Why RF is not popular these days?

[noisycheese]

I think RFs COULD be more popular... if someone would just make one that didn't cost between $5000-8000 new.

The Voigtlander Bessa R3M and a slew of different lenses for it are still available from B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/476498-REG/Voigtlander_Bessa_R3M_1_1_Viewfinder_35mm.html

If a person wants a new in the box full frame manual focus digital rangefinder and not an auto-focus faux rangefinder, for less $$$ than the Leica M 240 platform cameras sell for, they apparently want for the impossible.

A person can have either the M 240, M-P 240, M Monochrom, etc. or they can have a less costly camera; you can't have both. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation at present.

One alternative worth thinking about may be the Leica M8 which is available on the used market.

 

[Lss]

Mirrorless bodies inherently don't have accuracy issues since they typically use some kind of hybrid AF where finer adjustments is handled via contrast detection which cannot be fooled.

Yes, the concept pretty much promises perfect focusing accuracy. Practical implementations in real-life use however often produce errors.

 

[jsrockit]

The Voigtlander Bessa R3M and a slew of different lenses for it are still available from B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/476498-REG/Voigtlander_Bessa_R3M_1_1_Viewfinder_35mm.html

If a person wants a new in the box full frame manual focus digital rangefinder and not an auto-focus faux rangefinder, for less $$$ than the Leica M 240 platform cameras sell for, they apparently want for the impossible.

A person can have either the M 240, M-P 240, M Monochrom, etc. or they can have a less costly camera; you can't have both. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation at present.

One alternative worth thinking about may be the Leica M8 which is available on the used market.

I'm not sure why this is quoting me, but I've been there and done that... I was simply responding to the topic and assumed this was regarding digital. You were beat to the voigtlander thought hours ago.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It doesn't matter if camera comes with Mega ISO, still best pictures are taken under good light.
After I took 100K+ pictures digitally in seven years in different countries and for different purposes to me it is not a problem to bounce the flash and have noiseless low ISO picture indoors under low light without heavy shadows. Get camera flash assistance to focus in total darkness is not a problem for me either. I also know how to set red beam focus assistance on flash without firing.

But judging from what I see on the streets, parks and trails now and what I see on old pictures, people are not going out as it used to be. It seems to be as complicated and as not cool as attaching flash to the camera.
Maybe this is why AF focusing in the dark on empty wall is important now.

 

[jsrockit]

It doesn't matter if camera comes with Mega ISO, still best pictures are taken under good light...

...Maybe this is why AF focusing in the dark on empty wall is important now.

or maybe we don't all photograph the same things in the same ways.

 

[Bill Clark]

Has rangefinder cameras ever been popular?

Depends how you define popular.

I use rangefinder now for black and white. It's where I began my photographic journey.

I still use Canon DSLR for digital when photographing folks. Last week I made business headshot photos for a client with 100% digital capture. It works for me.

For many, a smart phone and/or tablet computer works fine. I notice Leica has brought to market a smart phone with their name on it. Steve Jobs, when alive, was a modern day Oskar Barnack.

Things change. Adapt, innovate or be gone.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

or maybe we don't all photograph the same things in the same ways.

Sure. This one is taken with flash 🙂

I'm not the one who is after empty walls in the dark.

 

[mpaniagua]

I suppose it's related to what the people want their photos to be. Most people wants their photos as reminders of a moment in time. For that purpose, SLR or DSLR beat the crap out of RF, mostly because a SLR is faster, more accurate (composition wise) than a RF.


I use my RF mostly because I enjoy the pleasure of using the equipment and the experience itself. Handling the equipment, making a good composition, choosing the right exposition,etc. is the most important part of making a photo; the scene itself is second matter. That makes RF popular with me.

So I suppose RF is popular among some people that like stop and think about composition, exposure, focus, etc. and enjoy that part of the photography process. I say "among some people" because you certainly can do that with a SLR, but some of us just like the RF experience better.

I dont think that RF isnt popular because Leica prices are high. There a lots of cheaper RF around. I really love my Bessa R2 and use it a lot, along with Jupiter 8 and I paid about $250.00 for both. Love my M6/Summicron 35 just the same 🙂

 

[mpaniagua]

Has rangefinder cameras ever been popular?
Things change. Adapt, innovate or be gone.

Well, Leica certainly hasn't been innovative and it certainly has not gone anywhere. I mean, look at the MP, it certainly isn't innovative and still they manage to get people to pay thousands of dollars for it. 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Well, we are on RFF.

Hi,

I was going to say "exactly" and leave it at that but just recently and all over the world a lot of turkeys have voted for Christmas; so what do I know?

Regards, David

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi David,

Wild turkeys have really made a comeback here. We have them roaming around in our neighborhood. Every so often I see them on the edge of a freeway getting pebbles to help their digestive system. Pheasants do the same.

The turkeys driving must feel good! Gobble gobble!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHhHH7pwYE

 

[Darthfeeble]

Y'know, there's a lot of looking down our noses at the "masses" and their desire for the automation that is in most new cameras but it was the working photographers who embraced and popularized those features. Auto everything made getting THE shot easier and thus desirable. Because most of us hobby shooters like to emulate the pros, these camera features became the ones we all wanted too.

 

[tunalegs]

SLRs didn't really kill RF cameras. They may have killed the pro level cameras, but fixed lens RF cameras continued to be HUGELY popular pretty much up until AF cameras came out. Petri for instance sold tons of 7S model rangefinders years after SLRs became affordable.

As somebody else has pointed out, it's the lack of demand for manual focus cameras that killed demand for RF cameras, and it's killed a lot of demand for SLRs too.

 

[Spanik]

The reason I don't like rf cameras is that they are only practical in a narrow range of focal lengths (give or take 35 to 85) and no macro. Once you go outside that limit you need additional viewfinders and those make the user experience a pain. Framing becomes even more tedious than it already is and becomes real guesswork. Certainly if you use slide like I do, re-framing afterwards isn't possible then. Also having no idea of dof is a pain if you care about it. Sure you can take the camera from your eye, look at the lens barrel and recompose but it takes too long for some shots.

Of course as always with opinions: ymmv.

 

[mpaniagua]

The reason I don't like rf cameras is that they are only practical in a narrow range of focal lengths (give or take 35 to 85) and no macro. Once you go outside that limit you need additional viewfinders and those make the user experience a pain. Framing becomes even more tedious than it already is and becomes real guesswork. Certainly if you use slide like I do, re-framing afterwards isn't possible then. Also having no idea of dof is a pain if you care about it. Sure you can take the camera from your eye, look at the lens barrel and recompose but it takes too long for some shots.

Of course as always with opinions: ymmv.

yep ymmv. What some people find painful, it is a joy for others. Otherwise, why would external finders will sell for $100+?

 

[David Hughes]

Y'know, there's a lot of looking down our noses at the "masses" and their desire for the automation that is in most new cameras but it was the working photographers who embraced and popularized those features. Auto everything made getting THE shot easier and thus desirable. Because most of us hobby shooters like to emulate the pros, these camera features became the ones we all wanted too.

Hi,

No, not really; I'm just lazy (efficient) and if it does the job I'm happy. But I still step in when I feel/know/suspect it's not the answer to everything.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Hi David,

Wild turkeys have really made a comeback here. We have them roaming around in our neighborhood. Every so often I see them on the edge of a freeway getting pebbles to help their digestive system. Pheasants do the same.

The turkeys driving must feel good! Gobble gobble!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHhHH7pwYE

Hi,

From what I've seen of them, I'd say they were livid rather than wild...

Regards, David

 

[Spanik]

yep ymmv. What some people find painful, it is a joy for others. Otherwise, why would external finders will sell for $100+?

Because you cannot even use your camera/lens without one and you loose them even faster than money in a slot machine? Nice little racket I would say.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Most people today want automatic everything.

...
Now the spoiled people want electric starting motors, automatic transmissions, seat belts, doors and roofs on their cars. I won't even touch upon the self driving cars.

RF == Jeep.
AF + AE + autoflash + video == what we get these days.

How dare they want all those things! Imagine, those days we survived without telephone. Now, every 8 year old kid has one!!! Terrible!! :bang:

and


😉