What is distinct about rangefiner cameras in the age of digital?

[lamemoria]

I am sure you all have debated this, but I was wondering this in the wake of reading so many photo mags stating that film is dead. With the advent of the 10 meg digital slr's, many are noting that film will be dead. Why should I keep my Leica M7 or Voigtlander R3a? Should I sell and take a digital direction?

Can you tell me what is distinct about the rangefinder , ie the picture quality, that a digital slr cannot create. That is, do you all feel that a rangefinder creates a distinct camera image that will remain unique and thus a signature , if you will, of ones artistic vision.

Also, can any of you tell me any art photographers that use rangefinders for their work.

Thanks. I am new , so please forgive me if my questions are old.

Regards

J-M

 

[dmr]

Iin the wake of reading so many photo mags stating that film is dead.

Film is dead to many of the magazine publishers in that the advertising revenue they get from digital products is much greater. Follow the money!

 

[Doug]

Hi J-M ... "Rangefinder" and "SLR" are simply different viewing and focusing technologies that are quite independent from the digital/film issue. There are of course digital SLRs and film SLRs, a fewer number of film rangefinders and one current digital RF with two more in the wings.

If you want to try digital, but prefer the rangefinder method of shooting, then you might consider a digital EPSON R-D1, which will use the same lenses you have for the Leica M7 and Bessa R3a.

Just because digital capture of images has been increasingly popular, that doesn't mean "film is dead"... we've had at least one too many FID threads here in RFF so let's not turn this one into another! But there's no reason to sell your Leica and Voigtlander if you enjoy using them, like the results, and if you're satisified with film. And there's no reason you shouldn't get a less expensive digital camera to see how it fits into your photographic life. I think most RFF members who use mostly film also have a digicam or two as well.

I also suggest you dig through past forum discussions here in RFF, where I think you'll find plenty of shared experiences and opinions. Welcome!

 

[JoeFriday]

denise makes an excellent point.. professional photography, like many other aspects of our society, is driven by cost and efficiency.. and consumers generally try to mimic the pros, without understanding why they use any particular gear

what makes rangefinders distinct (and arguably better than digital cameras)... first of all, we'll ignore the RD-1, and assume there is no crossover..

1. the digital crop-factor means you can't utilize the full lens.. a wideangle on a DSLR becomes a normal aspect lens.. to make a true wideangle lens for digital cameras is very expensive and the lens will probably not be a very good performer, with lots of distortion and vignetting

2. film still produces a better image than digital.. at least, that's the opinion of many photographers.. digital doesn't have the latitude that film can have.. and IMO, the images lack depth

3. another trend that goes hand-in-hand with digital is zoom lenses.. which will never be as sharp as a fixed lens design

4. mirror slap in DSLRs, and not being able to see the image as it's being captured with virtually every digital camera, not to mention the shutter lag

5. composing images with framelines.. can't do it with a DSLR or digicam

 

[iñaki]

With the advent of the 10 meg digital slr's, many are noting that film will be dead. Why should I keep my Leica M7 or Voigtlander R3a? Should I sell and take a digital direction?

You have wonderful rangefinder cameras, if you don´t know why are they better for you, maybe you should sell them now IMHO.
I prefer RF cameras because I LIKE them, I ENJOY using them, I´m just an amateur, so I can shot with them and have the digital camera on the self, It works well, but I HATE the focus. The proffesonal can use expensive tools, but sometimes I MUST use DSLR.
Of course, diferent cameras for different people (or different needs)

 

[SteveM(PA)]

If I'm shooting pool with my buddies, bowling with the kids, at a church service, or out dining with the well heeled, and I want to take some low-light, bokeh-rich snaps without being noticed, much less scaring babies, for under a grand...the digital world has yet to give me an option.

 

[ywenz]

denise makes an excellent point.. professional photography, like many other aspects of our society, is driven by cost and efficiency.. and consumers generally try to mimic the pros, without understanding why they use any particular gear

2. film still produces a better image than digital.. at least, that's the opinion of many photographers.. digital doesn't have the latitude that film can have.. and IMO, the images lack depth

If you want to talk in the context of the consumer market... I guarantee you that the majority of the P&S consumers will say digital shots look better than their film prints..

 

[dmr]

denise makes an excellent point.. professional photography, like many other aspects of our society, is driven by cost and efficiency.. and consumers generally try to mimic the pros, without understanding why they use any particular gear

Actually, I was approaching this, or trying to, from an advertising and revenue angle with respect to the magazines.

The media do not really answer to the readers or viewers, they answer to the advertisers. Right now (and I don't work for any of the photo mags, so this is a hunch) ad revenues are soft overall, but my guess is that digital is the hottest thing with regard to large monthly display ads.

Those types of products are the ones they will be featuring, and yes, when I read such things as Shutterbug and Pop Photo, there is some (gentle?) pressure in there to jump on the Digital Bandwagon<tm>. 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Can you tell me what is distinct about the rangefinder , ie the picture quality, that a digital slr cannot create. That is, do you all feel that a rangefinder creates a distinct camera image that will remain unique and thus a signature , if you will, of ones artistic vision.

I cannot. What I can tell you is about how it is that there are many kinds of hammer, although all exist to pound things in.

A rangefinder can do several things that an SLR (digital or film) cannot, or which it cannot do well. For example - it is usually quieter. It is capable of hand-holding at a much slower speed, due to lack of 'mirror slap' that an SLR has (although this advantage is slowly being mitigated by the new digital camera anti-shake features). It is much easier to use a rangefinder camera with filters, because you don't have to view your subject through the lenses. An SLR, on the other hand, is much better at macro photography, and long-distance wildlife and sports photography. It is smaller and may be easier to conceal, or it may be less threatening-looking to subjects being photographed.

Of course, some tools are selected merely due to personal preference. I like to use my Grandfather's old ball-peen hammer - my dad used it before me - but I'm sure an Ace Hardware $2 Taiwanese hammer would pound nails just as well.

I cannot tell by looking what camera took a particular photograph in most cases. Perhaps in the case of Large Format (LF) cameras where extreme movements were used to alter perspectives and focal planes from the usual.

Also, can any of you tell me any art photographers that use rangefinders for their work.

Mostly just dead ones, that I am aware of. However, I'm sure they are out there. Many use Holgas, other 'toy' cameras, or Polaroids to achieve the artistic image they want.

Thanks. I am new , so please forgive me if my questions are old.

Regards

J-M

John, say hello to Boulder for me. I miss Mustard's Last Stand and The Sink.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Film is dead to many of the magazine publishers in that the advertising revenue they get from digital products is much greater. Follow the money!

You have proof that magazines get paid more per ad for 'digital' ads than for film-based ads?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Doug]

You have proof that magazines get paid more per ad for 'digital' ads than for film-based ads?

..."per ad"...? I think I saw a straw man pop into view...

 

[jlw]

Can you tell me what is distinct about the rangefinder , ie the picture quality, that a digital slr cannot create. That is, do you all feel that a rangefinder creates a distinct camera image that will remain unique and thus a signature , if you will, of ones artistic vision.

Funny, I have a recollection of writing an essay about this...

 

[J. Borger]

You can not mount a 'glowing' 35/1.4 pre asph, an uncoated elmar or a sharp/ low contrast vintage Canon 28 or 35 Serenar on a DSLR.
There are more and very unique and different lenses to choose from .. all with their own character, color-palette, tonality in B&W etc. .
You want the sharpest possible and a very different footprint ..... take the modern Leica or Zeiss glas.
You simply will not find equal lenses in the Canon or Nikon setup ... not even in the Leica R line.
With a DSLR you have to rely far more on PS if you want to create your 'own' look and or color palette. With a Rangefinder you have a lot of options by choosing the hardware.

 

[tetrisattack]

What's distinct about them? Well, just about everything. Outside of capturing light, they work differently than just about every other digital camera.

If you feel pressured to join the largely homogenized world of digital photography, then by all means, cave. Make sure to get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS while you're at it so that you'll be on the same playing field as all the other pros.

Ever see those candids of the olympic sidelines, a huge crowd of photogs with all those white lenses? That's why I use a rangefinder in this age of digital.

 

[sf]

Agree with TetrisAttack. Everything is unique.

With the only exception being the RD-1, currently, everything is different.

I despise these digital vs film threads because they are strangely self medicating. . . even when they are only slightly so, but I'd like to say just one thing about why I refuse to do the digital thing. One LONG thing.

I refuse to become sucked into a market conspiracy that has people replacing their cameras (ugrading them) yearly under the same sort of weird external and illogical pressure that pushes people into the lemming style, bigger is better, plasma TVs, SUVs, individually wrapped single serving culture of consumption and utter disregard for humanity and REAL reality.

I refuse to buy into a chain reaction. I refuse to latch on to The Makers' (Canon and Nikon) wasteful, short sighted, weak, and visciously predatory product strategies. The idea of lenses that are built specifically for sensor sizes is hideous. Totally and completely nauseating. Those sensor sizes are becoming obsolete as quickly as becoming marketable. We used to replace our film with something new when we wanted higher resolution or higher dynamic range. Or our chemicals. Now we have ONE medium - the RAW file, and we are replacing entire cameras simply for the upgrade from one thumb sized piece of silicon to another. . . . .they could EASILY produce cameras with options for sensor upgrades if they planned for it. But the most money is certainly in selling the whole package. If the car salesman could sell you the whole car every time your tires wore down, he would. But he can't, because it is unethical and illogical, and no one is stupid enough to bite on that. But people are lemming it on the digital wave of consumer madness.

I'd buy a $200 p&s digital for taking pictures of stuff for the internet, like gear to sell or trade, pics of my car when it is ailing, etc. But I won't buy another digital camera until they begin to offer systems where sensor upgrades do NOT require replacing the camera. I won't jump in until the madness slows and the horrible rampage of these companies through the market ceases.

All of the big players are currently complaining about their costs of keeping up with the speed of market/product evolution. Give me a break. How easy would it be to design a camera with a removeable/replaceable sensor? They can only go so far with sensor size before they'll be looking at MF sized bodies, so they are going ot have to resort to building DENSER sensors, like Intel's massive increases on density for their chips.

I'm not even tempted by digital. I'd buy the Nikon F6 before I'd buy the D200 - no question about it.


Rangefinder photography is unique now because it is so raw. It is so much more alive and organic and real. Especially shooting with a fully manual camera, which mine isn't even. Digital is just a short cut. A simple McDonaldsization of photography for the masses.

 

[Duncan Ross]

For me rangefinder photography is like using an RPN calculator; I don't need to do either but I prefer too, it's a more involving experience and I seem to make fewer mistakes.

Duncan Ross
Kiev 4M, HP 41CX

 

[wyk_penguin]

I am sure you all have debated this, but I was wondering this in the wake of reading so many photo mags stating that film is dead. With the advent of the 10 meg digital slr's, many are noting that film will be dead. Why should I keep my Leica M7 or Voigtlander R3a? Should I sell and take a digital direction?

Can you tell me what is distinct about the rangefinder , ie the picture quality, that a digital slr cannot create. That is, do you all feel that a rangefinder creates a distinct camera image that will remain unique and thus a signature , if you will, of ones artistic vision.

Fact 1: For the price of an M3 and a nice lens, you can just about get a professional DSLR that will be replaced by another model in 3 years.

Fact 2: The price of DSLRs decreases in 6 months.

Fact 3: A rangefinder does not increase picture quality.

What you interpret of these facts is up to you. Just don't think that there is some magical power in the rangefinder. It's just a lousy camera!

 

[boarini2003]

Film will never be dead, and there will always be space for the Leicas and whatever film camera you want to use. Regarding the question of whether to go digital or not, I say NOT, but that's me. Do whatever satisfies YOU artistically. I'm contrarian by nature and a luddite. Film is beautiful. It's also fun. Developing it, darkroom printing, finding that great film/developer combination, it's all part of the experience. I say, NEVER sell a Leica. A camera like that is pure art as a tool, as an object of industrial design, and it is intended for art in it's essential form. You take the picture. No AF, no matrix metering and pre-set programming, no multi-use buttons and no 5 frames per second. You decide it all, the aperture, the shutter speed and the focus. No distractions or technological "help" that ends up as a handicap. A digital SLR is about the worst shooting tool for my type of photos. I like something discreet and portable, something simple and functional. And the best for me, no USB cables, batteries, CD's and freaking computers. If you want to be re-inspired on the amazing qualities of film (especially when compared to digital) go to
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

Personally, I think digital has made people conformist and sloppy. Take a look at a well done darkroom print. Take a look at a picture by Sebastiao Salgado. I see no real advantage to digital, in terms of the final image. And the final image is what photography is all about. Of course, this is my BIASED and personal opinion, so to all the digital lovers out there, no need to bash me. ;-)

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Why should I keep my Leica M7 or Voigtlander R3a?

There's no reason -- you absolutely should get rid of both and all M-mount lenses you have. I'll take them off your hands. PM for mailing address. I'll even pay shipping!

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I took the SP and S3 to the Udvar hazy Air and Space Museum yesterday. That have barred tripods and bipods from use; they created a tripping hazard in the Museum. Monopods are Okay.

I was the only person there shooting without a flash.