No RF Cameras Used In News Events?

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
6:38 PM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,455
Thought I would throw this out...primarily, because no one has been able to obtain any potographs of the Gulf Oil Spill on this forum.

Are there any RF photographers around actually shooting newsworthy events these days? Or has RF photography become the hobby niche?;)
 
Well Philip Blenkinsop for one photographs all his work with an M6 and 35. Also uses a Mamiya 6 as well.
 
0_1_FullSize%7E1.jpg
 
Even if rangefinders is the best tool form photo journalism there has been a while since the average photo journalist have felt that way....
 
I often wonder if peoples definition of a photojournalist differs considerably. If you work for a local paper getting 'tight & bright' shots of local events, news advertorials etc do you count as a PJ? Must you work on documentary projects for an agency or does it come somewhere in the middle...perhaps a heavyweight national newspaper?

It's not something I deem to be much of an issue but I do wonder how it affects peoples answer to questions like this.

I work for a number of clients that are newspapers, some national and others local. I've only rarely seen photographers covering a story in this realm using RF. I believe the options that SLR kits give tend to suit this work better than RF gear. However whatever gives you the best pictures is what counts as this, and turnaround times, are pretty much all most editors I've worked with care about.

RF's for work like documentaries and such may still be used by some simply because it's the photographers preferred tool and they have more time therefore more options. I suppose a more concise answer, and perhaps more obvious and disappointing, would be that whatever format allows you to get the picture, and get it in on time, will adequately do the job.

In answer to my own question above; personally and professionally I'm happy to call myself a snapper. I rather like the simplicity of it, others can argue over what to call both themselves and me...in my case it may simply be 'tosser!'
 
My understanding is that RFs are used only rarely, basically for niche situations. Aside from the fact that digital options are limited, modern RFs top out @ 135mm, which can be a problem if you're supposed to get "tight & bright" shots but have to do it from 100 feet away, which is not uncommon in today's restrictive, security-conscious environment. This might be more of a problem in places like here in DC or NYC or LA. SLRs are just more versatile, to the extent that I can't think of a single working photojournalist who's purely an "RF photographer." Of course, this has been the trend since the Nikon F came out in 1959.

Both of semordnilap's examples are situations where the photographer had, or was allowed, closer than normal access to the subject, allowing the RF to be used in its classic role.

dave lackey said:
Are there any RF photographers around actually shooting newsworthy events these days? Or has RF photography become the hobby niche?;)
Click to expand...
 
Surely there are some freelancers out there with RFs.
But you won't find staffers of major newspapers toting M8s and M9s for one simple reason - papers won't buy them. It would be a silly investment, considering how much Nikon or Canon gear you could get for the same amount of money.
Newsroom budgets just don't allow them to make those sorts of purchases these days. Particularly not when you consider the increasing demand for cameras with video capabilities.
Of course, there may be the random PJ here or there that buys one on his/her own, but that's going to be rare.
It's sad I think, but during my last 12 years of working as a reporter at large metro papers, the only time a Leica entered the newsroom was when I brought mine in.
 
dave lackey said:
Thought I would throw this out...primarily, because no one has been able to obtain any potographs of the Gulf Oil Spill on this forum.

Are there any RF photographers around actually shooting newsworthy events these days? Or has RF photography become the hobby niche?;)
Click to expand...

I think there have been no worthwhile images of the oil spill so far as the impacts are future and not yet reality. I do not want to diminish the long term importance of what happened but so far, image wise, it is mostly a layer of oil floating on the water. How photographic is that?

The broader issue is are newsworthy photos made more frequently these days by those who use rangefinder cameras than other types? It certainly appears that SLR's and other types win that contest.

Now I don't know why, I am just a serious photographer. I just use what works for me. I don't worry about what works for others.
 
I'm surprised the RF camera fell away from PJ and Sports when it did. It could be so much more of a camera if R&D departments had applied themselves to it. With no mirror, it has always had the upper hand on speed in continuous shooting, so a good motor drive would have put it over the top of the best SLR's.
The fastest film cameras that I've known of have been Canon's 1nRS and the 1vHS, both at 10 frames per second, the 1nRS because it had a pellicle mirror that didn't move. The RF could have achieved this also with no mirror to get in the way. The AutoFocus is what would have gotten in the way and put the SLR on top eventually.
 
Bruno Stevens covered the Haiti earthquake aftermath with an M9.

I've seen work from a few embedded photographer's in Iraq and Afghanistan using M8's as well.

Its uncommon, but not unheard of.
 
I took my two M bodies to Iraq in 2004 as a Navy Photographer with the Seabees. I also used a Nikon D2H for work, but there were times when the Leicas worked well and the Nikon wouldn't even turn on.
Like when it was hot out during training in Kuwait...

M2 and M4 just kept on clicking.

Phil Forrest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom