Are rangefinder relevant to your photography?

[Xavier C]

I use RFs amongst other cameras. I don't earn my living with photography; so, I can enjoy using various types of cameras without having to fulfill the demands of photograph buyers.

[jsrockit]

I have the most fun with a rangefinder.

[jippiejee]

I picked up my friend's dslr this morning and shot a few photos just to remember what non-rangefinders are like... and I didn't like the remoteness of the process. It was like an electronic black box took a photo for me and I could only hope its decisions were in line with my expectations. When I use a rangefinder like my M8, I feel a lot more present in that process.

[defconfunk]

Originally Posted by jippiejee

I picked up my friend's dslr this morning and shot a few photos just to remember what non-rangefinders are like... and I didn't like the remoteness of the process. It was like an electronic black box took a photo for me and I could only hope its decisions were in line with my expectations. When I use a rangefinder like my M8, I feel a lot more present in that process.

Really? That seems to be almost my exact opposite reaction.
Granted, you are using an M8, so your RF experiences are vastly different than mine.

For me, with my DSLR (granted I'm using old manual glass and run teh camera on full manual) I feel very connected. Each shot is a progression. I take my shot, I examine the results, and adjust accordingly. I 'dial in' my photo and find it very involving.

In contrast, with my fixed lens RF, I take a light reading, set my speeds, set my focus, frame it up, push the button... and then pray. To me it is much more of a black box because I don't know if it worked or not, and I won't know for weeks. It isn't that the RF is less involving, it is that it is much more mysterious and unknown. Especially shooting B&W. With my film SLR, at least I get an idea of what the monochrome image will look like (even if it is mono-green or whatever). With the RF I don't even get that.

[Paul Luscher]

Use a rangefinder for certain things, but not everything--good for live concert work and candids, but not the best for landscape and aviation shooting. That's when I break out the SLRs.

[Jonnyfez]

I like cameras that don't have batteries.

[crispy12]

Originally Posted by defconfunk

In contrast, with my fixed lens RF, I take a light reading, set my speeds, set my focus, frame it up, push the button... and then pray. To me it is much more of a black box because I don't know if it worked or not, and I won't know for weeks. It isn't that the RF is less involving, it is that it is much more mysterious and unknown. Especially shooting B&W. With my film SLR, at least I get an idea of what the monochrome image will look like (even if it is mono-green or whatever). With the RF I don't even get that.

I was like that when I started out with film, but as I got more and more familiar with it I could predict and control the results. Some stuff like depth of field still requires an educated guess, but I've managed to control my exposures for the subject now when previously I just followed the meter.

The end result is immense satisfaction when developing and scanning my film, seeing that my negs mirror the shot I've envisioned! It's a great feeling.

[paulfish4570]

with a modified pentax-m 50/1.4 and adapter for my bessa r2m, my rangefinder camera once again has become extremely relevant to my photography.

[HLing]

Originally Posted by Jonnyfez

I like cameras that don't have batteries.

same here!

I started with a SLR (Minolta SRT201) relying at first on its meter. Gradually Rangefinder cameras took over, as well as skipping the use of meter, because film has been so forgiving. Recently I went back to using the SLR, and found myself spoiled by the Rangefinder cameras' stealth and simplicity.

anyhow, the journey continues, but it's no wonder so many people like Rangefinders. Once it gets into your system, you can't bear to leave.

[jagwar.jim]

Yes I'd say its relevant. I shoot mostly street photography these days, and that's a large part of the reason I wanted a rangefinder. The arguments there are well documented so I won't go into it here.

It's also relevant because I find my rangefinder fun to shoot with, and as someone mentioned earlier, fun is really important in any hobby!

It will remain relevant too, because they are so bloody expensive!

[jarski]

Very much relevant, though not currently own one single biggest regret selling photogear has been my M8 year or so ago. Currently use G1X and it's focus drives me nuts. It makes great photos as long as it has enough time, but usually how I want to photograph, there isn't that time. So I end up having nice photos of buildings and landscapes, quite boring to be honest...

[Teuthida]

No more relevant than any other camera I use. just my preference, born of a long history with one. But there are times I prefer using my F5.

[Bill Clark]

Just started using rangefinders again after a long hiatus.

My wife & I visited our daughter & her family in L.A. recently and I used 6 rolls of 36 exposures each of D100. Still working on printing them all! So far three rolls!

My wife has shown the pictures to many people.

Rangefinders are fun to use!

[BlackXList]

I'd been playing around a lot with a couple of rangefinders earlier this year, hoping to get a natural feel going with them.

I shoot "work" stuff on a dslr, and while I thoroughly enjoy using my film slrs, I thought I'd have a play with some rangefinders for a different feeling

One is meterless, and the other has an uncoupled meter, so to me there's a disconnect in the process for me, it ends up feeling more like shooting Medium Format rather than the quick intuitive rangefinder experience that I've read about, and as far as my experiments went, I couldn't get to a place where the camera "got out of the way" (and don't get me started on the f**king lenscap issue).

As such I've resorted to film SLRs, and find that a Pentax ME Super with a 50mm fits in my jacket pocket easily (possibly even taking up less space than my Yashica), and I suppose that since I'm SLR indoctrinated I find it easier to get to a place where the camera gets out of the way.

So at the moment, I can't remember the last time I took a rangefinder out, but the ME Super gets stuffed in a pocket every time I leave the house

[Alfasud]

Rangefinders are just so...tactile, gaget-y (?), machine sexy. All that cold, bright chrome, black leather, dials to turn, buttons to push. Sometimes I don't even need film! ;-}>

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by ChrisN

Years ago this forum was almost totally devoted to rangefinder photography, but now embraces almost all forms and practices. I'm just interested in getting an idea of how the membership feels about rangefinder photography today: is it still relevant to you.

EDIT: by rangefinder I mean a rangefinder camera with an optical/mechanical manual focusing system.

Over the past year and some, my photography has gone through some radical shifts. Now my camera kit includes no less than three Leica M-bayonet rangefinder bodies (M9, M4-2, CL) and ten lenses, as well as a Voigtländer Bessa III. I looked at my records for 2012 and found I've only made nine exposures with my remaining DSLR (an Olympus E-1) and the roll of film I loaded into the Nikon F about four months ago is still cocked and ready at the first frame.

So I'd have to say that the rangefinder camera has become, if anything, more important to my shooting again this past year and some. Particularly: once I held the Leica CL with its 40mm f/2 lens to make a shot, I felt like I was finally home again. It's not the camera I used the most, or even shot the most rolls of film with, but the CL was always one of my absolute favorite RF cameras.

BTW, none of the poll choices are actually accurate enough for me to choose one of them. In answer to the question, "Are rangefinder cameras relevant to your photography?" I would prefer to answer, "Yes, indeed ... they're my favorite type of camera, even if I use other cameras as much as or more often too."

[Pablito]

I don't believe there is any such thing as "rangefinder photography" but I do use rangefinder cameras from time to time; not as much as I used to.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Alfasud

Rangefinders are just so...tactile, gaget-y (?), machine sexy. All that cold, bright chrome, black leather, dials to turn, buttons to push. Sometimes I don't even need film! ;-}>

I guess all those great pictures just stay in your head then

[RichL]

I not only use a rangfinder camera (Super Ikonta III), I have both metric and imperial rangefinders that I use with my zone focus cameras.

[pvdhaar]

Over the last two years, an interchangeable lens mirroless compact has gradually taken over the role of the RF in my camera bag.. When shooting film for films sake, I mainly us an SLR or a P&S compact..

[thegman]

Rangefinders have found a new relevance for me, and that's due to old folders, precisely a Zeiss Ikonta III. In 35mm, you can get a Pentax MX or LX which every bit as small as a Leica, if not smaller. In medium format, you can't get anywhere near the size of a Zeiss Ikonta or similar with an SLR.

The Ikonta makes my Leica M3 seems bulky and even loud, and the results from the 6x6 negatives are superb. From memory, I'm not sure if the lens is up to Rolleiflex standard, but it's close enough for me, and the camera is the most portable I've ever had, barring a couple of compacts, or the Contax T.

[tunalegs]

I haven't used an RF in over a year (edit: exaggeration, I tested some Argus lenses a few months ago). I used to shoot with RFs all the time, and rarely picked up an SLR. Then about two years ago, something clicked - and I found SLRs suited me better. So much better I've only picked up an RF a couple of times since. I think I mostly realized that I could use way more lenses, and for far less money, with just as good or better results. Quietness was/is rarely a factor and so I haven't really looked back much. I just grab an RF when I want something "different" these days and still have a few antiques in my collection for that reason.