Rangefinder for use other than "street" photography?

A

andrewteee

Established
Local time
7:24 AM
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
135
View My Gallery
Pardon me while I ask yet another simple rangefinder question. As I look through the range of rangefinder imagery here and elsewhere the majority of it is so called street photography. That's not my thing. Family and nature are my thing, along with post processing images to a certain dark, textured feel. That said, I love the notion of documentary / storytelling photographing. In fact, I have some ideas for stories that I'm pursuing related to locally sourced and hand crafted foods in my area.

I would appreciate pointers to rangefinders images that are interesting but not strictly street photography!

More information re: why a rangefinder. I love film, but except for a Holga I don't have one at the moment. I'm looking for one. I'd like to find a good low light camera since none of my digital cameras are strong in that area (I used to have a Canon 5D but sold it and I'm looking to get back what that provided when paired with fast primes). I love using the rangefinder to compose and focus. I'm tired of dinky DSLR viewfinders that make it hard to manual focus, and nice as the LCDs are I still prefer to compose via rangefinder. I had a two week romance with a Zeiss Ikon and 35mm Biogon some weeks ago and fell in love.

But I can't help feeling that I'm trying to make my photographic style fit a rangefinder, since I don't fall into its sweetspot, and I'd love to hear from others who use them in "non-standard" ways.

BTW I'm also considering a Mamiya 7 II since it may be a better landscape camera, plus I love big negs. However, something like a Zeiss Ikon is smaller, more portable, and perhaps more widely usable. Frankly, if I could have both I probably would. And the fact that the 35mm neg is smaller does not necessarily bother me since I think the tonal characteristics can add texture to images.

Thanks for your thoughts and pointers 🙂
 
I have a Zeiss Ikon and I plan to use it for portraits and photojournalism-type assignments in addition to "street photography". In fact, I like it so much that I've pretty much retired my DSLR (40D), hahah. I also have a friend who has one and has used it with studio lights and assures me that it syncs just fine (125th limit, of course) 🙂.
 
great for casual portraits. I also use mine for not only street, but also a good bit of urban landscape/cityscape work. Great for documenting changing neighborhoods.
 
Do you prefer shooting on a tripod or handheld? Since you mentioned low light situations, if you like shooting handheld, a rangefinder is ideal. Not only do you have loads of options for fast lenses, but you don't have mirror slap. With an SLR, the slowest shutter speed you can safely handhold is the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. With a rangefinder, since there isn't a mirror flopping around, you can go slower than that. Using Tri-x in Diafine (1600 ISO), I can shoot at EV1 or EV2, handheld, with no flash. That is with a 35mm f/1.4 at either 1/15 or 1/30. Many can go slower handheld, but I smoke and drink a lot of coffee, so my hands arent as steady as some people's. There are, of course, a number of things rangefinders are not ideally suited to, such as macro photography, but for family or nature, a rangefinder can be just as good as an slr.
 
Hi,

you can have a look at my small flickr portfolio. I don't think any picture there qualifies as "Street" but they were all taken with rangefinders.
I personally use a rangefinder because it's small and light and I enjoy the feel of it. I can carry it all day without backpain and no regrets if I didn't shoot anything...
Most of my images are just moody and the "decisive moment" philosophy are irrelevent to them.

When you buy a camera you don't buy a photographic style. Just a light capturing device. Only if it hinders you in your photography should you consider it inappropriate, not because of some commonly accepted label imposed by others.

Since you've already fallen in love, why don't you consume it?

p.s: I had a Mamiya 6 and loved it. Only drawback: Heavy! Not an everyday carry-around camera, but excellent none the less.
 
Thanks everyone. These days, I'm far more diligent that I used to be about the purchase of a new camera. Do I need it and does it work for what I'm looking for. Thus, so many questions I ask! I realize that any camera can do most anything, but no other camera is so correlated with a particular style and a deep history than the rangefinder. But, it's only a tool.

Morback, very nice work and much along the lines of what I shoot. And in fact, I had favorited one of yours along time ago. The one with all of the wires and sky.
 
As far as being connected with specific styles of photography, a lot of that has more to do with the historical evolution of the camera. Before 35mm rangefinder cameras became prevalent, most press photographers used speed graphics. Once the Nikon F became available, many if not most press photographers switched to SLRs. The advantage of the rangefinder camera is in its small size, and to a lesser degree, its comparatively quiet operation.

You are doing exactly the right thing by asking a million questions and considering many different options before you buy. I think the first thing you should decide would be the question of film format. If you shoot mostly color, or you don't do your own processing and printing, I would recommend 35mm, as it is cheaper. 35mm cameras are also generally smaller and more easily portable. If you are the type of person that carries a camera everywhere they go, no matter what, 35mm is the more solid option. If you do do your own processing and printing, and you like printing larger than 8x10 or 11x14, you will have more consistently good results (depending on content and exposure, of course) with medium format. Note, however, that printing medium format turns out MUCH better with a 4x5 enlarger, so if you don't have one, that would be an additional expense. If you decide on a 35mm rangefinder, there are loads of people here with loads more experience with 'em than me, and loads of threads already extant. As to the medium format option, here are a couple of options to consider: The Mamiya 7 camera is massive, and the lenses aren't exactly tiny, either. If you want a small, portable medium format rig, your best option is a folder, something like the new (expensive) voigtlander, or a restored agfa super isolette. Also, don't forget that for the price of many 35mm rangefinders, you can get a hasselblad 500c kit or a mamiya 645 super kit. Yes, both cameras are larger than the rangefinders, but with the hasselblad you have the advantage of that gorgeous zeiss planar lens, and with the mamiya you have the advantage of motor drive and an available 75 or 80 mm (cant remember which) f/1.9 lens, which, if i am not mistaken, is the fastest medium format lens available. The various TLR cameras, like the autocord, the yashica mat, and the rolleis are, imho, more portable than their SLR cousins, and in a way, they are more portable than the mamiya 7, due to its somewhat awkward form factor and the interchangebale lenses. The TLR cameras also operate very quietly. My now defunct seagull was as quiet as my Leica CL.

Above all, even though the choices you face are, in a way, agonizing, enjoy the process. I am of the opinion that you are able to learn a lot about yourself as a photographer through a long and careful decision on a camera. Regardless of what you choose, treat the choice as one you will live with the rest of your life, more akin to getting a tattoo than buying a used car. If you don't choose a rangefinder camera, no one around here will think less of you, heck, they probably wouldn't really care. This is the best place I have found, however, for information on rangefinder cameras. I love mine, but they don't do everything, and they aren't for everyone.
 
I don't do "street" and consider the term currently over-used for a genre that used to be more specific and less in fashion.

I use film RFs because I don't have to make money with my photography and because I like the feel of them and the process.

When you browse Life magazines of the last century, National Geographic, etc, you will see that upto the 90s, RFs were still used for everything but macro and long tele shots.

I do environmental portraiture, land- and city-scapes, and travel photography, mostly. I love the IQ that I get from relatively cheap RF lenses, I use color film and don't hesitate to use a tripod either. Long live a strong tripod with a small RF on top .... 🙂 Or a grainy portrait shot at 1600 ASA. Or a bag with two bodies and 4 primes easily fitting into my motor-cycle's saddle-bag, or carried on a long hike.

I also love the compatibility that I get from M/LTM RF mount with hundreds of lenses, some built 60 years ago. The only other mount that offers that variety of lenses is M42.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
"What do you shoot?" is always a really hard question for me to answer. I have the camera with me all the time (actually three all the time now, a 110 Kodak pocket instamatic 20, a ricoh grd2 and my m6). Sometimes I just take an image I see, other times I cock the shutter and go find one. I am with IdeaDog on this--if photography isn't your source of income, find what you like to use and shoot whatever you can with it.
 
Arial photography, public relations and advertizing photography, models and actors composites, golf and tennis tournaments, fashion, hair styling shows, weddings and portraits, accident and crime scenes, interior and exterior shots of buildings, political functions ~ about anything that doesn't require extreme close-ups or long telephoto lenses.
 
I think RFs work well with "normal" lenses and wider, but of course are limited in the other direction. In particular I enjoy using my Leicas with a 35mm or wider set to around f8 so I can zone focus easily and "just shoot" - having preset the exposure. (You would be surprised how well this works as on most days exposure does not change all that much and if you know how to estimate the effects of shadow or full sun its easy to adjust quickly.) I like using my M cameras for landscape type shots but I often find that my type of photography favours close in shots of details so I more and more find myself using an SLR due to its flexibility. Although I can still get away with using an M for this as I tend to refer medium teles not long teles and a 90 or 135 are still within whats reasonable for a rangefinder camera.

For some reason M's do work well in that "intimate" setting where one person is photographing another as in street work. Maybe its size and quietness help as does the rangefinder / viewfinder - with the right accessory finder you can keep both eyes open which encourages this sort of intimacy. Its also a very fast camera to use - virtually no shutter delay and believe me that is important with unpredictably moving subjects like people in a crowd. Just raise the camera and click.

I think your idea of a Medium Format for landscape work is a good one - one that I myself would be tempted to try as I love quality images and nothing works quite as well as big negatives - Well perhaps big sensors but thats still a very expensive option.
 
No, he's right, it's impossible to do anything other than street photography with a rangefinder. They don't work with landscapes or pictures of badgers, the manual focus and special shutter make it impossible. Badgers on streets are okay. Unless they're armed.

Seriously though, if you need a zoom for anything, get an SLR, otherwise RF is fine for anything:

http://tinyurl.com/d9wtkn
 
<sarcasm>When I was attending art classes, I always wanted to sketch some architectural masterpieces, but all I has was watercolors. I should have gone pencils. I hear the German mechanical pencils are quite the thing.</sarcasm>

A camera takes photographs. Use it for what you want. Unless you need a 15 foot telephoto lens for covering football games, you're fine with a rangefinder for almost anything. If you're going to need telephotos, get an SLR and a tripod. Anything else, you're good to go. You might even be forced to see things in new ways if restricted to 35/50/85 or the like.
 
A rangefinder has many uses. Capturing a greyhound running at 40 mph is one of them.

original.jpg


original.jpg
 
I think that some are a little confused,the rangefinder is less intrusive but this does not refer to the subject but to the operator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
WJJ3
WJJ3
S
Suggestions / advice for new camera
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
silvershadelynx
S
B
Canon VI-L or Canon 7s?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Sanug
S
K
My search...
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
C
Rangefinder internals
Replies
8
Views
876
Phil_F_NM
Phil_F_NM
Back
Top Bottom