Association of rangefinder and street photography?

N

newfilm

Well-known
Local time
12:40 PM
Joined
May 30, 2014
Messages
286
I'm curious, there seems to be a good amount of sentiment towards the association of to do street photography "properly" a rangefinder is what you want.

Is this some kind of misinterpreted information lesson from photography/art school (i have not been to one, i'm imagining things here)? or perhaps it's more directly like HCB used one so that must be the standard tool thing?
 
Myself, I don't see the relationship. Other than what I read here, of course. But then again, I don't do "street photography" (whatever that is). But if I did, I would have no objections to using something other than a rangefinder.
 
Depending on your viewfinder magnification and the frame line layout, it is definitely an advantage to be able to see your whole vista in your viewfinder ... with the frame lines for the lens you are using letting you know what you will actually record from that scene as you press the shutter.

Most non RF viewfinders shut you out of the world ... a rangefinder viewfinder lets you into it. It took me a long time and many photos with non RF cameras to appreciate that fact!
 
I have several books with classic street photography. Not only by HCB and WB. Somehow most of them were and still are Leica RF users.

Here is JM explanation why RF:
https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo

Here is my very simple explanation from earlier today:
I just can't walk with SLR blocking my nose, head turned and focus screen blurry. I can't shoot from the hip and I not so quick with LCD screen. TLR is very difficult for me to focus as well.
 
My guess it harkens back to the first Leicas and the fascination with the small camera vs. the tanks that were the norm in the 30's. You could move fast, pack a variety of focal lengths and be less noticed so as to catch that you know what moment.
 
the important features are having everything in focus in the viewfinder, not having blackout, being able to see outside the frame, and having focusing tabs on the lens to scale focus by feel.
 
Add to the above. Traditionally smaller, less obtrusive, quicker, and quieter that other cameras (though not all of those things compared to all other cameras). Less shutter lag - there is no mirror to swing out of the way.

These days most of those advantages have been lost to other cameras. If I was going to be a street photographer nowadays (whatever that is) then I'd get a Ricoh GR. Small, unobtrusive, doesn't need to be at my eye so I could keep observing, scale focus, etc...
 
All those wonderful things about the RF viewfinder and all the trouble Fuji went to duplicating them in the X100 and Pro series, I use the LCD more. Larger, easier to compose and stealthier on top of it all.
 
Maybe my photography isn't traditional 'street' since I'm not shooting in a candid way... photography on the street but usually with tacit permission/acknowledgment of the the shot, not trying to be discreet.

So I shoot interchangeably with a compact Pentax dSLR or the Leica M... or even the Leica S, which feels medium-size compared to my Pentax 67II also used the same way. When out and about I have just the one camera with one lens slung over a shoulder so it isn't that noticeable, and I don't see different reactions from the subjects when using the different cameras.

Sometimes I favor autofocus, sometimes it's a relief to do it manually, and this has been the case with film cameras in the past as well. Fuji GA645 vs Bronica RF645 for instance...
 
An ARSP club

An ARSP club

I think we should start the ARSP. OP can be president for bringing up the idea.
 
Aside from the fact that rangefinders were one of the smallest and most quiet cameras in the past, they remain popular today for street photographers because they are still relatively small and quiet, so they look quaint and non-threatening to the subjects (compared to the DSLRs).The rangefinder lenses are usually more compact, have a shorter throw, and feature focusing tabs, making them easy to use by feel. Manual focusing also helps with zone focusing and pre-focusing, and they're easier to focus in darker places. And a point not frequently mentioned - street photography values the essence of the moment captured, so perspective is less important than speed and agility. Whereas the SLRs and mirrorless allow careful composition and creative use of perspective, rangefinders sacrifice the precision of composition for the intimate, direct and unobstructed view in front of the photographer.
 
Doug said:
Maybe my photography isn't traditional 'street' since I'm not shooting in a candid way... photography on the street but usually with tacit permission/acknowledgment of the the shot, not trying to be discreet.

So I shoot interchangeably with a compact Pentax dSLR or the Leica M... or even the Leica S, which feels medium-size compared to my Pentax 67II also used the same way. When out and about I have just the one camera with one lens slung over a shoulder so it isn't that noticeable, and I don't see different reactions from the subjects when using the different cameras.

Sometimes I favor autofocus, sometimes it's a relief to do it manually, and this has been the case with film cameras in the past as well. Fuji GA645 vs Bronica RF645 for instance...
Click to expand...

If you look at Winogrand and Meyerowitz where is nothing discreet. Winogrand was pre-focusing sometimes because not all of the time you could get close and not to interrupt the genuine moment.
It was no permission, but interaction for sure :).

All of this "discreet theory" is nothing but self-illusion. SLR, TLR, RF it doesn't really matter if street photography is taken close. And this is what makes good street photogphy, IMO, it has to be taken to be close enough to get feel of the presence in the moment which was taken, not some observation from greater distance.

All you have to do is to take the other side. Then you are staying, doing something on the street are you "alert" or "blind" person? This is what is only matters in terms of "discreet". It is not camera or you. It is person(s) who is(are) photographed. Some are so encapsulated you could get close and take it. Some are constantly aware.
Just imagine yourself. If someone getting close to you, what do you do? Checking the person or not even looking at?
To me it doesn't matter if it is TLR, RF, mobile phone or SLR. Personally, I could spot if person taking picture. It is not the size, shape of the camera, it is not how it is manipulated. Hip, eye, screen. It is the entire body language of person taking picture. Even if picture taker trying to hide his intentions, it is still in the body language well before the take.
 
Historical accident, plus an enormous amount of first class street photography from before the days when SLRs were dominant.

Also, some people, having tried RF, SLR and TLR, just find RF easier. I do. Again, I've no doubt that this is partly historical accident, but it may be correlation rather than causation.

Others' points about the advantages of RFs are also valid, but it's all intensely personal. I can't stand TLRs. This may be my loss, but it's a loss I'll cheerfully live with.

Cheers,

R.
 
SLR's have a slight delay while the mirror flips before the shutter opens, and even in that minuscule time the shot you thought you were capturing can change to something that isn't so interesting because the subject moves. Auto-focus cameras are often even slower, taking time to range the subject, move the lens into focus, charge and fire the flash if needed, and then open the shutter. Good old rangefinders require the user to take care of focus, exposure, and aperture before pushing the shutter release, so at the moment that the rangefinder user presses the shutter release, the shutter opens instantly, and the likelihood of capturing that magical shot is much greater. So, for me, it's just a matter of minimal delay.

Scott
 
skucera said:
SLR's have a slight delay while the mirror flips before the shutter opens, and even in that minuscule time the shot you thought you were capturing can change to something that isn't so interesting because the subject moves. Auto-focus cameras are often even slower, taking time to range the subject, move the lens into focus, charge and fire the flash if needed, and then open the shutter. Good old rangefinders require the user to take care of focus, exposure, and aperture before pushing the shutter release, so at the moment that the rangefinder user presses the shutter release, the shutter opens instantly, and the likelihood of capturing that magical shot is much greater. So, for me, it's just a matter of minimal delay.

Scott
Click to expand...
Dear Scott,

All indisputably true.

The best and fastest autofocus cameras today are arguably (at least nearly) as good as manual focus: but note "best and fastest", along with "arguably" and "nearly".

That gave RF cameras a big advantage for a very long time; an advantage which may still exist, and an advantage that has been exploited by countless street photographers, adding still further to the historical (though not necessarily contemporary) supremacy of RF street photography.

Cheers,

R.
 
skucera said:
So, for me, it's just a matter of minimal delay.
Click to expand...

While I generally concur, I wonder how many shots have been lost while the intrepid RF shooter was manually dialling down the exposure or removing the bottom plate on his Leica M to switch film or in recent times batteries? These sort of statements can cut both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom