Rangefinders and Nature?

[raid]

I usually take only my SLR system with me when traveling to a National Park. I then have lenses with focal length 7.5mm-500mm. Now, I don't feel like doing this anymore, and I am considering taking along only a couple of rangefinder cameras. I wonder whether people here do nature photography with a rangefinder camera or whether you still prefer an SLR for such trips.

 

[Byuphoto]

When just out walking and enjoying nature I use an RF a lot but for specific wildlife landscape I still use an SLR or MF rig. I am walking more every afternoon and an Rf goes with me. Today was the inaugral walk with the M4-2 and 35 'cron

 

[GeneW]

I do this myself -- carrying only a small Leica kit when I'm out for nature walks and I want to travel light. You adopt a different philosophy and just concentrate on things that work with your lens limitations.

It's a good change of pace and very pleasant, but it's not a substitute for macro and tele lenses. It's back to the SLR's when you want to get serious about it...

Gene

 

[wlewisiii]

Don't discount just how much a good 135mm lens can do to increase your reach. Admittedly you do still have some fairly hefty limitations, but it can be a fun exercise to live with those limits.

And a whole lot easier on the back 😱 !

William

 

[cp_ste.croix]

This is from a GSN as is this.... It's not my fav type of shooting, so I don't do a lot of it, but this was a request from my GF's dad.

 

[ch1]

I usually take only my SLR system with me when traveling to a National Park. I then have lenses with focal length 7.5mm-500mm. Now, I don't feel like doing this anymore, and I am considering taking along only a couple of rangefinder cameras. I wonder whether people here do nature photography with a rangefinder camera or whether you still prefer an SLR for such trips.

I'll be the "heavy" and vote for a SLR in most "nature" circumstances - espescially since then I am usually shooting chrome and also want to be able to rely on auto shooting of "fleeting" opportunities.

But, heck, do what you enjoy - there are no rules, only personal preferences.

 

[DougK]

Most of my stuff could probably be classed as nature photography. I find that unless I'm needing to do flower-and-bug shots (couldn't resist that) a rangefinder works just fine, although when I want to get serious I usually take my TLR instead. When I do carry an SLR outfit I usually just take my 28mm and 50mm lenses anyway... since I started shooting rangefinders and TLRs telephoto lenses became a lot less compelling to me.

 

[Peter Klein]

As others have said, the SLR is the only game in town for macro and for telephoto over 135mm. But if you don't care about macro and long telephoto, then why not take the RF? I have been to numerous national parks and natural wonders over the years, and I usually took only a Leica and the classic trio of 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. In recent years I've sometimes added a 25 or 21.

A tip: A 90mm RF lens at its closest focusing distance is roughtly equivalent to a 50mm "normal" SLR lens at its closest distance. Not macro, but often enough for that plant you just *have* to shoot.

A compromise might be to take the RF and the two or three lenses you use the most. Also take the SLR body, but with one very short lens, one long lens or the 80-200 zoom, and maybe a macro. See what you actually use. Then only take those things on the next trip.

Click here for a 3-page album of pictures from Central Oregon, Crater Lake National Park, and points to and from there and Seattle. All with an RF and 35-50-90, plus a couple of 21mm shots. Makes for a light bag, as this native of Glacier National Park discovered.

Attachment below is also from Glacier, 35mm lens.

Hope this helps,
--Peter

 

[RML]

I usually take only my SLR system with me when traveling to a National Park. I then have lenses with focal length 7.5mm-500mm. Now, I don't feel like doing this anymore, and I am considering taking along only a couple of rangefinder cameras. I wonder whether people here do nature photography with a rangefinder camera or whether you still prefer an SLR for such trips.

As it is, we don't have any real nature here. But even going to the nearby forest, I only bring an RF camera and (literally) only a handful of lenses: 1 on the camera and 1 (maybe 2) in my bag. We don't have any great vistas here, so I don't need 135mm or longer, especially not on the R-D1, where an 85mm will suffice.

See the photos on my photo blog for some examples that I shoot in "nature".

 

[richard_l]

I used to take an SLR with a 28-80mm macro zoom on backpacking hikes. Then I started taking only an XA, and I shot just as many keepers as I did with the SLR. So now I just carry a Rollei 35 or a RF with a single lens.

 

[cjago]

Nature without telephoto

Nature without telephoto

Have you seen Nick Brandt's work? Whilst this is not literally wildlife photography with a rangefinder (he uses a Pentax 6x7) his technique would be very valid for RF cameras. Get close. No telephoto/zoom. Get closer. You wouldn't know he wasn't using, say, a Fuji 6x7 or 6x9 RF.

Google, or read about it here:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/reader/2005/09/nick-brandt-on-this-earth.html

 

[Nikon Bob]

Like a few others here I use an RF for nature shots and there is no reason not to do so if you can live without macro or close up animal shots. You can get nice enviromental shots of animals in NPs with a RF, especially since the animals are used to people in these parks. OTH you could just reduce the SLR load to a wide angle, a normal, a short tele macro and one long lens for animals. That is all I usually take with an SLR kit.

Bob

 

[Frank Granovski]

I guess nature photography means many things. I've always used a 50 most of the time and a short tele some of the time----SLR or rangefinder. However, there were times when I could have used both a wider lens and a longer lens. The 50 is my favourite lens for almost any kind of shooting except for street portraits.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

As Frank stated, nature shots can mean a lot of things.

Shots of birds and other small creatures in their habitat, an SLR with a 300mm or 500mm lens is hard to beat. If you can get close, or want shots of "big things" the RF is fine.

You can also get an RF coupled 200mm F4.5 Komura, if you are a real die-hard. But I do not use it that much...

1) Nikkor-H 300mm F4.5, Wide-Open, Nikon F
2) Jupiter-3 on Canon IIf

 

[Toby]

The best thing about rf's is their portabilty. If I was going for a country walk with my wife and kids taking an RF is no problem, a full SLR kit is another matter. Okay RF's have their well documented limitations but so does every other system. I've had a history of back problems which I blame partly on lugging a pro Eos system around, at the end of the day the best camera to use is the camera you have with you, and it is much easier to always have an RF with you than pretty much any other 'serious' camera.

 

[Byuphoto]

Someone mentioned that the 90mm at close focus was equal to a 50 SLR at close focus.
Here's a shot of a little cone flower I took with the Bessa R and a 90mm Elmar. I had it in my hand when I saw the last flower of the year, They bloom into Dec. here.
Cone flower

 

[Kin Lau]

350D + 400/5.6 off the one shoulder for the birds, and an RF in the pocket or on a wriststrap for scenics. Works fine especially when I don't want to switch lenses and miss a shot. The Oly XA or Canonet are both working out to be good compacts for that.

Most of my 6x9's and 4x5's are RF's and foldable also, so they're also a great choice for scenics.

 

[jaapv]

If you take a look at my gallery "African Dreams", you'll find a number of photo's taken with the Leica Digilux2 (a digital 24-90 mm electronic rangefinder) in Tsavo National Park, Kenia. My kit on safari consists of a Digilux2, a Canon 10D with 100-400 and 1.4x converter. All I need.... (Sorry, Digital-antagonists,no offense meant, I did use film in the past, but the scanning got too much for me.I'll take a M3 as well next time...)

 

[raid]

Thanks for the idas and links. I will try out using mostly rangefinders. As someone pointed out, portability is a major factor when you have little children with you. I may throw in a 6x6 folding camera, just in case. I will most likely take along these lenses: 25mm/4, 35mm/1.8, 50mm/2, (90mm/2 or 135mm/3.5). I will also take more B&W than color this time. This is also an experiment for me.

 

[FPjohn]

Dr

Dr

Hello:

I'm generally a one lens/body pair per outing person but a DR Summicron and a 90mm make a good nature / landscape combination. Enjoy your trip.

yours
Frank