Why do we choose RF?

[Bill Pierce]

With so many different camera types available, I wondered why we choose to use the rangefinder?

Is it because it is small and light? Is it the bright line finder? Is it because it is quiet? Is it because of the lack of mirror bounce at slow speeds? Or is it just habit?

I don’t mean to phrase this like a multiple choice question because it doesn’t really benefit any of us to read, “I like the bright line finder. John Doe” But if someone says, “ I like the bright line finder because, as a landscape photographer who shoots at smaller aperture, the finder more represents my final picture than the TTL finder looking through a lens at f/1.4.” Or, “I shoot on the street and the bright line finder lets me see what is about to enter the frame.” that’s useful information for all of us.

What are the specific advantages of the rangefinder that benefit us? And here’s an added question. Are we talking about film rangefinders, digital rangefinders or both?

 

[Bassism]

An interesting question...

The bright line finder is pure genius to me. I wouldn't say I shoot either landscape or street, but for me the bright line finder means that I can see the world around me rather than through my lens.
Being able to see outside the frame means that I can easily add or subtract elements to end up with a better composition.
I like being able to see everything in focus because I can visualize an out of focus area, but it's hard to visualize what that blue blur is going to look like in your photo.
As a glasses wearer, the 50mm frame in the M2 means that I can see the entire frame easily, with no guessing, and no scanning. No other camera I've ever used is nearly as friendly for shooting with glasses.

I also do quite a bit of low light shooting. I'm comfortable shooting away at 1/15, which is something I never got away with even with shake reduction on my dslr. Added to the much more pleasing results in b/w film versus my dslr at 3200, the choice is clear. My film slrs can't even touch the low light ability.

The rangefinder itself is a much more intuitive focusing mechanism for me than an slr. It shines in low light especially, but even with good light I find myself second guessing my focus and taking immensely longer with an slr. In good light autofocus can be a good option, but if I had to pick one or the other, my choice would definitely be rf focusing.

My M2 is certainly not light, and especially not with the DR mounted. It is, however, compact and comfortable. I can carry it all day and forget its there until I want to use it. With any camera that is bigger, it gets relegated to special photo outings, which basically means it will never be used.

I also appreciate the simplicity and directness of the camera. An AF slr is, in my opinion, an ergonomic and usability nightmare. With my M2, I have three knobs, and each one controls something important. Even my Spotmatic, with the equivalent three controls, doesn't approach the comfort in using my M2 or my Himatic.

I don't know... I've never thought too much about it before, and I'm sure I could come up with far more things I appreciate about using an RF if I kept trying. But really, it's not any one thing. It is the synergy of all its attributes that makes the rf the perfect camera for me. It just feels right in my hands, makes the most sense to my brain, and inspires me the most to get out there and take photos.

 

[dof]

In a sense, rangefinder/viewfinder cameras are liberating because, by their nature, the framing is imprecise compared to an SLR or view camera. The framelines along with the ability to see outside the frame forces me to think more about what's before me, and which choices I make in my composition.

Another feature unique to rangefinders, and as I type this, I don't actually know why, is tabbed lenses. The ability to pre-focus by feel and experience makes taking images of life happening around me seem quite effortless. And it makes autofocus capability seem a bit like overkill. A significant number of great images were created long before the first Minolta Maxxum hit the streets!

And perhaps most important is that unlike an SLR, everything in the viewfinder is in focus, all the time. Once the skill of pre-focusing is mastered, or at least the intimidation wears off, no other camera is as transparent to the user as the rangefinder.

 

[Keith]

Because we hang around here and there just appears to be so many cooool folk who use them? 😛

Seriously though ... three years ago I was taking pics with a Nikon D70s with an 18-200 VR zoom and hanging around P.net! (so wrong I know) Somebody gave me a link to this site and I lurked for a few months trying to get my head around rangefinders and how they worked and figuring out what a prime lens actually was and why you would choose to use one instead of a zoom!

After my initial lurking period on the forum I started posting and bought a Fed 2 with an Industar 26 and shot my first ever roll of black and white film ... I underexposed half the roll and managed to leave the lens cap on for at least three shots but I was hooked. The feel and sound of that forty five dollar FSU rangefinder was very seductive and it effectively changed my life! 🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

I still get grief from other photographers both for still using film and for choosing rangefinders. Maybe it'd be different if Leica had taken a hint from Nikon and came out with the Leicaflex in an M style and size body with an interchangeable pentaprism and a mirror box. Now I've been using Leica rangefinders for nearly fifty years and Leica M's for forty-two of them. Two of my M bodies are over fifty years old. For most of what I do the rangefinder is perfect.

I've owned Rolieflexes and Minolta Autocords (still have one of each) and know how to use the controls of a commercial view camera without thinking about it. I had a Hasselblad kit for over twenty years. All that I still is Leica rangefinders and a Visoflex II-S for the rare 400mm shot and close-ups. I haven't shot any 120 film in maybe five years.

 

[mh2000]

personal masochism and charming cameras...

 

[reagan]

I went to a picnic Saturday; music, Easter Eggz, hotdogs. Great fun. A couple of friends were there, both with their DsLr + zOOm. We stood and chatted while they compared lenses, megapixies, etc. Neither even noticed my little black Barnack hanging on my shoulder. That's one reason I like my old mechanical RFs.

One of them sent me her photos today - all 280 of them. She had 9 shots of hamburger patties on a grill -- from different angles, of course. :-/ I clicked off a whopping 26 frames with maybe 4 keepers. I was tickled goofy and wouldn't trade my 26 for her 280 if she gave 'em to me twice.

Small bodies, small lenses, low profile, comfortable, simple, no-fuss focus n' frame. I like quick focusing and pre-focusing. I like getting the shot looking through the VF or shooting from the hip. I like moving close and squeezing off a no-hassle frame [or two] without alarming folks.

For me, simple is good - RF is good.

 

[Keith]

One of them sent me her photos today - all 280 of them. She had 9 shots of hamburger patties on a grill -- from different angles, of course.

DSLR's seem to do this to people sometimes ... I watched a tourist at our local cafe shoot about twenty exposures of a pot plant one day while his entourage stood around admiring his artistic skills! 😛

 

[noimmunity]

My addictions are based not so much on the thing itself as the kinds of relationships around the thing. I think relationships are a kind of aesthetic, and RFs attracted me at a time when I was looking for some way to turn other people's gaze around and into something more social, less objectifying. As soon as I started using RFs I realized just how social they can be, probably more than any other camera except a high quality P&S. The viewfinder, the smaller-yet graspable size, the lack of mirror...these all coalesced for me in the concept of distance. RFs just hit the right medium for me: not too close, not too far; always (almost) within speaking distance and usually touching distance. I hate the way everything professional is marked by untold distance, while everything intimate is so close you can't see clearly. I wanted intimacy with a little vision, and RFs seem to deliver that big time.

 

[alan davus]

For most of my life I've divided people into two catagories, leaders and followers. Over the past few years I've discovered there is a third catagory, those who use rangefinders.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Up until 4 years ago I never even heard of rangefinder cameras, and up until then I used a 2MP Canon Ixus V2 p&S. It wasn't until I got my first classic camera (a Zeiss Ikon Nettar) that I became interested in Rangefinders.
The first 'proper' RF camera I bought was a Kodak 35 RF, then a Kodak Retina II, up onto some real leicas and finally I bought an Epson R-D1.
Now the biggest part of my collection of cameras are RFs.
My main focus-era for collecting is the 1940s and SLRs just weren't that common back then.

Why choose RFs? Because I like the way they work and because I like classic cameras; and because they are compact.

My Photographer friends are all into DSLRs and always roll their eyes when I take Leica IIIc (or any other RF) out of my camera bag. 🙂

 

[Drewus]

Personaly I like the ability to switch out lenses but still retain a small and relatively lightweight camera. Something which a rangefinder has over an SLR.

 

[FallisPhoto]

With so many different camera types available, I wondered why we choose to use the rangefinder?

My very first real shoot, for money, with a nude model, was done with a Pentax K1000, indoors, in dim light. Thank god I shot a lot more photos than I thought I needed, because literally half of the photos were out of focus. I was extremely disappointed, it was embarassing, and that is never going to happen to me again. SLRs are okay in bright light, particularly with telephoto lenses, but anything that uses anything remotely like a "now it looks fuzzy, now it doesn't" type of focusing worries me when it really counts and when the light is anything less than full daylight and outdoors.

What are the specific advantages of the rangefinder that benefit us?

Precision focusing in nearly any kind of lighting. If it is bright enough to see the patch, it is easy to line the coincident images up. It is all about control.

And here’s an added question. Are we talking about film rangefinders, digital rangefinders or both?

I like film. I'm well over 50 years old. When I was growing up, TVs had vacuum tubes, most were black and white, there was no such thing as a digital camera or Photoshop and there was no computer worth having that didn't entirely fill a rather large building. Thus, I learned with film. Using a darkroom was considered an integral part of any budding photographer's skill set, and I worked quite a lot harder than most at it. I am confident of my abilities with film. I am at least fairly good with a camera and lighting. I know that I can run rings around the vast majority of people in a darkroom. There are way too many people who can run rings around me with Photoshop though. I kind of figure it would be best to stay ahead of the curve and so I should stick to what I know best and continue to hone those skills to a yet sharper point rather than start over with something new.

 

[mfunnell]

I compose differently with RFs than I do with SLRs. With RFs I see more and choose what to exclude by framing with the frame lines, opening the aperture (to reduce DOF) etc. With an SLR I have to imagine or guess what I'll be including should I choose to re-frame, stop down the aperture etc.

One way isn't better than the other - but I prefer one over the other for different subjects and in different circumstances, for both the different ways I end up working and the different results I generally get when I do so. I change between RF and SLR based on which I think will work best for me - and on whim and because of whichever camera I happen to have with me (size etc. meaning I may more often have an RF, though that hasn't been so much so lately).

...Mike

 

[dmr]

Is it because it is quiet? Is it because of the lack of mirror bounce at slow speeds?

I went back to shooting rangefinders (non-exclusively) after using the SLR for 25 years for all serious work. I was shooting some scenes in the Chicago subway, handheld, available light, and I realized that the >SLAP< of the mirror was costing me an f-stop.

At that time I began to kick myself for selling my original 35mm rangefinder (Mamiya SD) many years before, when I "graduated" to the SLR.

I use the RFs (Canon GIII and the newly-acquired Mamiya SD) for available-light, low-light stuff. I still use the SLR, a real one, not DSLR (zoom has me spoiled) for most of my good-light semi-serious stuff.

 

[furcafe]

For me, it was mainly about the combination of portability, i.e., relatively small size & mass, with high-quality optics. Sort of a pedestrian variation on (Brett?) Weston's motto ("If it's more than fifty yards from the car, it's not photogenic."), only for me, it's "A camera's not useful unless I can comfortably carry it around all day." RFs also happen to fit well w/the type of photography I enjoy (mostly available light shots of people, documentary, street, etc.) & are not really suited for the stuff I don't (sports, wildlife, macro, studio, etc.).

From an aesthetic & ergonomic perspective, I do like the whole retro, all-manual, aspect of mechanical RFs, too, but that's just gravy.

 

[Spider67]

For me it's the size and the fact that the lens maximum aperture does not limit the VF picture or the use of coloured filters.
Comparing my Nikkor/f2 to my 35/2,5 shows makes my choice evident.
Especially when using the CV 21/4 the RF is very usefulö to me.
When making portraits or detail close than 3feet/1m I clearly see the RF's limits.
Again the compact size comes handy as an additional RF with my 35/2,5 or CV 21/4 is not to.
heavy.

 

[Teus]

lots of punch in a small package. optics are superior to the SLR optics - at cost of the range of focals you can use. seemingly higher quality and reliability than mainstream SLR equipment. improved focus accuracy for wideangle and lowlight.

so far the rational things, they're very charming cameras and sometimes more than just a workhorse.

 

[andrewteee]

I wanted to get into film and searched through many options, both 35mm and 120. At this stage in my life portable 35mm is a better fit and I did a lot of research into rangefinders. Purchased a Zeiss Ikon, returned it, purchased it again and I absolutely love it! Small, portable, beautiful, a true pleasure to use, compact high quality lenses, a curiosity to others. I love everything about it.

More than anything else I love framing with it. To me the viewfinder is a dream to use. It has also impacted how I frame with other cameras such as my DSLR. I consider the ZI a true photographic tool and not just another snap shot maker.

 

[Ronald_H]

They are less obtrusive than my big dSLR
No mirror slap, I have found it makes quite a difference in my style of shooting
They are much quieter than my small SLRs
Nobody takes them seriously, just old, funny cameras
The M2 + 'cron I own is a fetish object
Yet another excuse to shoot film and develop myself