Is the rangefinder dead?

[jsrockit]

What I'm seeing is the death of great, meaningful photos. There's a glut of digital shooters out there w/ all the latest bells and whistles turning out meaningless photos. It's just amazing. Yes, I do think film photographers take "better" photos, as it implies a greater knowledge and passion for not only the photograph, but of it's history and it's present.

This is complete and utter BS. There are great photographs made by any and every generation using all types of photographic processes. Just like you wouldn't look in some amateur’s shoebox or slideshow for great photos in the past, you cannot make this assumption based on flickr (or the equivalent).
People generate "meaningless" photos in film too... plenty of them. Always have and always will. Film photographers make better photos? How did you quantify that? Sure, we have a rich history of film photographs to choose from... but give digital some time to catch up... it's in its infancy still (comparatively speaking).

I'm 100% digital, I went to school for photography when digital was not a consumer product, I look at the "master's" photos on a daily basis, I've done cyanotypes, c-prints, cibochromes, B&W wet prints, digital, polaroids, etc. I've used everything from minox 8x11 to 35mm to 120 to 4x5 in film. Film is just another photographic process. There is no process better than another...

Anyone who knows me personally knows I am very passionate about photography. Just because I think the digital process is the best process for me in 2011 doesn't mean I am less passionate, less historically knowledgeable, or a worse photographer than every film photographer in existence.

 

[celluloidprop]

Not only its not dead, its the latest hot trend in some new cameras: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112078

Uh... There's no rangefinder mentioned there.

The NEX's focus peaking falls squarely in the second category I mentioned - small bodies/lenses that are not rangefinders but are suited to 'rangefinder-style shooting.'

 

[d_ross]

This is complete and utter BS. There are great photographs made by any and every generation using all types of photographic processes. Just like you wouldn't look in some amateur’s shoebox or slideshow for great photos in the past, you cannot make this assumption based on flickr (or the equivalent).
People generate "meaningless" photos in film too... plenty of them. Always have and always will. Film photographers make better photos? How did you quantify that? Sure, we have a rich history of film photographs to choose from... but give digital some time to catch up... it's in its infancy still (comparatively speaking).

I'm 100% digital, I went to school for photography when digital was not a consumer product, I look at the "master's" photos on a daily basis, I've done cyanotypes, c-prints, cibochromes, B&W wet prints, digital, polaroids, etc. I've used everything from minox 8x11 to 35mm to 120 to 4x5 in film. Film is just another photographic process. There is no process better than another...

Anyone who knows me personally knows I am very passionate about photography. Just because I think the digital process is the best process for me in 2011 doesn't mean I am less passionate, less historically knowledgeable, or a worse photographer than every film photographer in existence.

here here!

Choose the best tool not some romantic ideology if you want to make the best photographs you possibly can.

 

[Turtle]

The RF is not dead at all. I shot two rolls in mine yesterday. It works for me, better than anything else I have ever used in fact, but I reserve the right to use something better when I find something better. Only I have not found such a tool yet, despite 60 years of camera evolution. Then again, I dont do macro, use SLRs for portraits, dont shoot sport... etc