Not a rangefinder guy, after all

L

Leslie52

Newbie
Local time
1:10 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
5
I bought an R-D1s to kickstart a late change in my photo life but it seems I was overly optimistic: I'm just not a rangefinder guy, after all. (And I tried, honest!) There's nothing wrong with the concept - or the camera - and I can appreciate rangefinding's merits, it's just that I prefer a different way of relating to the 'seen' (scene). I'm going back to my SLR.

Thanks for all the help from this forum along the way. It's been much appreciated and has improved my images overall.

<should be in classified section>

I enjoyed the ride, though, and wouldn't have missed it.

Leslie.
London, UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Leslie

I'd urge you to keep it, unless you need to sell it. Please keep on trying. I've read many post here where the posters initially were like in your position. But later, within 2-3 months they became even bigger fan of rangefinders.
 
I am not a dyed in the wool RF man myself. To me they are tools to make photographs. I own and use some RF nonetheless. I love my XA and Weltini for their small size. I love my Super Press 23 for its large negative. I love my Recomar for its even bigger negative, and the RF makes it easier to use when I don't need the GG. I sometimes like to use a fixed focal length RF for their small size but great lens, but not that often. I have trouble with wanting to carry my Kiev kit, but it does force me to use fixed focal lengths (which is where I started) rather than grabbing for a zoom (which I am liking less and less).

If you have lurked here very long, you will have noticed that most members use a variety of types of cameras and negative sizes. They use SLR and LF.

If you find yourself anywhere in there, you might want to reconsider, or at least change to another RF tool. Use what you like best, but know there are times when RF is at least a usable tool, sometimes perhaps even a preferred tool.

No matter, hope you will stay around and contribute your photographic experience.
 
There are a slew of different RF styles and models, new and old, that may suit you better and may take some time to find the *one* for you. The RD-1 is a very nice camera, but it has its quirks and IMO can't be considered solely representative of the RF experience. Just as each slr has its own feature set, handling characteristics, weight/size et al.. every RF also reflects the same diversity, maybe more.

Sure, sell the RD-1, but don't give up on RF yet. You'll be missing out on some cool toys, er.. tools:)
cheers
 
If you've given it a good go and decided it's not for you, then fair enough.

Rangefinders aren't for everyone, and (as with many things in life) knowing when to move on is a far healthier attitude to have than persevering in misery.

John
 
I think this is probably quite a common phenomenon. the world of RF photography is shrouded in mystery and history with promises of amazing street photography and uber fast and small lenses and after all is said and done, once you've tried it you either buy it or you don't!

it's not the most accurate tool and it's no silver bullet that's for sure! and if it really was for everyone then we'd never have SLRs in the first place :)

best of luck for your photography future and just because you don't shoot RF doesn't mean you can't still drop by!
 
If it's a no go, it's a no-go, Leslie. But maybe this story will make concrete what some others are saying. I started off in the late 60s, early 70s w. SLR. A few years later, bought a used M3, which I essentially did not use until seven years ago when I pulled it out to record perinatal events around my first grandchild. I was blown away by its capabilities, silence, and IQ in the hospital. Since then I've built up my RF holdings, not my SLRs. The advantage -- I paid 70s prices for Leica and the camera got a 30 year rest and a tune up from Golden Touch.
 
I think one difference between rangefinders and SLRs, is along the continuum from closeness to distance (in a psychological sense as well as a physical one). If you like getting close, a rangefinder is a good way to do it. On the other hand, if you like to maintain a degree of distance, a rangefinder can demand that you get too close for comfort. i think, mainly, I prefer the more distant view - saving writing (yes, words!) for the close-ups.
 
Hi Leslie,

I think that rangefinder photography is a state of mind and a philosophical approach to the process of taking photos rather then just a camera. In order for RF to work for you you need to understand the way you take photos and decide wether RF style will work for you, although I guess this is a bit late now for you...

I would still recomend you to keep your camera, you can never know when you will want to go back for RF.

Good luck in the rest of your journey.
 
Hi Chaps,

It's all very well suggesting him to keep the camera, but if he's not going to use it, would it not be better recommending him to sell it so that somebody who wants an RD1 can get one ? :) after all they only made 10000 and one sitting on the shelf gathering dust doesnt really help anyone.

Personally I really love the simplicity of the RD1 as a camera. It's a bit like an old SLR (if i may say so) in the way there is not much to do apart from the basics. No fancy menu, no fancy beep's, LCD screens and buttons everywhere. Also, possibly the only digital camera which can be controlled 100% without needing to access a menu system :)

Cheers,

Tom
 
Congrats on your finding, if it's not for you then it's not for you. I'd say just sell the R-D1, there's no point in keeping the camera if you re not gonna use it.
 
peppermill said:
...It's all very well suggesting him to keep the camera, but if he's not going to use it, would it not be better recommending him to sell it so that somebody who wants an RD1 can get one ?...
Click to expand...
+1. A camera is made to be used. Will give a lot of fun to its buyer.
 
Hi Leslie, if it's of any consolation, it took me years (literally) to get used to the rangefinder camera. Intrigued by the raves of range-finder fans, I picked up a Leica M4-P but it really didn't grow on me. I was frustrated by the tiny focusing spot, being a SLR user all this while. And it really irked me to take hand-held metering and transfer it slowly to the camera, which really sounds counter-intuitive to a camera made for photojournalism! I kept going back to the comfort zone of my SLR cameras, but the rangefinder always called out to me with its siren songs, so I kept trying for around three years, alternating between the SLRs and the rangefinder.

After a long while, I began to understand that the rangefinder must be used with a different mindset from a SLR. It's not a precise tool, so it'll frustrate you if you intend to use it for exact framing, and it is much faster to use if you can estimate the distance and preset your lens, so it is much faster to focus with that small patch. Gradually I got used to the rangefinder idiosyncrasies (if I may say so), and my success rate increased slowly. When I upgraded to a M6 with built-in metering, it really made rangefinder photography much faster!

You may wish to sell your R-D1s, but do consider keeping a film rangefinder with a 50mm lens. Alternate between a rangefinder and your other systems, and you may grow to understand and appreciate the rangefinder camera one day. And when you do, all of us here can promise you that photography will never be the same again!
 
I'd sell the camera. As much as I like mine, I must admit that the residual value is such that it would be a very expensive shelf queen.
 
Every now and then I stray back into the SLR mode. There are so many good SLR's and so many great lenses of all sorts often at nice prices, but I always come back to rangefinders when I need to carry a lot of lenses. Why? It's the weight of SLR's and their lenses, even the compact ones like the Olympus OM models. Rangefinders make very friendly travelling companions. Most of them don't take or need batteries too, making them even more friendly to rapid and reliable use. My only complaint is that the value of a full rangefinder kit can get pretty high so theft or loss must be more carefully guarded against.
 
I think you'll find that the R-d1 (the OP's RF) is one of the largest RF (35mm format equiv) cameras out there. As large as most consumer DSLRs. Size isn't why I like mine so much, it's just a different experience.
 
The OM-1 is smaller than the R-D1 and its lenses are not much bigger than Leica's. Great stuff indeed.

35chcjz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom