Are rangefinders a personal aptitude?

[italy74]

Just curious to know...
Coming from SLR world, probably the first thing I'd do while looking through a rangefinder would be framing the image to fit the print but I'm sure the approach is totally different and I'm wondering if it might be acquired with practice or is one of those things - you have or you haven't - as seeing 3D objects in stereograms.
So what's your opinion ? A good SLR photographer could become a good RF photographer ?

 

[gho]

So, I voted other, as I believe that the skill can be aquired and is not something like an inborn trait. Rangefinder cameras have some well known advantages in certain situations and for certain means. Mastering any which camera for your means is a matter of personal practice, be it with or without a teacher.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Took Nikki to the playground today, and I was the only one with a Nikon SP. Loaded with Kodachrome 64. I wanted a camera that came out the same year I was born to shoot my last roll of Kodachrome.

So yes, I would agree that it is a personal attitude at least as far as selecting the camera for my last roll of Kodachrome.

 

[FrankS]

Everyone has different tastebuds for food. Rangefinders are just a particular flavour of camera. Some people like them, some don't, just like yams.

 

[JPSuisse]

Dino,

for me anybody who is using any kind of manual camera has a certain attitude. For me, rangefinders are nothing special... Of course, there are advantages and disadvantage of both my FM and my MP.

Cheers,

JP

 

[Al Patterson]

I voted "not at all", as choice of tool depends on the task at hand.

When I'm out shooting railroad steam passenger freight charters, I take the SLR (digital or film) as the prime lens nature of the rangefinder is not as good a fit as a decent zoom.

Now, if I'm going to the park or a coffee shop to document life close up, then the SLR/zoom is the wrong tool, and the rangefinder is the better tool for the job.

Now, one could use the RF on a railroad photo runby for the "one" shot, but the SLR/zoom combo might allow me 3 4 or 5 chances for the perfect shot.

And yeah, you can take your SLR and a 70-300 zoom downtown for street photos, but then you mat also miss some shots.

YMMV of course...

 

[Riverman]

I appreciate the advantages of the small rangefinder for discreet photography - especially street work. That said, I seem to get my best candid street shots from my Nikon F6 with a 50mm 1.2 mounted - hardly a light or discreet combo. My F6 gives me a warmer feeling than my M6!

 

[sebastel]

somehow, i do not get the term 'attitude' in this context ...

but, let me tell why i voted "other".
i found, different people take different approaches to photography, and i mean this both generally, and also explicitly regarding the process of taking (with the camera) a picture just seen.

my personal experience, having used extensively SLR first, is that with SLR, i took pictures the WYSIWYG approach: i first look through the finder and then i visualize the picture to take (in the finder).

rangefinder experience taught me a different approach: i visualize my picture in my mind, and then use the finder to arrange the shot accordingly.

from this difference, i learnt to prefer the rangefinder.

another difference i can observe: most photographers i know consider the SLR to be the generic picture taking tool, and other camera concepts fill in for specific use only.
my rangefinder experience made me try do do it just the other way 'round - i use RF for day to day use, and other cameras (namely the olympus E-P1) only for those situations where the RF just does not work (close up, long distance requiring tele).

no idea whether this makes sense to someone else. to me, it does.

cheers,
s.

 

[nikon_sam]

It's all personal...

It's all personal...

Everyone has different tastebuds for food. Rangefinders are just a particular flavour of camera. Some people like them, some don't, just like yams.

I never thought I would ever shoot anything other than 35mm...
I never thought I would go any wider than a 50mm lens...
I never thought I would shoot any film higher than 125 asa...
I never thought I would like using a flash...
I never thought I would own a TLR...
I never thought I was good enough for a Nikon camera...
I never thought I would use chemistry other than Kodak...
I do have a Rangefinder and I love it..I just need to use it more

Things change...I hate change but sometimes it works...

I like Yams...

 

[italy74]

somehow, i do not get the term 'attitude' in this context ...

but, let me tell why i voted "other".
i found, different people take different approaches to photography, and i mean this both generally, and also explicitly regarding the process of taking (with the camera) a picture just seen.

my personal experience, having used extensively SLR first, is that with SLR, i took pictures the WYSIWYG approach: i first look through the finder and then i visualize the picture to take (in the finder).

rangefinder experience taught me a different approach: i visualize my picture in my mind, and then use the finder to arrange the shot accordingly.

from this difference, i learnt to prefer the rangefinder.

another difference i can observe: most photographers i know consider the SLR to be the generic picture taking tool, and other camera concepts fill in for specific use only.
my rangefinder experience made me try do do it just the other way 'round - i use RF for day to day use, and other cameras (namely the olympus E-P1) only for those situations where the RF just does not work (close up, long distance requiring tele).

no idea whether this makes sense to someone else. to me, it does.

cheers,
s.

Ciao that's exactly what I meant: do you think such previsualization is something "innate" or may be acquired with practise ?

 

[januaryman]

Like many here, I go from RF to SLR to even digital. RFs seems more a part of me when I shoot, SLRs less so, and more bulky and clumsy. Digital shooting is always fun when I actually doing the shooting, but the results are just not that thrilling the way scanned negatives are. The the diff lies in the RESULTS. But photographing something? The same.

 

[kevin m]

I don't know about attitude, but it is a simple pleasure to use a rangefinder. With a 35 or 50 mounted, and the lovely floating frameline to look through, you can begin to wonder why you'd ever need another camera.

 

[sebastel]

Ciao that's exactly what I meant: do you think such previsualization is something "innate" or may be acquired with practise ?

ah, ok.
then of course it can be acquired. the learning speed is a different question though. some get it quickly, some need years, some ... well.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Just a preference...some people get it, some don't.

 

[oftheherd]

Some people, at least judging from their posting here, are enanored of RF cameras. Either because they are RF cameras, or because there is something about them they like over other types, such as SLR or TLR. That's OK. The idea is to get good photos, whatever the tool. I just don't happen to be one of those who love Rf because it is RF.

I do like my Super Press because it gives me MF negatives. I like my XA because it is even smaller than my Fujica, and lighter than my Weltinis. I like SLR because I think I have a better idea of what will be in my photo. 9x12 gives me even bigger negatives and is easier to carry that a monoraid. YMMV

I didn't think that would fit with any of the poll questions you provided so I didn't choose one. Sorry.

 

[Warren T.]

"Other", not attitude, but proficiency using RF is acquired through practice, not necessary to have a teacher. RF is just another tool in a photographers' toolkit, to be used when appropriate for a given situation.

 

[morgan]

my personal experience, having used extensively SLR first, is that with SLR, i took pictures the WYSIWYG approach: i first look through the finder and then i visualize the picture to take (in the finder).

rangefinder experience taught me a different approach: i visualize my picture in my mind, and then use the finder to arrange the shot accordingly.

cheers,
s.

I feel like shooting with a rangefinder (and I only began to take photography seriously once I discovered rf's) brought me to where you are: I visualize then arrange. But having now acquired that skill, what camera is in my hand seems to matter less (although I prefer different cameras for different uses). It's more about seeing than which tool I have. But there was something about getting into RF's and their history/style/vibe that helped push me along as a photographer.

 

[italy74]

It's the process to pre-visualize than arrange than puzzles me and this is why I asked...

 

[italy74]

Sorry I just realized I had mistyped the question:

it's "APTItude," (skill, innate ability) not "ATTItude" (pose, behaviour,fanciness) : they mean different things and probably here's why it was so difficult to answer.

 

[Tompas]

I use diffent kinds of cameras and when I'm lucky and in good shape I get good pictures with all of them.

But using rangefinders taught me something very new and very fascinating: zone focusing. A liberating experience, not having to worry about focus -- and it's opened whole new photographic fields to me, namely 'street photography' and what I call snarpshots.