a RF calls to me. Even the old P&S cameras like the Canonets. But I am more inclined to grab an SLR or non-RF folding MF camera. Sometimes I want a RF 9x12.
I don't know that I see limitations to RF, TLR, SLR or whatever. They all bring different things to the table, which I may or may not want at any given time.
I don't know that I see limitations to RF, TLR, SLR or whatever. They all bring different things to the table, which I may or may not want at any given time.
John Bragg
Well-known
I have used my M6 almost exclusively for ages but I kept my Nikon FM2n and thoroughly enjoyed shooting available light portraits with the 50mm f1.4 AIs today. I enjoy using either system and a change is as good as a rest sometimes. The little Nikon may see more action soon.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I didn't vote because there was no "Yes - I use it almost equally as other styles of cameras"
Contarama
Well-known
I use my other cameras more but for me there is a "secret" joy if you will to breaking out the rangefinder...I'm afraid if I had a nice Leica I wouldn't use anything else...
Spanik
Well-known
Not at all important for me. I'm more and more going to medium format these days and mf rangefinders are just as bulky and heavy as the slrs. With that the far more restricted range of optics, total lack of wides, almost nothing faster than f4, an auxilliary viewfinder for each lens and small tunnelview viewfinders gives that I very rarely use one of the rangefinders I have.
JHutchins
Well-known
I'm curious about what persists. Can you elaborate? This sounded right to me when I first read it, but thinking about how I'd apply it to myself it seemed a lot less so. My formative camera wasn't an M3, it was a Rolleiflex 2.8e -- for about 15 years my only camera. I've used an M3 for a long time now -- eight years I guess -- but I don't think I use an M3 with a TLR aesthetic (for starters, I don't crop everything square!).
As for the poll -- Neither the first nor second response is quite right but they're closer than the others. I have a few cameras. Each I bought because something about it captivated me. And they all are kind of captivating -- each of them would probably find their way somewhere in to desiderata for everyone here (Rolleiflex 2.8, Leica M3, Contax II, Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Fuji X Pro 1). The particular camera I choose depends on my mood. So I have rangefinder days, I have Rolleiflex days &c.
Monochrom
Well-known
it´s very relevant....since i dont´like to be seen as a photog when shooting...also i don´t like to look like a trourist when on tourism
I like the pocketability of the M outfit...also i just cannot focus with slrs or tlrs...i got dizzy...never achieve focus!
RF´s are the best for it...it´s not by chance that rf´s were set on cameras...in past times larger versions of rf´s were used to point artillery on the filed and guns on ships...
I like the pocketability of the M outfit...also i just cannot focus with slrs or tlrs...i got dizzy...never achieve focus!
RF´s are the best for it...it´s not by chance that rf´s were set on cameras...in past times larger versions of rf´s were used to point artillery on the filed and guns on ships...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The answers are a bit biased towards linking ownership or use frequency to relevance.
I use my rangefinders frequently, but I'd photograph no less and not worse if I was for some reason forced to use some other camera type only. Much like sports cars they are nice to use and nice to have - but hardly relevant...
I use my rangefinders frequently, but I'd photograph no less and not worse if I was for some reason forced to use some other camera type only. Much like sports cars they are nice to use and nice to have - but hardly relevant...
Spanik
Well-known
I find that a strange statement. If I change lenses on the rangefinders I have (fuji, bronica, yashica, zorki) it isn't rare to have 1m difference in the readout when focussing at 2m distance. Military rangefinders have a baseline of several meters, not the few puny mm of a camera. It isn't a coïncidence that rangefinders often have lenses not going further than f4 as they just don't have the ability to focus better.
bugmenot
Well-known
I think a better question would be "are rangefinders ESSENTIAL to your photography?" And if the preaching of "It isn't the gear, it is the photographer" by many members on RFF repeated on many different threads are to be taken seriously and at face value, then the answer to the question of whether rangefinders are essential or not should be a big "NO".
paulfish4570
Veteran
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.
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.
Range-rover
Veteran
Hi all,
I just got back into rangefinders again and love'n it. I use a digital camera for when
I do my photo work, school portraits and other work. when I do my own stuff I take
the rangefinder out with me now and it's just different, it slows me up I think more about
the composition and exposure, it just draws me in more and I like that.
Range
I just got back into rangefinders again and love'n it. I use a digital camera for when
I do my photo work, school portraits and other work. when I do my own stuff I take
the rangefinder out with me now and it's just different, it slows me up I think more about
the composition and exposure, it just draws me in more and I like that.
Range
honozooloo
Established
I started my freelance career in the late 90s in California. I did a LOT of freelance work in the action sports industry, primarily skateboarding with some BMX. Back in '98 or '99, I happened on a deal on an M3 and a 50 Summicron DR. Looking back at how relatively inexpensive that combo was, I want to kick myself for letting it go! I used it for a bit, was wowed by the image quality, especially how the pair worked with B&W film. I liked the rangefinder approach, but to be frank I wasn't won over by the platform. At the time, it didn't do what I needed it to.
I learned to shoot on my mom's Nikon F (hey, mom had good taste!). My introduction to photography and most of my learning was on the SLR platform. By the time I was working as a freelance, SLRs (I used to prefer the EOS 1n) with fast tracking/servo AF were what I needed; they did things I couldn't easily accomplish with the M3, so I traded it for a (I'm still kicking myself, LOL) crappy portable strobe setup after a flying skateboard took out my old rig. I didn't look back.
Fast forward to 2012. I've moved on to shooting more photojournalism, portraiture, and less action sports. In the past year I've bought and used a whole bunch of lenses, an R3A (thanks Stephen Gandy!), a Hexar AF, the x100, an M4, and finally the M8. I'm a really late bloomer in the rangefinder world I guess? The rangefinder platform is VERY relevant for me for several reasons:
1.) The stealth factor. DSLRs are EVERYWHERE these days. So are M4/3 or P&S digital cameras. In public settings where I need to grab candids on the fly, I don't know how many times I've seen people pause and interrupt a candid moment to look at the guy/girl aiming a big ass Canikon SLR at them, or because they see someone holding up a smaller digital camera while they compose via the rear screen. People are conditioned to see DSLRs/P&S digitals and have an almost knee jerk reaction when they see one pointed at them. That 1 second of reaction is enough to blow a shot. The rangefinder platform is a lot more discreet, and for whatever reason people seem to not notice my "small" M8, x100 (yeah I know, NOT an RF), Hexar AF, M4, etc when I point it at them. I've gotten within a few feet of a scene, zone focused, then brought the camera up to grab the shot quickly and discreetly. It's great for that. When my needs were all about AF speed, telephoto lens use, and critical framing, the SLR platform was king...but for what I do now I find myself leaving my 1Ds at home more often than not.
2.) The form factor - My favored rig for most of my "on location" assignments used to be a 1Ds mk ii and a 35mm 1.4L and 50mm 1.2L prime. That's like 15 lbs of gear, minimum...and more like 20 lbs if I needed to lug a wide zoom around just in case I needed wider shots. I find myself taking the M8 and two lenses instead, the lenses fit in a hip bag and the M8+lens is lighter than the Canon 50 prime alone! It's easier to move with the smaller rig, and I tend to not bang the Leica around as much because...well duh it's smaller. This comes in handy at festivals/street fairs, or any situation where I need to navigate through a crowd.
3.) The fun factor - Lets face it: Any modern Canikon DSLR is probably smarter than I am. They autofocus as fast as most people can think. But where's the challenge in that? There is none. It's weird but I feel a distinct disconnect when I pick up my 1Ds these days. It feels...soulless. I mean, it does a job and does it exceedingly well, but frankly it's so high-tech and so easy to use that it often feels like I don't need to think about what I'm doing anymore. It feels like I'm on cruise control. Shooting with the RF forces my to really engage myself, and to really concentrate on every aspect of what I'm doing. It could be that I'm so habituated to the SLRs that they feel like second nature. And not fun because they aren't a challenge. Whatever the reason, I know that the RF platform challenges me more, makes me really engage with what I'm doing, and it makes shooting "fun" again.
I've always seen my excessive collection of cameras as a toolbox...the right tool for the right job and all. This might be a controversial claim to make on RFF but I will say that I think every top-of-the-line modern offering from Canon/Nikon/Leica are more or less on par with each other in terms of final image quality...the real determining factor is what platform lends itself best to a person's style of photography. The RF platform is definitely relevant to those of us who need what the RF platform offers!
I think I will always need to own a DSLR with useable high-ISO performance and access to a fast 200mm+ telephoto lens (I shoot concerts at least once a month). But I find myself using the M8 on assignment when shooting human interest pieces more and more, and I am also sure I'll be trading up for an M9 quite soon (LOL, anyone wanna trade a 5D and some L glass for one?).
At a personal level, 2012 has been a year of shooting more film. I started processing B&W at home again after a 10-year hiatus from the medium. I mentioned the lack of "soul" I sense in my Canon gear and I think my return to shooting film as a hobbyist this time around is because I needed to reignite my passion for photography. And moving to a "lower-tech" but more engaging platform has been AMAZING for me because it's let me reconnect with what I love doing so much.
So is the rangefinder relevant to my photography? Well, if you're talking about relevance from a purely technical standpoint ("the camera as a tool"), then no, not particularly. But honestly the platforms effectiveness on the job isn't the most important thing for me...shooting with an RF has reignited my passion for photography, and helped to make the work I have to do with a camera feel less like work again. And that's been a wonderful thing.
I learned to shoot on my mom's Nikon F (hey, mom had good taste!). My introduction to photography and most of my learning was on the SLR platform. By the time I was working as a freelance, SLRs (I used to prefer the EOS 1n) with fast tracking/servo AF were what I needed; they did things I couldn't easily accomplish with the M3, so I traded it for a (I'm still kicking myself, LOL) crappy portable strobe setup after a flying skateboard took out my old rig. I didn't look back.
Fast forward to 2012. I've moved on to shooting more photojournalism, portraiture, and less action sports. In the past year I've bought and used a whole bunch of lenses, an R3A (thanks Stephen Gandy!), a Hexar AF, the x100, an M4, and finally the M8. I'm a really late bloomer in the rangefinder world I guess? The rangefinder platform is VERY relevant for me for several reasons:
1.) The stealth factor. DSLRs are EVERYWHERE these days. So are M4/3 or P&S digital cameras. In public settings where I need to grab candids on the fly, I don't know how many times I've seen people pause and interrupt a candid moment to look at the guy/girl aiming a big ass Canikon SLR at them, or because they see someone holding up a smaller digital camera while they compose via the rear screen. People are conditioned to see DSLRs/P&S digitals and have an almost knee jerk reaction when they see one pointed at them. That 1 second of reaction is enough to blow a shot. The rangefinder platform is a lot more discreet, and for whatever reason people seem to not notice my "small" M8, x100 (yeah I know, NOT an RF), Hexar AF, M4, etc when I point it at them. I've gotten within a few feet of a scene, zone focused, then brought the camera up to grab the shot quickly and discreetly. It's great for that. When my needs were all about AF speed, telephoto lens use, and critical framing, the SLR platform was king...but for what I do now I find myself leaving my 1Ds at home more often than not.
2.) The form factor - My favored rig for most of my "on location" assignments used to be a 1Ds mk ii and a 35mm 1.4L and 50mm 1.2L prime. That's like 15 lbs of gear, minimum...and more like 20 lbs if I needed to lug a wide zoom around just in case I needed wider shots. I find myself taking the M8 and two lenses instead, the lenses fit in a hip bag and the M8+lens is lighter than the Canon 50 prime alone! It's easier to move with the smaller rig, and I tend to not bang the Leica around as much because...well duh it's smaller. This comes in handy at festivals/street fairs, or any situation where I need to navigate through a crowd.
3.) The fun factor - Lets face it: Any modern Canikon DSLR is probably smarter than I am. They autofocus as fast as most people can think. But where's the challenge in that? There is none. It's weird but I feel a distinct disconnect when I pick up my 1Ds these days. It feels...soulless. I mean, it does a job and does it exceedingly well, but frankly it's so high-tech and so easy to use that it often feels like I don't need to think about what I'm doing anymore. It feels like I'm on cruise control. Shooting with the RF forces my to really engage myself, and to really concentrate on every aspect of what I'm doing. It could be that I'm so habituated to the SLRs that they feel like second nature. And not fun because they aren't a challenge. Whatever the reason, I know that the RF platform challenges me more, makes me really engage with what I'm doing, and it makes shooting "fun" again.
I've always seen my excessive collection of cameras as a toolbox...the right tool for the right job and all. This might be a controversial claim to make on RFF but I will say that I think every top-of-the-line modern offering from Canon/Nikon/Leica are more or less on par with each other in terms of final image quality...the real determining factor is what platform lends itself best to a person's style of photography. The RF platform is definitely relevant to those of us who need what the RF platform offers!
I think I will always need to own a DSLR with useable high-ISO performance and access to a fast 200mm+ telephoto lens (I shoot concerts at least once a month). But I find myself using the M8 on assignment when shooting human interest pieces more and more, and I am also sure I'll be trading up for an M9 quite soon (LOL, anyone wanna trade a 5D and some L glass for one?).
At a personal level, 2012 has been a year of shooting more film. I started processing B&W at home again after a 10-year hiatus from the medium. I mentioned the lack of "soul" I sense in my Canon gear and I think my return to shooting film as a hobbyist this time around is because I needed to reignite my passion for photography. And moving to a "lower-tech" but more engaging platform has been AMAZING for me because it's let me reconnect with what I love doing so much.
So is the rangefinder relevant to my photography? Well, if you're talking about relevance from a purely technical standpoint ("the camera as a tool"), then no, not particularly. But honestly the platforms effectiveness on the job isn't the most important thing for me...shooting with an RF has reignited my passion for photography, and helped to make the work I have to do with a camera feel less like work again. And that's been a wonderful thing.
JHutchins
Well-known
Excellent description -- so it was with me as well. The Rolleiflex was love at first sight, but the first time I held an M3 (at a camera shop in La Jolla, California) I wanted one. It was almost twenty years before I actually bought it, but the desire was there and it was the holding of it that did it.
Mablo
Well-known
I still shoot mostly b&w film and I have no intentions to change that but my rangefinder days are gone. I fondle my friends' Leicas with mild interest but I wouldn't like to own one anymore. I know I can do so much more with a simple and inexpensive SLR.
ricnak
Well-known
I am a RF only person. Soon to add to my camera collection of one with another RF and a point an shoot!
hteasley
Pupil
Rangefinders are the only cameras I'm really comfortable shooting. I have a Rolleiflex that I'm not really shooting, and I've recently acquired an old Hasselblad to experiment with, but the cameras that engage me are RFs.
hausen
Well-known
I have an addictive personality and if I find something I like it tends to get a little out of control and the RF addiction come to me late. Got divorced 15 odd years ago and when I bought a new house a year later realised I had time to explore B&W film wet printing in my own darkroom with a Minolta XD-7. Really enjoyed the freedom of shooting a roll during the day, coming home and processing it and then taking a bottle of red wine into the darkroom with some sounds and printing what I shot that day. Fast forward to about 5 years ago, I had a Canon Dslr + lenses and I was about to go on holiday and I said to my wife I am not going to take my camera because it was to heavy. While we were in Europe I read an article about Leica and I was hooked. M8 followed didn't really get on with that but got a R3a from Stephen and the a M6 from an RFFer here in NZ which changed me life. Since then I have tried just about everything available and for now have settled with M9, M6Ti, Xpan, Bessa II, a couple of Retinas and Rolleiflex 3.5F. So I think my answer is yes. Have to admit though I really like the Olympus OM system and will definitely grab an OM2n again.
drew.saunders
Well-known
I had to pick the 2nd option, but in truth, I use my M6TTL quite a bit more than "only at times." Thing is, I finally found a digital P&S that I really like (The Panasonic LX-5 with EVF), plus I use my view camera a fair bit, and occasionally my P&S on steroids, the Fuji GA645zi. I have an SLR, a Mamiya 645E, that I'm not really using that much any more, especially since my Visoflex lets me do some macro photography with the M6 that I'd otherwise have done with the Mamiya.
I'd say that the total number of images per year is greatest with the digital P&S, the total number of "photo trips" per year is possibly greatest with the M6, and the highest percentage of keepers is with the Ebony 4x5.
I'd say that the total number of images per year is greatest with the digital P&S, the total number of "photo trips" per year is possibly greatest with the M6, and the highest percentage of keepers is with the Ebony 4x5.