Why a RF?

[Ken Ford]

Ken, why do you like them? What is it about RFs?

In no particular order...

1) Great glass
2) Compact
3) Well made, "fondleability" (yes, it's a reason - pride in my gear and all that)
4) The whole DV experience, being able to see outside the frame
5) Handholds well
6) Fully mechanical, repairability (longevity)

 

[ernesto]

Thank you all who have participated!
This was very interesting, however it is not closed, and in case you want to vote or write your point, you are still on time.
The results are surprising to me, specially points 3 and 2.
Thanks again!!!

Ernesto

 

[Mike Ip]

I think the only reason I have a rangefinder was that I was curious on how well a rangefinder worked. Why not?

 

[Finder]

Because they match my shoes.

 

[myoptic3]

That's a good question! I like the feel of the cameras, and they are better for posing with than a big, ugly SLR. The lenses are sharp, but so are my Nikon zooms (boo). But I went out the other day w/ my Nikon 8008s w/ its old, heavy 35 70 2.8 zoom, and was amazed at the difference in the viewfinder. Boy, it was bright and big. I was impressed w/ how quickly I could focus and compose shots, and it was effortless and lightning quick to lock the focus and exposure, so I am wondering if I shouldn't just go back to it. Heavy, crappy looking and all, it gets the shots, and the meter is to die for. Photographers sometimes comment that when shooting candids their subjects don't react the same to a RF, but I find that they react the same to any camera, unless you are pointing a huge zoom at them. When someone points a camera at me I seldom look to see what type it is. Generally, I don't like it. So I am wondering the same thing.

 

[JoeV]

My rangefinders are a Zorki IV and a Retina IIIC, rather than a Leica. I do have a Minolta X-370 SLR with a few good lenses, and haven't picked it up in several years; although I may try taking it out, minus the motor drive and lens kit, with just the 50mm Rokkor and see how it compares with my recent fascination with RF's.

In spite of the fact that the metering on the X-370 is lots easier (the Zorki has no meter, and the selenium cell on the Retina is dead; I use a handheld usually), I have taken to the viewfinder of both my RF's, primarily because it doesn't look the same as viewing a magnified image on a ground glass screen. which is what an SLR viewfinder is like (think mini LF ground glass). The only exception I make to this rule is with my TLR, where looking down into that well-shielded finder at the nice, bright square image is a real treat.

I guess I like the image quality through so-called 'rangefinder' viewfinders (even including point-and-shoot viewfinders, which technically aren't rangefinders.) The image somehow looks more "3-dimensional" to me (that doesn't make sense optically, of course, but that's what it feels like.) It's the direct optical view of the scene, even if it isn't exactly parallax corrected, that I like.

I think where I tend to do more precise compositions on a ground glass are medium and large formats, with which I tend to compose in a more formal style.

Ultimately, I think uninterrupted optical viewfinders are about temporal accuracy: the timing of a shot (important for street photography), whereas viewscreen/prism finders of SLR's are more about compositional accuracy. Time vs space.

~Joe

 

[cosmonaut]

I use an RF because they are small and simple. They also produce kick a$$ B&W's unmatched by any DSLR made. I own two DSLRs but use the RF for all of my B&W.

 

[Frank Dernie]

SLRs are more versatile and if one is wedded to the convenience of zooms or do a lot of close focus stuff they are mandatory.
Rangefinders are smaller and in much easier to focus than a manual focus reflex. The focus is more accurate too. This advantage is less compelling since autofocus has got fairly good but it used to be the main reason in the old days. I still find autofocus no better than manual when using fast lenses. When manually focussing I know exactly what will be in focus, using autofocus by the time I have dicked around getting the focus where I want it, either by focus lock or moving the focus spot around, I would have got the shot and moved on doing it manually.
Initially Leica actually did not expect SLRs to catch on for everyday use seeing them as inferior if versatile (rightly IMHO). History shows that hey were wrong, of course since with the instant return mirror and auto stop down they are not so crap to use as they were initially.
For me personally the main benefits of rangefinders nowadays are the size and lens quality. I went mainly digital years ago and the arrival of digital rangefinder cameras is a great delight.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Not so crazy Ernesto, thanks for the question.

I have a great appreciation for well desinged and engineered tools and mechanical things. Watches, fountain pens, Japanese wood saws, chisels, knives, motorcycles (1970s BMWs), and cameras of the 1950s era (give or take 20 years).

You missed toasters. A well-designed toaster is hard to come by these days. If you find one, keep it! And remember: lead at home is not nice (unless you're Superman's enemy), so watch for the "made in" label 🙂

 

[FrankS]

I don't know about toasters, Gabriel. The modern ones that do both sides of the bread at once are much more convenient than those old ones with the flip out sides that only toast one side of the bread at a time. 🙂 A well designed coffeemaker however...

 

[NickTrop]

Fixed lens RFs are better tools for ambient light photography because there is no "shutter slap" to vibrate the camera. With my SLR with a 50mm lens, I'm pretty much constrained to shutter speeds 1/60 and above (1/focal lenghth rule of thumb). With a RF I can shoot at 1/30 - often do, and that one stop means a lot. I can shoot a 50mm at f4:1/30 with a RF, for example, and get better/sharper/contrastier images than the f2.8:1/60 I would need to use if using the same 50 on my SLR.

Fixed lens RF (which I prefer) also allow fill flash at all speeds. Leaf shutters (which I prefer) are a good deal quiter than my SLR and better tools for candid ambient light photography.

Many will vehemently disagree here, but I think SLRs are actually better tools for interchangable lenses. With a portrait lens, I prefer to see through the lens, for example.

They also can represent great photographic value. A Lynx 14, for example, is a 100% manual parallax corrected RF with a coupled meter and a 45mm (in the "normal" range) f 1.4 lens. It's a "pure" photographic tool, and all the camera you could ever want in 35mm.

Other rangefinders are nice and compact tools for "street photography" - Canon QL 17 III, Yashica CC, Konica Auto S3, Minolta Himatic 7SII - all great cameras with high quality glass. A good sample of any one of these will cost 100-ish less than a digital POS - er, PnS.
|

 

[jack palmer]

I like the feel of my Leica in my hand. I like the view through the viewfinder better than an SLR, and I like film. Tools are very personal things and anyone is going to do their best work using a quality tool that they feel comfortable with. I've been a cabinet/furniture maker for 35 years and tools become an extension of your thoughts and actions. I feel trhe same about my camera. Oh, and Dualit toasters are the Leica of toasters. I have three, a two, three and four slice..

 

[wgerrard]

Well, I'm confused because I only see seven checkboxes and no text. But...

Size, weight, simplicity, relative focusing ease, faster lenses, the snob appeal of using something different.

 

[ChrisN]

That's to test whether you read the thread.

 

[literiter]

I like my M2 and M4-P for available light with wide angle lenses. I find them easier to focus than my Nikon SLRs in low light.

I'd not be opposed to using my Canonet QL19 either as it's low light focusing is better then My Leicas.

 

[pfoto]

I use a Leica MP and 35/75mm lenses on the street. Rangefinders are a good tool for such photography and they're also light in weight and quiet in operation.

 

[mfogiel]

The main reason is getting the shot, the second reason is the resulting image quality, the third reason is portability.

 

[Rapscallion]

I find using and RF allow me to take more discrete pictures without compromising on the quality of the picture. It's lighter as well, so I'm more likely to carry my camera.55

 

[projectbluebird]

I'm not sure my reasons fit any of the options.
I started using older equipment in college, mostly for financial reasons.
Then I started to like the solid heft of older cameras, even on my Vito B.

Many of my cameras are not light, or comfortable, or even quiet and discrete.
Most of the lenses would be blown away by modern glass, and several require(d) lots of work to, well, work.
(my speed graphic for example, tops all six of these categories)

However, I find a real joy in using all of my cameras. Even though I started out buying cheaper equipment, and I've now spent enough to pay for a modern M+lens or even a high end DSLR, I wouldn't trade any of my cameras for one.

 

[Dektol Dan]

I shoot rangefinders because

I shoot rangefinders because

They are the fastest way to go if you one is skilled and one with the instrument.

I can compose, make light adjustments and focus on the fly faster than any whizz bang fully auto camera just like a gun slinger with a single shot revolver can out shoot a feller with a semi automatic pistol. Sure, it's a knife throwing or a Annie Oakely circus act, but that's why the challenge never ends. I used to think 4 good shots in a roll was good, now I expect 20 out of 36. There is simply no challenge in shooting a DSLR loaded with a 2 or 4 GB memory card and shooting 5 frames a second. That's just showing up and waiting to get lucky. Rangerfinders are like shooting a gun, DSLRs are like holding onto a hose.

The discreet and small package option are actually one and the same.