Has using a rangefinder camera changed your photography?

[Dirk]

I like shooting RF, but I don't feel the mystique thing. I don't think my results are any better or worse than when I use my SLR's. I'm more used to shooting with SLR's, so that may make a difference.

 

[f/14]

254.43 % ?
When adding up the percentages in the poll overview at the start of this thread the result is 254.43 % at this moment. (This will change with each vote I guess.)
Am I missing something ?

 

[Wardor]

I have found that shooting RF was a welcome break from shooting modern DSLR for work. I enjoy taking my time to make the shot appear how I picture it beforehand, instead of shooting many images and reviewing after the fact.

There are also small things I appreciate about RF style shooting, particularly the lack of viewfinder blackout, and the space outside of the framelines aiding in composition. I feel more 'present' in whatever situation I find myself in whilst shooting RF than I ever do lugging around my DSLR gear.

 

[Rodchenko]

254.43 % ?
When adding up the percentages in the poll overview at the start of this thread the result is 254.43 % at this moment. (This will change with each vote I guess.)
Am I missing something ?

We've voted an average of 2.54 times each. I think I clicked on three, myself.

 

[MatthewThompson]

Small RF lenses killed my acceptance of larger SLR lenses.

This.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[Nokton48]

To me it's hogwash. A camera is a camera is a camera, as long as it is reliable. I can and do zone-focus SLR's, and so on and on.

I can make most any tool work in most situations. And I agree that glass is much more important than the box.

 

[daveleo]

To me it's hogwash. A camera is a camera is a camera, as long as it is reliable. I can and do zone-focus SLR's, and so on and on.

I can make most any tool work in most situations. And I agree that glass is much more important than the box.

I understand your point, but . . . pretty much all of us can "get most any tool to work". The question really is "Do you physically react to a camera's design and handling characteristics? Does the camera design effect how you make certain pictures? If it does, then do you pick the camera for the job at hand or do you grab any one and make it work?"

That sounds maybe too pompous and tutorial, but I am talking to myself about this as much as talking to everyone out there. Just to clear it up for myself.

I personally am very reactive to different camera designs.

 

[Tijmendal]

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

Haha, that's basically what I did. My mum commented the other day how heavy the OM-1 is. I don't know what she's talking about...

 

[defconfunk]

Haha, that's basically what I did. My mum commented the other day how heavy the OM-1 is. I don't know what she's talking about...

I actually sold my RF because of this. While I loved my Yashica RF, it was the same size as my Canon AE-1. And if I only had an AE-1, I'd probably have kept the Yashica. But then I got an OM40, which is smaller, lighter, and easier to focus (my Yashica really needed a high contrast subject for the patch).

And so, now I'm a poseur, sitting here on RFF because it is a fantastic film forum, but without a RF in my bag.

 

[Nokton48]

The question really is "Do you physically react to a camera's design and handling characteristics? Does the camera design effect how you make certain pictures? If it does, then do you pick the camera for the job at hand or do you grab any one and make it work?"

I would say it depends on the circumstances and what I am trying to achieve. Sometimes Yes, and other times, No. Sometimes I will take out a specific tool to see what comes of it (or because I feel I need to give it more use).

 

[jenquest]

My shooting has definitely slowed right down. However, I'm not sure if that's because I'm shooting film or because I'm shooting an RF.

 

[Contarama]

Well the RF is good for about two stops more than my slr maybe more indoors with no flash. Changed? Not really. The RF is my preferred camera even though I use a dslr all of the time. If I could only afford a M9 and a few lenses I would be happy for sure and likely abandon my dslr.

 

[shadowfox]

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!

+2

It's largely digital but also quite a bit of interest in film stuff. I'm less discouraged than before.

 

[Red Robin]

I started out with a Minolta XGM. With no shooting buddy, my learning curve was based on luck, (trial&error) and later the internet. It's a slow but sure way to learn but one that fits my pocketbook. One lesson read and not learned was one by Mike Johnston "save money by saving for a Leica, the best you can afford". "Then use it and one lens for a year." I wasted lots of cash and time buying and trying different systems. Most of my SLR gear should be sold, not any digital to speak of and lots and lots of RF & assorted manual focus fixed lens oldies. But the LTM/M-39 now that's what I use!

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Yes, way back in 1968... My dad said: With that lousy technique of yours, better LOOK like a professional. So he bought me an used black leica M2 and a summicron 35mm lens. That I had so long that I divorced my first wife. As a farewell, I gave her the leica M2 and bought me another, an original MP #302... When that camera started to reach astronomical figures in auctions, I let it go and bought me a sportscar and a M4-P with rapidwinder...
The sportscar I crashed spectacularly ( a flip over in 100 miles plus per hour) but the M4-P I still have. Did it change my photography ? yes, I became a professional and was eventually awarded a "Artist`s pension" by the state of Finland, when retired from professional photography... Not bad, I thank you daddy !

 

[MIkhail]

It did not.

 

[Cyriljay]

Yes it helped me to improve my photography. As I was never satisfied with all the reflex I used and when I changed in to M6 and it completely change my way and the approach to my creativity.

I never go back to Reflex .

 

[alan davus]

I didn't really know what to vote. It is more rangefinders suit my style of shooting. I'm never in a hurry, seeing photography as a way of slowing life down, prefer manual focussing (although AF is handy on other formats like micro 4/3), like the feel of quality made lenses and bodies in hand and sort of eschew the whole culture of rushing headlong towards anything new on the market.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Why wasn't there a simple "No" option?

 

[mansio]

first off i don't think rf is any different from slr shooting, however, a few things i do love about rf over slr and as a preferred camera for sure

1. smaller meaning i am willing to bring it out anywhere i go
2. discrete, no mirror flapping to distract and no bulky size to alert people
3. always mf, i guess it's the same, but split screen ensures better accuracy

one thing i miss, but my gxr resolves
1. WYSIWYG, lacking that filters changes is not on the vf