Has using a rangefinder camera changed your photography?

[JSU]

I see images with my vision. A rangefinder camera introduces less clutter between my vision and the subject.

 

[Takkun]

My first two years of photojournalism school I shot everything on a Bessa with the 35mm kit lens, and that's what made me fall in love with it.

Neither the RF nor the lens itself have made much of an impact, but rather the form factor has all the things that make me want to shoot more: small size/weight, bright VF with easy focusing, minimal controls, and that certain haptic connection one gets with certain tools.

Oh, and it's film. That's the best part, and why I reach for the Leica or Bessa over the Fuji most days.
I've been trying to travel lighter and pare down what I carry, so RFs fit the bill, along with trying to be as incognito as possible, though in these days of DSLRs everywhere I get picked out more than I remember in the past. I acually just found a few rolls from high school, when I had the audacity to shoot Weegee-style with an N90, Tmax 100, and flash photos of strangers downtown.

Probably the only advantage the direct viewfinder over reflex finders, for me, is that I like focusing on the image in front of me rather than the image projected on film. An odd quirk of my shooting style.

 

[Keith]

It made me appreciate the value of small and light ... so I got an OM-1! 🙂

 

[thegman]

Rangefinders got me using film, so for that, I'm very happy. Before that, I was on digital, but seeing the Voigtlander R3a so affordable made me think about film. In the end, I got a ZI, but RF cameras for whatever reason, appealed and got me using film in the first place.

Nowadays I don't actually own any RF cameras, not through any great decision making process, but I got a Rolleiflex instead of a GF670, stopped using 35mm so much, and it just sort of happened.

I must say, I now prefer SLR framing, so accurate with any lens you choose. However, I so much prefer a RF patch to an SLR split screen, so for tripod stuff, I'll take an SLR every time, but for night time snapshots, RF still is the king for me.

 

[Keith]

I think rangefinders have been the gateway for many of us who have subsequently moved on to other systems and this is where RFF has been a very 'smart' forum. When I first joined here in 2006 you sort of needed an RF to exist and SLR use and discussion wasn't encouraged but it was accepted none the less.

Now we are like the ultimate multi cultural society with many formats and brands incorporated into our images and discussions. Sadly it is very digital these days but that is to be expected I guess!

 

[seakayaker1]

I find using a rangefinder is a relaxing way to photograph a subject. It slows me down and has forced me to think more when setting up a shot.

 

[Dwig]

I can't say using an RF ever changed or altered my photography for the very simple reason that the first serious camera that I used when I began seriously taking pictures some 55 years ago was an RF (Sears Tower 51 aka Iloca Rapid B).

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I've had a few bites at this cherry. I had an M6 a while back and grew to hate the loading regime. Sold it. Missed the compactness and great Leica lenses - so I bought an M6TTL and enjoyed using it for a couple of years. I got on better with the film loading but eventually got a bit peeved with the fact that I found focusing slower than with an SLR and didn't like the bottom right corner of the viewfinder being obscured by the lens / lens hood. I sold my Leica kit earlier this year and haven't really missed it. I still have a Mamiya 7 (which produces stunning negs) so I'll live with that camera for the foreseeable future. That said, I'm more of an SLR fan these days.....

 

[daveleo]

I don't use a rangefinder, but a Fuji X100. That body style and the small size (without compromising results) has made me take more "people pictures". I feel much more comfortable, and so do people, pointing the little X100 at them that the Nikon DSLR.
The X100 goes with me into the city, the DSLR goes into the woods and my (basement) table-top studio.

 

[FrankS]

I think rangefinders have been the gateway for many of us who have subsequently moved on to other systems and this is where RFF has been a very 'smart' forum. When I first joined here in 2006 you sort of needed an RF to exist and SLR use and discussion wasn't encouraged but it was accepted none the less.

Now we are like the ultimate multi cultural society with many formats and brands incorporated into our images and discussions. Sadly it is very digital these days but that is to be expected I guess!

+ 1

 

[Ronny]

With Film and RF or SLR: Not so big difference at all.
Film or Digital: That is the big difference.

 

[FrankS]

With Film and RF or SLR: Not so big difference at all.
Film or Digital: That is the big difference.

I see it that way too. When I say "the dark side", I mean digital.

 

[Rodchenko]

Oddly, that's not the way it is for me. But perhaps that's because I chose my digital cameras to be like rangefinders. I first had a Minox, which was familiar enough from my Minox 35s (OK, scale focus). Then I got an Olympus E-400. Lovely camera. Sat there & did very little, so I sold it. I got a Lumix LX-3, which was better, but a bit wide. Then a Canon G11, and now my EPL1. I'll not go back to DSLRs unless the market forces me that way.

I shot my Canon the same way I shot my Kiev. And my EPL handles in a remarkably similar way to my RFs too. Even more when I get the 17mm lens, I suppose.

Meanwhile, my main 35mm SLR sits in the case doing not much. The Canon AF will be on sale this weekend, and, with a bit of luck, I'll be posting the SRT to a new owner on Monday.

I try to make the settings on my digital replicate my preferred 35mm shooting style as closely as possible. It's not the same, of course, but it's close.

 

[FrankS]

Just to explain, and I promise I won't drone on about this further in this thread, there is a much, much, much greater difference between a digital work flow and a film (including wet darkroom printing) workflow to produce a print, than whether the camera used is a RF or an SLR given the same medium. (Macro and telephoto photography excepted) You can disagree with this, but you will be wrong. 😉

 

[Ronny]

I agree. Think the same.

 

[raid]

Small RF lenses killed my acceptance of larger SLR lenses.

 

[Murchu]

Using a rangefinder had a very influential effect on my photography, but right now, I find it very difficult to summarise the many things it changed for me..

 

[hepcat]

I voted "hogwash." For those of us who were shooting in the 60s and early 70s, RF cameras were the norm. You learned the craft using an RF camera of some sort. SLRs were heavier, clunkier, more expensive and there just weren't as many around. My first camera was a Canon IIF with three lenses I bought for $150. Later as a Navy photographer my choices were a Leica M4 (KE-7a) kit or a Beseler Topton Super D kit that was three times the weight and size. Zooms were largely junk until the late '90s. I opted for the M4 kit and shot whatever needed to be done with it. I had to learn to use SLRs and zooms as they became a larger force in the marketplace. I never really cared for auto focus or auto exposure because they can't think or see like I do.

RF cameras never changed anything for me, they were the defacto standard to which I compared everything else, and now to which I have returned. And it feels like I came home. There are a few things that other styles and formats are better suited to accomplish, but as a generalist camera the integrated coincident rangefinder camera has the best combination of features, size, weight, and simplicity I look for.

 

[Livesteamer]

Got my first Leica in 1990 and was amazed that I could get accurate focus in low light. Now I use them for most of my photos. Joe

 

[x-ray]

In 1968 when I pulled my first Leica kit together there weren't many choices for a pro. We had Nikon RF, Leica M's, Nikon and Canon to a lesser degree. Most of us at that time had at least 1 Nikon with our RF kit.

As to revolutionizing my shooting I would say no more than my SLR's, MF gear or my view cameras. Simply put I have always used different tools for different jobs.

Under normal conditions I would say SLR's are the best choice if for no other reason than more precise framing. RF shooting on the other hand is often better under poor light. IMO its more about the glass than the box you hang it on.