Intro and 'dumb' question...

[Deleted member 4131]

Hello,

I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks and thought I should say 'hello.' I'm impressed by the quality of the information found on your forums and the sense of 'community' that seems to be present on RFF. Congratulations to you all for making it this way!

I'll admit to being a photography novice, encouraged to take up this hobby by two teenaged daughters that wanted to learn about film cameras--thought I should learn more too. Between a 'hand me down' camera set and a couple of visits to a local pawn shop we have each acquired a good quality manual slr camera (sorry--I didn't know about rf's when we were buying 😉 )

Besides the useful information that I find on this site, I am continually amazed by the quality of the pictures that are posted here. There is a certain 'something' about the photos (clarity??) that I find particularly appealing. Now for the dumb question----how important is it that these pictures have been taken with rf cameras? (not discounting that the shots were taken by some pretty gifted photographers!) Putting it another way---could you all produce photos of equal quality if you only had an slr camera?

I'm sorry if this has been covered ad naseum before. I hope to lurk some more here and learn from everyone.

thanks,
Steve.

ps. I've taken a couple of inexpensive risks on eb*y and have a Yashica GSN and Olympus SPn 35 heading my way, so hopefully I'll be a 'real' member soon (depending upon how many repairs they need).

 

[cp_ste.croix]

interesting question...

the simple answer is that the camera is merely a tool and as such, put in the hands of a master, can execute great pictures regardless of what type it is.

A less simple answer is that some of the pictures may have been possible because of the unique nature of a Rangefinder camera those being size and portability (first on my list anyways, as my slr is huge and always stays at home) as well as the unique ability to see outside the frame for more accurate timing of that decisive moment.

I find the relative inconspicuousness of the rf; due to size, design, and generally how old and 'unprofessional' it looks also puts people at ease (comparatively) when I am shooting.

What may be most important, however, is my own comfort level with RF's which leads me to take more pictures, more often.

I love my GSN and Canonet and am always leaving my super-duper SLR at home in favour of them. Not the answer for everyone, but it is for me. I think you've picked up some good, inexpensive cameras to help you guage whether RF's are right for you or not.

 

[ch1]

The other day Joe mentioned that the Gallery is NOT RESTRICTED to RF shots. So I've put some SLR shots up - but the majority of my gallery shots are RFs.

The fact that you have two teenagers interested in film shooting is great - so yes, get some of their shots up in the gallery and "wax" their enthusiasm.

 

[bobofish]

St.Croix's right....it's more a factor of your comfort with your particular camera than anything else. All things being equal, the camera choice means very little in the end.

With that said, the advantages of an rf are indeed portability and size, as well I would add quietness. On average, an rf camera is far quieter than an slr, and as such you can inconspicuously shoot pic's that you wouldn't be able to shoot inconspicuously with an slr.

Add to that several other concrete advantages like true wide angle lenses that don't have to clear a mirror first, and you've got a hell of a compelling package.

Most of the users here use a lot of cameras, and most of the die-hard rf users have at least one slr sitting on the shelf ready to go to war...

Welcome, and yours was the least dumb dumb question I've seen in a long time, and far smarter than a lot of my questions! 😛

Cheers!

 

[cbass]

Putting it another way---could you all produce photos of equal quality if you only had an slr camera?

Steve, welcome to the forum. Personally, I would answer your question "yes." You will find many people here who own and use SLRs as well as RFs.

Using a rangefinder camera is unlike using an SLR. The composition process is different, and you will learn to see and frame your shots differently. After a while you may actually begin to anticipate your shots and have the camera to your eye well before you depress the shutter. Some people adapt quickly to this, others do not (it's taken me three years!). Don't give up if you get discouraged after your first few rolls of film. You can always find plenty of encouragement here 😀.


PS - nice choices for your first RF cameras. Notice I said "first." 😀 Good luck!

 

[GeneW]

Steve, welcome to RFF, and you have two enlightened daughters. What attracted them to film cameras?

SLR is a great way to start with film. Using them is intuitive and the view through the finder is good. No need to feel any regrets -- many of us are also SLR fans.

RF cameras take a little adjusting to, but are really fun to use. They have all the advantages already noted, and make great tote-around companions.

Gene

 

[VinceC]

I'll go out on a limb and say that just about any high-quality photo made by a rangefinder could have been made by an SLR (assuming it was made after 1960 or thereabouts).

SLRs have great lenses (and some terrible lenses, just like rangefinders).

One of the keys to great photos is being there when a compelling scene unfolds in front of you ... AND having your camera with you at that moment ... AND having the technical skills or commonsense to capture the image.

Because rangefinders are small, they're easier (and for us, more fun) to carry around all the time, so there's a greater chance of having a good camera at hand when the moment presents itself. On the other hand, having a cheap digital camera at hand (or even a disposable camera) can capture a great photo if it's the only thing you've got with you.

 

[Deleted member 4131]

Thanks for the replies. I thought the photographer's skill was key, and your answers seem to reflect that. Just shows there is LOTS of skilled people here! It will be fun trying the various cameras out and seeing what 'fits' best.

GeneW: I'm not sure why they were attracted to film: I think having some friends already into it was partially to the reason, but they both said they really thought black and white prints were really cool.

cbass: how right you were! I have read several threads already regarding MF cameras here and was blown away by some of the photos I saw there. Hmmmmm, an Iskra with a low BIN appears this afternoon from a Canadian eba*yer. I'm going to have some real explaining to do tonight!!

 

[ch1]

Thanks for the replies. I thought the photographer's skill was key, and your answers seem to reflect that. Just shows there is LOTS of skilled people here! It will be fun trying the various cameras out and seeing what 'fits' best.

GeneW: I'm not sure why they were attracted to film: I think having some friends already into it was partially to the reason, but they both said they really thought black and white prints were really cool.

cbass: how right you were! I have read several threads already regarding MF cameras here and was blown away by some of the photos I saw there. Hmmmmm, an Iskra with a low BIN appears this afternoon from a Canadian eba*yer. I'm going to have some real explaining to do tonight!!

Steve,

If I were you I would hold off a bit on having the girls work with the RF. Let them build confidence with the SLR (which is essentially a visual WYSIWYG format). If they start "chopping off heads and feet" due to RF parallax they might get discouraged altogether.

Or at least have them use both cameras in tandem - which should help them learn the "quirks" of the RF format.

Have fun,
George

 

[Little Prince]

A lot of it is in the mind. Though the physical sizes and configurtions of most RFs and SLRs may vary by only an inch or so, many users (like me) feel less inhibited pulling an RF to the eye as compared to an SLR. Objectively speaking, of course, this would not be a factor. But you can't remove the photographer from the equation can you?

 

[Fred]

An RF looks like a noddy point and shoot to the everyday bod, and thats good cos you tend to be ignored as a happy snapper rather than a keen amature with some fantastic lenses. I guess people act more natural with them more than a big SLR with a supersize zoom lens. I'm not knocking SLRs, I have a few, it's just the useage that iis different.

Welcome to the forum and have fun.

 

[Poptart]

Wow, that's some chippy verbiage, gov'ner!

 

[Skinny McGee]

One thing i find about my yashica (that i bought here from the Greyhound man) is (which is the guys to buy it from.. He is great).. is that they are a large body camera (but the are good)

Welcome to the forum ... i bought a yashica for my 6 year old daughter she is learning how to use it... good luck

 

[FrankS]

A difference that I have found between SLRs and RF's, is that with the focussing screen of an SLR seducing me, I spend a lot of time looking through the camera, focusing and composing my subject, whereas with a RF, I spend more time looking and composing a scene with my eyes, then lifting the pre-focussed and exposure set RF quickly to my eye to take a photo.

 

[dostacos]

well there MAY be a couple of reasons that the shots would not be made by an SLR.

1. We tend to shoot 50MM or wider, 35MM would probably be closer to what a lot of us shoot as a normal lens, SLRs at least for me will start at 70mm and go up to 1000mm
2. Our wide angles tend to be faster than most SLR wide angles [SLRs kill us at focal lengths past 135MM]
3. the combination of speed and wide angle and lack of miiror slap allow us to shoot hand held at lower light levels

Dan who regularly uses several SLRs as well as RFs

and welcome to all of you 🙂

 

[ch1]

This thread does not really have to turn into a RF is better than SLR harrangue - does it?

My suggestion was based on the fact that these girls are total "newbies" to film photography (and it's more than likely that they or their friends have camera phones or digital P&S's with LCD viewers).

A SLR will let them see what they are shooting - all of the niceties of RF "composition" and "the decisive moment" etc. can come later!

Get them hooked on film as a medium first! Nothing will be more of a turn off then getting back a roll of pics with chopped off heads!

It's Dad who is turned on to RF's right now - not the girls. Don't snuff out the kids' enthusiasm by making things "difficult"! Consider the competition: "digital dumb mode".

 

[wlewisiii]

I agree with George here. A good basic SLR like a Pentax K1000 or a Canon AE1 and the appropriate 50mm lens would be by far the best and easiest way to start them off. Once they understand the basics then add the usual suspect focal lengths (35, 100, 135) and see what they like using and doing. Only then see what they think of RFs.

There is no single perfect camera; that's why there have been so many thousands of designs over the past ~160 years. For this purpose - teaching the joy - a good SLR is worth far more than a cheap RF.

William

 

[w3rk5]

Putting it another way---could you all produce photos of equal quality if you only had an slr camera?

Hi and welcome Steve. Of course you can produce photos of equal quality with an slr. 🙂 I guess the important thing is what makes a quality image. I find going to a photo critique site helps. Look at some pictures you like and read what people say with an open mind and take in everything with a grain of salt.

Does this work? I dunno. My pictures aren't as good as I though after I started doing this. lol.

Most importantly...have fun, and make sure your daughters have fun too. 🙂