Why a RF?

Why a RF?

  • It is fashionable.

    Votes: 32 8.1%

  • I am tired of high tech.

    Votes: 114 29.0%

  • Nostagie for non disposable goods.

    Votes: 78 19.8%

  • Better Optical Choices.

    Votes: 106 27.0%

  • Lighter and more confortable equipment.

    Votes: 204 51.9%

  • More discrete.

    Votes: 174 44.3%

  • Better mechanical performance.

    Votes: 65 16.5%

  • Quiet Shutter.

    Votes: 112 28.5%

  • Better Way of Seeing My Shot.

    Votes: 94 23.9%

  • I don't want to shoot cameras like everyone else is shooting.

    Votes: 50 12.7%

  • I like the confused look I get from SLR shooters

    Votes: 11 2.8%
  • Total voters
    393
It is small, quiet and funny
Sometimes not as easy as a SLR (my kiev has a very small viewfinder ) but always funny to use
Focusing often is easier with a RF when there is no light 🙂
 
I started shooting rangefinders because I was completely fed up with the results I was getting from point & shoot digital cameras, and also because I wanted to actually learn something about photography. I thought that maybe by buying a used Leica I'd be able to get better, sharper, more controllable quality in my photos. [OT: If you've never been to one of the dozen or so major used camera shops in Tokyo, make a pilgrimage. Literally scores of Leicas lined up in the cases, all the major Japanese names, even those now extinct...] Since buying a used, 'mint' M6TTL, and having more fun than I ever expected and learning more and more easily than expected, I've added a refurbished Nikkormat FTn, and now two (!) Mamiya C330 (early model) bodies & a few lenses for each. 80% of my shooting is with the Leica, 100% of my shooting is film. The other thing I discovered is the way these cameras have become so *cheap* in real dollars (okay, the Leica kit is still relatively expensive, except for a few of the out-of-favour lenses), while taking better pictures than they ever did because of advances in film technology. I love playing with the different looks of Velvia 50, Tmax 3200, the newest Fuji professional print films, etc... and I am blessed with a pro lab a 15 minute walk from home. So a rangefinder, in what I suppose was its traditional role, was my intro to what photography really is. And it's the most fun way to take photos. Period.
 
Good food for thought!

Good food for thought!

I really never asked it of myself.

Since I'm older, I can remember the advent of the Nikon F. Those are the cameras for which I wanted in high school. Who wanted those old fashioned Rf's when the "new" system gave so many more capabilities: long telephotos, accurate framing, TTL metering, etc.?

At the same time I watched my Dad do weddings with a Speed Graphic. An into to large format. (most memorable instances were seeing how sharp the entire print was, and how one of those BIG press bulbs lit up an entire cathedral interior so well.....bouncing massive light around that even filled the shadows, wow!)

On to a lowly darkroom tech, then assistant photog, then PJ, then freelancer/stock shooter using everything but RF's. Then retirement....out the door go all the LF gear, three Nikon mechanical bodies and a hoard of lenses & gear.

Feeling pretty naked not having a camera with me daily ushered in a new era. Hey, I can throw a Barnack in my pocket to keep my analogue roots in practice, to stay in touch with ancient times when a drop on pavement wouldn't mean total replacement, to say I'm proud to know how to shoot/develope/print film, and lastly because a Barnack around my neck is my only form of jewelry. No rings, watches, bracelets or chains....but my 1937 Leica goes well with Levis or a tuxedo. 😎
 
Because they are fun.

Because they are fun.

Fun. Just plain fun. Especially when I swtich from one old Rf (or VF) to another, and have to slow down a bit and make sure I'm setting the right dials.

And, they are fun.
 
The viewfinder and the haptics.

The VF is the determining difference between SLR and RF cameras after all; I like to have everything visible sharply in focus when I compose.

How my hands feel the camera is just as important, I find it adds to the process. There is no sweeter experience in camera world than wind lever action of Leica M: smooth, ratcheted, just enough resistance, with confident clicky "fullstop" in the end. So far I haven't been able to find anything comparable with mechanical SLR cameras. Many of them wind like Zenit-E: does the job but makes you want a motor drive. I would not mention names since some of them have strong following here 🙂 Then certain electronic SLRs are very smooth but winding doesn't feel so "informative" somehow; good example is F3. Held hopes high for Leicaflex SL, but it turned out a big disappointment. I think I played through dozens of SLRs in the shop, trying to find a good match to Leica body, no luck so far.
 
None of the responses actually match my reasons (because for most photography I much prefer the handling and flexibility of an 35mm or medium format SLR) which is that I shoot occasionally with a RF because it makes an interesting change and I enjoy it.
 
varjag said:
The viewfinder and the haptics.

The VF is the determining difference between SLR and RF cameras after all; I like to have everything visible sharply in focus when I compose.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite - I like to be able to see what the DOF will be, especially when shooting with a near subject.
 
Other reasons:

- stumbled over a website, became a victim of long distance peer pressure
- already using flintlock muzzleoaders for hunting so an RF is natural

may sound a bit satiric but contains more than just a grain of truth.
With me there was the curiosity to use the kind of cameras "They" (Capa, HBC etc.) used to learn with what they had to make do before the age of the instant return mirror and everpresent Nikon SLR.
When I got other RF's I noticed their advantages be it a 35 RC it's compactness or a Bessa R with it's great viewfinder and chice of lenses or a Retina IIIS wich gave me the Leica feel on a low budget (though it was quite expensive in its time!)
 
Because they were all that was available for me when I was a youth. RFs were cheap, SLRs were expensive. 30 or so years ago I would have killed for a SLR. Now I am too set in the way of the RF to change.
 
This has just occurred to me: I wear eyeglasses (nearsightedness and astigmatism). It's a rare camera that allows me to see everything in the viewfinder without moving my eye. While that means I might have trouble seeing framelines on the edges of the viewfinder, it also means that every other, smaller, frameline is a piece of cake.

Example: On my R4M, the 21mm framelines are problematic for me. The others aren't.

Meanwhile, on an SLR, I'd have trouble seeing to the edge of the viwwfinder regardless of the lens
 
I collect and so I have a choice of a medium format SLR, several 35mm SLRs, rangefinders in medium and small format, large format view cameras (field and monorail), 5 TLRs, scale focusing cameras in medium and small format, box cameras and so on, but for my favorite subject, studio nudes, a rangefinder's strong points just seem to suit my needs better than any other kind of camera. If I were doing mostly landscapes, I might prefer the field view cameras. If I were doing nature photography, I might prefer the SLRs, but with most of what I am doing, the rangefinders are simply the best choice, so I guess it is situational with me.
 
I bought an M3 mit 50/2 Summicron in 1985, after 20 years of Pentax Spotmatic SLR's(very, very good cameras, by the way). I was fascinated by the small body and lens. I could stick it in pockets a Spottie would never fit into. After my fifth roll I realized I had purchased something akin to a fine Rolex; I had never before thought of a camera as a work of art. I remember the first roll when I kept thinking the shutter hadn't released because it was too, too, quiet.

But alas, I was so conditioned to an SLR with all of its interchangeable lenses that I found my M3 limited (and hard to load, though I never made much of an effort to learn it proper). And so I made the worst mistake of my camera-owning career and sold it.

A few years ago I happened accidentally onto Stephen Gandy's website and read about the Bessa R. The price was certainly reasonable, so I bought one and then the Color Skopar 35/2.5.

I was astonished by the bright, crystal clear viewfinder and the ease of focusing, and for me that's what it was all about - the visual experience. I didn't have to worry about fine focusing an SLR lens anymore - all I had to do was align the two heads and release the shutter. The kit was quick, light, easy to use, and since then I've added a 21/4 and a Canon 50/1.4 and sure, the Bessa's no M3, no silky advance, no religious experience - but it works just fine.

Will I ever get another M-series Leica? You bet, but it will take time as I'm retired and living on what they call a "fixed" income.

But someday my prince will come...

I use an RF because it's discrete, quiet, unobtrusive, not at all threatening, and ideally suited to street photography.

When I want to do portraits, I open up my other kit bag and take out the Rolleiflex.
 
The Zen of it.

A couple of people have said they use RFs because it slows them down. I suspect my response is similar. I am sinistral. I use a fountain pen because it slows me down and renders my writing more legible, and easier on the eye. Using an RF, particularly a Barnack, has the same effect of slowing me down, making me think about what I am doing and pre-visualising.

Regards,

Bill
 
BillP said:
Using an RF, particularly a Barnack, has the same effect of slowing me down, making me think about what I am doing and pre-visualising.
Click to expand...
Ade-oh said:
RFs make me think about what I'm doing and what the photograph is going to look like. I can't 'chimp' and I need to get exposure, composition and focus right.
Plus, they're small and very, very sexy. 😀
Click to expand...
Isn't it the elimination of all the motors and automation that helps slow one down, whether SLR or RF? It's seemed to me that the RF is the quicker-acting of the two, though, giving up precise framing and correct parallax and DoF-viewing in exchange for a clear bright VF, smaller size, and quick usage. A medium format SLR will generally be slower working and if you really want slow and thoughtful, plop a view camera on your tripod and click it! 🙂
 
I like things that were made to last, the fine craftmanship of those cameras and the fine optics designed by hand, not with with computers.
I prefer full manual control of my mistakes instead of leaving them to full automation.

Cheers

Ernesto
 
In 35mm I prefer my Pentax SLRs. But when I need something that will fit in my pocket,
a scale-focus or RF folder is the way to go.

Medium format SLRs are all big and noisy. My Bronica RF645 handles like a 35 and is a joy to use.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom