Why a rangefinder?

[shortstop]

For me the big RF advantages are:

focusing with wide angle is very uncertain with slr, not so with RF

filter utilization (polarizer apart): far better the separate viewfinder

less shutter vibration and loudness

the lenses only Leica has

On the counterpart telephoto and macro require a slr

The RF is also in medium format cameras that can be used also on street (Mamyia and Plaubel Makina); wow!

Antonio

 

[furcafe]

(1) Small(er) bodies & lenses.

(2) Easier manual focusing (for me & especially in low light).

I was wondering why you choose to shoot with a rangefinder? I have 2 and am not sure about them. I have always used SLR's so I know there is a learning curve...

Thinking about getting another one but not sure.

Thanks

Peace

 

[Rodchenko]

I've just been out for a lunchtime walk with a rangefinder* in my jacket pocket, and got some interesting street and architectural shots.

I wouldn't have even considered taking my (albeit small) SLR for a walk in similar circumstances, even had I bothered to lug it to work.

* Olympus XA

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Just got a Bessa L and I am appreciating its lighter weight.

There's something very satisfying about the Bessa L's simplicity, isn't there? Stick on lens of choice and matching finder, set required aperture, meter and fire...

----------------------------------------------- 15mm -----------------------------------------------

 

[DCB]

Well I got me another good rangefinder...



Konica IIIM.

The rangefinder is really nice large and it's pretty easy to pick up the patch. Shooting with both eyes open is new and different.

Still working on it.:roll eyes:

Peace

 

[hendriphile]

+1 What Hepcat said above.

 

[Spyro]

This always amazes me with RF shooters. I know that half of them buy RFs because they like them, they look and feel nice, and yet nowhere near half of them admit that this was the main reason. Why's that? is it embarrassing to buy something because you like it?

Anyway, I like RFs, just like everybody else, and bought a ton of them, because I could, but in the end I realised that focusing by aligning two small patches was not working well for me and I was missing photos. So I settled for the nearest thing with AF, which is the Contax G + Hexar AF and in digital Fuji X.

 

[uhoh7]

AH the RF mystique 🙂

No chimping because there's nothing to see, LOL

I've had a couple film RFs, Contax 3a, fuji MF RF and M6 for a few years, because they are so cool, but really I do a roll every few months not more.

What's changed recently are the EVFs--the Sony A7 is really good for MF, and wsiwyg. RF is not easier for me.

But what did I shoot all day today? M9 Why? In broad daylight nothing you can carry does better 🙂


L1000772 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1000761 by unoh7, on Flickr

so for me the answer to "why RF?" is very simple: it's the best daylight landscape camera I can ski or ride my bike in the backcountry and take with me.

It IS a very beautiful object which I waste time worshiping, but the A7 is easier to use in every way except it just can't deliver clean ultra-sharp images like the M9 in daylight. At night the sony is better, and then it's my primary.

 

[noimmunity]

RF: a way of working

RF: a way of working

so for me the answer to "why RF?" is very simple: it's the best daylight landscape camera I can ski or ride my bike in the backcountry and take with me.

I put the M9 up against a DP Merrill and decided the latter was better for backcountry use. Image quality, for starters, followed by live view, lower weight (depending on use), dust resistance, etc...all speak to me in favor of the DP Merrill. YMMV.

====

One thing I appreciate about most of the people who use and advocate RFs is that they generally do not claim "it's the best..." RF isn't about being the "best", at least not in quantitative terms. That debate was settled decades ago when SLRs replaced RFs.

Yes, there are some technical advantages to modern RFs. Lenses (wide open performance of lenses, decades of compatible legacy glass, wide angle designs on film), ergonomics (size), The View (integrated RF/VF) etc... Any one of these qualities might become a primary motivation to use the RF camera.

But overall, what these people say, often poetically, as shown multiple times in this thread and countless others, is that the RF camera is more about a way of working. Working with limits, working with relations of a human dimension.

It's the RF experience. The pleasure of work and the work of pleasure.

 

[Brian Atherton]

This always amazes me with RF shooters. I know that half of them buy RFs because they like them, they look and feel nice, and yet nowhere near half of them admit that this was the main reason.

How do you know? Is it from personal experience? Is your conclusion deduced from a RFF poll?

As a new member, I'd be interested to know.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

As a new member, I'd be interested to know.

Naughty, naughty, Brian! Just 13 and already asking awkward questions.

I predict that you'll fit in here just fine. 😀

 

[Brian Atherton]

Sejanus.Aelianus,

😀😀😀

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139176

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139176

The Rf for me means a Leica M.
I am basically a film guy, but using a compact digital point and shoot, for everyday usage.
I have used almost every make and format, mostly not mine.
These were advertising, publicity ans news agency equipment.
The camera one grabs in a hurry for an important shoot, is usually, the one you should use all the time.
I can easily focus an SLR, but for wide angles, even depth of field, won't save my mis-focus.
The reliance on auto focus is another "no NO".
i see the point of focus where i don't want it!
The simplicity of the frames, choosing a shutter speed and and aperture a simple joy.
Digging into menus is a waste of time and effort.
A modern auto everything camera really only works in the "Green" symbol "PRO" program.
If i fail, it's me.
I f i succeed it's not matrix metering, some clever processor or weird application.
Less is more!
I can happily go shooting with my M3(since 1967) with only a normal lens and a roll of film..
When i haul a SLR/DSLR i need a trailer.

 

[VertovSvilova]

de gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[noisycheese]

I was wondering why you choose to shoot with a rangefinder? I have 2 and am not sure about them. I have always used SLR's so I know there is a learning curve...

Thinking about getting another one but not sure.

Thanks

Peace

Back in 2003, I had always used 35mm SLRs and a Hasselblad 501c, along with doing a bit of Hasselblad XPAN shooting. 35mm SLRs were my main cameras, though. When the Leica MP was announced, I began to research and read about rangefinder cameras and Leica M cameras in earnest. I decided to give rangefinders a full on try. I figured that if the MP wasn't a good fit for me, I could wait a year or two and sell it, recovering much if not all of my investment. I ordered an MP and a 50mm Summilux (pre-ASPH) from Tamarkin.

I found the MP easy to catch on to and soon came to prefer it to my Nikon SLRs. There was no learning curve for me; maybe my experience with the XPAN helped. I remember when I first started using the XPAN. I thought how easy shooting with a rangefinder was and could not see what the fuss over the rangefinder learning curve was about.

Nowadays, the Leica M rangefinder is virtually all I shoot with.

That was my experience in moving from SLRs to RFs, anyway. YMMV.

 

[Steve M.]

If I'm in the mood, I prefer the Retina Ia and Ib cameras that are not even rangefinders, they're scale focus. I prefer to make the parallax correction myself, and over the years I've become pretty good at estimating focus distances. Keeps the viewfinder clean and clear too w/o a RF patch. Cameras w/o rangefinders tend to be smaller and simpler too.

But generally I use SLRs because what you see is what you get. It's probably due to my early training as a painter. I want to see that tunnel view of only what's in the viewfinder so I can get a tight composition. Seeing what is out of the frame lines is just distracting. The size thing is generally a wash unless you're using fast, long glass. My EM w/ a 50 lens is as compact as a Leica, maybe more so, and a lot lighter. Depends on the camera. My Canon T90 is as big as a medium format camera.

 

[traveler_101]

I am late to the party, as usual . . . and I want to echo a lot of what I've read here: accuracy in focusing, good for wide angle lenses, many wonderful lenses and some of them are even affordable (lol). Not sure anyone said it, but I would also point to the longevity of the RF system; the fact that it is still going with dedicated enthusiasts, dedicated fora, and mechanics who repair and refurbish old equipment fascinates me.

I also very much like the portability of the old style RFs I shoot: a IIIf and a Bessa-T. Thinking about a M camera but I think may be too large and heavy for my taste.