Bye bye, rangefinders

When I started, I did it with a Vitomatic II, with a beautifull 1:1 VF.
Perhaps sooner that it should be, I moved to SLRs and stayed there for almost 25 years.
In the meantime I bought a Kiev 4 which made me take another look to RFs.
It was a fortunate buy as the Kiev was the first step to recognize the benefits of every type of camera.
Today I shoot with RFs, SLRs, MF VF and RFs as well as a digital compact.
Every camera type has its benefits and limitations. Its my only responsability to choose the right one, but I must admit that most of the time I´m carrying an RF with me: it is faster than the SLRs for street photo.

Cheers
Ernesto
 
jjovin said:
I used to have Contax SLR. At one point I had 4 cameras, Aria, RX, S2, S2b and 9 lenses. I sold most of them. I still have an S2b+50mm f1.4 which I do not use. Instead, I got Zeiss Ikon and
3 lenses which I use all the time. For me, Contax is a fine system but I prefer my Ikon. My philosophy is, use whatever gives you the most pleasure.
Cheers,
Click to expand...

I bought a Contax 139Q and 50mm f/1.4 lens. The camera died. I still have the lens for the FX 103 I finally got to replace the Contax. I always wanted more lenses. Those T* lenses are great. But I could never afford them. Which is kind of funny. The money I have spent of Kiev, various folders, more Fujicas, 4x5 and 8x10, I could have had a good stable of Contax lenses and cameras. But I don't guess I want to give up the other cameras, so I don't have the other Contax lenses and probably never will. sigh.
 
In 20 yrs of amateur photography Ive found there is no perfect camera, although some come pretty close. I dont know that I'll ever get rid of my Leica. The best glass, reliablity, compact package, understated, discreet, fast and accurate focusing. In lowlight, one of the best viewfinders. As for composition -- close enough.

The Leica is a tool beyond the level of most owners to use it.
 
I agree with those of you that use both RF and SLR for different occasions. Both systems have their advantages useful for different purposes. Myself, I shoot RF, Fed2, Zorki4 and my lovely old Retina II, when I need quiet shutters, small size equipment and 50 mm lenses or wider. When I have the need for longer lenses, easy ("modern") handling, then I go for my OM1 or OM2. When I have plenty of time for every exposure and want large negatives, for instance landscapes, I will choose my Iskra or the Moskva2 or 5. As you will have noticed, my equipment is not in the upper price or quality range. My wallet does not allow me to enter the Leica class. But for a pure amateur shooter, I find great pleasure in taking photos in the "old" way, and I am fascinated by the workmanship and quality of the equipment of 60 - 70 years back. (Though some of the russians are questionable as to the quality!)
 
I think it's great that you understand your photography enough to center in on the best equipment for you Carl. This should make it easier to concentrate on getting the best out of the features of your camera rather than tying to be a jack of all trades. I have found that having too many choices, compromises the photography, rather than the opposite, which is widely believed. Yet I struggle with gearism.

Congratulations.
 
Trius said:
Yup. Absolutism is the opposite of freedom.
Click to expand...

Earl, are you absolutely sure about that?

(sorry can't resist ... 😀 )

Back to OP's statement, far be it for me to change anyone's mind, but I always see an RF camera as a one-body-one-lens deal.

If you try to use an RF as you would an SLR, you'd just be frustrated, exactly because of the viewfinder/frameline pairing.

Therefore, if you stick with one lens per session/trip/walk/etc. then you'd be freed from the options, which in turn will allow you to concentrate on what you have. Heck, now I start to use my SLR's this way also.

Best of luck to you Carl, Contax the SLR family is a fine choice indeed.
 
Chris101 said:
I think it's great that you understand your photography enough to center in on the best equipment for you Carl. This should make it easier to concentrate on getting the best out of the features of your camera rather than tying to be a jack of all trades. I have found that having too many choices, compromises the photography, rather than the opposite, which is widely believed. Yet I struggle with gearism.

Congratulations.
Click to expand...


You are right, if I only had one camera I would be so much more in turn with my development. The same goes and maybe even more for having too many meters. I'm so screwed up I shoot only one fim in a specific camera because I know it will be fine with a certain development.
 
I am a bit like you in that rangefinders no longer truly meet my needs either. I love the concept. I cannot bring myself to sell them. I keep coming back to this forum but for everyday shooting I reach for a digital SLR. While I keep thinking maybe I should buy a digital RF, truth is I find that I like shooting more and more with medium tele lenses and this is where SLRs excel. This does not totally cut out RFs however as I mainly stay in the 85-105-135 range (I mainly shoot primes, so its not that either) but it is natural territory for an SLR. And of course I love the flexibility and ease of digital - it just lets me experiment more. So for now rangefinders are the cameras I take out and stroke by the fireside but a digital SLR is what I usually reach for when serious about shooting.
 
No real need to commit to one system or the other IMO ... purely a matter of picking up what's appropriate at the time ... provided you actually make the decision to retain both options of course!

Ninety percent of my needs are catered for by an SLR ... mainly because framing accuracy is high on my list of priorities. For very low light situations where an SLR becomes difficult to focus and shutter speeds are likely to be slower than 1/30 sec a rangefinder is superior ... but this is it's only area of advantage IMO! As my eyes deteriorate due to age which is kind of inevitable ... I'll be considering a good auto focus SLR like the F6 ... my vision is already crap in poor light! 🙁

I'd have a Hexar AF like a shot if it wasn't for the very limiting top shutter speed of 1/250 sec!
 
chippy said:
its interesting , i actually find the SLR (some, not all) much easier to focus in low light and indoor situations (i.e OM vs M's), provided it has a fast lens and bright screen (and no dark filter on), such as those suppied by beatie or in good, semi modern SLR's, i rekon you might get some benefit from installing a bright screen for your blad and OM-1 if you find yourself in those situations often enough Keith, assuming you have left the old RF at home or dont care to use it.

actually, even with out a bright screen if the lens is fast-ish then the slr can still be easier, bit more of a toss up then i reckon.

hundred percent agree about framing accuracy (what you see is what you get with the slr), it is one of those PITA things with a RF, also annoying if i have to change lenses and look at tiny frame lines, or god forbid have a lens that doesnt fit a frameline. the RF is still a sweet camera to use at times though but i can see why the OP came to his decision
Click to expand...


Yeah ... I'm sort of thinking about a super screen for my OM-1 ... do Beatie do one? I certainly have the lens speed with my 50mm f1.2 but I think I am being let down a little by the standard screen!
 
What's the problem :angel:

2009-11-25_213950_65_0-small.JPG
 
You could get a parts OM-2S, which has the OM 2-13 screen (I think) and have that screen fitted to the OM-1. It requires a meter adjustment as well. Unless you feel you can do it yourself, you'd probably need to send it back to John yet again, further increasing your investment!

The 1-14 screen is scarce, thus expensive, andunfortunately there is no 2-14 screen.
 
Slightly different experience for me but I appreciate everyone is unique.

I started with SLRs (after compacts that is) and shot an EOS 5 for a few years and then an EOS 3. Neither did it for me the way my current setup does. My attraction to a rangefinder was very simple: smaller, lighter and interchangeable lenses plus I had this feeling I would prefer the focussing method of an RF.

I did and I was dead right. I do prefer the focussing of an RF to a manual focus SLR -- until I got an OM2n.

I sold the EOS 3, it wasn't getting used. So it was best for someone to make use of it.

The RF isn't for everything and SLRs do have an advantage certainly from a FL beyond 90mm in my humble opinion. The OM2n is a delight, I much prefer it over the EOS' I used. Smaller, lighter, well made, good glass, just love it.

I still use the M2 much more than the OM2n but the OM definitely gets used because its small size is more conducive to the way I work than the EOS 3 or 5 ever were.

Also Zuiko glass pound for pound is very good. I'm looking forward to getting a 100mm f/2.8 sometime next year.

But at the end of the day, you will know what works for you and if the RF isn't doing it for you, why deny that when your photography may thrive on another system that doesn't hold you up as you might find with your current tools?

Vicky
 
My ideal setup is this: Rangefinder for 24mm (hyperfocal, shot from the hip) and 35/50mm (highly magnified viewfinder for low-light portraiture). Then, I'd have an SLR, probably OM system, for 50, 100 and 200mm. This way, I get the best of both worlds. Plus, because I would only use the 24mm lens for quick snap-shot-type street photography, the viewfinder parallax and stuff wouldn't matter to me.

Any opinions from the more experienced users on the perfect hybrid setup?
 
Last edited:
Since I started this thread, I just want to say how grateful I am for all your comments, as well as the helpful spirit in which they were given. Despite Roger’s fears, I don’t feel either flogged or burned!

I am surprised at how many posters said they use RFs and SLRs simultaneously. As a hobbyist, I find I have my hands full mastering just one camera system. To constantly switch back and forth between two may have its advantages, but it’s really more than I can handle. I do use a Rolleiflex in addition to my 35mm cameras, and even that requires a big switching of gears every time I take it out. But then it gives me great results, so I persist.

I’m still somewhat puzzled that many people specifically said they like RFs for wide-angle lenses. As far as I know, no RF has framelines for anything wider than a 28, and even with those that can do 28, the lines are often hard to see properly. And auxiliary finders are no fun. I do like wide angles, and it’s one of the reasons I switched to an SLR. I must be missing something.

But in the end, these sorts of camera system choices, as most of you suggested, are driven by all sorts of tangible and not-so-tangible factors that can be hard to explain and are very personal. I assume that’s why you were so generous towards someone who has decided to leave the RF fold. Well, not completely. I still have that IIIf!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom