Rangefinder cameras have spoiled me...

[rbiemer]

A few months ago I decided that I "needed" to have a 35mm SLR. Haven't owned/used one for 10 or 15 years, I think. And was thinking to get one just in case I suddenly need to do macro or tele photos. Start looking around the auction site and find a M42 mount re-branded Praktika for cheap and win it. Nice condition except for some corrosion in the battery compartment but that's only for the meter. And the camera has a lens I've not been able to find any info on(28mm "Diebold" any one?). At the ssame time, I bid on a black Pentax K2 DMD. And win that one also. The Pentax goes off to Eric Hendrickson for a CLA and gets back to me pretty quickly (and inexpensively 🙂 ). So I now have two . Then several weeks ago, one of my co-workers gives me a Canon AE-1 and some lenses and a pretty good bag. So I now have three . 🙄

And I hate every frame I've shot with them.

My initial reasoning was faulty in any case; if ever I do want/need to shoot macro or tele, I've got a perfectly good Arax 60 and the required stuff to shoot those.

The Praktika was cheap enough that I don't mind letting it sit on the shelf.
The Canon was free so I could certainly sell it and get some $ for film or whatever.
The Pentax, I seriously thought I would enjoy a lot more. I used a K 1000 a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away--shot for my high school year book and paper--and loved that camera. I hated returning it to the school when I graduated. And I remember at the time lusting after the K2 (not particularly the DMD version) but not having the money to spend on it.
So the box gets to me, and the camera is very nice. Works like it is new and has some brassing to show it's use and appreciation over the years. It's got an apparently very well regarded lens. And I just don't like using the darn thing. :bang:
It's all the FSU's fault: they got me started on this RF camera thing and now I can't seem to stop being annoyed by the things us RF camera users don't have to deal with: mirror black out, ease of focusing in low light, small size and weight to tote around, relatively quiet cameras, and tiny good lenses.
I've shot three rolls of film with it and the results are--to put it charitably--mediocre.

I guess I just don't "see" in SLR anymore. 😱

Now I really do have one too many cameras.
Rob

 

[darkkavenger]

I think I get your point, I'm unable to use a 35mm SLR nowadays. RF for 35mm, Pentacon Six or TLRs for larger formats ... and I've got too many cameras as well.. but you all know this! 😉

 

[Spyderman]

I began my photography career with Zenit E, continued with EOS 3000, EOS 100, but then discovered the beauty of prime lenses and manual operation and switched to Olympus OM (though only OM 20). Some time later I found a Canonet in a second hand camera shop. It had stuck shutter, but I bought it, repaired it and used it very often. More often than my SLR with 6 lenses. And the reason? I could carry it with me all the time, 24/7. From then on I was spoiled. Rangefinders have grown on me since. I still have the OM set with 2 bodies and some 8 lenses, but I use my Canonet and Zorki more often, even though they have only 2 focal lengths (40 and 50). The RFs also caused me GAS. Much stronger GAS than I had with SLRs... but that may be because the FSU RFs are so cheap 🙂

I too am unable to use a 35mm SLR nowadays.

PS: Anyone want to change my OM 20 with 2.8/28, 1.8/50, 3.5/135 for a Bessa R? (you know, I still want to keep some OM lenses, just in case... 😀)

 

[remrf]

Just the opposite with me. I have three slr's and I enjoy shooting with them whenever the situation warrants it. My sister in law gave me a Pentax the model of which escapes me at the moment but its a nice little slr (tiny actually) compared to the Yashica Electro 35. It has the same exposure system as the Yashica i.e. it handles the time and you set the f-stop. It also has a 100th setting and a bulb setting. I've been carrying it with me for the last few weeks while I run a 36 exposure roll of Ilford C-42 B&W through it. It has a metal vertical focal plane shutter and does not make a great deal of noise when triggered. It is light and the viewfinder is plenty bright.

The Yashica is a nice rf and is very quiet. But for pure speed and ease of focus the Pentax wins hands down.

My Leica IIIa is a masochist's delight. It is hard to focus, hard to frame and a pain to load. It serves best when set at infinty and used as a point and shoot. I love it anyway but that is more an appreciation of the history and quality of the device than for its ease of use.

 

[Branestawm]

I picked up the slr recently after a while using rf's (needed a long lens) and the finder was like looking through a tea strainer; It seemed a very detatched way of looking at the world. And the weight of even a small slr outfit seems huge compared to an rf and a couple of lenses.
I use an slr when I need to. Otherwise I use a rangefinder. The slr is back in the cupboard.

Paul

Travelling light.

 

[kvanderlaag]

I'm seventeen and I know what you're talking about.

I have a Nikon D50, and a Nikkormat FTn, as well as a Canon TX.
I initially shot SLRs exclusively. And then my mother's Agfa Karat IV came along, and then my Zorki 6, and even then, I was still pretty comfortable with both.

And then I got the Fujica 35-SE, and the Leica M2.

I can no longer stand to see without framelines. It irritates me, it makes me grind my teeth, and it makes me feel incredibly claustrophobic and uncomfortable. I shot the M2 for a month, almost exclusively, and never touched my D50. Then someone asked me to do some work for them that basically required a digital camera, and so the D50 was it.

When I finished, I realized that I absolutely loathe using that camera. There is nothing about its operation that feels comfortable or natural to me. Focusing is impossible on that tiny screen, even in bright light.

Every frame I shoot with it just does not come out the way I'd like it to. They're all soft, or overexposed, or underexposed, or kind of blurry, or full of chromatic aberration, or something. And even if they're technically perfect, they're poorly composed. I just can't see through an SLR finder anymore.

I've spent all this time lusting for a Nikon D200, since it's affordable (sort of) and has a bigger finder, and is all around a better camera.

After realizing this, I've come to the conclusion that what I need is an Epson R-D1, but I'm never going to be able to afford it, or the Leica DM, for that matter.

Digital photography is just not for me, I guess, since we'll never have an affordable line of digital Rangefinder gear.

 

[Goodyear]

Heh, I can relate.

I discovered RFs the better part of two years ago - and it's kind of like dscovering the tool that best fits me. Like when I started using fountain pens - sure, I can write with a biro, but if I want it to be legible it'd better be a nib and a bottle of ink!

I keep a DSLR for a few applications where I really need it (most of my gig shooting, occasional macro amusements, I have no real need for tele), but if I try to do anything else with it I suck. I keep a K1000 for nostalgic reasons, and a Pen FT because it rocks and is about the same size of my M2 😀

But if I look back over my photography of the last two years 90-95% of the shots that I really like were made with an RF.

It's the pen (rather than Pen 🙂 ) that fits my hand...

(I keep meaning to go out more with SLRs, so I can get back into the groove, but it's not as much fun. No pain, etc... I need to force myself.)

 

[aad]

I did almost everything with an SLR, lots of "flower and bug" shots. I got a rangefinder in October and have shot/wasted a lot of film, and it's funny to use an SLR now. The mirror really flaps about, doesn't it?

I'm still learning basic composition. At least I'm having fun, and I can waste even more film sisnce I can carry the little camera everywhere!

 

[Solinar]

I bought a Nikon D50 and couple of primes last month. A friend of mine who is a former photojournalist and a big Nikon fan was over the moon when I told him the news.

He came over to see and when I handed him the camera with a 35/2D AF Nikkor mounted to it, he shook his head, then said that I should stick with my rangefinder cameras.

He schlepps a massive AF f/2.8 super zoom on his little D70. So, I showed him the used 85/1.8D Nikkor that I picked off ePay and he perked up a bit.

Bottom line: It's difficult to reform a diehard rangefinder user. If you are transitioning to a digital SLR, - fast primes brighten the viewfinder a bit and let you shoot in a moderately lit room without breaking out the flash.

If you have your 35mm rangefinder with you, the little D50 makes for a hell of light meter. - You gotta love those histograms.

 

[Buze]

I started photography "seriously" a year ago, after many years of shooting various digital bridges & compacts. For 10 years I just couldn't wait to have digital photography becoming useable. I got all sort of stuff over the years, an Apple Quicktake included (320x240 images anyone? 😀)
So last year I got myself a Canon 350D and I was instantly hooked. Got some canon glass, and then I discovered I could mount pretty much anything on my Canon body. So I did. Everything went on it. I hoarded a huge amount of cheap & excellent glass in various mounts, and even made myself non-existing adapters!
(I even have my own forum for manual focus geeks : http://oomz.net/mf/)

Then, I realized that my 8.2 megapixels were lame at printing past A2 (if very lucky, with very sharp glass) and I started wondering what to get. I could of course buy a 16 megapixel camera for the price of a small car, and a super-mega sharp lens (at the price of a small car) but really, I'm cheap.

So I decided to try the medium format film instead. First film ever was some Provia 100F in a Bronica S2A of 1969. I was instantly hooked to film. I now shoot & develop my own B&Q, shoot plenty of slide in a panel of medium format cameras from 1934 (Super Ikonta 6x9) to 1960 (Iskra) to the S2A (but it's an SLR). I can print medium format slide film to amazing sizes, and I find they have far superior color tones & range than digital. Instant convert.

But still I had my 350D, because for low light shooting, ISO 1600 and a fast prime is great. That is until I bought "for fun" a Zorki 1 off eBay. I shot it and realized I could shoot sharp stuff at 1/20 consistently. Immediately I realized I didn't need ISO 1600, I could use ISO 400 if I felt like it !
So I started hunting for "my" low light kit, and after a few FSU and a Leica IIIc, I now am with a Leica M2 and a Nokton 40mm f1.4.

... And I decided in the meantime not to buy a 5D. I'll upgrade my 350D to the next model (small size factor), whenever that is, but I feel disgust when I imagine shooting a 5D or worse and brandishing that into people faces! A small SLR is great for telephoto and stuff, no doubt. And people complaining about the 350D viewfinder should try a Leica IIIc 😀

I have various films in my various film cameras, and pick whichever I fancy when I got out and shoot that. It's great !

 

[John Robertson]

Had tha "opportunity" to use a 4/3 DSLR recently, it was like viewing the world at the end of a tunnel in a light fog. It did not convince me at all. My digicam at least has a viewfinder, these new ones which have to be used at armslength to view the screen on the back are just not for me. I honestly think Ricoh has a real cheek to ask the buyers of their GR digital to shell out what seems a huge price for an add on viewfinder!!

 

[sfb_dot_com]

There is a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread. I'm really not sure what the need is to justify the choices one makes of camera. As Hendrix once said 'It's all freedom'

Actually I do have a pretty good idea, but that might spoil the party.

Andy

 

[John Robertson]

There is a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread. I'm really not sure what the need is to justify the choices one makes of camera. As Hendrix once said 'It's all freedom'

Actually I do have a pretty good idea, but that might spoil the party.

Andy

Yup so do I, I'm going to bed with a whisky 😀

 

[wyk_penguin]

The good place for an SLR is either in a cupboard or on a tripod with a telephoto/macro lens.

I borrowed a Practika last month to shoot an event shoot twenty something exposures, rewound the film and used the remaining ones on my Bessa R3A. When I took the negs back from the 1-hour lab, the guy there said, "Hey, your autofocus is off, but it works fine in the last 15 shots. How strange."

 

[Solinar]

The other use is with a 135/2.8 lens when calibrating the infinity focus on your Soviet lenses for your Russian rangefinders . A SLR works a charm on this.

 

[GeneW]

I like and enjoy all my cameras, SLRs, TLRs and P&Ss as much as RFs. It all depends on what I'm shooting. Each type has its strengths. It's all good 😀

Gene

 

[rbiemer]

There is a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread.
Andy

Andy, "rationalizing" is what lead me down the garden path as it were. I should know my self better by now. :bang:
The last time I wanted to shoot macro or longer than 135 on 35mm film was, umm, can't recall.
I am glad this hobby of mine isn't (in general) too expensive. 🙄
And I am surprised that I'm not comfortable using the SLRs now.
I have no similar difficulties with the Arax 60 (or my TLR for that matter). And the Pentax, while bigger and heavier than any of my RF cameras, is tiny in comparission to that beast.
My intent isn't to put down or bash any of the cameras out there but just some musing on my own foolishness.
I could've been extremely silly and tried to recapture my youth by buying a car from that era. That would've been a true folly! 😀
but there is this TR-6 that's just begging to be adopted...
Rob

 

[wlewisiii]

Heh. I can remember why _I_ need tele's everytime I drive by the airport or an unusual aircraft flys over my house on short final. OTOH, it's having something that you like to shoot, like airplanes, that can't be convienantly done by a given camera type that makes you keep your hand in with other ones. Right now I'm looking for a good but bottom feeder priced Canon FTbn or T-90 to get a nice 500mm+ mirror lens on for those moments. Not what you need? Kewl. But have _fun_ with what you do use and the rest will take care of itself.

Now as for that TR-6, the Spitfire was a much nicer Triumph... 😉 Especially if you shoehorn in the engine from a GT-6... 😱 (I didn't but saw one once. Yummy.)

William

 

[rbiemer]

Now as for that TR-6, the Spitfire was a much nicer Triumph... 😉 Especially if you shoehorn in the engine from a GT-6... 😱 (I didn't but saw one once. Yummy.)
William

I've been told that a chevy small block V-8 is the way to go with these (or MG Midgets.)
Personally it sounds like a bad idea--too much power and very little wieght--don't think I could resist the potential and I know I couldn't afford the speeding tickets.
I'll stick with my cheap(ish) cameras.
Rob

 

[wlewisiii]

Rob,

I thought out & even started typing a long wildly OT discorse on why the 6 would be better than a small block. Then I laughed at myself and deleted it. I spent _way_ too much time pondering that once, don't need to again 🙂

I'll stick to cameras too - and at least this hobby gives me wonderful tangable memories of my son 😀

William