Pivoting my rangefinding

[Coldkennels]

The thing is: the SLR pretty much obsoleted the need for a lot of those widgets [...] I can pick up any of my SLR or EVF cameras I can get the job done in 10 seconds... 😉

I don't disagree, but
a) digital mirrorless has largely obsoleted the need for the SLR, yet people still use them and
b) it's usually easier/more convenient to carry a Leica and a widget than it is to carry a whole second camera, not to mention keeping an extra camera loaded with film.

For me, I've never liked SLRs. I've tried. They've just never appealed to me. Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta... doesn't matter. So having a way of making the camera I actually like using do what most people would reach for an SLR for - ironically, even if that means using a Visoflex! - is an absolute godsend.

 

[Godfrey]

🙂 For me, I call it "The Joy of High Effort Photography"... 😀
There's a lot of fun and satisfaction in using all these lovely old cameras and all the complicated technical solutions to getting things done.

I was 'in the business' for a long long time—part time, full time, adjunct to my "day job" etc. For most of that time, an SLR was essential to getting the work done due to its versatility and straightforward application to the work. But I always liked the simplicity, and constraints, of a Leica or other RF camera with one or two lenses, and the minimum kit of accessories, to get the job done when it wasn't a time and efficiency to get to the products kind of situation. It's just less mechanical clatter and such.

I like nearly all kinds of cameras, and love the high end models for all their deep deep precision, build quality, and design details. And a subset of them are really great shooting tools that make doing photography a pure joy.

G

 

[DownUnder]

I'm having too much fun re-learning and practicing use of the accessory lenses. I'll spend some time using them for real with my next roll through the Retina. 🙂

These Retina RF cameras really are superbly designed and finished, certainly on par with the Leica, Nikon, and Canon RFs of their day, and a great way to get into a rangefinder camera inexpensively. The Schneider or Rodenstock lenses make excellent photos. The biggest constraints are that you have only 35, 50, and 80 mm focal lengths to work with, and setting focus accurately for the 35 and 80 takes a little bit of thought and effort. Pluses and minuses, as always.

G

The Kodak Retinas were truly wonderful cameras - in their time. The lenses, Schneiders from Germany, were and still are nothing less than superb.

But those cameras are ancient. I've owned a few in the recent past, and each and every time they had things wrong, requiring expensive repairs, and (at least here in Australia) most repair shops either did not have the parts or the repair people lacked the patience to do the work. So I had to let them go, always at a $$ loss.

As I've found, when one does turn up in a camera shop, it fetches near-to-Leica prices. which of course begs the question, does one want a Let's Pretend Leica, or The Real Thing.? I won't try to answer for anyone reading this, but I know what my decision would be.

Anticipating in advance the inevitable argument that Leicas are at least as old as, the response here has to be yes - but the Leicas can be repaired, fairly quickly if not necessarily easily. or inexpensively And the resale value is greater.

Again, choices. Second best even if almost as good as, is still second best.

So I say, owner of an LTM mid-1950s Leica I paid more to have repaired than the original sale price...

 

[DownUnder]

🙂 For me, I call it "The Joy of High Effort Photography"... 😀
There's a lot of fun and satisfaction in using all these lovely old cameras and all the complicated technical solutions to getting things done.

I was 'in the business' for a long long time—part time, full time, adjunct to my "day job" etc. For most of that time, an SLR was essential to getting the work done due to its versatility and straightforward application to the work. But I always liked the simplicity, and constraints, of a Leica or other RF camera with one or two lenses, and the minimum kit of accessories, to get the job done when it wasn't a time and efficiency to get to the products kind of situation. It's just less mechanical clatter and such.

I like nearly all kinds of cameras, and love the high end models for all their deep deep precision, build quality, and design details. And a subset of them are really great shooting tools that make doing photography a pure joy.

G

Yes, but. In its time the SLR did what it had to do, supremely well. Then along came the DSLR, which also did the same thing as the SLR, except it eliminated the need for film and so was cheaper to use once you had paid the purchase price for the thing. Inevitably, eventually along came the mirrorless, which took over from the DSLR with much the same results. Only excepting the current M prices are higher than the D prices.

So what really is the difference? Only that film fell by the wayside, and got supplanted by pixels.

Most of the rest is really marketing hype. To be enjoyed but not necessarily believed. Or indulged in.

What will be the next big thing in cameras? AI-function? So we can mentally visualise our images? The mind boggles.

So I say, owner of a D90, two D700s, two D800s, two D/N65s and four Nikkormats, never mind the lenses and that's only my Nikon arsenal. Ha! to all this.

 

[Godfrey]

The Kodak Retinas were truly wonderful cameras - in their time. The lenses, Schneiders from Germany, were and still are nothing less than superb.

But them cameras are ancient. I've owned a few in the last decade, and each and every time those cameras had things wrong, requiring expensive repairs, and (at least here in Australia) most repair shops either did not have the parts or the repair people lacked the patience to do the work. So I had to let them go, always at a $$ loss.

As I've found, when one does turn up in a camera shop, it fetches near-to-Leica prices. which of course begs the question, does one want a Let's Pretend Leica, or The Real Thing.? I won't try to answer for anyone reading this, but I know what my decision would be.

Anticipating in advance the inevitable argument that Leicas are at least as old as, the response here has to be yes - but the Leicas can be repaired, fairly quickly if not necessarily easily. or inexpensively And the resale value is greater.

Again, choices. Second best even if almost as good as, is still second best.

So says I (or moi, in French) owner of an LTM mid-1950s Leica I paid more to have repaired than the original sale price...

Here in the USA, there seem to be plenty of Retina RF parts available and several places will do the work at a reasonable price. I've had the folks at Advance Camera Repair in Portland do full CLA on all of mine (I have three IIc and one IIIc that's been customized) at a cost of about $150 apiece. Since I typically paid between $15 and $40 for each of them, that's a good deal for a camera that performs so nicely.

Oh yes: Kodak Retina RF cameras were all made entirely in Germany. They came with both Schneider-Kreuznach and Rodenstock lenses; USA distribution was almost entirely Schneider cameras. Lens performance was supposedly identical between the two makes.

I bought a Leica IIIc (1947 vintage) recently and it's in decent working order. The body, without lens, was about $320 ... Lenses are typically as much as or more than the bodies (my Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5 was $260). So even the customized 1955 Retina IIIc-x was about half the price of the Leica IIIc plus lens, and the Retina has a 50mm f/2 lens. Similarly, my 1949 Voigtländer Vito II I got for nothing, cost $165 to get fully CLAed, and is now a beautiful little working piece.

The big advantage to the Leica IIIc is the huge range of fully interchangeable lenses available, including modern ones from Cosina-Voigtländer. But if you're looking at costs, well, even those lenses each cost more than a Retina IIc plus a full service.

All of this is for fun and enjoyment. There's no sense to buying and playing with 70+ year old cameras if you're trying to make a living at photography, that's just silliness. 😉

G

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, but. In its time the SLR did what it had to do, supremely well. Then along came the DSLR, which also did the same thing as the SLR, except it eliminated the need for film and so was cheaper to use once you had paid the purchase price for the thing. Inevitably, eventually along came the mirrorless, which took over from the DSLR with much the same results. Only excepting the current M prices are higher than the D prices.

So what really is the difference? Only that film fell by the wayside, and got supplanted by pixels.

Most of the rest is really marketing hype. To be enjoyed but not necessarily believed. Or indulged in.

What will be the next big thing in cameras? AI-function? So we can mentally visualise our images? The brain boggles.

So says I (or moi, in French), owner of a D90, two D700s, two D800s, two D/N65s and four Nikkormats, never mind the lenses and that's only my Nikon arsenal. Ha! to all this.

As said above: Fooling with entertaining old film cameras like is purely for fun and enjoyment. I love my ancient Nikon F, and I similarly love my digital Olympus E-1 ... and the old Hasselblad 500CMs, etc etc. That old E-1 still works very nicely, as does the decade newer mirrorless E-M1. I don't want to even try to list all the elderly film cameras I have in the closet, it's almost embarassing. LOL!

As to modern cameras ... I have both the Leica M10-R and M10 Monochrom. The two Olympus bodies, and the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c. And a passel of lenses for them all. I think I'm done, for the foreseeable future. I'm more concerned with coming up with new subject matter: I've been shooting the same thing since the pandemic began and need a fresh insight and motivation now.

AI? feh. Waste of time far as I'm concerned. I won't spend any mental cycles on it at all.

G

 

[mlzplayer]

Yes, but. In its time the SLR did what it had to do, supremely well.

This is true. I think by the F3 the SLR had peaked. However, I wallow in obsolescence. Despite the technological advantage of an SLR, its utility to me isn't as high as a rangefinder. Using and SLR with a 50mm feels like looking through a straw.

That being said, I bite the bullet often. Traveling? SLR. Concert? SLR. Bumpy road? SLR. Protest? SLR.

The pictures aren't much different at all. If I had to use an SLR it would be the F5.