Why RF?

[photorat]

As a lifelong SLR shooter, an acquaintance recently asked me why I don't try rangefinder photography. So now I'm asking this forum, "Why should I?" I mean, nothing beats TTL viewing, autofocus and zoom lenses for maximum flexibility and convenience. OK, RFs are smaller but you can put your camera in a bag, no? And a compact SLR with 28-135 zoom is easily smaller than a RF together with 4 lenses across the range. So...?

(P.S. I'm pretty sure I know at least a few good answers to this question - I've just bought an Epson R-D1 with DR 50mm Summicron and I'm loving it - but I was curious what the lifelong RFers have to say.)

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

OKe,

I'll give you the short answer.

A slr is a machine to make photographs.
A rf is an extension of your imagination.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[iml]

It's the viewfinder, no SLR has as clear a view of the subject. And manual focus and fixed primes make you think about what you're doing. Plus, the hardware is so much cuter.

Ian

 

[Keith]

You get to spend a lot of time on this forum! 😀

 

[Uwe_Nds]

As a lifelong SLR shooter, an acquaintance recently asked me why I don't try rangefinder photography. So now I'm asking this forum, "Why should I?" I mean, nothing beats TTL viewing, autofocus and zoom lenses for maximum flexibility and convenience.

Actually, after getting into rangefinders, I find the Through The Loophole view of an SLR not very convenient. Autofocus as well - I prefer not to let the camera decide where the focus should be. With autofocus, I often find myself checking whether the camera managed to get focus right where I want it to be and then re-focussing until the camera is of the same opinion as me. Zoom lenses are more convenient, but at the price of weight and money. Also, a zoom lens with max. aperture of 2.8 is considered "fast", whereas a 2.8 prime is very slow - but that goes for SLR-lenses as well.

OK, RFs are smaller but you can put your camera in a bag, no? And a compact SLR with 28-135 zoom is easily smaller than a RF together with 4 lenses across the range. So...?

(P.S. I'm pretty sure I know at least a few good answers to this question - I've just bought an Epson R-D1 with DR 50mm Summicron and I'm loving it - but I was curious what the lifelong RFers have to say.)

Image quality of the four primes will be substantially better than the IQ of your zoom lens; same for available light capability.

I still have my SLR, but honestly have not used it since I bought my RF; still, I would not sell it.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've just bought an Epson R-D1 with DR 50mm Summicron and I'm loving it - but I was curious what the lifelong RFers have to say.)

You got quite a rangefinder without really knowing why you were buying a rangefinder, or did you already have an idea?

I'm curious to find out what drove you to make that decision! Was it "the hype"? Did you just want to experiment, expand your horizons, or had you "test-driven" one before and were "hooked"? Because size and ease of transport isn't just one benefit, there are others (and some one-tracked minds immediately think "prestige" or something along that line; those are usually the ones who haven't found their inner photographer).

 

[Keith]

I'm curious to find out what drove you to make that decision! Was it "the hype"? Did you just want to experiment, expand your horizons, or had you "test-driven" one before and were "hooked"? Because size and ease of transport isn't just one benefit, there are others (and some one-tracked minds immediately think "prestige" or something along that line; those are usually the ones who haven't found their inner photographer).


That's an interesting point of view and suddenly made me think about why I chose to get a rangefinder ... although I had almost zero previous photographic experience!

Shooting through an SLR viewfinder tends to make me feel like I'm locked in a box in comparison to the RF viewfinder ... excluding my Fed 2 that is! :angel:

 

[kshapero]

OKe,

I'll give you the short answer.

A slr is a machine to make photographs.
A rf is an extension of your imagination.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

nicely put.
An SLR is correct.
An RF is art.

 

[RML]

You're absolutely right that there's no truly good reason to shoot rf! I mean that. But it suits me, and that's all that counts.

 

[photorat]

Why indeed...

Why indeed...

You got quite a rangefinder without really knowing why you were buying a rangefinder, or did you already have an idea?

I'm curious to find out what drove you to make that decision! Was it "the hype"? Did you just want to experiment, expand your horizons, or had you "test-driven" one before and were "hooked"?

Touché. I recently bought my first DSLR, the Leica Digilux 3. I chose this camera because it seemed to be the only DSLR with intuitive, manual operation (aperture ring on the lens and not embedded in a menu, etc.). However, I was disappointed with the performance of the lens in some conditions and later by the discovery that the whole thing was in fact an exact replica of the Panasonic Lumix (having been made in the same factory in Japan) for a considerably higher price.

So I thought I'd indeed experiment and find out what Leica are *really* famous for, namely the M system. But I wanted to stay digital - especially in the new RF environment - as that is the best way to experiment, by immediately seeing the results of one's experimentation. The M8 would have made it a rather expensive experiment, so a second-hand R-D1 it was.

And yes, having tried it, I'm definitely hooked. Nothing I've ever seen on an SLR comes close to the character or "signature" of the 50/2 I've been pointing this way and that over the past week (since I bought it). It truly is an extension of the imagination and perhaps even a catalyst to boot.

So there you have it. Now I have a 28 Ultron, 15 Heliar and 90 Elmarit on the way and no doubt a scalding from my wife when the Visa bill arrives shortly afterwards.

Thanks for all your stimulating responses!

 

[gb hill]

Plus you'll be able to handhold the RF at slower shutter speeds and get clear shots than with a slr. And not having to lug around a tripod. Plus the fun of shooting at lowlight situations. The more you find out what you can do with the RD-1 the more you'll find the slr sitting on the shelf. BTW welcome.

 

[MadMan2k]

Get accustomed to shooting street with an RF for a while, then do it with your SLR and you'll see a few of the reasons... It's not that it's impossible with an SLR, but for me it's not nearly as natural.

Convienence and practicality are valid when you're shooting an event for a newspaper and you have particular shots you need to get, but for some types of photography lugging around an SLR with a big zoom lens is more trouble than it's worth.

It draws more attention to you, period. You can easily shoot at slower than 1/8th of a second with an RF with moderate or wide lenses because there's no mirror slap. Sure, you could do that with an image stabilizing lens and an SLR but those things are huge and heavy.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[rover]

You're absolutely right that there's no truly good reason to shoot rf! I mean that. But it suits me, and that's all that counts.

Me too. I like the classic lenses and the images they make. The closest I have seen in a modern slr are my Minolta MC (never have really used Pentax but I see a lot of stuff I like from them too) lenses, but using an SRT and a RF are way different worlds. I like both, but prefer a RF. Auto everything cameras confuse me now. They never do what I want them to do, I guess using a manual camera is just too easy for me now, I expect too much from my EOS.