Why do we shoot 35mm rangefinders?

J

JimDE

Member
Local time
5:42 PM
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
28
In today's "got to have it now" mentality why would we prefer to shoot a 35mm rangefinder camera? Ever ask yourself this question? I have and for me the answer is simple.......I enjoy the challenge and the results.

I personally shoot longbows, fly fish the salt, and ride a cruiser motorcycle. You could sort of say I enjoy the traditional way of doing things and consider it an advantage using these methods and the resulting rewards they offer. I won't tell you that I don't or haven't enjoyed the "fast lane techno paths" in these activities but I get more enjoyment traveling the slow road.

How about you? Why do you shoot a rangefinder 35mm in today's megapixel world of photography?
 
I like the division of activities, meaning I do not enjoy taking pictures AND looking at them simultaneously. My fridge is full of film taken from the past year. That's really great because I have my memory of the events and later I get to see something else.

Like most other people here, I also like the quality of film. For those few really good pics I have taken, I like to see them in large print sizes with good resolution. Only film can offer this at a low price. Speaking of quality, how am I supposed to know if a picture is going to be good BEFORE I take it?

Moreover, rangefinders fired from the eye are great tools for photographing people up close, the most interesting subject of all subject matters.

Finally, I like being old-fashioned if you were to call it that. It goes well with getting older.

Kevin
 
Basically I shoot my M2
  • for the sheer please of holding a nice piece of machinery (I like watches too for that matter)
  • for the glorious view/rangefinder (no ground glass or LCD between the subject and myself)
  • and because the pics come out nice
I have not (yet) converted to digital because
  • I can update my sensor every 36 views (Reala is backward compatible with my Kiev, which is a 1935 design)
  • 35mm film is a nice archival medium to me (I reckon most of my pics have more value 10 years later than 10 minutes later)
  • shooting color negs almost guarantees correct exposure
  • next year's digital is going to be so much better (I can't see 50 years of technological advancement between M2 and MP)
 
Ofcourse I do like quality machinery too...
But there are some other quite well built tools on the other side...
The RFs are before them for their size (as system) and convenience of use.
However sometimes I feel them limiting - macro and tele.
I hope that recent digital development will solve that.
A well thought out digital RF could handle the focussing with longer teles aswell as macro...
Cheers,

nemjo
 
I have asked this question myself. Why not just ditch all 35mm rangefinder cameras and just use a medium format rangefinder?

The things holding me back are that the 35mm RFs are quicker too use, the Leicas has such wonderful feeling, I can use faster lenses and I have Focomat V35 which will not take medium format (though I have no darkroom anymore after my last move).

I am also not totally convinced about the build quality of my Mamiya 7 so I will definitely have to wait a couple of years to see if I can/should just get rid of all 35mm gear.

/Håkan
 
It just feels right for what I do.

35mm rangefinders match my style of photography and amplify my efforts. As such maybe it makes no sense to rationalize my choice.
 
They fit better in my small 'man purses' :D And I needed something small AND no battery dependant on a daily basis
 
I'm with Socke "It's fun!" and they allow me to capture the type of pictures I like !!

Those are the only reasons I need :D
 
Because a digital one or a medium format one (ok, except my ikonta) is too expensive...? Because I like the exciting time of waiting for the results...? Because I can hang around this forum thanks to the RF's:)
 
Oh and, whenever in a social happening somebody kindly offers to take a photo of me, with my camera, to make sure i'm also on the pictures, it will never work out properly. It either will be out of focus completely, badly exposed, blocked by fingertip or my head is chopped off due to the framelines :) and that's just sooo funny to see, when i look at the prints
 
I was using a Nikon S2 in our local "Old Town" area, a wedding had just finished in the same outdoor park, and photo's were being taken under the gazebo. An older gentleman in a three-piece suit made his way over to us and volunteered, "Would you like me to take a picture of you and your daughter together!" He did not offer the same service for those using digital and P&S cameras.
 
It gives me a sense of satisfaction and achievement not felt with other types of camera! Makes me feel I am part of the image making process unlike an auto do everything high tech SLR (film or digital).
 
JimDE said:
In today's "got to have it now" mentality why would we prefer to shoot a 35mm rangefinder camera?
Click to expand...

In this "got to have it now" age, I'm going as far as to question this "convenience" of the digital cameras. Sure, the image appears on that teeny screen a few seconds after you press the button. (LOL - the shutter fires a few seconds after you press the button too!) :) However, the time and effort to see that image in print is still on the same order as it would be with traditional film. Is the futzing with the cable and the downloading and storing and photoshopping of the image really more convenient than dropping off the film at Walgreens?

Then if you want to do something with those new digital cameras other than use the defaults, there are all those teeny-tiny buttons and menus that are, well, inconvenient.

Add to the confusion. A friend has a Kodak digital, and yes, I've been impressed with the photos it takes, actually, but nobody can figure out what those settings that imply landscapes and such are really supposed to do, as far as exposure and focus control and such. (No, TFM didn't help much.)

Oh well ... :)
 
Pherdinand said:
Oh and, whenever in a social happening somebody kindly offers to take a photo of me, with my camera, to make sure i'm also on the pictures, it will never work out properly. It either will be out of focus completely, badly exposed, blocked by fingertip or my head is chopped off due to the framelines :) and that's just sooo funny to see, when i look at the prints
Click to expand...


ha! lol! That's a good tactic. I always try to decline, because I know what I look like and I want memories of my friends, not me. But that makes for a good memory too! Unless the friend is a photographer and the CV 35/2.5 is too unforgiving :(
 
'Cause digital cameras aren't hard enough to be interesting.

Seriously, I'm an IT professional, I speak digital fluently, but learning about the b&w process has been deeper, more challenging, and more rewarding than any certification I've ever studied for. My progress through photography has been backwards, from digital SLR to film SLR to medium format to large format and now to rangefinders. And over the course of that time I've started to bulk roll my own film, develop my own film, make my own prints with equipment for various sizes, etc.

And rangefinders are inherently part of that desire for more challenge, more opportunity to prove my skills as a photographer, more new things to try, more things to become proficient at.
 
'cus it's fun! Using a Leica IIIa or the Kiev's and other FSU RF's are not the easiest way to get it done with the knob-winders and aux-VF's, but a nice challenge which leds to satisfaction. The 70's fixed-lense RF's are fast and capable shooters which gives me a different sort of satisfaction since most have had a little DIY work done.

My SLR's & digital's have their own place too, along with the MF & LF gear.
 
Some great replies so far....and I am sure the "fun" issue is a big part of what we do but do others find that they tend to participate in other life activities or values in a (for lack of a better term) "traditional" manner as well? I know I do as I explained earlier and I see Kevin mentioned this in his reply as well.
 
Aha, I perceive that this is actually a two-part question!

Why I shoot 35mm rangefinder cameras:

-- Medium format is great for quality, but you get fewer shots between film changes, the range of lenses available isn't as great in terms of either focal length or maximum aperture, and I don't happen to own a medium-format film scanner.

-- Large-format RFs are very cool, but I'd collapse under the weight of hauling around a Super Technika and a bunch of film holders on a hot day.

-- It's gotten really hard to find a decent selection of films for pocketable RFs such as the Canon 110ED or Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 (anybody remember those?)

-- I kept leaving the little tiny glass plates for my Compass camera in my pocket, and they'd mess up my clothes when my pants went through the wash. ;)

Why I shoot 35mm rangefinder cameras:

-- Geez, didn't I just write a whole essay about that? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom