Do You Still Shoot RF Cameras On A Regular Basis?

[YouAreHere]

My eyes get tired of late staring through any small format* viewfinder trying to manually focus. So I've resorted to autofocus systems, e.g. Leica T, and no focus systems, e.g. barnacks, specifically the C and the E. Both allow continued usage of LTM and M mount glass and are light in the hand.

*Medium format is still okay.

 

[Oscuro]

Range - what?

Range - what?

Only if you count an X100 as rangefinder - and I don't.

Why? Well, with rangefinder cameras, you have to crop, often, especially if the framing is critical to the image and you missed by a little, due to the nature of a non-TTL finder.

That means you have to re-frame the image in the darkroom.

So the presence or absence of an easel or even the enlarger is a catalyst in the path to the final image.

When I when abandoned black and white for colour it was to shoot transparency film. No re-framing the shot in the darkroom on the easel. Just dye-transfer or C-prints. That meant that if you want real control over your framing, direct control, you need a TTL finder solution.

When I went digital cropping became a reality again, but this time in post via software - Photoshop et al. But by that time I had completely shifted to reflex cameras because as I mentioned with slides you gotta nail the framing.

The X100 isn't a reflex camera but if you use the EVF or LCD it shows exactly what's going to hit the file. So framing can be precise.

The X100 meets some of the other desirable attributes of RF cameras. Size, weight, lack of noise.

For a more prosaic explanation see this post: http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2482818&postcount=113

 

[Rayt]

I shoot film with M cameras but for wides > 24mm I feel more comfortable with an SLR. I want to be able to see through the lens with wides. Now with film gear ridiculously cheap I have picked up a large collection of SLRs to experiment. I am really liking the Contax N with 24-85 zoom.

 

[Peter_S]

Using the Bessa III as my main camera for photo projects. Picked it up yesterday again after a longer time not using it, feels so light compared to the Mamiya 645AF with digi back!
I have parted with all 35mm and digital RF gear, however, except for a beater (back-up) Contax T I picked up cheaply.

 

[mcfingon]

Yes, in the last three years nearly all my film shooting has been on rangefinder cameras. I have used my M3 Leica the most, followed by the IIIf. I now have an M2 and a IIIC to use alongside those two, and another Barnack Leica on the way here from Japan. I enjoy the technical challenge of both processing and scanning the film and the tactile pleasure of using manual-control cameras.

 

[burancap]

No. I have only one left and I never use it.

 

[gb hill]

I enjoyed reading each of the comments & was refreshed that there is still a commitment to the Leica M8.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, I use from time to time a black Nikon S2 and the Leicas II, III, IIIc, IIIg, M2, M3, M5 and MP. Also the Leica I, but that isn't a rangefinder, strictly speaking.

Erik.

 

[mfunnell]

Yes. The cameras I use regularly are an M240, an M3, Canon 7D2 &5Dc and a Fuji XP-1 (oh, and a little Canon P&S for photographing documents). The other camera I've been playing with of late is a Super Ikonta in 645 format. At least 3 of those count as RFs by even the strictest standards.

...Mike

 

[Monochrom]

I do shoot my RF´s on regular basis.

Nowadays i´m getting familiar with the fuji gf670.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Yes!

I shoot with my RFs regularly, this includes my M bodies, my R3a which i brought to work today, my contax T and the Olympus XA. I am gravitating towards lighter and smaller bodies, including P&S and fixed RFs. While the RF may look small compared to the DSLR, it is starting to look conspicuous next to the mobile phone.

here is a pix from a p&s from this past weekend.

 

[Nathan King]

An M6 has been my constant companion for over one year, and I have a binder full of negatives and contact prints to show for it. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

 

[noisycheese]

Do You Still Shoot RF Cameras On A Regular Basis?

Yes - rangefinders are the only cameras I own now. I don't really miss my Nikon SLRs, nor do I have a need for SLR cameras these days.

 

[Lss]

in August 2015 do you still shoot with a rangefinder camera on a regular bases or have you moved onward?

Yes, I use the Leica M8 all the time. I sometimes also use my Bessa, but I have considerable backlog.

 

[jsrockit]

No, not at all at this point. DSLR mostly now.

 

[jemuelb]

I just moved on from a big Canon DSLR kit to both the X100T and the Leica M8. The last time I was shooting a RF camera was a few years ago with my Leica M4 which I liked a lot but grew tired of developing film so eventually sold it.

 

[rbsinto]

Yes I do.
I seem to go in cycles shooting either with my manual focus Nikon film SLR cameras and lenses, or my rangefinder kit consisting of Nikon S3/SP and CV R2S Bessa bodies and Nikon and CV lenses, as well as Vivitar 17mm and 19mm SLR lens using my Amedeo F-S adapter.
Currently I'm using the rangefinder stuff, and the reason is simply, just because.

 

[micromontenegro]

I use almost exlusively my M8. Sometimes I take out a Rollei 35.

BTW, according to this thread the M8 would appear to be the most used rangefinder. Makes you wonder...

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

No.
My ten year dabble with RFs included 2 M7s, a zeiss ikon, mamiya 6, Bronica RF645, and some AF 'rangefinders' — Fuji GA645i and Zi, and a few Contax G2s. I still have a GA645, but I'm done with manual focus rangefinders. I've said this for a couple of years, but recently got the jones again — for a meter less classic M. They're just so beautiful, and my memory is just so poor... that I didn't recall well enough my negative experiences. Until I visited a friend and met his M3. Still a gorgeous piece of work, but I was quickly reminded how much I hate composing and focusing that way. Racking the focus the full range, just to find something in the little patch.... Yes, I remembered that I should have preset the focus by approximating distance even before bringing the viewfinder to my eye. But that just seems so unnecessary. And it's still a huge compromise to only be able to focus in the center. Less of a big deal if you shoot wides with hyperfocal and all that, but I shoot people win a 50 at 2.8 or wider.

I also don't like seeing stuff in th viewfinder that I've already decided I don't want in the final image. That's a major issue for me. When you work with a rangefinder, you never actually see the picture you're getting. You see past that, and I never understood how that could make people feel good about what they were doing. It's not like that with any other camera type. Makes it unique, but not beneficial to me.

Great lenses, but as I don't use a tripod or the finest grained film, I don't care about the additional 2% that the additional $2000 buys. I spent a metric ****-ton of money on Leica glass, and the sad fact is that I have almost nothing of value image-wise to show for it. After trying a bunch of spendy m-mount 50mms, I found I'm happier with my super cheap Nikon 50/1.8 series e and Pentax-A 50/1.4. Thousands of dollars on Leica versus $130 on those two SLR lenses..... Oh, well.

I now have a Pentax ME super, Nikon FE2, F100, F3, canon eos3, Fuji GA645, Contax T2, mamiya rz67, and a Minolta himatic af2 that I keep in the car. The Minolta has rangefinder framelines but it's autofocus and it's really only for 'emergencies.'

 

[Vics]

I'm now shooting Nikon F, Nikkor-H 2/50, Tri-X.