Bye bye, rangefinders

sircarl said:
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!
Click to expand...

Plus royaliste que le roi!

(More royalist than the king!)

Cheers,

R.
 
Carl,

horses for courses, the truth is in the pudding, etc. etc. You are talking about your equipment and your photos, so sincerely good luck from me, nobody here should tell you what's right for you, me included.

The only thing that bothered me about your posts are stereotypes that you based your unnecessarily exclusive, but very human yes/no decision on:

sircarl said:
.... And the Zeiss, M-Hexanon, and Leica lenses I used gave me excellent results.

.... That’s why I ended up with the ZI, whose viewfinder is unequalled. Yet at the same time this was the feature I gradually grew unhappy with.

... when it dawned on me that they bore only a faint resemblance to what I saw in the viewfinder, because that viewfinder can’t reproduce the distortions that wider-angle lenses impart to the subject.

... 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.
Click to expand...

Because of the lenses that you used, you must be talking about wide angle perspective. Which is not a distortion, and at least for me entirely visible in the RF viewfinder. Parallax is another issue, but only matters, IMO, if you are stereotypically religious about not cropping.

The ZI viewfinder is not "un-equalled". There are Ms with 24mm frame-lines, the Bessa R4* with 21mm frame-lines, and M3 and Bessa R3* with more magnification, i.e. more usable with 50 and teles.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Roland,

Thanks for the clarification about RFs with framelines for wide-angle lenses. I didn't know that. As for the other quotes of mine that you cite, they're not "stereotypes," but simply my opinions, based on my experience with these cameras and lenses. I haven't yet read anything here that would cause me to change them.
 
I came to RF cameras looking for something smaller and quieter than my SLR's - I've come to love my M6 bodies but have to use them with an RF mindset. The vf is still an issue for me as I like to know exactly how I'm composing my pictures and so I went along the Oly OM4 route which also works very well for me...but I still have to use them with an SLR mindset.

I now find that I either shoot with my OM4 gear or RF gear but never mix and match as I get lost in options and lose focus on what I'm trying to achieve.

I think most photographers have been on the 'quest' to find a system that works best for them and some end up using different gear for different purposes, others manage to work with just one. Either way its not especially important, so long as you find something you're happy to use.
 
Trius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or you could buy a genuine OM 1-13 screen in like new condition from KEH for $21. In fact I bought a like new OM 1-14 (45/split) screen, for my OM2n, just a week ago for $39. They usually have a good selection of OM screens, I just have to keep checking their web page.

As for the OP's original topic, I find myself gravitating back to my SLR's, after a RF experimentation period.

To quote Chris91387, " i just never really got comfortable with it. i was slow with it and it felt awkward. probably put 100 rolls through it but it just never felt like "family" to me."

I have come to the same conclusion though I have not sold off my RF's. I will continue to play around with them when I'm shooting people/family but, when I'm trying to do something that I'm serious about (wildlife/nature photography) I will be using a SLR.
 
Last edited:
In images 15-17 and 19-20 here the clock in the background was fully visible in the VF (M8 original) but was clearly cut off in the resulting photo.

An SLR (or live view system) would have gotten it immediately. In this example, I don't think any RF (without TTL reflex add-on) - M8.2, ZI, Bessa R4, etc. would have shown exactly where the clock was in relation to the cat. One would have wasted a lot of film.
 
Last edited:
quiet rf type cameras work best 'for me' when taking unposed photos of people. most times they do not know if or when a photo is taken because there is no audible cue, no slr mirror slap, so they are less intimidated and act more naturally. i used my hexar af to this effect a few days ago with some camera shy relatives. they knew i was raising my camera to my face and pointing it at them, but there was no audible indication of the moment of exposure.
 
ampguy said:
Just this morning, with M-Hexanon 28 and M8 at ~.5 to .6m was shooting the cat on a ledge, trying to get a clock on the wall in the background. The VF clearly showed it, but the lens did not. It took about 10 shots to get the framing right, which would have been a big waste on film.
__________________

An SLR (or live view system) would have gotten it immediately. In this example, I don't think any RF (without TTL reflex add-on) - M8.2, ZI, Bessa R4, etc. would have shown exactly where the clock was in relation to the cat. One would have wasted a lot of film.
Click to expand...

Not a surprise Ted, Parallax error increases with 1/distance, and you were below the framelines spec, even for the original M8.

For focusing much closer than 1m, an SLR is clearly easier to use.

Roland.
 
Go with whatever works for you. I've found that focusing wide angles on manual SLRs are a pita for me. The RF is much nicer. Also, in low-light, I prefer the RF except when I'm trying to fill the frame for a portrait. I have the most difficult time focusing RFs on faces.
 
Thanks Roland

Thanks Roland

Yes, it was being very close up with the wide angle, but not really an issue with the M8 framelines. In some of those photos with the clock partially obscured by the cat, looking straight through the VF at that angle showed the clock top and bottom fully visible.

So I'm pretty sure a ZI-wide, or .58, or even external VF wouldn't have helped here, being this close, the lens is just too low from a VF perspective.

The 1m rule is good, and also for the HAF to avoid distortion. I think the M8's tight .7m framelines are just for edge accuracy, but not for correction of WA distortion - basically with an RF, lens is always below the VF by several cm.

ferider said:
Not a surprise Ted, Parallax error increases with 1/distance, and you were below the framelines spec, even for the original M8.

For focusing much closer than 1m, an SLR is clearly easier to use.

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
if anyone wants to see the difference between slr and rf viewing, place a 28mm ext. viewfinder on an slr with a 28mm lens on it and look between the two viewfinders.
 
Digital SLRS and company v. film cameras

Digital SLRS and company v. film cameras

I grew up using a 120/620 Kodak box camera that my Mum lent to me.

When I was older I bought a Paxette 35mm camera. It was that or an Ilford Sportsman. It was with the Paxette that I began to unravel the mysteries of light values, depth of field, film speeds, focal lengths of lenses and so on.

I moved onto twin lens reflex cameras using a Rolleiflex to earn a few bob, then when we moved from Lancashire to Canada I had a series of SLRs, mainly Nikons.

This was all so much fun, I took a camera everywhere.

I did much of my own processing in those days too and built more than one enlarger from scratch.

My point is that so much was learned, and so much time was invested into something I loved to do. Why stop now?

I still own a Nikon FM, a Pentax Spotmatic and a Mamiya C330 TLR, as well as one or two Leicas (my favourites).

The digital world on the other hand, is to me far more complex, although I have 'mastered' a few of the basics.

I have decent 'digi' cameras (Nikon DSLRs and a Canon G10 'pocket' camera). Don't get me wrong, I love these cameras, but for totally different reasons than the older film cameras.

With the film cameras I generally feel like (to me) I'm a real photographer (although my talents are still somewhat limited, I suppose). I take my time, thinking about the different aspects of making a good photograph, and I have to try and 'get it right' on the first or second attempt .

With the digi cameras however I am usually making a record of events, such as family holidays or taking photos of animals I am putting up for sale (I raise snakes as a hobby). Everything is so easy. Sloppy habits prevail. I can take many shots just to cover my a**. :p

Bottom line, there is an argument in having both a RF (or similar) film camera and a digital SLR or whatever. Like enjoying a bicycle ride or driving across the province in a modern saloon, they both have their place and can both be very enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
OurManInTangier said:
.......I now find that I either shoot with my OM4 gear or RF gear but never mix and match as I get lost in options and lose focus on what I'm trying to achieve.......
Click to expand...

Carl, OMIT pointed out one of my biggest frustrations with shooting both simultaneously, with the exception of SLs and Rs, no SLR worked in the same way. While I loved the SL and SL2, they were way too big and the cost for Leica glass was much more than I wanted. Options were not wide enough and then there is the size. So I switched.

I moved to Nikon RFs and have found that while the fact that the cameras and lenses all handle the same I am fat dumb and happy. While not as small as an OM, I do not have to thing about the tools, just making images. The only lens that I want for my S3-2000 that I can not get is a CV 15/4.5. They have them in F so it's possible and perhaps more logical as you really do not focus her.

With respect to external finders I really think they are made to be used on a body like a Leica Ic (or Ia or If) or a Bessa L. I found the L with it's external meter indicators worked really well for the 15 or my old 25/4.

There's lots of us out here who love many types of cameras. For film it's hard to beat an old Leica screw mount for a solid pocket camera.

B2 (;->
 
Trius said:
No. I said the 2-13 screen, which is brighter than the 1-13. At least a stop, IIRC. The 2 series screens were introduced with the OM-4 and were also used with the OM-3.

Don't point an OM with a 2 series screen and a 50/1.2 mounted at the sun! ... :D

OM screens: http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/findergroup/focusingscreens.htm
Click to expand...


Trius, thanks for correcting my mis-read & I especially appreciate the link. Just started using OM's so I'm still on the learning curve. :D
 
Mike,

You are welcome and glad the link is useful. That site is a virtual OM encyclopedia. I've been shooting OMs since about '75; it's a sweet system.
 
Carl,

I've a somewhat similar experience. I've been shooting SLRs for about 25 years before I got my first RF (a Konica Hexar RF). What drew me most to RFs is being able to view outside the frame and having no black-out during exposure. Two things I really missed on an SLR. But despite that, if I'm totally honest, I take far better pictures with an SLR.

Somehow, that 25 years shooting SLRs seems to have made me able to pick up an SLR and shoot instinctively, while it sometimes feels I have to work so hard to get equal results with an RF. Doesn't mean I've done away with the RF, it's still used when I need something compact or unobtrusive.. But most of what I shoot is with an SLR.
 
I love the idea of rangefinders, and I love them as fine mechanical objects, mainly the old, high quality ones (Contax, Nikon, Leica...). I also love that nearly silent "snip" sound of the shutter. But, for shooting, I find SLRs much more instinctive, because I've much more experience with them.

I also much prefer the view through the SLR lens, like a bright screen in a dark theater. I just don't want to see anything outside of the picture frame. For that reason, the view through a meterless F or F2 is the best for me. No needles or arrows or framelines, no bleeping LCDs, no flashing LED traffic lights, no AF brackets, no scrolling email windows, no stock market tickers, no nothin' :)....
 
"I love the idea of rangefinders, and I love them as fine mechanical objects, mainly the old, high quality ones (Contax, Nikon, Leica...). I also love that nearly silent "snip" sound of the shutter. But, for shooting, I find SLRs much more instinctive, because I've much more experience with them."

There is a reason the SLR "won" and the RF "lost" in the marketplace. As soon as SLR's came on the market, photographers dropped RF's like hot potatoes. And it seems from this thread that a lot of folks who enjoy idea of the rangefinder and own them, still most often reach for an SLR. Interesting.
 
I think our OP, sircarl, needs congratulations. He has made a rationale choice based on what works best for him. This is quite unlike the many tossers in here who turn black and blue arguing for this or that M body; or this or that lens; or whatever.

I, too, use OM SLRs myself. I've got a Zuiko lens whose optical capability will easily match that of any multi-thousand dollar Leica prime. And I'd be happy to ram the results down any Leica lover's throat.

But I also happen to have an M2. I use that because for very specific circumstances, it is what works best for me.

The key thing here is: pick the tool that best does the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom