Why Rangefinders?

MarkoKovacevic said:
I've been using my zorki, and it's been ok. Some bad points, it is unreliable, difficult to focus in lower light [my nikon focuses much better in low light] and has no meter. It's also not as durable, and even expensive ones such as Leica probably wouldn't be. I have ordered a focusing screen for my F5 from B&H [broke the last one] and can't wait to use it again. I just prefer using SLRs to RFs. Why do you guys prefer RFs?

Side note, I used a Konica Hexar RF over the summer, with a Leica 50mm Summicron-m. I really liked it, but I found myself worrying about using it in downpours and such. The lens was great however.
Click to expand...


F5? I loved mine but sold it to finance my M3.

Why rangefinders? If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand...

Is an SLR more durable? Maybe the F5 is...not my D40. Not my D2 bodies either. Probably not the D3. I doubt anything is more durable than the F5.

But that is not why you buy a Leica M body...:rolleyes:
 
bmattock said:
That's the only part of your statement I found issue with. I'm not a huge Leica fan, actually I don't own one, but there is no disputing that they're well-made. Comparing a Zorki to a Leica and dissing the Leica because the Zorki is a pile of crap? Uh, I think you need to own a Leica before you can dismiss them as junk.

I like to make fun of Leica owners, and I don't even dismiss them as junk. They're very durable cameras. Many photojournalists in many wars say so, and I believe them.
Click to expand...
I have used one, and I do not consider it as 'tough' as a Nikon F series.
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
I have used one, and I do not consider it as 'tough' as a Nikon F series.
Click to expand...

You didn't say that. You said "It's also not as durable, and even expensive ones such as Leica probably wouldn't be."

Your latest statement is based upon your own experience; you're entitled to your opinion. If you had said that first, I would not have objected.

In any case, I don't share your viewpoint.
 
Why rangefinders..?

To me a 'rangefinder camera' means a camera that takes M-lenses of all kinds.

1)
A wide range of excellent optics from several producers. The widest optics range in the market - of any system. And the best. By far.

2)
Compact

3)
Discrete

4)
Light
 
bmattock said:
You didn't say that. You said "It's also not as durable, and even expensive ones such as Leica probably wouldn't be."

Your latest statement is based upon your own experience; you're entitled to your opinion. If you had said that first, I would not have objected.

In any case, I don't share your viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Does the Leica even have weather sealing? How about a 8FPS motor?
 
bmattock said:
You're just looking for a fight. I know, because I do that all the time, and it takes one to know one. Thing is, I'm better at it than you are - much more subtle. Bye now.
Click to expand...
im-a-chikin-lol.jpg
 
Marko, you used to be just that annoying kid on APUG, now you've grown into a full-blown troll on RFF. What gives, kiddo?
 
Well seems that shooting 8 fps under water gits kinda boring if your just clapping away without thinking,so basically the boy's bored.
 
FA Limited said:
i'm an slr user but enjoy this forum.

some reasons not for rangefinders that i haven't been able to get past:
-external viewfinders for wides
-hard to focus tele lenses
-useless close focusing abilities
-no one "optilmal" viewfinder magnification for all focal lengths
-viewfinder blockage from lenses and hoods
-no autofocus (contax g1/g2 excepted)
-no auto winder (hexar excepted)
-slow max shutter speeds (m8's hexar excepted)
-lack of digital options
Click to expand...

All valid and truthful points. I see RFs as the absolute best choice for the 28 - 90 range with the optimal range being 28 - 50 mm. For tele, macro, sports, nature the SLR is the absolute best choice.

For me, partial VF blockage is far less annoying than mirror blackout.

I've never needed a shutter speed higher than 1/1000 when shooting with an RF. I really only like fast shutter speeds and AF when shooting sports. For the "RF range," I'll take the RF patch over AF, especially in low light.

Auto-winding is nice and I've used it with my Leicas and the Hexar, but manual film advance can be just as quick with an M. Besides shooting with a Leica where everything just fits, I prefer manual advance.

My favorite things about RFs (Leica particularly) is how quiet they are and how quick they are to operate.

Digital options? One of the main features of at least one of the hottest digital P&S right now, the Canon G10 (and the LX3, DP1, and GRD all have similar feature sets), is its RF-like feel and operation. The G10 is being marketed toward advanced photographers, DSLR users specifically, who want a lighter quicker alternative, an affordable high quality RF equivalent digital camera with manual operation capabilities. We're not quite there yet, but it appears to be trending toward a very nice camera.

Shoot with what you want. I do. I shoot RF, P&S, dP&S, SLR, DSLR, TLR...
:)

.
 
The main thing that drew me towards rangefinders is just that I enjoy using them.:) Fixed-lens, system, FSU, German, Japanese or whatever else comes my way. Camera XYZ might be technically superior but so what ? I don't own a DSLR but I wouldn't turn one down, and can certainly see the attraction to them, so it's not a technophobe thing. Why question another's camera choice, what might be right for you might not be right for them ?



:D (Apologies if the above sounds abrupt - not had my coffee yet)
 
1) the distance is just right: not too close, not too far

2) the view is just right: no blackout and you can see far and wide (i.e., you can see everything in the frame equally clearly, since there is no dof from TTL, plus you can see outside the frame!)

3) small but not too small

4) love to see the coincident patch "come together"!
 
I shoot 80% of the time these days without ever looking through the viewfinder of my M's. Im reasonably close to people when I shoot and have no problems guess framing with reasonable accuracy; within 1 ~ 3 meters I can guess the distance relatively well at f/2.8 on a 35mm lens. I could never pre-focus that on an SLR lens as the focus through is way to short and DoF markings are useless, even on older manual focus lens.

This is one reason of "why" a rangefinder for me...

My other, less tangible, reason is that once you really know the camera and lens combination intimately, a manual focus rangefinder just becomes an extension of you. Whether that really matters depends on the environment you shoot in and your subject matter.
 
At the risk of stating the obvious - don't worry about what type of camera you use, just use the one that fits, that feels right, that you can use without thinking, and then stick with it. After that, just concern yourself with making the best pictures you can.

It is, after all, the pictures that matter.

Cheers, Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom