dwr
Senile User
Right, I know how utterly stupid this might sound, but that's basically what keeps me from buying one. I don't have much experience with photography, only a couple of months playing with a DSLR (Canon 300D) borrowed from a friend and nothing more. You see, I'm still reading about the aperture, F-number, bokeh, etc., you know, the basic stuff.
I had a good time with 300D, but I would really love to try out RFs to see if I'll like them (partly because of one my favorites is Cartier-Bresson, "oh no, not again" anyone?). I've been reading about the differences between the two systems and the RF seems very attractive. However, being a completely newbie on photography, I was wondering whether taking pictures with one would require certain amount of photographic knowledge or experience because I have none.
Ever since knowing about my intentions of getting one, my mates have been all theatrical about it calling me nuts and strongly opposing the idea, saying I would rush back to the warm embrace of DSLRs in no time, nevertheless, I just want a RF. But, of course, I have my concerns and don't want to shell out some hard earned cash and then face the reality in the harsh way - because I don't know whether I'll like it or not - so I resort to the expertise of you guys.
I had a good time with 300D, but I would really love to try out RFs to see if I'll like them (partly because of one my favorites is Cartier-Bresson, "oh no, not again" anyone?). I've been reading about the differences between the two systems and the RF seems very attractive. However, being a completely newbie on photography, I was wondering whether taking pictures with one would require certain amount of photographic knowledge or experience because I have none.
Ever since knowing about my intentions of getting one, my mates have been all theatrical about it calling me nuts and strongly opposing the idea, saying I would rush back to the warm embrace of DSLRs in no time, nevertheless, I just want a RF. But, of course, I have my concerns and don't want to shell out some hard earned cash and then face the reality in the harsh way - because I don't know whether I'll like it or not - so I resort to the expertise of you guys.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Yes, if you're willing to put in the small effort to learn how to use one. The two main differences are that you won't have precise, through-the-lens framing, and you won't be able directly to see the effects of depth of field. On the other hand you will be able to see the whole scene without these effects getting in your way. 
Go for it. A capable rangefinder may be bought for less than the cost of a round of drinks.
Go for it. A capable rangefinder may be bought for less than the cost of a round of drinks.
Muggins
Junk magnet
I guess the question to ask has to be "Where do you find secondhand cameras in Taiwan?" - which I haven't a clue about, as I'm about 180 degrees round the globe from you!
I suspect, though, that Japanese cameras are probably in reasonable supply. Something like a Ricoh 500 is likely to be inexpensive, and will give you a cheap idea of what using a rangefinder is like. You'll need a light meter, as the mercury batteries they were made to fit are no longer available.
The only caveat I will add - other than to remind you that I haven't a clue what camera supply is like where you are - is that anything later than the 1960s will have synthetic foam light seals in the back, which will have turned into gunge and will need to be replaced. You might want to avoid the Ricoh 500G for this reason, as it has acres of light seal!
Hope that helps - I await with interest the opinions of people who know more than I do!
Adrian
I suspect, though, that Japanese cameras are probably in reasonable supply. Something like a Ricoh 500 is likely to be inexpensive, and will give you a cheap idea of what using a rangefinder is like. You'll need a light meter, as the mercury batteries they were made to fit are no longer available.
The only caveat I will add - other than to remind you that I haven't a clue what camera supply is like where you are - is that anything later than the 1960s will have synthetic foam light seals in the back, which will have turned into gunge and will need to be replaced. You might want to avoid the Ricoh 500G for this reason, as it has acres of light seal!
Hope that helps - I await with interest the opinions of people who know more than I do!
Adrian
Richard G
Veteran
Yes. Why not? You're interested, that's all that counts. I've been using one since I was 16 and only recently (age 49) started using a film SLR occasionally as well. Neither is necessarily more difficult. The retreat from the reflex image is not a problem and is precisely the liberation of the RF approach.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My 17-year-old girlfriend learned on one in 1969 (a Leica II) so yes, they're fine for beginners. You might also care to look at the following introduction to RF photography:http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps rf.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
Absolutely yesss!
When you have started reading about aperture and bokeh I understand that you will take this seriously. Then RF photography is for you. Not only that. It will make you a better photographer if and when you choose any of the more automatic solutions on the market, later on. I use to say that you will never become a olympic champion in Flying Dutchman unless you can sail a Snipe and win the class.
When you have started reading about aperture and bokeh I understand that you will take this seriously. Then RF photography is for you. Not only that. It will make you a better photographer if and when you choose any of the more automatic solutions on the market, later on. I use to say that you will never become a olympic champion in Flying Dutchman unless you can sail a Snipe and win the class.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
dwr, it all depends on what you want from photography. Your DSLR is going to give you beautifully exposed, perfectly focused photos most of the time, and you will not have to learn a thing about photography. You'll like the photos, your friends will like the photos.
An RF is going to give you nothing. The best you can hope to find is autoexposure on a few RF's. But, really, you are going to have to learn the relationship between shutter speed and lens aperture, and you are going to have to learn to visualize depth of field effects (generating that out of focus "boken" RF guys are smitten with). Then you are going to have to learn to focus manually with a rangefinder.
The point of all this "you are going to have to learn" stuff is that, until you do, you are probably going to take a lot of bad photos - or at least photos that didn't turn our the way you thought they would or you wanted them to. Do you really want to learn all of these details about photography, or do you want to just snap photos? At the very least, buy an inexpensive 1970's RF or modern Bessa at the most and see if you can tolerate an RF. And, you can always set that 300D to manual exposure and manual focus and still learn about photography.
And, remember. HCB eventually gave up photography and went back to painting. Perhaps it was using an RF that drove him to abandon photography!
An RF is going to give you nothing. The best you can hope to find is autoexposure on a few RF's. But, really, you are going to have to learn the relationship between shutter speed and lens aperture, and you are going to have to learn to visualize depth of field effects (generating that out of focus "boken" RF guys are smitten with). Then you are going to have to learn to focus manually with a rangefinder.
The point of all this "you are going to have to learn" stuff is that, until you do, you are probably going to take a lot of bad photos - or at least photos that didn't turn our the way you thought they would or you wanted them to. Do you really want to learn all of these details about photography, or do you want to just snap photos? At the very least, buy an inexpensive 1970's RF or modern Bessa at the most and see if you can tolerate an RF. And, you can always set that 300D to manual exposure and manual focus and still learn about photography.
And, remember. HCB eventually gave up photography and went back to painting. Perhaps it was using an RF that drove him to abandon photography!
ZeissFan
Veteran
My second camera was a little Konica C35 Automatic. I took a lot of photos with that camera and never had much of a problem learning to focus. I was coming from an SLR, which I had gotten rid of the previous month.
However, I think adapting to any camera is rather individual and how we might like or dislike or find something simple or difficult to use doesn't necessarily mean that another person will have the same experience.
I think that you just have to try it. And you'll know rather quickly whether it's for you.
However, I think adapting to any camera is rather individual and how we might like or dislike or find something simple or difficult to use doesn't necessarily mean that another person will have the same experience.
I think that you just have to try it. And you'll know rather quickly whether it's for you.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Before you go any further, I assume you have a place where you can get film developed, and you are aware of the costs of film and developing, as well as prints and/or scans in your area, and I assume that you do want to use film. Beginning with digital is a slightly different beast, and the comments below are in reference to beginning with a film camera, which, despite my pro-digital outlook, I consider a good idea.
Basically, regardless of the style of camera (rangefinder, slr, or other), there are a couple of things you should look for. The most important is fully manual controls, where for each shot you have to (or have the option to, which you should take) set the aperture and the shutter speed yourself. Another thing to look for in a good beginner's camera is a good built in light meter. You want a camera that is in good shape, which has a good reputation for reliability. You also probably want a relatively inexpensive camera, something that can be picked up for a couple hundred bucks or (potentially much) less. This leaves you with basically two options, a fixed lens rangefinder (FLRF) or an SLR.
If you go with the FLRF route, choose carefully. Even though a lot of them have built in meters, a lot of them don't meter in manual mode, which is what you want to use. The Olympus 35 SP fixed lens rangefinders are probably the best choices for your needs, since they can meter in manual mode. Don't worry about the inability to change the lens. For the first year or two at least, all you really need is a reasonably fast lens of a normal focal length, which is what the FLRF's have.
If you choose an SLR, you have loads and loads of choices. My top recommendation for someone who is just starting out is the venerable Pentax K1000. It was designed as a simple, rugged student camera. It does everything a beginner needs it to do and it doesn't do anything else. Pair it with a 50mm lens, either pentax or ricoh, and you can be out there shooting with a reliable rig for 100 bucks or less. If you go this route, don't get a zoom lens. Again, all you need until you gain a firm grasp on photography is a prime lens of a normal focal length. IMO, for a beginner, a zoom lens is almost as bad as using program mode.
Don't use an RF just because your hero or heroes used them. At the time when HCB was making some of his best work, an RF was pretty much the only game in town. There are loads of great reasons to use an RF camera, but that isn't one of them.
See if a local college or university offers photography classes that you would be able to take. That would be an invaluable experience for you. Most college and university intro to photography classes require fully manual SLR cameras, so keep that in mind if you do consider that option, which I highly recommend.
The only good way to learn photography, IMO, is to use fully manual controls, and to use fully manual controls for a long time. I started using non-manual controls far too early, my photography suffered, and I found myself not doing any photography for several years because of it. It is only recently that I have started using either aperture priority or shutter priority (never program AE) again, and that is only because I have a firm grasp on my principles and concepts.
I recommend a camera with an accurate internal meter for a couple of reasons. First, simplicity. Having an external meter is one more thing to keep up with and worry about, and when starting out, you have a lot to juggle in your brain anyway. Second, I think that the fact that you can see the exposure meter change as you adjust the settings is a useful visual demostration of the effects you are having on the exposure.
Another big recommendation that I give to beginners is to get a decent tripod, and practically (not literally) glue your camera to it. Using a tripod allows you to take a bit more time with your shots, make sure your composition is good, as well as lined up just like you want, and it gives you more time to check your focus. I know you like the fast and freewheeling style of HCB, but you can't do something fast and well until you can do it slowly and well first. Concentrate on becoming a good photographer before you worry about being able to make good images speedily. For me, using a tripod when you start out is a lot like using manual controls. I only very rarely use a tripod any more, but I am a better photographer for having used one for years. The key reason to use a tripod is that it makes you think more about your composition. Bresson didn't use one (at least I have never seen reference to him using one), but he was a draftsman (and painter?) before he took up photogaphy, so he learned composition that way. For someone who doesn't come from that kind of fine arts background, a tripod and some design theory are the next best thing.
Good luck!
Basically, regardless of the style of camera (rangefinder, slr, or other), there are a couple of things you should look for. The most important is fully manual controls, where for each shot you have to (or have the option to, which you should take) set the aperture and the shutter speed yourself. Another thing to look for in a good beginner's camera is a good built in light meter. You want a camera that is in good shape, which has a good reputation for reliability. You also probably want a relatively inexpensive camera, something that can be picked up for a couple hundred bucks or (potentially much) less. This leaves you with basically two options, a fixed lens rangefinder (FLRF) or an SLR.
If you go with the FLRF route, choose carefully. Even though a lot of them have built in meters, a lot of them don't meter in manual mode, which is what you want to use. The Olympus 35 SP fixed lens rangefinders are probably the best choices for your needs, since they can meter in manual mode. Don't worry about the inability to change the lens. For the first year or two at least, all you really need is a reasonably fast lens of a normal focal length, which is what the FLRF's have.
If you choose an SLR, you have loads and loads of choices. My top recommendation for someone who is just starting out is the venerable Pentax K1000. It was designed as a simple, rugged student camera. It does everything a beginner needs it to do and it doesn't do anything else. Pair it with a 50mm lens, either pentax or ricoh, and you can be out there shooting with a reliable rig for 100 bucks or less. If you go this route, don't get a zoom lens. Again, all you need until you gain a firm grasp on photography is a prime lens of a normal focal length. IMO, for a beginner, a zoom lens is almost as bad as using program mode.
Don't use an RF just because your hero or heroes used them. At the time when HCB was making some of his best work, an RF was pretty much the only game in town. There are loads of great reasons to use an RF camera, but that isn't one of them.
See if a local college or university offers photography classes that you would be able to take. That would be an invaluable experience for you. Most college and university intro to photography classes require fully manual SLR cameras, so keep that in mind if you do consider that option, which I highly recommend.
The only good way to learn photography, IMO, is to use fully manual controls, and to use fully manual controls for a long time. I started using non-manual controls far too early, my photography suffered, and I found myself not doing any photography for several years because of it. It is only recently that I have started using either aperture priority or shutter priority (never program AE) again, and that is only because I have a firm grasp on my principles and concepts.
I recommend a camera with an accurate internal meter for a couple of reasons. First, simplicity. Having an external meter is one more thing to keep up with and worry about, and when starting out, you have a lot to juggle in your brain anyway. Second, I think that the fact that you can see the exposure meter change as you adjust the settings is a useful visual demostration of the effects you are having on the exposure.
Another big recommendation that I give to beginners is to get a decent tripod, and practically (not literally) glue your camera to it. Using a tripod allows you to take a bit more time with your shots, make sure your composition is good, as well as lined up just like you want, and it gives you more time to check your focus. I know you like the fast and freewheeling style of HCB, but you can't do something fast and well until you can do it slowly and well first. Concentrate on becoming a good photographer before you worry about being able to make good images speedily. For me, using a tripod when you start out is a lot like using manual controls. I only very rarely use a tripod any more, but I am a better photographer for having used one for years. The key reason to use a tripod is that it makes you think more about your composition. Bresson didn't use one (at least I have never seen reference to him using one), but he was a draftsman (and painter?) before he took up photogaphy, so he learned composition that way. For someone who doesn't come from that kind of fine arts background, a tripod and some design theory are the next best thing.
Good luck!
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
tough question. to know whether RFs are good for you, you need to try one. to try one, you need to buy one. to buy one, you want to to know whether RFs are good for you ...
micromontenegro
Well-known
I was using a rangefinder at 9, and had the first one "of my own" when I was 12. It is a perfect step up from a P&S.
ed1234
Established
I think a basic SLR system will speed up your learning curve on photography.
The preview switch can give you an idea on how the pic looks like with different aperture setting. And the frame line is way easier for newbie, as what you see is what u get; but on the RF, the alignment will be a bit off.
If you get an SLR with a meter tree, u will see how the aperture will be affect at different lighting, that will speed up your learning on lighting situation.
I think the best way is spend some more time with your friend's D300 for another month or so, get yourself totally understand each function on the camera, then pick the RF that is within your budget, download it's manual, see how differently it operate when compare it with the SLR, and see u really want the RF or SLR. In a nutshell, SLR had all the bells and whistle, and RF is to enjoy the simplicity of Photography rather than the equipment.
The preview switch can give you an idea on how the pic looks like with different aperture setting. And the frame line is way easier for newbie, as what you see is what u get; but on the RF, the alignment will be a bit off.
If you get an SLR with a meter tree, u will see how the aperture will be affect at different lighting, that will speed up your learning on lighting situation.
I think the best way is spend some more time with your friend's D300 for another month or so, get yourself totally understand each function on the camera, then pick the RF that is within your budget, download it's manual, see how differently it operate when compare it with the SLR, and see u really want the RF or SLR. In a nutshell, SLR had all the bells and whistle, and RF is to enjoy the simplicity of Photography rather than the equipment.
Last edited:
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
You have been given much good advice. An Olympus Stylus Epic would be a good and safe choice to begin. The alternative is to plunge in with any of a multitude of manual rangefinders and follow the "sunny 16" rule and the little table found on the film box for exposure.
Yes, a rangefinder camera is for beginners.
yours
FPJ
http://photo.net/olympus/mjuII
You have been given much good advice. An Olympus Stylus Epic would be a good and safe choice to begin. The alternative is to plunge in with any of a multitude of manual rangefinders and follow the "sunny 16" rule and the little table found on the film box for exposure.
Yes, a rangefinder camera is for beginners.
yours
FPJ
http://photo.net/olympus/mjuII
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
Hi there, I'm pretty much a total beginner, and a range finder is my first film camera, it's obviously trickier to use than a P&S but if you get one with AE like a Bessa R2M/R3M/R4M, Zeiss Ikon, or a recent Leica, then all you really need to worry about is the DOF of any given aperture and if you're in focus. I've run one film through my Ikon, and love the results, sure out of 36 exposures, I've got maybe 4 which I quite like, but I can really see the potential of using this camera.
A DSLR obviously has a load of advantages, namely the lack of processing cost, the immediacy and stuff like high ISO performance, but if you're not "feeling" it, and "just want" a range finder, I don't see why you should not. If it turns out that it's not the camera for you in 6 months, sell and get something else, no biggie. That's how I see it with my Ikon, but so far have no plans to sell at all.
Cheers
Garry
A DSLR obviously has a load of advantages, namely the lack of processing cost, the immediacy and stuff like high ISO performance, but if you're not "feeling" it, and "just want" a range finder, I don't see why you should not. If it turns out that it's not the camera for you in 6 months, sell and get something else, no biggie. That's how I see it with my Ikon, but so far have no plans to sell at all.
Cheers
Garry
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Some excellent advice here as ususal.
I will keep this brief as its only my advice; digital is an excellent way to learn as you can have instant feedback. However, you must use the camera in manual mode to fully begin to understand the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture. They all have their own effects which can be used more artistically later but they all have an affect on the final exposure which you need to understand first to make the image as you've seen it.
Those of us that learned about photography before digital had no other choice, you do. My advice is simply to make the most of that ( and the lack of oncosts such as film and printing.) Maybe spend the money on a good book about exposure or general photography or I'm sure there must be websites with various lessons.
Whatever you decide to do I hope you don't get disheartened and give up, give it enough time and it will all suddenly click into place...once that happens you may well find that you get far better pictures than your friends if they don't fully understand why their cameras meters, AF and other gizmos are often tricked by the conditions.
I will keep this brief as its only my advice; digital is an excellent way to learn as you can have instant feedback. However, you must use the camera in manual mode to fully begin to understand the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture. They all have their own effects which can be used more artistically later but they all have an affect on the final exposure which you need to understand first to make the image as you've seen it.
Those of us that learned about photography before digital had no other choice, you do. My advice is simply to make the most of that ( and the lack of oncosts such as film and printing.) Maybe spend the money on a good book about exposure or general photography or I'm sure there must be websites with various lessons.
Whatever you decide to do I hope you don't get disheartened and give up, give it enough time and it will all suddenly click into place...once that happens you may well find that you get far better pictures than your friends if they don't fully understand why their cameras meters, AF and other gizmos are often tricked by the conditions.
mfogiel
Veteran
Yes, go for it. Read this:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Rangefinder photography is intuitive and fluid, becoming one with your camera. If you like careful studied compositions you can do it with a rangefinder but an SLR is better.
In my opinion a digital, SLR or otherwise, is a poor way to actually learn much. The temptation is always there to let the camera do the thinking and that little screen on the back is the temptation of the devil himself, checking picture after picture "just because you can".
The very fact that film and processing cost money is a great incentive to learn exactly what you're doing as rapidly as possible. Too many of the digitista crowd machine gun their exposures, pick the keepers in editing, and try to save their screw-ups with Photoshop. There's something extremely satisfying about looking at a contact sheet where most all of the frames have at least passable composition without having to crop and the exposures are all pretty close to spot-on. Best of all, the focus is exactly where you want it.
In my opinion a digital, SLR or otherwise, is a poor way to actually learn much. The temptation is always there to let the camera do the thinking and that little screen on the back is the temptation of the devil himself, checking picture after picture "just because you can".
The very fact that film and processing cost money is a great incentive to learn exactly what you're doing as rapidly as possible. Too many of the digitista crowd machine gun their exposures, pick the keepers in editing, and try to save their screw-ups with Photoshop. There's something extremely satisfying about looking at a contact sheet where most all of the frames have at least passable composition without having to crop and the exposures are all pretty close to spot-on. Best of all, the focus is exactly where you want it.
grainhound
Well-known
You could try a Canon Canonet GIII QL17, which won't cost you much and the lens is well regarded. The linked website has good information on this and other similar cameras. http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ For some reason, it comes up in Japanese, but there's an English button on the top right, and you'll need to scroll down to the Canonet.
The Canonet is no doubt way easier to use than my first camera, a Zeiss Ikon Contina II. That was in '64, when SLRs were apparently available, though I wasn't aware of them. My Zeiss had an uncoupled rangefinder and the meter came with each roll of film, in the box. I managed ok with that, especially traveling in Europe taking touristy photos of subjects in good light. The completely manual functions of the Zeiss taught me at least some basic concepts of photography. Later on, I tried b/w in low light, then got more interested in photography. I bought a Nikkormat in '67 because the New York stores were dumping the FTs for the FTNs, and I couldn't afford a Leica, nor even a Canon RF.
Listen to Al. He's the pro; I'm an amateur who happened to learn from a camera that would only do what you set it to do. I'm happy with having been that lucky. I still use the Zeiss once in a while; it rides in my back pocket.
The Canonet is no doubt way easier to use than my first camera, a Zeiss Ikon Contina II. That was in '64, when SLRs were apparently available, though I wasn't aware of them. My Zeiss had an uncoupled rangefinder and the meter came with each roll of film, in the box. I managed ok with that, especially traveling in Europe taking touristy photos of subjects in good light. The completely manual functions of the Zeiss taught me at least some basic concepts of photography. Later on, I tried b/w in low light, then got more interested in photography. I bought a Nikkormat in '67 because the New York stores were dumping the FTs for the FTNs, and I couldn't afford a Leica, nor even a Canon RF.
Listen to Al. He's the pro; I'm an amateur who happened to learn from a camera that would only do what you set it to do. I'm happy with having been that lucky. I still use the Zeiss once in a while; it rides in my back pocket.
denmark.yuzon
Streetographer
i learned the basics and all the things i need to know with an SLR.. i think its is safer to get a good SLR first then try out RF's.. that's how it got me in the world of rangefinders.. though if you really want a RF to start your photography experience, then by all means, get one.. you have nothing to lose..
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Thanks, Greyhound! But I still screw up on occasion.
Other bits of advice. Set your camera BEFORE making a meter reading. Use the meter to check how good your guess was. It's good practice for the day your meter breaks or the battery is dead.
When wandering about with your camera keep the distance set further away than your likely subjects. That way you know that you always have to turn the focus in the same direction. If things are happening really fast take the dang picture, then fine tune your focus and exposure for the second shot if it happens.
Other bits of advice. Set your camera BEFORE making a meter reading. Use the meter to check how good your guess was. It's good practice for the day your meter breaks or the battery is dead.
When wandering about with your camera keep the distance set further away than your likely subjects. That way you know that you always have to turn the focus in the same direction. If things are happening really fast take the dang picture, then fine tune your focus and exposure for the second shot if it happens.