Why do you love rangefinders?

furbs

furbs

Well-known
Local time
12:40 AM
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
523
Assuming that you do, considering the site you're on right now. I know it's been talked about hundreds of times, but why do you love rangefinders right now? Why are they special to you? How do you shoot differently with them? Do you see yourself using them far into the future?
 
I'm with Boris, I love all cameras and love making pictures. I think I especially love RF's because most of them are mechanical marvels and the form factor just puts a lot of camera into a small footprint.
 
I prefer the SLR method of framing, i.e. exactly what the lens sees (or near enough), but I so much prefer range finder focusing, lining up the two images. I find focusing a range finder as easy as can be, but I struggle a little with my Rolleiflex or OM2n in low light, or even just a subject without contrasty lines.

If I could have an SLR with a range finder patch, that would be perfection itself.
 
I like the compactness of rangefinders, as well as the ability to see outside the frame.

However, I grew up with a 35mm SLR (Nikon F3). Focusing on the ground glass seems so natural to me. I like Rolleiflexes also, for the ground glass focusing paired with compact size. I sold off my Zeiss Super Ikontas, but I did keep an Agfa Super Isolette to maintain a toe in the folding 120 6x6cm rangefinder field.

As time goes on, that motor driven Nikon feels heavier and heavier. For 35mm work, I prefer the simpler elegance of a Leica M7 or one of the thread mount Leicas.
 
I love RF's because they don't get in my way. For what I do they are the tool of choice.
I just stick with Leica M and be done, I don't want to study 400+ pages and learn about
hundreds of features that I will never use.
Maybe I am that old already;).
 
I have not found a camera that I did not like. I enjoy a rangefinder has much as a slr, for me its the differences between the two.

David
 
With my eyes I can focus a rangefinder more easily and more confidently than an SLR. I do, however, prefer to photograph exactly what the lens sees, so using an SLR is sometimes more enjoyable. In the end, I use rangefinders primarily for their mechanics and size. The quietness also helps.
 
In order of camera preferences, 35mm rangefinders have always been at the top for me. This is coming from a current DSLR user. Medium format and large has always been too slow and/or heavy for my users, though the images found in the viewfinder and when the film has been developed has always mezmorized me.

Whenever I use an SLR, I'm always feeling disconnected with my photographs. It's like trying to work with a middle man to get what I want. When I was using a rangefinder, I liked that it was back to pure essentials. No distractions, and when combined with a focusing tab, photography was purely based on touch and instrincts as I navigated through the world.

I always admired the simplicity in design, no waste. That mirror found in SLRs forces designers to use super exotic materials inlenses whereas using exotic materials in rangefinders are there to give consumers modern options. When I use DSLRs, I feel like I need the latest and greatest, so that it's possible to set parameters to AUTO or give a personal range, so that I can worry about the basic controls again, and get back to simply taking photographs.

Until there's a digital rangefinder I can afford, I'm stuck in photography purgatory.
 
I started out with 35mm non-RF and 9x12 folders. Later I got into 35mm SLR and I learned to wring out everything they had, including focusing in very dim areas where even an RF would fear to tread. I flirted with a compact Olympus RF of some kind. Then I got a MF TLR and found another thing to like. And shortly after that, got a MF RF. It was just another tool, granted with a nice 6x7 negative.

I still have my Super Press 23, as well as a bevy of 6x6 folders. I still really prefer SLR, but use whatever tool seems best of those at hand. I do like the quiet shutter on the Kiev 4am and the Rolleiflex, but don't normally have to worry about quiet shutters.

Yep, normally SLR for me. Fujica ST 901 or Contax 167.
 
I have more experience using rangefinders than any other camera do its very familiar. I like the accuracy of focusing, using a rangefinder it's a lot easier. Having the split image line up is faster and more accurate than judging focus by sight in an SLR viewfinder. Rangefinders are also a lot lighter than other camera systems and as someone who is carries around a camera constantly it helps. The simple operation is also great. Shutter speed and aperture are right at your fingertips. Even with the digital Leica's there's a very hands on element to it that you don't get from modern SLR's film or digital.
 
I like them because they are the most simple and straightforward designed cameras to take a photo at medium distances and in all kind of situations. :)
 
i need to have an RF and SLR, because they're both best at different things.
when i'm doing candids of people i'm close with, or doing something slower in general, nothing is better than a RF. the size and weight are great, but my favorite aspect is also the speed and accuracy of focus. in a slow or non-moving object i can take a picture so quickly with a rangefinder, and be certain that it'll be spot on.
 
Small - I get a professional-quality camera without the bulk
Lightweight - It's dense for its size, but overall much lighter and easier to carry than my D700
Well-built - It's built so well it makes my D700 feel like a toy
Reliable - No need to worry about batteries, settings, etc. It's always ready as long as I have a roll
Good-looking - It's a little silly, but I feel like my rangefinder can be a complement to a nice outfit, where my SLRs are just... obvious...
Fun - The most important part. It's just more enjoyable to shoot with, to me

Oh, camera in question is a Nikon SP with a CV 50/1.5 and a Nikon 28/3.5. I'd let every other piece of photo gear go before this kit.
 
A good rangefinder is your basic camera without a lot of folderol. I hate batteries and auto-this and auto-that. I can figure out the exposure myself and don't need a computer disguised as a camera to make my photos.
 
I like how my rangefinders are relatively compact, and I especially like composing with framelines. In my mind there is no more aesthetically satisfying method to compose a photograph.
 
I'm not sure. Maybe it's the construction. Or maybe it's because most of my really good cameras are rangefinders. Some of my SLR's are packed with features, and even some of my P&S cameras, and it can either get distracting figuring which mode I'm in, or deciding which to use. With the rangefinders, I just meter (or calculate the exposure), frame, focus, and shoot. And most of them don't take batteries.

PF
 
For me there is a mixture of factors: the nostalgia aspect (having started in photography as a child with a compact viewfinder camera), the availability of interchangable lenses, the "stop and think" requirement which I (hope) improves my artistic sense, the history of the genre.

What it boils down to is "fun."

I tried a range of styles of camera (second hand) from 35mm SLR through MF scale focus to MF RF, even cut film. No other style of camera has the same degree of emotional attachment for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom