Why RF?

[airfrogusmc]

For me rangefinders just fit the way I see and work.

 

[Richard G]

1. Seeing the shot is your mind and eye. You don’t even raise the camera to the eye for many shots. Rough framing and very quick focus are possible in the VF/RF, unless your mind predermined focus perhaps just by feel of the Leica/Leitz/Voigtlander lens tab. That way of working and the small size and quieter shutter of Leica M has an effect on the human subject response to the photographer which can be evident in the photograph. Not all new and young photographers need or are interested in this, but many are. The camera affects the user too. Such a wonderful device. This too might be evident in the result. The above removal of the device as much as possible from the user’s thinking and from between the user and subject is even better with the Barnacks. This is the core Leica advantage.

2. I think yes. My photographic group is not a camera club. I was the only Leica user or at least recent Leica user. We never discuss gear. There are some very good photographers, their minds and ideas. Three have taken up the Leica Q.

PS. NYT Lens article recently: Koudelka adores his X100. Obvious why.

 

[Pioneer]

To be honest, I don't know for sure why I like rangefinders. It probably means I like using prime lenses between 35 and 90mm. Or maybe they are just smaller and easier for me to use. I do find that rangefinder cameras seem to fit my needs most of the time though I use many different types of cameras, including SLRs and TLRs, and there are perfectly good reasons for using them.

For me rangefinder does not automatically mean Leica. I own and use many different types ranging from Agfas to Kodaks to Zeiss, and I enjoy working with all of them. One is a Wanderlust Travelwide. Though that camera is not really a rangefinder, I have a dedicated rangefinder attached that I use with it all the time. I can quickly change between 4x5 and medium format with the Travelwide, much like my Graflex Crown or Speed Graphics. It is certainly nowhere near as robust as either of those two cameras but it is a lot lighter and easier to pack.

 

[raydm6]

Why RF?

In the mid-80's I had a Leica R4 SLR and a Hasselblad System: 500CM and 50/80/150 CF lenses. After a while, I wanted to simplify my photography and gear and discovered the Leica M6 (mated with a 35 Summicron v4). This was around 1985 and purchased both new.

I wasn't seeking an RF camera per se, but was curious about the Leica M experience. When I first picked it up, I was really enamored by the sheer minimalism; the simplicity and purity of shooting which such a camera. It just felt so right in my hands; along with the diminutive size of the lenses.

Looking through the viewfinder was a bit of an odd experience at first but I acclimated myself to rangefinder focusing and composing in the viewfinder.

Since then, I went and acquired all kinds of used and vintage camera gear (so much for simplifying my photography) including several IIIfs.

I still own my M6 and 'Cron , and will never sell them.

 

[sjones]

Why I use a Leica rangefinder is because I prefer rangefinders for what I do. This might seem a bit tautological, but the point being that I don’t use a Leica for its own sake. As to why I use a Leica rangefinder is largely a matter of preferred ergonomics and tactility. And being that I use an M2 that cost less, at least at the time, of any full-frame digital camera, and being that it will last me a lifetime, I would say its utility effectively militates against any notion of ‘conspicuous consumption.’

 

[Richard G]

In the mid-80's I had a Leica R4 SLR and a Hasselblad System: 500CM and 50/80/150 CF lenses. After a while, I wanted to simplify my photography and gear and discovered the Leica M6 (mated with a 35 Summicron v4). This was around 1985 and purchased both new.

I wasn't seeking an RF camera per se, but was curious about the Leica M experience. When I first picked it up, I was really enamored by the sheer minimalism; the simplicity and purity of shooting which such a camera. It just felt so right in my hands; along with the diminutive size of the lenses.

Looking through the viewfinder was a bit of an odd experience at first but I acclimated myself to rangefinder focusing and composing in the viewfinder.

Since then, I went and acquired all kinds of used and vintage camera gear (so much for simplifying my photography) including several IIIfs.

I still own my M6 and 'Cron , and will never sell them.

I found this the ideal camera and lens when my children were small b 1993 and 1996. They moved very quickly. One of the best shots of me was by my daughter aged 4 with that rig.

 

[farlymac]

I didn't start using a rangefinder camera with Leica. My first one was a Voigtlander Vitessa L, a pocketable little gem that served me well for what I was doing at the time. But my usage needs changed, and I switched to SLRs for a long time. Eventually I purchased another fixed lens rangefinder camera, and several more after that for mainly occasional use.

Eventually I wanted to get serious with the rangefinder, wanting to be able to switch lenses. So that progression went Contax IIa, Nikon S2, several FSU cameras, Yashica, Canon, and Nicca. Even Leidolf. Anything but a Leica. I wanted to see if I could produce just as good an image as someone with a Leica. And it can be done. Not that I felt Leica users were snobs since there are plenty of examples of working photographers who used them for journalism and such.

What it all came down to one day was the lens mount. I always felt that Leica's were too expensive for what you got, but when it comes to that M mount, nothing beats it. Like the first Nikkormat I bought, once I used that bayonet mount there was no looking back.

So to answer #1, for me it was the usability of the system that attracted me to the M line. I shopped around too, keeping my cost of joining the ranks by buying used equipment. As for my infatuation with the IIIf, that has more to do with giving up on all the LTM pretenders out there that either didn't have as much to offer, or just weren't as well built as the Leica.

As to question #2, I don't have any experience there. To save on cost, probably a Panasonic equivalent is in the future.

PF

 

[willie_901]

...
I use Fuji X-Pro and X100 models with AF. Lots of Leica-likeness there except for the simplicity thing. Still, AF wins in speed and accuracy over manual focus for me.

Me too.

Being able to observe in real time is almost as valuable as the ability to compose while viewing outside the frame lines.

 

[John Bragg]

For me, (Leica M6), it is all about precision and accuracy of focussing. Also the ability to shoot slow speeds hand held with ease. It is simply put, a photographers camera. I love my Nikon and Olympus SLR cameras but the Leica fulfills another role, documentary photography in a completely different way.

 

[das]

Leica Ms are just tools, one of many good ones in 35mm film photography. They have never held any particular mystique for me. The lenses are fantastic and there are so many to choose from, both newer and vintage, both OEM and third party. Film Leica Ms have flaws, are not ideal tools for 28mm and wider or 90mm and longer, are somewhat fragile, and are annoyingly expensive to fix/service. As I get older, I do find it is easier to focus with a rangefinder than a split-screen microprism MF SLR. What I actually do not enjoy about "Leica photography" in general is some members of the online community -- those select few who fawn over them and also "humble brag" about having the newest and most expensive setups. It's like, how much money does one need to spend to take a decent photo that other folks will likely only ever see on a low-resolution monitor or phone screen? $16,000? $18,000?

I learn much more from, and enjoy interacting with, people who can effectively use all sorts of different tools, expensive or cheap, with no firm allegiances, and thus can present good perspective on how and why certain tools work for certain projects. Film photography is obsolete. It should be an adventure, not a beauty contest.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

davidde, I agree with much of what you said 100%. As far as the M flaws, though my experience differs. It is exactly because of rangefinder focusing (as well as lens size) that i choose to use them with wideangles. I find them far easier to focus than any SLR with a wide angle.
As for fragility, I prefer to take the view that all cameras are precision tools and thus fragile. Yet in decades of using cameras in the mountains around the world, i've never had one fail me..neither Nikon, Pentax, Rollei, Mamiya, Plaubel, Fuji 6x9 or Leica.
I do also resist the thought that film photography is obsolete.

"It's like, how much money does one need to spend to take a decent photo that other folks will likely only ever see on a low-resolution monitor or phone screen? $16,000? $18,000?"
One of the best rhetorical questions i've seen asked on this forum. Kudos!