Landscapes

[cameramanic]

I have just bought a Bessa R and a Bessa L with 35,2.5 lens,and a JUpiter 8.
my way of thinking is that Rangefinder cameras are mostly for Street photography or so I have always thought (which is what i have bought the R for.) The question is what are 35 mm Rangefinders like for landscape Photography, are the photos sharper because rangefinders use only prime lenses?
I bought the Bessa's to use as travel cameras,My job takes me all over the world and I wanted a light weight camera that would not cause to much attention as a
Hasselblad,or one of the Nikon SLR's I am going to Nigeria for 2 months in 2 weeks time. So I hve been thinking on the lines that if the Bessa's are good for Lanscapes I can sell some of my other stuff and buy more Voigtlander Gear.

I have the following cameras which I use for most of my photography.
some of which can be seen @ www.cameramanic.com.
Hassleblad 500C
Nikon F4s
Nikon Fm
Nikon D 100

and about 160 other cameras,Hence the name Cameramanic, there is a permanant car boot sale across the street from my office and allways old cameras for sale .
todays bargains I bought were a Voigtlander Vitoret £2, and Cosmic 35 £1.

Regards Dennis

Do not go gentle into that last good night,
Rage Rage against the dying of the light.

 

[chug]

You might want a wider lens than the 35. Ive got a 15 and love it. I have it on an L and the bloke I got it from had it on his L and used it for street photography mainly. Seems to do the job for lots of things. You may not like the 15mm tho. But I hear the 28, 25 and 21 are good too.. Oh and the 12 😉 My Gallery has some 15mm shots in it if you wanna see what its like 🙂

 

[Tim]

A rangefinder is (generally) smaller and lighter than the equivalent slr - and focuses more accurately than either an slr or a compact. Not to mention that most Rangefinders have very high quality prime lenses.
This pretty much makes them ideal for travel cameras. It means that you can pick one or two lenses, add in a few rolls of film, and get a compact, light kit capable of taking very high quality pictures.
And while Medium format has undeniable advantages, weight and bulk are not among them. A 35mm camera will never equal a superb MF shot - but if the 35mm is high quality it can come close, at a fraction of the bulk......

Personally, I use a RF for a travel and hiking camera. For me, it's the ideal compromise.
Of course, YMMV..........

 

[RML]

While RF cameras are considered ideal for street photography. they can be used for most other types of photography more or less ideally. Notable exceptions are macro and high-speed action.

Use the L on a tripod with a spirit level, stick a 35mm or wider lens on it and you have an ideal landscape camera.

 

[richard_l]

Brian Bower does a lot of landscape photography with Leica M cameras. The compact size of many rangefinders nakes them ideal for hiking and backpacking. I am not of the opinion that only wide angle lenses are good for landscapes. A lot of times I go hiking with only a 50mm lens and seldom regret not having something wider.

 

[wlewisiii]

At the other end of the lens line, I have found that 85mm and 135mm lenses can be very interesting for landscapes as well. You have to frame more carefully, but I find the narrower field of view can be useful sometimes.

William

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think rangefinders are good for landscapes especially if you want to handhold instead of carrying a tripod. They are a pain to try and use a polarizer on but it can be done. If you are going to use a tripod then the Nikon FM, using the self timer for a sort of mirror lock up and cable release, will also do the job very nicely and it also uses primes. I guess it depends on how you want to work, either will do nicely.

Bob

 

[Sonnar2]

Probably the best way to come across nice landscapes is on horseback, but this strictly requires low weight and size for camera equipment - otherway you will lose a lot of speed... 🙂
My smallest photo-case with about 1000g contains one Bessa-R with Canon 2/35 or 1.8/50, one Voigtländer 4.5/15mm, one 4/25mm, and one Canon 3.5/100... lightweight and quality for 10-20x enlargement. The second-smallest case, called Lowe Photorunner, I can take 5-6 lenses anbd 2 bodies in!
Yes it can be done without MF... if you don't look for smallest twigs sharpness ;-) - if you do, go for a good folder! (then don't complain if you can't change lenses, or - what happens to me on a regular basis - if 2 of 3 pictures are out of focus ;-)

cheers, Frank

 

[tamerlin]

Well, Hasselblad made two versions of a rangefinder camera that's almost optimized around
landscape photography 😀

About the only real downsides are the limited filter options, shorter max focal lengths, and
parallax in closeups.

But my view is that the best camera is the one that you use. For me that's one that's small enough
to carry just about everywhere, so for me the rangediners have the edge over SLRs for landscapes
by far.

 

[alegalle]

One thing to consider regarding landscape shooting with a rangefinder, especially with slide film is the inability to use a graduated filter. With an SLR (medium format or otherwise) you can place the grad in the right place because you are seeing what a film will see, this is not possible with a rangefinder.

Some people will tell you this isn't an issue with black and white film, however I frequently use an ND grad for B&W landscapes coupled with contrast filters. I suppose the choice depends on your personal style of landscapes, if you use grads then the rangefinder will just end up frustrating you when you start thinking along the lines of "if i'd used the ND grad on this...", but if you never use them then there really is no difference - especially as most landscape work will be hyperplane focused and on a tripod anyway.

 

[Bertram2]

I
The question is what are 35 mm Rangefinders like for landscape Photography, are the photos sharper because rangefinders use only prime lenses?
Do not go gentle into that last good night,
Rage Rage against the dying of the light.

Dennis,
it does not depend on RF or not it depends on the format size and the enlargement rate.
CV stuff is ( related to sharpness) as good as the very best 35mm primes are and so it will work up to 30X40cm prints, using tripod and a ISo 100, an ISO 50 film is good for more. Maybe for landscape CV lenses areeven better suited than Leica M lenses., excepted the 1.7/35 ,1.9/28 and maybe also the 1,5/50 Nokton.

I've seen slide shows of a pro travel photographer take with Leica R lenses and Velvia 50 projected on a 8X12ft screen which were really sharp ! So why not use 35mm for landscape ?.
That all doesn't change the fact that 35mm cannot achieve MF standard, in sharpness, saturation, tonality , detail and related to the plastic and three-dimensional look. All very important for top landscape work.
The benefits ot the large format are often clearly visible at 13X13cm prints when it comes to langscapes.
Best,
Bertram

 

[tamerlin]

That is a very valid point. One of the methods I've seen described is to take two
shots and composite them, one exposed for the dark parts and the other for the
bright parts of the scene.

🙂

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm learning to prefer it for most things, not just street photography.

I took some black and white landscapes with my Canonet recently and, if the !@#$ing lab hadn't ruined the prints, they would have been excellent photographs. The Canonet is small which makes it easy to hold, it's much quieter than my SLR, and no mirror slap means clearer, easier to take pictures. They're good cameras for all-around shooting, IMHO.