Do rangefinders change your photography?

[eric.schmiedl]

My first rangefinder was an Argus C-3. The guys at the yearbook said I could have it for a Halloween costume because "there's no way that thing works, and no way we'll ever fix it." Of course, it worked great! (barring a light leak or three and a rangefinder plenty out of alignment...) And I loved shooting with it. Then I moved onto a friend's Yashica Electro GSN (or GSX?), got myself an Oly XA... they're just a nice way to shoot. But I can't really say they change my photography. (though the Oly has changed the subject matter a bit, because having a camera in my pocket means I can grab shots I'd normally have to go get a camera for)

I'm curious -- do you find you shoot in a different way with a rangefinder than you do with an SLR? I'm not talking about carrying a RF for wides and an SLR for teles. Does using a rangefinder affect your sense of composition, your perception of the world? Do you find yourself with a different balance between street and staged (studio/otherwise setup/lit/etc) shots as a result of starting to use a rangefinder -- or as a result of bringing an SLR into an otherwise RF-dominated gear bag?

 

[nikola]

For one thing, I'm lot less looking through the viewfinder, and I started to use both eyes while shooting... I'm feeling much more comfortable and faster, but I'm not sure whether this is due time or RF... maybe both 🙂

 

[matt fury]

I shoot "better" and enjoy it more with a RF. And it's definitely a lot easier to compose with since you can see outside the framelines.

 

[John Bragg]

When I got my M6, my way of seeing pictures changed overnight. The greatest difference being that I found the over 100% viewing made composition more precise, and ever since then I seldom crop, preferring to print full frame where ever possible.
The other big difference is that I no longer carry a flash unit due to the better hand holdability at slow speeds.

 

[rogue_designer]

I shoot much more quickly with an RF, paying more attention to the specific events and content of an image, rather than fussing over a precise composition.

 

[alexz]

Changed totally. The change from Canon pro SLR monsters made my way into photography considerably more joyable, I'm able to do take my M6 with me to all my outings, be it work, study, just a strool with my girls or an official family or fried's events. Just hung it acros my chest and shoot instantly, nothing in photography can be easier for me...🙂. Also, introduced me to a low-light hand-held photography without the fear of 90% unusable stuff, to the fact that higherst quality optics can be made tiny in size and weight and more then viable to hike with to any location, in almost any weather. Introduced me to a pleasure of mechanical precision, a simplicity, freed my mind from techno-worries about the super-intellectual superioority of the camera over photographer's mind.

Besides, it totally changed my shooting styles - with SLR I did not even considered street-type shooting, did not see any interest in jenre, photographying people in their nature environment, etc...Now, with M6 I thoroughly enjoy just walking teh streets and shooting around, the instant moments of interest in regular street life, made shooting my family at home a breeze even in low-light (with SLRs just a thought of the necessity of draging out my Canon pro SLR setup otu of the bag to shoot a fiew pictures of my girls playing around made me sick....

Also, it introduced to me the wonderful world of a real B&W photography with the joy of manual processing at home onvenience - something that somehow did not inspire me with SLRs....

 

[JNewell]

Timing of shutter release - view around the outside of the picture - less intrusive mechanical presence for photog and subject - short answer, yes, very. Some things just don't work as well though - sports photography, any kind of telephotography (for me, anything greater than 90mm) - so, RFs are invaluable in some areas, not great in others. That's why I own RFs and SLRs.

 

[lubitel]

seing the frame and around it is the biggest difference to me. In many situations (not all) I am also faster shooting with rf than slr. But I can't say it drastically changed me or the way I see. I think learning about photography and shooting lots of film has had a lot more impact on how I "see" than the cameras.

 

[nomade]

I never owned an SLR but took one for a week as a trial, it was tiresome, i had to do zillions of stuff before taking a photo, even when my rangefinders weren't function, things were done much easier, also SLRs are pretty heavy.

There's nothing like a range finder, my Ricoh is the only one with clear VF and exact RF and it is brilliant, I pay more attention to the way i make the photo, rather then thinking about wether it's exposed and focused correctly or not.
The built in light meter in the ricoh is too slow, basically not functioning, but i didn't get it for the meter anyway.

 

[goo0h]

Not that I'm all that especially good or anything, but I immediately felt more relaxed and comfortable with RF. Not sure why. Just seemed less like a "hassle" than with a SLR. I guess since I've got big hands manipulating a SLR never felt comfortable, but it's not just that. Somehow RF just seems more breezy.....

 

[sienarot]

Did it change my photography? No.

Do I shoot differently with an RF? Definitely.

While there are still a lot of things I would only shoot using an SLR (or atleast prefer the use of an SLR), I find some times of photography are convenient/optimized using an RF. I certainly feel a lot more relaxed when using my smaller, quieter, less obtrusive and threatening Bessa or Leica when doing candids and street than I would with, say my DSLR or Hassy.

 

[peter_n]

Changed my thinking, yes. I think the framelines are responsible for that. I wouldn't say my pictures are any different from my SLR days but my back is certainly enjoying it more. 🙂

 

[markinlondon]

For me it was more a case of being a rangefinder user all along without realising it. Apart from a brief infatuation with 24mm, once it occured to me that my best stuff was all shot with 35 or 50mm lenses and that I never used my 75-150mm zoom beyond about 90 I sold some of my Pentax gear and bought a Bessa R plus 35 and 90 lenses. Suddenly my outfit was smaller, lighter and somehow "friendlier". Now I'll either use this combo (but with a Leica M2, 35 cron and 90 TE) or, even better, just an M2 and a 50.

 

[JNewell]

For me, there is also a huge difference between RF "looking through" and reflex "looking at." In general, for static subjects, and for significant tele or closeup work, a ground glass (or equivalent) works better. For what they're good at (for me), though, there is nothing like the RF.

 

[Superbus_]

Before rangefinders I used ps cameras and digital. After using my first rf not so long ago, a zorki 4, my wiev of photography has changed and photography became my hobby or even more. After rfs, I bought slrs and i also enjoy using these cameras as well.

 

[shadowfox]

Different? maybe, I've yet to determine if I'm taking advantage of the framelines for composition, most of the time, I worry about cutting off limbs or head because they are outside of the frameline.

Recently I start shooting with the Kiev which adhere's to the Contax -school of focussing. I like it!

Also, I'm spoiled by the viewfinder on my OM-1, maybe only an M3 can cure that 🙄

 

[Fer]

Mmm... I take pics more often since I bought my M4 -more comfort, less weight, more silent-.
Also there are two differences for me : shooting in low light and keep unnoticed.

But sometimes I miss my good old EOS 1n (not my back)

 

[BillBingham2]

For me, it's a bit different. Shoot with an RF is both limiting and liberating. Limiting as I was handy to have one system that would take long lenses as well as wide and do reasonably well with both. Liberating from the perspective of not carrying so much and believe it or not, I'm not as much of a gear head! I also have come to trust DOF a lot more allowing me to focus the on the right moment rather than finding the right spot.

I hear the laughter being less of a gear head, but you have to keep in mind I'm the sort of guy who has a ND-400 filter and actually used it a few years back. Once over thirty years or so, not bad for some of my SLR stuff.

B2 (;->

 

[pachuco]

It certainly did for me. I had to learn a new way of getting back to how I like certain types of pictures to look. With an SLR found I actually use auto focus as a crutch and not having that with a rangefinder I was missing certain elements in my images. I eventually learned that some images just require an SLR camera.

BUT!! On the plus side, I find that with a rangefinder I shoot in a much more impressionist style. I push the shutter button at the moment the people/background look to be composed in a certain way. This is something I never even thought of when I used SLR’s. I really like this, even if people look at my images and say…. Um, I don’t get it. Eventually they do get it when they realize I was not going for a news style picture 🙂

 

[gns]

Jnewell wrote, "For me, there is also a huge difference between RF "looking through" and reflex "looking at."

I agree with that. With a good rangefinder you see the subject more directly. Big, bright, and all in focus. With a SLR or TLR you see an image projected on a ground glass and at the widest aperture. It's as if you are already looking at a picture rather than directly at the subject. I just want to see the subject as clearly as I can. And yes, I believe this has an effect on the pictures.

There are other differences for sure, but this is the key reason I prefer ranfinders.
If you have other reasons for liking them or for liking other gear, that's fine with me. If it leads to good pictures, you can't argue with it.

Cheers,
Gary