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
ChrisN

ChrisN

Striving
Local time
8:55 AM
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
4,496
Years ago this forum was almost totally devoted to rangefinder photography, but now embraces almost all forms and practices. I'm just interested in getting an idea of how the membership feels about rangefinder photography today: is it still relevant to you.

EDIT: by rangefinder I mean a rangefinder camera with an optical/mechanical manual focusing system.
 
I love rangefinders, have used them for a decade, and can't see myself using another system. I dont' think RF is necessarily better for everyone, but I love it. This is the Rangefinder Forum, after all ...
 
Rangefinders may not get me the best images all the time, but they are fun-- and fun is relevant to my photography.
 
Very much so. I've dropped my SLR stuff, both film and digital, having recently acquired a Hexar RF. The whole RF experience/use introduces a quite different approach to any other medium and has taken me back to the days when I really enjoyed photography, which frankly the idiot proof "other" cameras took away.

I'm RF from here to eternity.
 
The old M3 has been gone for 5 years. The MP sits on a trophy shelf. In the studio it's mostly D300's and lots of lights. At this point the XP1 is the companion camera.
 
Photography has been an active hobby for me for nearly 35 years. My first camera (after a Kodak Instamatic 126) was a Minolta HiMatic rangefinder, and I guess that set me off on this life-long rangefinder kick.

I currently use a Hasselblad 6x6 SLR system and a Contax/Yashica 35mm SLR system in addition to my rangefinders, but they probably only cover 10% of the frames that I shoot in a year (posed portraits with the Hasselblad, and my kids sports for the Yashica).

The other 90% is shot with my 12 (!) other cameras - ALL RANGEFINDERS.

As my eyes age, I find focusing with the rangefinders easier compared to the SLRs, so I dont' see things changing.

I currently don't use any digital cameras or cameras with autofocus.
 
A camera that gets out of my way and allows me to spend my time seeing is what is relevant to my photography. Namely this means a few core things to me:

- Relatively small and lightweight camera kit
- Availability of fast, non-bulky optics
- Relatively quiet shutter release
- High quality viewfinder
- Manual control over shutter speed
- Manual control over aperture control
- Manual control over focussing

Some cameras tick some of the boxes, but few tick them all for me the way a Leica does. As far as the rangefinder mechanism goes, I prefer the method of rangefinder focussing to that of a manual slr, in addition to the ability to see outside the frame.

I'm hardly closeminded though, and have had the growing feeling for a while now that an Olympus OM-D, with a trio of prime lenses like the 14mm, 20mm and 45mm would tick all those boxes too. The trade off would be manual focussing to gain a user-friendly digital output though, as well as losing the ability to see outside the frame, so I guess its a good thing I don't have the budget currently to be faced with that decision.

To answer your question in a single word though - yes. Rangefinders are still relevant to my photography. My photography is not centred on rangefinders themselves, but rangefinders offer me what I need to shoot the way I prefer to, thus are very relevant, unlike film which I can take or leave for the most part.
 
k__43 said:
redundant question on the "rangefinderforum", isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. It is a perennial question.

I use rangefinder cameras when that is the proper tool for the purpose. For the past couple of years I have not been using them much as the focus has been large format portraiture and sports photography, which is better captured with long lenses and 35mm SLR.
 
Every "project" I shoot is done with my M3 and film. Don't see that changing any time soon. I experiment with other things for fun, but nothing can replace the M3 (that I can afford, at least).
 
I like the compact design and the focusing of a rangefinder ... the vague framing I'm not so keen on.
 
I keep adding to the list of rangefinder gear and have just sold my D90 kit after not using it for anything but Ebay listing photos for over a year. I use my Canon G10 for that now, my only non rangefinder camera. For me it is about the user experience and the simple fun of shooting as a hobby. I know that there are many limitations, but they are not limitations for me. I did just see a really nice Exakta Varex in a local shop though, Going back for a closer look today. I especially want to examine the Zeiss lens more closely. It could end up as my only SLR!
 
Keith said:
I like the compact design and the focusing of a rangefinder ... the vague framing I'm not so keen on.
Click to expand...

I find that with my M6 and a 50mm lens, I especially appreciate being able to see quite a bit outside of the fame lines, vague though they may be. Whenever I go back to a an SLR, I feel like I am looking down a tube, which I am.

Again, there is no substitute for a good SLR for certain things, but I would rather deal with the limitations of the rangefinders. A matter of weighing choices.
 
It sure feels good to have a nice bright finder and focus a rangefinder in low light. Maybe my eyes are old, but I find it hard to focus a SLR in low light. In fact, I just bought an autofocus SLR for travel; because I'm missing some shots by improper focusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom