jsrockit
Moderator
This is the jist of it. I think most of us do enjoy them. I mean, even boojum owns and uses them. Let us all relax and enjoy all of these lovely cameras. This thread makes me want to go out and get a Leica Standard!
Time to Let the Rangefinder Go?
- Thread starter boojum
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 8K
This is the jist of it. I think most of us do enjoy them. I mean, even boojum owns and uses them. Let us all relax and enjoy all of these lovely cameras. This thread makes me want to go out and get a Leica Standard!
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
They are lovely cameras. Nothing wrong with zone/scale or hyperfocal distance focusing. I enjoy shooting that way at times.
lukitas
second hand noob
Using the words 'obsolete' and 'anachronism' to describe any sort of technology is entering a minefield. Causes peoples ears to eject steam.
What is more obsolete, the bicycle or the internal combustion motor? Just within bike technology, an argument can be made that a steel frame is 'better' than an aluminium or carbon fibre one. Is a mechanical watch better than a quartz? Maybe not for exact timekeeping, but they run without gas or electricity, and lookit what people are prepared to pay for them.
As for autofocus and Ibis and eye, face, airplane, car, dog and bird detection, where's the fun in taking photographs if you leave all those tasks to the camera? I like being personally responsible for aperture, focus and speed.
Opto-mechanical Rangefinders are a pinnacle of technology, just like mechanical watches and steel bicycles and handmade shoes. I think those sorts of things deserve more respect than they get.
By the way, aren't digital camera's known for fast obsolescence?
Lukitas, with love
What is more obsolete, the bicycle or the internal combustion motor? Just within bike technology, an argument can be made that a steel frame is 'better' than an aluminium or carbon fibre one. Is a mechanical watch better than a quartz? Maybe not for exact timekeeping, but they run without gas or electricity, and lookit what people are prepared to pay for them.
As for autofocus and Ibis and eye, face, airplane, car, dog and bird detection, where's the fun in taking photographs if you leave all those tasks to the camera? I like being personally responsible for aperture, focus and speed.
Opto-mechanical Rangefinders are a pinnacle of technology, just like mechanical watches and steel bicycles and handmade shoes. I think those sorts of things deserve more respect than they get.
By the way, aren't digital camera's known for fast obsolescence?
Lukitas, with love
oldwino
Well-known
I just bought a Nikon F4 (these are a steal right now, btw). But it has me confused - it uses obsolete technology (film and such), yet it is very modern (autofocus, matrix metering, auto advance), but these technologies are also ancient in form and function by today's standards. So, which is it? Modern or Obsolete?
I just thank god it doesn't have a rangefinder in it.
I just thank god it doesn't have a rangefinder in it.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Doesn't Obsolete mean something like it doesn't work? I have a 14 year old 6mp Epson rangefinder and I'll be darned, it works. I have lots of other old, obsolete things that just work, why would someone want to discontinue that sort of track record for stuff that when it doesn't work is unrepairable?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Some people have an insatiable desire to have the latest and greatest whizz-bang toy, and need to rationalize why they just spent their life savings to acquire it. Please note that none of these rationalizations are based on rational thinking.
Guth
Appreciative User
Obsolete means that something is no longer generally used, but that doesn't mean that the thing in question does not work. Obviously rangefinders still work, they just aren't for everyone and certainly not for the majority of people. I bought my first rangefinder 22 years ago — even then the camera would have been considered obsolete by most photographers. That's fine by me, I use and enjoy all sorts of products considered by many to be obsolete. No worries.
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
Electronic viewfinders can exceed capabilities of optical now. Anyone who has operated with the latest alexa mini can tell you how easy it is to pull focus live right from the vf.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
David Hughes
David Hughes
Obsolete means worn out, or rather it did; obsolescent means no longer in production and both of them, these days, mean no longer advertised with 4 page glossy blurbs in fashion magazines.
The problem is the word "fashion" which for many people means wonderful. Worse still they think that being seen with something fashionable makes them wonderful. I think it means they can't think for themselves and are gullible, perhaps even stupid.
The oddity is that there are millions of things that were designed centuries ago and haven't changed much - hand tools f'instance - but they can't see that fashion has nothing to do with usefulness. The main use of fashion is to separate people from their hard earned money.
Regards, David
jsrockit
Moderator
Nobody is disputing that here. It is just that we still like using rangefinders. I like a good evf too. I am not sure why people think if something succeeds something it means the succeeded is now not worth using.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
My digital camera is a few years old. I cannot focus manual focus lenses with its EVF with any confidence even with focus peaking. I know that EVFs have improved and perhaps if I upgraded my camera that would not be a problem. I am in no hurry to do so. I had no idea what an Alexa Mini is. I looked it up and appears to be a video camera that costs around $60,000. I don't shoot videos, so it is not something I am interested in acquiring.
pvdhaar
Peter
Same here. I guess the thing is that maximum contrast -which is what peaking signals- does not always equal optimum focus.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Agreed. Focus peaking has the same problems SLR focusing does: focus accuracy varies depending on the maximum aperture of the lens (or, if using an adapted lens, the aperture you're currently set to) and the focal length. The catch, of course, is that it also has the additional issue of using contrast to decide when things are in focus; a wide-angle, low-contrast, uncoated and slow lens is an utter nightmare to focus on an EVF. And yes, you can say "depth of field will cover mistakes with those lenses", but a lot of the time, it doesn't - especially as the megapixel count gets higher and the detail increases.
An opto-mechanical rangefinder doesn't have that problem; for better or worse, it doesn't discriminate. An uncoated 50/2 Summar, a 20/5.6 Russar, a 135/2.8 Elmarit - they're all handled the same, and are all as easy (or difficult) to focus as the next. So while it may be "obsolete", there are edge cases where it's definitively the better option.
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
the arri eyepiece itself is modular only about half the cost of an m11 retail. The tech is there and affordable in todays market. There are lots of amazing technological advances that are reasonably priced compared to leicas current offerings. They just need to innovate. I’m not saying I don’t find RFs endearing. I love them.
the new bleeding edge evfs on cameras do not even need peaking. You have to see it to believe it. Arri has a distance marking readout from the film plane in the vf, it’s amazing. The LF version which is closer to the size of 35mm ff is about $7k retail.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Don't you need more than the eyepiece to make a video?
jsrockit
Moderator
I don't know about this in practice though. I have never had the trouble of focusing an SLR that I do with focus peaking. Sometimes I just am way off with peaking. My EVFs are a bit dated now though... with the X-Pro3 and GFX-50R being the best I have.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I have an XT2. The viewfinder resolution is 2,360,000 dots. Your XPro3 has a viewfinder resolution of 3,600,000 dots, which is the same as the newly introduced XT5. Your GFX-50R is slightly better at 3,690,000.
Jerry Attrik
Newbie
NEVER! How on Earth would we octogenarians be able to cope? As it is we have three twiddly adjustments to make not to mention translation an exposure meter (if we do not do it by estimation).
The modern camera has all those little pushy buttons and menus like a copy of the New York Sunday times (with puzzle supplement). A simple life in our dotage years, please.😛
The modern camera has all those little pushy buttons and menus like a copy of the New York Sunday times (with puzzle supplement). A simple life in our dotage years, please.😛
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've always struggled with SLRs, and TLRs depend a lot on the taking lens and the ground glass.
I've tried all SLR systems at some point or another - OM, Pentax K, Canon, Nikon, whatever - and always had an issue finding focus. Don't know why. Just doesn't work for me.
I was literally just saying to a friend earlier that I'm way more consistent with a 135/4 on a crude and basic rangefinder like a FED 5 than I am on even the fanciest SLR. That's just how my eyes work, I guess.
Similar threads
