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

[JoeFriday]

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..

I'll agree with that.. just as any average music lover will tell you that a cd sounds better than vinyl.. whereas audiophiles who have a nice turntable and have listened to the cd version of their favorite LP cringe at the loss of warmth and openess that the turntable provides

newer is not necessarily better.. contrary to everyone's definition of 'progress'

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'll say one thing that makes them "distinct": they are easier to repair and maintain.

OK, two things. Easier to repair and maintain, and people love them.

OK, three things. Easier to repair, maintain and people love them. Random people tell me how "handsome" my camera is; people who see pictures taken with my digital cameras say they're nice and clean, but they are "wowed" by the ones taken with my rangefinder cameras.

OK, four things. What did you expect...?

 

[John Camp]

Going back to the original question, I'd say film *is* dead for most work-a-day professional photographers. Not all, of course, but for the vast majority; and most serious amateurs tend to take their cues from professionals. For working professionals, digital simply has too many advantages to ignore, especially the ease and speed of moving files. You can shoot a football game and file by cell phone, if you're set up to do that, so that your shot is being printed before you leave the game -- being printed in New York before you leave the game in Los Angeles. You also have the ability to see what you have as the shoot goes on, so you can do instant reshoots if an art director has a better idea or sees a flaw in the current set-up. (Or, in the case of a football game, you can continue shooting if you missed as shot.) SLRs have their own advantages for pros, in their flexibility -- you can do macros, shoot with long lenses, get shift lenses, etc. So -- most pros who shoot miniature cameras choose SLRs, and for other good reasons, go to digital.

Rangefinders, I think, go more toward a method of working -- of fast reaction, of getting close, of shooting low light without being conspicuous. They also have something to do with personal preferences...I shot Nikon for the last 20 years, and I haven't picked up my D2x since the R-D1 came through the door. (Though the Nikon will get some use as soon as warm weather gets to Minnesota.) In my case, I *like* the rangefinder better. It's smaller and handier and the quality is still great. A D2x with a RRS bracket is not something you casually sling over your shoulder, and a Canon 1DSMII is even heavier. They are *machines.* But if I were looking toward the possibility of a professional career, I'd be all digital, either SLR or MF, and I would be spending a lot of time working through software packages.

But I'm not looking toward a pro career. I can use any camera I want, and I choose (now) to mostly use a rangefinder, and I'm definately looking forward to the digital M.

I disagree with people who thing digital is flat or the prints aren't as good as with film. I think they're somewhat different, but I've seen shots from the Leica DMR that you can fall into. I personally like the freedom that comes with computer processing and digital printing, but I have no problems with people who prefer otherwise.

JC

 

[RML]

It's not an odd question but there's not just one answer, and some of those might not even stroke with your point of view.

Digital and film are not mutually exclusive, and neither are SLRs and rangefinders. Just shoot whatever makes you feel good.

 

[jaapv]

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

Not sure about that one, Joe. Leica has announced some wide-angles to go with the digital M at a "price below the current range". We may assume that they will be not too bad and maybe they will be only moderately expensive.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Hi Lamemoria and welcome to the forum.

Although new to RF photography you seem to have a large selection of cameras. From you 4 posts you have an old M that needs painting, an M7, an R3A and have just bought a Rollei RF from a friend who just bought a different M7. I am sure we would like to see some photos from these. How do they compare?

Kim

 

[Bertram2]

Why should I keep my Leica M7 or Voigtlander R3a? Should I sell and take a digital direction?
I am new , so please forgive me if my questions are old.
Regards
J-M

You are new, but you got an M7 and a R3 already ? My suggestion is to simply use these cameras for a while, this will answer your question. If not, sell them.
bertram

 

[dmr]

just as any average music lover will tell you that a cd sounds better than vinyl.. whereas audiophiles who have a nice turntable and have listened to the cd version of their favorite LP cringe at the loss of warmth and openess that the turntable provides

If I may offer a similar example ... to make a long story long ... 🙂

About 10 years ago I had a mid-life change of career. To better market myself, I enlisted the help of an executive writing service for a professionally written resume. This was, of course, well into the days of word processors and laser printers, but far before the Internet had become common for such things.

As we met in the writer's office for some final edits, he said he would prepare a proof copy for my approval. I noticed a very large laser printer in his office, and I assumed that would be used, and I was quite surprised when all of a sudden I heard a very distinct tak-tak-tak-tak-tak coming from the outer office as he sent the print job.

The printer he was using was a 1980's vintage thimble-wheel impact printer with a single-strike ribbon. I asked him about this and he said that almost all of his clients prefered the copies made on this printer as opposed to the laser, and he prepared another copy on the laser, same paper, to let me see the difference.

The laser copy looked good. It was on a textured beige stock and looked attractive and professional.

However (comma) the impact copy blew me away! The black of the lettering was deep and solid, the edges were crisp. The letters on the page literally jumped out at you, while the laser copy by comparison just sat there and looked anemic. He said that the look they try for was that of a Selectric typewriter, a look which at the time was said to produce the most effective resumes.

There was no question, I preferred the impact copies! 🙂

newer is not necessarily better.. contrary to everyone's definition of 'progress'

In this day and age, it seems like more resumes are e-mailed or posted on the web, but in those days the older technology definitely helped to present a favorable first impression.

 

[ch1]

Provacative Query:

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

A classic "oranges compared to apples" question.

Well, to be honest, with the exception of the RD-1 which has more teething problems than a baby crocodile, absolutely nothing.

Traditional RF cameras are a class of photograhic equipment holistic within themselves.

They are related to other cameras including SLRs, pinholes etc. in that they share the basically same media of film.

A film RF is as distinct from the RD-1 as a SLR is from a DSLR!

I believe you are asking a false comparison between a mode of focusing versus a means of image capture.

 

[John]

I will be able to use my rangefinder gear for the next 20 years and leave it to my kids when I die. They will be able to have all the fun we are having now. With any luck the grandchildren will be able to experiment to their hearts content. The "cool factor" will just grow over time. The forum here is a great example of peoples work, art and love. 🙂 🙂

 

[DaveSee]

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

But wait... that Kiev takes flashbulbs?! Ah! The blindness, slight... "Who's eyes were
closed!"

Dave
Couple Leicas, Bessa-T and an HP 11C... no flash, no cry.

 

[jcline]

If I remember my art history correctly, people thought photography would be the end of painting. While it certainly changed the way the majority of images were created, and it sure seems digital is doing the same thing, I personally think it's going to be a long time before film is all gone (though it may go expletely the way of art supplies). Sorry for taking it that direction, but I haven't really voiced my opinion yet publicly.

As for why rangefinders, for me, the same reason why not digital, the work flow. I work in the IT field, and the rest of my life is digital. I find analog photography relaxing and an almost therapeutic escape from the rest of my life. A chance to work with my hands if you will (for something other than typing). As for why rangefinder over SLR, because it works better for the things I like to take pictures of and fits in my pocket. I do own a couple SLR's as well, gotta have something to use for close up stuff. I do own a digital point and shoot as well, it too has its place.

I really enjoy being involved in the entire process, and for me the rangefinder offers the best means to the end. "it's not the destination it's the journey"

 

[Todd Frederick]

I have not read any of the above comments.

I use digital for business, and I use the rangefinders in b/w for art. That's about it for me.

 

[banahawtext]

For a photographer to say that film is dead is like a writer saying the pen is dead. Capturing or creating images that move people has nothing to do with the technology of the process. Most of the arguments about the pros and cons of digital and film photography sound as absurd as arguments about the pros and cons of using a ballpen or a pencil in writing down ideas.

 

[RML]

If anything, photography saved painting. Photography lay at the basis of the _greatest art movement of the 20th century: Cubism_. Not to mention the new notions of composition and above all subject placement that photography inserted into painting.

 

[Duncan Ross]

If anything, photography saved painting. Photography lay at the basis of the _greatest art movement of the 20th century: Cubism_. Not to mention the new notions of composition and above all subject placement that photography inserted into painting.

Wow! I knew photography shared heritage with impressionism but didn't realise the cubism angle! Does such a thing as cubist photography exist? Lomo anyone...? 🙂

 

[PetarDima]

This is very, very hard question for me... About four years ago, I saw some french documentary(Spelling correct?) film about Leica camera. In a hour, hour and a half, I get in to a new world - history of photography... I saw , for a first time M system, and a father of street ,''live'' photography - H.C.Bresson.Leica is(my thoughts) designed to take photos of people, and everything about man's life in this world.It is quiet, the people on photo must be natural(not disturb by shutter noise) On A first look, usual things( On photos), nothing special, except brilliant comoposition... But, if you look at these photos for a week you will allready see it with new perception, like you see it for a first time( you can't read F.M.Dostojevsky only ones- he is life time writer)... and you will find out that H.C.Bressons work is brilliant because it's simple everyday poetry of a man lost in urban world.To take photos and to write a poem , it a same thing... If it isn't I don't want to take shots any more.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> Does such a thing as cubist photography exist?

Duncan, Duncan, Duncan.

No one caught it, even looking at your Avatar.

Very few today, but yes. You are one of the last Flash-Cubist Photographer's left.

And yes, I would agree that Cubism is one of the greatest triumphs in photography for the 1960's to 1970's. Then, as our mechanical cameras have seen, almost completely replaced by electronics.

 

[ruben]

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

Very nice questions !

 

[ruben]

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!

Very nice answer !