Not a DSLR or Medium Format Forum

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:14 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
As we make the transition from film to digital, the Rangefinder Forum has sort of become the Not a DSLR or Digital Medium Format Forum. We talk about a lot of small cameras, many of them without a rangefinder. If you’re not shooting football or having an art director crop your picture, what are the advantages of these smaller cameras? If it was just that they are smaller, then cameras would disappear and smartphones would rule. Could that happen? What are the real advantages of the small digital camera? I thought it would be fun, and maybe even important, to come up with a list of advantages these smaller cameras have over their big brothers. I’ll start the list and hope you will add to it.

(1) They cost less!!!
 
As an 'aside' from your question, can I just agree with the not-totally-rangefinders assessment. When I received the postcards during the recent postcard exchange I was shocked to find how few were actually shot with a rangefinder and, indeed, how few on film.

I do have a Rollei 35S(*), does that count (scale-focus)? Small, great lens, very portable in a belt pouch - and relatively cheap too.

(*) Edit: Plus a couple of film M's of course.
 
I like to shoot RF (M6) because it is photography at it's simpliest form.
-manual focus, manual shutter, exposure and ISO
-no extra buttons to make your shooting experience compicated
-because you are not seeing through the lens, your vision doesn't black out
 
From my experience, the new mirrorless cameras, especially with good EVFs (like the Lumix G5 that I use), bring an entirely new composing experience whereby you can visualize precise framing, focusing and visual effects (like live-view black-and-white), real-time, absent the mechanical calibration issues of rangefinder cameras. Of course, if you desire an optical window on the world, an external VF can still be attached to the hot shoe.

As for why the preponderance of non-RF members of this forum, may I suggest that the level of discussion on RFF is generally better than any other forum, covering a wider field of subject matter and possessing a more knowledgable member base, such that any photographer half-way serious about candid handheld photography would most likely be found lurking here.

There's also the matter that good RF cameras can be expensive, more so than compact mirrorless models, and not everyone is set up (or experienced) to home process film to high levels of quality, plus the fact of declining numbers of good commercial photo labs.

~Joe
 
Definitely not all!

For example both Sony NEX 7 or 6 or Olympus OMD costs a fortune when compared to similar output APSC DSLR.

Also Sony NEX lens are huuuge and cost a fortune again when compared with similar APSC DSLR lens - 50mm f1.8 is the largest of its kind among DSLR, 35mm f1.8 costs more than 2x than Nikon of the same kind..

So I guess it is body size/weight in NEX case and both body and lenses size/weight in m43 case?

Though it is fun paying more or same for less weight? :)

Bill Pierce said:
As we make the transition from film to digital, the Rangefinder Forum has sort of become the Not a DSLR or Digital Medium Format Forum. We talk about a lot of small cameras, many of them without a rangefinder. If you’re not shooting football or having an art director crop your picture, what are the advantages of these smaller cameras? If it was just that they are smaller, then cameras would disappear and smartphones would rule. Could that happen? What are the real advantages of the small digital camera? I thought it would be fun, and maybe even important, to come up with a list of advantages these smaller cameras have over their big brothers. I’ll start the list and hope you will add to it.

(1) They cost less!!!
Click to expand...
 
I think there is a desire to be different, to own something different. For some reason the shape of a range finder attracts people perhaps more than the function itself for some people.

Sometimes we just want pretty things. The fact is I prefer the way a range finder works to the way a TLR works, but I own a Rolleiflex because it's beautiful. I'd be better off with a GF670 (which is also beautiful) but the Rolleiflex won me over.

I think we look for logic in places where it just does not exist, we are human and not machines because we are very rarely 100% rational.
 
Getting old size and weight are important. Leica M7, Nikon FM2, Bessa R, are (were) my more used film cameras. Digital? Leica x1 and possibly in a short time the Fuji XE-1 will be the alternatives. Usually I do not print larger than a3+. Quality and size are ok, price affordable.
robert
 
I own and use a Classic M6 and a 3 lens set but I also like using other cameras and it is a great feature of this forum that it is open minded and full of sub forums dedicated to this.
I was tempted into joining the Point and Shoot challenge and there were nearly 80 entries. I think most were shot on film. It was great fun and the quality of entries was truely wonderful.
 
I guess I've gone the other direction and have finally purchased my first true rangefinder camera the Leica M-E. For me its the simplicity and top end lens options available.

I quit carrying a DSLR a while ago due to size and weight. The Ricoh GXR-M is a very nice camera but it was starting to show some wear (battery clip broke, EVF developed a short). But the way the M mount Leica lens drew on the sensor had me hooked.

So, I now shoot with a camera that's built like a German tank and cost a fortune.
 
I enjoy using small cameras, whether they are film cameras or digital cameras. I am not sure that cost is as important as size and flexibility.
 
Bill Pierce said:
As we make the transition from film to digital, the Rangefinder Forum has sort of become the Not a DSLR or Digital Medium Format Forum. We talk about a lot of small cameras, many of them without a rangefinder. If you’re not shooting football or having an art director crop your picture, what are the advantages of these smaller cameras? If it was just that they are smaller, then cameras would disappear and smartphones would rule. Could that happen? What are the real advantages of the small digital camera? I thought it would be fun, and maybe even important, to come up with a list of advantages these smaller cameras have over their big brothers. I’ll start the list and hope you will add to it.

(1) They cost less!!!
Click to expand...
I keep coming back to RFF because the level of technical knowledge the members have is excellent. I suspect I've learnt more about equipment and technique from this site than the rest of the web put together. Personally, I'd be pleased to read more discussion about, and to see more images, taken with, medium format digital cameras here.

My own observations suggest the majority of RFF members are very passionate about photography. To varying extents, I suppose this transcends the equipment they prefer to use (which, I think, is probably how it should be). Personally I tend to take more photos with fillm SLRs or TLRs than rangefinders, although I do own a few. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in information about the latter, or seeing shots taken with them. Far from it. It's a broad church here, so much the better I think.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Bill Pierce said:
...what are the advantages of these smaller cameras? If it was just that they are smaller, then cameras would disappear and smartphones would rule. Could that happen?
Click to expand...

Cameras are designed for photography. Phones are designed for communication (yes, even the camera ala facebook, instagram, etc).

What are the real advantages of the small digital camera?
Click to expand...

Portability. Pocketability. Not as intimidating. Easier to stick into tight spaces like fences, etc.
 
MartinP said:
As an 'aside' from your question, can I just agree with the not-totally-rangefinders assessment. When I received the postcards during the recent postcard exchange I was shocked to find how few were actually shot with a rangefinder and, indeed, how few on film.
Click to expand...

Times are changing and if we stuck to just rangefinders, the place would have very little traffic. I'm a rangefinder fan and a mirrorless fan (I'd say many are now). To me, the mirrorless cameras are in the same spirit as rangefinders. Note I did not say the same. However, they are small, quick, and don't a mirror prism. Also, many may use both digital and film here. We are an open minded group generally speaking.
 
jsrockit said:
Times are changing and if we stuck to just rangefinders, the place would have very little traffic. I'm a rangefinder fan and a mirrorless fan (I'd say many are now). To me, the mirrorless cameras are in the same spirit as rangefinders. Note I did not say the same. However, they are small, quick, and don't a mirror prism. Also, many may use both digital and film here. We are an open minded group generally speaking.
Click to expand...

It's a personal thing, but I see mirrorless as the logical progression of the SLR. It's functionality is the same, it's just achieved with electronics and not a mirror.
 
thegman said:
It's a personal thing, but I see mirrorless as the logical progression of the SLR. It's functionality is the same, it's just achieved with electronics and not a mirror.
Click to expand...

That's true too... the EVF has the same advantages in some ways. I love that the Fujis have the feel of a rangefinder shaped body, but the EVF is as accurate at framing as a DSLR. I'm not opposed to DSLRs in general... just the ones they make now. If they made a Nikon F3 style DSLR, I'd be interested. I can't seem to get away from the love for shutter speed dials and aperture rings.
 
this group has brought me to another world of shooting.

without it, i would not have known the advantages of mirrorless and point and shoots.

since that time, i've adopted a new style, and new way of shooting that i never thought was possible. i came out of a background of using an art director, models, and sets. from that world entered into a solo venture where i walked the streets and went back to just taking photos again. i can say that i've definitely enjoyed the transition.

my beefy DSLR kit gets little action now, while my Leicas and other small cameras i've found flexible and easily discreet when i need them to be.
 
for me there are several reasons to own rangefinders:
1) Shooting style is different - you always see what you get due to the absence of mirror and therefore much better control of the shooting situation and subjects around you.
2) signature of lenses - like those "vintage looking"
3) size and weight
4) stylish design which adds a lot to the personal image

maybe something else to add?))
 
I bought a NEX 5N with viewfinder and hawk's helicoid adapter thinking it would quench my thirst for a digital M - and for a small camera the APS-C size sensor is great. It hasn't, but the one thing it does do well with the adapter is allow for easily macro work with M lenses. I also tried the GXR with M mount. Better than the NEX with M lenses, as it should be, but still not a digital M.

It's been relegated to mostly video work.

The other mini camera is a RX100. It easily fits in a jacket pocket and I can always have it with me. And it has video.

But I still like hauling around my M7. For me, nothing beats that full frame rangefinder experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom