Bye bye, rangefinders

With me the image in the SLR viewfinder was always very seductive and much better than the image I ended up with on film, whereas it was the opposite with a rangefinder. The image in the rangefinder viewfinder always seems to have a stark honesty to it.

The problem is that an M3 and a rigid Summicron isn't at all a lightweight setup -- it's as heavy as a Rollei twin lens -- and I do have trouble with the focus patch at night. But the glass is great and varied (my original SLR had a rangefindery Tessar on it, so I was half spoiled by that) and the sound of M3 shutter is so polite and self-effacing -- Ultimately I think it's that reassuring sound that keeps me with the M3.

Jim
 
RFluhver said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's nice to see some 'common sense' here occasionally......but I'm not too sure about the 'throat ramming' bit! 😱
Dave.
 
I find myself increasingly taking shots that need accurate framing, so perhaps that a portent of things to come for me. The other virtues of an RF -- Bill listed them earlier -- still work for me. The film thing is secondary.

I dislike carrying things, so any SLR that's larger than an RF doesn't appeal to me. The 4/3 cameras are appealing, but I'm going to try to stay in wait-and-see mode for the tine being. I'd like to be able to move to 4/3 for color and keep an RF and a few lenses for homebrew b&w.
 
I had a very similar experience. SLRs from the beginning, and then a Contax G2 kit late. From there, i went into an M7, then back to the G2, then back to the M7, and then later to the Zeiss Ikon. Great viewfinder on the ZI. But, i never really liked using a mf rangefinder. I kept trying for a few reasons:
1.) So much fantastic glass available. From vintage to modern. I like to think i 'appreciate' the subtle variances in lenses, so i was always wanting to try something different.
2.) The cameras themselves are beautiful. I like cameras. I've tried a lot of different 35mm and medium format cameras, and rangefinders were just a part of that experience.

But, in the end, i'm back to the G2. Not because i love using it. The viewfinder is awful. But, i got rid of the Ikon and still wanted a small-ish camera, but with AF. It won't be my 'primary' camera, though. I may not even keep it for long. Instead, i have a Nikon FE2, and F6, plus my usual Canon 5D2 and EOS3. I agree, the Contax Aria was a very nice camera. Loved the RX, as well. Those huge viewfinders are just so much better for me to compose/visualize with.

With a rangefinder, i see what's in front of me. I also see what i have already decided i don't like/want to include. That always bothered me. The process of capturing a picture with an RF includes constantly viewing that which you don't want to include. With an SLR, the eventual photograph looks more like what i'm seeing in the viewfinder. I get more of a sense that i'm actually creating something. I tend to shoot with shallower rather than longer DOF, and seeing the image come in and out of focus makes me feel much more involved.
 
It's not a bad idea to start backwards. Find photos you like, figure out what lens they were taken with and buy a box to hold that lens. If you like that Zeiss look (and who doesn't) then the Contax seems like a good box to put those lenses on.

Personally, SLRs don't do it for me. Once I got an M4-P, I have no desire to use an SLR. The Pentax MX I was using before hasn't seen the light of day in awhile.

I recently grabbed my dad's old Olympus OM-2 due to this forum and the need for a 50 which I don't have for my Leica. I shot with it on a trip and I like the results but using it after using my Leica made me see how much I love my Leica. The results are good but if I had a 50 1.4 for the Leica I woudn't touch the Olympus again. Fine camera but everything feels sorta cheap after using the Leica, even the well build OM 2.

Good luck the OP. Cameras are pretty personal tools, if you can find one that gives you joy to use and produces good photos, consider yourself lucky and maybe stop reading this forum.
 
chippy said:
on RFF the 'common sense' is that RF and Leica are the best 😉

as for 'throat ramming' well, it sounded good, a bit like walking into an Aussie pub and turning your glass upside down on the bar, or walking into Port Adelaide Football club with another teams colours on...lookout 😎😛..great fun to see though 😛
Click to expand...

Not that I would think to do the bit of turning the glass upside down in a bar in Australia, but would you mind explaining to this Yank exactly what that would mean if I did so?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
.....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......
Click to expand...

Several reason, perhaps one of the best was because of capitalism. Companies get money from selling new product. Marketing companies get paid to show how important the new product is to the target audience. People like the idea of seeing what their camera sees, no parallax issues to worry about and it works much better with long lenses. If Leica and Nikon had come out with a mount for SLR lenses that allowed full aperture focus and a faster firing and return mirror it might have given the dedicated systems a run for their money. Nikon had the F, the flagship of the SLRs and saw no reason to, Leica they were a bit late to the party but with a fine solution and saw no reason to make competition to their own product.

For above 50 and close-up, SLRs rocked the world. 50 and below, RFs are the way to go. While the RF world shrunk in the early 60's some folks stayed with it (many folks who hang out here) and still are. No one wanted to try and rebuild the RF market from the bottom up till Pres. K started in the late 1990's. Camera companies just followed the marketing of more features must be better and selling. Their goal in life is to make you want to buy new and now.

B2 (;->
 
I started out on Nikon in 1972. Over the years, I have always keep Nikon in my bag. Presently have 4 bodies and scads of lenses. I have owned RF's off and on until 2006 when I went into it big time ultimately ending up with an M7. Of course a fine fine rig but I could never get comfortable with $2000 in my hand. Always paranoid. Sold it and now use my Nikon FM3A as my primary body. Not saying never but right now I am a film SLR Slap B-tch.
 
Rangefinders became obsolete when the SLRs came out. There are a lot of people trying to half-justify using a rangefinder by suggesting a few advantages which rangefinders have over SLRs, mainly a brighter viewfinder in low light, quieter operation, and smaller size. But these advantages are still outweighed by those which SLR cameras offer.

Personally, I love rangefinder cameras. I carry one in my pocket anywhere I go. But the love for the old cameras is much like the love many people have for classic cars.

When I was in high school, I had an old beater 1966 Pontiac GTO. This car came with a 389 V8 engine, a 3 speed manual trans (floor shift), 4 wheel drum brakes, and pretty much nothing else. Manual windows and locks, manually operated seat adustments, AM radio with one speaker, no air conditioning, cruise control, or other amenities. But it was a GTO; fast and fun to drive, and still a head-turner of a car.

Fast forward 21 years to when I bought another GTO. This one was a shiny, brand new 2006 model. A fuel injected 6 liter V8 with 400 horsepower, a 6 speed manual transmission, 18" wheels, 4 wheel disc brakes and independent suspension, power leather seats, air conditioning, cruise-control, and an awesome Blaupunkt stereo.

Both were cars, and they were even the same make and model car, but one had 40 years of technical advances built into it. Both cars were fun to drive, and if I had both of them at the same time, I would probably spend an equal amount of time driving each one. But there is no mistaking which one is the better car.
 
I am for what ever makes it easier for anyone to keep shooting. I see this more like the difference between "drawing" or "painting"..both create a high quality final images...but the road and skills are very far apart. My need is for finding new lenses that motivate me to try and create new images that are defined by the strengths of a medium... the lens being that "brush"
 
Frontman said:
Rangefinders became obsolete when the SLRs came out........
Click to expand...

With all due respect........So when did the 4x5 view camera become obsolete?

I grew up as a poor white boy driving my parents Plymouth Suburban station wagon with the wonderful 318 and a 3 speed automatic. I think I got better mileage than you did Fred!

B2 (;->
 
Frontman said:
Rangefinders became obsolete when the SLRs came out.
Click to expand...


I don't think so. An SLR provides another way of getting light through a lens onto film or a sensor. That means it is an alternative, not a successor.

What does become obsolete is the electronics used to control a camera's behavior. The obsolescence is on the production side of the equation, not on the consumer side. A 1990 circuit board may well work for 50 more years, but manufacturers will have replaced it with something cheaper and simpler within a few years.

As I've said elsewhere, my attraction to rangefinders is the size and weight. SLR's of similar size and weight are fine with me. But, I wouldn't want to carry a new full-frame DSLR or even an old F3HP.

And, as someone who is dressed in jeans and a pullover most times, there's no way I can fit any camera into a pocket, much less an RF. Does everyone else wear a parka or a sport jacket all the time?
 
I wouldn't give a Zeiss Ikon if I had one. 😉

Honestly, perhaps a little pause, yes, but don't give it up!

I love rangefinders, but I could not restrict myself to them, sorry. I want SLRs as well.
But sometimes a rangefinder is exactly what I need to find back to creativity. Really.

This is the ranking that indicates the frequency of usage:
1. DSLRs
2. NEX
3. Film rangefinders
4. Digital compact cams
5. Film SLRs
6. Film compact cams
7. Medium format folders
8. Medium format TLR (mainly 'cause it's broken 🙁)

You see, I'm rather a digital guy but I wouldn't want to live without my film cams.
 
Bike Tourist said:
I second that thought! That's why I'm still here, despite my inability to indulge in rangefinders in my retirement years.

Mostly all excellent photographers and thinkers at RFF!
Click to expand...

yes.. i have been a member in my local forums, but none are as great as this forum.. mostly they (my local forums) are filled with bunch of people who care so much about technical aspect of photography they neglect the fact that this is an art.. 😡 when i look for intelligent discussions, i go here..

heck, someone asked where he can get a nikon scanner, i told him nikon centre, he told me that i am silly and wasting his time..

back to topic, i would say bye bye to DSLR, i rather use SLR now and do my digital stuff with PnS or something like M43 system.. but RF is still my choice..

but i still want that K-5, though..
 
I have 3 systems that I use depending on the circumstances. 35 RF's are my favorite but sometimes they do not get it done......For example my son plays college ice hockey and the ONLY reasonable choice is my D90 (really goofy lighting, lightning fast pace, need lots of exposures and on and on). Use what works and enjoy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom